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

[Magda Hassan]

Sigh..... why am I not surprised at this? Anyway, your energies are wasted with pitbulls. Soon there will be just two there. Their mission accomplished. Never mind, soon they will no doubt be busy 'peer' reviewing submissions for their own 'highly respected' 911 journal which I am sure are just flooding in. They can still go and bother the JFK forum looking for thought criminals if they get really bored after you're not there to kick around.

[Paul Rigby]

New paper just published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Nine impressively qualified co-authors - all apart from Steven Jones not known to me in connection with 9/11 studies before, though I don't claim exhaustive knowledge.

9/11 blogger and Global research are already onto it.

Paper conclusion:

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

http://www.911blogger.com/dailynews

The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

The first interview has been subtitled in English…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

Can you imagine an interview of this length and seriousness on a British TV newscast? No, nor me.

[Peter Lemkin]

New paper just published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Nine impressively qualified co-authors - all apart from Steven Jones not known to me in connection with 9/11 studies before, though I don't claim exhaustive knowledge.

9/11 blogger and Global research are already onto it.

Paper conclusion:

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

http://www.911blogger.com/dailynews

The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

The first interview has been subtitled in English…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

Can you imagine an interview of this length and seriousness on a British TV newscast? No, nor me.

That was the evening news show in Danmark! Imagine that in the USA - NOT! I posted this url on 'another' Forum and the 'usual' Mockingbird asset said it was worthless due to his conjecture of thermite brought in on pallets [which this 'fowl' said would be noted and thus impossible]. When you can't shoot-down the science, attack the minutae of the messenger and persons involved in speaking truth to power... Surprised he didn't criticize his clothes. After all, the devil is in the details......

Oh, and update - the Grinch who stole Christmas (and tried to steal the truth of 911) has asked the Aussie Navy to block this website. His reason - it is a "inappropriate chatroom''

["I then reported your site as "inappropriate - chatroom", so hopefully it will now be blocked."] - EB, EF

[Peter Presland]

That was the evening news show in Danmark! Imagine that in the USA - NOT! I posted this url on 'another' Forum and the 'usual' Mockingbird asset said it was worthless due to his conjecture of thermite brought in on pallets [which this 'fowl' said would be noted and thus impossible]. When you can't shoot-down the science, attack the minutae of the messenger and persons involved in speaking truth to power... Surprised he didn't criticize his clothes. After all, the devil is in the det

Frankly I thought the speculative stuff about how explosives might have been placed in the WTC was counter productive to the rest of the interview. There's is a place for such speculation but that wasn't it - IMHO. There may have been subtleties of meaning lost in the sub-titling (ie he MAY have been saying something like "... well the amount of explosive material indicated by our research would requires pallet loads" or something like that). As it came across to people relying on the sub-titles though, it provided easy ammunition for cheap attacks as above - and a means to divert attention from the science.

IMO the time could have been better used to hammer home the FACT of its presence and to INSIST on the need for an official explanation of how the material DID get there, and where it came from, rather than speculating and thus providing the means -yet again- to divert peoples attention from what remains devastating (no pun intended) evidence.

[Peter Lemkin]

That was the evening news show in Danmark! Imagine that in the USA - NOT! I posted this url on 'another' Forum and the 'usual' Mockingbird asset said it was worthless due to his conjecture of thermite brought in on pallets [which this 'fowl' said would be noted and thus impossible]. When you can't shoot-down the science, attack the minutae of the messenger and persons involved in speaking truth to power... Surprised he didn't criticize his clothes. After all, the devil is in the det

Frankly I thought the speculative stuff about how explosives might have been placed in the WTC was counter productive to the rest of the interview. There's is a place for such speculation but that wasn't it - IMHO. There may have been subtleties of meaning lost in the sub-titling (ie he MAY have been saying something like "... well the amount of explosive material indicated by our research would requires pallet loads" or something like that). As it came across to people relying on the sub-titles though, it provided easy ammunition for cheap attacks as above - and a means to divert attention from the science.

IMO the time could have been better used to hammer home the FACT of its presence and to INSIST on the need for an official explanation of how the material DID get there, and where it came from, rather than speculating and thus providing the means -yet again- to divert peoples attention from what remains devastating (no pun intended) evidence.

Hmmm.....As I understand Danish, I'll listen again and see if the subtitles were mis-done....and report back. I agree not the place to speculate, but to report the paper, but the TV interviewer may also have led him astray. I'll review and report. In ANY CASE, speculation [if done] by the scientist, while not the best foot forward, takes NOTHING away from the science of the article. The Borg/Mockingbirds pick at whatever they can to debunk.

[Peter Presland]

.... but the TV interviewer may also have led him astray.

I've had some experience of Radio and TV interviews myself and it is VERY easy to be led astray. You have to understand that possibility and be well prepared for it.

It's easy to criticise I know but, in Harrit's shoes I like to think I would have said something like: "Well, I'm not prepared to speculate on how it might have got there. All I know is that it DID get there and it could not possibly have been by accident either. This is something that DEMANDS official investigation and explanation.

But I do agree that to have the thing aired so extensively on a prime-time TV channel is something of a breakthrough. Won't hold my breath for a similar airing in the US MSM though.

[Charles Drago]

This problem has plagued the JFK research community since Day One.

Yet the solution is right under our eyes.

We must relentlessly distinguish between the "how?" and "who and why?" questions.

In re JFK and 9-11 (among other issues): By "how?" I mean LN or conspiracy (as opposed to rifle or pistol or poison dart, or nano-thermitic materials or mini-nukes or space beams).

If we so discipline ourselves, the enemy has no opportunity to resort to a "someone would have talked" non sequitur.

Back to the WTC "how?" question: In the case under scrutiny, either the material is there, or it isn't. If it is, then somehow it was brought in.

We're nowhere near being ready to answer the "who and why?" of 9-11 until we establish a definitive answer to the "how?" of it all.

Discipline, my friends. Discipline.

[Mark Stapleton]

Frankly I thought the speculative stuff about how explosives might have been placed in the WTC was counter productive to the rest of the interview.

My money's on it being palleted in, as Harrit suggested, during the two weeks of heightened security, which ended a few days before the planes hit.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/preparation.html

There was a good reason for the phone threats. It's a bit like Dealey Plaza in its clever planning. Nobody's going to question a few pallets while the Towers were swarming with security.

[Peter Presland]

My money's on it being palleted in, as Harrit suggested, during the two weeks of heightened security, which ended a few days before the planes hit.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/preparation.html

There was a good reason for the phone threats. It's a bit like Dealey Plaza in its clever planning. Nobody's going to question a few pallets while the Towers were swarming with security.

Maybe so. But I still think that speculation plays into the hands of the de-bunkers. Fair enough if, as was the case with the article linked by Peter L a week or so ago (The ceiling tiles etc one), you are addressing the specific de-bunker question of 'how could explosives possibly have been placed' and you frame your hypothesis accordingly, making it clear that it is subordinate to a proper investigation into the ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACTS and the multiple glaring discrepancies in the offical narrative.

It is just too easy to be drawn into labyrinthine speculative constructions that at best dissipate precious energy and at worst invite ridicule. Both seem counter-productive to me.

[Peter Lemkin]

My money's on it being palleted in, as Harrit suggested, during the two weeks of heightened security, which ended a few days before the planes hit.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/preparation.html

There was a good reason for the phone threats. It's a bit like Dealey Plaza in its clever planning. Nobody's going to question a few pallets while the Towers were swarming with security.

Maybe so. But I still think that speculation plays into the hands of the de-bunkers. Fair enough if, as was the case with the article linked by Peter L a week or so ago (The ceiling tiles etc one), you are addressing the specific de-bunker question of 'how could explosives possibly have been placed' and you frame your hypothesis accordingly, making it clear that it is subordinate to a proper investigation into the ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACTS and the multiple glaring discrepancies in the offical narrative.

It is just too easy to be drawn into labyrinthine speculative constructions that at best dissipate precious energy and at worst invite ridicule. Both seem counter-productive to me.

The real point is the science done and presented in the peer-reviewed article - and those that preceeded it and are to follow. The debunkers and Mockingbird assets will always attack something - even if not substantive and make character assassinations and throw out red-herrings. That's there job and raison d'etre. I just listened to the interview again [and a few others he had had prior to the article on Danish TV]. The translation is fine. It would have been best had the interviewer and the interviewee had kept to the published article, but he had been on Danish TV before talking about his hypotheses on how the buildings really might have been brought down, and was again speculating [not trying to wear the 'hat' of the research scientist] when he said he'd have brought them in on pallets. But when you think of it, and it was something in the range between 10-100 tons, how else do you bring it in but on pallets via the service elevators?! It could be unmarked or covered - or look like ceiling tiles or any number of other clever things. It could be at night or during the power-downs, security drills etc. No one would blink at [if they even saw] security-approved workmen moving pallets. It will be interesting now to see if any survivors of the towers remember or have already made statements that can help piece-together the details. The debunkers have a LONG way to go to dispell the extra energy released, the symetrical collapses, the near free-fall speeds, 2 planes but 3 buildings, chemical-signature thermite balls in the dust, unexploded nanothermite in the dust, and much more. Let them yell all they want about their own misdirections. The facts speak for themselves, as they did in Dallas. All we have to do it prove the offical fiction as impossible. Done in both cases. Anything more is icing on the cake, interesting, further evidence against the Big lies of the offical versions and an attempt to understand what did happen. Only a REAL investigation of either will disclose most of the details. We know enough now, if not in denial, to know the official versions were pure bull**** - and very cynical and malevelant bull****, at that.