As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows, Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble
by Jim Hoffman, 911research.wtc7.net:
The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the ‘War on Terror’. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people — civilians — in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace.
By 2003 the United States had occupations of two countries, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principal alternative hypothesis — controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics — had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials.
By early 2009, the residue testing that NIST refused to do had been done by independent researchers, and reported on in a peer-reviewed chemistry journal. Small bi-layered chips, found consistently in dust samples, have layers of red nano-engineered material that is clearly aluminothermic: it has sub-micron-diameter particles of largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.
The publication of these results should be astounding to anyone who uncritically accepted the collapse explanations in TV documentaries and never looked seriously at any of the several bodies of evidence for controlled demolition.
The NIST investigation, having posted its Final Report with its absurd Building 7 joint-breaking-thermal-expansion theory in late 2008 and FAQ by Christmas, closed its doors before the independent researchers published their findings of active aluminothermic materials in WTC dust in a mainstream scientific journal; but not before they publicized findings of aluminothermic residues in the same dust samples; and not before they extracted from NIST a series of public statements, in press conferences and in written responses to requests for correction (RFCs), about the conduct of their inquiry into the cause of the skyscrapers’ total destruction.
ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?
NEWMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.
ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?
NEWMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….
–Conversation between a reporter and a NIST spokesperson. source
As a result, NIST spokespersons are on the record saying they did not test for pyrotechnics, and offering rationales for failing to perform such tests. Those rationale — or rationalizations — summarized toward the end of this essay, include the assertion that testing for pyrotechnics “would not necessarily have been conclusive”. That is partially true: failing to find pyrotechnic residues wouldn’t rule out demolition, since demolition might have been implemented using an untraceable fuel such as hydrogen gas. But finding abundant and distributed pyrotechnic explosive residues would conclusively favor demolition — particularly given the persuasive deductive arguments showing that the features of the buildings’ destruction are incompatable with a purely gravity-driven collapse.
The following timeline is narrowly focused on the emergence of public evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic pyrotechnics, ranging from incendiaries to high-explosives, in the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7, and on the way official bodies — particular NIST — treated that evidence.
- 2001.September.11: TV Broadcasts Show Pyrotechnics
- 2002.May: FEMA Issues Final Report
- 2005: USGS Documents Iron-Rich Spheroids
- 2005.June.23: NIST Releases Twin Towers Draft Report
- 2005.September: Public Comments
- 2005.September: NIST Releases Twin Towers Final Report
- 2006.August.30: NIST Posts FAQ
- 2006.August.31: Jones Responds To NIST FAQ
- 2006.October.18: NIST Report Author Speaks at University of Texas
- 2007.April.16: Group Submits RFC to NIST
- 2007.June.29: NIST Posts Update on WTC7 Investigation
- 2007.September.27: NIST Responds to STJ RFC
- 2007.October.25: Appeal Filed with NIST, Pursuant to RFC
- 2008.August.2: Article Exposes NIST Nanothermite Connections
- 2008.August.21: NIST Releases WTC 7 Report Draft
- 2008.September.10: Whistleblower Reviews NIST WTC7 Report
- 2008.September.15: Scientists and Engineers File RFC for NIST WTC 7 Draft
- 2008.November.11: NIST Releases WTC 7 Final Report
- 2008.December.18: NIST Publishes WTC7 FAQ
- 2009.March.24: Scientific Paper Shows Active Thermitics in Dust
2001.September.11: TV Broadcasts Show Pyrotechnics
Sparks and molten metal stream out of South Tower in its final minutes
Several live TV news cameras as well as numerous amateur videographers capture a tell-tale sign of thermite incendiaries: yellow sparks and burst of streaming yellow molten metal spouting from the northeast corner of the South Tower around the crash zone. The main spout is from a window opening on the 80th floor.
2002.May: FEMA Issues Final Report
Appendix C of report discloses extreme corrosive attack on steel
Building on earlier reports, such as this December 2001 letter in JOM , the appendix describes a phenomenon of thick steel members reduced to perforated and paper-thin shapes by some unknown mechanism.
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
2005: USGS Documents Iron-Rich Spheroids
Spheroids have shape and chemical composition of aluminothermic residues
Miniscule iron-rich spheroids are one of the main products of the reaction of nano-thermites, conventional thermites producing iron-rich condensate in larger forms. Iron spheroids in the dust were documented in a 2005 USGS compilation of data from dust studies, the Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, which contains photographs and elemental analysis of three such particles. The size, shape, and chemical composition of the particles match those of the ignition products of nano-thermites.
2005.June.23: NIST Releases Twin Towers Draft Report
Draft report avoids subject of explosives and demolition entirely
The draft copy of NIST’s Final Report on the Twin Towers,critiqued here, avoids the subject of controlled demolition and explosives entirely. It even avoids mention of the sulfidated steel described in the FEMA Report. While modeling the jetliner engines down to the blade, the Report avoids examining any events whatsoever after the points in time at which it alleges each Tower was “poised for collapse”.
2005.September: Public Comments
Letters to NIST request consideration of evidence of explosives and incendiaries
The following excerpt of a letter submitted to NIST during its public comment period, like several of the letters, requested that NIST examine the evidence of explosives and incendaries.
- modeling of how the collapse was able to proceed through dozens of structurally intact floors: please include analyses of both preservation of momentum and sufficiency of the potential energy available and show that the extreme speed of the collapses was possible without external energy used to break the structures;
- what caused the collapses to be so symmetrical in spite of the fires and impact damage having been anything but;
- what forces and energies pulverized the non-metallic materials of the towers so completely;
- what caused the explosions in the lobby of at least the North Tower as well as the widely reported explosions in the basement: if you say it was the jet fuel, please include calculations of how big a pressure it was able to cause on various floors as it went down the elevator shafts, and how much oxygen was needed for that pressure increase to take place;
- what caused the extremely hot spots in the rubble seen in the NASA measurements; and,
- what caused the vaporization (!) of some of the steel of WTC7 of which Prof. Astaneh-Asl has told in public?
2005.September: NIST Releases Twin Towers Final Report
Report claims that NIST found no evidence of explosives
NIST’s Final Report, released after a short public comment period in which the agency received scores of comments asking them to consider evidence of controlled demolition, has exactly three sentences on the subject:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. (p 146/196)
NIST’s derisive response, which immediately follows the Report’s only mention of explosives and controlled demolition with the ideas that missiles rather than planes hit the Towers, is an example of the classic disinformation technique of discrediting by association.
Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.