See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 911 and Thermite, The official Conspiracy Theory?
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505uzsWbC30
Published: May 9, 2011
Author: 108morris108
Post Date: 2012-11-23 15:54:13 by GreyLmist
Keywords: 9/11, Andrew Johnson, Steven Jones, Thermites Theory
Views: 1901
Comments: 67
From the Description Section: Thermite does not turn steel to dust. Thermite does create a lot of flames. Each tower weighed 500,000 tons, no-one has seen anything like the quantity of flames that thermite would have created. Many more anomalies too. Burned out vehicles alongside unburnt paper (a lot of it) left intact. [sic] Thermite is simply Aluminium and Iron Oxide, two substances which were in great quantity in the Towers. Poster Comment: Jones' Thermite Theory evidently not published as peer reviewed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-27) not displayed.
.
.
.
#28. To: FormerLurker, *9-11* (#21)
(Edited)
From Nano-thermite - Wiki You're hopping up and down saying that it HAD to be a "directed energy beam" that caused the collapses, while ignoring the fact that the DOD has been looking into nano-thermite since the 90's for use in EXPLOSIVES. I haven't been hopping up and down and you are misreading the situation. I'm of the opinion that Directed Energy Weaponry of some sort was probably used in demolishing the Towers and also caused the vehicle damages -- not necessarily from America's arsenal; perhaps from a foreign arsenal or that of some hostile force(s) warring against us, not likely Muslim/Arab nationalists or "Al Qaeda" but most probably are Zio-fanatic and Communistic, Globalist-idealogues, as the evidence widely indicates. Although it's very obvious that conventional controlled demolition cannot account for the WTC devastations on 9/11, I have said that they probably were used as backup and cover for unconventional demolition methods. Also, I haven't ruled out nukes of some sort yet; do suspect it was some combination of conventional and unconventional means -- otherwise, as I see it, the only other alternative is Media-staged Fakery. Your group staying stuck on thermitics that surely don't account for dustification and toasted cars is unrealistic, imo. So what if the DoD has been looking into nano-thermite since the 90's for use in explosives? It's their job to look into explosive things but that doesn't mean thermite is highly explosive or a superhigh-explosive in nano form because it isn't. My guess is that they've been looking into it as an incendiary for underwater explosives because it can still burn there. Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit! - Veterans Today Edited for grammar. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Thanks for that input, Artisan. Hopefully, it will help others to start seeing through his schtick. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Collapse of the Thermite Thesis (with Addendum) And the same can be said of Jones’ thermite myth. Thermite is also a diversion, stalling and playing out the clock for the perps. Thermite is used in welding. It does not turn a building to powder in mid air. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Never did like that guy. I suspect he's one of them. which guy? Jones, or Jones? "Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
I meant Prof. Steven Jones.
Both. LOL _______________________________________________________________________________ The US government has declared civil war on itself. Its lust for war grew so great... Liberty before death. We run , we live, We fight again, till we win. We did not start this fight. We damn sure did not willingly pay our taxes to buy the bullets and drones that shall be used to kill us. We will correct the violations of this rogue nation....our rogue nation. We will fix this because nobody else can. You will work to help me help us all to fix this failure. After you're done educating yourself,Take Action!!!
Again, name me even ONE hypothetical directed energy weapon capable of bringing down the WTC towers. Don't tell me you can't tell me since it's classified, since you dismiss nano-thermite explosives just because the actual design info for such explosives isn't public knowledge. Keep posting half-truths. It's already clear that the military AND national laboratories have been developing nano-thermite explosives for quite some time prior to 9/11. AND, nano-thermite WAS found in the WTC debris. How'd it get there, elves perhaps? As far as turning a building to "powder", ANY controlled demolition would have done that if a top down series of explosions were coordinated with the actual collapse. Keep posting half-truths. It's already clear that the military AND national laboratories have been developing nano-thermite explosives for quite some time prior to 9/11. AND, nano-thermite WAS found in the WTC debris. How'd it get there, elves perhaps? As far as turning a building to "powder", ANY controlled demolition would have done that if a top down series of explosions were coordinated with the actual collapse. There's a photo of Ground Zero workers sitting in front of a beam that had been cut off with a cutting charge, probably in a clay or porcelain mold. The perfect slag melt with no splatters is proof that the vertical beam wasn't cut (after the collapse) with a wrecker's torch or lance. No, nano thermite is all the proof needed to swing the guilty from the gallows. We shouldn't confuse it with fairie dust after the fact.
And the same can be said of Jones’ thermite myth. Thermite is also a diversion, stalling and playing out the clock for the perps. Thermite is used in welding. It does not turn a building to powder in mid air. There's a great video where a guy fills a flower pot with thermite, sets it on a car engine and lights it. 10 or 15 seconds later the pot emerges from the bottom of the engine that it burned through. I've used thermite once, to weld a ground wire in an airport computer room to bond all of the elevated flooring metal to Earth. (elevated computer rooms allow for easy rewiring of equipment-and whoever spec'ed that thermite welded ground was naive, mechanical ground lugs are much better) It's not used too often for welding in any other construction field I'm aware of.
That's why there are those here who are actively dismissing the actual evidence, and are trying to confuse people with regular thermite rather than mentioning nano-thermite. I remember that. IIRC, it was cut about a 45 degree angle, no? NEVER heard of that. Sounds like it. I think the only welding use of thermite I've ever heard of is field welding railroad rails. Could be wrong about that. Why didn't the flower pot turn to dust? ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You: Again, name me even ONE hypothetical directed energy weapon capable of bringing down the WTC towers. Don't tell me you can't tell me since it's classified, since you dismiss nano-thermite explosives just because the actual design info for such explosives isn't public knowledge. No, you dismiss Directed Energy Weapons, even though some are public knowledge. I haven't dismissed nano-thermite because of some secret design. It doesn't account for the observed evidence. Since you've wildly claimed at Post #36 that ANY controlled demolition would have turned a building to powder if a top down series of explosions were coordinated with the actual collapse, thermite in whatever form wasn't even needed (except by Jones to detour investigations and have his comedic chain of "evidence" laughed out of a court at some point like a bad joke on his congregation). It wasn't even effective as a dramatic 9/11 light-show. In the Directed Energy discussion, you want to talk about thermite. In a thermite topic, you want to talk about Directed Energy weapons. This is the Directed Energy discussion where I've posted some material for consideration there: Edited for formatting. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Nanomanagement: The Disintegration of a Non-Profit Corporation (SC) By Michael Armenia Paperback, 246 Pages The collapse of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the world’s foremost 9/11 truth group, as witnessed from its inner sanctum. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
That's why there are those here who are actively dismissing the actual evidence, and are trying to confuse people with regular thermite rather than mentioning nano-thermite. Correctamundo my friend.
I remember that. IIRC, it was cut about a 45 degree angle, no? Yes! and the slag was formed in a perfect outside bead with no splash over, (ceramic mold) and it would have been impossible (and entirely too dangerous, even with a crane sling spotting the beam to protect the worker from sudden death) to cut that box beam from the inside with a torch or a lance.
NEVER heard of that. Yes indeed my friend, it's called exothermic welding.
Why didn't the flower pot turn to dust? What emerged from the bottom was a sizzling bit of Hellfire like burning solid rocket fuel, and it was not possible to see what if anything remained of the flower pot.
So, no nanotherimte, in your opinion. Please explain the following physical evidence at the scene: Perfectly cut 45 degree massive steal beams. Iron Oxide evidence on the perfect cuts. Steal burning red hot in the rubble for several weeks after 911. " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
This guy says you don't need evidence, you just need observation.....sheesh, where did he get his science degree? Say what you like about Jones, but his THEORY is based on evidence at the site: For example: If this guy is to be taken seriously, he needs an ALTERNATE THEORY explaining the evidence presented, not his opinion and observations that IGNORE the central evidence presented in the initial theory. Jones doesn't insist that others accept his THEORY, after all it is merely a THEORY based on the evidence found........but if you want to call bullshit on the THEORY, then offer an acceptable alternative for the evidence presented, such as how does the "energy beam" create molten steal and leave the same chemical compounds as nano termite? How does the "energy beam" theory create the holes in the steal? How does the energy beam create sulfidation? What physical evidence is presented to merit the "energy beam" THEORY...is there a serious scientific theory presented regarding energy beams? Also, does one theory actually discount the other? Is it possible that two theories have merit? Science has many theories that are compatible........ " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
Esso: I remember that. IIRC, it was cut about a 45 degree angle, no? HOUNDDAWG: Yes! and the slag was formed in a perfect outside bead with no splash over, (ceramic mold) and it would have been impossible (and entirely too dangerous, even with a crane sling spotting the beam to protect the worker from sudden death) to cut that box beam from the inside with a torch or a lance. Can you post a pic, HOUNDDAWG, or is it in the references below?: Pic link: socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/911_shape_charge_evidence1. jpg Some things to consider: 1. The pic in question could be a staged photo op. 2. Cutter charges and even thermite in some form might have been used in the clean up. If so, that might give false readings in test samples taken later to investigate controlled demolition. However, neither Jones' group nor Architects and Engineers have moved to establish test-confirmation of explosives like C4 and PETN to prove controlled demolition. Why not? 3. The angle cut may be telling us more than whatever it looks like at first glance. The structural-strength point being, afaik, that when the sections of steel are removed to make an angled cut like that, the steel still doesn't fall over -- even though it has been so damaged -- until it is torched across from behind on the intact side. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Probably not. Perfectly cut 45 degree massive steal beams. Thermite/thermate wouldn't be necessary for that and seems a poor choice to me for precision cutting. Rust? I'm not convinced of that at this point. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
What evidence at the site? His interpretations of photos? Judy Wood has an entire book of that. Jones' supposed "chain of dust and soil evidence" appeared years after 9/11 -- after he wrote his 2006 paper. It is highly suspect and should be declared inadmissable in a court of law. Yes, it is possible that more than one theory has merit but his doesn't, imo. Even he has claimed that thermite/thermate may have been used simply as an incendiary-ignition for more powerful explosives and not to demolish the buildings but even that much about the matter is speculative on his part. Without even referencing Judy Wood, there are news reports and photos of the WTC destruction that indicates much more was involved than thermitics and that's not hypothetical, according to what's been shown. It is actually Jones, Architects and Engineers, et al, who have been arguing an alternate and unscientifically based theory. Reference the discussions at this linked site, where it's critiqued as "pyrotechnic pixie dust". In summary, what Jones and other "authority figures" called "evidence" -- unreacted thermitics -- disproves that it brought down the buildings at all and should be viewed with more skepticism as disinfo than it has been: Comment: "What does that statement really mean? 'Unreacted'… is that kinda like finding a few unfired bullets around a dead body and then claiming that proves [someone] was shot? That is why the law states that finding residual traces of EXPLODED conventional explosives proves demolition… finding unreacted thermite doesn’t PROVE thermite brought the towers down. In fact all it really proves is the 'hundreds and hundreds of tons' of this stuff that Harrit ALSO mentioned in that last video… DID NOT bring down the towers… because it didn’t go off." Another reference for consideration: This is Google's cache of http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx? transcriptid=674. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Nov 22, 2012 20:37:13 GMT: U.S. Department of Defense Cohen's keynote address at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy at the Georgia Center, Mahler Auditorium, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. The event is part of the Sam Nunn Policy Forum being hosted by the University of Georgia. Secretary Cohen is joined by Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Richard G. Lugar. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, Edited to correct first link path and for punctuation. Bracketed inserts by me in the excerpts from that link. Edit to note the online book source where the defense.gov info was first read by me: Finding the Truth.pdf - CheckTheEvidence.com; by Andrew Johnson, the speaker in the opening video of this thread. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
No Thermite on 9/11?! | Explosives Do NOT Explain the Evidence! ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Did you even watch your video? He doesn't dispute that nanothermite was found, he disputes the use. He spends most of the video attacking the publishing and in that last few seconds claims he "doesn't deal with the content of the paper"....publishing claims do not discount CONTENT. Even the title of this video is dishonest: begging the question is a common propaganda technique used when the real questions are avoided.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
What these pseudoscientists overlook (or deliberately omit) is the fact that the US military, along with National Laboratories, such as Los Alamos, have been investigating the use of nanothermite as an explosive since at least the 90's, as far as what is publically known. I would bet they had functional nanothermite explosives available prior to 9/11/2001. Yes, I watched the video. If you review the one of Jones at Post #26, I think you might agree that there is no credible evidence of nanothermite. What Jones and the eight other listed co-authors did was chip in about $88.88 a piece for a publication to decieve people about their alleged "findings". The Playlist that I posted (at #26 too) has more commentary on the subject, which I'll post here next. The video I posted at #54 is a re-titled mirror of one that was removed by YouTube and the actual title is: "The Thermite Conspiracy"; which is why those words appear first at the opening of the video. I included a copy of the video in that Playlist with the correct title for it and probably should have posted that one instead but I don't think the title of the one that I posted is a dishonest propaganda technique. Both parts of the title are essentially accurate, imo. On the 2nd section: conventional explosives don't explain the evidence at the WTC -- not even with the thermite-additive hypothesis. I think the first part of the title that asks the question, "No Thermite on 9/11?!", refers to the evasive response by co-author, James Gourley (at the 9:30 mark -- in reply to an imquiry about the concentration level of thermite/thermate), where he says in the first sentence: "we don't know whether nanothermite was used to bring the towers down." He then speculates that it might have been used to keep the fires going long enough to make the fire-induced collapse theory plausible -- and supporting that implausibility was probably the main objective of Jones and the other co-authors. Gourley further speculates that it might have been used in conjunction with high explosives (although they oddly didn't test for demolition-grade explosives), then states that nanothermite matches exist and that he believes they can be used to detonate high explosives. "We really just have no idea how it was used," he says, then concludes with: "The salient point is: it shouldn't be in the WTC dust at all." The real point is: there's no reason to believe it was in the WTC dust, based on the unreliable so-called "evidence samples" that they claim to have used. Even if we suppose that what Jones claims was "molten metal" pouring out of the window(s) at WTC 2 could possibly have been stage-propped thermitics used for "spectacular special effects", it wouldn't prove that it was also used to demolish the Towers if it turned up in a dust or soil sample -- but they didn't even use any valid test-samplings. On your earlier comment about molten iron spheres, arc gougers are called "welding erasers" because they can vaporize metal into tiny spherical shapes too. Edited for clarity and readability. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
A retitled mirroring of a video that was censored by YouTube: No Thermite on 9-11! Explosives Do NOT Explain the Evidence! [Ref. Post #54] A correctly titled mirror-copy of the video that was removed by YouTube: The Thermite Conspiracy (mirror) Additional videos on the subjects from the Playlist posted at #26: The thermite conspiracy - flagged My previous video, "The thermite conspiracy" was removed by youtube about 2 hours after it had been posted. No explanation was offered by youtube as to why this video was removed. All the material I used in the video was readily available on the internet. I can only speculate as to why the video was flagged. [Continues at the site. Alternate link provided for the removed video: http://www.mediafire.com/? sharekey=4d77967b07dff9acab1eab3e9fa335ca2b143a4d899a752c] The termite conspiracy - Part 2 ["termite" not a misspelling. Ref. 3:25-4:43] It appears that there some people who still do not understand what is being said by the authors of the paper. The authors assert that a thermitic material was used in the controlled demolition of the towers. In support of this claim they rely on, what they say is, unreacted thermite material found in the debris. They offer no explanation as to how or why "un-reacted" thermite material would be in the rubble. Nor do they make any assessment of the quantity of thermite material used in the demolition. As I hope is clear from this video, given the proportions in the one sample that they did weigh, the amount of un-reacted thermite is massive. Assuming that a proportion of the thermite material did ignite/explode then the total amount of thermite material in the towers prior to their collapse increases yet again - by what factor? The authors also fail to explain how the thermite was used. Their argument is simply this - we found thermite; it should not have been there - you explain it. [Continues at the site.] ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Of course the pea brain will not deal with the content of the paper, his job is to discredit it, the content can't be discredited or it already would have been. It was military grade nano-thermite that was used to cut the beams at critical points in the structure and explosives used to turn the concrete to dust for the Hollywood effect they work looking for. Oh, and if you don't think it was possible in 2001 for a thermite technology to turn concrete to dust, think again! God is always good!
That's a very easy answer since not all the thermite would have reacted. Not all reactions are 100% effective and since explosives were going off all around it at the same time some of it also was put into the particle clouds. God is always good!
They certainly did for concrete, at least Taku Murakami from Japan did since he created it. In July 1996 he got this patent for the destruction of concrete using thermite and a plasma arc. God is always good!
Actually, those are plans for a thermite enhanced cutting torch. If you look over the Wiki link I had posted, it stated that the military has been looking at nano-thermite in terms of explosives for use in new generation bombs. The article mentioned the early 90's as the time period. He's not a pea brain and did deal with the content in both videos of his correspondence with the co-author, Gourley. He tried in the first video to address the concentration level of said thermitics and went into much detail about that in the second. He also offered to openly debate the paper on YouTube and provided other sources which question the contents. They discredited their own paper with the spurious samples they strangely acquired half a decade after 9/11. My view is that their objective was not to establish proof of a controlled demolition anyway but to suggest a supplemental agent to prop up the nonsensical "jet fuel fire collapse theory". Evidence in support of my view is the absence of test-evidence from them for controlled demolition materials like C4 and PETN. Besides that and the intentional misleading of their fan-club, you should be able to see from the second video that the purpose of their paper-entree was very likely also to fish for money to continue their scam-"investigation". Why the Military would even want to use it as a detonator when it's said to be difficult to ignite and control, I don't know -- other than as an underwater ignition. A plasma arc as a Directed Energy source in conjunction with electrification of concrete surfaces, eh? Interesting, but since it speaks of dust reduction by melting concrete into molten concrete, it doesn't quite fit the dustification evidence at the WTC. Edited for grammar. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
That's a very easy answer since not all the thermite would have reacted. Not all reactions are 100% effective and since explosives were going off all around it at the same time some of it also was put into the particle clouds. If they don't even want to be questioned on that, it says quite a bit about why they submitted their paper to a non-peer reviewed vanity-publisher and have no plans to submit it to other sources that would give it a more strenuous inspection. To highlight an even more complex question (below that one) in the Description Section of "The termite conspiracy - Part 2" video at Post #58: Edited for parentheses. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The article mentioned the early 90's as the time period. The Military has been looking into Directed Energy weapons too for much longer, so what's your disproportionate point there? Like I said at Post #28, studies of explosive weaponry is their job. Looking at nano-thermite "in terms of explosives" for use in new generation bombs doesn't exactly mean looking at it in terms of "as an explosive". Could mean for use like a match as a fuse-lighting component, especially underwater, and nothing more. I looked again at your Nano-thermite Wiki link at Post #21 and it speaks of dangerous ulta-violet (UV) light levels requiring special eye protection like a Welder's mask. It also speaks of the particle size approaching the atomic scale. That raises the question of what level of radiation might be emitted from the energy releases. That site also links to: Thermobaric weapon, which can have a suffocating effect to some extent and includes things like rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank weapons and a "fuel-air bomb". A "fuel-air bomb" is what the n-bombings over WWII Japan were thought to be by some number of the survivors. As we know, the WTC evidence isn't indicative of a fuel-air bombing, despite the numerous spinnings to characterize it like that. Edited for spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Ref. 0:11 seconds mark of the video at Post #54: Frank M. Legge listed 5th of 9 co-authors (including Steven E. Jones, Niels H. Harrit and Kevin R. Ryan) on the dubious Thermite paper. Ref. mp3 posted Sat, 5 February 2011 of Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable -- Legge promoting the official 9/11 spin about the Pentagon; discusses the paper doing so that he co-authored with Warren Stutt. Ref. pilotsfor911truth.org Sep 26 2009: New Legge Paper Continues Dishonest Attack On Pilots For 9/11 Truth, ... Ref. pilotsfor911truth.org Jan 11 2011: Legge's "addendum" Fallacies, Frank's at it again.. Ref. pilotsfor911truth.org Jan 25 2011: A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt "Paper" and "Rebuttal" Ref. beforeitsnews.com Tuesday, July 17, 2012: More absurd arguments on the Pentagon: ‘propaganda team’ sets its sights on Griffin ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Professor Steven Jones reveals the source of his "molten metal" evidence that he claims is proof that thermite was used to bring down the WTC. Was doing some 9/11 research on the thermitics theory so reviewed that dodgy "chain of evidence" talk again by professor Jones. The answer to his question about "the bad guys" might be: unless it's intel agent and super spy James Bond. Have to wonder if maybe he didn't just import those tons of alleged WTC fireworks from the 007 series of books and movies because thermite is a plot device from the last century in at least 4 of them by my findings, after observing other data collections in that direction: Goldfinger (1959) ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
BTW, did you even know that nanothermite is used in EXPLOSIVES?
A Nano-thermite or "super-thermite"[1] is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 Nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
just to be safe, perhaps – 9/11 nanothermite advocates also maintain the fall-back position that, even if nanothermite by itself is not a high explosive, when combined with an organic substance (also asserted to not be itself a high explosive), a high-explosive is created. To that T. Mark Hightower responds: “There is only one sure way to make nanothermite a high explosive. If you combine enough high explosives with nanothermite, you can get a mixture that is a high explosive. But the same can be said for my breakfast cereal.”
#29. To: Artisan (#27)
I remember scoffing @ "the anonymous lady with the bucket of wtc scrap" years ago when i saw Jones speak at alex jones 2006 conference. Scientifically thats a deal breaker & not credible at all re: the chain of evidence.
#30. To: RickyJ (#24)
He loses his job at BYU
Shortly after he learned that Dr. Wood lost her job and became unemployed, Jones announced he had been “forced out” of his job and diverted attention onto his claims of persecution, playing the victim card again. It became known that Jones had moved to a new residence, then a few months later retired and was promoted to Professor Emeritus, the highest level of achievement for a professor. Someone fired from his job is not promoted. Jones did not go without an income. So, if Jones was not fired but promoted, why has he played the martyr? The timing and focus strongly suggest it was a useful diversion. But no matter the motive, the conclusion is that Jones is dishonest.
#31. To: GreyLmist, Artisan (#29)
Hopefully, it will help others to start seeing through his (Jones') schtick.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#32. To: wudidiz (#31)
Never did like that guy. I suspect he's one of them.
#33. To: Artisan (#32)
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#34. To: Artisan (#32)
which guy? Jones, or Jones?
#35. To: GreyLmist (#28)
So what if the DoD has been looking into nano-thermite since the 90's for use in explosives?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#36. To: GreyLmist (#30)
Thermite is used in welding. It does not turn a building to powder in mid air.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#37. To: FormerLurker, GreyLmist (#36)
Thermite is used in welding. It does not turn a building to powder in mid air.
#38. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker, RickyJ (#30)
Shortly after he learned that Dr. Wood lost her job and became unemployed, Jones announced he had been “forced out” of his job and diverted attention onto his claims of persecution, playing the victim card again. It became known that Jones had moved to a new residence, then a few months later retired and was promoted to Professor Emeritus, the highest level of achievement for a professor. Someone fired from his job is not promoted. Jones did not go without an income. So, if Jones was not fired but promoted, why has he played the martyr? The timing and focus strongly suggest it was a useful diversion. But no matter the motive, the conclusion is that Jones is dishonest.
#39. To: HOUNDDAWG (#37)
No, nano thermite is all the proof needed to swing the guilty from the gallows.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#40. To: HOUNDDAWG (#37)
There's a photo of Ground Zero workers sitting in front of a beam that had been cut off with a cutting charge...
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#41. To: HOUNDDAWG (#38)
I've used thermite once, to weld a ground wire...
...whoever spec'ed that thermite welded ground was naive...
[Thermite]'s not used too often for welding in any other construction field I'm aware of.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#42. To: HOUNDDAWG (#38)
There's a great video where a guy fills a flower pot with thermite, sets it on a car engine and lights it. 10 or 15 seconds later the pot emerges from the bottom of the engine that it burned through.
#43. To: FormerLurker, *9-11* (#35)
(Edited)
Me: So what if the DoD has been looking into nano- thermite since the 90's for use in explosives?
4um Title: 911 What Happened - Not How It Happened - Dr Judy Wood - Post #76
#44. To: All, *9-11* (#30)
Collapse of the Thermite Thesis (with Addendum)
#45. To: FormerLurker (#39)
No, nano thermite is all the proof needed to swing the guilty from the gallows.
#46. To: Esso (#40)
photo of Ground Zero workers sitting in front of a beam that had been cut off with a cutting charge...
#47. To: Esso (#41)
I've used thermite once, to weld a ground wire...
#48. To: GreyLmist (#42)
There's a great video where a guy fills a flower pot with thermite, sets it on a car engine and lights it. 10 or 15 seconds later the pot emerges from the bottom of the engine that it burned through.
#49. To: GreyLmist (#0)
#50. To: GreyLmist (#0)
(Edited)
Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained. Molten iron is the byproduct of Thermite. It contains the chemical signature of thermate. 
hysics professor Steven Jones finds, in this previously molten sample from the WTC, the chemical traces of Thermate — including Fluorine, Manganese, Sulphur, Potassium, etc. 
The FEMA report notes: "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation." NIST dropped this like a hot potato. These are all tell tell signs of the use of thermate (sulphur + thermite) incendiary cutter charges." 
Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence?
#51. To: HOUNDDAWG, Esso, *9-11* (#46)
HOUNDDAWG: photo of Ground Zero workers sitting in front of a beam that had been cut off with a cutting charge...
#52. To: abraxas (#49)
So, no nanotherimte, in your opinion.
Please explain the following physical evidence at the scene:
Iron Oxide evidence on the perfect cuts.
Steal burning red hot in the rubble for several weeks after 911.
#53. To: abraxas, *9-11* (#50)
(Edited)
Say what you like about Jones, but his THEORY is based on evidence at the site
Niels Harrit [a co-author with Jones]: “You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite.”
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript
Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
April 28, 1997 8:45 AM EDT
Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
#54. To: All, *9-11* (#53)
#55. To: GreyLmist (#54)
#56. To: abraxas, GreyLmist (#55)
He doesn't dispute that nanothermite was found, he disputes the use.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#57. To: abraxas (#55)
(Edited)
Did you even watch your video? He doesn't dispute that nanothermite was found, he disputes the use. He spends most of the video attacking the publishing and in that last few seconds claims he "doesn't deal with the content of the paper"....publishing claims do not discount CONTENT. Even the title of this video is dishonest: begging the question is a common propaganda technique used when the real questions are avoided.
#58. To: All, *9-11* (#54)
Uploaded by dprjones on Apr 20, 2010
Uploaded by dprjones on May 2, 2010
#59. To: GreyLmist (#54)
(Edited)
#60. To: GreyLmist (#58)
They offer no explanation as to how or why "un-reacted" thermite material would be in the rubble.
#61. To: FormerLurker (#56)
(Edited)
I would bet they had functional nanothermite explosives available prior to 9/11/2001.
#62. To: RickyJ (#61)
www.google.com/patents?id...oom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#63. To: RickyJ (#59)
(Edited)
Of course the pea brain will not deal with the content of the paper, his job is to discredit it, the content can't be discredited or it already would have been.
It was military grade nano-thermite that was used to cut the beams at critical points in the structure and explosives used to turn the concrete to dust for the Hollywood effect they work looking for.
Oh, and if you don't think it was possible in 2001 for a thermite technology to turn concrete to dust, think again!
#64. To: RickyJ (#60)
(Edited)
They offer no explanation as to how or why "un- reacted" thermite material would be in the rubble.
As I hope is clear from this video, given the proportions in the one sample that they did weigh, the amount of un-reacted thermite is massive. Assuming that a proportion of the thermite material did ignite/explode then the total amount of thermite material in the towers prior to their collapse increases yet again - by what factor?
#65. To: FormerLurker (#62)
(Edited)
If you look over the Wiki link I had posted, it stated that the military has been looking at nano-thermite in terms of explosives for use in new generation bombs.
#66. To: All, *9-11* (#54)
The group I described in my recent post, ‘Propaganda team’ uses contrived Pentagon fight to derail 9/11 Truth movement (Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Frank Legge, Jonathan Cole, Jim Hoffman, John Bursill, and others) can’t stand the fact that David Ray Griffin continues to stand fast in his position that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon.
#67. To: All (#26)
9 11: The Molten Metal "Evidence" - YouTube
Transcription from that 3 minute video at 2:23, "and then as I studied about thermite arson" ... "as we analyzed this, I get into this question of thermite arson. It turns out that arsonists -- is the bad guys, right? -- start fires using thermite."
For Your Eyes Only (1960)
The Spy Who Loved Me (1962)
Quantum of Solace: The Complete James Bond Short Stories
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
