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.

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.

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...

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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 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.