Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble

Tecnos · 04-06-2009, 02:01 PM

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble
Stephen C. Webster
Published: Saturday April 4, 2009

A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.

Quote:

A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.

In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center," reads the paper's abstract. "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)."

Full Article....

kidflash2008 · 04-07-2009, 09:58 AM

Thank you for finding that story. It seems the only way to get any real news is through the alternative news services. I wish the major media outlets would use their resources to follow through on this story to see how much is real and how much is 911 Truth sources.

Tecnos · 04-07-2009, 02:13 PM

It's lucky it was an alternative source then!

And not a '911 Truth' source!

kidflash2008 · 04-08-2009, 09:51 AM

I don't want to ding the 911 Truth people, but they are biased in their research.

I just looked up the Open Chemical Physics Journal, and they are legitimate:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/

I have also bookmarked the site The Raw Story.

I did not mean to imply the story was flawed or made up, just that the major news outlets have the budget and resources to tackle this story. I do not think they will touch it, as it shakes the status quo.

Tecnos · 04-15-2009, 09:06 AM

UPDATE!!!!!

Quote:

Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Obama DOJ Ignoring Evidence of Thermite from WTC
By John S. Hatch

April 14, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -A recent article published in the respected peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal by nine noted scientists offers incontrovertible proof that the dust from the Twin Towers and Building Seven of the World Trade Center contains small intact samples of Thermite.

Thermite is a highly explosive agent consisting mostly of aluminum and iron oxide, and is used to cut steel in building controlled demolitions, and is also used in welding and in military applications.

Using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, and differential scanning calorimetry, the scientists were able to determine that the Thermite present is of a specialized type called Nano-thermite or Superthermite. It burns hotter and has a lower ignition temperature than normal Thermite, and is produced at laboratories such as Lawrence Livermore, incidentally thought to be the same lab that produced the anthrax sent out shortly after 9/11.

Nano-thermite could not be accidentally present in dust samples collected at four different sites, nor could it be the result of clean-up operations at ground zero, as one of the samples was retrieved a mere ten minutes or so after the collapse of the second tower. All samples show the same consistency.

This would explain the streams of molten steel (not aluminum) falling from one of the towers, and the fact that steel remained molten in the rubble for more than a month after the event. There is no scientific explanation for this other than the use of Thermite, which can achieve temperatures of 3500 C, while under ideal conditions jet fuel can achieve just approximately 285 C. It would also explain the otherwise physically impossible near freefall speed of the three buildings, and how they were able to fall so homogeneously.

So what does it mean? It means that there is proof (which so far no one has attempted to refute) that the WTC buildings (and more than three thousand lives, counting the ongoing deaths of first responders and ordinary NYC citizens caused by the dust) were brought down by controlled demolition in a planned and purposeful manner by elements of the Bush Administration, most likely as a ‘catalyzing event’ , the new Pearl Harbor’ fondly mentioned by neo-con PNAC (Plan for the New American Century) and designed to galvanize American citizens in support of attacking other nations and restricting human rights at home. ‘Full Specter Domination’.

This was the excuse or invading Afghanistan and Iraq (there were plans for Syria and Iran as well, and perhaps others), for justifying domestic spying, disappearances, torture, and murder. Murder based on lies and deception, and the killing of American citizens.

Knowing, as he must by now, that 9/11 was conceived and executed not from some dark cave in Afghanistan, but much more likely from some deep bunker in dank Cheneystan, will President Obama still insist on ‘looking ahead’? Just how deep is America’s reserve of dismissal and denial?
I feel for all the victims of 9/11, past, present and future, but was especially haunted by those poor souls who chose to jump to their deaths, or who fell. Surely the people who did this need to be brought to justice. Otherwise America is not ‘looking ahead’. She has her eyes shut tight while she babbles inanities.

John S. Hatch is a Vancouver writer and film-maker. john.s.hatch@gmail.com

Source
Posted by atheo at 3:45 PM

Source....

kidflash2008 · 04-15-2009, 11:01 AM

Again, no major news outlet will touch this story. They are more interested in what type of mutt the President will get or who Simon will yell at this week.

This is the best evidence to show that the towers were part of a controlled explosion. The information comes from a well respected source, and not some fringe area. With the memos and other disarming information that is slowly being released to the public, the truth is coming out. It is getting much more terrifying than even the truthers would have dreamed.

Mingus · 04-15-2009, 11:45 AM

I would like to offer a dissenting opinion, one that defends the official story, though still accuses the Bush administration of knowing more than they admit: http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2934.htm#003

The author is of the opinion, based on contributer "The Voice of the White House", that 9/11 went exactly how it looked, except that Mossad had penetrated the group and notified Washington when they found out what was up. Allegedly others in the intelligence community saw it coming to and shared with Washington these concerns, but the trio of Bush, Rove, and Cheney saw it as an opportunity to gain more power and become a dictatorship; thus the event took place.

kidflash2008 · 04-15-2009, 12:22 PM

The report mentioned comes from a highly respected Journal and not some fringe area of reporting. The facts speak for themselves and do show that an explosive agent was used. The World Trade Center Towers were made to resist being hit with a jet and the fuels inside it. The engineer himself had been interviewed on how strong he made the towers. I will look for the program which was made before the 911 attacks, that interview the designer of the towers. He made them earthquake proof and also "jet" proof as he was thinking of all the possibilities that can happen.

The World Trade Center 7 building going down is still a mystery. The fire was not that hot to bring it down. Even with the twin towers, most of the jet fuel was burned outside of the buildings in the firebomb. The heat was nowhere near what would have been needed to take the towers down.

The Journal is the smoking gun to what actually happened, and the corporate media and powerful families that actually run things will see that they never run such a story.

I used to be like you, Mingus and thought most of the 911 and other conspiracies were a lot of hot air. I really changed my mind when the two memos came out from the Bush Administration on getting rid of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, our most important ones. (While the Second Amendment is important, our freedoms are the most important ones that the Second Amendment helps us protect.) The more that comes out will actually vindicate what many of these sites have been stating in the past. It is already happening now.

Tecnos · 04-15-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

I would like to offer a dissenting opinion, one that defends the official story, though still accuses the Bush administration of knowing more than they admit: http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2934.htm#003

Which bit Mingus?

I'm probably being numb, but I can't see it.

Sorry.

x

Mingus · 04-15-2009, 01:26 PM

Eh, I waffle between the two. The TBRNews perspective seems so much more sensible and plausible, while the thermite has apparently been scientifically proven, though I'm a tad skeptical about it's practicality in that it needs to be timed to a tee and I would think it hard to get thermite into a building without somebody suspecting something. Then again, the attack in '93 kind of cancels out that point.

04-07-2009, 02:13 PM	#3
Tecnos Investigator Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: UK Posts: 419	It's lucky it was an alternative source then! And not a '911 Truth' source! __________________ Last edited by Tecnos; 04-08-2009 at 12:17 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-07-2009, 09:58 AM	#2
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	Thank you for finding that story. It seems the only way to get any real news is through the alternative news services. I wish the major media outlets would use their resources to follow through on this story to see how much is real and how much is 911 Truth sources.

04-08-2009, 09:51 AM	#4
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	I don't want to ding the 911 Truth people, but they are biased in their research. I just looked up the Open Chemical Physics Journal, and they are legitimate: http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/ I have also bookmarked the site The Raw Story. I did not mean to imply the story was flawed or made up, just that the major news outlets have the budget and resources to tackle this story. I do not think they will touch it, as it shakes the status quo.

04-15-2009, 11:01 AM	#6
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	Again, no major news outlet will touch this story. They are more interested in what type of mutt the President will get or who Simon will yell at this week. This is the best evidence to show that the towers were part of a controlled explosion. The information comes from a well respected source, and not some fringe area. With the memos and other disarming information that is slowly being released to the public, the truth is coming out. It is getting much more terrifying than even the truthers would have dreamed.

04-15-2009, 11:45 AM	#7
Mingus Investigator Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 325	I would like to offer a dissenting opinion, one that defends the official story, though still accuses the Bush administration of knowing more than they admit: http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2934.htm#003 The author is of the opinion, based on contributer "The Voice of the White House", that 9/11 went exactly how it looked, except that Mossad had penetrated the group and notified Washington when they found out what was up. Allegedly others in the intelligence community saw it coming to and shared with Washington these concerns, but the trio of Bush, Rove, and Cheney saw it as an opportunity to gain more power and become a dictatorship; thus the event took place.

04-15-2009, 12:22 PM	#8
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	The report mentioned comes from a highly respected Journal and not some fringe area of reporting. The facts speak for themselves and do show that an explosive agent was used. The World Trade Center Towers were made to resist being hit with a jet and the fuels inside it. The engineer himself had been interviewed on how strong he made the towers. I will look for the program which was made before the 911 attacks, that interview the designer of the towers. He made them earthquake proof and also "jet" proof as he was thinking of all the possibilities that can happen. The World Trade Center 7 building going down is still a mystery. The fire was not that hot to bring it down. Even with the twin towers, most of the jet fuel was burned outside of the buildings in the firebomb. The heat was nowhere near what would have been needed to take the towers down. The Journal is the smoking gun to what actually happened, and the corporate media and powerful families that actually run things will see that they never run such a story. I used to be like you, Mingus and thought most of the 911 and other conspiracies were a lot of hot air. I really changed my mind when the two memos came out from the Bush Administration on getting rid of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, our most important ones. (While the Second Amendment is important, our freedoms are the most important ones that the Second Amendment helps us protect.) The more that comes out will actually vindicate what many of these sites have been stating in the past. It is already happening now.

04-15-2009, 01:26 PM	#10
Mingus Investigator Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 325	Eh, I waffle between the two. The TBRNews perspective seems so much more sensible and plausible, while the thermite has apparently been scientifically proven, though I'm a tad skeptical about it's practicality in that it needs to be timed to a tee and I would think it hard to get thermite into a building without somebody suspecting something. Then again, the attack in '93 kind of cancels out that point.