More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring (archive)

(As Truther influencers start pushing the thermite distraction again (which even Professor Jones discredited) it's important to remember how it was used in the past to distract from very real convincing evidence from the RJ Lee Group ('it was a combustion event not a compression event'))

(archived from August 23, 2009)

by Scott Creighton

Another AE911Truth member has come out with what he claims is video evidence of the presence of  “nanothermite” in the demolition process of the World Trade Centers.  It is surprising that AE911Truth (an organization made up primarily of engineers and scientists)  would be promoting this video by David Chandler because it is an embarrassing collection of unsupported conclusions and really bad science.  It so obvious, anyone can pick it apart.  Unfortunately, I think that might be it’s purpose.

This “nanothermite” track that the Truth Movement has been on since the publication of the Harrit/Jones/Roberts paper has been increasingly dishonest since the very beginning and this is just another example of how “nanothermite” is blowing up our movement.

Which is, of course, the only thing this “super secret” pyrotechnic COULD blow up…

What they proposed in their paper was that they had found “active thermetic material” that utilized “nano technology” in the dust from the WTC demolitions.  In later discussions, they (Jones and Harrit at least) have estimated the presence of at least 10 tons of this unexploded material exists in the dust that was scattered around New York on Sept. 11th, 2001.

There has been a great deal of reasoned evaluation of the paper itself and the results of those evaluations have not been positive.

 

For the most part there is a a great deal of proof out there that the “red/grey chips” that Jones et al based their paper on, are in fact a rust inhibiting primer paint with a Kaolinite base.

“We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe₂O₃ that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.”  JREF

Now this twist has forced the Jones/Harrit/Roberts crew to slightly alter their story-line. Now they are suggesting that this primer paint that was used in the towers was actually the super-secret explosive nano-thermite and that the big plan was to run around spraying the underside of the floor systems with “explosive paint”.

This is completely ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as Jim Hoffman’s “1.8 million ceiling tile bombs” theory… (almost).  There is no way to control an even dispersal of paint on the underside of a floor system that is crowded with trusses, transverse trusses, cables, beams, and various other piping, AC ducts, ect… Without an even dispersal of the explosive, there is also no way of having a predictable outcome when it is ignited. Also, when paint is atomized to spray, fine particles of the dust dries and then falls in unexpected places.  This dust would also be explosive.  There is no way that the experts who designed the destruction of the Twin Towers would spray “explosive paint” on every single floor of the World Trade Center.  It’s ridiculous.

Now if you want a more scientific evaluation of just some of the problems with the Jones/Harrit/Roberts paper, try this for starters;

Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample. He has a limited sample size. The chips have a laminar nature which suggests a coating or adhesive but he rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint and comparing it to the effect on the red chips. This is either incompetence or scientific misconduct and fraud.
He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in paints and coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the red and gray chips with a more agressive solvent, such as hot DMF or DMF-DMSO which would allow analysis of individual components.

His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data.  JREF

Jones, Harrit, and Roberts have not submitted their paper, with samples, to independent labs for verification.  They have not completed the discovery process by scheduling a presentation of their findings to a group of qualified scientists and allowing for educated debate and evaluation of their findings in the public sphere.   Their paper was published in a journal that has questionable academic credentials, and was even cited as offering publication of a non-sense paper written by a computer.   Harrit himself has connections to one of the peer reviewers used by the publishing house, who has subsequently resigned as a peer reviewer from that house.  The editor in chief of the publishing house quit after she was told about the paper saying that the paper had no merit and shouldn’t have been published by her journal.  She also said that the paper was published without her knowledge and seems to have been published for purely “political reasons”.

Aside from all of these massive issues with the paper itself, there is also the question of integrity that cannot be dismissed.

In a recent interview with Russia Today, Harrit calls for an investigation into other explosive residues in the dust found at the World Trade Center.

We have not found remains or traces of conventional explosives. Actually, we’ve suggested and recommended to NIST, which is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, that they should look for remains or traces of explosives, and they have refused to do that every time. They have not investigated it.  Harrit

This is also recommended in their paper as well.

The trouble is, as they were writing the paper, I myself suggested they test for trace elements of conventional explosives in the dust at the World Trade Center.  Gregg Roberts of AE911Truth refused to do so.

“However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.” Roberts

The idea that Roberts would refuse to do a test for these materials that are commonly used in the demolition industry based purely on a “P.R.” standpoint sent chills down my spine.  Here is a “scientist” in a critically important investigation, refusing to do what should have been the very FIRST scientific test run on this material,  for no better reason than the results may reflect negatively on their “movement”?

What an amazing statement… BUT THEN, to actually include the statement in their paper that they think SOMEONE ELSE should run these very same tests that they REFUSED to run themselves, is an outrage and should send massive red-flags up around the entire 911 Truth Movement.

Later, in a email exchange with Jones himself, even more dishonesty…

Then Jones even goes so far as to instruct Truth advocates as to what they should say and think about his new paper, going so far as to suggest any critique of his work is invalid unless published in a vanity press like his was.

Ever since this paper came out, the level of dishonesty coming from it’s creators  has been something remarkable to behold.

Now we have this terribly flawed video coming out from David Chandler, also associated with Gregg Roberts’ AE911Truth, which features the “nanothermite” theory as “proven fact”.

Chandler tries to suggest that the video he shows proves that nanothermite was used in the demolition in two ways; 1. white smoke coming from the debris 2. a piece of the falling debris changing course mid flight could ONLY be caused by nanothermite still attached to the piece exploded and caused the change in direction.

These assumptions of Chandlers are ridiculously flawed.

His conclusions are simply wrong.

White Smoke is present in the demolition of the towers, that much is correct. But Chandler goes on to say that this PROVES it was nano-thermite because when thermite burns, it produces a white smoke.  That much may be correct as far as the color of the smoke in a thermite reaction is concerned, but for him to omit the fact that OTHER explosive materials ALSO emit a white smoke upon detonation, is scientifically disingenuous.

Chandler also suggests that the trails being left by the pieces of debris falling to the ground, prove that the nanothermite is still buring on them.

Does that mean he thinks that super-secret “nanothermite” was used in the recent demolition of the building in China?

Nanothermite here too?

Here we have a very similar colored dust trails following the pieces at least part of the way to the ground.  There, of course, is no “nanothermite” burning on these pieces.  So his conclusion that the dust trails prove a burning nanothermite reaction is flawed at best.

The second piece of evidence from this video of his deals with a piece of material falling during the demo that appears at least to change direction during it’s fall.  This, Chandler states, can ONLY be explained by nanothermite exploding on the surface of that piece of debris and forcing it to change direction.

There are a hundred ways to explain the change in direction of this piece of material.  The two most obvious that I can think of would be that this piece of material is attached to another piece via some of the 1000s of miles of cables that were present in the Towers, and that cable was pulled taught between this piece of debris and another, and THAT forced it to change direction…

OR… the most obvious… another piece of debris hit this one mid-flight, and thus changed it’s trajectory.  In fact, if you look at the video, you can clearly see another streaming piece of debris right about this one travel downward and look as if it hit this one just as it changes directions.

So in fact, there are many other possible reasons why that piece of debris changed directions that make a lot more sense that some small bit of super secret nanothermite that just HAPPENED to wait to ignite while in mid-flight (one thing Chandler doesn’t explain is HOW this material ignited on the piece of falling debris. What exactly would be the ignition energy to cause that to happen?)

I hate to say it, but it looks to me like this is a desperation move put out by AE911Truth (Roberts) to try and offset the serious problems with the nanothermite theory being exposed by many different sources.

At every turn Jones, Harrit, and Roberts have been dishonest about this discovery of theirs.  When will they present their findings before an audience of qualified scientists and debate their proofs in an open forum?

At what point will they submit their findings and their samples to independent labs for confirmation of their results?

When will they produce a credible video of the “burning red/grey chips” that is really the foundation of their work?  When will they submit a sample of these chips so that others can perform similar tests to verify their results?

When will they run the tests they were asked to run, and they themselves suggest others perform?

This video evaluation by Chandler does nothing to advance the cause of 9/11 Truth.