Support 911Blogger


Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Digg and reddit. (See also new interviews with Jones and Ryan here.)

From Dr. Steven Jones;

Photobucket
A back-scattered electron (BSE) image featured in the newly published paper.

Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.

What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?

These are central questions raised by this scientific study.

The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26).

The nine authors undertook an in-depth study of unusual red-gray chips found in the dust generated during the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The article states: “The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” The images and data plots deserve careful attention.

Some observations about the production of this paper:

1. First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here:
http://cmm.nbi.ku.dk/
Molecular Structures on Short and Ultra Short Timescales
A Centre under the Danish National Research Foundation

The Centre for Molecular Movies was inaugurated 29th November 2005, at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. The Centre is made possible through a five year grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (see e.g. www.dg.dk). We aim to obtain real time “pictures” of how atoms are moving while processes are taking place in molecules and solid materials, using ultrashort pulses of laser light and X-rays. The goal is to understand and in turn influence, at the atomic level, the structural transformations associated with such processes.

The Centre combines expertise form Risø National Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, and the Technical University of Denmark in structural investigation of matter by synchrotron X-ray based techniques, femtosecond laser spectroscopy, theoretical insight in femtosecond processes, and the ability to tailor materials, and design sample systems for optimal experimental conditions.”

We understand that the Dean of Prof. Harrit’s college, Niels O Andersen, appears as the first name on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Bentham Science journal where the paper was published.

2. Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU. http://www.physics.byu.edu/images/people/farrer.jpg

3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.

4. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper. Dr. Farrer was formerly first author on this paper. But after internal review of the paper, BYU administrators evidently disallowed him from being first author on ANY paper related to 9/11 research (this appears to be their perogative, but perhaps they will explain). Nevertheless, the paper was approved for publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this. We stand by Dr. Farrer and congratulate his careful scientific research represented in this paper.

5. Perhaps now there will finally be a review of the SCIENCE explored by Profs. Harrit and Jones and by Drs. Farrer and Legge and their colleagues, as repeatedly requested by these scientists. We challenge ANY university or established laboratory group to perform such a review. This paper will be a good place to start, along with two other peer-reviewed papers in established journals involving several of the same authors:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
The Environmentalist, August, 2008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4

6. James Hoffman has written three essays further explaining the implications and results of the paper. Thank you, Jim, for this work! http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/index.html

7. Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers.

Now read the paper for yourself, and let your voice regarding these discoveries be heard!
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm then click on “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered…”

Direct page link: (D/L PDF at source...)
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Please Digg...

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Active_Thermitic_Material_Found_in_9_11...

And post on other community sites.

Congratulations to all authors. This has been a long time coming.

BUSTED!

The nano-energetic materials in the dust are almost comparable to a DNA profile given that the nano-EMs were only being researched and developed by so few.

Sufficient access to the property was also very limited.

This is sufficient evidence to justify a new investigation.

DO NOT LET NYC, NY STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS IGNORE THIS EVIDENCE.

Distribute widely.

best way to bring this out..

science vs deception is the issue here.. and mind control or fear, which keeps many people NOT WANTING to accept or expose the truth.

This makes the REAL TRANSPARENCY and REAL CHANGE 8th anniversary 9/11 conference in NYC very critical, and for us to hit the streets in support of a YES referendum vote, for the November 3rd election. It is time the 9/11 truth community work together with hard evidence-science to help support the voters of NYC to create such a new investigation. NYC CAN - especially if we can unite with the hard evidence and unprecedented free-fall collapses to effectively expose the depth of deception, and value elements of science and truth.

Thanks to all the researchers, activists, responders to truth and humanity. .

jonathan mark

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
News fit to transmit in post Cassini flyby era
<>~<>~ www.FlybyNews.com ~<>~<>
<> for life's survival in the 21st Century <>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Authors Very Interested In Feedback From Academic Community

Some of the authors have mentioned to me that they are very interested in feedback from qualified academics. (i.e.: applied physics, nano-technolgy, materials science, chemical engineering) and that each of us sharing the paper with qualified local university faculty members will prove very helpful to generating the attention their work desrves.

This would only require a few minutes of ones time and collectively could generate significant results.

The authors have performed months and years of work. Lets each of us set aside a few minutes to e-mail the title and abstract of their paper under the subject heading (for example) "New Research", to qualified university faculty members local to each of us.

Copy and paste (copy and paste paper link directly from the Bentham paper site as the one displayed below does not appear in its entirety):

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

The Open Chemical Physics Journal
Volume 2
ISSN: 1874-4125

Abstract

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite

Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000...

Thank you, Rep! and all who

have contributed to this long and difficult in-depth study.

I welcome comments, including responses as seen on various forums... (If you would bring these here, please.)

I will respond here as time and computer access permits... as I'm sure other authors will do also. I'm traveling now for about two weeks, so computer contact will be sporadic, but this is a group effort -- we are in this together!
(Right now, I'm using the internet in a public library in Missouri...)

Thanks to all who have worked so hard to achieve the present understanding of nanothermite, aka super-thermite, and of the red/gray chips I first noticed while examining a fresh sample of WTC dust provided by Jeanette MacKinlay.

Taken together...

The work represented in this astounding paper along with Mr. Chandler's straight-forward analysis of the impossible fire-only collapse of WTC7 makes the scientific case.

Thank you, thank you, thank you ALL.

Terminology

Thank you, Professor Jones!

Just to be clear on terminology: could this nanothermite also be called 'thermate'--i.e., was it a compound that included sulfur so that it would burn hotter?

When discussing these topics, I don't want to make the mistake of using terms more or less interchangably if they shouldn't be.

Stick with "nano-thermite" or "super-thermite"

for these red/gray chips... not enough sulfur -- AND the essential dimensions are much smaller than for ordinary thermite or thermate.
(Sure, there could have been thermate present IN ADDITION... )

Here we have the "loaded gun" as Michael Wolsey and I have said -- UNEXPLODED, highly-energetic material still in the WTC dust!

This is high-tech stuff...

Questions from Dr. Greening

A thread regarding your newest paper has been started at the911forum. Dr. Greening posted a polite and, IMO, worthwhile* set of questions. I asked him for permission to post it here, and he consented.

The thread is entitled Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust..

Greenings' set of questions is in post #6. I see that you have replied to him, and he has subsequently posted answers in the same thread. For those that haven't seen his questions, here they are:

I have been reading with great interest your new paper with Professor Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermite Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” While I have many questions about the results reported in this paper I would like, for now, to focus on just a few topics and would very much appreciate any light you are able shed on the following questions:

1. It is stated on page 9 of the paper that the red/gray chips are magnetic and were extracted from the WTC dust using a magnet. I am curious as to why the dust was subjected to magnetic separation and why the alleged thermitic material found in the dust would be magnetic. Does this unusual property not suggest many possible man-made sources for this type of unidentified magnetic material in the WTC?

2. You suggest that the DSC traces shown in Figures 19 and 29 are indicative of thermite reactions such as:

Fe2O3 + 2Al = Al2O3 + 2Fe

However, if this was true, the DSC traces should show a sharp endothermic reaction peak at 659 °C due to the melting of aluminium. Such a peak is absent from your traces. This, I think, seriously undermines your identification of the red/gray chips as some form of thermite.

3. The XEDS spectra for the gray layers of your samples, (shown in Figure 6 of your paper), exhibit a small peak at ~ 5.9 keV which indicates the presence of Mn. The height of this peak relative to the Fe peak at 6.4 keV shows that the Mn is about 1 % the abundance of the Fe. This surely suggests that A-36 steel is the most likely source of Fe in the gray layers of the chips, since A-36 steel contains about 1 % Mn. This is inconsistent with your proposed origin of the chips.

4. You imply in your paper that some form of exothermic thermitic material was applied to critical steel surfaces in the Twin Towers, presumably to hasten their destruction. However, you also claim that the thermitic material was in the form of a coating that was typically less than 100 microns thick. To evaluate the maximum heating effect of a 100-micron layer of thermite on a WTC column one needs to calculate the heat energy released to a hypothetical thermite-coated column on one of the upper floors of the Towers, assuming most of the heat liberated by the proposed thermite reaction was absorbed by the column. The result of such a calculation shows that a temperature rise of less than 10 ° C is expected for full reaction of a 100- micron thermite coating on an upper floor core column. I therefore feel compelled to ask why anyone would bother to apply such an ineffectual coating.

Hoping to hear from you soon regarding these questions,

Sincerely, etc .......

I don't think that Greening is allowed to post here (not sure about that), so please note that if this is the case, then forum-wise, it would be easier if you would post directly at the911forum.freeforums.org

There's also a few worthwhile posts at JREF, but I can't recommend that you post there. (Not that you need any convincing about that. :-) )

I think you may want to make a statement clarifying what upper limits there are to the thickness of a nano-thermite layer that can be painted onto a column. While I have calculated that, if all heat energy from a nanothermite coating is applied to one side of a box column which is one inch thick, it needs to be only about 1 millimeter thick to create a tilt in the WTC tower (in other words, many of the chips piled on top of one another), some of your critics are holding you to a maximum thickness of nanothermite of 100 microns (Greening), or even 20 microns (Mackey). Personally, I doubt that even Leonardo Da Vinci could paint on a layer only 20 - 100 microns thick, with a brush consisting of bristles 50-100 microns thick. (Regarding my calculation, caveat emptor. I still haven't double-checked it.)

* He hasn't shown his calculations for a raise in temperature, and I haven't double-checked mine, so I'm not sure who is right. Our numbers aren't at all close to each other.

http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org

If Not A Form Of Thermite, Then What?

What other office building materials (in apparently large quantities) containing nano-meter sized grains comprised of iron oxide finely mixed with aluminum, would generate more energy release than the theoretical maximum of thermite and also iron-rich spheres, when reduced to the size of the discovered chips?

You need Al in elemental form to react

The nano-sized particles are kept from reacting at room temperature by their oxide coating. The only sorts of nano-sized particles in alumino-therics that I know about are spherical in shape, not platelets.

In my reply to Professor Jones, I have speculated about a means and motivations to get platelet-shaped Al/Si nano-particles, containing elemental Aluminum. However, you have to bear in mind that I am a layman (degree in physics notwithstanding). The Jones, et. al. paper needs to be evaluated by domain experts, such as material scientists. Peer review is not a guarantee of infallibility, and never has been.

http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org

"Experts?" To many people, NIST "scientists" are "experts"

Here's the problem with "experts": They come in two varieties: honest and dishonest.
What Professor Jones, Kevin Ryan and others have discovered cannot be evaluated by laymen. Period. It is the province of the highly-trained.

Why are most of us so heartened by this new paper? Is it because we understand the physics?
No. It is because we TRUST Professor Jones. And not to get too touchy-feely about it - we LOVE Professor Jones.

Unfortunately, there are many people who LOVE George Bush. OY VAIS MERE !!!!!

What is at the heart of our belief, is that the hypnotic spell of the psyops has broken in us. Or to put it in poetic terms, "the scales have fallen from our eyes." Once the spell is broken, the ENTIRE 9/11 Fairy tale falls apart.

Anyone who is not under a hypnotic spell can SEE that building 7 was a perfect, textbook controlled demolition. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. NO "EXPERTS" NEEDED. The odds of the collapse of building 7 on 9/11 due to anything other than a controlled demolition are so tiny as to be functionally equivalent to zero.

Let's not cede this thing to "experts." The dark side (bless their ignorant little souls) has endless money to buy more "experts" than we can count.

Anyway ---- those are my thoughts this morning.

No Need For Advanced Degrees Here!

One doesn't need a degree in physics, structural engineering or a degree in any particular discipline to understand the contents of the five articles on NORAD's monitoring capabilities on 9/11. All one needs is to be able to read!

The NORAD Papers articles (www.DNotice.org) cite pre-9/11 articles/government documents published by NORAD, the GAO, Syracuse University, CNN, Wired, the National Guard Association of the United States, Airman Magazine, Canada's Department of National Defense, Federation of American Scientists, etc. that say, according to the National Guard Association of the United States, "Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day." Or say this from NORAD, "The Air Operations Center (AOC) (also known as the Air Defense Operations Center – ADOC) maintains CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTH AMERICAN AIRSPACE TO PREVENT OVERFLIGHT by hostile aircraft." Or this from Canada's Department of National Defence, "In 1998, Canada posses the ability to detect, identify, and if necessary intercept aircraft over Canadian territory. The "Canadianisation" of NORAD operations over Canada is complete. Though we still rely heavily on the Americans for the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment and mutual defense, we have successfully transitioned on at least one of the three core functions of NORAD."

For those of you not up to date on NORAD's official stance on its monitoring capabilities on 9/11, here's the defense organization's explanation from May 2008, "Since the tragic events of 9/11, NORADs role which previously was outward-looking now includes monitoring airspace within North America."

As I've said many times before, the official 9/11 conspiracy theory was revealed to be a massive lie when the first article on NORAD appeared at DNotice.org back in June 2008.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

You are so right

RIGHT YOU ARE BRIAN !!!

The info at DNotice.org does reveal, to anyone who can read English, that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a massive lie.

I imagine that the dark side loves this new info, as it gives them something to argue and argue and argue about ---- and continue the controversy ad infinitum - which is their goal. The most profound statement I read about the strategy of the dark side is: "Let them discuss themselves to death." And this is what we are doing. (I realize that we really have no choice other than to discuss this reasonably and logically and patiently and bear the intense pain of watching the madness go on and on and on --- until finally the dam breaks --- which it inevitably must).

It is incredibly painful to have the clear and obvious and irrefutable evidence of the NORAD papers -evidence that ANYONE can see and evaluate - and instead of nailing the issue with that evidence, having to go this "expert route," which sidelines 99.9% of us. Sure we can parrot Dr. Jones and Kevin Ryan, but how many of us could go into their labs and even name the equipment they use, let alone know how to use it? I am not saying that this very, very important evidence should not be pursued. We must pursue ALL evidence at ALL levels. BUT we must not give up on our common sense issues like the NORAD papers, and invest all our hopes in the red and gray chips - and dump all of the responsibity into the hands of a few experts.

By discussing this with Dr. Greening, in such a respectful manner, it gives Greening an appearance of legitimacy. I realize that by nature, Dr. Jones is a polite man, and a patient man, and a respectful man. I have no criticism of Dr. Jones. He is one of the foremost heros of our times --- absolutely and without question.

However, it is refreshing to hear someone who has a more direct manner. Here's how Anders Bjorkman addresses Dr. Greening:

"So, sorry! I cannot see anything that confirms your model and theory, Dr. G. But I wonder! Why do you invent such a stupid model and theory and publish it in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics? Are you working for the perpetrators of the controlled demolitions of WTC 1, 2, 7 or some agents of those? Do you think you can convince anyone with your unscientific nonsense? Why do you do it? Why not simply shut up like most other poor bastards and don't say anything. I don't expect you to be like me that can do real structural damage analysis and quickly see that WTC 1 destruction is not caused by crush down or PE>SE that NIST suggests."

WTC 1 - the Case for Collapse/Crush down Arrest and clear Thinking - Debunking the Conspiracy Theories of Prof. Bazant and NIST - Why WTC 1 could not have been destroyed by its upper Part

by Anders Bjorkman http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

No Peer Review Needed Here!

Thanks, zmzmzm. The NORAD Papers articles don't need to be peer reviewed, and therefore should be as massively discussed and distributed as the Dr. Jones, et al paper. That NORAD monitored American and Canadian airspace continuously since 1958 is an historical FACT, not hypothesis.

To view NORAD's standing order on September 11, 2001 concerning American air defense, see the Air Force instruction below (scroll down to Chapter 3.1):

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI13-1ADV3.pdf

According to Air Force e-Publishing, this Air Force instruction is still current (at least current as of 12/3/08, the date I posted the fifth article on NORAD at DNotice.org)! The April 2000 instruction confirms my research dating from the 1990s that affirms that NORAD did, indeed, have an active "air sovereignty" mission on 9/11, contradicting both The 9/11 Commission Report and NORAD.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I have replied to Dr. Greening in two separate emails already...

and Dr. Legge has replied as well. Excellent point by Aidan M above also.

Here is my first emailed reply:
REPLY: Dear Frank,
I am glad you are reading the paper with interest. You have evidently overlooked a few important things, so I'm glad you asked. I'm including materials scientist Dr. Farrer and chemists Legge and Ryan who may wish to add to the replies I offer quickly this morning.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Frank Greening wrote:
Dear Steven,

I have been reading with great interest your new paper with Professor Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermite Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” While I have many questions about the results reported in this paper I would like, for now, to focus on just a few topics and would very much appreciate any light you are able shed on the following questions:

It is stated on page 9 of the paper that the red/gray chips are magnetic and were extracted from the WTC dust using a magnet. I am curious as to why the dust was subjected to magnetic separation and why the alleged thermitic material found in the dust would be magnetic. Does this unusual property not suggest many possible man-made sources for this type of unidentified magnetic material in the WTC?

REPLY: I subjected the dust to magnetic separation because at the time I was looking for iron-rich spheres. I was surprised at the presence of these red/gray chips in abundance, along with the iron-rich spheres, and even more surprised when I examined the red material in the SEM/XEDS system. Of course man-made sources are implicated, especially given the rich 100 nm-scale structure of the red material.

2. You suggest that the DSC traces shown in Figures 19 and 29 are indicative of thermite reactions such as:

Fe2O3 + 2Al = Al2O3 + 2Fe

However, if this was true, the DSC traces should show a sharp endothermic reaction peak at 659 °C due to the melting of aluminium. Such a peak is absent from your traces. This, I think, seriously undermines your identification of the red/gray chips as some form of thermite.

REPLY: Notice that that a sharp exothermic reaction occurs first, at about 430 C. This we identified as a thermitic reaction which would consume much or all of the aluminum, so why do you insist that an endothermic reaction due to melting aluminum should occur at 659 C?

The XEDS spectra for the gray layers of your samples, (shown in Figure 6 of your paper), exhibit a small peak at ~ 5.9 keV which indicates the presence of Mn. The height of this peak relative to the Fe peak at 6.4 keV shows that the Mn is about 1 % the abundance of the Fe. This surely suggests that A-36 steel is the most likely source of Fe in the gray layers of the chips, since A-36 steel contains about 1 % Mn. This is inconsistent with your proposed origin of the chips.

REPLY: First, I don't agree that Mn is about 1% of the abundance of the Fe -- where did you get this number? Second, you are overlooking the presence of significant carbon which suggests an organic component -- although I say this requires further study to pin this down. Third, what are you saying is inconsistent with "your proposed origin of the chips"? I seeing nothing inconsistent here, but ask you to clarify.

You imply in your paper that some form of exothermic thermitic material was applied to critical steel surfaces in the Twin Towers, presumably to hasten their destruction. However, you also claim that the thermitic material was in the form of a coating that was typically less than 100 microns thick. To evaluate the maximum heating effect of a 100-micron layer of thermite on a WTC column one needs to calculate the heat energy released to a hypothetical thermite-coated column on one of the upper floors of the Towers, assuming most of the heat liberated by the proposed thermite reaction was absorbed by the column. The result of such a calculation shows that a temperature rise of less than 10 ° C is expected for full reaction of a 100- micron thermite coating on an upper floor core column. I therefore feel compelled to ask why anyone would bother to apply such an ineffectual coating.

REPLY: First, two of the red/gray chips release more energy than thermite (more than 3.9 kJ/g) -- and indeed more than HMX, a conventional explosive -- have you understood Fig. 30? Second, we note that the chips found may be just thin material that has survived the destruction. Thicker material might have been present and consumed. There are other possibilities. The fact remains that this material exists in the WTC dust, and the central question to me is not HOW it was used, but rather WHO made the stuff and why?
--Steven J

My second email reply to Dr. Greening...

follows. (Metamars, if you want further, pls email me to hardevidence -- I am traveling and cannot promise to keep up with this thread unfortunately nor go to the forum you mention.)

REPLY:
Frank,

I agree that Dr. Legge provided a "thoughtful" reply, which I second,
and which answers several of your questions.

As we search for full understand of these strange red/gray chips, I
invite scrutiny and other ideas. I have found your idea regarding
ammonium perchlorate to be very interesting but I do not see how it
relates to the current paper.

Dr. Farrer has several papers on thermite AND nano-thermite available
to him (I do not as I am traveling in the midwest). He has the Mei and
Fan paper and used it some time ago to establish an ignition
temperature for ordinary thermite (significantly higher than for
nano-thermite in general, and certainly higher than for the red/gray
chips.)

He then noted the following to me:
"As far as the DSC trace is concerned. I went back to all the traces I
could find that went past 660. Gash does NOT show an endotherm. Giunta
does not show an endotherm. Tilotsen does not go to 660." etc.

The point is that some traces show an endotherm and some do not... a
fact that you are welcome to explore. You may learn something, but it
is NOT true that ONLY our DSC traces lack an endotherm, as you see
from these other papers.

You wrote: " I do not see why a thick layer of your proposed
> "nano-thermite" would leave behind bi-layered chips."

Indeed, not all the chips are bi-layered as we noted in the paper!
See Fig. 31 for an example. Note that there is gray material on both
sides of the red material in the upper right area; I count six
distinct layers in this chip. Dr. Basile has independently noted such
chips also, with multiple layers of red and gray. Why do such
multi-layered chips appear? There seems to be an important clue here,
worth exploring IMO.

So yes, there is much to learn -- especially if one does not oversimplify.

I should also note that Dr. Farrer is using TEM to further explore the
~100 nm across faceted iron oxide grains, so we will soon know more
about these including pinning down the oxidation state I expect.
Thus, we may soon have more answers (not just for you, of course -- we
want to know!)

I would be very surprised to find these fine grains intimately mixed
with aluminum-bearing plate-like structures at the approx. 40 nm scale
(as we see in the red chips) -- in normal building materials.

Steven J

OK, thanks

I will email the following question. Perhaps somebody else has some insight, so I will also post it here:

This Ph.D. thesis on nanothermites, p.5, shows Al particles as rough, spherical like objects. The MoO3 oxidizer looks more plate-like. However, in your paper, you say "It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix."

I guess the question I have is: Is elemental Al, encased in an aluminum oxide layer, always spherical? If so, then your Al/Si plate-like particles can't contain elemental Al, and thus your sample can't be an alumino-theric (at least as I understand them :-) ) Can you explain the difference?

FWIW, over 30 years ago, I was friendly with a material scientist who worked with aluminum. He told me (as best I can recall) that he had discovered a way to layer Al-?? alloys in very thin layers - I think 1 or two atoms thick - by applying pressure to the alloy sample as it cooled, in a cyclic fashion. This made the alloy much stronger. He told me (with a smile) that when he gave a talk to an Al producer wherein he talked about his discovery, the envelope containing his payment was heavier than usual. Looking at his impressive list of publications, I'm guessing that these alloys are called "multilayers".

Having said that, I have no idea if making Al oxide platelets with elemental Al inside is possible, or why you would want to do that, when you already have a means to create the 'normal' spherical Al/Al oxide particles. I will also take a wild guess that, if you can do that at all, it would involve a process analogous to what Professor T. told me about all those years ago. If my wild guess is correct, the Si may principally be there to allow ultra thin layers of aluminum to form, in the first place (again, I've no idea why old-fashioned spherical particles wouldn't do.) I suppose another possibility is to create a more intimate mixing of Al and Si. E.g., perhaps the plate is a multi-layer with Al 6 atoms thick, with the 2 extreme atoms bonded to oxygen to make an oxide. Interspersed are Si layers.

I suppose another possibility is that fashioning Al/Si chips might give you more bang for the buck not only by more intimately mixing Al and Si, but that the Si could also essentially function as the oxide layer in the 'planar' dimension. Only the edges would require a normal oxide layer.

http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org

As the paper shows, we find elemental Aluminum

in plate-like structures also containing Si and an organic (high carbon content) I see no reason why elemental aluminum can only appear in spherical form, do you? Indeed interesting is the material scientist you mention who you say evidently had a process for producing "Al-?? alloys in very thin layers"...

Can you find out more about this?

We were surprised by the plate-like structures bearing Al and Si -- at least I was... But they are there nonetheless and perhaps provide a clue or pointer towards the crucial question before us now -- WHO made this material and WHY? We need to find out WHO had the capability to make this explosive/pyrotechnic material -- this question IMO is much more important than precisely HOW the material was used in the buildings. IT WAS PRESENT and is a highly energetic substance. Now, WHO manufactured it?

I have emailed you his name and university

You can easily Google him for contact info. Feel free to mention my name, and please don't forget to say "hi" from me. I really think it's better if you or some other member of your team contact him, as you will understand his responses far better than myself, and have a more productive back and forth.

In case his memory needs jarring wrt myself, you can remind him that he was a cantor at our church in Orange, NJ.

http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org

Very unusual jet of flames-important

Prof.Jones : I think that you should know about one video, which shows very unusual jet of flames escaping from one of the WTC7 windows at 13th floor just a few moments before the collapse, this jet flame is accompanied with increased smoke activity,

There are (maybe) some clues in the characteristic of the flame and the carbon presence inside the chips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IAcuITqh6E

Re the morphology of Al nanopowders

At http://www.stanfordmaterials.com/nano.html

The morphology for all alumina oxide nano powders is listed as "nearly spherical"
The morphology for all aluminum nano powders is listed as "spherical"

However, googling "multilayer aluminum silicon nano thermite" very quickly gets interesting hits, e.g.:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/662267l63l82217q/fulltext.pdf?page=1

Nano energetic materials (nEMs) represent a completely new frontier for
energetic material research and development [1, 2]. Various
ways have been used to realize nEMs such as physical mixing
of nanopowders of fuel and oxidizer [3–5], sol-gel [6],
aero-gel [7], and atomic layer deposition (ALD) [8]. Physical
mixing presents some limitations, such as not homogeneous
distribution of oxidizer and fuel, and poor compatibility
with a microsystem. In sol-gel, the random distribution
of the particles and the inherent organic impurities
result in limited performance. An aero-gel and an ALD
are not currently applicable for mass production. Blobaum
et al. have deposited multilayer foils of oxidizer and fuel
by sputtering [9].
This approach results in enhanced atomic
mixing and reduced impurities. Porous-silicon-based nEMs
were proposed in [10], which can be conveniently integrated
into a silicon-based microsystem.

Meanwhile, this link: http://www.primetprecision.com/index.php?id=10

talks about nano sized silicon platelets:

Primet’s Nanoscission™ technology has been used to synthesize nano-silicon with platelet morphology and primary particle size as small as 20 nm.

http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org

Found some criticism on a google groups discussion board

This was posted by an individual under the name of Al Dykes:

bentham (look at the URL) is a vanity publication. They will print
anything if someone pays the bill. It's Bentham's Open Chemical
Physics Journal and it has has, in its brief lifespan, produced
exactly two issues. With a total of 12 articles between them, so far.
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

They let the author pick the "peer review" group. That's not "peer
review" to any real scholar or scholarly publication.

Jones still hasn't released the entire analysis of his sample.

There is nothing found in the results he shows that isn't found in any
large building fire.

"Active Thermitic Material" isn't thermite/thermate. It's a
meaningless phrase meant to confuse the children.

Jones still refuses to speak in public in front of any relevant
professional group to present his results and address polite, relevant
questions from knowledgeable people.

He says things that sound silly to relevant professionals I know. He
won't speak in public and address their points.

Why should I believe him.

This latest crap from Jones is being discussed in this thread. Anyone
can read it. If anyone wants to defend Jones or ask questions, you can
get a free ID and have your say.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293&page=3

Jones will claim "nano-thermite"

The problem with nano-thermite is that all papers about its
characteristics report that it explodes just like other demolition
explosives. Nobody herd any explosions consistent with man-made
demolition at WTC.

For instance:

"A lot of work has been accomplished recently with nanopowders
in energetic materials. For example, it has been proven that
because of their large surface area, the nanopowders can
increase the burn rate in some types of
propellants1,3,8-10. There were also significant developments
made in the "super thermite" area with mixes of nanometric
aluminum and metal oxides11. Those compounds are said to react
at rates approaching (and under particular conditions even
equivalent to) those of high explosives."

http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/FinalManuscript/pdf...

Nobody heard explosions consistent with man-made demolition at WTC on
9/11. There is no sound of an explosion immediately preceding a
collapse on any of the countless video recordings of the collapse of
the towers on 9/11.

--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

Original Link: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/cf3a128a...

This is the "Let them discuss themselves to death" strategy

This is the "Let them discuss themselves to death" strategy at work.

I believe in non-violence, and so I see no alternative other than to continue to discuss this, for as long as it takes. But it sure is taking a long time.

I would love to see a breakthrough in the psychology of deprogramming denial. We are not fighting facts. We are fighting the psychological state of denial which twists, ignores and insults facts and the bearers of facts.

Congratulations to all the authors!

Just downloaded it. And dugg, too.

Congratulations.

In my opinion, what I think should happen now, is that students should take this to the physics professors, engineers, etc... of their colleges/universities, and ask them to take a look at it. Random people that have no relationship to the movement at all, and especially not to the Government. If you can get enough of them to sign off on the science, then that would give it even more credibility.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Hi Jon

Jon, I will be writting to all the Science Editors for the Australian major Newspapers with attatched hard copy of this paper certified mail. I hope you and others may do so in America?

I know this may bare zero fruit, but it must be done.

I will also deliver a hard copy to my local Universities in Sydney and Wollongong over the next month or two.

This in my opinion is now the time to start planing more major conferences throughout the world like the one we are doing in Sydney this November www.thehardevidence.com (temporary site).

WE have no need to be timid any more, rather we should be proud and strong with the knowledge we are right.

There has been no stronger proof that "9/11 was an inside job" than this paper to date and saying so is in my opinion the right thing to do!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

President Obama:

"... restore science to it's rightful place." YES WE CAN! Can we start NOW?

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Essays On Aluminothermics Use at the WTC

Essays On Aluminothermics Use at the WTC

6. James Hoffman has written three essays further explaining the implications and results of the paper. Thank you, Jim, for this work! http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/index.html

* Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust:
Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of High-Tech Metal Incendiaries In Debris From the Twin Towers
by Jim Hoffman

* Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives:
As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows, Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble
by Jim Hoffman

* A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario:
A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incindiaries and Explosives with Wireless Detonation Means
by Jim Hoffman

I Especially Enjoyed This by Jim Hoffman

A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario
A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means
by
Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, April 3, 2009

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

I submitted to Raw Story last night...

but nothing as of yet. They've got room for "Walgreens to cancel orders of 'Chia Obama' head" but not for this? We'll see.

maybe if enough of us bug 'em...

tips@rawstory.com

RAW STORY

Dr Jones

....... You're an exceptional American. Your sacrifices are noted.........THANK YOU !

I have a question.

... Explosives leave a specific foot print. With this being so high tech, can we pinpoint the possible suppliers?
Is this strictly military grade, or do commercial companies use this stuff?
I am sorry for not saying thank you to Kevin Ryan. You too are an American hero. Your personal losses, sacrifices, and efforts toward obtaining the truth define the good man you are. I look forward to the day when 9/11 hero's like you, Dr. Jones,Richard Gage, and so many others, are honored for your perseverance in the face of adversity.

Hot Dogs! This is IT !! ~~Other important links below~~

These audio interviews are a "must" as a supplement of understanding. Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19762
Blogger Node regarding Nano-Technology for the layman and historic thermite renditions.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19396

"North Texans for 9/11 Truth" gives a hearty "Thanks ya'll!!" to all who worked on this project.
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/

The grey layer

The paper appears solid.

The red chips are even more explosive than conventional thermite. But the role of the gray layer remains less clear. If I understood correctly (did I?), it could have served as a kind of adhesive.

Isn't it time that established science magazines like Nature and Science also look into this? Could they be approached for reviewing the article?

Excellent

Great job Dr. Jones.

Reddit

Jim Hoffman's

summary of the paper is at http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#.... I could not locate the paper itself. Hoffman raises questions about how the explosive/incendiary material could have been placed without it being noticed. One would expect that an examination of logs for the buildings might turn up some evidence. Of course it might be argued that the logs were destroyed with the buildings. But since the first bombing of the WTC, some, if not most, companies had moved crucial information off site, as a sort of program in the event of a catastrophic incident. I know that such plans were being finalized during the summer of 1999 for Fuji Bank, since I was there as a contract worker for a few weeks. It appears that every department had to have such a plan, with some sort of off-site storage, in the event of a catastrophe. Certainly government agencies must have also had such a plan as well, unless perhaps Fuji Bank had some inside scoop as to what was going to occur two years hence. I do seem to remember that Fuji staff were invited as guests of the Blackstone Group to attend privileged briefings by Richard Holbrooke.

Congrats to 911blogger etc. on this early coverage!!!

This is remarkable, to say the least. I'm not a chemical physicist so I can't comment with any authority on the science right now. But I look forward to responses by responsible working scientists. Let's assume that this is accurate and that there is no rational competing explanation that would counter the analysis. Where will the attacks come from? And you know they will.

Well, to begin with, I've seen the most dreadful things said about anyone who considers the "explosives scenario." There is an active community of commentators out there locked and loaded. They'll start on this in no time.

But it's all about the science. Back to our assumption that this stands intellectually honest critiques and prevails among scientists. Where will the attack on the paper come from?

The provenance of the samples will be questioned. Just as O'Reilly had no problem attacking the son of a parent(s) killed in 911, the people who provided the samples will be attacked. If the study is correct or if there's a strong sense that it is with leading scientists endorsing the study, the only path to discredit this will come from intensive questioning of the origins of the samples.

Quite amazing. Thanks for posting reprehensor.

Mork Says, "Nano-Nano".

The bastards will attack the source of the WTC dust--Jeanette MacKinlay--however their attacks will be for naught when they are asked how Jeanette obtained then inserted nanotechnology-tainted thermite in the dust. Regular thermite could be planted, however nanotechnology-tainted thermite shines the spotlight on advanced, on the cutting edge labs.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Asked and answered

Thanks for the explanation. "Nano-Nano" indeed;)

I think that this one is going to generate attention. Upon reading the story in the author notes again, I noticed that the BYU scientist was told he couldn't take first author. So what happens, a colleague steps forward from the Nils Bohr Institute to lead the collective of distinguished authors. That's a peer review, in and of itself and they disclosed it.

Checkmated

Point taken, Michael. With so many diverse and distinguished scholars in on this paper potential detractors are checkmated from raising the argument of intentional contamination of the WTC dust, and, as mentioned in my last comment, if they accuse Jeanette of intentional contamination, they'll have to explain how on God's good Earth she manufactured nano-sized thermitic particles.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Thank you, gentlemen,

for your "unflinching, unswerving" work in the name of truth.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Congratulations to Dr. Jones and everyone involved!

This is a huge step forward. Do we now have solid proof that the WTC was demolished by explosives? It looks very, very likely. How much more proof do the weasels that infest the corporate media require? Or are they in such denial, afraid of losing face after rushing headlong to support the official fairytale, that they will just ignore this and hope it will go away?

Now we have even more peer-reviewed evidence, published in a recognized scientific journal, we need to find out exactly who did it, who planned it, who helped out, and who were accessories before and after the fact, and bring them to justice.

Calling any whistleblowers: Do your job, support the United States, and lets get the terrorists behind bars.

The Best Physical Evidence

Since reading Dr. Steven Jones's earlier works on this matter, I've maintained that the thermite evidence is the strongest and least ambiguous evidence for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center (W.T.C.) towers.

In addition we have Kevin Ryan's below paper, which documents the connections between the people at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) responsible for investigating the collapse of the W.T.C. buildings and the rarefied field of superthermites. The glaring conclusion being that those responsible for implementing the technical aspects of the controlled demolition of the W.T.C. (on behalf of those who control the U.S. government) are the same people in charge of investigating the cause of the collapses. Thereby killing two birds with one stone: using the same technical-echelon team which collapsed the towers to subsequently collapse any authentic investigation into what caused the collapse of the towers--as these people aren't going to tell on themselves.

"The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites," Kevin R. Ryan, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 22, July 2, 2008 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

Below is what I've previously written on this subject, which I recommend people go over since therein are contained links to the very important videos of the molten metal cascading off one of the W.T.C. towers immediately before collapse, and information on the previous work on the thermite evidence.

----------

A truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition are the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower (World Trade Center Tower 2).

That piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable *proof* that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful incendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

Below are four videos which contain some of this footage:

"Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing," CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863

http://www.plunder.com/Video-of-Thermite-on-9-11-at-the-W-T-C-and-Physic...
http://web.archive.org/web/20061213231413/http://www.supportthetruth.com...

http://web.archive.org/web/20071116045856/http://www.checktheevidence.co...

"Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting," CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C (as the temperature of an incandescent object is exhibited by its color), yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

For more on this, see the below paper by Steven E. Jones (Ph.D.; physicist and archaeometrist; former professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University):

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_...
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc (Older version.)

See also:

"Experiments to test NIST 'orange glow' hypothesis," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., August 31, 2006 http://911review.com/articles/jones/experiments_NIST_orange_glow_hypothe...
http://stj911.org/jones/docs/Liquid_Aluminum_011.mpg
http://stj911.org/jones/docs/Liquid_Aluminum_012.mpg

"Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006 http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/ExptAlMelt.doc

"A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel," Wes Lifferth, Physics Shop, Brigham Young University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 9 (March 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_...

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added, which causes it to slice through steel even faster by forming a eutectic alloy with it) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see "Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination" in World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 403, May 2002 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

""
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. ... No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.
""

And in the below paper it is conclusively proved via chemical analysis using wavelength dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (WDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS) that large quantities of thermite analogs (such as thermate) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers:

"Revisiting 9/11/2001--Applying the Scientific Method," Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 11 (May 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

See also the below on additional physical remains of thermite (in the form of unreacted flakes of thermite) from the demolished World Trade Center, collected even before clean-up operations began:

"Announcing a discovery: Red/gray bi-layered chips in the WTC dust," ProfJones (Steven E. Jones), 911Blogger.com, December 22, 2007 http://911blogger.com/node/13090

"Dr. Steven E. Jones Boston 911 Conference 12-15-07 Red chips Thermite.mov," December 21, 2007 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147

____________
"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), March 19, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
http://geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://geocities.com/theophysics/

Bravo! Many thanks to Professor Jones et al!

I am filled with gratitude that there are so many committed to finding and exposing the truth.

We are fortunate that these scientists are giving their time and expertise to the cause.

Thanks to all of you.

The Truth is busting out!

Congrats'

and thank you, Dr. Jones!

New Interviews with Kevin Ryan and Dr. Jones re: Red/Gray Chips

Until my posting is approved by the moderators:

Visibility 9-11 Special Report, The Thermite Fingerprint; The Loaded Gun.

Dr.Jones

Could the thermite be painted on the core columns & other structures?

What is you're educated hypothesis of how the thermite was applied?

Also, James Banford wrote an amazing book on our NSA agency called "Body of Secrets" In his book Bamford explains how the NSA was having major difficulties getting rid of their heavy, steel framed code machines inside of Navy ships. In 1967 when Israel bombed & sunk the USS Liberty the NSA agents aboard were frantically trying to sink & destroy these machines, so no classfied info would be taken by the enemy. They were unsuccessful. The same scenario played out a little later in early 1968, when N. Korea took over our ship the USS Pueblo.

Anyhow, Thermite was soon introduced by the military as a effective material to destroy these spy machines. If compromised,they were now able to quickly destroy these 75 pound steel machines, at massively high temperatures.

Please refer to this book & read Mr.Banford's section, on this. I wish I could refer you to the exact pages, but don't have the book in front of me.

I found Mr.Bamford's reporting of thermite in the NSA extremely complementary to you're work.

Read Jim Hoffman's just released article on this issue

Jim Hoffman just published an essay on just this issue. Dr. Jones refers to it in his post above so he obviously believes what Jim is saying is quite plausible and close to the reality of what was done.

The article is here

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Thanks, Tony

The hypothesis put forward by Jim Hoffman is plausible. Some keen insights.

Awesome

This clinches it.

Thanks to the team for your hard work and commitment.

powerful breakthrough. it is

powerful breakthrough. it is over, finally. Truth is confirmed.

If you don't get it now you are OFFICIALLY a MORON!!

Sorry to be so blunt but this is really just too much....WAKE UP world and lets get NIST in court and the Neo-Cons in gaol!

Great news and congratulations to all involved!

This one is worthy of a tear....

Kindest regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

I have read the comments -- a few notes follow

1. First, thank you all for your comments and support.

2. Notes to BYU in support of Dr. Jeffrey Farrer would be in order, particularly if his job is threatened... Will let you know if something arises. But so far, so good... And the internal peer review at BYU for this paper turned out to be a strong plus as they approved publication with Jeff listed as an author (although NOT as first author, which would have been appropriate...) along with his BYU affiliation.

From several sources, I am learning that attitudes at Universities are changing, with much greater openness for research and academic freedom regarding 9/11 studies.

3. The origins of the dust may be questioned, I do not mind the scrutiny because the case is solid. I trust all of YOU recognize that FOUR independently-collected samples of the dust are studied in detail in this paper, and that independent scientists have rec'd samples DIRECTLY from NYC residents who collected samples. We should press USGS for release of WTC dust samples that they hold, or better, for a search on their part for red/gray chips as thoroughly defined in this paper. Did they not observe these red/gray chips? So far, I have no answer from them (I did ask, months ago).

4. Meanwhile, the red/gray chips have been independently found and analyzed by Basile and also Henry-Couannier. Both confirm essential details of our results, such as the iron, oxygen and aluminum contents, along with carbon (meaning that a significant organic material is present, exactly WHAT we don't know yet).

5. James Hoffman has provided a reasonable scenario for the use of this material -- URL given above -- saving me the trouble of speculating. The most important questions along these lines, IMO, are WHO MADE TONS OF THIS HIGH-TECH EXPLOSIVE/PYROTECHNIC MATERIAL, and WHO PUT IT INTO THE WTC BUILDINGS (rather than "HOW" or "WHERE" was it placed in the buildings). The science unambiguously identifies the highly-energetic material, so SOMEONE produced the stuff -- we want to know WHO manufactured it and WHO placed it. These are the critical questions before us now, IMO.

6. Yes, I would also invite scientists to further check our work, and particularly to analyze the organic material found in BOTH layers, to determine if it is an explosive material as I expect (given that the energy output from igniting chips EXCEEDED the energy yield of the thermitic reaction in two clear cases as reported in the paper.)

7. Someone asked: "But I look forward to responses by responsible working scientists. Let's assume that this is accurate and that there is no rational competing explanation that would counter the analysis. Where will the attacks come from? And you know they will.

Well, to begin with, I've seen the most dreadful things said about anyone who considers the "explosives scenario." There is an active community of commentators out there locked and loaded. They'll start on this in no time. But it's all about the science. Back to our assumption that this stands intellectually honest critiques and prevails among scientists. Where will the attack on the paper come from?"

I welcome SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED comments and scrutiny of this published paper.

As you see attacks, please note them here so that I can follow and respond (as I have time). My experience from a newspaper article on the "Fourteen Points" paper published in 2008 may be relevant. That article (in Deseret News) was published on a SATURDAY and there were hundreds of comments. But the comments were nearly all positive UNTIL THE NEXT MONDAY MORNING, then the negative comments poured in, mostly from "anonymous" persons who used mocking and straw-man arguments. That was an eye-opener for me.

This paper was published on FRIDAY, and I predict that the comments will turn negative mostly after the weekend, because I suspect from experience that there are "paid mercenaries" who will mount the attack when they get back to "work" after the weekend... And I predict that they will not have scientifically-sound rebuttals to this paper, just as they lacked scientifically-sound rebuttals to the FOURTEEN POINTS paper. They will attack the peer-review, the origins, etc.; maybe it's just paint (although THAT fallacious argument is rebutted already in the TOCPJ paper in detail) -- but they will lack solid SCIENTIFIC rebuttals. We'll see -- but let's keep track of the negative or scurrilous reports and the ratio of these to positive comments... Should be interesting.

Another note...

I predict that debunkers will mostly ignore the detailed results from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter, the two Figures with DSC plots, which show that the energy release from two chips in kJ/gram EXCEEDS the maximum output available from THERMITE alone.

And let's see if they address our evidence for NANO-thermite (as opposed to the straw-man arguments against ordinary thermite). In the past, NIST and others seem to have been incapable of acknowledging that we have evidence for super-thermite (nano-thermite), not just thermite!

Further, note that we do not yet have DSC analyses for the RED MATERIAL in isolation (with no gray material adhering). When that study is completed, I expect that the kJ/gram yield will be even higher (for the red material alone).

All these results demand explanation and determination of WHO made this material and WHO placed it in the WTC buildings.

"...WHO made this material and WHO placed it ..."

"All these results demand explanation and determination of WHO made this material and WHO placed it in the WTC buildings."
Amen!

Re: Who uses this stuff

As Truthoverprofit and Bamford alluded to - the NSA and security agencies have apparently used thermite for decades.

It was on USS Liberty
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/interviews/interview_p...

( Rhodes interview about two thirds down)

and was fired up in Tehran

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_histories/history_coms...

(PDF search thermite)

I Love the Sound of This:

"From several sources, I am learning that attitudes at Universities are changing, with much greater openness for research and academic freedom regarding 9/11 studies."

It has a resounding ring to it.

Thank You Professor Jones

There's a thread running here:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center at abovetopsecret.com, a forum with a long history of generally well moderated and intelligent discussion of 9/11 issues.

One attack so far, along these lines:

"It's no surprise at all that there are products of thermite-like reactions in the WTC dust clouds."

"If any form of thermite had been used to cut the steel there would be tons of actual unreacted thermite in the dust, you wouldn't need to reverse-engineer thermite from it's products as this paper attempts to do."

"that the chips ignited at a temperature far below the ignition temp. of any form of thermite is at least as indicative of the likelihood that the red/gray chips contain no unreacted thermite at all." - ignoring your claim that the ignition temperature indicates nano-thermite, not thermite.

Well done!

Congratulations to everyone involved.

We are hard on the trails of these criminals, and as soon as they are behind bars (or whatever the American [in]justice system may choose for them..) the thousands of families affected by those terrible events 8 years ago can finally know that the real terrorists can no longer do any harm.

This paper will be a huge step in the direction of justice, accountability, and reconcilliation for the world.

You fine gentlemen are truly my heroes.

________________________
“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com
http://www.ubuntu.com
Dont preach it, just mention it :)

The pitch: Do you care about your children's future?

We must remember that we are involved in unmasking an active and powerful psyops.
How do we get "responsible scientists" to address the evidence of "active thermitic material?"

What can psychologically overule the fear that has overuled reason?
The only thing I can think of that is more powerful than fear for oneself, is love for one's children.

I wonder if the approach to scientists (who on the deepest level MUST KNOW that the buildings were exploded) would be that tried and true pitch: "Do you care about your children's future?"

Because if you do care about your children's future, you will seek the truth. You will fearlessly investigate. You will fearlessly report the results of your investigations. If you do care about your children's future you will not run away from the evidence of "active thermitic material." You will investigate.

There is no future for your children in a world governed by policies based on fear and lies. Your children will be fed into the mouth of the war machine, if you do not have the courage to investigate the scientific facts on their behalf. They cannot do this themselves.

I disagree

with one thing. I am sorry Dr. Jones. I will not give credit to BYU. I live in Utah. I seen your twenty second news clip on KSL. BYU did not stand up for you.
It is true we did not have the in depth results you have now,however anyone with an IQ over thirty could see by the video collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC 7 that it deserved further investigation.
I am outraged that more attention was not giving to this. Amazed that not only BYU, but the University of Utah, Utah State did not inquire, and look deeper into this. Why? Afraid on losing federal funding?
As tragic as 9/11 was , it pales in comparison to the corruption , and power to control the masses that our corporate owned media have.
First let me say i am not a prejudice man. With the new scientific results you have, let's see if BYU
promotes your new findings. The LDS church has all the power it needs in this state to make this happen. At least in this state.
So with this being said. I will look forward to seeing this covered in depth on the radio, and tv stations in Utah.
If this happens i will personally write a letter of apology to the dean of BYU

As I said, Wisdom...

There does appear to be increasing openness to discussion of 9/11 research, even at BYU... This may stem in part from the fact that certain administrators have changed -- e.g., the Dean of the College of PHysical and Mathematical Sciences retired just a few months after I retired early...
Also from the latest paper, which caused quite a stir at BYU (told to me by the new Chair of the Physics dept .. he told me face to face that this new research paper has persuaded him that there indeed were explosives in the WTC buildings!)

Then there is hope.

What this new chair of the physic's department told you must have made your day. I thank you for your reply Dr. Jones.
The overwhelming evidence that what we were told about 9/11 is a lie has been silenced for way too long. It is my hope that is that it unlocks all corruption that has taken over for the last half century. That justice, and accountability stand for what it used to.
The world is changing at a rapid pace, and i for one feel it's not for the better. This needs to be exposed as fast as possible.
I believe that 9/11 is part of a bigger picture. Please tell the new chair of the physic's department at BYU
thank you for me. Let's hope that he encourages critical thinking skills.
If there was a class offered at major universities on 9/11, and say 100% of all students taking the class believed the official story. After seeing all the information the truth movement has to offer. What do you think the percentages would be at then end of the course?
There is nothing more dire to our country then the need for the truth.
You inspire me Dr. Jones Thank you.

"Who made tons of this stuff

"Who made tons of this stuff and why?"

Is this remark a proven fact, or is it derived from the assumption that Termite is found in dust from WTC area? I searched on 'tons' in the study (pdf) without any hit. Can someone help me out, because this is an important detail in convincing skeptic people on this issue. What is the basic thought behind quoted conclusion?

Frank Ho

A rough estimate

of the percentage is given -- you need to read the paper, Frank. Then estimate the amount of dust, e.g. and multiply... many tons is what you get.
This calculation is straightforward IMO from the information provided in the paper and our previous paper on evidence for extremely "high temperatures -- in the Journalof911Studies -- I'll let you do the math. (Time limited)

The paper is ALREADY covered in the media, in Danish -- highlighting quotes from Prof. Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University:

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http://videns...

Science

AND Common Sense = 911 Truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Thanks for the quick

Thanks for the quick respond, professor Jones.

Plz understand that I'm just trying to get the uppermost effect from your scientific work and that of your colleagues. I'm not involved into the high technical aspects of your work and don't pretend that I do. With help on that part and lots of efforts I translated your previous peer reviewed study with 'the 14 points', also to put pressure on the Dutch media.

My goal is to get (particular) news media in The Netherlands and elsewhere interested in this neglected and embarrassed subject. I asked you this very question for having my own answers on the many questions that I receive in return. Your main public, journalists included, is not involved in the scientific details. We just seek valid answers which make sense from within our mindset and perspective.

Here is my article in Dutch, about this new smoking gun: http://www.waarheid911.nl/wtc_explosieven.html#thermite_identified
Shortly I started a daily 9/11 news feed on Twitter: http://twitter.com/W911 .

Today's news story is already seen by thousands of men and women in the Netherlands (believing my stats).

Wish you success and lot's of constructive critics for deepening all the answers ;-)

THE TWITTER TOOL
People can follow me on Twitter to give this feed more substance. This information channel is better connected with politicians and journalists than the average 9/11 website. Even when I created them myself ;-) That's because on Twitter you choose who you want to follow, which in return put (at least) some pressure on the guy who has to decide to follow you in return.

An Estimate of the Amount of Unreacted Thermite Present

According to the below paper (pp. 703-704), there was over 10,000,000 tons of dust and smoke produced from the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.

Paul J. Lioy, Clifford P. Weisel, James R. Millette, Steven Eisenreich, Daniel Vallero, John Offenberg, Brian Buckley, Barbara Turpin, Mianhua Zhong, Mitchell D. Cohen, Colette Prophete, Ill Yang, Robert Stiles, Glen Chee, Willie Johnson, Robert Porcja, Shahnaz Alimokhtari, Robert C. Hale, Charles Weschler and Lung Chi Chen, "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001," Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, No. 7 (July 2002), pp. 703-714. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html

Excerpt of the relevant portion of the above article:

""
The primary differences would be the simultaneous occurrence of each type of event, the intense fire (> 1,000°C), the extremely large mass of material (> 10 * 10^6 tons) reduced to dust and smoke, and the previously unseen degree of pulverization of the building materials.
""

On p. 23 of the below paper, a quantitative analysis of one sample of the dust yielded 0.10875% by weight of just the unreacted flakes of nano-thermite, with another sample yielding a similar amount. So tonnage quantities of nano-thermite were used within the World Trade Center towers that collapsed.

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (2009), pp. 7-31. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000...
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874412500902010007
http://visibility911.com/downloads/media/thermite-fingerprint.pdf

Excerpt from the relevant portion of the above article:

""
1. How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived During the WTC Destruction?

In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and concrete fragments had been removed by hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately 0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another [sic] sampling showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated dust. Further samples are being analyzed to refine this estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers produced enormous clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult to ascertain; but clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust must be substantial given the fraction observed in these samplings.
""

____________
"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), March 19, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
http://geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://geocities.com/theophysics/

Amount of red/gray material

The total debris recovered from WTC was 1.66 million tons so the 10 million ton number you provide is way out of the ballpark, Most of the mass was concrete and steel which doesn't burn so the even of everything else burned you couldn't get 8.34 million tons of smoke.

The mass of WTC1 was around 318,000 tons (See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf) so the combined mass of the twin towers was 636,000 tons.

This article (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf) in the Journal of 9/11 Studies points out that at least 60% of the twin towers fell in the footprint. Thus if everything outside the footprint was turned to dust (it wasn't) there would be roughly 254,000 tons of dust.

Since the mass proportion of red/gray chips in the dust (as reported in the new article) is 1/1000. Then we are talking about something on the order of 250 tons which is alot.

While most discussion seems to be about the red layer, I am wondering about the gray layer, which according to the paper is primarily iron oxide. As I understand it iron oxide is a common component in metal primer paint.

Truth first, then Justice.

Thanks

That figure seemed massively high to me. I used a peer-reviewed paper in the science literature that I came across in attempting to get a figure on how much dust was produced.

Based upon your numbers, Prof. Jones's statement regarding tons of this thermite material in the W.T.C. is quite supportable.

____________
"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), March 19, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
http://geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://geocities.com/theophysics/

Jolt!

This could be the jolt the 9/11 Truth Movement needs to get moving again.

Yes, we hope to bring new life along with the new data

-- Thanks for the efforts in translating, especially. I found the news article (which I linked above) to be positive overall.

Note that page charges for scientific journals are very common these days -- the new-jerk comments I'm hearing that this is some kind of "vanity press" are totally wrong. Page charges for scientific papers are typically paid by the university of the first or second author, and this is the case for this paper.

Pls help spread the FACTS about this paper, and call attention to the DSC plots (e.g., Fig 29) and summary plot (Fig 30) which provide crucial information -- that two of the red/gray chips released MORE energy per gram than conventional demolition explosives such as HMX and much more than ordinary thermite! Do I know HOW to make this material which releases so much energy? -- NO, I do not know how to do it! IMO, this is clearly high-tech explosive material.

I hope you are catching the significance of these high energy releases and will spread the word. I'm seeing a lot of comments about "ordinary paint" which totally ignore these facts that we so painstakingly derived.

I'm sorry if my "painted" comment

took away any focus, on the high energy release findings.

I was just throwing that out there & most of this is way over my head.

I do hope you read my comment about our National Security Agency using thermite back in the 70's to quickly dissolve 75 pound, steel cryptographic communications machines. The KW-7 "Orestes".

What they used to say. What they say now.

Ronald Wieck carried on a debate with my brother and other 9/11 Truthers at the Amazon.com forums a couple of years ago. This is what he said about Dr. Steven Jones and us Truthers.

Ronald Wieck: "I refer to your side as "fantasists" because your hate-driven agenda is based on pure emotion, unsupported by ANY evidence. I also call you people "liars" because you rely so heavily on thoroughly discredited falsehoods."

Ronald Wieck: "There is a reason why Steven Jones continues to churn out bogus science, while adamantly refusing to submit any of his "work" for peer review."

So what say you now Mr. Wieck? He has submitted quiet a few of his works for peer-review.

What the "debunkers" say now:

Dog Town: "Old hat! Vanity published,paint chips,yadda,yadda,yadda!NEXT!"

ElmondoHummus: "Fail. They didn't publish in the the legitimate Chemical Physics journal or the Journal of Chemical Physics (yes, they are two different ones). They published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. See R.Mackey's posts on their editorial policies to understand why this is a fail."

Translation: Any journal that publishes evidence that contradicts government propaganda is not a legitimate scientific journal.

ElmondoHummus: "I simply don't have the spectroscopic knowledge to see whether it's a rehash or something new.

Regardless, finding iron oxide and aluminum from the Twin Towers is like finding water in the ocean i.e. fully expected. So I'm not about to cede an iota of legitimacy to their allegations of incendiaries use; it's a long step from finding those two substances and saying that an incendiary was used to topple the towers. In spite of that, it still might be instructive for lurkers and others to know what an experienced hand at reading X-EDS results has to say about his work."

Translation: I don't know the first thing about the paper or the science involved but I'm certain that it is wrong because it contradicts government propaganda.

Of course, if it is so common, then why weren't this red/gray chips found after other building demolitions? As the paper mentions,

"No red/gray chips having the characteristics delineated here were found in dust generated by controlled demolition using conventional explosives and methods, for the Stardust Resort & Casino in Las Vegas (demolished 13 March 2007) and the Key Bank in Salt Lake City (demolished 18 August 2007)."

The stupidity of the "debunkers" is on display once again.

How canwe could get our hands on official certified samples?

John A MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

Bonsoir ,

is there a way that we can get our hands on UNMODIFIED, official, certified, New York air dust samples taken after the 11th of september 2001 attacks ?

Knowing that the Americain people ( and the world) had been lied to so much by the Americain gouvernment and especially to wage war on Irak it would be unrealistic to think that the government agencies will give up samples which would hang George Bush and company.

There are lots of offical samples arround and there must be a way we could get our hands on some to test for nano thermite.

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/evangelista.pdf ==> search samples and you will find ==>
"Since September 11th, DEP or its contractors analyzed 3060 samples from 37 outdoor monitoring sites in lower Manhattan; 500 samples collected adjacent to the four schools in the vicinity of the Trade Center; and 328 samples taken in the four boroughs of the City outside of Manhattan. The map and all sampling results to date from the sites shown on this map are available to anyone on DEP's Web site: "

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.moz...

Yours

John

Dr. Jones -

Many thanks to you and your fine team for yet another great paper!

I hope that you and yours are well.

I know that you want to see this paper (and the preceding ones) distributed far and wide. I'm sure you'll agree that the greater truth movement can play an important role in getting this paper seen by the larger academic science community by:

Printing copies and getting them to the chemistry and physics departments at their local community colleges, colleges and universities.

(I encourage everyone to do this and to also print copies of the Fourteen Points of Agreement ... paper and get them to their local high school science teachers.)

I'm also wondering if you and your team have considered presenting this most recent paper at the most appropriate conference and which conference that would be?

(I see that the next ISTCP (VII) won't be held until 2011, is there a suitable conference taking place in North America before that?)

I have another idea which I will be emailing you about shortly.

Thanks again for all your hard work and for giving us another solid tool with which to spread the truth about 9/11.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

BYU Sacrifice

Thanks for sacraficing so much Dr. Jones; BYU job, relationships, and all with sound science, patience and demeanor, and a sense of humor.

TESTING AND BIG THANKS

Great Paper Guys! And thanks to Gregg Roberts for excellent succinct writing.

In addition to wide scale dissemination of the paper and submittal to the Justice Department and other investigative bodies, I would suggest conducting research into some of the companies who engaged in the creation of nano-thermites and or nano-thermite explosive devices, like Lawrence Livermore Labs and Battelle Memorial Institute. To have utilized unusual explosives of this nature, to the extent to which they were deployed, would have necessitated the large scale prior testing of such a device or devices. A record(s) of that has to exist somewhere. In addition, if there is some way to manufacture enough of a similar substance and test it in a controlled , scientific setting, on a large sample of structural steel, or structural steel assemblage, then that would add to the demonstrability of the hypothesis.

Candy coating needed

This work is electrifying and quite convincing; however, the techniques are esoteric to the vast majority. To be digested this information must be presented very differently from the formal scientific paper. This task must not be left unattended. We must all become proficient PR people. Emulate those evening TV newsmagazines. What is needed is a 15 minute video on this research, presented in crystal clear fashion, with plenty of supporting education about the scientific process of hypothesis, appropriate methods, results, and conclusions. It is important that provocative research like this be presented in a gentle, spoon-fed manner -- even for scientists. There is no room for coyness. Someone with more expertise than I needs to create a compelling and entertaining video to be unleashed on the web. Also, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin should be given the opportunity and instruction on how best to present this eveidence in their presentations. I fear this work will be buried if not encased in candy coating.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

great points Johnny, I'm in

great points Johnny, I'm in agreement 100% with you. I am planning to do something like that myself, but it won't happen right away.

Why hasn't Alex Jones jumped all over this???

Any Ideas???

North Texans for 911 Truth
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site
http://9-11.meetup.com/249/

Alex Jones

Alex Jones is focusing on the economic crisis and his new Obama film these days as far as I can tell. Perhaps he'll turn to look at this evidence though.

The real question about Jones and the 911 truth movement is not whether or not the latest bit of evidence has been given enough attention, but rather whether or not we can formulate a movement to change the structure of society, the structure that perpetuates and reinforces the various conspiracies and crisises that are killing and immiserating us.

Alex Jones' dark, sinister

Alex Jones' dark, sinister tone is a huge turn-off for me. I believe he has a wealth of information but his arguments are weakened by poorly stated logic and a failure to provide references. A severely ominous tone does not invite a broad audience. What is needed is a calm voice presenting tight, logical arguments, accessible to totally green all the way to the seasoned Truther. The doom and gloom will take care of itself.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

What is also needed is Mercy

"What is needed is a calm voice presenting tight, logical arguments..."
Yes. I agree. But, it is unfortunately true that although calm logic has an important place in the affairs of man, it does not RULE the affairs of man. Man is much more complex than that, which is why man is vulnerable to psyopses based on panic-enciting irrationalities - the exact opposite of calm logic.
We are not Vulcans (in case no has noticed).
Anyway, I believe we need "Mercy," from wherever IT comes - be it from "God," "Nature," "Mount Olympus," "Evolved Primeval Slime," "Our Deepest Inner Selves."
We need Mercy. We need to extend Mercy. We need to receive Mercy. We need to acknowledge our need for Mercy. We do not need to convince one another "What" or "Who" is the Source of Mercy. That is personal. But still -- we need Mercy -- or at least I do.

Persona Non Grata

The NORAD Papers have also been ignored by Alex Jones. One would think that articles published about NORAD BEFORE 9/11 that directly contradict the official story that NORAD didn't monitor American airspace on 9/11 would be of interest to Prison Planet or Propaganda Matrix. To date, no one there seems to care?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Great job, this is what I've been waiting for!

I read about this in a major Danish newspaper. Although they have the "conspiracy theory" angle on in, and end with a so-called terror expert who says that this sounds highly unlikely, it feels like a major breakthrough. Finally a peer-reviewed study of thermite, which has to be the biggest smoking gun of 9/11. I can't wait to use this as ammo in the info war. Thanks for all your hard work to the whole team!

A "Google" search....

Results about 2,680 for

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%E2%80%9CActive+Thermitic+Material+...

Tuesday at 5pm central -Results 1 - 10 of about 4,310

About the quantity of red/gray chips...

Trying to catch up on comments while traveling...

"This article (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf) in the Journal of 9/11 Studies points out that at least 60% of the twin towers fell in the footprint. Thus if everything outside the footprint was turned to dust (it wasn't) there would be roughly 254,000 tons of dust.

Since the mass proportion of red/gray chips in the dust (as reported in the new article) is 1/1000. Then we are talking about something on the order of 250 tons which is alot."

Exercise care here: our "roughly estimated" percentage is based on a sample from which chunks of glass and concrete had been removed:
"Fifteen
small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted
from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable
glass and concrete fragments had been removed"

But you are evidently looking at the TOTAL amount of dust, so your estimate of 250 tons is WAY high!

I'm willing to roughly estimate "multi-ton" quantities -- the point is, these are easy to find in a reasonably sized sample of the WTC dust. USGS must have some of these chips in their samples -- and we ought to find a way to get these guys to look in the spirit of true science.

Finally, from the paper: "Further samples are being analyzed to refine this
estimate. "

Thanks for further comments... Can we get this paper announced via letters to the editor, etc.? Let's keep building momentum!

"

Quantitities

I agree. In fact, at one point Tony, Greg J. and I estimated an upper bound on the amount of dust at around 90,000 tons (if I remember correctly). So actually 90 tons would be a reasonable upper bound. Given your point about the removal of glass and concrete it is certainly much less than that.

Then again, if that much was in the dust, how much was in the buildings? I'll look forward to resutls from further analysis.

Truth first, then Justice.

Right -- good point,

Gregory. 90 tons would certainly be an "UPPER limit." Those of us who have examined several samples of WTC dust from independent collectors realize how much of the "dust" is in the form of rather large chunks of concrete and glass as well as fibrous material... I'm not sure how many in the 9/11 fact-finding community are fully aware of this fact, but it is true and needs to be emphasized.

Dr. Farrer and I have removed the obvious larger pieces of concrete and glass and fibrous material, then used magnetic extraction in the remaining component of dust to find an abundance of iron-aluminum-rich spheres as well as numerous red/gray chips.

Thanks for your efforts as well, Aidan!

Let's all keep the ball rolling, thanks to all for comments.

Steve

Done

"Can we get this paper announced via letters to the editor, etc.?"

So far:

NY Times, Washington Post, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Las Vegas Journal Review, Las Vegas Sun, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, WABC-NY, WCBS-NY, WNBC-NY, National Geographic, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, Scientific American, Discover, Time, Newsweek, Seymour Hersch.

Also e-mailed links of the paper (with title and abstract) to the materials science, physics and chemistry departments of Stanford, UC Berkley and MIT.

Right on!, Prof! ."..Let's keep building momentum! "

Our "North Texans for 9/11 Truth" group has been extremely busy sending out 100's of emails and Press Releases. Press Releases sent to all the area newspapers & staff, college newspapers, periodicals, and TV /radio stations along with their newscasters, and newsletters, and architectural schools/staff and fire departments / publications and District Attorney offices and local area politicians, etc. etc. Hardcopy notices will be mailed this week. --This is a landmark event for truth. We aim to spread the word and not muff this opportunity.

Can we march on Washington already?

OK, we've got this new evidence, we've got Richard Gage and 600 other architects. We've got the facts and the people on our side. There are way more of us than we think. We are just isolated, we don't come together enough in a show of numbers. Can we march on Washington already and demand a new investigation based on this and the plethora of other facts we have? The weather is getting nice again, time to stretch the old bones after the winter. Let's get off our butts and doing something. Does anyone else want to march on Washington and demand 9/11 truth now?

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

Renewed Investigation

This report is just the beginning of inquiry into dust sample analysis. The report makes clear that many more people have independently collected dust samples on and around the days after 911. One of its lead authors, Steven Jones, asks not just how the un-reacted chips have gotten into a significant percentage of dust samples (likely 100% of the samples), but also who made these chip materials?

Fragmented high-tech explosives occur in an un-reacted state in WTC dust samples; that much is now a veritable fact. Furthermore, the reacted by-products, including small spheres of iron, are also present in these dust samples. The chemical reaction is predictable. When heated, oxygen that is bonded to iron jumps over and bonds to aluminum. During this jump of oxygen atoms, an enormous quantity of energy is released. It is now forensically documented that this chemical reaction has occurred on 911 at the WTC site.

Just as standard scientific inquiry and methodology have launched shuttles into space, designed life-saving medical procedures, and shown evolution to be the ordering process in biology, the very same scientific principles have identified a chemical reaction that has taken place on 911 in NYC. This chemical fingerprint has not been studied or even acknowledged by your government's inquiry organ, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. They have failed you.

The results of this new report should be regarded as a metaphorical nail in the coffin on this issue. Instead, since the people's acceptance has been hindered by a shattering paradigm, this report is merely an opening to further investigation. At the very least, this new report demands investigation. Why the chips and who made them? These questions will haunt the official version of 911 for times to come.

The people deserve inquiry, openness, and honesty.

Great post - one word of caution

Great post.

May I suggest that we stay away from mentioning peripheral "hot button" issues like evolution?

I Googled "Evolution debate":

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,300,000 for evolution debate. (0.23 seconds)

Gov Dust Samples

There are other dust samples from the WTC. Duetch Bank hired a firm that found some of the same iron spheres Prof Jones found but has made no mention of these chips. These chips were in all 4 samples that the paper was based on, which indicates that the other samples including the Governments own samples from the USGS study would contain these chips as well. From one study....

"As a result of this investigation, it was determined that WTC Dust contains various solid phases that include asbestos and minerals, metals and mercury,organic pollutants and particles of various sizes and different morphological characteristics. The distinctive composition, solid phases, and unique morphological features have allowed for the development of a “WTC Dust Signature”: dust containing particles that, when occurring together, can be considered to act as identifying source tracers."
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMD...

That was from the RJ Lee Group. Prof Jones stated on Michael Woosley visibility 9/11 radio show that he asked these people if they found these chips as well. They are a commercial company and therefor wanted paid to reveal information derived from their work. He agreed but then communications broke down.

But the USGS is a Government agency. According to Prof Jones they wont give an answer to the question, were these chips in their samples as well? We have a right to know this. It looks like these are the people that should answer it. Are these samples still available? Can lawyers for truth help make sure any samples in Gov possesion do not get destroyed but made to answer the question- are these chips in your sample? Why have they not been mentioned if they are? And what is their explanation? If they claim they were never in any of their samples then why are they in everyone elses?

USGS___
For more information, contact:
Dr. Gregg A. Swayze
U.S. Geological Survey
303-236-0925
gswayze@usgs.gov

or
Todd Hoefen
U.S. Geological Survey
303-236-2456
thoefen@usgs.gov

or

Dr. Roger N. Clark
U.S. Geological Survey
303-236-1332
rclark@usgs.gov
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/spectra.samples/wtc01.all.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/sample.location.html

Also, isn't this an idication that if the Gov ever does answer wether they have these chips in their samples, the answer will be no....so we need to find out if these samples are still available and make sure they are not destroyed....

"Conclusions
Six bulk WTC dust samples, collected from locations in different directions, elevations, and from outdoor and indoor environments show relatively consistent abundance ratios of major and minor components. For the purposes of identification of WTC dust, these abundance ratios appear to be within the necessary limits of variability. Furthermore, the critical dust components can be identified easily and quickly using routine SEM and x-ray microanalysis techniques."

"Data presented here suggest that the presence and relative abundance of the three MMVF components – slag wool, rock wool, and soda-lime glass – along with the presence of concrete particles and gypsum could be used as a primary diagnostic signature for WTC dust. Secondary signature components could include FeOx, ZnOx, silica, and chrysotile."
http://www.epa.gov/WTC/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf

"Secondary signature components could include FeOx, ZnOx, silicia, and chrysotile"...could it also include nano thermetic particles? They need to officially say wether these particles exist in their samples.

More responses... Tuesday morning 7 April 2009

1. Far from "refusing" to speak before university or other groups to defend the findings of this paper, I welcome such opportunities. I spoke on these results at a colloquium of the physics Dept. in Sept 2008 at Utah Valley University (about 28,000 students last I heard -- a large university). I will be speaking at Univ of Calif at Davis (and in Sacramento) on April 20- May 1, mainly on the red/gray chips and iron-aluminum rich microspheres and high energy yields which they generate upon ignition, and later this year in Australia. I welcome serious questions from other scientists.

2. In the section of MEK results in the paper, we state:
" Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon,
located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very
little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the
matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migra-
tion and separation of the components. This is a significant
result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
bound chemically."

In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate.

3. From the paper: " Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac-
count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result."

This result also rules out the possibility that the aluminum is present as kaolin. Again, this is why we did the experiment -- to determine whether elemental (not chemically bound) aluminum was present, and it was.

4. Most debunkers overlook the high energy/gram yield of the material -- the DSC results -- along with the formation of iron-aluminum rich spheres. See Figures 20, 23 and 25 and associated text. These results mean that a high-energy-yield and high-temperature reaction occurs upon ignition of this red material. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT ORDINARY PAINT CAN GIVE SUCH HIGH ENERGY/GRAM ACCOMPANIED BY THE FORMATION OF FE-AL RICH SPHERES, nor can they do it!

I have an appointment in 3 minutes, gotta run. More later.
Best wishes to all who seek the truth... I admit it helps if you know the science to counteract the noise the debunkers generate. Note that the ultimate test for them is not to rant on forums like JREF but to PUBLISH A REFUTATION IN AN ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL, if they can do it! Until then, our paper stands.

IMO, focus should be on domain experts, not debunkers, media, ..

IMO, with respect to your thermitic material paper, the 911 truth community focus should be on domain experts, not debunkers, media, and government. Domain experts are, I suppose, primarily material scientists and physical chemists. Copies of the paper could be handed to domain experts, with the request that it be publicly critiqued, by way of, e.g., articles on a scientists' web site. Nowadays, with web access and computer storage being dirt cheap, perhaps most professors are given web space at their respective .edu address. It should be no problem for them to comment, there.

Additionally, you and your coauthors, or stj911, could set up a web site for this purpose, such that only qualified individuals (easily verified in the case of university professors working in the physical sciences, via their email addresses), can participate in a dedicated forum. The Open Access journals that you have been publishing in have not been around all that long, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect that they have much of any readership, nor reputation. Back in the day, it was my impression that most physicists only regularly read Phys. Reviews. The physics library had lots of other journals, but physicists (again, this is my impression) would only refer to the other journals if they contained a reference from another journal article that they had interest in.

In any event, one thing is for sure - scientists can only read a tiny fraction of the scientific papers in their field. If memory serves, there was an article by John Wheeler on this subject in Battelle rencontres - 1967 lectures in mathematics and physics, if anybody wants to read, further. Your paper will not be read by most of the people most qualified to judge it, unless they are directed there. Your speaking at universities will help, but I am directing these comments mostly at the 911 truth community.

http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org

Maybe you should also set up a Q&A web page

I'm not sure about this, because it's atypical (I believe). For a layman audience, it's fine, but in terms of communicating with a large group of domain experts, I don't know. You might do well to confer with your old BYU colleagues.

In any event, this should be considered. You are certainly going to run into scientists that might be interested, have questions, but aren't going to scroll through irrelevant comments in some months old web article on a web site called 911blogger, to see if somebody else has already asked those questions, and if they've been answered.

Also, you might consider posting back and forth email discussions, verbatim. If you do this, make sure you get permission. (Otherwise, I think you can be sued.)

http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org

What you need to know about peer-review...

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading and commentary by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is the case with this paper.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...

Do you agree with my statement about domain experts NOT reading

Do you agree with my statement about most domain experts NOT reading your paper in the Bentham Scientific journal, unless they are directed there?

http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org

Thank you Dr. Jones...


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

LINKS TO "Peer-Review" & other related info...

What you need to know about "Peer-review"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19780

AUDIO interviews... Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19762
and...Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19762

Blogger Node regarding Nano-Technology for the layman and historic thermite renditions.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19396

A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario...A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means
by Jim Hoffman Version 1.0, April 3, 2009
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html
Three New Extensive Resources at 911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090406021051532

stj911.org PRESS RELEASE
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice - http://stj911.org/

April 6 & 8, 2009 - 9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark
Interview on TV with Niels Harrit
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19805

Deseret News: "Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19781

Youtube Video: Unexploded Nanothermite Found In WTC Dust

Unexploded Nanothermite Found In WTC Dust

Video by: ThisWeekInFascism
April 04, 2009

audio clips of interview with Dr. Steven Jones 3/25/09: http://www.911blogger.com/node/19762

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered In Dust From The 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

brief info:
http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=996

download paper:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/con...

Scholars For 9/11 Truth & Justice:
http://stj911.org/

911truth.org:
http://www.911truth.org/

Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Here is Another:

Thermite Scientifically Confirmed in 911

UnslaveMee
April 05, 2009

A team of nine scientists have unearthed startling data from dust gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on 9/11. They discovered that scattered throughout the dust samples were red and gray chips of 'active thermitic material', or an un-reacted pyrotechnic explosive.

Link to Open Chemical Physics .. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/con...

Link to story source .. http://pimpinturtle.com/2009/04/05/sc...

AND ANOTHER: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in 9/11 Dust
femr2
April 05, 2009

http://www.bentham.org/open... Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Ke...
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/ope...

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Abstract:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/ope...

Super-thermite mainstream in

Super-thermite mainstream in Belgium newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws.

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland/article/detail/812082/2009/04/07...

Babelfish Electronic Translation

Some words do not translate correctly

" Heavy explosives found in scree WTC-torens" A team scientists in the ruins of WTC-torens have found the components of a very professional made springtuig. That writes the open Chemical Physics Journal. super thermiet The team collected in stole the days and weeks after 9/11 of the scree and found in this " rood-grijze chips and super thermiet". That last is a mixture of a metal powder and metaaloxide that is used at fire grenades, fire work and in springladingen to blow up bldg. super thermiet are obtain allesbehalve rather and in the US the trade is checked entirely by the government. Report removed, professor on bridge pension The research was conducted Steven E. Jones, a professor of the Brigham Young University in Utah. In September 2006 its report from the database of the unief it was removed and Jones on bridge pension was sent. The official conclusion of the government remains that WTC-torens succumbed by the screens of the two planes, but the report of Jones the conspiracy theories will revitalise.

Dr Jones - Can silicon ever serve as a eutectic?

Dr Jones...just curious after reading the article below. Can silicon serve as a eutectic?
(Last P of "Properties of Aluminum") http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/alumin.htm
[Sidenote: I toured an aluminum melting plant last year. They had very strict policies in order to avoid thermite reactions in the melt. ...it was kind of interesting.]

The most severe form of

The most severe form of learning disorders are owned by those that "already know everything."

ALBERT EINSTEIN: "Great spirits will always encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds."

You, sir, Dr. Stephen Jones, are a great spirit. You just kept moving forward, beyond the mediocre minds. Our hats go off to you. Thank you for all you've done and for your brave perseverance, and astute professional contributions. There are insufficient words to express our thanks.

Does anyone have the photo on the top of the page in color ?

John A MITCHELL
Herblay France ,

bonjour ,

I have a printed picture (A4) of the photo on the top of the page behind my desk at work. It is great and gives me a chance to show it off, however it is only in black and white. A color photo would be even better.

Is there the same photo in color. I looked up on the internet but have not found one with the same quality.

If someone has this chip photo in color please put it here on 911blogger.com

Thanks

John

"Red Lead"

Hmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lead

Chemical properties
With iron oxides and with elementary iron, lead tetroxide forms insoluble iron(II) and iron(III) plumbates, which is the basis of the anti-corrosive properties of lead-based paints applied to iron objects.
When heated to 500 °C, it decomposes to lead(II) oxide and oxygen. At 580 °C, the reaction is complete.
2 Pb3O4 → 6 PbO + O2
Nitric acid dissolves the lead(II) oxide component, leaving behind the insoluble lead(IV) oxide:
Pb3O4 + 4 HNO3 → PbO2 + 2 Pb(NO3)2 + 2 H2O

Use
Lead tetroxide is most often used as a pigment for undercoat paints for iron objects. Due to its toxicity its use is being limited. In past it was used in combination with linseed oil as a thick, long-protecting anticorrosive paint. Also combination of minium and linen fibres was used for plumbing, now replaced with PTFE tape. Currently it is mostly used for manufacture of glass, especially lead glass. It finds limited use in some amateur pyrotechnics as a relatively potent oxidizer.

Physiological effects
When breathed in, lead tetroxide irritates lungs. In case of high dose, the victim feels metallic taste in mouth, chest pain, and abdominal pain. When ingested, it gets dissolved in the gastric acid and gets absorbed, leading to lead poisoning. High concentrations can be absorbed through skin as well; therefore it is important to keep the safety precautions when working with lead-based paint.

Red Chips = "Paint" disinfo

Decomposition reactions are generally endothermic, in contrast to the strongly exothermic reaction observed when the red chips are ignited. And in fact, the decomposition of Red Lead / lead tetroxide is shown to be endothermic from the heats of formation of Pb3O4 and PbO, which are shown online in the "Chemistry of Pyrotechnics".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11580412/Chemistry-of-Pyrotechnics

See Table 3.2, p.52.

Pb3O4 has a heat of formation of -171.7 kcal/mol and the corresponding figure for PbO is -51.5 kcal/mol (diatomic oxygen is zero). So in the above decomposition reaction from heating red lead to 500 C, we have:

2Pb3O4 => 6PbO + O2
2 x (-171.7) = 6x(-51.5) + 0 + heat evolved or absorbed
-343.4 = -309 - 34.4

So:

2Pb3O4 => 6PbO + O2 -34.4 kcal (heat absorbed).

The "red chips = red lead" theory doesn't explain the strongly exothermic reactions observed when the red chips are ignited, and probably quite a number of other phenomena. The "paint" theory could account for iron(III) oxide, but little else. "Normal building materials" such as paint that mysteriously end up with nano-sized plates of aluminum embedded in the mix, so as to yield an explosive mixture? That would contravene the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

Yet many of the shills are still peddling the "paint" nonsense, including Ryan Mackay who is supposedly a "Nasa rocket scientist". (Did he work on the recent North Korean launch? :-) Dr Harrit says in his Visibility 9-11 interview that nanothermite is also used as a rocket propellant, so Mackay ought to be familiar with it. Similarly, as Kevin Ryan pointed out, many of the top people at NIST are nanothermite experts, yet they didn't even bother to look for any of it!! One of the silliest shills at JREF was even claiming that all thermite contains titanium, the red chips did not contain titanium, therefore they could not be thermite. No wonder they have to lie when truth is so heavily stacked against them!

Even Dr. Frank Greening debunked the "paint" theory:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19781#comment-206516

"Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."
____________
Spuren von Sprengstoff im Staub des World Trade Centers gefunden

Free german translation of Hoffmans layman summary

http://www.habiru.de/Dirk_Gerhardt/Zusammenfassung%20Energetische%20rot-...

It is 2,2 MB big. And it is not slavish bound to the original, as always. Plus a quick summary about all the translastions / summaries / works that I have done the last years!

Danke für die Mühe!

That's very important, because Hoffman breaks it down brilliantly for laymen. I couldn't have written my own article without Hoffman's summary.
_______________
Spuren von Sprengstoff im Staub des World Trade Centers gefunden

Website changed:

The Bentham Open website has undergone a revision and the links for this paper are no longer correct.

The new address for the paper is at http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf