Amplifying the Sounds of Loud and Clear

911 EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY - Chemical Engineer Mark Basile



Related Info:

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

A little while back Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted excerpts of a discussion at the TruthMove.com forum about the scientific paper published by Steven Jones and others in April 2009 that reports to have found chips of nano-thermite/super-thermite in dust from the WTC.

He first quotes John Albanese,"Has Jones submitted his paper, along with samples, to independent labs for verification? no - he has not."

He then quotes Victoria Ashley, "Actually they have. Several different researchers have verified the findings."

Then Pat was happy to report that "The Sounds of Silence" were the only sounds around. That is until Ashley responded and he posted this in an update, "Victoria Ashley points to this 'independent' confirmation by a chemical engineer... I can see no direct confirmation of "nanothermite"; just talk about the iron microspheres and the red and grey chips."

You can see no direct confirmation huh? Did you miss this part where Mark Basile describes the materials as having the same physical structure and chemical composition as nano-thermite?:

So we can look at these chips and say "Oh, they're rich in iron, they're rich in carbon, oxygen", whatever there is that's in them, aluminum, silicon, you can see those elements...

...Now in nano-thermite, in these particular chips that we found, basically, what's a little bit different here is, that the way these have been .. Well I can't tell you exactly how these were made, but.. uhm.. If you go to the literature and look at how people are typically making them these days... What they do is they basically take an iron, for instance if we were going to do it with iron or aluminum again.. They would take iron and take a salt of it for instance, like iron nitrate or iron chloride, whatever the case may be, and they would uhm.. with a base basically, convert the iron into like an iron hydroxide or an iron oxide type form, in solution, but then they basically add some materials to make this almost like a gelatin form or a gel... ...but it basically allows you to get this nano-structure and that's the beginning of it.

Maybe you did miss that, but here is something I know you didn't miss...

Remember when Scootle told you this Pat?:

As I said, they blew up skyscrapers with nanotechnology back in 2001. Another fact! You debunkers can deny it all you want but the fact is basic chemistry proves that the red material is thermitic. This stuff ignites when heated to 400-450°C and after ignition we find molten iron. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, this ignition temperature of 400-450°C couldn't possibly melt iron. So the fact that we find molten iron is proof that some kind of chemical reaction has occurred.

And you responded:

Okay, can somebody see the problem here? Scootie claims they found thermitic material that does not get the temperature high enough to melt steel. Therefore, they must have melted the steel with something else! The mind boggles.

Then Scootle responded:

I have no idea what he's on about here. I think he's saying that I'm claiming that the thermite burns at 400-450°C.

What I was actually saying was, 400-450°C is the temperature that TRIGGERS the reaction. Obviously it burns much hotter, that's the point. We find molten iron afterwards, so heat energy must have been released during the reaction. 400-450°C goes in, 1500+°C comes out!

Basile states during his radio interview:

But the other interesting thing about these chips that really kind of shows you that they are the nano-thermite, (Pat must have missed that too) is that when you take these small little chips and you ignite them... If you woulda take one and grind it up beforehand; just the red layer... There is no free iron in it. When I say free iron, like, you know, little beebees of iron metal, that exist in these. You know it's iron oxide, it's not free iron. But when you ignite one, and then you break it up afterwards, you basically find these little droplets, although they're not actually I mean, as a portion of the total volume of the chip they rather significant, but they're still small because these chips are small. But you basically produce molten iron, which then when it cools down again becomes these droplets of iron. As well as the whole the nanostructure that I talked about there, kind of gets destroyed in large part during this combustion process, but some of it at the end is still there and all these inner chambers basically are coated with a very thin metallic layer after it freezes again, so... There is few interesting things that go on in them...

I basically have a setup where I have a stainless steel resistive heating element, that I basically use that's ... oh... what is it... It's about little less than a quarter of an inch across and I basically.. you know... using tweezers and micromanipulators or whatever put the chips basically in the center of the strip, and then by controlling the amount of electricity that flows through the strip, I can heat it up to pretty much any temperature that I want. I don't bring them, you know, anywheres near, you know, the temperatures to do anything harmful to them, but just up enough to basically get them to ignite, and they ignite in the region of... oh... somewhere a little over 400 degrees centigrade typically, and uhm.... When they ignite, you know, I basically have just recorded them burning and then after the fact you can open them up and look inside for these uh.. these iron droplets and films that I spoke of earlier.

One of the interviewers, George Corrette, adds:

Now one of the things that we've heard; these kind of crude critiques of this study is: 'Well all these red and gray chips, well how do you know they're just not paint chips'. What would one expect with Sherman-Williams exterior coat paint if you were to do the exact same thing with this: take those paint chips, put them on this quarter inch resistance heater that you have, and ignite it if you will, heat it up to a point of ignition...

Basile responds:

...If I have a thermite fire and I were to put that rod in there it would melt, be.. you know, if I had sufficient material there to do that, so... it's just the level of energy release, so, yep, there'd be an energy release, but I wouldn't expect say if within that paint chip there was iron oxide as one of the pigments that they put in there, I wouldn't expect to open that paint chip afterwards and find, you know, molten iron has been produced and now there would be iron droplets inside the residue of that chip.

To summarize, the chips have the same physical structure and chemical composition as nanothermite and produced a high temperature chemical reaction and iron-rich spheres which are a by-product of a thermite reaction. Now, Pat would have us ignore the actual findings and just focus on the fact that Basile is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and thus not independent.

First off, in an exchange of emails with Robert Erickson, producer of the September 2009 National Geographic special on 9/11, Steven Jones suggested that he attempt independent confirmation and gave recommendations as to how this could be achieved, Jones states:

I urge you to contact Los Alamos National Laboratory and request at least three "prototype" samples of super-thermite matches.

Ask two independent laboratories to do SEM/EDS and DSC analyses as described in our paper on the super-thermite material contained in these matches. The results would then be compared carefully with those already obtained on red chips found in the WTC dust.

Such analyses are worthy of scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal (unlike placing bags of commercial thermite next to steel columns).

So the idea that Steven Jones has not sought completely independent confirmation is bunk. In turn it is also bunk to claim, as is often the case, that a sample of his material is required to confirm his work.

The only argument that could still emerge in light of these facts is the claim that the chain of custody wasn't clearly established. First off, it was. As Jim Hoffman has explained "each of the samples was collected by a different individual who has described the time, place, and methods of collecting and storing their sample." Victoria Ashley pointed out that "the handling of the samples was done no differently then typical scientific studies, and much research out there on the dust uses the same methods and no police were involved."

Pat Curley counters with an admission:

And in a sense, she's right. Nobody cares where the USGS or the EPA (which she mentions later) got their samples. But there's a crucial difference here. The chain of custody matters precisely because the Troofers are claiming this is evidence that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers. Presumably they would like to use this as evidence in a court of law, which has very strict standards for chain of custody.

But what is Pat trying to say? As Scootle has pointed out, questioning the chain of custody is "effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech nanocomposites." Conspiracy theory anyone?



Back to Basile... Independent is defined as being "free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others." How interesting it is then that Steven Jones made this comment regarding the interview:

This is the first that I have heard of Mark Basile's radio program. Thank you, Snowcrash, for posting this interview.

I congratulate Mark for giving this interview and going on record about his own independent observations.

We have exchanged emails which have proven very helpful. Mark was the first to observe iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition residue of the red-chip material. I need to emphasize that. With that encouragement from Mark, we went back to our own samples and immediately found iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition residue also-- ours were ignited in a DSC. (Mark used a different method of igniting the red material, which he explains in his interview above.) This discovery, of iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition residue, was in fact the last piece of convincing evidence that we needed to assure ourselves that this indeed a thermitic reaction -- for it demonstrated the reduction of iron-oxide to iron AND very high temperatures at the same time, both characteristic of the thermitic reaction.

It certainly doesn't sound like he was taking any marching orders, but rather was doing truly independent analysis.

Pat points out that French researcher Frédéric Henry-Couannier was unable to confirm the findings in the paper, however this is only partially true, as Ashley points out, "He was able to confirm several aspects of the experiments, such as the presence of microspheres and the presence of red/dark gray chips and chemical composition of layers."

Couannier does state that "eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed." This was due to him not being able to ignite the chips in his samples, however he notes a distinct difference:

In my samples the red-red chips replace the red/gray ones reported to be found in other samples...
except for, may be, one exceptional red/gray chip i found and described elsewhere...

So, may be, the red-red chips are just fragments originating from red-grey chips that already reacted at the WTC and for this reason cannot react anymore.

The one red/gray chip he was able to find "could not be recovered for an ignition test."

Pat thinks this distinction is inconsequential, stating,"Although he mostly found red chips instead of red and gray ones, that doesn't matter, because Jones claimed that it was the red portion that showed the thermitic reaction."

Well first off, as was pointed out, it wasn't "mostly red chips instead of red and gray ones," it was all but one, which was so small that he wasn't able to recover it for testing. So it certainly does matter that his chips were different from the ones we know did react? Here are two videos of chip ignitions:



And of course these are just the reactions observed by Jones and company. As a comment on Pat's blog pointed out, "What did Mark Basile find though? Funny, again no mention of that in this piece. It's as if Basile doesn't exist, but Couannier does."

As noted in the nano-thermite paper, "The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive."

Since the material has been separated from this backing it is possible that the reaction has already taken place. The red material still being present does not mean that it any longer contains the correct ratios of elements to be reactive.

Another possibility (which was right in Pat's face) was noted in the intro to the posting of Basile's interview, which pointed out that professor Harrit stated the quality of the red/gray chips deteriorates over time. Either way, Pat is shooting blanks.

Victoria Ashley also believes that Couannier did not have the equipment needed to do the ignition test properly. Pat on other hand believes that heat is heat.

As Jim Hoffman has pointed out, nano-thermite requires "highly specific conditions for detonation." The nano-thermite authors used a Differential Scanning Calorimeter for their ignition tests, Basile used a stainless steel resistive heating element which he passed electricity through, and Couannier used a furnace. It could be that the heat in his furnance was not sufficiently focused to initiate detonation.

All that being said, we come full circle with Pat ignoring that Couannier was able to confirm several aspects of the experiments, hence him also stating that "the Harrit and Jones team convincingly show that the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust show unreacted nano-thermite."

Pat covers his ass in this regard, however, by again playing the "not independent" card because Couannier has pages on his website that question the official 9/11 story. I guess this is why he only confirmed what he could based on the empirical data he gathered then, right?

It must be pointed out that Niels Harrit, who is an expert in nano-chemistry and an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, was the first author of the paper. Critics often act as if Jones wrote the paper alone. As Ashley pointed out, "Niels Harrit is not in Utah and did not start off working with Steve. They have different labs and both found the same things. Harrit walks a reporter through his lab in one of the videos."

Pat of course ignores this tid bit that Ashley points out concerning independent confirmation:

This was an article in Denmark media that is google translated. The journalists tried to find someone to confirm the work and they do confirm that the methods are correct --

Videnskab.dk have tried to check the content of the article from independent scientists working with nanotechnology.Professor of inorganic chemistry Jens Ulstrup Technical University of Denmark (DTU) know like the other sources not nanotermit, but he did skim through the article and felt that assessments are made on the basis of 'very suitable' test by current standards.

Another person in the article doubts the work but admits he does not work with nanotechnology.

She also points out, as did Basile, that official reports from the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the RJ Lee Group "basically confirm the products of nanothermite," most namely, the iron-rich spheres, she adds, "But they were not looking for it themselves. You aren't going to find people at those orgs that want to lose their jobs to expose nano-thermite. As it is, we only have a handful of people who have been willing to put their careers on the line for this."

Most importantly she noted that publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is independent. When she was fielded the argument that the "conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data," she replied, "But you won't see that coming out in a paper anytime soon because they are making false claims. They can critique his method, as anyone can critique any study's methods, but they won't be able to show that it isn't thermitic material. When these claims are published, we can talk about it again."

Furthermore, the work of the official investigators at the National Institute for Standards and Technology has not been peer-reviewed! And they refused to run the proper tests that the USGS study alone should have prompted:

On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them."

"Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

I think the evidence is clear and have demonstrated this thoroughly in a recent blog, which debunks every criticism short of what is in this blog. I also think that much due diligence has been exercised by the authors of the nanothermite paper. I in turn think more could be exercised if they had more material to work with, Basile made this clear in his interview when he stated:

I think there's a lot more things that could actually be learned about the material, uhm.. but one problem is just scarcity of samples.

So uh.. anybody out there who has access to samples and ..uh... you know would like to submit them to be looked at, I'd be more than happy to look at anything anybody could send me, but eh... the number one problem is sample.

The government can surely obtain these samples very easily, perhaps they are the ones that we should be pushing to independently confirm these findings through a blue ribbon-panel of experts.

Related Info:

Amplifying the Sounds of Loud and Clear

Nanothermite Debunking Rebuttal - deRoy

StooBradley
YouTube.com
April 07, 2010

There has been much controversy over the paper, "Active thermitic material discovered in the dust of the WTC", including one video by deRoy Light: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHjISnLlL3I

Here I address his points and try to shed some light on the debate.



Related Info:

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

ScootleRoyale
Skeptic Denialism

Debunkers, man-made global warming advocates and skeptics in general like to call their opponents "deniers". This word has of course been deliberately chosen because of its holocaust connotations. It's interesting though because in many ways it is they who are the deniers. In May of 2009, I coined the term "thermite denier" as an alternative name for 9/11 debunkers. And considering how blatantly obvious it is that high-tech thermite played a role in the destruction of the World Trade Center, and how deeply deluded you would have to be not to see it, I think the name is more than justified.

It has now been exactly a year since the publishing of the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", and over the past year the debunkers have gone through all kinds of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that we are wrong.

The most common debunker response is the claim that the red material is simply primer paint. Such criticism is completely ignorant of simple facts about the material. There are a few basic reasons why the chips are unlikely to be paint. For one thing, they do not contain Zinc in any significant amount. They also do not dissolve in paint solvent and do not soften when heated. When a 1mm x 1mm chip was heated using an oxy-acetylene torch (see first video below), it flashed brightly and ejected a hot particle. Various paint samples were also heated using the torch and they simply turned to ash.

There are also a number of much more conclusive reasons why the material cannot be anything other than a high-tech explosive...

1. The particles are on the nanoscale. The bright particles below are consistently 100 nanometers in size and are seen intermixed with plate-like particles 40 nanometers thick.



2. They're intimately mixed in a sol-gel matrix with organic components.



3. When heated to around 400-450°C, the chips ignite and undergo an energetic chemical reaction.



4. Upon ignition, molten iron spheres form on the surface. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, the trigger temperature of around 400-450°C could not possibly melt the iron. The fact that we see these spheres implies a temperature increase of more than 1000°C during the reaction.



5. The material is potentially more explosive than TNT and RDX.



Below are two videos of chip ignitions ...



Another common criticism relates to the chain of custody of the samples. Debunkers try to cast doubt on Jones' findings by pointing out that his samples weren't professionally handled or hermetically sealed, as they would be in a real forensic investigation. While this is true, it's not as if the government has done any better. We're doing what the government should have done. We shouldn't even have to be doing this. You can criticise Jones' methods all you want but it's still better than anything the government has done.

There were four samples used in the study, one of which was collected minutes after the second tower collapsed, before any cleanup work began. This sample contained red chips and iron microspheres in it just like the others, destroying a tired old debunker claim that the samples could have been contaminated by cleanup work.

Also when one understands just how advanced this thermitic material is, the idea that it could have been added to the samples is ludicrous. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan can't even make this stuff! There are only a handful of military labs in the world that can make nano-aluminium, one of the key ingredients of the material. And because of the way the particles are intimately mixed, the nanothermite could not have been made by simply crushing ordinary thermite into extremely fine particles - a top-down approach. The nanothermite, like all nanotechnology, is manufactured using a bottom-up approach - building it up molecule by molecule in the same way skyscrapers are built up beam by beam. So again, we're talking about a very sophisticated manufacturing process. There's no way this could have been made by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement and added to the samples.

The mental gymnastics that debunkers go through would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. In order to convince themselves that there is no conspiracy surrounding 9/11, they come up with an entirely baseless and even more ludicrous conspiracy theory of their own. They effectively accuse ordinary citizens and scientists of fabricating evidence, even though those citizens and scientists have nothing to gain from doing so and physically couldn't even if they wanted to, yet they find the idea of a corrupt government fabricating evidence ridiculous! I think it's they who need the tin foil hats to be honest!



Another point I have heard raised is the fact that Jones only has four samples - peanuts compared to the total amount of dust produced. Interestingly though, that fact actually supports our side if you think about it. When you consider the enormous amount of dust produced in total, if there was only a small amount of this stuff in the towers, the probability of it appearing in Jones' relatively tiny samples would be equivalent to the probability of taking a small sample of hay from a haystack the size of a city and finding one of the few needles hidden in the giant haystack in that small sample. The fact that we find this thermitic material in not just one of the samples, but in all four, suggests this stuff was everywhere.

Regardless of how it was done or who was responsible, just by looking at the hard scientific facts it is obvious to anyone not living in denial what happened to the twin towers on 9/11. They did not collapse due to damage and fire as we have been led to believe, but were in fact demolished using a high-tech explosive. A common response at this point is to try and cast doubt on the demolition theory by asking questions like 'How exactly was this thermite used?', 'How did they get it in the buildings without being seen?', 'How did they stop it from going off when the planes hit?' and 'If the buildings were demolished, where were the bright flashes and loud bangs?'. These are all very good questions that we all would like to know the answer to. But the fact that we don't know exactly how the towers were blown up, doesn't negate the evidence that they were blown up! A criminal investigation will answer those questions. Denying the evidence on the basis of personal incredulity is a logical fallacy, something skeptics are supposed to avoid.

One thing's for sure though, Al-Qaeda didn't blow the towers up!

See also ...

New Video: Evidence

Steven E. Jones in Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009

Niels Harrit - Vortrag über Nanothermit im WTC-Staub

Related Info:

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!

Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

On November 07, 2008 James B. of the Screw Loose Change blog wrote:

Super-duper-uber-magico-nano-therm*te

Since the truthers cannot explain most of their theories, they have to create speculative technologies as some sort of deus ex machina for their stupidity, be it real time large scale voice morphing, Klingon cloaking technologies or Star War Death Beams. Like most science fiction they have at least some basis in reality, but are taken to ridiculous extremes far beyond proven science. The biggest example of this is the variations of thermite, a real substance, that they create and attach any properties that they want to for use in demolishing buildings, even though thermite has never been used to demolish a building. Here is a perfect example, from David Ray Griffin's aforementioned speech, 58 minutes in:

"With regard to planting explosives, a new technology has developed, known as nano-technology and it has completely changed the nature of discussion about explosives. So thermate, thermite is a very common incendiary, than you had sulfur to it, and it is called thermate because the sulfur added to it greatly lowers the temperature at which steel melts.

But if they used ultra-fine-grained particles then it increases the strength of this many many times, super-thermate is, uhh I don't know 10 times more powerful, something like that. Compared to ordinary thermate. (grumbling in crowd)."

It is an incendiary, it is an explosive, it removes tough stains! It can do anything! Call now 1-800-SCAM-SCIENCE to place your order now.

At least two months prior to this 911research.wtc7.net published a page thoroughly documenting the existence of high-tech metal-based explosives. I guess James missed it, plus that's a twoofer site, so why would he believe it. Well I know that James reads this blog, so I wanted to make him aware of a non-twoofer article I found while untangling my way through the internets recently. Granted, it is on Wikipedia, but remember these are the same people that renamed their 9/11 controlled demolition page to a "conspiracy theory" after the publication of the nano-thermite paper. This being said, it could have been written by Steven Jones for all I know, but if the people that so hate our "theories" had an issue with it, they would surely edit it, or remove it all together. Furthermore, it is not in need of any citations, so if you think it's factually wrong James, then by all means try to edit it. Until then, we will accept that it is accurate. The article begins with a super citation:

"Nano-thermite, also called 'super-thermite',[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition."

The article also informs us that:

"Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives."[3]

So it IS an incendiary and an explosive. Well that is just super duper if you ask me.

Now the question is are these "new types of bombs" only "being researched," or were they actually used on 9/11? Well to begin to answer that question let's compare a few excerpts of the article with excerpts from the peer-reviewed nano-thermite paper entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

The Wikipedia excerpts will appear in blue, excerpts from the paper will appear in red.

The products of a thermite reaction, resulting from ignition of the thermitic mixture, are usually metal oxides and elemental metals...

Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale.

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.

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. The red material is most interesting...

It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper.

Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nanometers across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures approximately 40 nanometers thick.

As Jim Hoffman has pointed out:

These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers...

Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Nope, these materials certainly didn't mill themselves, so who did mill them? The Wikipedia article states that:

A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center."

Funny thing about the Naval Surface Warfare Center:

The Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, (a branch of the Naval Sea Systems Command or NAVSEA), described in 1999 as the "national center for energetics"[1], "the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States"[2] and in 2008 as "probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology"[3], alleges via Freedom of Information Act replies that records "regarding research and development of nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) aluminum powders, nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) iron oxide powders or other metal oxide powders and Metastable Intermolecular Composites prior to 2002" do not exist. According to Indian Head, "research may have been conducted by Indian Head Division personnel but not submitted."- Source: http://911blogger.com/node/2052

Nothing suspicious there, I'm sure bin Laden made the materials. And actually, so what if the materials found in the WTC dust have the same physical structure and chemical composition as nano-thermite. BB guns have the same physical structure and chemical composition as real guns, but that doesn't mean that they shoot real bullets!

At the temperatures prevailing during the reaction, the products can be solid, liquid or gaseous, depending on the components of the mixture.[12] Super-thermite electric matches developed by LANL can create simple sparks, hot slag, droplet, or flames as thermal-initiating outputs to ignite other incendiaries or explosives.[1]

After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

"Super-thermite electric matches" have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications include triggering explosives for ... demolition”

It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust.

As the Rock Creek Free Press pointed out in their bombshell article "Scientists Find Explosives in World Trade Center Dust":

The authors avoided describing the material as "explosive" because the flakes studied are too small to assess the bulk properties of the material.

To test the power of this thermitic material, small samples were heated in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, a very sensitive device for detecting the heat generated by a chemical reaction. The samples ignited at about 430ºC and generated as much or more heat than an equal mass of high explosive such as TNT.

So the material could have been the explosive itself, or it could have ignited other explosives. The scientists not being 100% sure about this has been used by the Screw Loose Change blog as a talking point against their findings. Which is beyond ridiculous, because they presented no argument that the material was anything but nano-thermite, but rather a debate about how energetic the material was.

So now the question is not if an explosive method was used, but which one? Well, there is evidence for both. Let's start with nano-thermite igniting other explosives, the Wikipedia article states that:

"Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials."

This is interesting, because as 911research.wtc7.net has pointed out before:

Advantages of thermobarics include:

Avoiding the need to install explosives near the Towers' perimeter columns. The thermobaric devices could have been installed entirely in discretely accessed portions of the Towers' cores. The number of devices could also be much smaller -- perhaps just one per floor.

Thermobarics include an absence of conventional explosive residues, and much higher energy densities than conventional explosives. For example, whereas TNT yields 4.2 MJ/kg, hydrogren produces 120 MJ/kg (not counting the weight of the oxygen it uses to burn). 4 Of the possible fuels that could be used in thermobarics, hydrogen has several unique attributes which could have been used to advantage by the planners.

The flash produced by hydrogen combustion is not visible to the naked eye in daylight conditions. The use of hydrogen-based thermobarics is thus consistent with the absence of colorful fireworks in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

On a weight basis, hydrogen has one of the highest energy densities of any fuel -- several times that of any hydrocarbon. The use of hydrogen would have allowed operatives to install far less material than would be required with other explosives.

The combustion of hydrogen in air produces only water vapor, a residue that is consistent with the vast light-colored clouds produced by the Towers' destruction.

Hydrogen has a very wide explosive range -- from 4 to 75 percent in air. That compares to 2.1 to 10.1 percent for propane and 0.7 to 5 percent for kerosene. 5 Thus it would be relatively easy to design hydrogen-based thermobarics that would function reliably in a variety of conditions.

Hydrogen has a very high vapor pressure compared to other fuels. This would have enabled its rapid dispersal into ambient air by shattering pressure vessels containing it.

The Thermitic Material authors mention that in April 2001 the American Chemical Society held a symposium on the defense applications of nanomaterials in which they stated:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

The authors then go on to point out that:

"The feature of 'impulse management' may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level."

In other words, these materials, in any form that they are used, are perfect for a covert demolition in which one would want to reduce the loud pops and flashes of conventional demolitions. Lacking these attributes makes for a good defense against the obvious!

The Wikipedia article also informs us that:

Nanoparticles can be prepared by spray drying from a solution, or in case of insoluble oxides, spray pyrolysis of solutions of suitable precursors. The composite materials can be prepared by sol-gel techniques or by conventional wet mixing and pressing.

Similar but not identical systems are nano-laminated pyrotechnic compositions, or energetic nanocomposites. In these systems, the fuel and oxidizer is not mixed as small particles, but deposited as alternating thin layers.

The Thermitic Material paper quotes an April 2000 report by Gash et. al. which states the following about the sol-gel process:

"Once dry the (hybrid inorganic/organic energetic composite) material burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous species."

The authors note the following of the red chips in their conclusion:

"The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive."

And again, this is all perfect for a covert demolition:


The bottom line is that nano-thermite is real, it is super-duper, and it was found in the WTC dust.

The one year anniversary of the nano-thermite paper quickly approaches and no peer-reviewed refutation has been offered. But that's OK, just attack the journal the findings were published in, and when that is demonstrated to be nonsense just continue the super-duper meme implying that it doesn't exist, and when that doesn't work, just claim (again) without any basis, that what was found was just paint. As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale said: "I don't know what debunkers paint their houses with but let's just say I don't want any of it near my house."


And when that doesn't work just question the chain of custody. Which Scootle pointed out is "effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites." Conspiracy theory anyone?

When all else fails act ignorant of the facts. When Scootle points out that:

This stuff ignites when heated to 400-450°C and after ignition we find molten iron. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, this ignition temperature of 400-450°C couldn't possibly melt iron. So the fact that we find molten iron is proof that some kind of chemical reaction has occurred.

...Just act like he is claiming that thermite burns at 400-450°C when he was actually pointing out that 400-450°C is the temperature that TRIGGERS the reaction.

Some suggestions: either fix the Wikipedia article or remove your former blog James, and then pass the word along that your side needs to put up or shut up!

Oh, and on the topic of magic:

Are there more seeming opposites than technology and magic? Technology works objectively and is usually efficacious, whereas magic, based on superstition, seems to be ineffective. The former is perceived to be rational and is associated with a scientific outlook; the latter is seen to be irrational and is associated with a religious sensibility. But our expectations for technology have become magical and our use of it is increasingly irrational. Magic in turn has acquired a rational façade and is used like technology for purposes of efficiency. In short, technology and magic, while separate and distinct categories in some abstract sense, are now related to one another in such a way that each has acquired important characteristics of the other. - Source: http://www.apu.edu/cris/pdfs/technology_magic.pdf

Related Info:

Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!

General Richard Myers Asked About Nano-thermite Explosives Found in WTC Dust

Source: c-spanarchives.org 05/14/2009

Thanks to my friend Mark over at WeAreChange Indiana for bringing this to my attention.

At 35:27 Myers is asked by a caller about the new scientific paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."



Notice how the host immediately mentions that "for the past 8 years" they "have been getting calls from people who still believe there was a conspiracy on 9/11." Apparently she didn't listen to what the caller said, who had just informed her that nano-thermite has demolished 9/11 conspiracy theories!

Meyers then immediately says that he doesn't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories because he "saw the plane parts around the Pentagon." As I have often done, I again point to the words of Jim Hoffman of the website 911Research:

The Pentagon Attack:The No-Jetliner Claims

Are they based on rational evaluation of evidence?

Or are they an enormous hoax?

Do they expand the Truth Movement?

Or do they marginalize it by reinforcing the Conspiracy Theorist stereotype?

Meyers then states that "people saw the planes actually crash into World Trade Centers," this was in reference to another marginalizing force in the 9/11 truth movement: the no-planers, or people that believe no planes were used in any of the strikes that day. This small faction of the movement was used to demonize 9/11 truthers earlier this year in an FBI drama on the AE television network.

As Paul Joseph Watson of the website PrisonPlanet.com reported:

The plot of the show, which stars Patrick Swayze, centers around an attempt to infiltrate a group who are suspected of smuggling Rocket Propelled Grenade launchers into Iraq. In one scene, a member of the group talks with an FBI agent who is operating undercover.

'Are you a truther or a sheep?' the man asks the FBI agent.

He continues, '9/11 was a false flag operation man, wake up, a self-inflicted wound to control the masses, you know there was no planes, all of them were holograms and CGI.'

The man then takes a drag on a marijuana spliff and gives the FBI agent a crazed look.

The insertion of the 9/11 truther caveat in the episode serves no purpose except seemingly to convince the viewer that the man is unstable and dangerous. The mention of CGI and holograms, an obsessive tenet of an extreme fringe that attempted to hijack the 9/11 truth movement a few years ago, also serves only to detract more credibility from the subject.

Then in regard to the nano-thermite, and to his credit, Meyers states that "if there's new evidence it should be examined." Now if he would just convince the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who were charged with investigating the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7, to do their job, we might be in business.

In a recent report about the nano-thermite discovery, by national Emmy nominee and regional Emmy-award-winning investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe, she stated that upon informing an official with NIST about the paper he replied, “Oh, we have just received a copy of this ourselves and don’t want to comment.”

Sharing my sentiments she concluded her report by stating:

If the United States under President Barack Obama is trying for a new, more honest transparency in government, shouldn’t the nanothermitic research presented by Professors Harrit, Jones and others be at least discussed and commented upon by our taxpayer-funded U. S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology?

As of this date, I still have no other response from NIST beyond their Q & A papers that say NIST did not test for the residue of thermitic compounds in the WTC steel and that "NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely."

In regard to another topic brought up by the caller: war game exercises on 9/11, Meyers stated that "there was an air defence exercise going on at the time, but it was very small scale," in reality there were several different war games, and other exercises, taking place on 9/11 that closely mimicked many of the days events. Meyers was well aware that more than one exercise was taking place on 9/11, as he has admitted this in the past himself when questioned about the subject by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2006. Meyers suggested now, as he did then, that the exercises actually enhanced their response, however, this is contradicted by much evidence, as detailed by the following clip from the documentary film Loose Change Final Cut.



Update:

Regarding this section of the film, Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog is obviously not able to refute any of the stronger points raised, as he only focuses in on one small piece of supporting evidence, he argues:

They show an Air Force officer saying that "We battled many phantoms that day," but they don't mention that he was not talking about the bogus "insertions" that the CT nuts talk about. He was referring to phantom Flight 11, which the government thought for awhile had not hit the World Trade Center and instead was flying south to Washington, as well as Delta 1989 and other planes which were feared as possible hijacking targets.

While I agree that Pat is right about what Meyers was referring to, he is not right about the false radar blips being bogus. This is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt in the article "'Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim': How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks" on 911blogger.com, which notes that:

...In the middle of it all, at 9:30 a.m. that morning a member of staff on the NEADS operations floor complained about simulated material that was appearing on the NEADS radar screens. He said: "You know what, let's get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let's get rid of that crap." Four minutes later, Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond gave an instruction to the NEADS surveillance technicians, "All surveillance, turn off your sim switches." (A "sim switch" presumably allows a technician to either display or turn off any simulated material on their radar screen.)

Furthermore, there is circumstantial evidence that Delta 1989 was part of a live-fly hijacking exercise on 9/11.