No

Thermite
on

911
by T. Mark Hightower
Commentary by Jeff Prager

Mr. Hightower sent me this report several months ago and I

didnt have the time to post it then but I also felt few people
would be interested and that may still be the case. While this
report does not proceed to explain what did cause the destruction on 911 it does make a rather solid and inarguable claim
regarding what was not used.
Explosive Nano-Thermite or Thermate, Super-Thermite or
Super-Thermate were not part of the equation when this is
examined carefully using publicly available and footnoted
data from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, one
of the the single most renowned reference for nano-energetic
and nano-explosive materials. Along with additional credible
sources this becomes all too clear. The ramifications are extraordinary because the 911 truth movement including people on the margin, after having explored across the internet,
have all been led to believe something that might not be true.
While Mr. Steven Jones responded to Mr. Hightower very
briefly as noted herein this suggests to me that this is in relationship to Mr. Hightowers extraordinary credentials. He
didnt respond to me and neither did Mr. Richard Gage. I have
no credentials. His responses to Mr. Hightower were unscientific at best. Jones, et al., present evidence of non-explosive
thermite that could not have been a component of the event
for numerous reasons.

Steven E. Jones My Version

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory,
in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S.
Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.
From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter
physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and
Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan),
and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University.
These are valid reasons for refusing to discuss or respond to
the factual evidence provided in the physics and chemistry
analysis of the USGS Electron Microscopy dust samples taken
from 35 locations across lower Manhattan just after 911 and
analyzed for traces of radioactivity and fission paths.1 If the
data is accurate then Steven Jones and Richard Gage are ly-

ing. I believe the data is accurate. Who

better then to represent elite interests
than Jones and Gage?
Jones interests also extend to archaeometry, solar energy, and, like many professors at BYU, archaeology and the Book
of Mormon. For example, he has sought
radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the
Americas and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans
as supporting his faiths belief that Jesus
Christ visited America.
In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU
scientists worked on what he then referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in a Scientific American article, but is today known
as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion with the cold fusion concept of Pons
and Fleischman. Muon-catalyzed fusion
was a field of some interest in the 1980s,
but its low energy output appears to be
unavoidable (due to alpha-muon sticking
losses). Jones led a research team that
in 1986 achieved 150 fusions per muon
(average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of
fusion energy per muon, a record which
still stands. 911 occurred after 13 more
years of research.
If I were going to hide a nuclear component to a False Flag event and wanted
people to focus on a seemingly credible
issue that was still scientifically impossible to prove, in other words a Limited
Hangout, Thermite, Jones has the background to fit the mold for that spokesperson and it only makes sense to me that
the one or two people the media did give
air time to are Jones and Gage. I see them
as mainstream. So I dont think they can
be trusted to tell the truth.
Proof Of Fission In New York City On 911
http://www.datafilehost.com/
download-9b5cf5e6.html

No Thermite On 911?
by T. Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering
from Jeff Prager and No Copyrights Productions
presented by

Anarchy Books
and

Renegade Publishing
A Cooperative Research Agency Of The Department Of No More War

Anti-Genocide Unit
American National Institute Of War-Making Crimes & Financial Offenses (ANIOWMCAFO)
and the United States Who Did It? Civilian Peace Authority (USWDICPA)

Anarchy Division
The Sound Track for this book is available with any organic food donation to:
StopChildrenWhatsThatSound Music with the coupon on the following page.
The sound track includes Buffalo Springfield and their 60s hit, For What Its Worth,
Thunderclap Newman with Something In The Air and Humble Pie singing 30 Days In The Hole.
I dont believe in Copyrights. Im an Anarchist and I oppose all
governments and their institutions not completely and wholly managed by and for the people.
This eMagazine is not copyrighted and may be published, copied, dispersed, posted, pasted and used to paper bird cages.
Most people wont read it anyway.

Published by Dont Make Changes To The Text If You Repost This

Some People May Find The Revelations From The Information In This Book Intolerable - I Hope So!
All images No One At All

First, a message from our sponsors:

T. Mark Hightower
Began his awakening in January 2004 after having stumbled upon the Serendipity web site and learning that the
explosive demolition theory for WTC destruction was a
more probable explanation than was the official story.
http://www.serendipity.li/
He has worked as an engineer for nearly 30 years, initially in the chemical industry, then in the space program, and currently in the environmental field. He is a
member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers
(AIChE) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (AIAA). His research on 9/11 is an exercise
of his Constitutional rights as a private citizen and in no
way represents his employer or the professional societies of which he is a member.

Has Nano Thermite

Been Oversold To The 9/11 Truth Community?
by T. Mark Hightower
B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering
Its not what we dont know that hurts us, its what we know that aint so.
Will Rogers
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are heavily promoting the theory that explosive nanothermite was used to bring down the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001, and that microscopic chips of a fused compound containing unignited nanothermite were found in the World
Trade Center dust. This discovery is now considered a smoking gun by most members of the
9/11 Truth community, even though a good many serious researchers and 9/11 activists remain unconvinced.
Lets take a look at what is supposed to
be the current best evidence in the controlled-demolition theory of the World
Trade Centers tallest buildings. Steven
Jones, a physicist who joined the 9/11
Truth movement from Brigham Young
University during 2005, introduced the
theory that thermite/thermate played a
role in the destruction of the towers; and
in 2007, he refined this theory to propose
that nanothermite or superthermite a
finely granulated form of thermite was
in fact the substance used, and its high
reactivity served to pulverize the steel,
concrete and many additional tons of skyscraper material, including the buildings
contents.

The red and blue arrows

point to extraordinary and
separate upward, massive
explosive forces as they grow
that could not have occurred
without an element to create

that explosive force.

In an effort to confirm the claims being
made about thermite and nanothermite,
T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer
from both the space program and chemical industry, decided to investigate its use
as an explosive. In addition to doing his
own study, he has repeatedly written to
leading 9/11 researchers who champion
the use of nanothermite as the principal
(if not exclusive) mechanism for bringing
about the destruction of the Twin Towers, probing them on the explosive capabilities of nanothermite.
The replies he has received suggest that this is an issue they are unwilling to examine fully and
openly. Hightower wrote directly to Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for
9/11 Truth, citing a frequently-referenced March 2005 Lawrence Livermore National Labora-

tories paper on thermite, which can be downloaded from the Reference 2 link at the bottom of:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermitetech.html
This paper explains what nano-composites are, focusing on thermite mixtures and how they
are produced. It also includes some experimental results. As Hightower observed to Gage, however: This paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT
(22,600 feet per second) can be produced by the nanothermites as described and presented. On
page 10, it states, One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability
of the energetic material to do pressure/volume work on an object. Thermites release energy in
the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.
What Hightower was asking Gage was:
How can a substance be an explosive
and not be able to do pressure/volume
work on an object that is, move an
object?
Gage responded: The nanothermite
was set in a bed of organic silica, which
I believe the authors suggest may provide the explosive pressure/volume
work. In addition, I believe that the
authors are quite open to the possibility that other more high-energy explosives may have been used.
Without further characterization, the
bed of organic silica is not a sufficient explanation, so the possibility is
raised that other more high-energy
explosives may have been used. Surely thermite or nanothermite would become explosive if combined with bona
fide explosives. Hightower decided to
take an even closer look at the claims
advanced on behalf of nanothermite,
and has spent several months researching everything he could find in
the open literature. Again and again,
he found that thermite, even in its
nano form, unless combined with high
explosives or another high-explosive
mechanism, cannot be a high explosive.
So if nanothermite is to be the smoking gun of 9/11, it would have had to
have been combined with some form of high-power explosives or other high-explosive mechanism to do the job of bringing the buildings down.

What was it combined with?

By itself, nanothermite cannot have been the sole agent of demolition it was only another
helper. By itself, therefore, nanothermite cannot be explosive evidence, as AE911 Truth
maintains.
There are reasons to believe that the 9/11 movements nanothermite experts are actually aware
of this problem. For example, during
a recent interview (9/11: Explosive
Testimony Exclusive http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=0lU-vu2JvZY),
Niels Harrit explains that nanothermite is built from the atom scale up,
which allows for the option of adding
other chemicals to make it explosive.
He states that the role played by the
red-gray chips found in the dust is unknown. But he is convinced, based on
observation of the towers destruction
and the molten metal present, that
both explosives and incendiaries were
used. Its just that he and his fellow researchers have not been able to prove
that the nanothermitic material they
found in the dust has the explosive
properties he believes were necessary
to accomplish the destruction.
Harrit suggests the use of a modern
military material which is unknown
to the general public as an explanation for the missing pieces to the 9/11
nanothermite puzzle. He urges a new
investigation, whereby NIST will test
WTC dust samples for remaining explosives and thermitic material. But
he also seems to be saying that he and
his fellow 9/11 researchers do not consider it worthwhile to pursue further
analysis beyond their current findings.

math including the cleanup, which was overseen by the federal and city governments.
Those who believe (1) may in fact be satisfied with the lack of conclusive evidence of explosives
that the discovery of nanothermite presents.
Those who agree with (2) are most likely to be unsatisfied by the current state of affairs, and
may indeed argue, We still have no real
hard evidence proving that the Twin
Towers were brought down by explosives.
We do have visual evidence (videos)
that strongly indicate to any discerning viewer that the Twin Towers did not
come down by gravitational collapse.
However, apart from that, we are still
where we started pursuing different
inquiries into how and why the buildings
fell the way they did. Explosive nanothermite is no firmer a theory than
conventional explosives demolition,
nuclear demolition, or directed free-energy technology; in fact, it is somewhat
misleading and for that reason alone
probably not the best horse for us to
be betting on.

How Indeed Can

Nano Thermite Be
Explosive
The
Nano Thermite Challenge
Introduction
This is a structural steel building exploding rapidly upwards and outwards not a building falling down.
By the architects own admission it was designed to withstand large, commercial passenger, fuel loaded planes.

9/11 truthers may agree that (1) if unignited nanothermite was in the WTC dust after the event,
it proves a demolition plan of some kind; or (2) if unignited nanothermite was found in the dust
after the event, it only proves that nanothermite played some role either on 9/11 or in its after-

This paper explores the explosiveness

of nanothermite. Steven E. Jones made
the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no
published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this
error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to explosive nanothermite.

Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and

commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite
are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not
anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these
papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite
truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other
high-explosive mechanism. Its not the nano that makes
it explosive. Its the explosive that makes it explosive.

egory of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite

would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high
explosive. A thermite cutter- charge would cut by melting
the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces
(an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to
high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut
by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is
known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in
shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the
member.

Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do
to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite
Challenge.

Later in the paper Jones says:

Superthermites use tiny particles of aluminum known as
nanoaluminum (<120 nanometers) in order to increase
their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by
mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust. (2)
And further down he says:

Examples Of Jones
Confusing Thermite And Nano Thermite
With Explosives
Here is a two-paragraph quote from Mr. Steven Jones first
paper.
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally
reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7,
metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the
composition of the molten metal in detail. I maintain that
these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or
some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. (2)
Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX.
Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but
it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive.
On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX
detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the cat-

Its not the nano that makes it explosive.

Its the explosive that makes it explosive.
Steven Jones has shown no evidence
of explosive elements.
Why?
September 11th, 2001
New York City, NY
This Was A Sad Day For People All Over The World.
It produced a group of events that decimated
a country. The phrase bombed back to the
stone age as it applies to Iraq is
an understatement
considering the DU. gift that keeps on giving.
What Happened? Demand To Know The Truth!

Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or officematerial fires, such as thermite reactions which produce
white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as
HMX or RDX should be considered. Superthermites are
also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the
available data. (2)
From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his
work (3), he says:
Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a
sol-gel: High energy density and extremely powerful and
can be cast to shape [http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.
html (Livermore Natl Lab, 2000)]
I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4)
very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies
that the thermitic nanocomposite energetic material referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite
pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it
does not say that it is an explosive.

In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. The Livermore
team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a
silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN. No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldnt apply to Jones claiming that
nanothermite is an explosive.

Comparing Nano Thermite Reaction

Velocities To Explosive Velocities
The explanation given for claiming that nanothermite is an explosive goes something like this. The
thermite reaction is Fe2O3 + 2 Al ---> 2 Fe + Al2O3.
By making the particle sizes of the reactants smaller, down to the nanosize (approximately 30 nm to 60
nm) and mixing them well, the reaction takes place
so fast that it becomes explosive.
Lets look at some data from technical papers where
the reaction velocity of nanothermites were measured and compare these values with the reaction
velocities of explosives to see if it seems reasonable
to call nanothermite an explosive.
A paper by Spitzer et al. published in the Journal of
Physics and Chemistry of Solids in 2010 presents a
variety of research on energetic nano-materials. (5)
In one section they deal with nano-thermites made
with tungsten trioxide (WO3) and aluminum nanoparticles. They experimented with different particle
sizes, but they highlight the mixture made with the
smallest nano-particles of both WO3 and Al for its impressive performance.
WO3/Al nano-thermites, which contain only nanoparticles have an impressive reactivity. The fireball
generated by the deflagration is so hot that a slamming due to overpressure is heard. The combustion
rate can reach 7.3 m/s. This value is extremely high
compared to classical energetic materials. (5)
A paper by Clapsaddle et al. published by Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in 2005 also contains

some reaction rate data for nanothermite composed

of nano-particles of Fe2O3 and aluminum. (6)
In Figure 2 in the paper the combustion velocity is
plotted versus percent SiO2 content. The highest
values were obtained at zero percent SiO2, so those
are the only values I am going to cite. The nanothermite produced by a sol gel process had the highest
velocity of 40.5 m/s, compared to the one produced
by a simple mixing of the nano-particles with a combustion velocity of 8.8 m/s. (6)
Compare the above combustion velocities of nanothermite with the detonation velocities of high explosives HMX and RDX of 9,100 m/s and 8,750 m/s,
respectively, and they are dwarfed by the velocities
of the conventional high explosives.
Steven Jones appears to be calling the nanothermite
reaction explosive only in the sense that it is reacting much faster than regular thermite, but not in
the sense that it is anywhere near as explosive as a
conventional high explosive. By failing to make this
distinction Jones has misled nearly the entire 911
truth movement into believing that nanothermite is
a super explosive, possibly even more powerful than
conventional high explosives.
From the above, it is quite clear that the nano in
nanothermite does not make the thermite explosive
anywhere near the degree of a high explosive like
RDX. In addition to saying that nano-izing thermite
makes it explosive, I have heard Jones say that adding organics to nanothermite also makes it explosive. This issue is explored in the next section.

Can Anything Be Done To Make

A Nano Thermite Explosive?
First I would like to quote an entire two paragraph
section, with its title, from the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories paper on the next page. (6)

Gas generating Al-FeO-SiO-R

(R = (CH)(CF)CF) nanocomposites.
One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the
inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume-work on an
object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but
are unable to move objects.
Typically, work can be done by a rapidly produced gas that is released during the energetic reaction. Towards this end, the silica
phase of sol-gel prepared oxidizers, in addition to modifying the
burning velocities, has also been used to incorporate organic functionality that will decompose and generate gas upon ignition of the
energetic composite [3-4,7]. Phenomenological burn observations of
these materials indicate that the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with
the generation of significant amounts of gas. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the ignition of an energetic nanocomposite oxidizer mixed
with 2 m aluminum metal without (left) and with (middle) organic
functionalization. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite
without organic functionalization exhibits rapid ignition and emission of light and heat. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite
with organic functionalization also exhibits these characteristics,
but it also exhibits hot particle ejection due to the production of gas
upon ignition. This reaction is very exothermic and results in the
production of very high temperatures, intense light, and pressure
from the generation of the gaseous byproducts resulting from the
decomposition of the organic moieties.
These materials were also mixed with nanometer aluminum. Figure
5 (right) shows a still image of the ignition of the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2R nanocomposite mixed with 40 nm aluminum. This composite is
much more reactive than the same oxidizing phase mixed with 2 m
aluminum metal; the burning of the composite with 40 nm aluminum occurs much too quickly to be able to observe the hot particle
ejection.
This observation is a good example of the importance mixing and
the size scale of the reactants can have on the physical properties
of the final energetic composite material. When the degree of mixing is on the nanoscale, the material is observed to react much more
quickly, presumably due to the increase in mass transport rates of
the reactants, as discussed above. (6)

Note that in the title of the section quoted above, the symbol R is used
to represent the organic functionality added to the nanothermite. In
this case it is a 10 carbon atom straight chain functional group fully
saturated, with hydrogen atoms on the first two carbon atoms of the
chain and fluorine atoms on all the rest.
I have not explored the precise energy level of this functional group,
but I can tell by just looking at it that it will consume energy (from
the thermite reaction) in order to break it down into multiple smaller molecules in order to get the expanding gases necessary to make
it behave as explained.
This is not an efficient way to make an explosive.
I wouldnt expect the explosiveness to be anywhere near that of a
conventional high explosive, and the qualitative description given in
the paper certainly does not seem to support it being a true explosive, but unfortunately the paper does not give data on what its reaction rate would be.
Wouldnt it be better if the organic added to the nanothermite was a
molecule that, instead of consuming energy to drive its decomposition, actually produces energy as it decomposes?
Such a molecule could be the RDX molecule. This leads to the quoted
two-paragraph section below from the Spitzer et al. paper. (5)
3. Gas generating nano-thermites
Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous
species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended
in thermites to give them blasting properties. The idea developed at
ISL is to solidify explosives in porous inorganic matrixes described
previously. Gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) are prepared by
mixing Cr2O3/RDX and MnO2/RDX materials with aluminium nanoparticles. The combustion mechanisms of these nano-thermites were
investigated by DSC and high-speed video. In the case of Cr2O3-based
GGNT, the decomposition of RDX induces the expansion and the fragmentation of the oxide matrix. The resulting Cr2O3 nano-particles,
which are preheated by the combustion of the explosive, react violently with aluminium nano-particles. In the case of MnO2-based
GGNT, the mechanism of combustion is somewhat different because
the decomposition of RDX induces the melting of oxide particles. The
droplets of molten MnO2 react with aluminium nano-particles.

The non-confined combustion of GGNT is rather

slow (1-11 cm/s) in comparison with other nanothermites presented here. However, in a confined
environment their combustion rate is expected
to be significantly higher. Indeed, the thermal
decomposition of GGNT produces gaseous species, which contribute to increase the pressure
and the combustion rate in accordance with the
Vieilles law. The thermal decomposition of miscellaneous GGNT compositions was studied in a
closed vessel equipped with a pressure gauge.
The GGNT were fired with a laser beam through
a quartz window. The pressure signal was recorded along time for each material (Fig. 7). The
pressure released by the combustion of a GGNT
is directly linked to the RDX content of the nanocomposite used to elaborate it. Depending on its
formulation, a GGNT can provide a pressure
ranging from a few bars to nearly three thousand bars. (5)
I am surprised by the low number given for the
reaction velocity, only 1-11 cm/s. Also, it does
not say what percent RDX resulted in this low
velocity. Maybe it was a very low content of
RDX. But the main point I want to make about
the above quoted section does not depend on this
velocity anyway.
The key point is that you have to blend explosives (like RDX) into nanothermite to make it
an explosive (give them blasting properties).

What Nano Thermite

Advocates Need To Do To
Clarify Their Theory
Steven E. Jones and other nanothermite theory
advocates should be upfront and truthful about
these issues, and clearly elaborate upon the factors missing from their theory that need further
fleshing out. It is not good enough to just say
explosive nanothermite over and over again
without explaining exactly what is meant by the

Edition

2.0

term. If they think that incendiary thermite or

incendiary nanothermite or low explosive nanothermite or high explosive nanothermite were
used in cutter-charges, or some combination,
then they should say so. The lack of or degree of
explosiveness claimed, whether incendiary, low
explosive, or high explosive, is key, because the
type of cutter-charge used would depend on this.
Once they clarify what they mean by their use
of the term nanothermite, then they should
start describing the quantities of thermite that
would have been necessary for the destruction.
Only by adding these details to their theory can
it be fairly evaluated against alternative theories of the destruction of the buildings of the
World Trade Center for the benefit of the wider
9/11 truth community.

The Nano Thermite

Challenge

Understanding
How They Blew Up
The Twin Towers
Was Never So Easy!
Get Your Copy FREE With The Purchase
Of Nano Thermite Made In The Kitchen
Advertised On The Following Page!

Explosive
Nano Thermite
Of Course!

Find and document peer reviewed scientific research that demonstrates that a gas generating
nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas
generating chemical added to the nanothermite
is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a
high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will
donate $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation
velocity that can be documented, the donation
not to exceed $1,000. For example, if a detonation velocity of 5500 m/s can be documented,
then the donation amount will be $550. Only
one prize will be awarded in the form of a donation to AE911Truth, and it will be awarded
based upon the highest detonation velocity that
can be documented. Those submitting entries
grant the author the right to publish their entries. Entries must be in the form of a brief (no
longer than one page) write-up, with the peer
reviewed research cited, and at least scanned
copies (electronic pdf files) of the cover page(s)
and pages relied upon of the technical papers, if

not a submittal of the entire paper(s). Entries should be sent by email to DetonationVelocity@
att.net by June 20, 2011. The award will be announced and paid by July 20, 2011.

References
(1) Fictitious Book Cover, Explosives in the WTC for Dummies, on previous page.
(2) Jones, Steven E., Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings
Completely Collapse? Journal of 911 Studies, Volume 3,
September 2006
(3) Jones, Steven E., Answers to Objections and Questions, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham
Young University, 18 July 2006 <http://www.scribd.com/
doc/126315/Answers-to-911Objections-and-QuestionsProf-Stephen-E-Jones-Pres>
(4) LLNL Web page cited by Jones Nanoscale Chemistry
Yields Better Explosives,
http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
(5) Denis Spitzer, Marc Comet, Christian Baras, Vincent Pichot, Nelly Piazzon, Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances, Institut franco-allemand
de recherches de Saint-Louis (ISL), UMR ISL/CNRS 3208,
5, rue du General Cassagnou, 68301 Saint-Louis, France,
Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 71 (2010) 100
108
(6) B. J. Clapsaddle, L. Zhao, D. Prentice, M. L. Pantoya, A.
E. Gash, J. H. Satcher Jr., K. J. Shea, R. L. Simpson, Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites
and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods, March
25, 2005, Presented at 36th Annual Conference of ICT,
Karlsruhe, Germany, June 28, 2005 through July 1, 2005
UCRL-PROC-210871, LLNL This paper is free to download
at
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_
id=0&page=0&osti_id=862389
*Note - This challenge is now concluded but the original post was previewed on line by 310 people and
downloaded by 82 of them when I originally posted it
on May 17th, 2011 to Box.Net. It was available to read
full screen online or download. at: [http://www.box.net/
shared/1s3ehv1ob5].
* End Of T. Mark Hightower Report

enormous
structural steel beams
weighing 10s of tons or more
were ejected 100s of feet
into buildings a block
and more away.

what performed
the work,
as a chemist
or engineer,
or nuclear physicist,
or mathematician
would ask?
what force provided for the estimated
50-60 mile per hour ejection speed of
100s of tons of structural steel beams?

Whats Up With That

Many months ago I emailed Steven Jones, Richard Gage and

others in their group the report linked below 1. It was emailed
more then once. There have been no responses.

ruptions occurs in 3.0-9.0 persons per 100,000 people in the

general population. Of these people 99% are over the age of 65
and their average age is 71.

Whats up with that?

The First Responders that have died so far from some form
of Multiple Myeloma equate to a staggering rate of 335 per
100,000 over an estimated cohort of 40,000 First Responders.
All of them were between 37 and 60. Very similar statistics are
available for Thyroid cancer. Both of these cancers are known
to rise in rapid early increases in people exposed to radiation
based on data from Chernobyl, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Sandia
Labs and the CDC 2. There are wide variations in human reactions based on type of radiation, exposure levels and times and
other factors. Some of the newer data show exposure to very
low doses of radiation over short or long periods of time may be
very dangerous,

The links below show the collected data is sourced from reliable
sources like the CDC, the FDA, the USGS, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories, Oak Rideg Laboratories and Sandia Laboratories
and it was written by nuclear physicists and nuclear chemists
with vast experience in this field.
It was also posted to the National Institute For Occupational
Safety And Health and the Centers For Disease Control web
pages based on a public information request for information in
the Federal Register posted for debate over whether or not the
Zadroga Bill designed to cover First Responders dying from disease directly related to their heroic efforts should be covered
for cancers. Cancer was not covered in the Zadroga Bill. It is my
understanding from speaking with John Feel at the Feel Good
Foundation in New York which represents First Responders
that approximately 180 people have died of various rare cancers as of March 1, 2011, with many having died from not just
one but two and even three rare cancers. This number may not
be accurate and I suspect there have been more cancer deaths.
The statistics are available, Im sure, but Ive been unable to
find them.

Cancer Deaths
Multiple Myeloma, thought to possibly be another form of Leukemia, and a very rare blood plasma cancer that causes serious and various human body function malfunctions and dis-

1. DUST - Proof of Fission - A Physics and Chemistry analysis of

the USGS Scanning Electron Microscopy of 35 sample locations
from lower Manhattan taken on September 16 and 17, 2001,
pages 7 - 45.
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-9b5cf5e6.html
2. Ionizing Radiation A Study Of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl and 911 with a focus on related illnesses using Japanese
Ministry of Health, Russian Researchers and IAEA data.
Part 1: http://www.box.net/shared/9ilkg3pkfs
Part 2:http://www.box.net/shared/h5gvyev9q8
Part 3: http://www.box.net/shared/ctdmz7la4j

G
N
I
K
R
O
W
pile

on the
ks
s
a
m
t
u
o
h
Men wit

he
Last
Page

Brilliant People Do Brilliant Things

Victor Marchetti, a 1960s CIA spook who wrote a few interesting books, wrote: A limited hangout is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals.
When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to
misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the
truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter
further.
Thermite put a rational scientific muzzle, as did Stephen Jones and Richard Gage, on all other
valid scientific study and discussion using sound and credible data. I think Thermite is the Limited Hangout and was designed as such before 911 when the event itself was designed.
These people arent fools. Theyre brilliant. Create the Problem, Control the Reaction, Apply the
Solution: The Hegelian Dialect.

The Myth Makers

This event was pre-designed from the beginning. But the event didnt end with the disaster or the cleanup, that was just the very beginning. It still hasnt ended. This was planned with war gaming software
as its called, sophisticated modeling algorithms that model all 300+ million of us fairly accurately now
that were all on Facebook and other social networks or just browsing the internet.
Tracking your internet use is similar to a window into your being. I dont think people recognize how
severely intrusive it is. You might be watching videos of cute kittens one day, browsing several various
different types of on-line catalogues, some youd never even buy from, come across several web sites you
hated and wont ever visit again, spent an hour on one because you liked the writing style and content and
book-marked it to come back and read more, checked in with friends by email and you might even have
paid several different bills or checked to see if your Food Stamps had been applied to your card. All of this
could be tracked and provide a 1000 page non-fiction novel of who you are and what you do with your time.
Have an iPhone? Other brands of cell phones? Some are capable of tracking you whether theyre on
or off and records of everything youve done from private texting and voice call recordings can be retrieved by many different US intelligence agencies.
So public opinion was determined based on various inputs and then computer generated outputs caused
plans to be drawn up with contingency plans and plan B, C and D. Public opinion was evaluated with
sophisticated computer algorithms and then projects put into place to control it. From the very, very
beginning. There were conflicting reports and disappearing reports within the first few minutes. The
most feared enemy, the public, was throttled with more convoluted and conflicting data then one could
possibly imagine. And were left with that same data today plus a whole lot more. A hodge-podge of seemingly good information contradicted by other seemingly good information. It was designed this way.

Why wouldnt they spend even more time with their war gaming computers that simulate entire populations and provide social output based on economic, political, social, psychological
and any other input on planning the 10, 20 and 30 years beyond 911? Why would they design
a sophisticated military and financial operation like 911 with almost every elite on the planet
connected in some way1 and not spend even more time on the Solution which would include,
of course, controlling the 911 truth movement that the computer told them would follow the
event?

1. Murdering Liberty Killing Hope - The Office Of Naval Intelligence, The Eldorado Task Force,
The Securities and Exchange Commission, Cantor-Fitzgerald, The Federal Reserve, The US
Treasury, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Nugan Hand Bank, The Bush Family
and the Global Bankers. A forensic financial study in criminal global finance and the events of
911. [http://www.datafilehost.com/download-0c99b14c.html] and 911 Gold - Vast Global Financial Fraud and Gold Market manipulation by the White House. [http://www.datafilehost.com/
download-71072e4d.html].

And they would know that they would have to control it for 5, 10, 20 years and more.

2. Ionizing Radiation 911 - Part 1: [http://www.box.net/shared/9ilkg3pkfs], Part 2:[http://www.

box.net/shared/h5gvyev9q8], Part 3: [http://www.box.net/shared/ctdmz7la4j].

The Solution came after the event and the Solution covered several years after the event
thus planning for the event itself was probably even easier then planning the response
out 10, 20 years or more. But control of that
response was a component of the Solution
element of the Hegelian Dialect. Richard Gage
and Steven Jones are mainstream. Theyre
focused carefully on playing a part and their
words are heavily scrutinized and scripted to
that part.

Energetic compounds, being created at nano

scale burn rapidly, in milliseconds (1000ths
of a second) and they burn completely and
the fuel is gone. Spent. No More. They burn
efficiently.
They produce heat and light but no work.
They dont move anything as Mr. Hightowers
report proves and they have no explosive capabilities either..

To me, the secrets are obvious. The amount of

thermal output required of a device or devices to create what the pictures in this eMagaxine show quite clearly was just unimaginable
and thermite couldnt do it.
Just like Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Chernobyl,
Semipalatinsk, Fukushima and New York
City on 911, a 21st century nuclear technology was tested on an enormous civilian population. A lot of the First Responders have
died from brutal, rare cancers, often with 2
and 3 different cancers at the same time and
8,000+ more are ill today, many without jobs
and health insurance. We screwed these people.2
The Zadroga Bill, which took ten years to sort out and implement is a health insurance plan
for First Responders but it doesnt cover cancer and youll have to prove medically that your
injuries and illnesses were directly or partially caused by the events of 911. It will probably be
a very taxing experience in the long run, like having to go to the DMV 2 or 3 times a week for
several months.

They burn thoroughly, rapidly and then the

materials cool in 15-30 minutes.
It is physically impossible for thermite to do
what we saw that day and even more importantly, its physically impossible for thermite
to cause raging fires for what I remember as
almost 100 days that even 2,000 gallons of
Pyrocool couldnt put out and that as Professor Cahill at the University of California, Davis, the worlds most renowned Nuclear Atmospheric Physicist stated, soil and glass were
vaporized and that requires temperatures
over 2500F. Cahill conducted atmospheric
tests weeks after the event and those were
the temperatures and conditions he found.
Weeks later he stated new very small particles were being formed every day. Very small
particles is a scientific term used to describe particles at nano scale. New very small particles
were being formed each day, some with layers of what appeared to be soot and Cahill suggested
new particles were being formed regularly. This means fission was still ongoing.

Bectel
The following extracts are quoted from a web page written by three Safety,
Health and Emergency experts from Bechtel who at great personal risk assisted in the recovery efforts at the World Trade Center. These three men were
Stewart Burkhammer, Norman Black, and Jeffrey Vincoli. Their testimony
provides a very important insight into the extraordinary temperatures under the rubble of the towers.
On September 12, 2001, a small group of SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group, Inc., led by Stewart Burkhammer, a
professional member of ASSEs National Chapter, arrived in
New York City to assist the city and state of New York in the
emergency recovery effort after the alleged terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center. The sights and experiences of the
days and weeks that followed are described here in order to
provide fellow SH&E professionals a brief account of the extraordinary challenges encountered at Ground Zero.
With the stability of the debris pile unknown, subsurface fires
burned continuously...
World Trade Center Building Six housed several federal agencies and a shooting range with inventory of more then 1.2 million rounds and the ammunition was finally located on October 24, 2001, melted together into large bullet balls (image
below) that were dangerous to handle and dispose of properly.
At one point, a discharge of a bullet, due to heat in the area,
caused a shrapnel wound to the face of one worker.
The ammunition was located on October 24th, Forty-Three
(43) days after the collapse and the temperature was still hot
enough to cause the discharge of a bullet.
The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot.
Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed
underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees to more then 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot
softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often
heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search
and rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not properly outfitted with protective boots. More then one suffered injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was
finally declared extinguished on December 19th, 2001.

The Bechtel people say that the helicopter measurements showed underground
temperatures of more then 2800 degrees Fahrenheit. However any thermal imaging measurements taken from a helicopter might only indicate surface temperatures and not those deep below the ground. Therefore, this must have been
an extrapolation or estimate of the underground temperatures.
However, 2800 degrees Fahrenheit is extraordinarily hot; its
over 1500C and higher than the melting point of steel.
This testimony raises the obvious question: what intense heat
source under the rubble could maintain underground temperatures of 1500C for such a long period of time?

Pools Of Molten Steel

There were several eyewitness accounts of the discovery of
pools of molten steel under the rubble when the debris pile was
reduced and taken away from the excavation site. What heat
source could have melted structural steel and kept it molten
for 6 weeks under the rubble of the Twin Towers?

The Melting Point Of Steel

Is Approximately 1500C
The most well known account is that by Peter Tully and Marc
Loizeaux in the American Free Press. According to both Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction and Marc Loizeaux,
President of Controlled Demolition Inc., who was called in by
Tully Construction to help remove the rubble, pools of molten
steel were discovered 6 weeks after the collapse of the towers.
In the AFP article, Tully says that he saw the pools. In a later communication to
the Libertypost.org website, Mr. Loizeaux clarified that he had not personally
seen the molten steel but had been told about it by other contractors.

The Boiling Point Of Silicon Dioxide

We will look at this in more detail in the next section. However, an aerosol and air quality monitoring program set up by the University of California at Davis monitored particulate emissions
from the World Trade Center site for a number of weeks after the collapse. The program was run
by a world expert in atmospheric sciences, Professor Thomas Cahill.
A report on this monitoring appeared in a California newspaper. An extract is as follows:
The September 11th collapse of the 110-story skyscrapers crushed concrete, glass, computers, electrical wiring,
carpeting, furniture and everything else in the buildings,
then burned and broiled the compressed, pulverized
mass for weeks. In the super-heated rubble the material
disintegrated into extremely small particles, which were
released into the air for weeks. Its like having a large
power plant at ground level with no stack, Cahill said.

2500 C
o

Thats 4,532 Fahrenheit

In their press release on what the study revealed, the UC Davis team comment:
There was also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. The latter type of aerosol can
be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporization of soil and glass.
The boiling point of silicon dioxide (glass) is about 2500C. The underground temperature must
therefore have been at least 2500C to vaporize glass and soil.

An automated particle collection system was set up on the roof of

201 Varick Street, one mile north-northeast of the World Trade
Center site. On February 11th, 2002, Professor Cahill gave a
press conference to describe some of his findings. He made the following comments, quoted here from the UC Davis press release:
The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles,
probably associated with high temperatures
in the underground debris pile. Normally, in
New York City and in most of the world, situations like this just dont exist.
He further stated:
Even on the worst air days in Beijing, downwind from coal-fired power plants, or the Kuwait oil fires, we did not see these levels of
very fine particulates.
The amounts of very fine particles, particularly very fine silicon, decreased sharply
during the month of October.
The US Davis DELTA Groups1 ability to measure and analyze particle size, composition and time continuously, day and
night, is unequalled. There were numerous events when bursts
of wind lasting 6 to 8 hours carried unprecedented amounts of
very fine particles to the sampling site. In the largest spike, the
DELTA Group analysis found 58 micrograms per cubic meter
of very fine particles in one 45-minute period an extremely
high peak Cahill said.

were Iron, Titanium, Vanadium, Nickel, Copper and Zinc. Mercury was seen occasionally in fine particles but at low concentrations.
The USGS found Yttrium, Lanthanum, Molybdenum, Lithium, Antimony, Thorium, Rubidium, Cobalt, Niobium, Scandium, Uranium,
Cadmium, Strontium, Barium, Chromium,
Nickel, Cerium, Potassium, Sodium (potassium and sodium are imoprtant elements of
the nuclear decay pathways described in the
book, Dust) and Beryllium, a particularly dangerous metal regulated more then most in the
US. Some levels of certain elements produced
some particularly interesting results.2

1. US Davis Delta Group Wiki [http://daviswiki.

org/DELTA_Group] and US Davis Delta Group
web page [http://airquality.ucdavis.edu/index.html]
2. DUST - Proof of Fission - A Physics and Chemistry analysis of the USGS Scanning Electron
Microscopy of 35 sample locations from lower
Manhattan.
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-9b5cf5e6.html

Metals
Many different metals were found in the samples of very fine
particles, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States. However, there are few established safety guidelines for airborne metals. One metal for
which there is a guideline, lead, was present at low levels in fine
and very fine particles.
Some of the metals for which there are no guidelines that were
present in very fine particles in relatively high concentrations

Uranium

The press release further states:

aerosols?

There are no established safe limits for inhaled very

fine particles. The closest reference is the US EPA
PM2.5 standard, which limits the allowable
mass of airborne particles 2.5 micrometers
to (0) Zero micrometers. That standard
is based on health studies of typical air
samples, in which very fine particles
are a small fraction of the total mass.
In contrast, in the World Trade Center
dust samples analyzed at UC Davis, the
very fine particles are a large fraction
of the total mass.

vaporization?
Fire rages for 100 days?
2500-2800C tempertures?
over 4000 degrees farenheit ?

So we can understand that Professor Cahill

would want to draw attention to the fine particulates for health and safety reasons. But is there more to
it?
Prof. Cahill also explained the meaning of the generation of the particles to reporters more clearly:
The presence of coarse particles immediately after
days of rain indicated that they were being continually
re-generated from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended
from roadways and other surfaces.
Cahills words,. continually re-generated
Cahills words, not re-suspended from roadways
and other surfaces.
The very fine particles were high in a number of species generally associated with combustion of fuel oil
such as Sulfur, Vanadium and Nickel, and incineration
of plastics and other organic matter.
There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. This latter type of aerosol can be produced
only by very high temperatures, including vaporisation
of soil and glass.
Cahills words, Vaporization of soil and glass
Cahills words, very fine... aerosol

Why couldnt they put out a fire for 100 days?

aerosol

There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing

This latter type of aerosol can be produced
ONLY by very high temperatures, including:

vaporization
These particles simply should not be there,
Cahill said. It had rained, sometimes
heavily, on six days in the prior three

weeks. That rain should have settled

these coarse particles. The finding
suggests that coarse particles were
being continually generated from
the hot debris pile. This observation
is at least qualitatively supported,
for while they are still being analyzed,
the coarse particles appear to be
coated with combustion
products, including soot,
Cahill said.

of soil and glass.

New Scientist.com
Two Years after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New
York City, which claimed almost 3000 lives, researchers have gathered to assess the legacy of the giant plume of smoke and dust caused
by the atrocity.
The makeup of the plume was unique in its chemical composition and
unprecedented in its complexity. As a result, no one yet knows the
health effects of breathing them in and therefore how many more people may have been affected by the collapse of the Twin Towers.
This was a fully functional building that was completely smulched
into a burning pit, says Thomas Cahill, an atmospheric physicist at
the University of California Davis, who has focused on the composition
of the finest particles in the plume for the past two years.
Thats never happened before, so we are in completely new territory.
All we can say is we are worried about it, he says. It may take years
before these effects show up, just like with radiation.

Astonishing Complexity
The gathering Wednesday at the American Chemical Societys meeting in New York was the first time chemists, atmospheric physicists
and doctors from over 20 US institutions had got together to pool their
results.
Paul Lioy, of the Univeristy of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey,
emphasized to the meeting the sheer diversity of chemicals that were
present in the dust. A mixture of plastics, computer hardware, synthetic furniture and hundreds of miles of wire burned to produce an
aerosol of astonishing complexity. Out of 400 organic alkanes, pthalates and polyaromatic hydrocarbons he identified, the majority had
never before been detected in the air, he says.
One such compound, detected by researchers from the Environmental
Protection Agency, was Diphenyl Propane, thought to have come from
burning plastic. The health consequences of breathing it are totally unknown, says EPA scientist Leonard Stockburger.
Scientists from the US Geological Survey showed that even among
the well-known molecules and crystals, new shapes of particles were
thrown up by the plume. They detected fibrous, cylindrical materials, which have a totally different behavior to spherical particles, says
Michael Hays of the EPA, who attended the meeting. How does that
influence inhalation routes?
But the scientists were careful to be clear about their message. We
dont want people to get the wrong impression. For long term effects,
we are simply in an area of unknowns, says Lioy.

Very Fine Particles - A designation given to particles

under 2.5 microns, such as those seen here.

Dr. Cahill, a 65 year old professor

emeritus of physics and atmospheric sciences has used his background
in nuclear physics to pioneer methods and tools for analyzing aerosols
tiny particles suspended in the air
and has led more then 40 studies on
pollution around the world, including several in national parks and in
the basins of Lake Tahoe and Mono
Lake.
The Ground Zero monitoring showed
the fallout had subsided by late December, when Cahills team stopped
sampling. He said rain probably has
cleared the air outside, but he is concerned about New Yorkers returning
to contaminated buildings.

These size particles travel like a gas,

they penetrate windows, doors, everywhere,
he said, You dont feel it, and you cant see it.

The End!