Mythbusters Misrepresenting
Destructive Power Of Thermite
By Anthony Lawson
7-5-9
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the Mythbusters, hosted by the Discovery Channel, were directed to lay down some sand to try and dilute the effect on the public that recent revelations about thermite might have had? Revelations which indicated that thermite and thermate may have been used in the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC7?
The episode in question has only just reached my cable operator, but a section of it is available on YouTube, and, by the time I watched it so had 45,262 others, which is also a bit odd. Why? Because many other Mythbusters episodes, posted by private individuals (this was posted by "Crashdance22") have been removed, due to copyright infringements, so why has this episode remained unscathed since November 16th, 2008; nearly eight months ago? Check it out.
Here's another interesting thing to ponder. When using dangerous substances, the Mythbusters usually employ ex-FBI explosives expert, Frank Doyle, to make sure that everything is done properly, mostly from a safety perspective. But he is conspicuous by his absence from this episode. Even though thermite is not an explosive, Jamie Heinemann points out that care should be taken when mixing its ingredients, otherwise it could auto ignite.
January, 2007, Frank traveled to Israel to conduct research through the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response. For several weeks, he made contact with top level members of the Israel Police, Hebrew University and military prosecutors of the Israel Defense Force studying their counter terrorism methods. Specific areas include post blast investigation techniques, suicide and bus bombings, and mass casualty responses for Hadassa and Brazilai Medical Centers, Magen David Adom medical transport, ZAKA, Natâ¤l Center of Forensic Medicine and Israel Police K-9 training center. Meetings were also held with laboratory and bomb technician personnel to study incidents and their procedures. The Gaza crossing, Kassam and Katusha rocket attack sites were visited. This liaison and contact with these resources continues. Do you watch the Discovery Channel on TV? Well, Frank serves as the explosives consultant to the "MythBusters" TV show. He has been involved in producing 26 episodes which air frequently.
Could it be that Frank Doyle was kept out of this episode, to avoid any suggestion of bias? Here is my reason for thinking that this is quite likely: Frank Doyle, of all people, would know that the way the venerable Mythbusters carried out this particular bit of myth busting was absurd, and proved nothing about the destructive capabilities of this substance, when used correctly.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:53 pm Post subject:
Thermate911 wrote:
OMG! There's that word 'allegedly' again!
Frank, what do you mean by 'theory' when the Harrit/Jones paper demonstrably deals specifically with practical experiment and observation? It offers no theories, just fact - however unpalatable one might find it. That's the trouble with peer-reviewed science when dealing with tangible evidence with impeccable provenance.
Very hard to ignore, isn't it?
Why do you think though billed in the intro as "new evidence of thermate etc" Ian did not even mention it?
Maybe even Ian Henshall thinks it's worth ignoring? _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject:
Going back a page I said:
Quote:
I just heard Ian henshal (sp) will be on Talksport shortly,talking about unreacted thermite/thermate allegedly found at the WTC.
I guess that's a relatively new developement and worthy of mention isn't it? Other than that you may have lost me on your last comment
On the thermite/thermate programs on TV,didn't "The Boy" Hammond
have a show where in one episode (quite some time ago),they showed thermite/thermate burning a hole through a cars bonnet and engine block? _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
Did nano-thermite take down the WTC?
09 July, 2009, 12:40
Could the most audacious terrorist attack in history be a “sophisticated masterpiece of demolition”?
That’s what chemistry professor Niels Harrit has been asking, following his investigation of the World Trade Centre rubble, which has revealed traces of explosives.
RT: Professor Niels Harrit, you examined the rubble that came from the World Trade Center. What did you find in it?
Niels Harrit: Well, in there we find the remains of what we characterize as thermetic material, and this is a very energetic material which can be used either for melting iron, or it can be designed as an explosive.
Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal
By Niels Harrit
After the paper entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," which I along with eight colleagues co-authored, was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, its editor-in-chief, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, abruptly resigned. It has been suggested that this resignation casts doubt on the scientific soundness of our paper.
However, Professor Pileni did the only thing she could do, if she wanted to save her career. After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise.
But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm). Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her ”major advanced research” points out that, already by 2003, she was ”the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology” (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).
Since the late 1980s, moreover, she has served as a consultant for the French Army and other military institutions. From 1990 to 1994, for example, she served as a consultant for the Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs (National Society for Powders and Explosives).
She could, therefore, have easily read our paper, and she surely did. But by denying that she had read it, she avoided the question that would have inevitably been put to her: ”What do you think of it?”
Faced with that question, she would have had two options. She could have criticized it, but that would have been difficult without inventing some artificial criticism, which she as a good scientist with an excellent reputation surely would not have wanted to do. The only other option would have been to acknowledge the soundness of our work and its conclusions. But this would have threatened her career.
Professor Pileni’s resignation from the journal provides an insight into the conditions for free speech at our universities and other academic institutions in the aftermath of 9/11. This situation is a mirror of western society as a whole---even though our academic institutions should be havens in which research is evaluated by its intrinsic excellence, not its political correctness.
In Professor Pileni’s country, France, the drive to curb the civil rights of professors at the universities is especially strong, and the fight is fierce.
I will conclude with two points. First, the cause of 9/11 truth is not one that she has taken up, and the course of action she chose was what she had to do to save her career. I harbor no ill feelings toward Professor Pileni for the choice she made.
Second, her resignation from the journal because of the publication of our paper implied nothing negative about the paper.
Indeed, the very fact that she offered no criticisms of it provided, implicitly, a positive evaluation---an acknowledgment that its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged.
_________________ "We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:45 pm Post subject:
Prof Niels Harrit in video
approx 7:50 to 8:11
In speaking about the collapses, wtc7 and how he got ino 911 truth
"
Quote:
once you have realised this there is no turning back. You can either speak out or live in shame"
speaking on thermite approx 10:26
Quote:
"you can use this for arson and if you want to burn your house this is the way to do it, you put in a thermite reaction and you go on vacation and you can trigger it with your cellphone from long distance"
_________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:17 pm Post subject: A5 booklets available
I have made an A5 booklet PDF of Jim Hoffman's 3-point summary of the 'Active Thermitic...' paper; also one of Professor Niels Harrit's interview on Russia Today. I've made some eye-catching titles and included the embedded links as footnote refs; also some suggestions for further reading. The PDFs will print out on to A4 and fold over as A5. A bit of paper glue...voila! These are good for handing out, tabletop displays and placing in cafes, libraries etc.
Published: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 at 4:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 at 2:17 a.m.
As disturbing as 9/11 was, the peer-reviewed paper of Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen is causing shockwaves around the world.
In the paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (2009)," Dr. Harrit and eight other scientists from Denmark, the United States and Australia report the actual cause of the destruction of towers 1, 2 and 7 in New York almost eight years ago.
Nano-thermite, a mixture of aluminum and rust powder, reacts to intense heat of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, producing molten iron and an effective explosion. It can be used as rocket fuel and contains more energy than dynamite. Over 10 tons have been estimated to have been found in Manhattan near the site. While thermite can be bought by anyone for welding (which produces iron), the nano process is performed by and for military uses only.
In an interview with Germany's gulli.com, Dr. Harrit was asked how the substance could have been placed in the towers. Mark Loizeaux, an expert on demolition and whose company was assigned the cleanup of Ground Zero, has claimed to know nothing about the existence of nano thermite. Dr. Harrit refused to speculate, calling instead for a criminal investigation. When asked if a copy of the paper had been sent to the FBI, he responded, "Yes. A copy has actually been sent to (the) FBI. I am not in a position to give a full account of the response, but as I recall, it was surprisingly receptive."
Comment
Quote:
Mr. Scrimshaw you are a true American patriot. Thank you News Chief for having the courage to report the news. The Harrit paper was published way back in April and to my knowledge yours is only the second paper to cover this story of the century. You have to ask yourself why the rest of the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge and report the news. You give us hope for the possible return of a truly free press.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:43 am Post subject:
Although I believe the evidence of explosive residue at GZ is the best credible evidence we have against the 9/11 OCT,(when combined with the wilful ignorance of intelligence and intel blocking etc ), how do we treat the fact that Steven Jones has questionable ties to the "Cold Fusion Debacle" and therefore is possibly incriminatingly linked to bigtime Governmental persuasion?
Although I believe the evidence of explosive residue at GZ is the best credible evidence we have against the 9/11 OCT,(when combined with the wilful ignorance of intelligence and intel blocking etc ), how do we treat the fact that Steven Jones has questionable ties to the "Cold Fusion Debacle" and therefore is possibly incriminatingly linked to bigtime Governmental persuasion?
Has Jones commented on his role in debunking something that could have led toward the freeing of humanity from the enslavement of Big Energy Corps?
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject:
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
.......how do we treat the fact that Steven Jones has questionable ties to the "Cold Fusion Debacle" and therefore is possibly incriminatingly linked to bigtime Governmental persuasion?
Has Jones commented on his role in debunking something that could have led toward the freeing of humanity from the enslavement of Big Energy Corps?
Could the same not also be said about Hutchison.(Hutchison effect) he worked with different US Government and Research departments and military... _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Stephen. The video doesn't prove anything. Just because thermite is only mention 3 times or not even at all so what?
The first doc "analysed" by Johnson has the name Bob McIlvane and Bill Doyle attached to it.
Is Johnson suggesting that these two tireless truthseekers, who just happen to be victims family members are somehow both instrumental in "the great thermite cover up"?
Care to share the evidence?
McIvane and Doyle are two of the most prominent victims family members out there challenging the OCT.
Do Wood and Johnson have the support of any of the victims family members?
Is Johnson trying to suggest that if Wood's document contains 300 references to "toasted cars", "fuzz balls" and the debunked (see link below) Hurricane Erin that somehow makes everything ok?
Surely that's not really credible.
fish wrote:
Could the same not also be said about Hutchison.(Hutchison effect) he worked with different US Government and Research departments and military...
Anyone not convinced by the science of the Harrit, Jones paper has a great recourse:
1 write up your objections about the science
2 get your paper peer-reviewed by relevant scientists
3 get it published in a reputable scientific journal
Some folks seem to not realize a simple fact: peer-reviewed published science in reputable journals has been the highest level of argumentation since man crawled out of the slime.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:22 pm Post subject:
acrobat74 wrote:
Anyone not convinced by the science of the Harrit, Jones paper has a great recourse:
1 write up your objections about the science
2 get your paper peer-reviewed by relevant scientists
3 get it published in a reputable scientific journal
Some folks seem to not realize a simple fact: peer-reviewed published science in reputable journals has been the highest level of argumentation since man crawled out of the slime.
Hence, what one beLIEves or not in a certain matter has no significance whatsoever (other than one's own self-conditioning and emotional solace, if such is required).
No. You haven't answered the question.
The question wasn't whether or not Jones' evidence is convincing and I'm sure none of us need reminding his paper was peer reviewed.
The question is how we approach his ties to the cold fusion episode which has implications about Jones and his ties to the kind of body that would want to discredit free energy.
This is one of the reasons why Wood/Johnson continue to have a following and discredit any thing to do with Jones and his evidence.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject:
The important thing to establish is that we have been lied to by government and media about 9/11 in a way that suggests the attack could not have succeeded without at the very least the complicity of of powerful figures within the Bush regime.
The method used to destroy the twin towers is still open to debate but I wish the people who advocate any particular theory would debate is cooly with those who hold a different opinion without slagging others off with name-calling and straw man arguments. This behaviour damages the reputation of the movement and becomes the story that is reported by the media to discredit us.
What we know for certain is that the WTC, according to the way the buildings fell, symmetrically into their own footprint, could not have been destroyed merely by plane impact or fire as the US government and the BBC allege. http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/11/bbc-biasinaccuracy.html
Reinvestigate9/11 takes no view on how the WTC was destroyed.
I suggest we should not just get angry (particularly not with each other) but get active campaigning. Reinvestigate 9/11 needs more supporters to help with the task in hand.
But if you don't agree with the Reinvestigate9/11 approach of demanding a new inquiry, get on with your approach: perhaps street campaigning to inform the public of how we have been lied to, perhaps in conjunction with We Are Change etc.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject:
And another thing:
Why not ask yourselves whether Einstein's maxim, "Dismissal without investigation is the highest form of ignorance," rings true for you. If it does and you still find yourself totally committed to one particular idea about how the WTC was destroyed, would it not make sense to examine alternative theories and try to understand them? If you really understand what others are saying you will be in a much stronger position to argue your case convincingly.
Stephen. The video doesn't prove anything. Just because thermite is only mention 3 times or not even at all so what?
The first doc "analysed" by Johnson has the name Bob McIlvane and Bill Doyle attached to it.
Is Johnson suggesting that these two tireless truthseekers, who just happen to be victims family members are somehow both instrumental in "the great thermite cover up"?
Care to share the evidence?
McIvane and Doyle are two of the most prominent victims family members out there challenging the OCT.
Do Wood and Johnson have the support of any of the victims family members?
Is Johnson trying to suggest that if Wood's document contains 300 references to "toasted cars", "fuzz balls" and the debunked (see link below) Hurricane Erin that somehow makes everything ok?
Surely that's not really credible.
fish wrote:
Could the same not also be said about Hutchison.(Hutchison effect) he worked with different US Government and Research departments and military...
Indeed.
Although it seems slightly different.
Trust no one I say.
Ask the tough questions.
Hmm - how interesting. I have no idea whether Wood and Johnson have support of victims or victims families. Does GodSaveTheTeam have the support of Victims Familiies in relation to his forum posts here?
I very much doubt that Mr McIlvane has been exposed to Dr Wood's evidence or legal case - so he is likely in same position as the people I speak to regularly who have never heard of the Hutchison Effect etc. I must've explained this to about 60 people in person now. When I showed them the evidence and explained the Hutchison Effect only 1 person didn't "get it" - but he still believed the official story anyway. Perhaps Bob McIlvane would be the same - I have no idea. His reaction and own personal tragedy, however, does not change the evidence.
The point in the video is that it proves Jones' RFC does not mention the "conclusive" Thermite evidence/research (he claims to have completed) in a legal document/legal framework. This is at odds with the "Thermite World Tour" which has also become like a new cult.
The other point it proves is that this "lack of thermite" in the document has been present for over 2 years - and no one else seems to have picked up on it.
If you are unconcerned by this GST (and other posters), then that's fine. But for groups to go on about thermite and "Ask for a new investigation" with no firm basis to work with, then it looks like a fake operation to me.
Trying to shift the issue onto Victims/families, is of course, very similar to saying "we shouldn't criticise the government - especially now our boys are in Iraq" or whatever.
Re victims - it's an issue of people dealing with difficult truths - including the global, documented operation to shut down and muddle up discussion of the evidence which shows how the WTC was destroyed - and the ramifications of that. (http://tinyurl.com/911book)
And if the evidence and explanation presented by Dr Wood is not correct, then what is correct? Please post a correct explanation, compile into a document which CAN be submitted to NIST and simply stop going on saying "NO, no, no you're wrong - it CAN'T be that". Say WHAT DID IT, not what DIDN'T. Or perhaps that would be too much to ask... I guess it is - because here we are 4 years after this forum was first set up.
But anyway, others can start legal cases to attempt to make people accountible either for the crimes on 9/11 or their cover up. _________________ Andrew
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:20 pm Post subject:
Why should Steven Jones choose this particular legal route?
Maybe he has other priorities?
Very flimsy Andrew's reasoning.
And do wonder how much this vid is driven by ego and addiction.
I would love to see one well-resoned, convincing presentation or post Andrew, just one.
But also a bit flimsy this Jones reasoning.
Stephen Jones can question 'free energy' all he wants (I wasn't aware he had done) without being discredited as you suggest.
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
This is one of the reasons why Wood/Johnson continue to have a following and discredit any thing to do with Jones and his evidence.
The point is does Jones history give us cause to question his integrity.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:54 am Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Hmm - how interesting. I have no idea whether Wood and Johnson have support of victims or victims families.
So that's a NO then. As far as you know.
It would seem this admission is quite key. Maybe you should check the evidence on that missing piece of your research.
I would suggest that if you continue to claim Jones, someone who has had the endorsement of two of the most prominent family members, is fraudulent because he hasn't submitted his evidence as a legal court case, the same questioning could be raised about your/Woods integrity when considering the fact that you lack family members support.
By admitting you "have no idea" it would imply that you haven't even tried to raise that support or even find out if you already have it.
What level of integrity does your outfit have if you haven't even bothered to engage with the victims family members? Why dont you think they have a right to know that a court case has been submitted regarding the questioning of the most important event ever in their lives?
How strong is a 9/11 court case without the support of family members, who afterall were integral in forcing the Bush administration's hand into creating the Keane commission? However whitewashed that became.
It's tit for tat really.
You claim Jones is fraudulent because of this or that omission yet he has something you dont have or have even bothered to raise or find out if you already have.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Does GodSaveTheTeam have the support of Victims Familiies in relation to his forum posts here?
This question is an astoundingly acute example of poor reasoning.
And/or a strawman argument and a very poor one at that.
I'm not claiming that someone who does have VFM support is fraudulent.
Why would someone making posts on an internet forum require family members support?
You are claiming that someone who does have that is fraudulent and you have toured the country with this claim.
Dont you think the two vfms who have endorsed Jones have a right to know if you believe so strongly that he is fraudulent?
Andrew Johnson wrote:
I very much doubt that Mr McIlvane has been exposed to Dr Wood's evidence or legal case ....
Again an interesting admission.
It appears that you really have no concern about a serious anti-OCT stance if you have not even sent these two key victims family members any of your evidence? Especially when Wood has submitted it in court as you continue to point to as proof of her and against Jones' integrity...
Andrew Johnson wrote:
...This is at odds with the "Thermite World Tour" which has also become like a new cult.
There are many cults within the anti-OCT arena.
TVF, NPT, DEW, OCT etc...
Andrew Johnson wrote:
...If you are unconcerned by this GST (and other posters), then that's fine. But for groups to go on about thermite and "Ask for a new investigation" with no firm basis to work with, then it looks like a fake operation to me.
Again it could be said that your own "operation" looks fake when by your own admission you haven't even bothered to check to see if you have any family members support...which leads us to your very intriguing comment below...
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Trying to shift the issue onto Victims/families, is of course, very similar to saying "we shouldn't criticise the government - especially now our boys are in Iraq" or whatever.
This for me is the the most suspicious stance you display in your whole so called evidence to the contrary.
You really are not serious are you?
Are you really suggesting that the victims family members have no role in challenging the official story of 9/11?
Perhaps they shouldn't have forced the Bush administration through their tireless campaigning to un-block an investigation into 9/11?
Perhaps they shouldn't still be tirelessly campaigning to raise awarewness of how the Keane commission is flawed?
Are you seriously suggesting that the family members should not endorse a new investigation?
Would you like to tell that to say, the family members behind the Justice for the 96 Hillsborough campaign?
Do you realize that one of the main OCT-bolstering soundbites from the msm especially is "questioning 9/11 is disrespectful to the family members"?
The fact that you challenge someone who does have their support without even informing them of your evidence or even about Wood's court case is highly dubious indeed.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Re victims - it's an issue of people dealing with difficult truths - ...
Then why haven't you informed those people (vfm's) of your "difficult truths"? I.e. That Jones, the very person they have endorsed is fraudulent?
Andrew Johnson wrote:
And if the evidence and explanation presented by Dr Wood is not correct, then what is correct?
No one apart from those that carried it out truly knows. That would be the point of a new investigation. To ascertain what really happened.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Please post a correct explanation, compile into a document which CAN be submitted to NIST and simply stop going on saying "NO, no, no you're wrong - it CAN'T be that".
But isn't that your/Wood's stance on the matter?
"NO no no, it wasn't thermite it was DEW!!!!"
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Say WHAT DID IT, not what DIDN'T.
No. Because I dont know. And neither do you. You may think you do. But you do not. The fact that I have asked questions about your theory for myself and you have not engage in the evidence to the contrary once and instead continue to bait and switch is highly dubious indeed.
You seem to be suggesting that unless you demand you know what happened on 9/11 instead of simply asking questions we shouldn't bother speaking out. Hmmmm
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Or perhaps that would be too much to ask... I guess it is - because here we are 4 years after this forum was first set up
Yes. Here we are 4 years after this forum was set up with many theories about what happened on 9/11.
Some theories may appear to have strong evidence. Others may not.
Some theories may have the support of family members. Others may not.
Richard Gage interviewed by Kim Hill in NZ - Kim Hill gave Gage some time (which is good) but came up with some really stoopid questions! (Including Theory of Evolution denial and very old debunking material).
Joined: 23 Nov 2009 Posts: 6 Location: Danville, Va.
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject:
Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.
Michael Rivero
I for one, will not have a minutes rest until these murderous scumbags are brought to justice. It's eating my very soul out of me. I don't yet know what to do, but I am searching for that answer. They can't go unpunished or the Lord will punish us all.
I took an oath to protect this country from all enemies. Forghien or domestic. Our enemy is both and they are great and powerful, but this is a war we must face and we shall win. I'll not go to hell for being a shameful coward. I simply won't do it.
I truely believe that God blessed America and we are turning our backs on him.
I am continuosly asked this question. "Well what are you going to do about it. ??, You can't fight them."
I don't know. Yet...
What I do know is there are probably 100-150, maybe more people that sees the truth now than it was before I saw it.
I have the word spreading. It's reaching out to people that I didn't even know. Had never met them. I am turning it into a flu, per se. It's contagous. It takes some pumping, but if you get one person in your grips for enough time, they catch it. Then they become a carrier.
While I am infectinganother, the carrier is infecting someone that in turn carries on.
You have to beat it into people how important this is. What it means to not our future, but to our children and grand childrens future.
For Gods sake, our great, great, great grand childrens future.
I have 5 children. I love them all for sure. Not a single one more than the next, but if I could do it again, I would never brough these kids into this world.
Well, when I did this world wasn't like it is today. My youngest daughter is 19. Still a daddy's girl living at home and being very careful about picking a husband.
Then there are the 11 grand kids. That is 16 people that I created, with Gods help of course. But it's still 16 people that I am responsible for.
What kind of a father or grandfather would I be if I turn my back on what is going on in this country and around the world because of this country???
I wouldn't be nonsense, now would I??
I'll be glad when I can sleep good again.
Airborne to all of you.
Dennis _________________ I have no doubt in my mind what so ever, Bush & Company, which includes God only knows who, that runs the gubbernut puppets, were 100% in charge on 9/11.
What to do about it, I don't know, but I do know something is going to give and soon. One way or another something is going to give.
I was on a YouTube blog and a guy there even doubt that nanothermite even existed...
Needless to say digging up information on it is not easy. But here is a a set of notes on nanothermite dug up from previous internet trawls:
Nanothermite does exist and is used mainly for rocket propellant and munitions:
- A major US nanothermite production facility can be found at US Navy's Indian Head organisation (just outside of Washington)
- These production facilities were built in the 1990s
- Job adverts for these facilities can be found on the web
- Conferences before Sept 2001 describe the versatility of nanothermite
- there are tens of thousands of articles on the military "energetic" uses of nano-materials
- Another known nanothermite production facility is the French SNPE facility (located next to the AZF factory) which blew up 10 days after 9/11 - blowing out every window in Toulose! This explosion was blamed on a Muslim that had started worked at the facility "just 5 days earlier."
US Navy Indian Head
At wikipedia - not exactly the truther's friend - the article refers out to the US Navy Indian Head Division which is interested in "energetics" - the photo on their website shows you what they mean by energetics. Strangely enough they do not say what is in their explosives...
However, if you surf the web enough you will find that they are looking for physicists and chemists to help them build more energetic material and you can find this:
The Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, located in Charles County, Maryland 25 miles south of Washington, DC invites applications for postdoctoral positions for self motivated physicists and chemists in the field of energetic material research. The positions will be under the Research and Technology Department (Code R1) that houses 30 PhD scientists working on a broad range of topics related to synthesis and characterization of novel energetic materials, and ultrafast diagnostics of explosive processes. More details on the scope of work can be found at ... The postdoctoral positions require knowledge in any of the following: inorganic/organometallic synthesis with emphasis on nanoscale materials, molecular self-assembly, thermite and intermetallic systems, organic synthesis, fast combustion, ultrafast spectroscopy, shock and detonation physics, chemical and mechanical properties of explosives that affect sensitivity, and molecular dynamics modeling. Demonstrated expertise through journal publications, presentations or patents is essential. Experience with (in red)energetic materials is advantageous. Applicants must have a Ph.D. degree in physics or chemistry and must meet requirements of a security clearance including U.S. citizenship."
A discussion on the AZF / SNPE explosion and its links with Harrit's nanothermite paper (!) is provided here (with lots of links so you can check the facts).
... energetic materials may have the potential of providing factors of 3 to 4 in increased energy release rate compared with conventional formulations. The Army's Novel Energetic Materials for the Objective Force effort seeks to mature advanced energetic materials to provide a 40% increase in deliverable energy from advanced gun propellant systems and a 20-50% increase in warhead effectiveness (munitions, active protection).
The paper then goes on to describe "cook-off" the rate that the material explodes... so this paper supports the many statements we have made elsewhere about the "tailorability" of explosives to particular circumstances. There is evidence that the US military who invest billions of your tax dollars into "energetic" research each year, has capacities way above civilian common knowledge of explosives.
Just a follow up on "cookoff violence". This is another way of saying the nature of the explosion. This is required for rocket fuels, for instance, where the rocket fuel needs to be used up smoothly and completely for maximum efficency. It is also require for munitions.
Ordinary thermite is used for cutting and doesn't explode or "runaway". Essentially, there is a ton of experiments to determine different compounds ability to release energy for either cutting, propelling (as in rocket fuel) or exploding. And the key to all this is nano-materials.
There are reams of studies such as this on the web...
"A potential method to mitigate cook-off violence of heavily confined explosives is to add a minor ingredient that reacts at temperatures below where cook off usually occurs, to burst the confinement and/or interfere with the thermal decomposition chemistry of the explosive so to slow subsequent reactions, This additive would not - impact the explosive's performance significantly, but only comes into play during relatively slow thermal heating..."
"Military nanotechnology: high precision explosives through nanoscale structuring
.... Official sources keep quite mum though about military research into offensive nanotechnology applications. For instance, in the above-mentioned DoD report the words "explosive", "ammunition" or "bomb" don't appear even once. Does that mean the military is not researching nanotechnology applications for more effective ways of blowing stuff up, or are they just being tight-lipped about it? Your guess...
Of course there is plenty of potential for offensive military nanotechnology applications.
...
Case in point of how nanotechnology could be used for offensive military applications can be found in recent studies exploring how high explosive materials can be prepared and manipulated. Engineering and control of energetic material (another, more innocent sounding term for 'explosives') properties at the nanoscale are of paramount importance when the ignition and detonation properties of high explosives are to be determined.
Last year for instance, researchers presented methods for making continuous high explosives thin films and arbitrary high explosives patterns at the nanoscale ("Patterning High Explosives at the Nanoscale").
Another, more recent example is a study by French scientists who report the first attempt to control the combustion and the detonation properties of a high explosive through its structure.
Writing in the journal Nanotechnology, researchers from the Laboratoire ISL/CNRS 'Nanomatériaux pour les Systèmes Sous Sollicitations Extrêmes' at the French–German Research Institute of Saint-Louis in France describe that they have prepared energetic nanocomposites with different formulations by infiltrating a porous chromium oxide matrix with a high explosive dissolved in acetone ("Preparation of explosive nanoparticles in a porous chromium(III) oxide matrix: a first attempt to control the reactivity of explosives"). The scientists claim that their method allows one to obtain and stabilize high explosive particles at the nanoscale.
The ISL scientists write that, until now, the only way to tune the explosive reactivity was to mix several chemicals in order to obtain a composition with the right properties. The idea reported in this paper – adjusting the reactive properties through the structure of the explosive – appears much neater.
...
(Description of nano-explosion and photos)
...
This is the first time that a nano explosion (of course the authors describe this in more scientific terms as "the incidence of the decomposition of an explosive at the nanoscale") has been imaged in such detail.
Because the stabilization of high explosives by porous materials allows controlling their reactivity, practical applications of this research will make it possible to design energetic materials according to precise needs. The ISL scientists say that, for instance, the formulation of gun powders or propellants can be adjusted so as to avoid detonation and to define the combustion rate. Conversely, this process can be used to tune the detonation velocity of high explosives.
More bang for the buck, so to speak. "
It seems the leaders for nano-explosives are the french... and not the US...
Finally....
"The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society
held during April 2001 in San Diego featured a symposium on
Defense Applications of Nanomaterials.
Extract...
"Nanoenergetic composites and ingredients can be used in the ignition, propulsion, as well as the warhead part of the weapon. With regards to the latter application, nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients
for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management."
Impulse Management means that using nanothermite would reduce vibration and, more importantly, sound!"
Summary
QED: nano-thermite used in explosives and known about in Navy establishment just a few miles outside of the capital...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
