Nano Thermite found by multiple scientists in WTC dust, peer reviewed reports surface

[YOESH!]

http://uncensored.co.nz/2009/04/12/...t-nano-thermite-found-in-the-dust-at-the-wtc/

For all of those who needed physical evidence before they could admit that our government had (at least) a hand in the events of September the 11th, 2001; Here is your proof.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


"On the morning of April the 6th, Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, who is an expert in nano-chemistry, was interviewed for an entire 10 minutes during a news program on the topic of the nano-thermite found in the dust from the World Trade Centre, (WTC). This explosive interview is posted at YouTube, with English subtitles here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6DQjBfbn24

640_journalist1small

During this news report, Harrit, who is one of the nine scientists primarily responsible for the pivotal paper entitled: ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’, talks about how their research, which was conducted over 18 months, led to the conclusion that planes did not cause the collapse of the three buildings at the WTC on 9/11.

He says that they found such large quantities of nano-thermite in the dust from the WTC, that he believes that this product, which has the ability to melt metal, as well as break things apart, must have been brought into the WTC site in tonnes, on pallets. Consequently, he suggests that we need to address this matter with those who were in charge of the security at the World Trade Centre on 9/11.

Harrit, like Dr Steven Jones who also played a major role in this ground-breaking research, refers to their findings as “the loaded gun” and implies that military personnel may be able to enlighten us more on the little-known topic of nano-thermite, which differs from regular thermite in a number of significant ways, including that its ignition temperature is far lower than that of the conventional kind."


---------------------------------

Interview with this scientist on the Alex Jones radio show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73G2eMkBpw&feature=channel_page


Wake the fuck up.

 

[Kilgore]

Give me a link to the peer reviewed report.

 

[Heuristic]

The American Society of Civil Engineers, and numerous other organizations and individuals with expertise in civil engineering, have long concluded that the combination of the impact of the planes and the weakening of key support points caused by the resulting fire, caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

The expert in the very distantly related field of nano-chemistry can bite me.

That's about as polite a response I can offer.

 

[jam uh weezy]

^That's bullshit, cause you're simply taking one "experts" professional analysis over another "expert's" simply because it snugly fits in with your pre-conceptions, or the theories you wish to believe to be true about 911.

You follow up with a purely emotional attack, and then some redundant self referential statement that serves no purpose.

Why not be open to information from all different angles and sources?

 

[YOESH!]

Give me a link to the peer reviewed report.

Say please!

Just kidding

http://imgsrv.kfwb.com/image/kfwb/UserFiles/File/thermite-wtc.pdf

 

[YOESH!]

The American Society of Civil Engineers, and numerous other organizations and individuals with expertise in civil engineering, have long concluded that the combination of the impact of the planes and the weakening of key support points caused by the resulting fire, caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

The expert in the very distantly related field of nano-chemistry can bite me.

That's about as polite a response I can offer.

Many experts. The team that wrote this peer reviewed journal, if I'm not mistaken, was of nine scientists... And in fact they are not the first to make this discovery and document it.

Weezy put it well in response to our comment. Some people just hear what they want to. Physical evidence of highly advanced explosives in the building rubble... if that's not good enough for you, I suspect nothing will be. Enjoy having your rights continually raped.

I see you're quite sure about what happened to buildings one and two. What about building seven? This video was fairly recently released, showing its collapse from a new angle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZaeqQj5UHE

 

[Heuristic]

That's nice. Are ANY of them civil engineers?

That someone has a PhD at the end of his or her name does not imply expertise in matters outside his or her field. This is a bit like Stephen Jones claiming that explosives brought down WTC 1 and 2---never mind that he's a physicist with no expertise at all in the relevant fields.

And once a consensus in a scientific community of relevant experts is reached, then yes, I react with skepticism to a paper purporting to find evidence for a highly improbable theory that has thus far been limited in distribution, apparently, to youtube.

 

[marsmellow]

Thermite is used for welding and cutting metal. How do you know that they didn't use it when the World Trade Center was being built? How do you know when the workers were cleaning up the site, that they didn't need to use it to break big metal beams into manageable pieces? You don't know. So, this doesn't prove the 9/11 attacks were done by the government. It doesn't even prove the towers were taken down by thermite. It just shows it was used at the WTC site at one point or another.

 

[SvnLyrBrto]

^That's bullshit, cause you're simply taking one "experts" professional analysis over another "expert's" simply because it snugly fits in with your pre-conceptions, or the theories you wish to believe to be true about 911.

You follow up with a purely emotional attack, and then some redundant self referential statement that serves no purpose.

Why not be open to information from all different angles and sources?

1) I googled for this "nano-thermite", of which YOESH! speaks. Every link seems to be to some nutjob conspiracy theory site or another. Where are the descriptions of the compound itself? It's properties, composition, method of manufacture? Where's it's MSDS?

2) The article itself is talking about particles in the micrometer range, NOT the nanometer range. Micrometer-sized particles are easily explainable by burning aluminum; no fancy-schmancy nanotechnology needed.

3) As much of a colossal fuckup that bush the lesser has proved to be; we're supposed to believe that he successfully orchestrated this vast conspiracy to bring down the towers... involving planted explosives, the hijacked planes, and the coverup to go with? And no one in the world but this "9/11 truth" movement has figured any of it out?

 

[YOESH!]

Thermite is used for welding and cutting metal. How do you know that they didn't use it when the World Trade Center was being built? How do you know when the workers were cleaning up the site, that they didn't need to use it to break big metal beams into manageable pieces? You don't know. So, this doesn't prove the 9/11 attacks were done by the government. It doesn't even prove the towers were taken down by thermite. It just shows it was used at the WTC site at one point or another.

I found an interesting reply related to your question on the daily kos blog comments on this same story. It does a much better job than I ever could, certainly.


======================QUOTE==========================

You are right on target with the question about welders' materials left on site. This is the kind of thinking we need in order to approach this objectively.

First of all, to be clear about this, I don't have an ideological stake. I have no ideological commitments to any particular explanation around 9/11.

So, what to do about this:

First thing we need to determine is if this kind of thermitic material existed prior to 9/11, particularly, at the time WTC was being built. If yes, then we need to determine if it was actually used in construction.

To my knowledge, steel frame building construction primarily uses oxy-acetyline welding. I have not heard of applications where thermite welding is used on steel frame buildings, however I am a layman on this subject. I do know that thermite is used to weld railroad tracks, having heard this from someone who did it as part of their job many years ago.

From memory, the way thermite is used in welding railroad track is: A mold is made of dry sand around the joint between two abutting rails. Thermite powder is poured into the joint and ignited (a high temperature igniter is required, and I'm not going to go into detail on that part). The thermite burns with a bright light while melting the surfaces of the abutting tracks, leaving a solid welded joint between the tracks.

Now back to WTC...

Records exist from the architect, and probably from the civil engineering firms, that were engaged in the WTC project. From those records it should be possible to determine if this kind of material was used in the WTC, and if thermite welding was used at all in WTC.

Further we also have to look at maintenance records: was a material of this type used in welding that occurred as part of maintenance or building alterations over the years since WTC was first completed?

If it was used in WTC, then there's a likelihood that bits of it got loose on the site and could have persisted on steel frame members. That could account for its presence in the debris/dust.

If it was not used in WTC, then we have to control for another factor: whether it was used in other construction in NYC in more recent years, to the extent that bits of it were loose in the air and could be found in street dirt and other accumulated dirt around the city.

Clearly we can't use NYC as a "control" here, because it's already the "test" case. So we have to go to other cities in which similar construction practices are used, and gather up samples of street dirt and other dirt to determine if similar particles are present. If similar particles are present in other cities, this would reduce the probability that the NYC particles are unique much less sinister.

Next, we need to do some lab research to determine how these particles behave when subjected to the kinds of temperatures that would result from a jet fuel explosion/fire with a high fuel load of paper and other combustibles and high ambient wind to increase the rate and temperature of combustion. Specifically we are looking for results that would be comparable to (consistent with, or not consistent with) the results of the studies of material collected in NYC.

--

To my mind, potential findings that would support the "sinister hypothesis" here would be:

a) If the material was not used in WTC construction or alterations either initially or during the life of the structure.

b) If the matierial is not used in steel-frame building construction in NYC or other cities.

c) If no samples of similar material could be found in other cities.

d) If similar materials from other cities did not behave in a similar manner to the NYC material in lab testing.

And, potential findings that would not support the "sinister hypothesis" here would be:

a) If this material or a similar material was used in WTC construction or alterations.

b) If this material is commonly used in steel-frame building construction in NYC and in other cities.

c) If samples of this material could be found in other cities.

d) If similar materials from other cities did behave in a similar manner to the NYC material in lab testing.

---

Until we can get answers to some of these questions, the responsible and objective attitude should be: that we need to get those answers, and that we are not going to start coming to any conclusions until those answers start to come in.

Y'all do realize of course, what's at stake here.

First of all, there is no question that two jet liners hit the WTC towers. Anyone doubting that planes hit those buildings ("holograms" etc.) can be written off as a loony.

Second, if thermite was present in quantities sufficient to contribute to the damage to the towers, and if it could be reasonably surmised to have been placed there deliberately, then we have to ask ourselves:

Was the thermite intended for use in conjunction with airliner impacts, or was it intended for use under some other set of conditions?

Wild speculation department:

Someone may have planned to use another truck bomb in the basement, in conjunction with thermite on various floors, to bring down the building: finishing the job that the first truck bomb did not do. A plot of that kind could have been entirely independent of the airliner hijackings

Or, Al Qaeda may have infiltrated building maintenace or other workforces in WTC, to bring in the thermite over time and place it where it could do its damage, for example in custodial closets adjacent to structural components of the building.

The two items above are angles that, as far as I know, have not been pursued.

No matter how much we may loathe the Bush Regime, we can't come to conclusions about its possible active complicity in the WTC destruction unless we have reasonably tested other hypotheses and found them insupportable.

Objective science is urgently needed here, and objective criminal investigation, of the potential that AQ could have planted thermite either for the airliner attack or for some other attack.

If it turns out that members of government were involved in planting thermite or other accelerants on site, they should be tried for treason and sentenced to life without parole on conviction. But let's not be so quick to make space for them on the cellblock (much less at the gallows) unless the research & invstigations point to that conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.

---

And no matter what else comes of this, one indisputable fact remains, the implications of which should be immediately clear to anyone who recognizes the phrase:

It happened on George W. Bush's watch.

==================END QUOTE======================


I think that the extremely small scale of these particles, on the nanometer scale, is one of the reasons that this raises red flags for me. The smaller the scale at which you are manipulating matter, the more sophisticated your equipment and advanced your techniques must be. Who has access to such equipment and qualified staff to produce these materials? Not men planning their work from caves in the mountains of Afghanistan, I would think.

I think I'm going to go ahead and read the full 25 page report before posting further.

 

[YOESH!]

1) I googled for this "nano-thermite", of which YOESH! speaks. Every link seems to be to some nutjob conspiracy theory site or another. Where are the descriptions of the compound itself? It's properties, composition, method of manufacture? Where's it's MSDS?

2) The article itself is talking about particles in the micrometer range, NOT the nanometer range. Micrometer-sized particles are easily explainable by burning aluminum; no fancy-schmancy nanotechnology needed.

3) As much of a colossal fuckup that bush the lesser has proved to be; we're supposed to believe that he successfully orchestrated this vast conspiracy to bring down the towers... involving planted explosives, the hijacked planes, and the coverup to go with? And no one in the world but this "9/11 truth" movement has figured any of it out?

Try searching "super thermite." Here is the wikipedia page that the term super thermite redirects to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastable_intermolecular_composite

"Metastable intermolecular composites (MIC), also called super-thermites, or superthermites, are pyrotechnic compositions containing an oxidizer and a reducing agent which undergoes a very powerful exothermic reaction when heated to a critical temperature. Superthermites are variants of thermite compositions but are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster."

So, these substances actually do exist. As far as the micrometer/nanometer difference, Here is part of what the report has to say about it...
"The red layer of the red/grey chips is most interesting in that it contains aluminum, iron, and oxygen components mixed at a scale of 100 nanometers or less."

What do you mean by MSDS? I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that acronym.

Who said Bush was the mastermind? Presidents are generally puppets. Now, on the other hand, if you listen to Norm Mineta's testimony about what he saw on 9/11, you will see that Dick Cheney gave the order to stand down as the planes approached. You can look that up if you are open enough.

You seem hostile. What's with the "nutjob" name calling? On this subject, people really show their true colors.

Ok ok, sorry, back to reading the report... Just had to respond to that one...

 

[Heuristic]

9/11 is the most thoroughly investigated crime in history.

I don't need to see test samples from other building sites regarding thermite. Two planes crashed into the towers. There were people in the stairwells and in the basement at the times of collapse. There were numerous witnesses to the manner of the collapse. There were no bombs.

This case is closed.

 

[YOESH!]

I guess you haven't heard the recently deceased Barry Jennings' unedited testimony. He said the explosion forced him upwards. There are videos of explosions going off before hand, reports of bombs in the buildings, witness testimony of fireballs shooting out of the lobby elevator shaft opening, etc. etc. etc. What about William Rodriguez? You aren't digging hard enough. Listen to what they have and had to say, then get back to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kOIvwThj-U

Explosion.

Case not closed.




Are you a citizen of the United States?

 

[New]

All avenues of thought are worth legitimate exploration...that's how people find out the truth - not by insisting they're right, but by willing to be proven wrong.

 

[Heuristic]

I am an American citizen. I have read the 9/11 Commission Report. I have read the ASCE's report. I have read numerous analyses by civil engineers from Australia to Norway to Seattle.

Ignited fuel dropped down elevator shafts, along with other debris. Two fully fueled 767s impacted these buildings at speeds of what must have been close to 300mph. That's an incredible amount of force. The collapse began at the zones of impact, and continued down.

The notion that bombs were installed, survived the impact and fire, and then, despite the damage to the buildings, were still precisely calibrated enough to be detonated in a manner that escaped the observing world and mimick a collapse caused by the planes, is so wildly improbable that I'm frankly stunned anyone is still turning an article out on it.

Do you really think al Qaeda would waste two planes on buildings they could have brought down with bombs?? The northeast is a target-rich environment for terrorists.

Anyway, sorry, yeah, thoroughly investigated by experts, no controversy among experts, no alternative theories other than wildly improbable ones. Case closed.

 

[YOESH!]

The 9/11 commission report made absolutely no mention of the collapse of building 7.



From Wikipedia (I could get news sources if you need mainstream media approval)
"The commission was criticized for significant alleged conflicts of interest on the part of commissioners and staff.[10] Further, the commission's report has been the subject of much criticism by both the commissioners themselves and by others.[11][12]

The commission members were appointed by George W. Bush as well as Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a commission truly independent from the U.S. government whose actions it was supposed to review. The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics.

"In addition, commissioners believed that key agencies of the U.S. government, including The Pentagon, the FAA and NORAD were deliberately deceiving them,[13] and that the CIA was deliberately impeding the work of the commission.[14] On the whole, the chairmen of the commission believed the commission was set up to fail.[15].""



If you refuse to even consider investigating the testimony of the men I have listed for you, then I am ASHAMED to call you one of my countrymen. It is because of people like you that we have allowed ourselves as a society to drift so far down this path, out of sight of the ideas and principles and convictions that once made it great.

If the case is closed for you, then leave this thread. You have nothing more to add to the conversation if you refuse to even consider the evidence.

 

[Heuristic]

Studies of the building 7 collapse were not completed by the time the final report was issued, though the report certainly discussed the collapse.

You can find a very extensive report of the collapse of building 7 at the ASCE's website.

Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission have been made with respect to its ability to evaluate US counterterrorism, antiterrorism, and general intelligence efforts pre-9/11. They have nothing to do with the ability or performance of the Commission in describing the physical events that occurred on the morning of 9/11.

Terribly sorry that you're ashamed I'm an American. Somehow we'll both have to live with that. Tough break.

 

[YOESH!]

Related video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MGkP1SsMco

It's just a matter of time.

 

[satricion]

I just have one point about the supposed scientific credibility of this article.

I can't speak to the contents since I'm not a natural scientist, but a few things are red lights to me:

Firstly the journal is a very small one, having only ever released two issues. These very small journals invariably have much less stringent peer review processes than more reputable journals. I'm not saying that makes this article wrong, I'm just saying that to me, as someone who spends most of their time reading peer reviewed literature, this is a warning sign.

Secondly, most of the institutions which the authors belong to are organisations which exist to prove that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. So they are obviously going to be pushing a certain line here. I personally would be very sceptical of an article published by people from 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth', or the 'International Center for 9/11 Studies', alongside some random consultants. I recognise that there are scientists in reputable institutions in the author list, but they are in the minority.

I'm not saying that this stuff wan't found wherever it was found, but that often in circumstances like this, the use of evidence even in a 'peer reviewed' article can be less rigorous than in more reputable journals, done by more reputable scientists. So don't keep saying 'omg it's peer reviewed so it must be SCIENCE'.

 

[YOESH!]

"They are reporting it in this months "The Open Chemical Physics Journal". Two of the authors, Jeffrey Farrer and Daniel Farnsworth, are members of BYU's Department of Physics and Astronomy. The other authors are Neils H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen; Kevin Ryan of the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana; Frank M. Legge of Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Australia; Gregg Roberts of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, California; James R. Gourley of the International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, Texas; and Bradley R. Larsen of S&J Scientific Co. of Provo, Utah.
These people...began this study because the collapse of the towers completley contradicted their knowledge of physics and thermal studies."


Don't cherry pick one person's background out of the rather large group that wrote this journal and then keep saying "OMG this isn't REAL science." All of this bullshit is irrelevant anyway! Why are you attacking the messenger? Why does all of their credibility hinge on the name of the organization they represent? What about the EVIDENCE they are presenting?