Study claims ‘highly engineered explosive’ found in WTC rubble

By | 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?

6 thoughts on “Study claims ‘highly engineered explosive’ found in WTC rubble

  1. Xeno

    True, but 1) not many railroads were built through the towers. (See thermite welding)
    and 2) this seems to be not your grandfather’s thermite.

    They claim their analysis has uncovered … “nanostructured super-thermite.” … super-thermite “is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services.”

    Does anyone have any information showing that termite welding was used to originally create the towers? Would the compounds still be there when the towers fell years later?

  2. Ann

    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?

  3. Xeno Post author

    The official explanation during the Bush administration was synonymous with the non-conspiracy explanation. AFAIK, that has not changed under the Obama presidency.

    As a non-materials scientist, I do not know how different the two types of thermite are, nor how easily the military version might be confused with the industrial version. I don’t know if either version should be found.

    Super-termite is not an explosive, so something else must have been used as well, if it was indeed a demolition rather than a jet fuel induced steel weakening.

    Thermate, Thermite, SuperThermite, etc, are cutting agents Not High Pressure Wave Explosives. An explosive quality is counterproductive to a cutting agent. Cutting agents must be used in conjuction with explosives. The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures. This is standard demolition. If contact cutting agents produced a generalized ‘high pressure wave’, ie typical explosion’, the pressure wave would blow the cuttiing agent away from the steel it is supposed to cut as well as any other cutting agents in the immediate vicinity. That is why the process of demolition requires cutting agents to cut the steel, then explosives to move the cut pieces away from their support. – rense

    There were pools of molten metal in the basement for a LONG time after the towers fell and there were many reports of explosions right before the towers fell, and tritium was found by the EPA at ground zero. One site seems to think small super low radiation atomic bombs were used. Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) seem to have been successfully developed by the military by 1976 according to a document on

    Declassified August 1958: “Mere fact that the U. S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work.” Declassified January 1967, “The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity.” Declassified March 1976, “The fact of weapon laboratory interest in Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices. The fact of successful development of MRR devices.”

    I do remember Bush saying he was interested in developing very small nukes. Still there are the laws of physics to contend with. If we have small fusion bombs that produce little or no radiation, we wouldn’t really have a power problem. Perhaps this is what McKinnon was looking for, perhaps this is why the Mars rovers have not run out of juice yet because they have a more exotic power source than we all think…

    Or perhaps this is all the product of my overactive science fiction fed imagination.

  4. Ann

    “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.

Leave a Reply