Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.


Tag: demolition

By Adam Taylor
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Editor’s note: This is Part 10 of 10 (see Part 9), the conclusion of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at and other places where it is sold. (Quotes from PM are shown with page numbers.)

Part 10:
Minimal Wreckage to Study

More than 100,000 tons of WTC building debris was removed from Ground Zero in the three weeks following 9/11, making a proper on-site investigation impossible

In the last section of their book covering WTC7, PM’s writers and editors discuss the fact that the steel from Ground Zero was quickly removed from the site and recycled. 9/11 researchers have cited this as evidence of a cover-up. However, PM’s writers attempt to explain why there was nothing unusual about this speedy cleanup of Ground Zero, and we see that, once again, their excuses are groundless.

PM starts off by quoting Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) structural engineer Gene Corley:

“There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling,” Gene Corley told the U.S. House Representatives’ Committee on Science in March 2002. “This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.” (p. 86)

Although the FEMA team had some access to the steel and the site, the initial investigation was plagued with problems cited by the Science Committee of the House of Representatives, including:

The BPAT (Building Performance Assessment Team) did not control the disposition or acquisition of the steel. “The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence.”

FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that “frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse.”

The BPAT was not granted access to “pertinent building documents.”

Funding and analysis was severely curtailed. “The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings.”

Moreover, Corley complained to the Committee that the Port Authority refused to give his investigators copies of the Towers’ blueprints until he signed a wavier that the blueprints would not be used in a lawsuit against the agency. Corley also admitted that “the delay in the receipt of the plans did somewhat hinder the team’s ability to confirm their understanding of the buildings.”

Contrary to what many believe, the removal of the debris was very rapid, with more than 100,000 tons of it being removed by September 29, 2001. Much of the steel was removed from the site before FEMA had even started its investigation. Although PM apparently sees nothing wrong with how the debris was handled, numerous individuals demanded that the steel be preserved and were upset that the steel was recycled, including professor of fire science Glenn Corbett, fire protection engineer Craig Beyler, and Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering Magazine, who deemed the investigation a “half-baked farce…. the destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.” Because the steel was recycled so quickly, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) hardly had any steel to examine from the three towers. Much of the steel that NIST did have was left un-catalogued and stored in Hangar 17 at JFK airport. NIST used fallacious reasoning to exclude most of this steel from its primary investigation. Rather than acknowledge the absurdity of this, PM instead notes that NIST relied extensively on computer models to investigate Building 7’s collapse. The writers also quote New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (whom they also mention has an engineering degree) as saying “Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn’t tell you anything.” (p. 87)

Read more

By Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E.
Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 37,
April 2013


The importance of understanding the mechanisms of collapse for the three World Trade
Center buildings on September 11, 2001 cannot be over-estimated, for these unusual
collapses and their disputed causes raise questions regarding all future steel-frame building
design. A literature review was conducted to identify the evolving trend in research results
in this area, which have become increasingly diverse over time. Recommendations for
further research are presented.


Over the past decade there have emerged two primary hypotheses regarding the mechanism of destruction for World Trade Center (WTC) buildings 1, 2 and 7, namely, the official fire-induced Progressive Collapse (PC) versus the alternate Controlled Demolition (CD). The question of which of these two hypotheses is correct is singularly important because its current lack of resolution leaves unmet the following critical needs (assuming PC):

(1) Thousands of other structures may also be subject to such catastrophic destruction by
office fires, and inspections and upgrades based on determination of what caused the
WTC buildings to collapse may be needed to ensure public safety;

(2) Significant structural design analysis tools and computer models need upgrades
to account for the potential of such catastrophic destruction;

(3) major revisions to building codes for high-rise steel-frame buildings are critically needed
(Bement, 2002).

Our goals here are to fully document the available peer-reviewed literature on this important
question, and to promote more open and in-depth research by a broader community of scholars.

Although much relevant evidence from portions of the events of 9/11 remains unavailable to
researchers as well as the general public, substantial evidence is available concerning the
destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 that is relevant to resolving the key question of PC versus CD.
Nevertheless, the diversity and complexity of the 9/11 events make it very difficult for most
citizens, and even many researchers, to obtain the quality information needed to address and
resolve the above questions. In particular, information provided officially is notoriously
incomplete; e.g., the official 9/11 Commission Report (2004) makes no mention of destruction of the third high-rise steel-frame building, WTC 7. Further, relevant official reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the Twin Towers are incomplete in that Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 37, April 2013 they stopped their efforts at “collapse initiation” and could not explain total destruction. Finally, the same NIST reports have been surrounded by controversy that remains mostly unreported in mainstream media sources (see peer-reviewed papers referenced herein).

This controversy has been fueled in part because official investigations and reports on this topic have been very tightly controlled and not peer-reviewed.i Basic documentation of such work has not been made available to independent researchers in spite of repeated Freedom-of-Information-Act (FOIA) requests; e.g., most of the detailed documentation, coding, methodology and assumptions employed by NIST in their finite element analysis model of WTC 7. Related to these technical impediments to independent research, in addition to essentially no funding for such research, the “conspiracy theorist” or “truther” label has often been used to discourage or truncate debate on many critical questions, leaving the official theory as the default. For the most part, and somewhat understandably, the science and engineering professional communities have stayed on the sidelines, perhaps in part to protect their reputations and in part to avoid putting their federal research grants at risk. This condition of obstructed research continues in spite of the fact that a “conspiracy” by definition is “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime.”

Thus, by definition, both the official PC hypothesis and the alternative CD hypothesis addressed here are necessarily associated with a conspiracy theory of one form or another. Setting such labels aside, the fundamental question remains, “which hypothesis is best supported by the evidence?” Unfortunately, this basic question and its resolution have been systematically subverted for the past decade.

Read more

By Peter Drew
Originally at Information Clearing House
Feb. 17, 2013

On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST’s 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:

Professor Niels Harrit

Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.

Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit’s team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC

Tony Farrell

Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.

Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:

Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’

Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true

Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator

In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:

Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.

We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing – the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.

The date and location of the hearing are as follows:

February 25th at 10:00 am

Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
Hurst Road
West Sussex
RH12 2ET

For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at truthfor911 [at]

By Adam Taylor
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
Jan. 9, 2013

Editor’s Note: This is Part 8 (see Part 7) of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of their book Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at and other places where it is sold. We also refer you to the landmark documentaries from AE911Truth on WTC 7: 9/11: Blueprint for Truth and 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out.(Quotes from Popular Mechanics’ book are shown in red and with page numbers.)

Part 8:
WTC 7 Wreckage Pile

PM’s next section discusses the actual collapse of WTC 7 and the condition of the wreckage pile after it collapsed. It creates the impression that both of these issues can be explained by natural means rather than demolition. As we shall see, this is simply not the case, as with virtually all of PM’s arguments against demolition.

PM rehashes its previous arguments that most of the collapse of WTC 7 occurred inside the building, and was hidden from sight. They also argue that it is reasonable that Building 7 collapsed straight down instead of toppling like a tree. To support this, they cite Protec Demolition Company employee Brent Blanchard, who offers two reasons why Building 7 collapsed straight down:

Blanchard says that ‘conspiracy theorists’ have misappropriated his example of felling a tree for multiple reasons. WTC 7 was 330 feet long at its maximum, and 140 feet wide. Unlike tipping a tree a few feet in diameter, tipping WTC 7 would have required deflecting the building more than 70 feet north or south before its center of gravity moved beyond its base — an incomprehensible margin, particularly because WTC seven sustained no external lateral forces… Secondly Blanchard estimates the interior of WTC seven some 80 to 90 percentage air… Once thousands of tons of steel beams and concrete flooring began to collapse, Blanchard says, the structure had too much inertia to go any other direction. “Trees are inherently rigid monolithic structures,” Blanchard states. “A radio tower could be felled like a tree. You could begin a building’s descent in a certain direction by cutting certain columns, but you cannot fell a building like a tree.” (pg. 74-75)

After more than two seconds of free-fall acceleration, in which the building fell straight down for 100 feet (the key point presented by AE911Truth, which remains completely unaddressed by Blanchard), the upper part of WTC 7 may have had enough inertia to destroy the lower part of the building, but this free fall must be explained by Blanchard – without the use of explosives.

The two arguments that are presented are “red herrings”: a) there were no lateral forces to knock Building 7 over and b) the building was mostly air by volume. Both of these arguments are problematic.

While there were virtually no lateral forces acting on Building 7, this in no way implies that the building could have suffered total symmetrical collapse. The remaining intact structure of the building would have offered incredible resistance after any local failure (NIST cites the failure of column 79 for the initiation of the total collapse) because it is designed to be at least 3x stronger than necessary to support its loads. The law of entropy would ensure an asymmetrical collapse – unless all the supports were removed at the same time, which “normal office fires”, the official cause of this building’s collapse, could not possibly accomplish. Several structures that initially collapsed straight down (due to purposeful professional controlled demolitions – as a result of charges which failed to detonate) have indeed fallen over or have simply stopped collapsing. i

Read more

9/11 Truth is gaining steam in North Carolina as “Experts Speak Out” airs on local television stations throughout the state. I (RL McGee) put this documentary on public access station GPAT-23 in Greenville / Pitt County last week. It will run for several weeks at various time spots.

This was super-easy to do. There was no annual fee to become a producer and no orientation class to attend. I didn’t even have to mail them a DVD since the station agreed to download the program from online! I just filled out 2 forms (Local Producer form and Program form) and mailed them in. Then I emailed the website for accessing the 1 hour version of ESO.

It has also recently aired in Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Durham thanks to Bette Smith. Starting in Chapel Hill in late October, The People’s Channel has shown this breakthrough documentary by AE911Truth continuously in Chapel Hill / Orange County, and then its sister station aired the documentary in Carrboro in early November. Soon after Durham Community Media came on board and has been airing “Experts Speak Out” since mid-November in Durham County, NC.

Recent air times:

Chapel Hill — Orange County
The Peoples Channel 8 —- Mon. 11/12 — 1:30 AM
Wed 11/14 —10:00 AM
Sat 11/17 — 3:00 AM
The Peoples Channel 4 — Mon 11/12 — 5 PM
Tues 11/13 — 4 PM
Thurs 11/ 15 —12 noon
Fri 11/16 — 2 PM
Sun 11/18 — 1:30 PM
Durham County, NC
Durham Community Media Channel 18 — Thurs 11/15 — 9 AM

Greenville/Pitt Co Public Access TV GPAT23 — Channel 23 —-
12/06 Thursday — 8:30 PM and 12/07 Friday — 8:30 PM
Then for several weeks at various time spots.

Source: AE911truth

Images like this one reveal that the squibs were not merely puffs of air, as they have the same hue and consistency as pulverized solid building materials


What caused the “squibs”? Could they have been just puffs of dust being pushed out of the Towers by falling floors? Are they visual evidence of explosive charges?


The isolated ejections 20-60 stories below the demolition front appear to be composed of pulverized building materials, including concrete. There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other “channel” in the building to deliver “compressed air”.

There is no reason, on the “dust puff” theory, for such blasts to be as isolated as they were. Massive air pressure which would delivered by the (missing) “pile driver” down through the elevator hoist ways and out through a given floor would have broken most or all windows on that floor – not created the highly focalized pin-point ejections that are seen on the videos. The breakage of one or two windows on a given floor would not have relieved enough pressure across an entire floor area to prevent the breakage of many other windows nearby.

Multiple analyses have shown that the ejection speed of the squibs was too high, at 100+ mph, to have been the result of air pressure. These are explosive speeds. They have also been clocked at 160 to 200 feet per second.

Another problem with the “dust puff” theory is that the pulverized building materials would not have been transported so quickly. Air would have been pushed ahead of such materials, resulting in transparent puffs of air flowing through the freshly broken windows.

Physicist David Chandler has also shown that some of these ejections came from the corners of the buildings. Since there are no windows on the corners, these ejections could not have been the result of air pressure.

The squibs identified in the WTC videos occurred 20, 40, and 60 stories below the destruction wave

Furthermore, calculations performed by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the floor and debris descent speeds that are allegedly responsible for them. As Kevin Ryan has shown, the ejection speed of the squibs from the Towers also matches the speeds recorded for ejections caused by explosives.

Video evidence has revealed that violent ejections occurred before the North Tower began its descent

As to these ejections appearing only after the collapse initiation, it should be noted that the North Tower’s antenna dropped before any other building movement is seen, which is evidence that demolition devices were working on the core before any squibs were seen emerging out of the perimeter walls. There is also video showing that some of these ejections occurred even before the collapses began. See “Visible Explosion at World Trade Center” and “WTC1 collapse initiation – visible signs.”

Close examinationof network video shows clusters of horizontal ejections racing down the North Tower, at times accelerating faster than debris is falling outside the building

Written by Perla Trevizo,
Chattanooga Times Free Press
Tuesday, 06 December 2011
Reposted at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Editor’s Note: The “The Science of 9/11 Truth” symposium at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga drew over 300 attendees and the support of many University faculty. Journalist Perla Trevizo provided an unbiased and accurate report of the event for the Times Free Press for covering this important news story in a fair and balanced manner, and we encourage other mainstream news outlets to follow their lead.

An audience of over 300 looks on as University faculty and technical experts discuss the science behind the destruction of the three WTC high-rises

Questions should be asked about the science behind the falling of the World Trade Center buildings 10 years ago, panelists agreed Tuesday night.

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga hosted the event, “The Science of 9/11,” which began with a moment of silence for the families who lost loved ones.

The discussion “is an opportunity to illustrate the application of the scientific method to a real life event that most Americans remember exactly where they were,” said UTC professor of anthropology Lyn Miles, one of the event’s coordinators.

There are also more than 1,500 architects and engineers who have raised scientific questions over the collapse of the World Trade Center and are calling for a full investigation of 9/11, and it’s worthwhile to discuss why, she added.

The school showed the documentary “Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth,” also the name of the nonprofit that says the collapse of the buildings was not caused by the impact of the planes but by explosives or controlled demolition.

Link to the rest of the article Seminar on science of Trade Center disasters raises questions

July 24, 2011
Prepared by Kevin Ryan

Scientific evidence for thermitic materials at the World Trade Center is discussed, and an experiment in production and ignition of nanothermite is performed.

By Dr. Steven Jones
May 10, 2011
Source: 9/

Here I field questions that come to me fairly often, to help get the facts out and to counter misrepresentations and misunderstandings. I expect to make edits for a while and welcome comments.

1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?
The definition of “explosive” can lead to endless debates. Is a flash of light required? Is a loud sound required? How loud? What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive? Where is the line between low explosives and high explosives?
Rather than getting mired into ad nauseum debates, I will use the term “explosive” in conjunction with superthermites/nanothermites IF the national defense laboratories which developed these materials use the term. Here we go.

“Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” {Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005; }

I wish to emphasize that nanothermites can be “engineered” or tailored to burn more slowly or more quickly, even as “explosive devices” as the above article from Los Alamos National Laboratory states clearly.

Next a reference to “explosives” based on nanocomposites involving aluminum and iron oxide from the large US Defense Laboratory at Livermore, California:

“We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives into the bulk metal oxide materials. These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.” (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)

Note in particular that Dr. Clapsaddle states that nano-thermite with organics can indeed perform pressure/volume work, key to their explosive capabilities. I understand that the organics are part of the production process and integral components of these types of nanothermites. One final corroborating quote from the same author:

“We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale […]”
B. J. Clapsaddle et al., “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,” 2005.

2. What is the difference between ordinary thermite and nano-thermite?
There are major differences, although the basic thermitic reaction is involved in each:
Aluminum powder + Iron-oxide powder → (ignited) → Aluminum-oxide + Molten Iron

Enormous energy is released as molten iron is formed, and this typically ends up either as flowing molten metal or, if ejected into the air, as metallic-iron spheres (which are found in the WTC dust in great abundance: Jones SE, Farrer J, Jenkins GS, et al. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction. J 9/11 Studies 2008; 19: 1-11. ).

Technical point: other fuels can be substituted for aluminum, and other oxidizers for iron-oxide.
Here’s a summary of major differences:

Starts with larger particles of aluminum and iron-oxide (bigger than about 100 nanometers)
Incendiary (non-explosive)
Sulfur added (typically called thermate) forms a eutectic with molten iron product, staying liquid at lower temperatures (red-orange-hot) when ordinary iron and steel would be solid

Starts with particles of aluminum and iron-oxide smaller than about 100 nanometers; hence “nano”
Often mixed with organic material so as to generate gas
Can be tailored to be explosive (see point 1 above), or used as a trigger material –for explosives used for demolitions.

Recent experiments by Jon Cole demonstrate that thermite with sulfur added (“thermate”) can indeed cut through steel and do pressure-volume work; sulfur makes a huge difference (as I also pointed out in my first 9/11-research paper)! Very exciting work, especially starting around the 11-minute mark: .

3. Are you now saying that nanothermite was used instead of thermate, or was the only explosive material in the operations?
No, never said that. On the contrary, I have consistently noted that more conventional explosives may very well have also been used in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. And the presence of orange-colored molten metal flowing from the South Tower just minutes before its complete fall along with a bright white fire (both admitted by NIST) strongly indicates the presence of pyrotechnic thermite plus sulfur. (Thermite when ignites generates white-hot molten iron; sulfur keeps the iron liquid to lower orange-hot temperatures and allows the liquid iron to attack steel much more vigorously.)

In recorded remarks given publicly in Australia, I noted that a Dept. of Defense journal Amptiac showed the use of nanointermetallic material such as nanothermite as a fuse or initiator, in conjunction with a shaped charge of more conventional explosive. {Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48.} {See also my videotaped presentation here: .}

Consistent with this, a publication from Los Alamos National Lab noted that “superthermite… applications include triggering explosives for… demolition” {}. I personally think that this triggering is the most likely reason for the presence of the red thermitic material observed in the WTC dust; but further investigation with subpoena power would be needed to verify this point.

4. Do you agree that “ Jones is putting “superthermite” in the same category of explosiveness as HMX and RDX” as claimed by Mark Hightower? (Email to Jones and numerous others from Mark Hightower, 8 May 2011).

No, I do not. While the Los Alamos developers note that superthermite can be tailored for use in “explosive devices” as cited above, specifics are not given, evidently because of “military” applications.

5. Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been the result of clean-up operations after 9/11?

No. As noted in our peer-reviewed paper on the discovery of this material in the WTC dust, a sample was collected on 9/11 about ten minutes after the destruction of the second tower, long before clean-up operations began.

“The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his testimony about the collection of this dust sample on video- tape [17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel- cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later.” {}

6. Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been the result of iron oxide from the building combining with aluminum from the building, during the collapses?

You left out the significant presence of organic material found in the red chips – where did that come from? Not so easy. You also need to explain how the aluminum can end up on 40-nanometer thin platelets as observed in our electron-microscope studies of the material from the WTC dust. Get serious. The observed mix has nano-components which do not organize themselves into a highly active form (including organics) from larger objects in violation of the laws of physics. (Needless to say, I disagree with Judy Wood’s explanation; see several related papers in the Journalof911Studies, e.g.,…)

7. Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been primer paint used on the WTC?

No. We obtained asample of primer paint from a 9/11 monument at Clarkson College in New York with the help of a colleague there, and the paint proved to have a distinctly different chemical composition from that observed in the red/gray chips. In particular, the primer paint used on the WTC shows significant zinc content, absent when the interior of a red-material sample is exposed (see our paper {} and Australia talk, ). See attached XEDX graphs showing distinct elemental contents of the red chips and the primer paint (both from the WTC). Even under a good optical microscope, one can see the difference between the primer paint and the red/gray chips; see for example, recent photomicrographs by Jon Cole. While both are present in the WTC dust, the primer paint is rather flexible and non-glossy whereas the red thermitic material is rigid and rather brittle and glossy under white light illumination. It is the observed brittleness that evidently led to the fracturing of the red material into small fragments during the destruction of the buildings.
Further, after soaking in MEK, the red/gray chips (still wet with MEK) remained very hard, easy to pick up with forceps without deforming. OTOH, primer paint chips became very flexible and limp after soaking and still wet with MEK. There can be no mistaking the distinction.

8. Figure 14 in your paper shows zinc. Doesn’t this mean that this sample (which later was soaked in MEK) was a primer-paint sample?

It is unfortunate that we did not first fracture the chip which was later soaked in MEK and measure the fresh surface — a procedure we followed (thanks to Dr. Jeff Farrer) on the FOUR chips thoroughly analyzed in the paper. I am certain that if we had done this, there would have been no zinc on the inside of the chip-later-soaked, because after soaking there was NO ZINC (as we showed in our paper, Figures 16, 17 and 18). Clearly, soaking and agitating in MEK removed surface contamination. The Zn seen in Figure 14 was before soaking, as we said in the paper, and was very likely due to surface contamination, but we could have stated that more clearly. A lot of Zn was present in the dust (a fact recorded also in the USGS data set for the WTC dust). The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the XEDS spectra post-MEK, Figs 16, 17 and 18 is crucially important as demonstration that this is NOT primer paint.

9. What is the main evidence you have that the red material undergoes a thermitic reaction when ignited?

I would say the main evidence is the formation of reduced-iron spheres in the ash as the red material is heated to ignition, as described in some detail in our paper.
“That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1) highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately 430 ̊C, 2) iron-rich sphere formation so that the product must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 ̊C for iron and iron oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and non- spheroidal residues in which the iron content exceeds the oxygen content. Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide. The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling.”

While the reaction of the red material is highly exothermic, as shown in Figure 29 in our paper, the behavior on ignition after years of air-exposure does not allow us to call the material “high explosive” and I would not use that term in describing it.

10. What would be the motivation to place pyrotechnic material in the Towers and WTC 7 so as to cause the observed accelerated fall of these skyscrapers? Who would do such a thing?

These questions go beyond what we can learn by direct scientific methods such as use of electron-microscopy coupled with EDX probing and analysis of the accelerated fall of these buildings. We have done our part as scientists and engineers to demonstrate holes in the “official 9/11 story”, that no explosives were also involved that day. We believe that to get answers to the “who” and “why” questions will require a determined investigation with subpoena power. It is the same in most criminal cases where the evidence is not destroyed – scientific/forensic study is followed by a criminal investigation and trial.

The presence of pyrotechnic material in the WTC dust – along with other compelling evidences such as the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 – means that such an investigation and trial are necessary in order for justice to be served. The rubble of WTC7 was observed in a rubble pile on the footprint of the building; classic controlled-demolition style — certainly not “dustified”. Pushed by a few of us, NIST finally admits that WTC 7 fell with “free-fall acceleration” for over 100 feet, which requires that hundreds of tons of steel and concrete had to be moved out of the way via explosives.

Better Tag Cloud