An Open Question about Nanothermite

[Ed Jewett]

As I understand it, one of the pinnacle controversies about the destruction of WTC1&2 has to do with nanothermite. Arguments have been proffered, and a peer-revieqwed paper has been published. Arguments have ensued hither and fro, back and forth.


My simple questions for anyone who has delved more deeply into this matter than I are these :

Presumably multiple sources from several independent locations of assays of dust have produced signs, remnants, etc. of nanothermite.

How and where is this documented and verified?

Has this information been published? or is it being held in covert absentia to protect sources (and further samples) and save it for some forthcoming legal process?

If so, who is in possession of (knows the location of) this information?

Are there any other or additional assurances as to the validity and veracity of this material, the chain of possession, etc?

[Peter Lemkin]

You really haven't followed this! There are several peer reviewed scientific papers which detail all this...a smaller number of lay articles trying to explain it. Some are daunted by the scientific papers, but even one with highschool chemistry and physics should be able to follow them....or at least realize that they have not really had more the attempts to challenge them. Yes, HUGE quantities of nanothermite were found in the dust of the WTC, fairly uniformly distributed. There is NO innocent explanation for it. This has been the main trust of those trying to challenge - to invent a process whereby the steel fireproofing or something other somehow created it. It can only be created in a most advanced production laboratory and it highly exothermic - a very unusual property to have in an office building. It is the smoking gun of 911.

Video of Danish Chemist HERE.

and here.

Interview with Jones [who wrote original article and was one of the scientists in larger second] [URL="http://www.911blogger.com/node/19762"]here.
[/URL]

Popular article [URL="http://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CBsQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2F911review.com%2Fevidence%2Fwtc_explosives.html&ei=6kxoTsLxIcrD8QOf35HACw&usg=AFQjCNEt-nY-C77XntY1vniFnJK8RcUKhw"]here. [/URL]

Another popular article here.

and here the main points from the latest of many scientific articles

And the article in full can also be downloaded as pdf HERE. [it is in volume 2; second article - clear by title]

Long series of lectures on subject here.

NB- the forces of evil are making many of the links I tried to find disappear. I could spend the time to find or you can. There is a long [hour long] interview with Harrit somewhere. There is the original paper and the Harrit et al. paper and there are lots of other interviews and articles. They answer your questions as to how the dust was obtained, its provenance known, and how it was kept with a proper chain of custody. 911 Truth persons have challenged NIST, EPA and others to test the dust samples we know they have for nanothermite [they admit they have]...so far they have [of course] not.

[Peter Lemkin]

As I understand it, one of the pinnacle controversies about the destruction of WTC1&2 has to do with nanothermite. Arguments have been proffered, and a peer-revieqwed paper has been published. Arguments have ensued hither and fro, back and forth.


My simple questions for anyone who has delved more deeply into this matter than I are these :

Presumably multiple sources from several independent locations of assays of dust have produced signs, remnants, etc. of nanothermite.

YES

How and where is this documented and verified?

In the articles and elsewhere. Those who collected samples willing to testify.

Has this information been published? or is it being held in covert absentia to protect sources (and further samples) and save it for some forthcoming legal process?

YES

If so, who is in possession of (knows the location of) this information?

Publicly known, if not widely published.

Are there any other or additional assurances as to the validity and veracity of this material, the chain of possession, etc?

YES. While most of the dust was cleaned up and made to disappear, like the steel, there were ample samples and some [yet untested] still exists and is verified as WTC dust.

Q.E.D.

[Ed Jewett]

Thanks, Peter. Setting aside the not-so-subtle putdown at the beginning of your response, let me assure you I have read the original article, and just re-read it. So let me rephrase the question this way:

Assuming the provenance of samples' sources and transfer with affidavit is valid, where and how are these now (today) maintained? Under whose custody* and with what annotation and security? In other words, can these same samples be retrieved and re-tested, or its results replicated by independent study? I am assuming the answer is yes. (*I don't wish to be specific or to place such material and documentation in jeopardy.)

I think we are on the same page... If these samples exist in sufficient quantities to allow for the replication of the research by a quasi-judicial-scientiifc process, then there is prima facie open-and-shut cause (and evidence) for an investigation.

I ask this -- aside from general interest in the topic -- as I await a call from the coordinator of the local process for a ballot initiative to determine how I can best invest my time in assistance to that effort. Debate and controversy and attempts at dis- and misinformation fade quickly in the face of absolute assurance that evidence has been safely secured. This makes the futile and covert attempts at shipping the WTC steel to offshore smelters an exercise in futility as well as criminal cover-up.

[Peter Lemkin]

Thanks, Peter. Setting aside the not-so-subtle putdown at the beginning of your response, let me assure you I have read the original article, and just re-read it. So let me rephrase the question this way:

Assuming the provenance of samples' sources and transfer with affidavit is valid, where and how are these now (today) maintained? Under whose custody* and with what annotation and security? In other words, can these same samples be retrieved and re-tested, or its results replicated by independent study? I am assuming the answer is yes. (*I don't wish to be specific or to place such material and documentation in jeopardy.)

Sorry, if it sounded like a put-down. Not meant to as you apparently took it. It only seemed to indicate you had followed it less than you apparently have.......

As I understand it, of those [many] different samples used by the chemists and physicists in their analyses - which became a series of papers, both the original sender and the scientist have secured samples. Additionally, there are MANY other New Yorkers who collected the same dust for 'sentimental' or 'historical' reasons. The EPA collected much and mis-analyzed it for its 'toxicity'....they did nothing with nanothermite...of course. NIST has some. Others do, as well....some might not be willing to let their sample be tested, but I'd hazard the guess that many hundreds to a thousand separate samples exist that ARE AVAILABLE - if someone were to make the effort to find and secure them. Some samples are hidden in crevices of near buildings [like the bones of victims found only two years ago on a roof] The government likely has a few tons...but they won't help out...quite the opposite....but it doesn't matter. P.L.

I think we are on the same page... If these samples exist in sufficient quantities to allow for the replication of the research by a quasi-judicial-scientiifc process, then there is prima facie open-and-shut cause (and evidence) for an investigation.

I ask this -- aside from general interest in the topic -- as I await a call from the coordinator of the local process for a ballot initiative to determine how I can best invest my time in assistance to that effort. Debate and controversy and attempts at dis- and misinformation fade quickly in the face of absolute assurance that evidence has been safely secured. This makes the futile and covert attempts at shipping the WTC steel to offshore smelters an exercise in futility as well as criminal cover-up.

So, I think the answer is they [or most of them] are safe and even reproducible...and others stand available for similar analysis - HOWEVER the oppressive mechanism will allow only SO much truth before it reacts......

[Ed Jewett]

My suggestion that I had not dug deeply was to allow for the possibility (indeed, probability) that someone had dug more deeply.

The point is to move beyond guessing. The point is to insure and guarantee possession of samples whose provenance is rock solid and, if possible, to secure more. I appreciate and agree that "the oppressive mechanism" cannot tolerate truth and must react, which is why it is imperative that we guarantee and document that we have some truth, because it will force them to react. Their reaction (given a certain amount of haste, sloppiness and clumsiness, which we have seen) will create further error and will show many others what their real intent and real tactics are, which will generate more seeking truth, peace and justice.

There is a tendency to sit on our heels smugly analyzing what we see, thus allowing "the oppressive mechanism" to divide and weaken the efforts, to enhance their own "cognitive infiltration", to outflank the effort, to bypass and trivialize any reason to investigate, and thus to secure the next step -- whatever the hell that is -- in the plan for oppression.

9/11 is the litmus test:

Text: http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2008/...-test.html

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVY-iQDO8..._embedded#

[Peter Lemkin]

Ed, Not exactly sure what you have in mind....re: 'securing samples'. I've not made a study of where they are and how they are kept. That said, there is known, for example, which persons collected and gave the samples to Jones and Harrit and a French Chemist who's name I forget - some of them even were on film explaining how they collected the dust from inside their homes near the WTC on the day of or the day after in jars of bags and kept them. They still have some in most cases [as do unknown others]. The scientists involved all [to my understanding] used only tiny portions to sample and so still have a large portion of what they were sent. Etc. Of course, black bag jobs could be done to make these samples disappear, but there is SO much of the dust and it all tests about the same [some minor variations according to location]. I do not know if anyone is keeping their dust in a safe or something even safer than that.

I agree with what I think I hear you hinting at - that that dust ALONE is damning enough evidence in a court case or real public inquiry to demolish the official version and go a long way to making controlled demolition the most likely way the towers came down - at least force and honest [sic] society/government to investigate that possibility. [N.B. enough steel also exists to be forensically tested!!!]
However, I fear such a trial or inquiry will never see the light of day in the USA, using all the tricks they know all too well. Only an international one outside the USA has a chance in my opinion.

It would not be a bad idea to have 911Truth groups have an active program of obtaining and secreting someplace safe [that's the problem!] dust samples - along with chain of custody and proof of provenance, etc.]. There really is still a lot around. I'd say the bulk of what is still around is not in private hands. Some is in government hands [i.e. lost to us]; other samples are on/in the roofs/walls/air ducts, etc. of nearby buildings that were not demolished. And, as I've said MANY NYC residents have a pickle jar or ten somewhere in their flat as a reminder of the day the sky fell. No one knows how many or how much. So far all the tested samples have had very similar chemical signatures - in fact so unique one could now tell a 'salted' or faked sample fairly easily, I think. The EPA did put out [I believe] ONE chemical analysis - just the elements - not the compounds the elements made up within it - and declared it mildly caustic [low pH], but not a hazard. Now most of the first responders are dying of what was in it...and the rest of the country and planet are dying because of what was done. Unhappy 10th!

[Jeffrey Orling]

I know Steve White who provided one of the 4 samples and I have designed a loft in the building at 1 Hudson Street where Steve lives and the samples were taken from.

Harrit has claimed recently that to cause the explosive damage.. ie pulverize the concrete on each of the WTC floors it would take 240 tons PER FLOOR. I have the email which I can cite... but if this is true it would mean that there would have been:

240 tons x 104 floors x 2 towers = 49,920 tons used to destroy the twin towers' floor slabs. I can't believe this is possible and makes no sense.

Harrit wrote to me in an email in 2010 that he estimated that there would be perhaps 4 tons of nano thermite based upon the percentage amount in the dust samples extrapolated to the total amount of dust ... ie the 180,000 tons of concrete turned to dust plus the additional material such as GWB and so forth which was converted to dust in the twins' destruction. The 4 ton estimate was apparently based on 4 samples. And this of course is 1/12,000 of the amount he stated in the more recent email.

This doesn't add up.

T Mark Hightower who was (is?) a NASA consultant/employee chemsist has investigated the explosive properties of NanoThermite and wrote one of those 911 papers... states that nano thermite could not do the 911 damage observed and has challenged Harrit to prove it could. Harrit has not responded.

The red gray chips most certainly seem to not belong in the dust.. or need to be explained as to what they are and how they got there.

I think we are a ways from concluding that the red gray chips are a smoking gun of explosive controlled demolition... especially since no one has explained how or where it was used.

[Ed Jewett]

Peter, you covered what I had in mind. Chain of custody and security for multiple assays. Decentralized approaches work better than centralization. Hopefuily the myriads of involved are using photographic time-stamping and the like...

Jeffrey, I agree about the conclusiveness, especially about the solitariness of controlled demolition. It is safe to say that we don't yet fully understand the means -- and perhaps there were several -- at work. But we will never conclude anything without preservation of evidence, information, etc.

The thing I am focused on is driving the issue for further independent investigation and not letting the culprits get away with slippery propagandistic myth-making. [The airwaves here are alive with it this week. "The View" just trotted out Rudy Giuliani, and Dick Cheney's PR push for his book is on the move.] There is absolute proof of something unusual and untoward that hasn't been addressed, or acknowledged, or accounted for. It is one peg, one wedge, that can be pointed to that cannot be attacked, discounted, or disproven.

[Jeffrey Orling]

There's lots of dust around and can be studied.... Dust should be preserved AND it should be tested...

Having truthers hoard their samples... is not the wisest approach.

All science should be repeatable by others... We need that sort of confirmation.