The Salt Lake City newspaper the Deseret News has published this report about a paper just published in the Chemical Physics Journal

Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials, according to a former BYU professor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

""http://www.deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705295677,00.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WitchitaKid,

I don't buy it. If this material was from the tower collapse, why did it take 8 years to surface? I also saw a Doc. that had a engineering architect , that demonstrated exactly how the collapse occurred with the heat and all. The ONLY thing I do find of somewhat interest is that all 3 buildings collapsed in the exact same manner, even building 7 that did not take a direct hit. That alone leads one to wonder....

quote:

Originally posted by crackerjacks61:
I don't buy it. If this material was from the tower collapse, why did it take 8 years to surface? I also saw a Doc. that had a engineering architect , that demonstrated exactly how the collapse occurred with the heat and all. The ONLY thing I do find of somewhat interest is that all 3 buildings collapsed in the exact same manner, even building 7 that did not take a direct hit. That alone leads one to wonder....

I guess the scientists put out a call for souvenir dust in the personal possession of New Yorkers, and a lot of them came forward. The other news is that the president of the biggest group of 9/11 survivors, Bill Doyle, has come out and said he and about half his group believe some people in the government helped it happen. It doesn't take many people on the inside to execute an action of this type, maybe 100 very well-placed people, going to the top. That's how a coup works, in Latin America called a "golpe" or "blow" of the fist. You make it a done-deal and everyone else knows to shut up. Who might have done it? My mind is still not 100 percent made up, but I sure have a lot of questions. Here is a good site which answers the question "how could they keep something this big secret?"

""http://www.whodidit.org/index.html

Also all these decorated pilots, generals, and other American military officers have formed Patriots Question 9/11. They don't look like kooks to me...

""http://patriotsquestion911.com

"http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm"

quote:

Originally posted by crackerjacks61:
I don't buy it. If this material was from the tower collapse, why did it take 8 years to surface? I also saw a Doc. that had a engineering architect , that demonstrated exactly how the collapse occurred with the heat and all. The ONLY thing I do find of somewhat interest is that all 3 buildings collapsed in the exact same manner, even building 7 that did not take a direct hit. That alone leads one to wonder....

Not to mention the molten metal under all three bldgs.

Guess what Folks?

Any guessers?

Clinton did it!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by mainedawg:
Guess what Folks?

Any guessers?

Thats all weve been doing for the last eight years, guessing. Isnt that something thats totally unbelievable? The most significant event in the history of our country and all we can do is speculate and make lame jokes?
When one full scale non partisan investigation comprised of proffesionals in every field examining every single piece of evidence and deposing every wittness, with unlimited supeona authority,would answer all the questions and reveal the truth.

The longer it continues the more convinced I become that it was a massive conspiracy inside job and there are mass murderers at large that need to be brought to justice.

All one has to ask themselves is, Why all the resistance to such an investigation? Time? cost? How can that even be considered in a case such as this. Its an opportunity to break the stangelhold that the political parties have on this nation and restore the power to the people.

Government is answerable to the people, and that sham of an official 9/11 commission was an insult to anyone possesing a single brain cell leaving so many unanswered questions and division.

Nothing can be more important than ensuring beyond a reasonable doubt, that our government was not complicit in any way and such is not the case.

Sorry, but the "Chemical Physics Journal" is actually the Bentham Open Access 'Chemical Physics Journal', a (how shall I say) less than reputable source.
gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html

I don't buy any of it.

JamesBMyers
Posted Tue 21 April 2009 01:52 PM
Sorry, but the "Chemical Physics Journal" is actually the Bentham Open Access 'Chemical Physics Journal', a (how shall I say) less than reputable source.
gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html

I don't buy any of it.


By any of it I assume none of it at all and thats the proper approach. But dont you believe we as americans deserve better than that? Shouldnt we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Without a complete investigation we may never know,and that puts our nation at risk.

quote:

Shouldnt we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

tens of millions of people watched with their very own eyes what happened on 9/11 and you sit here and talk about "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

amazing.

Questionable "pay to publish" journal

Numerous objections / questions by similarly qualified peers

Demolition experts saying it was not a CD

Wildly complicated scenarios required to support theories

and people still swallow these "truthers"?

Drink that kool-aid, people....

These 'theories' as well as those 'experts' that authored this drivel should be immediately hired by the well-known and high-selling 'supermarket tabloids'...

The real truth of the matter is this:

The towers and other buildings collasped as a result of the incessant yelling and screaming by a host of people, blaring of horns, and the stomping of scores of feet...(think the biblical story of Joshua and The Battle of Jericho)

Disclaimer: the above statement is not to disparage the Bible and the story...

Mod hat off

I'll give you as little heads up on the Penn site people.

My brother arrived there at just before sunrise the day after the crash. He had to drive there due no planes leaving the area we are from. 8 to 11 hour drive.

He worked for the NSA, ASA and for the White House for 7 years with Communications.

The report that the Government gave about the crash is accurate.

Nuff Said.

Then he and I went to NY NY to the 9-11 site and worked until Dec 9 . He worked on for a short time longer.

This is why, when I see the all these new reports I get a little hot under the coller.

MD

quote:

Originally posted by Hoffy1951:
These 'theories' as well as those 'experts' that authored this drivel should be immediately hired by the well-known and high-selling 'supermarket tabloids'...

The real truth of the matter is this:

The towers and other buildings collasped as a result of the incessant yelling and screaming by a host of people, blaring of horns, and the stomping of scores of feet...(think the biblical story of Joshua and The Battle of Jericho)

Disclaimer: the above statement is not to disparage the Bible and the story...

Do you think that all the resent hipe on this is due to the books they wrote and want to sell them????

karlhungusjr
Posted Wed 22 April 2009 12:36 AM
quote:
Shouldnt we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?


tens of millions of people watched with their very own eyes what happened on 9/11 and you sit here and talk about "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

amazing.



I glad you are able to think in such a narrow band and accept everything you see as fact. That makes life very simple. Unfortunately many people are not in that category and do require proof. Everything is not what it appears to be and never was. Ive seen magicians walk on water, cut people in two and both parts crawl away, People vanish into thin air and reappear in other locations,Many things I cant explain, But does that make factual? What is amazing is that people like yourself dont even want to know
and can be content with an opinion.

Author Topic: Explosives ID'd in 9/11 Dust
Obviousman
Posted Wed 22 April 2009 04:03 AM
Questionable "pay to publish" journal

Numerous objections / questions by similarly qualified peers

Demolition experts saying it was not a CD

Wildly complicated scenarios required to support theories

and people still swallow these "truthers"?

Drink that kool-aid, people....



Did you think it would be easy to figure out?
What exactly makes your opinion correct and others wrong? When there is so much conflicting he said she said, claims counter claims by experts in all fields. How do we determine the truth? Pick a side and then pin a handle on those that disagree? Yea thats really an intelligent approach.

quote:

Originally posted by Hoffy1951:
These 'theories' as well as those 'experts' that authored this drivel should be immediately hired by the well-known and high-selling 'supermarket tabloids'...

The real truth of the matter is this:

The towers and other buildings collasped as a result of the incessant yelling and screaming by a host of people, blaring of horns, and the stomping of scores of feet...(think the biblical story of Joshua and The Battle of Jericho)

Disclaimer: the above statement is not to disparage the Bible and the story...

Thats as valid as any other theory without an investigation. So post away there are no wrong answers yet.

quote:

Originally posted by mainedawg:
Mod hat off

I'll give you as little heads up on the Penn site people.

My brother arrived there at just before sunrise the day after the crash. He had to drive there due no planes leaving the area we are from. 8 to 11 hour drive.

He worked for the NSA, ASA and for the White House for 7 years with Communications.

The report that the Government gave about the crash is accurate.

Nuff Said.

Then he and I went to NY NY to the 9-11 site and worked until Dec 9 . He worked on for a short time longer.

This is why, when I see the all these new reports I get a little hot under the coller.

MD

So then why not dispell all the BS and put the issue to rest with a full blown comprehensive investigation? Just realize how many different conflicting reports have been issued over the years. If for no other reason than regaining credibility and exposing the nay sayers and thier reasons? When you have experts on both sides of the fence with direct opposite findings
Some one has to be telling the truth and someone has to be lieing. The question we need answered is who?

I am here to tell you I spent 6 years of my life
in the construction of thoes bldgs and and know ever inch like the back of my hand am here to tell you,NFW did fire or airplane crashes take those bldgs down in exactly the same maner within hrs. But who would believe me same as who would believe your brother working for the Gov.? We both know only a real non partisan investigation will provide the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by mainedawg:

quote:

Originally posted by Hoffy1951:
These 'theories' as well as those 'experts' that authored this drivel should be immediately hired by the well-known and high-selling 'supermarket tabloids'...

The real truth of the matter is this:

The towers and other buildings collasped as a result of the incessant yelling and screaming by a host of people, blaring of horns, and the stomping of scores of feet...(think the biblical story of Joshua and The Battle of Jericho)

Disclaimer: the above statement is not to disparage the Bible and the story...

Do you think that all the resent hipe on this is due to the books they wrote and want to sell them????

Very well could be. It was certainly an oppertunity with a captive audience. But the secretive government and that sham of an incomplete 9/11 investigation added much fuel to the fire.

When I was at 911 we would go out to dinner almost every night. One night I worked till around 2 am and a driver of mine asked me to go to dinner with her. A bunch of people would meet at different places and talk about the daily stuff" can't post the real last work I use"

When we got there I find out that she is a Lawyer. Never asked when we just did our Job. The people that night were a mixed group with a few of the ones that looked over the tower for problems.

Have I set the stage good enough for most of you?

As they talk on I sat there as a bump on a Log they talked about the theory of what did take down the towers because that was already in play by some Tab rags.

They went on and on, but the one thing they did say, is that there were no outside causes for the towers to fail except the plane crashed into them.

Do any of you understand a blast furness?

The center of the building is a hollow area for elevators wires and such. Add all the plastic and items that are burnable.

Now toss down a full plane of fuel soaking into it. Air is going up the shaft as heat rises. Faster and Faster. Plastic's and such melt down to what?

Air is drawn up the center. Hot air.

Think about that for a while.

I see where you are comming from. I was a Building Inspecter, Code Enforcement Officer.

Worked summers working for my Uncle who also had a building company. And many of my classes for one of my degrees came from the construction area. I thought about taking over my uncles company when he was ready to retire.

quote:

Originally posted by mainedawg:
When I was at 911 we would go out to dinner almost every night. One night I worked till around 2 am and a driver of mine asked me to go to dinner with her. A bunch of people would meet at different places and talk about the daily stuff" can't post the real last work I use"

When we got there I find out that she is a Lawyer. Never asked when we just did our Job. The people that night were a mixed group with a few of the ones that looked over the tower for problems.

Have I set the stage good enough for most of you?

As they talk on I sat there as a bump on a Log they talked about the theory of what did take down the towers because that was already in play by some Tab rags.

They went on and on, but the one thing they did say, is that there were no outside causes for the towers to fail except the plane crashed into them.

Do any of you understand a blast furness?

The center of the building is a hollow area for elevators wires and such. Add all the plastic and items that are burnable.

Now toss down a full plane of fuel soaking into it. Air is going up the shaft as heat rises. Faster and Faster. Plastic's and such melt down to what?

Air is drawn up the center. Hot air.

Think about that for a while.

Jet fuel Kerosene under optimal blast funace conditions reaches optimal temps of 1,400F to 1,700F. These 42 steel main support columns
3'+ sq X 6" thick melt at 2,500F after a considerable time. Not much exposed to burn in those shafts except maybe the traveler cables. And most of the fuel was burned in the initial fire ball. Regardless of what was being said to get 42 columns of that size to come straight down in two bldgs not to mention bldg 7 completely different construction is beyond comprehension without being severed deomo fashion at intervals. Even if they were possibly weakened enough by fire on the upper floors to fail that section would have to topple leaving the lowers standing.

What was stored and sold at the bottom of the building? I'm not sure. I have forgotten a lot that I knew about it.
I will look it up.

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
Did you think it would be easy to figure out?
What exactly makes your opinion correct and others wrong? When there is so much conflicting he said she said, claims counter claims by experts in all fields. How do we determine the truth? Pick a side and then pin a handle on those that disagree? Yea thats really an intelligent approach.

I know you're not interested in anything except what supports your view, and it's a waste of time talking to you, but for the lurkers....

I can evaluate certain aspects myself, because I have expertise in those areas, but the rest?

I look to the professionals who can evaluate such matters. When there appears to be a split in opinions, I look at how many professionals favour what theory.

So it does become easy: if a qualified person does side with the truthers, you'll find they are in the overwhelming minority. Amongst pilot, engineers, etc, the average seem to be about 0.1% of the professional group believe in a 9-11 "inside job".

You'll see no organisation of professionals endorses the truther theories. The "xxx for 9-11 truth" groups do not count for several reasons:

1. They are not professional societies or organisations; they are groups set up specifically for 9-11.

2. They often have similar people involved in the hierarchy.

3. The membership of the organisations is often questionable, with members holding faked, inappropriate or irrelevant qualifications.

So: I know which "side" to choose because societies or organisations of professionals do not endorse 9-11 theories, whose proponents represent an insignificant proportion of professionals in that field, and whose statements often involve distortion, inaccuracy, omission, fallacy and downright lies.

quote:

Originally posted by Obviousman:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
Did you think it would be easy to figure out?
What exactly makes your opinion correct and others wrong? When there is so much conflicting he said she said, claims counter claims by experts in all fields. How do we determine the truth? Pick a side and then pin a handle on those that disagree? Yea thats really an intelligent approach.

I know you're not interested in anything except what supports your view, and it's a waste of time talking to you, but for the lurkers....

I can evaluate certain aspects myself, because I have expertise in those areas, but the rest?

I look to the professionals who can evaluate such matters. When there appears to be a split in opinions, I look at how many professionals favour what theory.

So it does become easy: if a qualified person does side with the truthers, you'll find they are in the overwhelming minority. Amongst pilot, engineers, etc, the average seem to be about 0.1% of the professional group believe in a 9-11 "inside job".

You'll see no organisation of professionals endorses the truther theories. The "xxx for 9-11 truth" groups do not count for several reasons:

1. They are not professional societies or organisations; they are groups set up specifically for 9-11.

2. They often have similar people involved in the hierarchy.

3. The membership of the organisations is often questionable, with members holding faked, inappropriate or irrelevant qualifications.

So: I know which "side" to choose because societies or organisations of professionals do not endorse 9-11 theories, whose proponents represent an insignificant proportion of professionals in that field, and whose statements often involve distortion, inaccuracy, omission, fallacy and downright lies.

Thats quite a Statement. But now lets assume your right, The next question would be why?

quote:

accept everything you see as fact. That makes life very simple. Unfortunately many people are not in that category and do require proof.

seeing something with your own eyes isn't proof?

whatever man.

karlhungusjr
Posted Wed 22 April 2009 09:19 PM
quote:
accept everything you see as fact. That makes life very simple. Unfortunately many people are not in that category and do require proof.


seeing something with your own eyes isn't proof?

whatever man.



Im not trying to be difficult now but just responding to you question, No Absolutely not, wherever did you ever get that Idea? Have you never attended a real Magic show? One with proffessional illusionists? I strongly suggest you make it a point.

quote:

Have you never attended a real Magic show? One with proffessional illusionists?

know what the difference is? the vast majority of people watching a magic show know its not really magic. and the illusions are easily explained and can be duplicated.


but why don't we do this. Give us one name of someone who has confessed or you have evidence of that was directly involved in planting explosives. Just one. and if you can't come up with one then guess what? your theory is just an illusion.