This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
by T. Mark Hightower
Commentary by Jeff Prager
Mr. Hightower sent me this report several months ago and I didn’t have the time to post it then but I also felt few people would be interested and that may still be the case. While this report does not proceed to explain what did cause the destruction on 911 it does make a rather solid and inarguable claim regarding what was not used. Explosive Nano-Thermite or Thermate, Super-Thermite or Super-Thermate were not part of the equation when this is examined carefully using publicly available and footnoted data from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, one of the the single most renowned reference for nano-energetic and nano-explosive materials. Along with additional credible sources this becomes all too clear. The ramifications are extraordinary because the 911 truth movement including people on the margin, after having explored across the internet, have all been led to believe something that might not be true. While Mr. Steven Jones responded to Mr. Hightower very briefly as noted herein this suggests to me that this is in relationship to Mr. Hightowers extraordinary credentials. He didn’t respond to me and neither did Mr. Richard Gage. I have no credentials. His responses to Mr. Hightower were unscientific at best. Jones, et al., present evidence of non-explosive thermite that could not have been a component of the event for numerous reasons.
ing. I believe the data is accurate. Who better then to represent elite interests than Jones and Gage? Jones’ interests also extend to archaeometry, solar energy, and, like many professors at BYU, archaeology and the Book of Mormon. For example, he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith’s belief that Jesus Christ visited America. In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he then referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in a Scientific American article, but is today known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion with the cold fusion concept of Pons and Fleischman. Muon-catalyzed fusion was a field of some interest in the 1980s, but its low energy output appears to be unavoidable (due to alpha-muon sticking losses). Jones led a research team that in 1986 achieved 150 fusions per muon (average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of fusion energy per muon, a record which still stands. 911 occurred after 13 more years of research. If I were going to hide a nuclear component to a False Flag event and wanted people to focus on a seemingly credible issue that was still scientifically impossible to prove, in other words a “Limited Hangout,” Thermite, Jones has the background to fit the mold for that spokesperson and it only makes sense to me that the one or two people the media did give air time to are Jones and Gage. I see them as mainstream. So I don’t think they can be trusted to tell the truth. Proof Of Fission In New York City On 911 http://www.datafilehost.com/ download-9b5cf5e6.html
Steven E. Jones • My Version
Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University. These are valid reasons for refusing to discuss or respond to the factual evidence provided in the physics and chemistry analysis of the USGS Electron Microscopy dust samples taken from 35 locations across lower Manhattan just after 911 and analyzed for traces of radioactivity and fission paths.1 If the data is accurate then Steven Jones and Richard Gage are ly-
No Thermite On 911?
by T. Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering
from Jeff Prager and No Copyrights Productions presented by
A Cooperative Research Agency Of The Department Of No More War
• Anti-Genocide Unit •
American National Institute Of War-Making Crimes & Financial Offenses (ANIOWMCAFO) and the United States ‘Who Did It?’ Civilian Peace Authority (USWDICPA)
The Sound Track for this book is available with any organic food donation to: StopChildrenWhat’sThatSound Music™ with the coupon on the following page. The sound track includes Buffalo Springfield and their 60s hit, “For What It’s Worth,” Thunderclap Newman with “Something In The Air” and Humble Pie singing “30 Days In The Hole”.
I don’t believe in Copyrights. I’m an Anarchist and I oppose all governments and their institutions not completely and wholly managed by and for the people. This eMagazine is not copyrighted and may be published, copied, dispersed, posted, pasted and used to paper bird cages. Most people won’t read it anyway.
Published by “Don’t Make Changes To The Text If You Repost This
Some People May Find The Revelations From The Information In This Book Intolerable - I Hope So!
All images © No One At All
First, a message from our sponsors:
T. Mark Hightower
Began his awakening in January 2004 after having stumbled upon the Serendipity web site and learning that the explosive demolition theory for WTC destruction was a more probable explanation than was the official story. http://www.serendipity.li/ He has worked as an engineer for nearly 30 years, initially in the chemical industry, then in the space program, and currently in the environmental field. He is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). His research on 9/11 is an exercise of his Constitutional rights as a private citizen and in no way represents his employer or the professional societies of which he is a member.
Has Nano Thermite Been Oversold To The 9/11 Truth Community?
by T. Mark Hightower B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering “It’s not what we don’t know that hurts us, it’s what we know that ain’t so.” – Will Rogers Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are heavily promoting the theory that “explosive nanothermite” was used to bring down the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001, and that microscopic chips of a fused compound containing unignited nanothermite were found in the World Trade Center dust. This discovery is now considered a “smoking gun” by most members of the 9/11 Truth community, even though a good many serious researchers and 9/11 activists remain unconvinced. Let’s take a look at what is supposed to be the current best evidence in the controlled-demolition theory of the World Trade Center’s tallest buildings. Steven Jones, a physicist who joined the 9/11 Truth movement from Brigham Young University during 2005, introduced the theory that thermite/thermate played a role in the destruction of the towers; and in 2007, he refined this theory to propose that nanothermite or “superthermite” – a finely granulated form of thermite – was in fact the substance used, and its high reactivity served to pulverize the steel, concrete and many additional tons of skyscraper material, including the buildings’ contents.
tories paper on thermite, which can be downloaded from the Reference 2 link at the bottom of: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermitetech.html This paper explains what nano-composites are, focusing on thermite mixtures and how they are produced. It also includes some experimental results. As Hightower observed to Gage, however: “This paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 feet per second) can be produced by the nanothermites as described and presented. On page 10, it states, ‘One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.’” What Hightower was asking Gage was: “How can a substance be an explosive and not be able to do pressure/volume work on an object – that is, move an object?” Gage responded: “The nanothermite was set in a bed of organic silica, which I believe the authors suggest may provide the explosive pressure/volume work. In addition, I believe that the authors are quite open to the possibility that other more high-energy explosives may have been used.” Without further characterization, the “bed of organic silica” is not a sufficient explanation, so the possibility is raised that “other more high-energy explosives may have been used.” Surely thermite or nanothermite would become explosive if combined with bona fide explosives. Hightower decided to take an even closer look at the claims advanced on behalf of nanothermite, and has spent several months researching everything he could find in the open literature. Again and again, he found that thermite, even in its nano form, unless combined with high explosives or another high-explosive mechanism, cannot be a high explosive. So if nanothermite is to be the “smoking gun” of 9/11, it would have had to have been combined with some form of high-power explosives or other high-explosive mechanism to do the job of bringing the buildings down.
The red and blue arrows point to extraordinary and separate upward, massive explosive forces as they grow that could not have occurred without an element to create
that explosive force. In an effort to confirm the claims being made about thermite and nanothermite, T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer from both the space program and chemical industry, decided to investigate its use as an explosive. In addition to doing his own study, he has repeatedly written to leading 9/11 researchers who champion the use of nanothermite as the principal (if not exclusive) mechanism for bringing about the destruction of the Twin Towers, probing them on the explosive capabilities of nanothermite.
The replies he has received suggest that this is an issue they are unwilling to examine fully and openly. Hightower wrote directly to Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, citing a frequently-referenced March 2005 Lawrence Livermore National Labora-
What was it combined with? By itself, nanothermite cannot have been the sole agent of demolition – it was only another “helper.” By itself, therefore, nanothermite cannot be “explosive evidence,” as AE911 Truth maintains. There are reasons to believe that the 9/11 movement’s nanothermite experts are actually aware of this problem. For example, during a recent interview (“9/11: Explosive Testimony Exclusive” http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=0lU-vu2JvZY), Niels Harrit explains that nanothermite is built from the atom scale up, which allows for the option of adding other chemicals to make it explosive. He states that the role played by the red-gray chips found in the dust is unknown. But he is convinced, based on observation of the towers’ destruction and the molten metal present, that both explosives and incendiaries were used. It’s just that he and his fellow researchers have not been able to prove that the nanothermitic material they found in the dust has the explosive properties he believes were necessary to accomplish the destruction. Harrit suggests the use of “a modern military material which is unknown to the general public” as an explanation for the missing pieces to the 9/11 nanothermite puzzle. He urges a new investigation, whereby NIST will test WTC dust samples for remaining explosives and thermitic material. But he also seems to be saying that he and his fellow 9/11 researchers do not consider it worthwhile to pursue further analysis beyond their current findings.
math – including the cleanup, which was overseen by the federal and city governments. Those who believe (1) may in fact be satisfied with the lack of conclusive evidence of explosives that the discovery of nanothermite presents. Those who agree with (2) are most likely to be unsatisfied by the current state of affairs, and may indeed argue, “We still have no real ‘hard evidence’ proving that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.” We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate to any discerning viewer that the Twin Towers did not come down by gravitational collapse. However, apart from that, we are still where we started – pursuing different inquiries into how and why the buildings fell the way they did. “Explosive nanothermite” is no firmer a theory than conventional explosives demolition, nuclear demolition, or directed free-energy technology; in fact, it is somewhat misleading and – for that reason alone – probably not the best horse for us to be betting on.
How Indeed Can Nano Thermite Be Explosive The Nano Thermite Challenge Introduction
This is a structural steel building exploding rapidly upwards and outwards not a building falling down. By the architects own admission it was designed to withstand large, commercial passenger, fuel loaded planes. This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite. Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to “explosive nanothermite”.
9/11 truthers may agree that (1) if unignited nanothermite was in the WTC dust after the event, it proves a demolition plan of some kind; or (2) if unignited nanothermite was found in the dust after the event, it only proves that nanothermite played some role either on 9/11 or in its after-
Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It’s not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It’s the explosive that makes it explosive.” Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.
egory of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter- charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member. Later in the paper Jones says: “‘Superthermites’ use tiny particles of aluminum known as ‘nanoaluminum’ (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says: “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or officematerial fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. ‘Superthermites’ are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says: “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape” [http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson. html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000)”] I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive.
Examples Of Jones Confusing Thermite And Nano Thermite With Explosives
Here is a two-paragraph quote from Mr. Steven Jones’ first paper. “Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.” “I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2) Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the cat-
“It’s not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It’s the explosive that makes it explosive.” Steven Jones has shown no evidence of explosive elements. Why?
September 11th, 2001 New York City, NY This Was A Sad Day For People All Over The World. It produced a group of events that decimated a country. The phrase “bombed back to the stone age” as it applies to Iraq is an understatement considering the DU. gift that keeps on giving. What Happened? Demand To Know The Truth!
In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. “The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN.” No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn’t apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive.
some reaction rate data for nanothermite composed of nano-particles of Fe2O3 and aluminum. (6) In Figure 2 in the paper the combustion velocity is plotted versus percent SiO2 content. The highest values were obtained at zero percent SiO2, so those are the only values I am going to cite. The nanothermite produced by a sol gel process had the highest velocity of 40.5 m/s, compared to the one produced by a simple mixing of the nano-particles with a combustion velocity of 8.8 m/s. (6) Compare the above combustion velocities of nanothermite with the detonation velocities of high explosives HMX and RDX of 9,100 m/s and 8,750 m/s, respectively, and they are dwarfed by the velocities of the conventional high explosives. Steven Jones appears to be calling the nanothermite reaction explosive only in the sense that it is reacting much faster than regular thermite, but not in the sense that it is anywhere near as explosive as a conventional high explosive. By failing to make this distinction Jones has misled nearly the entire 911 truth movement into believing that nanothermite is a super explosive, possibly even more powerful than conventional high explosives. From the above, it is quite clear that the “nano” in nanothermite does not make the thermite explosive anywhere near the degree of a high explosive like RDX. In addition to saying that nano-izing thermite makes it explosive, I have heard Jones say that adding organics to nanothermite also makes it explosive. This issue is explored in the next section.
Comparing Nano Thermite Reaction Velocities To Explosive Velocities
The explanation given for claiming that nanothermite is an explosive goes something like this. The thermite reaction is Fe2O3 + 2 Al ---> 2 Fe + Al2O3. By making the particle sizes of the reactants smaller, down to the nanosize (approximately 30 nm to 60 nm) and mixing them well, the reaction takes place so fast that it becomes explosive. Let’s look at some data from technical papers where the reaction velocity of nanothermites were measured and compare these values with the reaction velocities of explosives to see if it seems reasonable to call nanothermite an explosive. A paper by Spitzer et al. published in the Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids in 2010 presents a variety of research on energetic nano-materials. (5) In one section they deal with nano-thermites made with tungsten trioxide (WO3) and aluminum nanoparticles. They experimented with different particle sizes, but they highlight the mixture made with the smallest nano-particles of both WO3 and Al for its impressive performance. “WO3/Al nano-thermites, which contain only nanoparticles have an impressive reactivity. The fireball generated by the deflagration is so hot that a slamming due to overpressure is heard. The combustion rate can reach 7.3 m/s. This value is extremely high compared to classical energetic materials.” (5) A paper by Clapsaddle et al. published by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2005 also contains
Can Anything Be Done To Make A Nano Thermite Explosive?
First I would like to quote an entire two paragraph section, with its title, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories paper on the next page. (6)
“Gas generating Al-FeO-SiO-R (R = –(CH)(CF)CF) nanocomposites. ” “One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume-work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.” “Typically, work can be done by a rapidly produced gas that is released during the energetic reaction. Towards this end, the silica phase of sol-gel prepared oxidizers, in addition to modifying the burning velocities, has also been used to incorporate organic functionality that will decompose and generate gas upon ignition of the energetic composite [3-4,7]. Phenomenological burn observations of these materials indicate that the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant amounts of gas. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the ignition of an energetic nanocomposite oxidizer mixed with 2 μm aluminum metal without (left) and with (middle) organic functionalization. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite without organic functionalization exhibits rapid ignition and emission of light and heat. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite with organic functionalization also exhibits these characteristics, but it also exhibits hot particle ejection due to the production of gas upon ignition. This reaction is very exothermic and results in the production of very high temperatures, intense light, and pressure from the generation of the gaseous byproducts resulting from the decomposition of the organic moieties.” “These materials were also mixed with nanometer aluminum. Figure 5 (right) shows a still image of the ignition of the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2R nanocomposite mixed with 40 nm aluminum. This composite is much more reactive than the same oxidizing phase mixed with 2 μm aluminum metal; the burning of the composite with 40 nm aluminum occurs much too quickly to be able to observe the hot particle ejection.” “This observation is a good example of the importance mixing and the size scale of the reactants can have on the physical properties of the final energetic composite material. When the degree of mixing is on the nanoscale, the material is observed to react much more quickly, presumably due to the increase in mass transport rates of the reactants, as discussed above.” (6)
Note that in the title of the section quoted above, the symbol R is used to represent the organic functionality added to the nanothermite. In this case it is a 10 carbon atom straight chain functional group fully saturated, with hydrogen atoms on the first two carbon atoms of the chain and fluorine atoms on all the rest. I have not explored the precise energy level of this functional group, but I can tell by just looking at it that it will consume energy (from the thermite reaction) in order to break it down into multiple smaller molecules in order to get the expanding gases necessary to make it behave as explained. This is not an efficient way to make an explosive. I wouldn’t expect the explosiveness to be anywhere near that of a conventional high explosive, and the qualitative description given in the paper certainly does not seem to support it being a true explosive, but unfortunately the paper does not give data on what its reaction rate would be. Wouldn’t it be better if the organic added to the nanothermite was a molecule that, instead of consuming energy to drive its decomposition, actually produces energy as it decomposes? Such a molecule could be the RDX molecule. This leads to the quoted two-paragraph section below from the Spitzer et al. paper. (5) “3. Gas generating nano-thermites” “Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties. The idea developed at ISL is to solidify explosives in porous inorganic matrixes described previously. Gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) are prepared by mixing Cr2O3/RDX and MnO2/RDX materials with aluminium nanoparticles. The combustion mechanisms of these nano-thermites were investigated by DSC and high-speed video. In the case of Cr2O3-based GGNT, the decomposition of RDX induces the expansion and the fragmentation of the oxide matrix. The resulting Cr2O3 nano-particles, which are preheated by the combustion of the explosive, react violently with aluminium nano-particles. In the case of MnO2-based GGNT, the mechanism of combustion is somewhat different because the decomposition of RDX induces the melting of oxide particles. The droplets of molten MnO2 react with aluminium nano-particles.”
“The non-confined combustion of GGNT is rather slow (1-11 cm/s) in comparison with other nanothermites presented here. However, in a confined environment their combustion rate is expected to be significantly higher. Indeed, the thermal decomposition of GGNT produces gaseous species, which contribute to increase the pressure and the combustion rate in accordance with the Vieille’s law. The thermal decomposition of miscellaneous GGNT compositions was studied in a closed vessel equipped with a pressure gauge. The GGNT were fired with a laser beam through a quartz window. The pressure signal was recorded along time for each material (Fig. 7). The pressure released by the combustion of a GGNT is directly linked to the RDX content of the nanocomposite used to elaborate it. Depending on its formulation, a GGNT can provide a pressure ranging from a few bars to nearly three thousand bars.” (5) I am surprised by the low number given for the reaction velocity, only 1-11 cm/s. Also, it does not say what percent RDX resulted in this low velocity. Maybe it was a very low content of RDX. But the main point I want to make about the above quoted section does not depend on this velocity anyway. The key point is that you have to blend explosives (like RDX) into nanothermite to make it an explosive (“give them blasting properties”).
term. If they think that incendiary thermite or incendiary nanothermite or low explosive nanothermite or high explosive nanothermite were used in cutter-charges, or some combination, then they should say so. The lack of or degree of explosiveness claimed, whether incendiary, low explosive, or high explosive, is key, because the type of cutter-charge used would depend on this. Once they clarify what they mean by their use of the term “nanothermite”, then they should start describing the quantities of thermite that would have been necessary for the destruction. Only by adding these details to their theory can it be fairly evaluated against alternative theories of the destruction of the buildings of the World Trade Center for the benefit of the wider 9/11 truth community.
The Nano Thermite Challenge
Find and document peer reviewed scientific research that demonstrates that a gas generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas generating chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000. For example, if a detonation velocity of 5500 m/s can be documented, then the donation amount will be $550. Only one prize will be awarded in the form of a donation to AE911Truth, and it will be awarded based upon the highest detonation velocity that can be documented. Those submitting entries grant the author the right to publish their entries. Entries must be in the form of a brief (no longer than one page) write-up, with the peer reviewed research cited, and at least scanned copies (electronic pdf files) of the cover page(s) and pages relied upon of the technical papers, if
Understanding How They Blew Up The Twin Towers Was Never So Easy!
Get Your Copy FREE With The Purchase Of “ Nano Thermite Made In The Kitchen” Advertised On The Following Page!
Nano Thermite Of Course!
What Nano Thermite Advocates Need To Do To Clarify Their Theory
Steven E. Jones and other nanothermite theory advocates should be upfront and truthful about these issues, and clearly elaborate upon the factors missing from their theory that need further fleshing out. It is not good enough to just say “explosive nanothermite” over and over again without explaining exactly what is meant by the
not a submittal of the entire paper(s). Entries should be sent by email to DetonationVelocity@ att.net by June 20, 2011. The award will be announced and paid by July 20, 2011.
(1) Fictitious Book Cover, “Explosives in the WTC for Dummies,” on previous page. (2) Jones, Steven E., “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” Journal of 911 Studies, Volume 3, September 2006 (3) Jones, Steven E., “Answers to Objections and Questions,” Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, 18 July 2006 <http://www.scribd.com/ doc/126315/Answers-to-911Objections-and-QuestionsProf-Stephen-E-Jones-Pres> (4) LLNL Web page cited by Jones – “Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives,” http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (5) Denis Spitzer, Marc Comet, Christian Baras, Vincent Pichot, Nelly Piazzon, “Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances,” Institut franco-allemand de recherches de Saint-Louis (ISL), UMR ISL/CNRS 3208, 5, rue du General Cassagnou, 68301 Saint-Louis, France, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 71 (2010) 100– 108 (6) B. J. Clapsaddle, L. Zhao, D. Prentice, M. L. Pantoya, A. E. Gash, J. H. Satcher Jr., K. J. Shea, R. L. Simpson, “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,” March 25, 2005, Presented at 36th Annual Conference of ICT, Karlsruhe, Germany, June 28, 2005 through July 1, 2005 UCRL-PROC-210871, LLNL This paper is free to download at http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_ id=0&page=0&osti_id=862389 *Note - This challenge is now concluded but the original post was previewed on line by 310 people and downloaded by 82 of them when I originally posted it on May 17th, 2011 to Box.Net. It was available to read full screen online or download. at: [http://www.box.net/ shared/1s3ehv1ob5]. * End Of T. Mark Hightower Report
enormous structural steel beams weighing 10s of tons or more were ejected 100s of feet into buildings a block and more away.
what performed the work, as a chemist or engineer, or nuclear physicist, or mathematician would ask? what force provided for the estimated 50-60 mile per hour ejection speed of 100s of tons of structural steel beams?
Many months ago I emailed Steven Jones, Richard Gage and others in their group the report linked below 1. It was emailed more then once. There have been no responses. What’s up with that? The links below show the collected data is sourced from reliable sources like the CDC, the FDA, the USGS, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, Oak Rideg Laboratories and Sandia Laboratories and it was written by nuclear physicists and nuclear chemists with vast experience in this field.
Whats Up With That
ruptions occurs in 3.0-9.0 persons per 100,000 people in the general population. Of these people 99% are over the age of 65 and their average age is 71.
It was also posted to the National Institute For Occupational Safety And Health and the Centers For Disease Control web pages based on a public information request for information in the Federal Register posted for debate over whether or not the Zadroga Bill designed to cover First Responders dying from disease directly related to their heroic efforts should be covered for cancers. Cancer was not covered in the Zadroga Bill. It is my understanding from speaking with John Feel at the Feel Good Foundation in New York which represents First Responders that approximately 180 people have died of various rare cancers as of March 1, 2011, with many having died from not just one but two and even three rare cancers. This number may not be accurate and I suspect there have been more cancer deaths. The statistics are available, I’m sure, but I’ve been unable to find them.
The First Responders that have died so far from some form of Multiple Myeloma equate to a staggering rate of 335 per 100,000 over an estimated cohort of 40,000 First Responders. All of them were between 37 and 60. Very similar statistics are available for Thyroid cancer. Both of these cancers are known to rise in rapid early increases in people exposed to radiation based on data from Chernobyl, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Sandia Labs and the CDC 2. There are wide variations in human reactions based on type of radiation, exposure levels and times and other factors. Some of the newer data show exposure to very low doses of radiation over short or long periods of time may be very dangerous, 1. DUST - Proof of Fission - A Physics and Chemistry analysis of the USGS Scanning Electron Microscopy of 35 sample locations from lower Manhattan taken on September 16 and 17, 2001, pages 7 - 45. http://www.datafilehost.com/download-9b5cf5e6.html 2. Ionizing Radiation • A Study Of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl and 911 with a focus on related illnesses using Japanese Ministry of Health, Russian Researchers and IAEA data. Part 1: http://www.box.net/shared/9ilkg3pkfs Part 2:http://www.box.net/shared/h5gvyev9q8 Part 3: http://www.box.net/shared/ctdmz7la4j
Multiple Myeloma, thought to possibly be another form of Leukemia, and a very rare blood plasma cancer that causes serious and various human body function malfunctions and dis-
ORKIiNG W p le
on the s hout mask Men wit
he Last Page
Brilliant People Do Brilliant Things
Victor Marchetti, a 1960s CIA spook who wrote a few interesting books, wrote: “A ‘limited hangout’ is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.” Thermite put a rational scientific muzzle, as did Stephen Jones and Richard Gage, on all other valid scientific study and discussion using sound and credible data. I think Thermite is the Limited Hangout and was designed as such before 911 when the event itself was designed. These people aren’t fools. They’re brilliant. Create the Problem, Control the Reaction, Apply the Solution: The Hegelian Dialect.
The Myth Makers
This event was pre-designed from the beginning. But the event didn’t end with the disaster or the cleanup, that was just the very beginning. It still hasn’t ended. This was planned with war gaming software as it’s called, sophisticated modeling algorithms that model all 300+ million of us fairly accurately now that we’re all on Facebook and other social networks or just browsing the internet. Tracking your internet use is similar to a window into your being. I don’t think people recognize how severely intrusive it is. You might be watching videos of cute kittens one day, browsing several various different types of on-line catalogues, some you’d never even buy from, come across several web sites you hated and won’t ever visit again, spent an hour on one because you liked the writing style and content and book-marked it to come back and read more, checked in with friends by email and you might even have paid several different bills or checked to see if your Food Stamps had been applied to your card. All of this could be tracked and provide a 1000 page non-fiction novel of who you are and what you do with your time. Have an iPhone? Other brands of cell phones? Some are capable of tracking you whether they’re on or off and records of everything you’ve done from private texting and voice call recordings can be retrieved by many different US intelligence agencies. So public opinion was determined based on various inputs and then computer generated outputs caused plans to be drawn up with contingency plans and plan B, C and D. Public opinion was evaluated with sophisticated computer algorithms and then projects put into place to control it. From the very, very beginning. There were conflicting reports and disappearing reports within the first few minutes. The most feared enemy, the public, was throttled with more convoluted and conflicting data then one could possibly imagine. And we’re left with that same data today plus a whole lot more. A hodge-podge of seemingly good information contradicted by other seemingly good information. It was designed this way.
Why wouldn’t they spend even more time with their war gaming computers that simulate entire populations and provide social output based on economic, political, social, psychological and any other input on planning the 10, 20 and 30 years beyond 911? Why would they design a sophisticated military and financial operation like 911 with almost every elite on the planet connected in some way1 and not spend even more time on the Solution which would include, of course, controlling the 911 truth movement that the computer told them would follow the event? And they would know that they would have to control it for 5, 10, 20 years and more. The “Solution” came after the event and the “Solution” covered several years after the event thus planning for the event itself was probably even easier then planning the response out 10, 20 years or more. But control of that response was a component of the “Solution” element of the Hegelian Dialect. Richard Gage and Steven Jones are mainstream. They’re focused carefully on playing a part and their words are heavily scrutinized and scripted to that part. To me, the secrets are obvious. The amount of thermal output required of a device or devices to create what the pictures in this eMagaxine show quite clearly was just unimaginable and thermite couldn’t do it. Just like Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Semipalatinsk, Fukushima and New York City on 911, a 21st century nuclear technology was tested on an enormous civilian population. A lot of the First Responders have died from brutal, rare cancers, often with 2 and 3 different cancers at the same time and 8,000+ more are ill today, many without jobs and health insurance. We screwed these people.2 The Zadroga Bill, which took ten years to sort out and implement is a health insurance plan for First Responders but it doesn’t cover cancer and you’ll have to prove medically that your injuries and illnesses were directly or partially caused by the events of 911. It will probably be a very taxing experience in the long run, like having to go to the DMV 2 or 3 times a week for several months.
1. Murdering Liberty Killing Hope - The Office Of Naval Intelligence, The Eldorado Task Force, The Securities and Exchange Commission, Cantor-Fitzgerald, The Federal Reserve, The US Treasury, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Nugan Hand Bank, The Bush Family and the Global Bankers. A forensic financial study in criminal global finance and the events of 911. [http://www.datafilehost.com/download-0c99b14c.html] and 911 Gold - Vast Global Financial Fraud and Gold Market manipulation by the White House. [http://www.datafilehost.com/ download-71072e4d.html]. 2. Ionizing Radiation 911 - Part 1: [http://www.box.net/shared/9ilkg3pkfs], Part 2:[http://www. box.net/shared/h5gvyev9q8], Part 3: [http://www.box.net/shared/ctdmz7la4j]. Energetic compounds, being created at nano scale burn rapidly, in milliseconds (1000ths of a second) and they burn completely and the fuel is gone. Spent. No More. They burn efficiently. They produce heat and light but no work. They don’t move anything as Mr. Hightower’s report proves and they have no explosive capabilities either.. They burn thoroughly, rapidly and then the materials cool in 15-30 minutes. It is physically impossible for thermite to do what we saw that day and even more importantly, it’s physically impossible for thermite to cause raging fires for what I remember as almost 100 days that even 2,000 gallons of Pyrocool couldn’t put out and that as Professor Cahill at the University of California, Davis, the worlds most renowned Nuclear Atmospheric Physicist stated, “soil and glass were vaporized” and that requires temperatures over 2500F. Cahill conducted atmospheric tests weeks after the event and those were the temperatures and conditions he found. Weeks later he stated “new very small particles were being formed every day”. “Very small particles” is a scientific term used to describe particles at nano scale. New very small particles were being formed each day, some with layers of what appeared to be soot and Cahill suggested new particles were being formed regularly. This means fission was still ongoing.
The following extracts are quoted from a web page written by three Safety, Health and Emergency experts from Bechtel who at great personal risk assisted in the recovery efforts at the World Trade Center. These three men were Stewart Burkhammer, Norman Black, and Jeffrey Vincoli. Their testimony provides a very important insight into the extraordinary temperatures under the rubble of the towers. “On September 12, 2001, a small group of SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group, Inc., led by Stewart Burkhammer, a professional member of ASSE’s National Chapter, arrived in New York City to assist the city and state of New York in the emergency recovery effort after the alleged terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The sights and experiences of the days and weeks that followed are described here in order to provide fellow SH&E professionals a brief account of the extraordinary challenges encountered at Ground Zero.” “With the stability of the debris pile unknown, subsurface fires burned continuously... “ “World Trade Center Building Six housed several federal agencies and a shooting range with inventory of more then 1.2 million rounds and “the ammunition was finally located on October 24, 2001, melted together into large ‘bullet balls’ (image below) that were dangerous to handle and dispose of properly. At one point, a discharge of a bullet, due to heat in the area, caused a shrapnel wound to the face of one worker.” “The ammunition was located on October 24th, Forty-Three (43) days after the collapse and the temperature was still hot enough to cause the discharge of a bullet.” “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees to more then 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search and rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not properly outfitted with protective boots. More then one suffered injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared extinguished on December 19th, 2001.” The Bechtel people say that the helicopter measurements showed underground temperatures of more then 2800 degrees Fahrenheit. However any thermal imaging measurements taken from a helicopter might only indicate surface temperatures and not those deep below the ground. Therefore, this must have been an extrapolation or estimate of the underground temperatures. However, 2800 degrees Fahrenheit is extraordinarily hot; it’s over 1500C and higher than the melting point of steel. This testimony raises the obvious question: what intense heat source under the rubble could maintain underground temperatures of 1500C for such a long period of time?
Pools Of Molten Steel
There were several eyewitness accounts of the discovery of pools of molten steel under the rubble when the debris pile was reduced and taken away from the excavation site. What heat source could have melted structural steel and kept it molten for 6 weeks under the rubble of the Twin Towers?
The Melting Point Of Steel Is Approximately 1500C
The most well known account is that by Peter Tully and Marc Loizeaux in the American Free Press. According to both Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction and Marc Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc., who was called in by Tully Construction to help remove the rubble, pools of molten steel were discovered 6 weeks after the collapse of the towers. In the AFP article, Tully says that he saw the pools. In a later communication to the Libertypost.org website, Mr. Loizeaux clarified that he had not personally seen the molten steel but had been told about it by other contractors.
The Boiling Point Of Silicon Dioxide
We will look at this in more detail in the next section. However, an aerosol and air quality monitoring program set up by the University of California at Davis monitored particulate emissions from the World Trade Center site for a number of weeks after the collapse. The program was run by a world expert in atmospheric sciences, Professor Thomas Cahill. A report on this monitoring appeared in a California newspaper. An extract is as follows: “The September 11th collapse of the 110-story skyscrapers crushed concrete, glass, computers, electrical wiring, carpeting, furniture and everything else in the buildings, then burned and broiled the compressed, pulverized mass for weeks. In the super-heated rubble the material disintegrated into extremely small particles, which were released into the air for weeks. “It’s like having a large power plant at ground level with no stack,” Cahill said.
That’s 4,532 Fahrenheit
In their press release on what the study revealed, the UC Davis team comment: “There was also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. The latter type of aerosol can be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporization of soil and glass.” The boiling point of silicon dioxide (glass) is about 2500C. The underground temperature must therefore have been at least 2500C to vaporize glass and soil.
An automated particle collection system was set up on the roof of 201 Varick Street, one mile north-northeast of the World Trade Center site. On February 11th, 2002, Professor Cahill gave a press conference to describe some of his findings. He made the following comments, quoted here from the UC Davis press release: “The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles, probably associated with high temperatures in the underground debris pile. Normally, in New York City and in most of the world, situations like this just don’t exist.” He further stated: “Even on the worst air days in Beijing, downwind from coal-fired power plants, or the Kuwait oil fires, we did not see these levels of very fine particulates.” The amounts of very fine particles, particularly very fine silicon, decreased sharply during the month of October. “The US Davis DELTA Group’s1 ability to measure and analyze particle size, composition and time continuously, day and night, is unequalled. There were numerous events when bursts of wind lasting 6 to 8 hours carried unprecedented amounts of very fine particles to the sampling site. In the largest spike, the DELTA Group analysis found 58 micrograms per cubic meter of very fine particles in one 45-minute period – “an extremely high peak” Cahill said.
were Iron, Titanium, Vanadium, Nickel, Copper and Zinc. Mercury was seen occasionally in fine particles but at low concentrations. The USGS found Yttrium, Lanthanum, Molybdenum, Lithium, Antimony, Thorium, Rubidium, Cobalt, Niobium, Scandium, Uranium, Cadmium, Strontium, Barium, Chromium, Nickel, Cerium, Potassium, Sodium (potassium and sodium are imoprtant elements of the nuclear decay pathways described in the book, Dust) and Beryllium, a particularly dangerous metal regulated more then most in the US. Some levels of certain elements produced some particularly interesting results.2
1. US Davis Delta Group Wiki [http://daviswiki. org/DELTA_Group] and US Davis Delta Group web page [http://airquality.ucdavis.edu/index.html] 2. DUST - Proof of Fission - A Physics and Chemistry analysis of the USGS Scanning Electron Microscopy of 35 sample locations from lower Manhattan. http://www.datafilehost.com/download-9b5cf5e6.html
Many different metals were found in the samples of very fine particles, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States. However, there are few established safety guidelines for airborne metals. One metal for which there is a guideline, lead, was present at low levels in fine and very fine particles. Some of the metals for which there are no guidelines that were present in very fine particles in relatively high concentrations
The press release further states: “There are no established safe limits for inhaled very fine particles. The closest reference is the US EPA “PM2.5” standard, which limits the allowable mass of airborne particles 2.5 micrometers to (0) Zero micrometers. That standard is based on health studies of typical air samples, in which very fine particles are a small fraction of the total mass. In contrast, in the World Trade Center dust samples analyzed at UC Davis, the very fine particles are a large fraction of the total mass.” So we can understand that Professor Cahill would want to draw attention to the fine particulates for health and safety reasons. But is there more to it? Prof. Cahill also explained the meaning of the generation of the particles to reporters more clearly: “The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being continually re-generated from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces.” Cahills words,. “continually re-generated” Cahills words, “not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces.” “The very fine particles were high in a number of species generally associated with combustion of fuel oil – such as Sulfur, Vanadium and Nickel, and incineration of plastics and other organic matter.” “There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. This latter type of aerosol can be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporisation of soil and glass.” Cahills words, “Vaporization of soil and glass” Cahills words, “very fine... aerosol”
aerosols? vaporization? Fire rages for 100 days? 2500-2800C tempertures? over 4000 degrees farenheit ?
Why couldn’t they put out a fire for 100 days?
“There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing This latter type of aerosol can be produced ONLY by very high temperatures, including:
“These particles simply should not be there,” Cahill said. “It had rained, sometimes heavily, on six days in the prior three these coarse particles.” “The finding suggests that coarse particles were being continually generated from the hot debris pile. This observation is at least qualitatively supported, for while they are still being analyzed, the coarse particles appear to be coated with combustion products, including soot,” Cahill said. weeks. That rain should have settled
of soil and glass.”
Two Years after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, which claimed almost 3000 lives, researchers have gathered to assess the legacy of the giant plume of smoke and dust caused by the atrocity. The makeup of the plume was unique in its chemical composition and unprecedented in its complexity. As a result, no one yet knows the health effects of breathing them in and therefore how many more people may have been affected by the collapse of the Twin Towers. “This was a fully functional building that was completely smulched into a burning pit,” says Thomas Cahill, an atmospheric physicist at the University of California Davis, who has focused on the composition of the finest particles in the plume for the past two years. “That’s never happened before, so we are in completely new territory. All we can say is we are worried about it,” he says. “It may take years before these effects show up, just like with radiation.”
The gathering Wednesday at the American Chemical Society’s meeting in New York was the first time chemists, atmospheric physicists and doctors from over 20 US institutions had got together to pool their results. Paul Lioy, of the Univeristy of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, emphasized to the meeting the sheer diversity of chemicals that were present in the dust. A mixture of plastics, computer hardware, synthetic furniture and hundreds of miles of wire burned to produce an aerosol of astonishing complexity. Out of 400 organic alkanes, pthalates and polyaromatic hydrocarbons he identified, the majority had never before been detected in the air, he says. One such compound, detected by researchers from the Environmental Protection Agency, was Diphenyl Propane, thought to have come from burning plastic. The health consequences of breathing it are totally unknown, says EPA scientist Leonard Stockburger. Scientists from the US Geological Survey showed that even among the well-known molecules and crystals, new shapes of particles were thrown up by the plume. “They detected fibrous, cylindrical materials, which have a totally different behavior to spherical particles,” says Michael Hays of the EPA, who attended the meeting. “How does that influence inhalation routes?” But the scientists were careful to be clear about their message. “We don’t want people to get the wrong impression. For long term effects, we are simply in an area of unknowns,” says Lioy.
Very Fine Particles - A designation given to particles under 2.5 microns, such as those seen here.
Dr. Cahill, a 65 year old professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric sciences has used his background in nuclear physics to pioneer methods and tools for analyzing aerosols – tiny particles suspended in the air – and has led more then 40 studies on pollution around the world, including several in national parks and in the basins of Lake Tahoe and Mono Lake. The Ground Zero monitoring showed the fallout had subsided by late December, when Cahill’s team stopped sampling. He said rain probably has cleared the air outside, but he is concerned about New Yorkers returning to contaminated buildings.
“ “ These size particles travel like a gas, they penetrate windows, doors, everywhere,”” he said, ““You don’t feel it, and you can’t see it”.”
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.