Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble

The Open Chemical Physics Journal published a peer reviewed study by retired professor Steven E. Jones, doctor Niels Harrit and other scientists who scientifically proved that traces of  “a highly engineered explosive” had been found in the rubble and dust collected after the falls of WTC 1, 2 and 7. - javno

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)."

The study, however, shows that the dust was collected from four different sites, three of which were not in the immediate area surrounding the fallen towers. Most of the samples are collections of dust taken from blocks away.

They claim their analysis has uncovered "active thermitic material": a combination of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in a form of thermite known as "nanostructured super-thermite."

Thermite, used in steel welding, fireworks shows, hand grenades and demolition, can produce a chemical reaction known for extremely high temperatures focused in a very small area for a short period of time.

According to the Navy's Small Business Innovation Research, super-thermite "is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services."

"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been shown," said Jones in a media advisory. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available to just anyone."

"The cost and production rate of super-thermite composites has limited the use of these materials in DoD applications," claims the Navy's SBIR.

Dr. Steven E. Jones, a former physicist at Brigham Young University and a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, presented a paper in 2005 discussing alternatives to the government's theory that massive structural damage combined with burning jet fuel to weaken the towers' support infrastructure, causing a rapid "pancake" collapse.

via The Raw Story | Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble.

More from Washington's Blog:
In fact, two previous scientific papers have also found evidence contradicting the official story about 9/11:

  • Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2 Link

  • Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials, The Environmentalist, August, 2008 Link

Indeed, numerous world-class scientists have found evidence contradicting the official story.

If you don’t buy the scientists’ arguments, that’s fine. You can instead look at what the following highly-credible experts say about 9/11:

And the non-conspiracy explanation for this physical evidence would be ... what?


Patrick said...

Swamp gas

Keith Peters said...

"Thermite, used in steel welding ..."

perhaps there might have been some welded steel in the towers?

Ann said...

See, there you go asking for "the non-conspiracy explanation." Already, dear friend, you're showing bias. Why not ask what is the official explanations to these observations?

I think a scientist would tell the difference between the thermite, used in steel welding and that used in an explosive from the start.

Well, the official answer is there aren't any. All the scientists who have published finding in peer-reviewed journals have been literally ignored. (...i.e. as far as I know.)

I wonder why?

Ann said...

"The official explanation during the Bush administration was synonymous with the non-conspiracy explanation."

In other words, they did not address the specific issues brought up by the scientists in their publications.

The scientific publications are not "conspiracy" explanations, but merely part of what science does. That is, being critical and objective, looking at an issue, a problem from all possible angles.

A "conspiracy" is what those who uphold the "official" explanation call those ideas, opinions and scientific investigations (apparently) that don't agree with what they think.