The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory. Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is very straightforward and is in no way mysterious.
To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.
- Molten metal: There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble. No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which produces the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.
- The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months. Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images produced by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire. Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.
- Numerous eyewitnesses who were fleeing the area described the air mass as a hot wind filled with burning particles. This evidence agrees with the presence of large quantities of thermite byproducts in the air, including hot metallic microspheres and still-reacting agglomerates of thermite.
- Numerous vehicles were scorched or set on fire in the area. Photographic evidence shows that cars parked within the lower-level garage areas of the WTC complex burned as if impacted by a super-hot wind like that described by the eyewitnesses. All non-metallic parts of the cars, including the plastic, rubber, and glass, were completely burned off by a hot blast.
- There was a distinct “white smoke” present—clearly different from smoke produce by a normal structural fire—as indicated by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence. The second major product of the thermite reactions is aluminum oxide, which is emitted as a white solid shortly after reaction.
- Peer-reviewed, scientific research confirmed the presence of extremely high temperatures at the WTC. The high temperatures were evidenced by metallic and other microspheres, along with evaporated metals and silicates. These findings were confirmed by 9/11 investigators and by scientists at an independent company and at the United States Geologic Survey.
- The elemental composition of the metallic microspheres from the WTC dust matches that of metallic microspheres produced by the thermite reaction.
- The environmental data collected at Ground Zero in the months following 9/11 indicate that violent incendiary fires, like those produced by thermite, occurred on specific dates. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis of these data show that the components of thermite spiked to extraordinary levels on specific dates in both the air and aerosol emissions at Ground Zero.
- Carbon nanotubes have been found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of 9/11 first responders. Formation of carbon nanotubes requires extremely high temperatures, specific metal catalysts, and carbon compounds exactly like those found in nanothermite formulations. Researchers have discovered that nanothermite produces the same kinds of carbon nanotubes. That finding has been confirmed by independent analysis in a commercial contract laboratory.
- A peer-reviewed scientific publication has identified the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust. One of the critical aspects of that paper has been confirmed by an independent scientist.
There is also a great deal of indirect evidence for the thermite theory. This includes the attempts by NIST to downplay the evidence for thermite. It also includes things like a weak effort by Rupert Murdoch’s National Geographic Channel to discredit the ability of thermite to cut structural steel, which was itself roundly discredited by one independent investigator. It is now unquestionable that thermite can cut structural steel as needed for a demolition.
Therefore, debunking the WTC thermite theory is not easy but is very straightforward. Doing so simply requires addressing the evidence listed above point by point, and showing in each case how an alternative hypothesis can explain that evidence better. Given the scientific grounding of the thermite theory, use of the scientific method, including experiments and peer-reviewed publications, would be essential to any such debunking effort.
David Chandler and I have now published an Addendum to our paper "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11:
A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path"
The Addendum draws on two additional pieces of evidence to revise the calculations of bank angle and wing loading which would be required if the plane followed the curved path north of the Citgo service station. This strengthens the previous conclusions set out in the original paper. Previously the failure of the many witnesses to mention a steep bank was taken as proof that the curved path did not happen, while the survival of the aircraft, if it deviated round the service station, was regarded as unlikely. With this new analysis of the witness testimony, showing the plane was flying wings level near the Naval Annex, survival of the plane is now found to be absolutely impossible. There is thus no rational explanation of the event other than that the plane flew virtually straight past the Naval Annex and the service station to the impact point.
Dr. Niels Harrit, now on a lecture tour of Canadian universities, has been speaking to capacity crowds across the country, including university faculty members and other professional people.
In Victoria, BC, Dr. Harrit was interviewed by local cable TV, where his interview will be available eight times to a large regional population on an upcoming weekend.
The one-hour interview, of excellent educational quality, and also of personal interest, is available at http://www.vimeo.com/20574556
"There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a controlled demolition...there is no way around this conclusion."
Dr. Niels Harrit (retired associate professor of chemistry) and his team at the University of Copenhagen published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal and verified that red/grey particles of non-reacted nanothermite was found in the dust of the WTC buildings. This finding is irrevocable proof -- the veritable DNA -- that "office fires" and jet planes did not bring down the three buildings on that fateful day.
9/11 has been the prima facie excuse for incursions of the U.S. and NATO into foreign nations, the sole justification for suspension of our domestic civil liberties and the common denominator of "The War on Terror".
This interview traces Dr. Harrit's personal and professional journey into and through the events of 9/11 and beyond.
David Chandler Talks About His New DVD “9/11 Analysis” and Rationalizes the Pentagon Debate on Visibility 9-11
Show notes and interview by: John Bursill
This timely and important Podcast is a MUST listen!
Listen here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1874
David who describes himself as a “pacifist” talks in great depth about his journey on the campaign for 9/11 Truth and Justice which he is passionately dedicated. Many of you may be aware it was David who is credited with getting NIST to admit WTC Building 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with free-fall due to gravity; which I and many others view as the single most powerful debating tool for us as 9/11 Truth advocates! David disputes he is solely responsible for this and says that Jones, Ryan and others were central to this achievement but it was his question that drew the answer in the end so it seems. David also talks about the highly political timing and nature of the NIST Building 7 report.
This paper has now been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
There is a response given by those who support the official theory of the events of 9/11 which is hard to answer. It is "I am not a scientist and cannot understand the arguments". The intention of this paper is to appeal to people who are familiar with philosophical debate but not comfortable with science and the scientific method. The paper starts off with a rather wordy study of the way we interpret information and give it weight or reject it. I think this might gently lead some readers, normally resistant to concise scientific papers, to look at, and understand, the scientific analysis which follows.
It is probably also worth mentioning that the paper starts with a reference to Milgram, whose experiments showed how remarkably prone we are to obeying authority even when the act appears inhumane. This may remind us that there are answers to that other common difficult response: "They couldn't have done it!".
This posting is going to be some bad news. It is relevant due to the fact that the recent successes of the 9-11 truth movement in getting peer-reviewed studies published will be called into question after this sting conducted on Bentham publishing. We need to be prepared for this and have peremptory challenges to this accusation of credibility.This will be grabbed by opponents and used against the works of Dr Steven Jones, Ryan, Harritt, Legge, et al.
Fake paper tests peer review at open-access journal
An executive at the New England Journal of Medicine and a Cornell graduate student who submitted a nonsensical paper to an open-access journal to test its peer review policy say it was accepted without comment.
Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at the New England Journal, and Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell, sent a computer-generated manuscript using pseudonyms and the phony affiliation the "Center for Research in Applied Phrenology" to The Open Information Science Journal.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
New York: Lead Scientist Epidemiological Methods, World Trade Center Health Registry
Lead Scientist Epidemiological Methods
Job Code: MRDOHMH07 POSTED: Sep 25
Location: New York, New York
Employer: World Trade Center Health Registry
Type: Full Time - Experienced
Categories: physicians - general, physicians - international / global health, physicians/surgeons (M.D./D.O.)
Preferred Education: Doctorate
World Trade Center Health Registry
Lead Scientist Epidemiological Methods
The World Trade Center Health Registry (WTCHR) was developed as a public health response to document and evaluate the physical and mental health impact of the September 11th, 2001 disaster on a large, diverse population. The WTCHR provides a means for long-term follow-up of the 71,000 people who have volunteered to participate in the Registry. The WTCHR program, in the Division of Epidemiology, is seeking one City Research Scientists Level III Lead Scientist for Epidemiological Methods to work in collaboration with the Director of Research and other WTCHR lead scientists in evaluation and analysis of WTCHR data.
While this applies most directly to EPA studies, it certainly seems reasonable to associate this government behavior to NIST, FEMA, and other government agencies that conduct research, especially research and analysis on 9-11 related issues. One can only wonder how much influence has been applied to well-meaning scientists under government payrolls to overlook or dismiss counter-evidence in controlled demolition scenarios at the World Trade Center.
from Raw Story:
Survey shows hundreds of EPA scientists complaint about political pressure.
H. JOSEF HEBERT
Apr 23, 2008 10:54 EST
Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists complain they have been victims of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.
The Union of Concerned Scientists said that more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.
Dr. Jones' inspiring and recently revised paper is located here:
I couldn't help but notice the YouTube link to "Linear Thermite Cutting Charges":
These studies deserve widespread discussion. If they are right, then there is a desperate need to broad the range of hypotheses under our consideration.
23 August 2006
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?
Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood
14 December 2006
The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis
Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
Disturbed about the content and quality of physicist Steven E. Jones'
9/11 work, Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood conducted a
peer-review. This review covers ten major issues which include
demolition of WTC 7, demolitions of WTC 1&2, evidence for high-energy
explosives, thermite, glowing aluminum, No Big Boeing Theory (NBB)
and other issues. In the "truth movement," it is vital that we
police our own. If we don't, the defenders of the OGCT certainlly
will. You can be sure that it will get mighty ugly when defenders of
the OGCT find major errors. This is the purpose for having research