Thursday, 14 May 2009

Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure, chemical composition, and ignition behavior.

The basis and validity of this identification can be grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conclusion, and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples.

But what of the reader whose strong suit isn't the hard sciences? Does one have to be an expert to understand the findings and evaluate the many claims thrown up by "debunkers" to dismiss those findings? Fortunately, the answer is no.

Remember exposing the truth about 911 will stop the War on Terror and shake up the world as we know it. Things can, and will, change.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, May 14th, 2009.]


steven andresen said...


I thought this article in "Alternet" would interest you.

I'm not sure it's very good. I read some of it, thinking, the writer was spending quite a bit of time being very general and non-specific.

Maybe it reflects another effort to make people ignore the recent speeches by Griffin.

I would be interested in your reaction.

steven andresen said...


Joshua Holland, the Alternet writer I mentioned the other day, wrote,

"...there will be no further serious investigation into the events of 9-11. Ironically, that's largely because of the 9/11 "truth movement" itself -- by embracing fanciful notions that the government blew up the World trade Center with thermite charges, or that the Pentagon was hit by a missle -- makes it hard for the rest of us to express rational skepticism of the official account."

this was from his June 5, 2006 essay, "9/11: Wild Conspiracies and Rational Concerns"

At the time he wrote, I am supposing, there was not yet any findings about thermite residue in the building dust. I suspect that Holland did not have an idea that there might be evidence of thermite beyond the supposition that there was from the visual photographic evidence.

Do you think it would be useful to critique these kinds of arguments? I would like to, however, I do not know as many of the detailed responses as would someone more active on the subject.

Personally, I'm I'd like to see more interaction with the opposition.