A 2009 Paper Claims to Have Found Explosive Material in Dust from the 9/11 Tragedy - Please Donate Dust or Money for an Independent Study to Either Confirm or Refute The Paper

By John-Michael Talboo and Ziggi Zugam

Ever more people are realizing that the official account of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 is a cover-up, and that we need a proper independent investigation. One aspect of that investigation will have to deal with the explosive destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, the third skyscraper to disappear that day. Government officials tell us that crashing airplanes led to the exploding Twin Towers, and that normal office fires destroyed a steel skyscraper, Building 7, for the first time in history.

There is no actual evidence behind those theories, only unverified computer animations, since NIST ignored all the evidence or had it destroyed: Plenty of witnesses, including first-responders, have testified that explosions were seen and heard. The government has admitted that all three towers fell to the ground at either free-fall acceleration, or close to it - which is the hallmark of controlled demolition. They never slowed down either, and the expected squibs were also visible. The owner of Building 7 and several other parties may have known that it would be brought down, and some witnesses heard a count-down before the building imploded. The rubble of the towers supports the first-responder testimony with the tell-tale signs of spent incendiary/explosive materials, and the air-pollution provides further evidence - all this is hardly a coincidence.

Finally, a team of scientists has confirmed all these "smoking guns" with a peer-reviewed paper that identifies tiny remnants of active explosives in the dust from the collapsed buildings. The discovery of explosives developed in US government labs is just too shocking for many people to accept, because of its implications. This is why we are asking you to donate money to pay for independent studies that will either support or refute this unchallenged paper.

- Keep reading for a comprehensive explanation of the explosive paper by Harrit et al from 2009. Find out why no one has refuted it, why current attempts are failing and unlikely to produce a credible challenge, and why we need more dust, money and independent scientists...

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/

Building What? is up...

And according to Joseph Nobles, there's a lie on every page. I have just recently looked through the website myself, and while I admittedly have some differences with it, Mr. Nobles seems to think that almost everything on the site is either false or misleading. Mr. Nobles' responses to the evidence pages at Building What? are, as we will see, very misleading and false.

Free Fall Collapse

Mr. Nobles claims that NIST actually explained what caused the period of free fall in Building 7's collapse.



It has been demonstrated several times why this explanation is complete nonsense. NIST merely implies that the alleged buckling of the floors caused the free fall, without offering any sort of analysis into exactly how the buckling caused it in the first place. Basically, we are being told that "NIST said 8 floors buckled, and it fell in free fall for 8 stories, so the buckling must have caused the free fall." That is a lot like saying "2 is a number. 1 is a number. Therefore, 2=1."

Dr. Shyam Sunder himself admitted that free fall means an object has "no structural components below it." And yet now NIST is telling us that buckled columns led to free fall. Buckled supports is a long way from "no supports."

NIST Collapse Model

According to Mr. Nobles, NIST's computer models accurately simulate the collapse of the building.



If Mr. Nobles had bothered to pay attention to the video posted on that page, he would have seen that both models--the one with and without structural damage--are very different from the actual collapse.



Even assuming that the "curtain wall" would have added some stiffness, the models still show the building collapsing in a different manner in terms of direction and rate. Neither of NIST's simulations even show the entire collapse, so how can it be possibly determined if they are accurate or not?



Again, this matter could be easily resolved if NIST were to release their modeling data for review.

Sulfidated Steel

This topic is especially interesting, as I recently addressed this issue raised by Mr. Nobles in great detail. He offers his own sentiments about how sulfur evaporates at 445°C.



Given the fact that it has been determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag containing iron, oxygen, and sulfur, it would seem to indicate that the sulfur was chemically mixed into whatever sulidified the steel, rather than just evaporating in the air. Mr. Nobles once again avoids the issue of there being no plausible natural explanation for the sulfur in the building, as evidenced by his omission of the next part of this page, which reads:

"The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”

Explosive Residues

This section is quite remarkable, as Mr. Nobles offers a now very old explanation for the red/gray chips.



This has been refuted SEVERAL times.





I would be very interested if someone could find me a can of exploding primer paint. I asked my local Home Depot if they had any, but they said they didn't. Guess they must have been out of stock.

Regardless, Mr. Nobles features this comparison picture as evidence.



I came up with a good analogy for this.



Notice that his picture shows paint from the WTC was heated to over 650°C. The chips Dr. Jones found ignite at around 430°C.

Eyewitnesses

According to Mr. Nobles, even if there were witnesses to explosions, it doesn't matter because there are apparently no explosions in any of the collapse videos.



First of all, the actual "sounds of explosions" are not necessary to warrant an investigation into if they were used.



But the fact is, sound evidence for explosions has been found.





Foreknowledge

Mr. Nobles then criticizes the page on the foreknowledge of Building 7's collapse.



As Graeme MacQueen points out in the abstract of his essay, Waiting for Seven:

"The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse; they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told."

And this assertion is backed up by not only the information in his essay, but other sources as well.

Destruction of Evidence

Mr. Nobles lastly claims that there was nothing suspicious about the rapid clean-up of the WTC debris.



I'm sorry if the removal of the debris doesn't bother you Mr. Nobles, but it bothered others, including people who don't think the buildings were demolished.

Minute 7:18


Mr. Nobles closes with saying that the videos of Building 7's collapse featured on Building What? don't feature the penthouse collapse or audio. Well, the collapse of column 79 and the penthouse is problematic enough itself, and here's a video that does feature audio of the collapse, and it doesn't exactly sound quiet.



Related Info:

NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself

Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!

Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers

Shirley they can't be serious!

Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense

More About That Exploding Paint

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials:

"They say that they are not interested in hearing debunking of Steven Jones' latest paper (Active Thermitic Material...). Nope, if we are going to debunk that laughable attempt to claim that bits of red paint and rust amount to Thermite we have to do it with a peer-reviewed paper." - Pat Curley, Screw Loose Change blog

Yes, if you are claiming that highly credentialed scientists have been fooled by paint, after two years of research, when paint was one of the very first considerations, then you should back that claim up in the way they have backed up theirs. When the lead author of the paper, associate professor of chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, Dr. Niels H. Harrit, was asked during an interview on Denmark television if he was in any doubt that the material was present, he replied unambiguously, "You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite."

If you think this author/or co-author of nearly 60 peer reviewed scientific papers is fudging, or was fooled by paint, someone on your side should demonstrate this beyond the blogosphere. I think physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones put it best when he noted that:

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

Getting back to paint being one of the very first considerations, it's worthy to note that one of the first things indicating the materials were not paint chips was their explosiveness! At the Boston 9/11 Conference on 12/15/07 Steven Jones first reported his findings, stating:

Many red chips I found in the WTC dust, last June I started noticing these. Their attracted by a magnet, a thought came, well maybe it's just paint. It's hard to get thermite to ignite, and I finally thought, how can we tell if this is thermite or not?... It has the right chemical signature.

A friend of mine has an oxyacetylene torch with a very fine tip, he uses it for repairing eyeglasses, and so I had him pass it over one of these red chips... And it flamed, it flashed, as he passed over it.

He went on to state that this, in conjunction with the chemical signature and the red color, was a strong indication that this was indeed a form of thermite.

During a debate with architect Richard Gage 9/11 "debunker" Mark Roberts also suggested the red chips were paint, after Gage replied, "That's why they're extremely explosive I suppose," Roberts conveniently ignored him, stating, "These chips... One thing that should ring a bell, is that they look exactly like all the primer paint that's on the structural steel."

Of course Robert's assumption has nothing on empirical evidence. In a recent interview with Dr. Harriet conducted by national Emmy nominee and regional Emmy award-winning investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe, he notes that, "In the primer paint, which was used on the steel beams at the original World Trade Center – we looked up the original recipes for those paints. The paints contained as an anti-corrosive: chromium and zinc, which we do not find. And magnesium, which we do not see either. These are negative indications why the red-gray chips are not paint."

More detailed analysis can be found in Harrit's article "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT."

Also of note is the fact that, as Jim Hoffman of the website 9/11 Research points out, "Soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone, a solvent that dissolves paint, with periodic agitation for 55 hours, the red layers swelled up but remained intact and attached to their respective gray layers, and the thin plates tended to migrate and aggregate."

RussiaToday: Nano-thermite took down the WTC?

9/11: WTC Building 7"Collapse" video compilation

"Hey 'debunkers', if you ever come up with any primer paint chips that we can burn which yields microspheres, would you be kind enough to PM me? Thanks. The Harrit team is emphatic that no spheres were present in the chips before igniting them." - primrod

9/11 - Debunking the Debunkers - Exploding Primer Paint?

Debunker Paint

Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 9 of 12 - Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009 Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 11 of 12 - Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009