Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastr

[ClingingMars]

yeah, bill clinton. preach it.

[Galileo]

New Scientific Study: Smoking Gun Evidence of 9/11 Explosives in WTC Dust

by Josh Mitteldorf

www.opednews.com

A new article in the Open Chemical Physics Journal details chemical evidence from the 9/11 dust of thermite cutting charges.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that the Government's account of 9/11 is flawed has always been the way in which the Twin Towers fell. They fell straight down, not to the side.

Therre was the sound of explosions in the basement reported by firefighters. And most crucially: the speed of the fall was so rapid that there could not have been any resistance.

In other words, the "legs" of the building must have been pulled out from underneath long before the weight of the falling top part came crashing down upon them. In fact, the buildings fell in "free-fall" time, the same time it would have taken a baseball dropped from the top of the buildings to hit the ground.

Physicists and engineers point out thata building cannot fall straight down 'by accident'. The way the buildings fell was characteristic of controlled demolition, in which carefully-timed cutter charges sever the supporting members at just the right times to make the building fall inward and not topple to the side. The science of controlled demolition involves some very critical timing, and even small mistakes can lead to the building falling over sideways instead of straight down.

Direct evidence in the past for controlled demolition has included photos of neatly-severed beams in the demolition clean-up. The beams did not appear to be twisted or melted, but rather cut in neat, diagonal straight lines.

Neatly-severed beams at WTC demolition site

Also compelling is the fact that a third WTC tower, known as Building 7, came down in the same fashion, falling straight down in free-fall time, landing in its own footprint. Building 7 came down late in the afternoon, hours after the Twin Towers, and Building 7 was never hit by an airplane. Building 7 was nowhere mentioned in the official report of the 9/11 Commission, and there are (besides controlled demolition) there are no 'official' theories how it fell so suddenly and symmetrically.

In this context, the new journal article provides corroboratory evidence that dust collected locally the afternoon of 9/11 and the following day contains microscopic traces of thermite.

Thermite is a very hot-burning mixture of finely-powdered aluminum and finally powdered iron oxide. As hot as an oxy-acetylene torch, it is used to melt iron beams and cut through them. Fires burning paper, building materials, or even jet fuel do not burn nearly hot enough to melt steel. The authors note that the particles were milled to an extremely fine dust and intermingled so that they burn much hotter and more rapidly even than conventional thermite.

Josh Mitteldorf, a senior editor at OpEdNews, was educated to be an astrophysicist, and has branched out from there to mathematical modeling in a variety of areas. He has taught mathematics, statistics, and physics at several universities.

Comments:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/New...90404-371.html

[Galileo]

Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.

The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports.

At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to understand the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings of a demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' -- an enormous source of recent American spending -- was started.

Officials with the National Ins ute of Standards and Technology (NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings' destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another incendiary compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the buildings without notice.

NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the building failures.

Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST has refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any other accelerant or explosive.

"We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative procedure, to perform these tests and release the results. They haven't."

Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes.

Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he thinks NIST is wrong.

"What we've discovered is not conventional thermite -- which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly engineered thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed for just this type of application."

Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for the many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building failures, such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the extreme pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of micron-sized dust particles, described in one insurance report as behaving similar to a "volcanic eruption".

"One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said, "was the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1, 2 & 7."

NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse."

Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University and known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature, Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005.

Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident survivor of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted to the magnet.

"That was very odd to me," he said.

Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust.

But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material would take longer.

Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for over 30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such as Nano Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry A.

Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the September 11th attack. and says has two answers.

"First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer them, 'I was on your side'."

Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he hopes the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed by the mainstream public and media."

And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements in 2004, and was consequently fired.

"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been shown," says Jones.

"We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available to just anyone."

In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics.

In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.

For information: http://www.stj911.com or
Contact: [email protected]

Phone: 510-769-5109

# # #

http://stj911.org/press_releases/Act...cMaterial.html

[ChumpDumper]

there are no 'official' theories how it fell so suddenly and symmetrically.

See, here's where so called "truthers" cut themselves off at the knees by flat-out lying. Of course there is an official theory about how WTC7 fell.

If you guys stopped lying, you might have some credibility, but then again you wouldn't have anything to post.

[MiamiHeat]

See, here's where so called "truthers" cut themselves off at the knees by flat-out lying. Of course there is an official theory about how WTC7 fell.

If you guys stopped lying, you might have some credibility, but then again you wouldn't have anything to post.

Do you believe the US government has ever, or is capable of, doing something like this to accomplish US policy?

Just answer the question. Do you believe it's possible for governments to allow situations to happen so that they can pass policies they want to pass?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you believe the US government has ever, or is capable of, doing something like this to accomplish US policy?

Just answer the question. Do you believe it's possible for governments to allow situations to happen so that they can pass policies they want to pass?

In a very general sense ("governments" -- "like this" -- "capable of"), sure.

There is zero evidence this is the case for 9/11.

[Cry Havoc]

Do you believe the US government has ever, or is capable of, doing something like this to accomplish US policy?

Just answer the question. Do you believe it's possible for governments to allow situations to happen so that they can pass policies they want to pass?

Of course it's possible. It's possible that Taro Aso could be playing poker tomorrow with Kim-Jong Il. Stating something is possible does not validate your argument what-so-ever, at all, in any way.

[MiamiHeat]

It has been done before here in the USA and it has been done countless times around the world.

I for one, am NOT a 9/11 'inside job' guy. I personally believe Osama Bin Laden DID attack.

but here is the twist. Bush knew about it before hand and LET IT HAPPEN.

That's what I believe. Same thing FDR did in WW2 with Pearl harbor. Provoke the enemy, let the enemy attack us, then claim self-defense and instill all your policies that the country will happily accept.

Osama Bin Laden DID attack us, but Bush govt allowed it to happen so they could do what they wanted. The signs are all there. That's what really happened, imo.

Here is a nice bit of information for you :

1) During the morning of September 11, 2001, the US was running military exercises simulating a terrorist attack using planes. Operation VIGILANT GUARDIAN was an exercise run by NORAD and the military during the week of Sept. 11, 2001. We have numerous accounts and records that while the REAL planes were hijacked, military personnel in NORAD thought "This is just part of the exercise?" and didn't believe it was a real hijacking. This is the perfect way to create confusion to ensure success for Osama Bin Laden

Most of our air defense was performing this exercise and didn't believe the hijackers were real until it was too late.


2) The 1990 "Internal Look" exercise simulated Iraq's invasion of Kuwait at the exact moment that Iraq invaded Kuwait ( Cheney was Secretary of Defense).

3) OPERATION NORTHWOODS - was a false-flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.

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

4) In WW2, President FDR allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor to have an excuse to get into the war and save Europe. We have mountains of evidence of this. Internal memo's, the President of Peru warning us, the fact that FDR intentionally sent all of our old WW1 ships over to Pearl Harbor and saved all of our new ships, the fact that he ordered Admiral Richardson to berth in Hawaii which caused Admiral Richardson to TWICE disobey him because he knew the fleet had no protection, the fact that FDR was given an 8 point 'situational analysis' which detailed 8 situations that would force Japan into war -which FDR EXECUTED ALL 8 TO PROVOKE THE JAPANESE, etc...



This is not new. What the "Inside Job" people are doing is getting it confused. Osama Bin Laden DID attack us. What happened was Bush and his bas regime let it happen so they could invade Iraq and pass their policies.

1) Bush went 'on vacation' during the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

2) Bush was given a memo "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack the United States using hijacked airplanes" A FEW DAYS BEFORE SEPT. 11 !!!

3) On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush was reading books to children. After the first plane hit, one of Bush's men whispered into the President's ear "Sir, America is under attack"

What did Bush do? He sat there for another 7 minutes. Why do you think he did this? Easy. To allow the rest of the planes to hit.

If I come to you, and I say "Your house is under attack" while you are working at your job, do you sit there quietly? Nope, you will get up and yell "WHAT?!?!?"

But here we have PRESIDENT Bush. We could be in a nuclear war for all he knows. It could have been a nuclear attack, anything. and he just sits there.

Isn't it obvious?

[MiamiHeat]

Inside job people got it wrong.

It wasn't an inside job. It was Osama Bin Laden that attacked us.

The conspiracy part is that Bush and his cronies knew about it and allowed it to happen so they could invade Iraq and pass their policies.

Weapons of Mass destruction, lol.


This is an old strategy for world leaders, it's not new.

[ChumpDumper]

There is no evidence for that either. Bush and company were willfully ignorant of the terrorist threat, not hoping AQ would launch 9/11 attacks so they could up the occupation of Iraq.

[MiamiHeat]

did you read my post?

I just gave you a few situations where the US government has done this or tried to do this before.


and I gave you the signs that Bush knew what was going on and let it happen.

I didn't even mention other things Bush did, like ignore Richard Clarke counter-terrorism expert, who kept pleading with Bush about the imminent danger.


It's quite obvious what happened. It's been done by world leaders for centuries. Provoke the enemy, let them attack, then claim self-defense and go to war and instill your policies.

[ChumpDumper]

did you read my post?

I just gave you a few situations where the US government has done this or tried to do this before.


and I gave you the signs that Bush knew what was going on and let it happen.

Yeah, Northwoods is a great example since we went to war with Cuba.

There was testimony that the military exercises actually enhanced the military's ability to respond to the attacks. Guess you never heard of that.


As for Bush's sitting there -- a few minutes wasn't going to make any difference. Due to the communication difficulties between civilian and military aviation authorities and the general confusion of the day, even when planes were sent up (that were always available and not part of any exercise) they didn't know where to go.

[MiamiHeat]

ChumpDumper

Your dismissals are non-satisfactory. Not the least bit convincing. Looks more like absolute denial and refusal to admit the possibility, on your part.


Such ridiculous examples like this :

MiamiHeat : The US govt has done or tried to do some of X things before

ChumpDumper : Yeah that example sux since we never went to war with cuba!


Laugh out loud.

[ChumpDumper]

Here is the testimony I mentioned above, an exchange between Congressman Tim Roemer and Air Force General and NORAD commander Ralph E. Eberhart:


MR. ROEMER: General Eberhart, a question about our training posture on the day of 9/11. On page five of our Staff Statement, the FAA says at 8:38 in the morning, "Hi, Boston Center, TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York and we need you guys to -- we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there. Help us out." NEADS says, "Is this real world or an exercise?"

My question is, you were postured for an exercise against the former Soviet Union. Did that help or hurt? Did that help in terms of were more people prepared? Did you have more people ready? Were more fighters fueled with more fuel? Or did this hurt in terms of people thinking, "No, there's no possibility that this is real world; we're engaged in an exercise," and delay things? Or did it have both impacts?

GEN. EBERHART: Sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews -- they have to be airborne in 15 minutes. And that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.

The situation that you're referring to, I think, at most cost us 30 seconds -- 30 seconds.

MR. ROEMER: That's what we have recorded. I just wondered if there was more of that down the line.

GEN. EBERHART: No, it became painfully clear, Commissioner, that this was not an exercise.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/a...2004-06-17.htm

[ChumpDumper]

Your dismissals are non-satisfactory. Not the least bit convincing. Looks more like absolute denial and refusal to admit the possibility, on your part.

I admitted the possibility above, so quit beating up that straw man. I even entertained the possibility in the past.

The more I learned about 9/11 though, the less probable that theory turned out to be.

Sorry, I've seen your argument before -- I dug up the above quote from a post of mine in another 9/11 thread. It's really easy to dismiss this theory given the actual facts.

[MiamiHeat]

At one time on 9/11, as many as 22 aircraft appeared to be hijacked. Suddenly, the virtue, now verging on necessity, of switching off the transponders becomes evident. With loss of transponder signals the planes became bogies, and discriminating real from simulated hijackings became next to impossible.

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

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...?currentPage=2

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

In order to find a hijacked airliner—or any airplane—military controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the neads controllers were at a loss.

"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack."

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


But of course, having all of this confusion HELPED them! Sureeee. I mean, it can all be one huge coincidence, but look at all the other signs. Look at what Bush and company did after the fact. Look at the whole picture.


One thing we can agree on is that the US did not actually do the dirty work.

IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, isn't this what you would do? Have the military plan these exercises on the same days of the attacks?

[MiamiHeat]

now, look at what Bush and company had to gain.

Cheney was CEO and Chairman of the Board at Haliburton until Bush tapped him on the shoulder to run with him in 2000. Guess who got really rich and stood to profit from a war with Iraq? Guess which company got many no-bid contracts?

Guess who had a history of wanting a war with Iraq?

[ChumpDumper]

At one time on 9/11, as many as 22 aircraft appeared to be hijacked. Suddenly, the virtue, now verging on necessity, of switching off the transponders becomes evident. With loss of transponder signals the planes became bogies, and discriminating real from simulated hijackings became next to impossible.

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

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...?currentPage=2

From the same article:

08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

08:37:56
WATSON: What?
DOOLEY: Whoa!
WATSON: What was that?
ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.

So the confusion of the tests is resolved with a simple question and answer -- an exchange that takes a few seconds.

In order to find a hijacked airliner—or any airplane—military controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the neads controllers were at a loss.

"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack."

What does that have to do with Bush's letting it happen? Nothing at all.

But of course, having all of this confusion HELPED them! Sureeee. I mean, it can all be one huge coincidence, but look at all the other signs. Look at what Bush and company did after the fact. Look at the whole picture.

IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, isn't this what you would do? Have the military plan these exercises on the same days of the attacks?

Too bad the exercises that morning had nothing to do with the planes that actually respond to east coast hijackings. Again, i've looked into this and can quote my own response from an earlier thread:

And NEADS, which responds to hijackings in that area, was not running an exercise since the hijackings occurred before their participation was to begin. Oops, why couldn't those pesky hired suicide hijackers have taken a later flight and screw up all the plans? What was their hurry to kill themselves?

So, IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, wouldn't you make sure the actual fighters charged with intercepting hijacked planes in the US northeast wouldn't be available to, you know, intercept the hijacked planes?

[ChumpDumper]

now, look at what Bush and company had to gain.

Cheney was CEO and Chairman of the Board at Haliburton until Bush tapped him on the shoulder to run with him in 2000. Guess who got really rich and stood to profit from a war with Iraq? Guess which company got many no-bid contracts?

Guess who had a history of wanting a war with Iraq?

So a vice-president allowed an attack from Afghanistan to start a war with Iraq so he could build showers that electrocute US soldiers.

[MiamiHeat]

1) On the morning of the attack, a large-scale military training exercise called Global Guardian was "in full swing." Global Guardian is an annual exercise involving Stratcom (the US Strategic Command), the US Space Command, and NORAD. 5

There is evidence that the date of the 2001 Global Guardian exercise was changed to correspond with the the terrorist attack. NBC News military analyst William Arkin, in his book Code Names, gives the date of the exercise as October 22-31, 2001. 6 Also, a military newspaper, the Space Observer, reported in an article dated 3/23/01 that the exercise was scheduled for October of that year.

Stratcon directed the exercise, which included all the US strategic forces, from Offutt Air Force Base.

2) The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) "provides our nation its eyes and ears in space." It operates a system of reconnaissance satellites to provide real-time monitoring of objects in the skies. On 9/11/01 the NRO headquarters in Chantilly, VA, were evacuated as part of a "plane into building" drill. The scenario involved a small corporate jet crashing into one of the campus' four towers

3) Conducted from September 9-11, this exercise redeployed jets that normally patrolled the northeast sector to northern Canada and Alaska. It echoed a Russian exercise scheduled from September 10-14 in which long-range bombers were dispatched to their northern territory.

Only 8 fighters were left to patrol the skies in that area due to the exercise.

[MiamiHeat]

I understand it's hard to believe anyone would allow Bin Laden to attack us, but Bush and Cheney are just the men to do it.

FDR did it in WW2, we planned to do it but never actually did it in 1962, etc.

[ChumpDumper]

Again:

And NEADS, which responds to hijackings in that area, was not running an exercise since the hijackings occurred before their participation was to begin. Oops, why couldn't those pesky hired suicide hijackers have taken a later flight and screw up all the plans? What was their hurry to kill themselves?

So, IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, wouldn't you make sure the actual fighters charged with intercepting hijacked planes in the US northeast wouldn't be available to, you know, intercept the hijacked planes?

[ChumpDumper]

I understand it's hard to believe anyone would allow Bin Laden to attack us, but Bush and Cheney are just the men to do it.

I understand many people want to believe they let it happen or made it happen, but that doesn't make it true.

[MiamiHeat]

Again:



So, IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, wouldn't you make sure the actual fighters charged with intercepting hijacked planes in the US northeast wouldn't be available to, you know, intercept the hijacked planes?

You aren't reading my posts.

I responded to this already

3) Conducted from September 9-11, this exercise redeployed jets that normally patrolled the northeast sector to northern Canada and Alaska. It echoed a Russian exercise scheduled from September 10-14 in which long-range bombers were dispatched to their northern territory.

Only 8 fighters were left to patrol the skies in that area due to the exercise.

[MiamiHeat]

Here is more lying and coverup :

“ WE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS”
Acting air defense commander General Richard Myers later said: "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."

But they had.

Just 11 months before - between October 24 and 26, 2000 - NORAD had trained “for a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon".

On 911 - as Flight 77 took off from Dulles International - the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office operating all U.S. spy satellites was about to conduct an emergency drill in which a simulated plane from Dulles International dives into their building.