Avatar of Mark

9/11: NANO-THERMITE DEBUNKED

0 rating, 0 votes0 rating, 0 votes (0 rating, 0 votes, rated)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...

September 15, 2013 in Science

by

1. After extensive study of the WTC dust and red-gray particles found within it, accredited forensic scientist Dr. James Millette has conclusively demonstrated that the particles are NOT thermite in any shape, form, or function. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314

“The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.”

“There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.”

The red layer is an epoxy resin containing primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. Paint, in other words. The gray layer is the carbon steel.

Millette confirmed the earlier re-investigation of Frederick Henry-Couannier, who was given WTC dust samples by none other than Richard Gage himself.

Dr. Millette is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and works with internationally known microscopy experts. An ad hoc international team of these experts, as well as architects, engineers, and other specialists, contributed their expertise to this study.

This study debunks the thermite claim and the Niels Harrit paper.

The Niels Harrit paper wasn’t properly peer reviewed by anyone before publication. Bentham Open Source Journals do not provide peer review, it sells article spots in bulk. How would a respectable journal know in advance that the next article your lab writes is going to be worthy of publication? It’s not a legitimate practice. Secondly, Bentham Journals was caught accepting an article for publication that had been written by a computer, filled with grammatical sentences with gobblegook nonsense but nicely labeled figures with captions. Anyone actually reading the article would have caught this mess, proving that nobody at Bentham ensures that articles are even read before publication. This is not peer review. When this scandal erupted, the Jones crew knew they were in a pickle, so they devised a strategy for overcoming this obvious weakness in the article by CONSTANTLY referring to the article as “peer reviewed”. This was a worthy psy-op. They tricked most of their followers into accepting as stone cold fact that the Harrit paper had been peer reviewed by repeating a lie.

2. On May 1, 2011, chemical engineer Mark Hightower published, “The Nanothermite Challenge”

The challenge comes to this:

“Find and document peer-reviewed scientific research [publications] that demonstrate that a gas-generating nano-thermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas-generating chemical added to the nano-thermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate [to AE911Truth] $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000.”

The deadline date of June 20, 2011 passed with not even one entry to this contest. ‎Not even one entry for the Nanothermite Challenge was received. This is significant, because nano-thermite is commonly believed to be a high explosive within the 9/11 truth community.

3. Thermite is incapable of the effects seen on 9/11 and the detonation velocity is vastly insufficient. The highest detonation velocity for an iron oxide/aluminum nano-thermite (the form claimed to have been used in the WTC Twin Towers destruction) documented in the technical literature is 895 m/s, much too low to achieve significant fragmentation of steel and concrete, and nowhere near the detonation velocity of conventional high explosives, such as 8750 m/s for RDX and 6900 m/s for TNT and even that would not be enough to account for the explosive effects observed at the World Trade Center.

The explosive effects observed at the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 were not only powerful, but devastating – turning concrete and other materials to dust, as well as separating and propelling steel members and other materials in all directions.

While thermite is an incendiary (burning agent) and nano-thermite can be formulated to be a faster-reacting incendiary or even a low explosive like black powder, it cannot be formulated to be a high explosive. Formulated as a low explosive, nano-thermite cannot produce the shock wave of at least 3200 m/s to fragment concrete or at least 6100 m/s to blast through steel. As a fast incendiary, nano-thermite could have been used to sever and/or weaken the Twin Towers’ steel columns, but this low-velocity melting process is a totally different mechanism for the cutting of steel, and it alone could not have accounted for the explosive effects observed. Therefore thermite can be eliminated as the primary method of controlled demolition.

4. The main ingredients of thermite are rust and powdered aluminium. The buildings were steel structures with aluminium cladding. The majority of the buildings were turned to dust/powder. So, it would be expected to have large quantities of powdered aluminium and powdered iron-rust in the dust. Something would be more seriously wrong if these ingredients were not found in the dust.

5. 9/11 blogger Kevin Ryan admits that they do not know what role nano-thermite played in 9/11 or how it brought down the towers. Kevin states that “Although we know that nano-thermite has been found in the WTC dust, we do not know what purpose it served in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It could be that the nano-thermite was used simply to drive fires in the impact zones and elevator areas – fires which would otherwise have gone out too early or not been present at all – and thereby create the deception that jet fuel-induced fires could wreak the havoc seen.” Kevin assumes it was nano-thermite that was found in the dust. In reality it was the towers that were turned into the ingredients that make up thermite. The alleged iron rich spheres were likely the result of molecular dissociation caused by directed energy evidenced by Dr. Judy Wood’s research. The exact same iron spheres have been documented at crop circles. http://www.bltresearch.com/magnetic.php Kevin Ryan fails to explain how nano-thermite could bring down the towers and omits the fact that the towers didn’t collapse but rather turned to dust mid-air. Simply thermite doesn’t fit the bill.

6. If the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition using explosives it would have looked and sounded like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

It would have been loud and obvious if all those columns were cut at once. Yet there were no “bangs bangs” or bright flashes as would be expected if the towers were brought down by conventional demolition. Also thermite gives off an extremely intense bright white light and this would have been visible if hundreds of thermite charges were going off at once. The towers would have lit up like a Christmas tree. Instead the “collapse” looks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78taEPSUsXU&t=19m40s a tower turning to dust mid-air not a tower collapsing due to cut columns. Cutting columns is one thing but the tower turning to dust is another. Does thermite do this? http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/395/image018m.jpg Thermite/thermate does not have the capability to turn steel and concrete into nano-size particles. This is not a conventional demolition using explosives.

7. The seismic data disproves conventional demolition. “The energy budget recorded in the seismic record on the day of 9/11 and the collapse of the WTC buildings did not reflect the mass of building materials involved in the collapse, nor the nearly freefall of the collapsing buildings. The seismic record demonstrates an event on the scale of a quarry blast. Where was the thud [that would have accompanied a WTC building collapse]?”

If a 500,000 ton pile of steel and concrete falls to the ground top down at near free fall speeds it would leave a significant seismic signature of at least 4 on the Richter scale yet the seismic signature was a mere 2.1 and building 7 was no louder than the background noise, in other words the seismic signature was nil. The majority of the towers turned to dust in the air before they even hit the ground. Thermite cannot do this. If thermite was used to simply cut columns and the towers fell to the ground the seismic signatures would have reflected that.

8. If thermite was used to simply cut the columns the rubble pile should have been 1/3 the height of the towers. The rubble pile should have around 15 stories high of floors stacked on top of each other if it was a conventional controlled demolition. Instead the debris pile from the 110 story towers was merely 1 story high. This photo was taken on mid-day on 9/11 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3751206292196 Where did 95% of the towers go? 95% of the towers turned to nano-sized dust before hitting the ground.

9. The air sampling data, taken by the University of California at Davis and the Lawrence Berkeley Labs, revealed very small particles in the aerosol plumes from the WTC debris field. These buildings were turned into micro-particles, much smaller than red blood cells.

Anyone who has worked around gravel quarries or cement plants knows that the dust from crushed rock is not a fine powder that is carried miles into the air. It is coarse and settles very quickly. It is impossible for me to envision some kind of explosive or mechanical process that would yield particles of this size. It is simply impossible for conventional explosives with thermite to yield particles of this size.

10. Steven E. Jones is a 9/11 cover-up agent. A shill. The deliberate nano-thermite disinformation originates with and is pushed by Steven “Las Alamos” Jones. Nano-thermite was pioneered at Las Alamos National Laboratory. Steven E. Jones is the man who covered up Cold Fusion in the late eighties and early nineties. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhdbU2sA8gE The perpetrators of 9/11 waited until the 9/11 truth movement started to grow and gain traction and then out of the nowhere Steven Jones appears out of the woodwork as a “9/11 truther” pushing the thermite lies.

Cold Fusion expert Dr. Eugene Mallove who exposed Steven Jones in his book ‘Fire from Ice’ was murdered just a year before Steven Jones came on the scene with his thermite lies. Dr. Eugene Mallove also worked with William Zebuhr in this area. Zebuhr’s nephew was Michael Zebuhr – Dr Judy Wood’s student who formed a 9/11 Truth student’s group at Clemson. Michael Zebuhr, conducted an experiment in 2006 in an effort to prove that Professor Jones is wrong about his theory that thermite was in the South Tower. Not long after that experiment, Zebuhr was murdered in a very mysterious manner.

Steven Jones after covering up cold fusion is now covering up the fact that similar technology was used on 9/11. The 9/11 cover-up is also a free energy cover-up. Steven Jones is a 9/11 cover-up operative period. He is a fraud. A traitor.

11. Dr. Wood exposes in her lawsuit the fact that NIST contracted with a major manufacturer of directed energy weapons for the 9/11 NIST Report.

The company in question, Applied Research Associates (ARA), is not only a manufacturer of directed energy weapons, but is also a founding sponsor of Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS). Dr. Wood and her attorney revealed that another company NIST contacted with for their Report, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), is also a manufacturer of directed energy weapons.

In addition, SAIC is a company involved in psychological operations as evidenced by its involvement in a Pentagon program to feed disinformation to the foreign press and its psy-ops activities in Iraq. The propositions that directed energy weapons were a causal factor in destruction of the WTC on 9/11 (see Dr. Judy Wood’s RFC filed on March 16, 20007) and that 9/11 was primarily a false-flag operation conducted as a “psyop” to foster war, whose results critically depended on selling the “hijacked jetliner” hoaxes, are supported by NIST’s use of investigators like SAIC and ARA. SAIC obviously has benefited tremendously from 9/11 and its executives pushed the WMD fraud about Iraq to promote the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=326&Itemid=60

Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/

Is “9/11 Truth” Based Upon a False Theory?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/


Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article:

6 responses to 9/11: NANO-THERMITE DEBUNKED

  1. (Last part of my reply)

    ..side issue, but
    Steven Jones has not covered up cold fusion!!

    Martin Fleischmann admitted years before he passed away, that it was wrong for him to call the phenomenon he discovered “Cold Fusion” in the first place.

    Here:

    Fleischmann: It Must be Neutrons. Telephone Interview Conducted June 3, 2009
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35910fleischmann.shtml
    “Martin Fleischmann: Well, fusion has a special meaning in the scientific literature – hot fusion – and perhaps it was a mistake to call this process fusion. It should have been called a nuclear effect, you see.”
    :
    :
    Here’s an interview with Steven Jones about the Cold Fusion-issue, where Jones explains the confusion around it. Jones tells in the interview that he said to Fleischmann at the time, that the heat-phenomenon is interesting, but that it should not be called cold fusion, cause it is not fusion.

    Professor Steven Jones cold fusion energy on Cancel The Cabal
    http://planet.infowars.com/science/911-nano-thermite-debunked

    So..
    When Fleischmann himself has stated it was a mistake to call it Cold Fusion, and he said this at least as early as 2009, that’s four years ago, i find it quite surprising that people who post this “Jones covered up cold fusion”-crap all over internet do not seem to know this fact.

    ..but then again, These kind of writings are obvious propaganda pieces to distract the 9/11 nanothermate-issue, so i don’t think these people really care about the facts in the first place.

    End.

  2. (Reply PART V)

    —–About the “WTC steel columns turning in to dust” claims by Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalezov—-

    What turned to dust was the concrete and similar materials in those buildings ..the steel columns simply did not turn to dust
    ..and you can verify this by looking at the Ground Zero photos before the clean-up started. Judy Wood’s claim is simply wrong.

    Here:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundzero.html

    The “sticks” laying all over Ground Zero, are Twin Tower core columns:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial4.html

    And there goes Judy Wood’s hypothesis down the drain.

    Judy Woods DEW-web site is full of other errors silly and silly suggestions:

    - She seems to imply that the large pressure ejections (squibs) could be “decoy explosives” to cover the use of DEW.
    Just think about it. The “official story” is that al Qaida did it, but still they supposedly would put in “decoy explosives” to distract people away from the use of DEW. This sound too over the top for me, but maybe it’s just me.

    - She also claims that engine blocks of cars and trucks melted away because of DEW, but when she shows a picture of a fire engine-truck, she seemingly does not understand that the engine in such vehicles is FURTHER BACK and under and little behind the cockpit ..not right in front of the vehicle as it is with regular cars.

    - She doesn’t seem to understand that Kingdome stadium demolition caused bigger seismic spike cause larger chunks of the building landed on smaller area “at once”, while the material from the Twin Towers was cut to smaller pieces and ejected ALL OVER GROUND ZERO and on the surrounding buildings.

    Try it, which causes deeper dents on your wooden floor: 5 whole bricks or the pieces of 5 bricks when they’re cut to egg-sized pieces? I’m sure we all know the answer.

    But the fact that WTC steel columns did not turn to dust is the main thing that proves Judy Wood to be absolutely wrong ..and this same thing also shows Dimitri Kahalezov’s “mini nuke-theory” to be wrong, cause he also claimed the WTC steel columns turned to dust.

    Like i just wrote:
    ..look at the pre clean-up photos of Ground Zero and you will see that there are huge amount of WTC steel columns all over the place. And that’s the end of those theories.

    (Side issue, but on the last part of my reply i will clear up the confuision surrounding Steven Jones and Cold Fusion cover up)

  3. (Reply PART IV)

    —”Therefore thermite can be eliminated as the primary method of controlled demolition.”—

    Sure, there seems to have been synchronized (cutter-) explosives at work when the towers actually started coming down, but the nanothermite chips are maybe the MOST IMPORTANT PROOF of controlled demolition.
    :
    :
    :
    —–4. The main ingredients of thermite are rust and powdered aluminium. The buildings were steel structures with aluminium cladding. The majority of the buildings were turned to dust/powder. So, it would be expected to have large quantities of powdered aluminium and powdered iron-rust in the dust. Something would be more seriously wrong if these ingredients were not found in the dust—–

    First..
    The steel columns from the three WTC buildings that collapsed, simply did not turn to dust. more of this later.

    Next, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest the thermitic WTC -chips are materials from the WTC buildings, and the iron oxide particles is the main proof against this claim, and the same goes for the claim that this is paint pigment.
    The iron oxide nano-particles in the red-layer are very, very UNIFORM in their size and shape. If this would be building rust we would find various sizes and shapes of rust particles.

    And it is the same with paint pigment-rust. I seriously doubt that any company providing paint companies with rust-pigment, would do the unnecessary extra work to:
    A) sieve out the particles LARGER than certain nano-size
    B) ..but also sieve out particles SMALLER than certain nano-size.

    Why on earth would they do this, especially in the 1960′s-1970′s, when the pigment is only for covering building materials. I doubt that they would do this in nowadays either.
    :
    :
    :
    —-6.If the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition using explosives it would have looked and sounded like—-

    The use of thermite to weaken the structures would have lowered the amount of conventional high explosive needed to finish the job. = less noise
    ..but very loud explosions were heard in the WTC complex (even underground) and here’s one such loud and very sharp explosion heard by firemen.

    This was apparently after the destruction of Twin Towers, but before WTC 7 was destroyed:
    One of the guys even says “Seven’s exploding!”

    9/11 – WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw
    :
    :
    :
    —–8. If thermite was used to simply cut the columns the rubble pile should have been 1/3 the height of the towers. The rubble pile should have around 15 stories high of floors stacked on top of each other if it was a conventional controlled demolition. Instead the debris pile from the 110 story towers was merely 1 story high.—-

    Material from the Twin Towers was ejected away from the foot print, hence no large ruble piles on footprints. Look at the Twin Towers destruction videos, look at the photos before clean up started.

    (Reply will continue in PART V)

  4. (Reply PART III)

    —-Man-made nanoaluminium dust and Silicon/Silica composite in the red-layer?—–

    The Al-Si rich plate-like flakes are not Kaolin. In Kaolin the Al and Si are bound chemically, in the WTC-chips the aluminum seems to be elemental (= powdered aluminum metal), so not chemically bound to the Silicon.

    It was reported in the “Harrit et al”-paper that after soaking the WTC chip in MEK solvent..”Evidently the solvent has disrupted the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration and separation of the components. This is a significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not bound chemically.”

    The Al and Si rich (oxygen is also present) plate-like particles could be a man-made COMPOSITE made of ultrafine aluminum powder and Silicon or Silica, which are used as coating agent for Al and other metal nanopowders, even for thermite composites (wires, membranes), to prevent unwanted oxidation. Coating the nano-Al powder would give the nanothermite longer shelf life.

    Yes, nanothermite composites apparently have a shelf life. When the nanoaluminum gets too oxidized (corroded) the thermite may not ignite anymore. This issue gets bigger when the particle size gets smaller (ultrafine nano-particles). It might not be as big of a problem with conventional thermite mixtures which are made using larger particles.

    Frederick Henry-Couannier mentions that he could not ignite the chips even in high temps, but i remember hearing/reading Jeff Farrer (i beleive it has him, if my memory serves), one of the writers of the Harrit et al-paper, talking about the same thing, that he/they also started having problems igniting WTC-chips, which could be cause by aging of the composite.

    - Silica coating on nano-aluminum also provides a shelter so that the thermite does not ignite from heavy impacts so easily.
    :
    :
    :
    Reply for you points 2. and 3. about “thermite is not a high explosive”

    So some people made a mistake, big deal, get over it and correct them if they’re wrong.
    Regardless of the error, the people who discovered the thermitic chips from the WTC-dust, have stated FOR YEARS that conventional high explosives were most likely used along with nanothermite composites.
    ..and you should have pointed this out also.

    Steven Jones has said this at least three years (2006) before the release of the “Harrit et al paper”:
    “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered.” – Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? By Dr. Steven E. Jones

    And here’s Niels Harrit in a July, 2009 RT interview saying he believes there was also conventional high explosives used in the WTC demolition:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj0cAhqy6dQ

    (Reply will continue in PART IV)

  5. (PART II)

    - Second issue with Millette’s elemental Al reseach:

    Millette also states in his study that he used ULTRASONIC AGITATION on the chips he soaked in different solvents. Whether he did this when the chips were still emerged in the MEK solvent, or after he took them out of there he does not tell.

    Harrit et al reported witnessing “significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material” after soaking a chip in MEK solvent
    ..but is it possible that Millette actually “shook off/washed off” the loose elemental aluminum particles (if still emerged in solvent) or “smoothed” the surface of red-layer softened by MEK after he took it out of the solvent by using ultrasonics?

    I’m not an expert, but i wonder.

    Harrit et al studies didn’t use ultrasonics, so why did Millette?

    - Third reason:

    Millette layered his MEK soaked chip with gold. Harrit et al did not.
    A layer of gold could also distort XEDS readings.

    In paper about layering materials in these kind of studies they write:
    ” The heavier elements such as gold also have high secondary electron yields, which improve the image quality. Nevertheless, the main disadvantage of gold and silver coatings is their tendency to migrate on the surface of the sample and coalesce into islands or particles that worsen the macroscopic conductivity and mask some fine details of the surface.”- from ‘Effects of the Carbon Coating and the Surface Oxide Layer in Electron Probe Microanalysis’
    http://labmem.unsl.edu.ar/Publicados/Limandri_010.pdf

    When Millette did X-ray EDS test for chips without soaking them in solvents, he DID NOT layer them with gold to eliminate charging, so i find it’s strange he decided to do so to a chip from which the task was to find transmigration of elemental Al.

    I wonder why did he think that charging was a problem for the MEK soaked chip, and apparently thought charging was not a problem when studying the unsoaked chips???!

    So thou i’m only a layman with no personal experience with XEDS, nor chemistry, Millette’s methods of
    - Higher voltage beam
    - Ultrasonic agitation
    - and thin gold layer on the MEK soaked chip
    ..could be factors why Millette did not witness the elemental Al particles, reported in the Harrit et al study.

    And i find it strange that some call these Millette-methods as scientifically valid debunking of the Harrit et al-paper. Usually when scientist try to verify other people’s results they follow the other people’s experiments very closely, so they can say what went wrong if things don’t add up.

    (Reply continues in PART III)

  6. (PART I)
    hey.

    I find it to be odd that you and others seem to be so concerned about “peer reviewing” of the Harrit et al paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World TradeCenterCatastrophe”, but you’re not seemingly at all concerned that Millette didn’t even come close to replicating the experiments done by Steven Jones and others for the “Harrit at al paper”.
    ..or have you even noticed this fact?

    And the same goes with the claims by Judy Wood, but more of this later.

    I don’t think Millette’s study can be counted as scientifically valid to debunk the “Harrit et al-paper, simply because he did not replicate the experiments as he was supposed to as promised earlier by Chris Mohr who funded the Millette study.
    Sure Millette did “sort of” do the experiments, but his study methods were COMPLETELY different in many occasions.

    Few examples:

    - He didn’t do an ignition test for the red-grey chips and stayed around 30 degrees Celsius below the ignition temp reported in the Harrit et al paper (430 C), when he ashed his chip(s). Millette states he didn’t bother to do the ignition test cause he didn’t find evidence of elemental aluminum

    ..but there might be few reasons for this.

    - First one:
    For the XEDS to detect elemental aluminum after soaking a WTC-chip in MEK, Millette used a 20kV beam instead of 10kV beam used for the Harrit et al paper.

    Here’s what the Harrit et al paper happens to mention about the 20 kV beam:
    “..it was observed that the thin sheet-like particles are rich in Al and Si whereas the bright faceted grains are rich in Fe. Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen, which may be partially due to the beam spreading and receiving an overlapping X-ray signal from the matrix material as well as particles below the surface. The beam energy(20 keV) is such that the volume of material from which the X-ray signal is generated is larger than the particles. Hence, some Al and Si are seen in Fig. (11b) which may not be inherent in the faceted grains, and some Fe is seen in Fig. (11a), which may not be inherent in the plate-like particles.”- from: ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World TradeCenterCatastrophe’

    I’ve also read that the higher the voltage, the deeper the beam also penetrates into the material under study.
    So i wonder why Millette didn’t use 10kV beam like in the Harrit et al paper, but decided to use a 20kV beam.

    (Reply continues in PART II)

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.