Monday, September 28, 2015
Is "9/11 Truth" based upon a false theory?
by Jim Fetzer (with T. Mark Hightower)
Given my background in the history and the philosophy of science
and as a professional scholar, I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth for
the purpose of promoting collaborative research on the events of 9/11 by
creating a web site, issuing press releases, archiving old research and
supporting new research, sponsoring conferences, announcing public
presentations, and making efforts to reach out to the public with the
results of our investigations. The most intense conflicts in relation to
the 9/11 Truth movement, however, turn out to come from within and
between research groups, which have all too often found themselves at
odds and severely attacked and even denounced one another.
Based upon my experience, I can report with confidence that the three
most controversial issues within the 9/11 Truth movement are these:
(1) the Pentagon attack, especially, whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, which I have addressed in “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon” and in “Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11”;
(2) the planes in New York, especially, whether video fakery was used there, which I have addressed in “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11” and “Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity”; and,
(3) the demolition of the Twin Towers, especially, how
it was done, the dominant theory being that they were destroyed using
nanothermite as the principal mechanism, which I address here.
These
are questions that can be investigated using scientific reasoning to
evaluate alternative hypotheses. The benefits from this appear to be
considerable, since, if my efforts are successful, (a) we will have a
better understanding of what happened, (b) there will be fewer, less
intense conflicts between us, and (c) we will become more cohesive and
effective in promoting our objectives and goals. A “9/11 Truth”
movement, after all, has to be based on truth, where science is our most
reliable method for distinguishing between what is true and what is
false, where I can apply my background and the 35 years I spent offering
courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning.
The evidence presented in those studies about (1) the Pentagon attack
and (2) the planes in New York and (3) the demolition of the Twin
Towers here not
only falsifies the official account of 9/11 but also implicates the
Department of Defense in the case of (1) and the national media in the
case of (2) with its deceit and deception in perpetrating fraud on the
American people. While I have no doubt that the Mossad was involved, it
could not have been responsible for the “stand down” of the US Air Force
on 9/11 nor for the failure of the Pentagon to take measures to protect
itself from an aircraft, whose approach was known to Dick Cheney and to
the pilot of a C-130, who was circling the building at the time. The
Mossad is far more likely to have been deeply involved in (3) the
destruction of the Twin Towers.
The Nanothermite Theory
While there are many points of agreement within the 9/11 Truth
community, which include that the North Tower was hit first but
“collapsed” second’; that the fires burned neither long enough nor hot
enough for the steel to have weakened, much less melted; that collapse
scenarios were not even physically possible; and that NIST has never
been able to justify a “point of initiation”, much less present a
serious collapse simulation, there has been ongoing controversy over how
it was done, where the prevalent theory is that nanothermite was the
principal ingredient. If any single event could be said to have inspired
the 9/11 Truth community, it was the publication of an article in the
Bentham Open Science journal:
Bolstered in their belief by this article by Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, in
The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2 (2009), pp. 7-31, the theory has
become dominant in 9/11 research. And this has remained the case even
though the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Marie-Paule Pileni, who
specializes in nano-materials research at the Université Pierre et Marie
Curie in France, resigned her position in protest of its publication, which she regarded as very inappropriate.
The article itself, which was based upon studies of dust that was
collected from the immediate vicinity of “Ground Zero”, maintains that
nanothermite residue was found in the dust and suggests that this
finding holds the key to understanding the means by which the Twin
Towers were blown apart. It was done using “explosive nanothermite”. The
article asserts, for example,
“The feature of ‘impulse management’ may be significant. It is
possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient
percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing
the noise level” (page 26);
And concludes with the following (somewhat ambiguous) declaration:
“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” (page 31);
. . . which has been widely construed to have established scientifically
that nanothermite was found in the dust, that nanothermite is
explosive, and that nanothermite was the crucial ingredient in bringing
about the conversion of the Twin Towers into a few large pieces and
millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which appears to have been
critical for the preservation of the bathtub, the shattering of which
would have allowed Hudson River water to flood beneath Lower Manhattan,
the subway and the PATH train tunnels, causing monumental damage to the
most valuable real estate in the world, which the conspirators, it
appears, wanted to preclude by employing a novel mode of demolition.
Enthusiastic Endorsements
The widespread acceptance of nanothermite as the crucial component of
the demolition of the Twin Towers has become a matter of common
knowledge within the 9/11 Truth community. But here are samples of the
extent to which it has become embedded in reasoning about 9/11. On April
5, 2009, for example, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
published “Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust”, presenting its ringing endorsement of its findings:
“A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that
red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are
actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech
explosive.
“The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan,
some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed,
ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations. . . .
“Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it
is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high
explosive. It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint.”
During an interview in RUSSIA TODAY (July 2009),
Neils Harrit, the paper’s first author, offers observations that are
rather more qualified by suggesting that, while thermite was “used for
melting the steel beams”, he is certain that conventional explosives
were also used:
“There is very solid evidence for that some thermite has been used
for melting the steel beams. We should not, I do not know, we do not
know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has
been used for melting the beams. It’s very very possible that different
varieties was used and I personally am certain that conventional
explosives were used too in abundance.” When asked what he meant by the
phrase,“in abundance,” he said “tons, hundred tons, many many many
tons.”
In his admirable “Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?”,
GLOBAL RESEARCH (6 July 2010), David Ray Griffin, the dean of 9/11
research, expressed his emphatic support for nanothermite as a powerful
explosive capable of exerting enormous force and ejecting large sections
of steel hundreds of feet:
“NIST thereby admitted that debris had been thrown out horizontally
from the North Tower at least 350 feet.84 NIST’s report also stated:
“When WTC 1 collapsed at 10:28:22 AM, . . . some fragments [of
debris] were forcibly ejected and traveled distances up to hundreds of
meters. Pieces of WTC 1 hit WTC 7, severing six columns on Floors 7
through 17 on the south face and one column on the west face near the
southwest corner. The debris also caused structural damage between Floor
44 and the roof.85
“Debris that caused such extensive damage, including the severing of
seven steel columns, had to be quite heavy. NIST seemed to be granting,
therefore, that sections of steel columns had been hurled at least 650
feet (because “hundreds of meters” would mean at least 200 meters, which
would be about 650 feet). Enormous force would be needed to eject large
sections of steel that far out.
“What could have produced this force? According to NIST, as we saw
earlier, there were only three causal factors in the collapse of the
Twin Towers: the airplane impacts, the fires, and gravitational
attraction. The airplane impacts had occurred 56 minutes (South Tower)
and 102 minutes (North Tower) earlier, and gravitational attraction
pulls things straight downward. Fire could, to be sure, produce
horizontal ejections by causing jet fuel to explode, but the jet fuel
had, NIST pointed out, burned up within “a few minutes.”86 Therefore,
although NIST admitted that these horizontal ejections occurred, it
suggested no energy source to explain them.
“High explosives, such as RDX or nanothermite, could
explain these horizontal ejections. According to NIST, however,
explosives did not contribute to the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Those who accept NIST’s account must, therefore, regard these horizontal
ejections as constituting yet another miracle.”
And there can be scant room for doubt that Griffin’s characterization
has become the dominant view within the 9/11 Truth community, where it
has assumed a standing akin to that of a religious dogma, where those
who challenge that belief have been subject to severe reactions from
within the community, including forms of banishment and blackballing,
very much on the order of heretics in theological disputes of the past,
many of whom were even burned at the stake.
The Split in Scholars
And I have been among them. When I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I
invited Steven Jones, a physicist from BYU, to serve as my co-chair, on
the advice of David Ray Griffin, whom I invited first. I would later
learn from David that, at that time, he had no confidence that a society
could make a difference, which was an opinion he would later retract.
In the months between founding the society in December of 2005 and the
American Scholars Conference in Los Angeles in June of 2006, I had heard
a lot about thermite, thermate, and nanothermite, but was skeptical
that it could perform the feats of blowing massive assemblies of steel
hundreds of yards and converting two 500,000 ton buildings into millions
of cubic yards of very fine dust. On Saturday of the conference, I
approached Steve in the lobby and asked him if he was confident that
nanothermite could bring about these effects—and was not entirely
persuaded when he assured me that, “Yes, it could!”
By the end of the year, I had become convinced that it was necessary to
broaden the range of hypotheses that were under consideration as
candidates to explain the destruction of the Twin Towers. None of us had
any problems with WTC-7, which exhibited all the characteristics of a
classic controlled demolition: the explosion began at the base, ran up
the side of the building with a kink in the roof, where all the floors
fell at the same time into the buildings foundation at the approximate
rate of free fall and a stack of debris about 12% of its original height
remained. The Twin Towers were different, where all of their floors
remained stationary until they were “blown to kingdom come” (in the
memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds), where they were destroyed at the
approximate rate of free fall, too, but where, as Fr. Frank Morales from
St. Mark’s Episcopal Church observed during two interviews on a radio
program I co-hosted with Kevin Barrett, “The Dynamic Duo”, both
buildings, unlike WTC-7, were destroyed below ground level!
The differences between us were exacerbated when I interviewed Dr. Judy
Wood, a former professor of mechanical engineering, who was promoting
the alternative theory that directed energy weapons might have been used
to destroy the buildings rather than thermite in any of its guises,
which took place on November 11, 2006. What I liked the most about
Judy’s work was that it offered a fresh perspective about how it could
have been done, where she asked me to guess where a directed energy
device could have been located and, when I offered WTC-7 as a guess, she
corrected me and said, “In space!” I would bet that this interview
caused more division in the 9/11 Truth community than any other event
before or after. Judy began being attacked for advocating “space beams”
and “death rays”, while I was castigated for supporting her. That I was
SUPPORTING RESEARCH on her theory as opposed to ENDORSING IT was a
subtlety that was lost on the crowd, where it has become part of the presumptive history of the 9/11 movement.
Critique of Steven Jones
Perhaps my strongest critique of Steve’s work occurred by accident. On
May 17, 2007, my scheduled guest on “The Dynamic Duo”, Don Paul, was a
no-show and I had to wing it for two hours. So for the first part of the
show, I talked about my collaborative research on the death of Sen.
Paul Wellstone and on the assassination of JFK. During the second part,
however, I focused my attention on a new paper he had just published,
“Why indeed did the World Trade Center buildings completely collapse?” A
copy can be found on the Journal of 9/11 Studies 3 (2006),
which I suppose is a close facsimile of the paper I discussed, although
Steve has sometimes revised his work on-line without formal notice. In
my critique, I pointed out that the title was wrong, since the buildings
had not “collapsed” and that he was talking about the Twin Towers, but
my more serious criticisms concerned his deeply flawed conception of the
scientific method and what I regarded as inadequate support for his
thermite/thermate/nanothermite theory, “On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community”. Here are a few passages for the flavor:
“Don’t forget that eleven hundred bodies were never recovered. Eleven hundred bodies were never recovered. Those were bodies that were turned into very fine dust. Never recovered. That’s completely inconsistent with a “collapse”. Even involving explosive, you would expect to find body parts, even if they were detached from bodies. And you’d find lots of skulls and torsos and arms and legs, but here we’re talking eleven hundred bodies, no parts of which were recovered. This is stunning stuff. And it certainly implies that something was going on here far beyond the use of any merely conventional explosives.
“But what’s going on in the research community is an attempt to constrain research that would actually have the capacity potentially to explain what’s going on. By reaching beyond conventional weaponry in to the range of unconventional weaponry, such as lasers, masers, plasmoids, mini-nukes. I mean, who knows in advance of actually conducting an investigation that theories or hypotheses about the use of lasers or masers or mini-nukes are wrong? You can’t know that without investigation. And I’m going to suggest that a gigantic hoax is being perpetrated on the research community by the claim that [the] scientific method supports this very narrow definition of the use of thermite and thermate . . . .
“. . . where I have now taken a look at the latest paper of the leading proponent of that view, Steven Jones, and it doesn’t add up. I mean it may be impressive to those who are naïve about the nature of science and who are incapable of reading a paper that has the least degree of technical sophistication to it, but I’m going to suggest to you as we go through this paper that what we have here is a rather elaborate “snow job”, where the most important points made are actually concessions that the evidence he has found is merely consistent with the use of thermite or thermate but doesn’t prove it was produced by thermite or thermate, where, provided that there are multiple alternative possible explanations, he has not done the job. And I’m going to claim that he has not done the job because he has a commitment to a conception of scientific method that is hopelessly inadequate. Hopelessly inadequate. And that while he talks a lot about science, he is, alas, not practicing it.”
Jones’ maintains that the scientific method is a process of observation,
formulating an hypothesis, performing tests and experiments, and then
publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s wrong, because
science cannot simply begin with observation (since there is too much
we could observe) and it cannot proceed by studying one hypothesis at a
time. Science is a process of puzzlement (because something doesn’t fit
into your background knowledge), speculation (by identifying the
alternative hypotheses that might explain the data), adaptation (of
hypotheses to data by calculating and comparing their likelihoods), and
explanation (by accepting the hypothesis with the highest likelihood
when the evidence has “settled down”, in the tentative and fallible
fashion of science). His inadequate methodology derives from the failure
to grasp that scientific research requires the comparison of
alternative hypotheses and cannot focus only on one.
“Houston, we have a problem!”
The most glaring empirical failure of the then-current version of his paper is that he finally gets around to talking about barium nitrate,
and by the time you reach the final page, he has acknowledged that what
he is talking about is not actually thermite but what he calls a
“thermite analog”, which he does not actually define, and he admits that
thermite, which he now calls “TH3”, is an analog of thermite that
contains sulfur and barium nitrate and now he talks about thermite “as defined here”. It turns out this barium-nitrate-containing thermite is
the military grade thermite that he has been using to demonstrate the
effectiveness of thermite, illustrated by the use of a thermite grenade
on the top of an engine block. But no barium nitrate has
been found in the analysis of the chemical residue in the analysis of
the dust by Steven Jones or by the US Geological Survey. So in this
version, he has pulled a bait-and-switch. Looking at the current version
on-line, however, barium nitrate is mentioned on page 19 but not at the end of his paper, which means that it has been revised since I critiqued it.
I am not the only one to have evaluated that version of his paper in
caustic, negative terms, since a complementary critique comes from
Stephen Phillips, “A Physicist Critiques Steven Jones’ New Paper” (May
21, 2007), where the present version is clearly not the same as the one
he and I were addressing—a reflection of which may be that he actually
includes my name in the acknowledgements! So let’s look at the
conclusion of the current version and consider what he says there:
“Remarkably, the controlled-demolition hypothesis accounts for all
the available data rather easily. The core columns (and corner perimeter
columns) on floors damaged by the planes are cut near-simultaneously
using radio-signaled explosives/incendiary-cutters. In this scenario,
cutter-charges were set every two or three floors during routine
“maintenance” of elevator shafts, etc., so that the cutting sequence
could be matched in a controlling computer to begin at the level where
the plane entered each Tower. Next cutter-charges were detonated from
the top downward for the Towers, ejecting beams and material long
distances horizontally as observed during the destruction. The
“collapses” are thus near-symmetrical, complete, at near-free-fall
speeds with accompanying “squibs”. Thermite analogs (whose end product
is molten iron) including the explosive form, nano-thermite, may account
for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles as well
as the sulfidation observed in steel from both the WTC 7 and Towers
rubble piles (points 1 and 2 above). WTC 7 evidently proceeded in a more
conventional fashion for controlled demolition, with
collapse-initiating explosions starting on lower floors (rather than at
high-floor levels as for the Towers).”
Notice that, like Architects & Engineers and David Ray Griffin,
Steve is attributing vast powers to thermite in its “explosive”
nanothermite form, including the capacity to eject steel beams and
materials long distances horizontally “as observed during the
destruction”. He appeals to “thermite analogs” whose end product is
molten iron—“including the explosive form, nanothermite”—may account for
the molten metal that pooled beneath the rubble piles, where WTC-7, he
acknowledges, “evidently proceeded in a more conventional fashion for
controlled demolition”, beginning on the lower floors rather than from
the top. This is well and good and moves in the right direction. But can
even these claims for nanothermite be sustained? It appears that they
cannot.
Nanothermite: A Feeble Explosive
I has been my great pleasure over the past twelve months or more to
participate in a research group focusing on the properties of thermite
in all its original, thermate and nanothemite forms. We were aided and
abetted in this process by contributions from Daniel Fairchild, a
Vietnam veteran experienced in dealing with explosives, who was my guest
on “The Real Deal” on
, an interview that stimulated our thinking about how explosives work
and how they might have been employed on 9/11. While some of his numbers
struck us as faulty, Dan’s work motivated T. Mark Hightower, an
engineer who has worked in the chemical industry and the space
program—including with NASA for 21 years—to undertake a search of the
open technical literature on nanothermite to determine its explosive
potential in comparison to other explosives.
What Mark discovered was surprising, especially given the extent to
which leading figures of the 9/11 Truth movement have promoted it. The
highest degree of explosiveness for iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite—the
chemical form claimed to have been involved in WTC destruction—that
Mark could find documented in the technical literature has a detonation
velocity of only 895 m/s (or meters per second). Since TNT, the
universal standard for comparison, has a detonation velocity of 6,900
m/s, the explosive potential of thermite in its most potent form of
nanothermite is acutely disappointing. When we divide the velocity of
nanothermite by that for TNT (895/6,900), it turns out nanothermite is
not even 13% as powerful as TNT. (See “Table of Explosive Velocities”
from Wikipedia.)
As Mark has explained in a blog, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”, and an interview on “The Real Deal”
, 895 m/s is obviously too low of a value to account for the explosive
effects observed in the catastrophic destruction of the WTC Twin Towers,
including turning concrete and other materials into dust or separating
and propelling steel members and other materials outward. Comparisons
with the detonation velocities of conventional high explosives, such as
8,750 m/s for RDX or 9,100 m/x for HMX (not to mention 8,040 m/s for C-4
and 8,400 m/s for PETN), it is clear that nanothermite is not even in
the same ballpark. While thermite in one or another of its guises as a
rapid incendiary could have been used to sever or pre-weaken steel
members, this low velocity melting process is a totally different
mechanism for the cutting of steel than the shock wave method that
requires detonation velocities of at least 3,200 m/s for concrete and
6,100 m/s for steel.
With respect to the demolition of the Twin Towers and blowing them to
bits, low-explosive nanothermite, which does exist, can be eliminated as
an hypothesis because it is ineffective. High-explosive nanothermite as
an alternative can be eliminated because it simply does not exist. Mark
therefore concludes that the phrase, “explosive nanothermite”, when
used to describe the causal mechanism for demolishing the Twin Towers is
either seriously misleading under a charitable interpretation and at
worst deliberately deceptive under an uncharitable one. Either way,
conventional or unconventional explosives would have had to be combined
with thermite, even in its nanothermite form. And if such a blend had
been employed, the nanothermite would function more as an additive to
high explosives rather than as the main ingredient itself.
The Nanothermite Challenge
On May 1, 2011, Hightower published, “The Nanothermite Challenge”, as part of a longer study, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”. The challenge comes to this:
“Find and document peer-reviewed scientific research [publications]
that demonstrate that a gas-generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon
iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas-generating
chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can
be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of
2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate [to AE911Truth] $100 for
every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the
donation not to exceed $1,000.”
The deadline date of June 20, 2011 passed with not even one entry to
this contest. Interestingly, Kevin Ryan posted an article at 911blogger
that very day entitled “The explosive nature of nanothermite”. In this article, Ryan admits that they know very little about the role that nanothermite played in 9/11.
“Although we know that nanothermite has been found in the WTC dust,
we do not know what purpose it served in the deceptive demolition of the
WTC buildings. It could be that the nanothermite was used simply to
drive fires in the impact zones and elevator areas – fires which would
otherwise have gone out too early or not been present at all – and
thereby create the deception that jet fuel-induced fires could wreak the
havoc seen. Nanothermite might also have been used to produce the
explosions necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the
buildings.”
In Ryan’s paper he cites (what he claims to be) “ten references to the
fact that nanothermites can be made to be explosive.” During my
interview with Mark Hightower of
, on “The Real Deal”, however, Mark refuted every one of Ryan’s ten
references. Let me document just one especially interesting example of
those refutations here. Ryan’s reference 4 states,
“A high explosive creates a shockwave that always travels at high,
supersonic velocity from the point of origin. This paper describes how –
‘the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast
propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to
3.'”
All you need to do is go to the title of this paper to see that it is
not relevant to the nanothermite hypothesis advanced by Jones, Ryan,
Griffin and Harrit, among others, because it is for the wrong chemical form of thermite. The Twin Towers destruction allegedly involved the use of iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite, but
in this paper, “Generation of fast propagating combustion and shock
waves with copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite composities”, Applied Physics Letters (2007), we have copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite. Although not the main thrust of the paper, it gives a qualified reference to iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite research. It says,
“Recently, we reported that higher combustion wave speeds were
achieved for the composites of ordered porous Fe2O3 oxidizer and Al
nanoparticles (5) as compared with the one containing porous oxidizer
with no ordering of the pores and Al nanoparticles.”
Unfortunately no velocities are given, so it was necessary to go to the
reference (5) cited in this paper to find more data, which Mark has
done. The information for the reference (5) paper is as follows:
Mehendale, Bhushan , Shende, Rajesh , Subramanian, Senthil ,
Gangopadhyay, Shubhra , Redner, Paul , Kapoor, Deepak and Nicolich,
Steven(2006) ‘Nanoenergetic Composite of Mesoporous Iron Oxide and
Aluminum Nanoparticles’, Journal of Energetic Materials, 24: 4, 341 — 360
On page 357, there is a graph, where the highest velocities (referred to
as “burn rates” on the graph) are reported for the specified iron oxide/aluminum nanothermites. Those velocities are all less than 300 m/s, which is even less than the 895 m/s that Mark Hightower has established for iron/oxide aluminum nanothermite. It is safe to say that nothing revealed by Kevin Ryan provides an adequate response to “the nanothermite challenge”.
Replies from Researchers
In retrospect, it should have been obvious that nanothermite could not
live up to its capabilities as they have been advanced by Steven Jones,
Kevin Ryan, and others, who regard themselves as the custodians and only
true practitioners of the scientific method in 9/11 research. Thus,
Denis Spitzer et al., “Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances”, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids (2010),
where, given the crucial role of the rapid expansion of gases to
perform work by explosives, states, “Gas generating nano-thermites:
Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species
when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to
give them blasting properties”, which implies that, unless supplemented
with explosives, nanothermites are not explosive.
In his efforts to inform prominent researchers about his discoveries,
Mark wrote to Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and others. Dwain Deets, the
former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical
Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote to Mark and told
him that he had listened to our interview on “The Real Deal” and said:
“Excellent interview. A step toward trimming back claims that overshoot
the evidence.” He also sent a diagram illustrating certain detonation
velocities as well as the sonic (speed of sound) velocities in various
materials. Thus, for a high explosive to significantly fragment a
material, its detonation velocity has to be greater than the speed of
sound in that material, which requires a detonation velocity of at least
3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel–far
beyond 895 m/s for nanothermite.
On July 7, 2011, Hightower received emails from both David Ray Griffin
and Richard Gage. Gage wrote back that “it [nanothermite] should not be
called a ‘high’ explosive”. Griffin made a similar suggestion and, in
reply, Mark observed that calling it simply “an explosive” would convey
to most members of the public that it is “a high explosive” or, given
it’s invocation by the “hard evidence” crowd, at least, has the ability
to disintegrate concrete and even steel. Since that is the impression
that has been indelibly implanted in the consciousness of the public,
within and without the 9/11 Truth movement, until that claim is
corrected, the 9/11 Truth movement will be based upon a provably false
theory.
Griffin himself, of course, is not a scientist and is relying upon the
work of Jones, Ryan, and others. But when he wrote back, “We are happy
with our formulation, that it can be tailored to work as an incendiary
or [as] an explosive. We cannot be responsible for the fact that many
people may equate ‘explosive’ with ‘high explosive'”, his answer raised a
number of rather disturbing questions about the ethical implications of
allowing these enormously misleading impressions to linger:
(1) Will Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth inform the public
that it has misrepresented the potential for “explosive nanothermite”?;
and,
(2) If nanothermite only exists as a low explosive, that it cannot
“hold the key” to the destruction of the Twin Towers, as has been
claimed?; and,
(3) Will A&E admit that nanothermite cannot possibly be the
“smoking gun” of 9/11 research, when the hard evidence contradicts that
claim?
The 9/11 Truth Dilemma
Once again, as in the case of the Pentagon crash site and the question
of “planes/no planes”, serious students of 9/11 are placed in a dilemma.
If they are committed to truth, as the name “9/11 Truth” implies, then
they have to confront the fact that claims advanced on behalf the
nanothermite hypothesis—that the scientific key to understanding the demolition of the Twin Towers is the use of the nano-version of thermite—cannot
be sustained. When the detonation velocity of nanothermite is only 895
m/s, while TNT has a detonation velocity of 6,900 m/s, the explosive
potential of thermite—even in its most potent form as nanothermite—is
more than acutely disappointing. When it turns out nanothermite is not
even 13% as powerful as TNT, the very idea that nanothermite should
“hold the scientific key to understanding what happened to the Twin
Towers” is simply absurd.
But shouldn’t the leaders of a self-proclaimed 9/11 “scientific
research” group have sorted this out before they proclaimed that
nanothermite was “the key”? As Mark has observed in his study,
Steve Jones made a mistake early in his 9/11 research career by
classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category with RDX,
HMX, and others, whose detonation velocities are overwhelmingly greater.
Alas, “The 9/11 truth movement has never recovered from from this
error, for to this day nearly everyone in the 9/11 movement refers to
‘explosive nanothermite’, as even this clever cover for a fictitious
‘For Dummies’ book [above] illustrates.” And shouldn’t those who were
promoting it to the community have discovered their blunder and taken
steps to correct the false impression that they were thereby conveying?
My critique of Steve Jones’ research, “On the manipulation of the 9/11 Truth Community”,
in which I observed, for example, that “the most important points [he
has] made are actually concessions that the evidence he has found is
merely consistent with the use of thermite or thermate but doesn’t prove
it was produced by thermite or thermate, where, provided that there are
multiple alternative possible explanations, he has not done the job.
And I’m going to claim that he has not done the job because he has a
commitment to a conception of scientific method that is hopelessly
inadequate. . . . And that while he talks a lot about science, he is,
alas, not practicing it”, was presented on the air on on May 17, 2007.
It was even published on 911blogger, but met with derision and
hostility, where the comments were extremely revealing.
And there were other signs of trouble brewing. The Rock Creek Free Press (May 2009),
for example, published a piece about nanothermite, which offered a more
reasonable assessment of its explosive capabilities, explaining that
even if it has the potential to be a low grade explosive, its use as a
high explosive—which might be capable of doing the work required to
bring about (at least a major part of) the destruction of the Twin
Towers—would require that it be combined with a high explosive. Surely
this front-page article, which featured photos of Neils Harrit, Jeffrey
Farrer, Kevin Ryan, and Steve Jones, ought to have caught the attention
of the leaders of the “hard-evidence” research group.
Even now, after the publication of “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”,
some of its most important advocates, such as Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan,
and Neils Harrit, remain its obdurate supporters. There are signs that
others may be more appreciative of the significance of these
considerations, where recent handouts from Architechts & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth advance the slightly more modest claim, “WTC dust samples
contain chips of highly energetic nano-thermite composite materials –
uniformly nano-sized, proportioned in an organic gas-generating
(explosive) matrix”, which appears to be the fallback position: nanothermite may not be explosive, but it can be combined with explosives to make it explosive.
The same, alas, can also be said of toothpaste. At some point,
therefore, these “leaders” of the 9/11 Truth movement have to concede
that a mistake was made and that they have misled the movement:
nanothermite cannot possibly hold the key to understanding the
demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11.
James H. Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and a columnist for VT. [NOTE: This is one in a series of articles being republished since veterans today.com deleted them in a dispute with its Senior Editor, Gordon Duff, about which I have since written several articles.]
T. Mark Hightower has worked as an
engineer for nearly 30 years, initially in the chemical industry, then
in the space program for NASA, and currently in the environmental field,
also with NASA. He is a member of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers (AIChE) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (AIAA). His research on 9/11 is an exercise of his
Constitutional rights as a private citizen and in no way represents his
employer or any of the professional societies of which he is a member.
No comments:
Post a Comment