141 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 97 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Diary   

9/11 Thermite Fingerprints


Lance Ciepiela
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Lance Ciepiela
Become a Fan
  (54 fans)

EXPLOSIVES FOUND IN WTC DUST


(
Image by Unknown Owner)   Details   DMCA


Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust 

Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics In Debris From the Twin Towers 

The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper and related research is intended to summarize those findings for the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples, and finally explore the significance of these findings. 

click here>
Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say 

By Elaine Jarvik 
Deseret News 

Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials — proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery. 

Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. 

For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7. 

The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq. 

he next step, Jones said in a phone interview on Monday, is for someone to investigate "who made the stuff and why it was there." 

A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to determine "the whole truth of the events of that day." They eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers. 

One sample was from a man who had swept up a handful of dust on the Brooklyn Bridge, where he was walking when the second tower fell. As the journal authors note, "It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel-cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC-7, which fell hours later." 

Another man collected dust in his apartment, about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12. There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an open window. 

Red/gray chips, averaging in size between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples. The chips were then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech tools. 

The red layer of the chips, according to the researchers, contains a "highly energetic" form of thermite. While normal thermite (a mixture of finely granulated aluminum and an oxide of metal) can be incendiary, "super thermite" is explosive. He says there is no benign explanation for the thermite in the WTC dust. 

Jones made headlines in 2005 when he argued that the rapid and symmetrical fall of the World Trade Center looked like the result of pre-positioned explosives. He argued that fires alone wouldn't have been hot enough to crumble the buildings; and that even if struck by planes, the towers should have been strong enough to support the weight of the tops as they crumbled — unless they were leveled by explosives. 

Essentially forced to retire, Jones says he is now paying for research out of his own pocket. He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. "I would like to think I could stand up for the truth," he says. 

The dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed feelings about the implications. "As a young student said to me a while back: 'It's exciting from a scientific point of view, because things are now making sense. But I feel sad for my country.' " 

click here>
Danish scientist: nano explosive material found in the dust from the World Trade Center 

Original Danish 
English translation 


Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives 

As Documentation of Thermitic Materials 
in the WTC Twin Towers Grows, 
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble 

by 
Jim Hoffman 
Version 1.0, April 3, 2009 

Introduction 

The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the 'War on Terror'. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people -- civilians -- in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace. 

By 2003 the United States had occupations of two countries, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principal alternative hypothesis -- controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics -- had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials. 

By early 2009, the residue testing that NIST refused to do had been done by independent researchers, and reported on in a peer-reviewed chemistry journal. Small bi-layered chips, found consistently in dust samples, have layers of red nano-engineered material that is clearly aluminothermic: it has sub-micron-diameter particles of largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics. 

The publication of these results should be astounding to anyone who uncritically accepted the collapse explanations in TV documentaries and never looked seriously at any of the several bodies of evidence for controlled demolition. 

The NIST investigation, having posted its Final Report with its absurd Building 7 joint-breaking-thermal-expansion theory in late 2008 and FAQ by Christmas, closed its doors before the independent researchers published their findings of active aluminothermic materials in WTC dust in a mainstream scientific journal; but not before they publicized findings of aluminothermic residues in the same dust samples; and not before they extracted from NIST a series of public statements, in press conferences and in written responses to requests for correction (RFCs), about the conduct of their inquiry into the cause of the skyscrapers' total destruction. 

As a result, NIST spokespersons are on the record saying they did not test for pyrotechnics, and offering rationales for failing to perform such tests. Those rationale -- or rationalizations -- summarized toward the end of this essay, include the assertion that testing for pyrotechnics "would not necessarily have been conclusive". That is partially true: failing to find pyrotechnic residues wouldn't rule out demolition, since demolition might have been implemented using an untraceable fuel such as hydrogen gas. But finding abundant and distributed pyrotechnic explosive residues would conclusively favor demolition -- particularly given the persuasive deductive arguments showing that the features of the buildings' destruction are incompatable with a purely gravity-driven collapse. 

The following timeline is narrowly focused on the emergence of public evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic pyrotechnics, ranging from incendiaries to high-explosives, in the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7, and on the way official bodies -- particular NIST -- treated that evidence. 

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html 

VIsibility 9/11 Interviews with Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan 


(
Image by Unknown Owner)   Details   DMCA


LISTEN:
Steven Jones mp3

Kevin Ryan mp3 
http://www.911truth.ca/                                                              
Must Read 1   Supported 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Lance Ciepiela Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Lance Ciepiela is a retired senior who had an interesting career in government service - a United States Marine Corps (USMC) Vietnam-Era veteran, who became interested in restoring the Constitution after I realized that W Bush had attacked (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend