The New Paper from Steven Jones, et al.– A Pseudo-Masterpiece of Circular Logic and Inventing New Chemistry & Physics to Try To Hide The China Syndrome Aftermath of WTC Nuclear Destruction, by The Anonymous Physicist

Analysis of the Latest Thermite Paper of Steven Jones, et al.–- SURPRISE: It Helps Prove Nukes Destroyed the WTC on 9/11, by The Anonymous Physicist

Towards The Complete Eradication of The Thermite Limited Hangout, by The Anonymous Physicist

The OCT’s & Bazant’s Bogus Dust Analysis is Doomed to the Dustbin of History, by The Anonymous Physicist

The Three Fatal Flaws in Bazant’s WTC Concrete Pulverization Calculations and Why His Calculations Really Support Nuclear Demolition, by spooked911

The Case for Fraud is Proven, and a Call To Action, by The Anonymous Physicist

The Other Fatal Flaw in Bazant’s WTC Analysis, by spooked911

More Fatal Flaws in Bazant et al’s WTC Analysis, by spooked911

Seffen’s Article On “Pristine Pancakes” Is Blatantly Bogus As Predicted Here, by The Anonymous Physicist

I have written several articles here, including this one on “unextinguishable fires”, http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-paper-from-steven-jones-et-al.html critiquing some of the papers and theories of Steven E Jones, PhD, and his gang claiming a thermite compound destroyed the WTC. I have also asked that everyone who is honest to realize Jones’ earlier history of being inserted to destroy the energy field of Cold Fusion, before its creators were even able to publish their paper is a dead giveaway to Jones being a life-long intel agent or asset. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBTWa0sdMRs Twenty years later, some of the top physicists and chemists in the world have proven that Cold Fusion works.

I will now analyze Jones’ most recent paper. This will likely be the last time I analyze any new papers from him or his group. The reasons why will be evident. This latest thermite paper is entitled, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen. Published in “The Open Chemical Physics Journal”, 2009, 2, 7-31 http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

(Click on “Download” to get the entire pdf document.)

First there are many anomalies in the authorship, and the journal. One of the listed authors, Gregg Roberts, has a B.A. in psychology. No graduate degrees are listed for him at Jones’ group’s website (stj911.org). As he has no degrees in the physical sciences, why is he listed as co-authoring this work on alleged advanced chemical physics?

Then we come to the Bentham Open Journal itself. Despite Jones usual proclamation of “peer reviewed,” it was not. Others have shown it is what is called “pay to play [publish]” in this matter. This particular article has a tragicomedic history. You will be in stiches when you read this tale here. http://www.opednews.com/articles/911-NanoTech-Thermite-Publ-by-John-R-Moffett-090616-456.html It includes this: “Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the Journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, AND I COULD WELL BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A POLITICAL VIEWPOINT BEHIND ITS PUBLICATION. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.” An even funnier tale is revealed whereby someone was able to publish total computer-generated nonsense in a sister Bentham Open Journal. So much for “peer reviewed” or even notifying its chief editor!

I also note for the record that the article contains a total of 33 figures (photos and drawings). My readers know the significance of this.

Then I have already commented on the alleged four WTC dust samples used in the paper. THERE IS NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY/EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THEM. They were allegedly in people’s apartments for six years. They were not hermetically sealed or documented in any way. Their shipping is not described. They would be disallowed in a court of law. To be allowed, such samples would have to be sealed and protected and sworn to its whereabouts at every point in time (and space). It would be the easiest thing for intel agents to have substituted for any real samples either at any time during their first 6 years of “storage,” or during their shipping. I will leave out for the moment the issue of what could have occurred in the labs given the above background. There is also no apparent disclosure as to who might have paid for the use of the expensive apparatus employed for this “research.”

Now the crux of this paper can be gathered from its abstract. “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the WTC…. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, and differential scanning calorimetry. The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm [nanometers] across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures… Elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When …the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.”

Now for specific criticism of the methods, contents and conclusions of this paper. On page 17, they write, “The resulting spectrum [from the surface of a red chip], shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wall-board material in the buildings.” Now I can critique this paragraph in several ways. First possible contamination is noted several times. Normally such an occurrence renders such research as useless. But I would note that this “excuse” may be a hint that not just Aluminum and Iron Oxide (rust) were in small (100) nanometer sized particles or grains, but that other elements or everything in the samples were as well, giving a hint to what really happened to the towers. More on this below.

On page 28, the authors indicate they are so concerned that all they have is paint chips (and iron oxide [rust]), that they include this paragraph, “To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.” So it might just be paint chips, but the public must find a way to get paint chips analyzed with similar expensive apparatus they used. On page 23, we have, “These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere.” There is more below on who these authors indicate makes such alleged nano-thermite below. And what does “reminded us” mean? On page 17, they note that for one of their experiments, they used only one of the four samples. “The chip that was used for this experiment was extracted from dust sample 2.” Why use only sample #2 here?

On page 25, we have the curious statement, “We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains.” This is one of many statements indicating they don’t know what they have, but have merely declared it to be super nano-thermite. They are beginning to sound like Judy Wood of the DEW (non-)hypothesis. She basically proclaimed, I don’t have to explain how DEW did anything, I only have to show these pictures, provide baby talk, and say “DEW.” Substitute “nano-thermite”, for DEW, use pretty photomicrographs, and bigger words this time and VOILA!, you have the same Op-Plan.

On page 26, we have some key sentences. “A report on an April 2001 conference discloses who was known to be working on such explosives at that time: The … symposium on Defense Applications of Nanomaterials..… [noted] all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons. Furthermore, the authors say, “Super-thermite electric matches” have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications include triggering explosives for … demolition.”

Here the authors are indicating 1. Any super nano-thermite is most likely a U.S. Gov’t DOD/DOE creation, and 2. their beloved thermite or nano-composite thermite is ONLY capable of being used as a “match” for something else!

The last supposition is further supported by the authors on page 29, ”It may be that this [red] material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches. Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust.” In other words, they now appear to be admitting that even if there was thermite there, it was only used as a “match” for something else. Why then not concentrate on the something else, instead of the “match”?

Now we have two curious statements on pages 28 and 29 that I will list in order, and then “translate.” “One might speculate that the red thermitic material has been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive. The cooling effect of the iron in such close proximity, acting as a heat sink, might quench the reaction and explain the fact that unreacted red thermitic material, always found by us in thin layers, remains in the dust. These hypotheses invite further experiments” ….”We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers. In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers.” Translation: Jones, et al, don’t know what they have. They just claim it is nano-thermite, and then say the other things there don’t quite make sense. I assert that it is far more scientific to realize that some other source of energy made much of what was there into 100 nanometer size particles or grains, and that’s why all these different elements are mixed with each other, and are of very small size. And that source is well known. Nuclear fission bombs can create particles down to 10 nanometer size. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout Fission mini-bombs provide a far better explanantion for all the different elements and their mixing!

Then on page 28, they say, “Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Fig. (29).” How does this short interval of energy release fit with Jones previous claim of “unextinguishable fires,” or with the 6-month long release of great heat in the WTC rubble pile or underneath the former skyscrapers? Then on page 29, after citing the controlled demolition of a Las Vegas Hotel, they say, “Of course, we do not assume that the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers occurred conventionally.” This is most curious, as I thought the standard was that all explosives with TNT, thermite, nano-thermite, thermobarics, etc.–since they all involve chemical reactions–are all labeled as “conventional”; and only nuclear bombs–because they involve nuclear reactions–are called non-conventional. A slip-up?

On page 19, is the key to the discussion of the “iron-rich microspheres.” The authors state, “In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were iron-rich…” In other words, there are OTHER such small spheroid entities in their samples, not just iron-rich ones. You might miss this if you don’t read carefully. So all we really have is the phenomena that great heat vaporizes ANY material and when it resolidifies, we have the well known phenomenon that spheroidal shapes is what nature usually provides. And I believe that Jones harps on this for one reason–to hide the VAPORIZATION that occurred. And the great heat during the WTC destruction was due to something else.

Finally let us examine some of the authors’ conclusions on page 29.

Conclusion #4: “The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.” WRONG. Iron oxide (rust) would be a common component in a skyscraper, and mini-nukes more readily explains their small size.

Conclusion #6: “From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.” WRONG. Again nukes would have heated up things and can readily account for elemental aluminum.

Conclusion #7: “The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C), but very likely a form of super-thermite.” WRONG. While it isn’t thermite, it isn’t super-thermite either. As above, the use of nuclear fission bombs can easily yield grains of iron oxide (or anything else present) down to 120 nm.

Conclusion #10: “The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations.” WRONG. Carbon material could have been blasted into any grains or particles from the effects of the fission bombs. The source of carbon could have been many things, sadly even possibly from the missing, vaporized 1157 people.

And their ultimate conclusion is (naturally) what they wanted it to be: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” WRONG. As their other findings indicate, if anything here is real or honest–and this is a huge if based on the deep background of S.E. Jones–all that can be said is that many elements were found in particles or grains of approximately 100 nm size. This rather indicates that a source of incredible energy–nukes–was present that was able to create particles of such small dimensions from whatever it contacted.

Furthermore, their own statements indicate that another explosive compound was necessary and that the nano-thermite may have just acted like a “match.” Do you see the pseudo-scientific, epicycle-like reasoning used here? If the reader is clever enough to see the contradictions in their thermite hypothesis, they have an epicycle-like “answer” waiting in the wings. If you say, how does some “super nano-composite thermite” know when to explode, or when to be in an “unextinguishable fire,” or when to remain as “unreacted thermitic material” here, the authors then claim that some other explosive compound is necessary and was there on 9/11. Yes, the only things “unextinguishable” with the thermite hypothesis are its palaver, hidden funding, and promotion.

I assert that the evidence Jones, et al, found actually helps prove that small nuclear bombs destroyed the WTC! And, of course, I have detailed that the great heat in the rubble pile, was from the fission fragments not used up in the bombs that destroyed the WTC. Their half-life is 700 million years; only 1-6% of it was used during the chain reactions of the implosions, and it took six months to reach all these fragments, and cart them away. All the unique phenomena observed during, and after, WTC destruction are readily explained by the nuking of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath. No “super nano-composite thermite” “match” and its necessary other unknown explosive compound that Jones is now touting can account for all that occurred. They cannot account for the thermal rays, the EMP, the half-burnt/half pristine cars, the vaporization of so many people, furniture, steel and other contents, the very small dust particle size, the six-month long high heat in the rubble pile and under the former skyscrapers, and numerous other phenomena observed during and after WTC destruction. My articles and book make clear the evidence of thermal rays, EMP, “extraordinarily high temperatures”, neutron bombardment, tritium production (from ternary fission occurred). For more on all this, see the articles: http://www.wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/ http://www.wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com/ and book– which includes the entirety of my work on the destruction of the WTC here: http://www.anonymousphysicist.com– I have written. If you read all that I have written on this, you will agree that the thermite “hypothesis” is nothing but another desperate Limited Hangout from the intel agencies that cannot account for most of what happened on 9/11 at the WTC. And the thermite hangout was clearly designed to try to prevent the People from finding out that the American Regime nuked its own city and People on 9/11. Don’t let this pseudo-scientific hangout survive your scrutiny or your love for your fellow human beings.

I take pride in that my research and articles helped debunk the ”DEW” Limited Hangout for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/08/dew-evidence-actually-helps-prove-nukes.html

Only obvious American and British intel agents still push that inanity. On the other hand, the intel agencies have invested vastly more manpower and resources into the Thermite Hangout. Far more scientists, engineers etc. who are undercover intel agents or assets, and far more internet personnel and money have gone into the “thermite did it” impossibility. Above I demonstrated that the very latest thermite paper by Steven Jones, and eight others, that has been massively pushed online, contains nothing of value and instead ACTUALLY HELPS PROVE SMALL NUCLEAR BOMBS DESTROYED THE WTC!

Now I will examine a “blast from the past”–a previous claim by SE Jones that “hard evidence” repudiates mini-nukes. We will see that this letter in his own “journal” is a foul, insulting and ANTI-scientific entity. Jones’ letter, in his “Journal of 911 Studies” is titled, “Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers” Letter, by Dr. Steven Jones 9/28/06 (Updated 1/07)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

First the claim that this letter was peer reviewed is not worthy of examination. Oneself and one’s cronies do not constitute a set of impartial peers. And Jones’ claim of being “peer reviewed” for his 9/11 papers was destroyed in my other article above critiquing his most recent paper. Then I note that Jones both begins and ends his letter with a condescending lecture on the natures of logic and the scientific method.

Let us begin with perhaps the most bogus and corrupt set of sentences in Jones’ letter. On page 8, Jones states, “A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: ““The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μmdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm-diam) style=”"> “It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble. Mini-nukes are not needed for the observed concrete pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.”

Let me examine the above in detail. Jones first attempts to piggyback onto another article on the relative abundances of the particle sizes found for the WTC dust as that relates to subsequent health problems. Even that part is false, as it is well known that very fine particles more readily enter the smallest areas of the body (such as alveoli in the lungs) and they cause grave, often irreparable damage. Remember how the EPA lied about all the toxins at the WTC area for years. And you can search on “nano-particle damage to lungs” or “ultra-fine particles damage lungs” and see for yourself. Then Jones attempts to insidiously use that and follows with a foul, condescending AND ERRONEOUS rebuke to the 9/11 truth community about the relative sizes of the dust particles, AS THIS RELATES TO 9/11 TRUTH, namely to what destroyed the Towers. Now I have written extensively on the crucial matter of the dust particle sizes. And I assert that Jones is deliberately lying here, as the papers of Z.P. Bazant on the energies of the “collapses” are the papers that all the other NIST detritus rely on. That is, I have little doubt that Jones knows full well that the energies (and their equations) involved in the towers’ destructions rely heavily on the very SMALLEST PARTICLE SIZE created during tower destruction.

My articles critiquing ZP Bazant’s bogus science are here http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-bazants-hack-science-and-wtc.html and here http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/further-examination-of-physical-and.html. In the latter one, I stated that the case for fraud was completely proven and called for the arrest and trial of Bazant for lying about the size of the smallest dust particles found by the Govt. The article by Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson is entitled “What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York” and is here http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf The point is that while Jones falsely berates the 9/11 truth community about the particle sizes found in the greatest abundance, the structural engineer Bazant’s equations make extensive use of the SMALLEST dust particle size in his equations of “collapse.” Bazants Equations 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, and 22 directly have D_min (the diameter of the SMALLEST particle size) in them. Many other equations contain the results of the equations just cited. So much of the work on collapse mechanisms contain this crucial variable, and Jones damn well knows it. Furthermore I have written that the govt’s studies released may well have been doctored in that they lumped all the dust particle sizes that were 2.5 microns or smaller together. There may well have been 10 nanometer size particles in the dust, as nukes are known to create these. And the govt had apparatus in 2001 to find these, but either did not, or altered this info before release of these studies. But in any case, we see that Jones, like Bazant, is not writing/acting as a scientist, rather he is attempting to deceive and control 9/11 truth with distortions, lies and omissions.

I also note for the record that Bazant’s paper has 33 equations in it, just as Jones most recent paper has 33 figures.

Then on page 4 of Jones’ letter, he asks, “Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?” He asks this because the bulk of his desperate, anti-nuclear 9/11 “treatise” focuses on either the theoretical, 4^th generation pure fusion bomb, or the fission-triggered fusion bomb. What I have asserted destroyed the WTC–numerous small fission bombs–is given very little weight in the letter. Nonetheless I have addressd this issue in my book and recently here at covertops: http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-word-on-tritium.html

Ternary fission produces small amounts of tritium, and the nuclear physicist knows full well about that. It occurs in fission bombs at a rate that some have estimated at only a few thousandths of a percent of the fission reactions. So again it is likely that this nuclear physicist is deliberately lying, and deceiving.

Then it is clear that Jones needs to pad his “letter” with irrelevancies and poppycock. On page 8, he states that the “MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.” So it’s a large likely outer chunk expelled; it means nothing. After all, how else could it have been blown into her apartment?? (Some physicist, huh?) We can see on some of the videos, massive chunks weighing many tons were expelled during tower destruction. No one ever claimed the towers’ contents were 100% pulverized. This is gibberish, deception and even stupidity.

Then we have the issue of the material falling out of the South Tower, seconds before it was destroyed. Jones, on page 10 states, “the molten metal seen flowing out of the South Tower can be accounted for by the thermite reaction which produces molten iron, but could not be ascribed to a mini-nuclear explosion since this flow began several minutes before the destruction of the Tower.” I have always ignored this because we cannot obtain this material and cannot perform any experiments on it. We see, seconds before the South Tower is destroyed, something that appears orange falling down. It could be anything. It could have been pushed out (even automatically) as part of the later thermite hangout. And it could be composed of anything. Scientists strive to utilize definitive facts and data, not things that cannot be retrieved or properly analyzed. Whatever it was does not prove or disprove any WTC destruction hypothesis. There may be another reason Jones likes to dwell on molten matters–to try to divert away from the issue of VAPORIZATION. As much metal was vaporized during tower destruction, and no version of his thermite is capable of vaporizing steel.

Then there is a discussion of I[odine]-131 found in the Hudson River later. But if the conclusion is that this “probably entered the river through local sewage systems”, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/9%2F11+ash,+and+more+found+in+river+muck.+(Earth+Science)-a098172042 it too should have been left out, as it is not definitive of anything as relates to WTC destruction. And on page 6, Jones states, “ Neutron activation [was] not observed.” Not so. We have both the eyewitness accounts of WTC engineer Pecoraro and the isotopic analysis of William Tahil. Pecoraro witnessed a large steel press had been vaporized and that a 300 pound steel/concrete door was left shriveled up “like aluminum foil,” after an early nuclear, sub-basement blast timed to coincide with the alleged plane hit explosions on top.

(Older discussions on these matters are at http://www.wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/ and http://www.wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com/. Revised work is in my new book.) Now I assert that the things Pecoraro saw could only have occurred from the million degree temperature, and/or neutron bombardment, from a nuke. The lack of molten metal from the (former) door, now in the form of foil, is more likely to have occurred from neutron bombardment. Tahil’s lengthy isotope analysis is here http://www.nucleardemolition.com/ While Tahil’s nuclear reactor theory is untenable, his isotopic analysis contains some very good points indicating neutron activation.

On page 10, Jones states “No such immediate fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported…. William Rodriguez, after rescuing many people in the Towers, survived the collapse of the North Tower, adjacent to the building during its collapse. He did not show effects of a nuclear blast.” I have also written much on this matter. I have cited at least four people that had melted, hanging skin without being in any fire! This could only occur from the thermal rays of a nuke. The most famous of these four is Felipe David. My article on him is here http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/07/felipe-david-hanging-skin-and-nuclear.html (The discussion on the other three is at the archived articles or revised in my book.) And curiously the reader can see the statements about what happened to David are very different when compared–i.e. David’s own words as compared to Rodriquez’. Melted, hanging skin was a common occurrence at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And speaking of fatalities, here Jones, completely, and horrifically, omits that some 1157 people were so vaporized that not a strand of DNA could be found for them by the NYC Coroner’s office after looking for years. There is also the evidence from numerous firefighters who believed they were being nuked as they were far from any fire in the street, as tower destruction commenced, but they felt great heat on their skin at that time. These were the thermal rays of the nukes.

Finally, on page 10, Jones completely lies about EMP evidence during tower destruction: “Note that while power-outages can be generated by electromagnetic pulses associated with nuclear bombs, most power outages in history (and there are many instances) are due to other causes.” I have written extensively on EMPs during WTC destruction. See this summary of EMP: http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/05/summary-of-evidence-of-emps.html As I have noted, Jones deliberately does not even cite the various anomalous phenomena that almost certainly were from EMP! Here he has to OMIT and LIE as he cannot counter this with any other bogus phenomenological evidence. I refer to the half burnt/half pristine cars–separated by the air gaps of the doors–and the cars bursting in flames for no apparent reason. They were not hit by anything, neither were they in any pyroclastic clouds, and people nearby were not harmed. Only EMP could account for all that.

Steven Jones’ Op-Plan is all too clear to see with his thermite, or super nano-composite thermite, “hypothesis.” His Op is to try to claim for his thermite hangout, all the properties of the Uranium-235 used in the destruction of the WTC, and its high heat aftermath. While the U-235 in the fission mini-nukes were imploded, and caused the chain reactions of the numerous very small nukes used, only 1-6% of their content was converted. The remainder was left for the China Syndrome of heat heat in the rubble pile and under the towers for up to six months, until reached and carted away. Now Jones would have us falsely believe that some version of thermite could have caused the destruction of the towers, and also give rise to the great heat weeks and months later. The only problem is that no version of thermite is capable of EITHER causing ALL the phenomena of the destruction, or the molten metal six months later!

This is also the hidden reason Jones’ penultimate paper actually has him claiming “UNEXTINGUISHABLE FIRES” http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-paper-from-steven-jones-et-al.html for his beloved thermite in the rubble pile. He attempts again to usurp the properties of the U-235, and the China Syndrome for his thermite. Jones knows well that the repeated water hosing down of the rubble pile was SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/10/has-standard-operating-procedure-for.html to try to lower radiation and heat from the U-235. He knows well that such methods are amelioration only, and that the real “unextinguishable fires” are radioactive ones!

No Steven Jones, no version of thermite can mimic all the phenomena of U-235 and of mini- or micro-nuclear bombs, and of the China Syndrome, that are mentioned here and cited in greater detail in my articles and book. Just as “DEW” is now only cited by obvious British and American intel agents, I can only hope that intelligent, concerned readers will use these two latest articles by me to help eradicate the Thermite Limited Hangout. I realize that the intel agencies are heavily invested in this one. But it is up to you to use the logic, science, and facts I have laid out here for you. My failing health indictates that this is likely the last time I will write exposing the thermite “hypothesis” and Jones’ papers. I am sure there will be new ones by him and others. There are unlimited coffers for them, while I am both very ill and virtually impoverished without any help. It is up to you now. The revised entirety of my work on the destruction of the WTC is here: http://www.anonymousphysicist.com.

Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones have just published a paper titled, “Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials”. As we shall see, this paper purports to reveal, in effect, new Laws of Chemistry and Physics in the desperate attempt to deny the actual nuclear source (China Syndrome) of the high heat at the WTC, for 6 months after the 9/11/01 destruction.

First I note that this paper was published in “The Environmentalist.” Curiously this is a Journal about environmental biology. Its two co-editors-in-chief are environmental biologists. And the journal itself says this about itself, “This journal acts as a catalyst for environmental education, identifying educational opportunities, and providing guidelines and the missing framework for defining the more viable management mechanisms useful to industry, governmental policy-makers and environmental professionals. The Environmentalist publishes the critical but constructive views of both industrialists and ecologists, through challenging guest editorials, in-depth articles, interviews and news and comments columns.” So it is pleasing to see that no journal of chemistry or physics was willing to publish a paper on this purported new chemistry or new physics; and it had to go into a non-relevant journal of environmental biology.

The article’s introduction begins with the admission that “For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.” Then it details that several inches of dust covered the entire area, millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile, several inches of rain had fallen, and a chemical fire supressant, Pyrocool had been used on the rubble pile. Then it says, “The characteristics of these “un-extinguishable fires” have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel.”

So we see that, unlike the other two Intel Hangouts of “DEW” and the O.C.T., the thermite hangout creators have not lied about the massively documented, great heat at the WTC for months after WTC destruction. However, the thermite hangout, of course, does deny the great heat from the nuclear destruction itself of the WTC, on 9/11/01. And the thermite hangout denies the well known actual cause of the heat in the rubble pile and underneath the towers for months after 9/11/01– the radiation emitting [radioactive] fragments from the nukes used to destroy the WTC– also known as the China Syndrome. Instead of admitting the well known China Syndrome phenomenon, here Jones, et al, desperately attempt to create new chemistry and new physics. Note that this is the equivalent of the ludicrous “cold molecular dissociation clouds” from the evidence-free DEW hangout. Except that these fictitious clouds are cold as was the WTC destruction, according to DEW hangout proponents. But we shall see that the thermite hangout paper at hand, claims “energetic nano-compounds” can release great heat indefinitely– in violation of the usual laws of chemistry and physics.

I note that the authors use “fire” 37 times, while not once proving that the phenomena they write about came from any kind of chemical fire (as opposed to the nuclear phenomenon of the China Syndrome). Thus they prove once again how dangerous it is when one keeps yelling “fire” when there may not be one–at least not in the usual chemical sense. This is also very much like William Rodriquez inventing “fire” down the elevator shaft from the “jet fuel” to desperately try to hide Felipe David’s hanging skin which came from the thermal rays of a nuke– as his own words state there was no fire that did that to him! I have cited three others who also had hanging skin without fire– which was also a common occurrence for Hiroshima survivors.

Indeed Jones et al state that “fire” from “jet fuel” may account for some of the earlier findings in their article. This is particularly interesting because S. Jones very condescendingly writes how the “scientific method” must be used for any claims regarding 9/11. Evidence must be documented, and all that. So his claim of “jet fuel” needs to be substantiated. Obviously the jet fuel would have come from jets. And the authors must mean the jets seen on TV entering the two towers. But it has been massively documented that the purported videos of the two “plane hits” are merely CGI creations. S. Jones et al must explain how the plane’s wing blinks in and out of existence, how the plane made up of a plastic nosecone and aluminum body can pass through several inches of steel and even emerge through the other side through several more inches of steel unscathed, in violation of the Laws of Physics (Mechanics). Furthermore, they must explain how this pristine nosecone then instantly disintegrates after it has emerged through the opposite side, when no forces are acting on it (also a violation of Newton’s laws), and how there is no deforming shock wave passing down the fuselage at the moment of the “plane hit” that would have visibly, and almost instantly, deformed or destroyed the back of the plane– the speed of sound in aluminum is 5,000 mph, as detailed in my article here. Now if the “plane hits” are just CGI, as is proven, it is highly unlikely that there were real jets, as real videos of real jets would have emerged by this time. (My articles also revealed at least one responder who called in a bomb after witnessing a flyby of a jet.) As one of the more famous videographers of the second “plane hit” himself said, they are just “bad special effects.” This was from Evan Fairbanks after the FBI took his video and “processed” it and returned it to him–minus all audio. So if there were no real jets, just explosions set off high in each tower, there was no jet fuel. And no “scientist” can write about “jet fuel” as a source of heat or energy until s/he proves the “jets” were anything but CGI.

Then the bulk of the Ryan/Gurley/Jones paper deals with very high levels of several chemical compounds found at the WTC, in the six months after its destruction. Much of the data on this, Jones, et al, obtained, in 2004, via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, for environmental monitoring data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) WTC response. It is only available on CD from the govt, and I do not have access to this data. It appears, as noted by Spooked, that a selective set of five VOCs were used in this article for their hypothesis without any mention of other compounds that may not fit in with their hypothesis, that are in the FOIA data. But the authors make the valid point that their data show amounts of these VOCs that are thousands of times greater than the EPA has admitted to the public, to this date. This is criminal, on the part of EPA administrators and/or top govt officials who ordered the lying and suppression.

The authors focus on the levels– up to 990,000 ppb (parts per billion) of benzene, styrene, toluene, propylene, and ethylbenzene, while the official EPA levels have maxima of only about 20 ppb. The high level spikes in the suppressed EPA data last for about a day each time, and are only found on several occasions with simultaneity for several of these compounds in the data the authors chose to include.

Then the authors delve into the fine particulate matter aspect, of which I am familiar from my research exposing the fraud and bogus physics and mathematics of Z.P. Bazant. The authors do not comment on what I have exposed– that the smallest particulates were either not properly analyzed and delineated, or that data was suppressed. In particular, I– unlike these authors– showed that the EPA had instrumentation to test for particle size down to 10 nm (nanometers) and not merely lump together all particles with a maximum size of 2.5 microns (millionth of a meter). As I noted, proof of particles smaller than 2.5 microns virtually proves nuclear bombs were used, as the OCT of gravitational potential energy as source for the energy released during “collapse” fails when the smallest particle size is less than 2.5 microns. And nukes are known to create particles down to 10 nm size. Bazant flat out lied and said that the data said that 10 microns was the smallest size found. But here Jones et al, state that the 2.5 micron data show maximum readings ending three weeks after 9/11, while the VOCs show spikes into Feb., 2002. Thus they propose a new energy source other than “jet fuel.” They state that thermite is the cause of the “fires” that they say caused the short-lived spikes in the VOCs into Feb. 2002.

First they quote Thomas Cahill in his studies on the particulate matter and aerosol compounds. They include a July, 2002 quote from Dr. Cahill, “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 [notice he didn’t say “fire”].” Then the authors say that by September, 2002, Cahill appeared to change his mind and invoked a “new mechanism of anaerobic incineration.” The authors belittle this hypothesis of Cahill, but come up with their own “unique” hypothesis of “energetic, nano-compounds” that just happen to include the constituents of thermite! What it looks like is that the expert in these matters, Cahill, gave away the nuking of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath (CSA), in the rubble pile; and the PTB then forced him to change his tune. All the while, the ludicrous Intel Hangouts push “new chemistry” or new physics” to try to hide the CSA. These authors say that the “jet fuel” is used up in about a month, so something else was going on.

The authors then spend a good deal of time on the compound 1,3 diphenylpropane (1,3-DPP). After noting its finding in the WTC studies, they claim that the usual sources for this compound don’t fit the WTC evidence. It then appears that an ad hoc search for a source of 1,3-DPP was undertaken that would match Jones’ longstanding claim that thermite destroyed the WTC. Voila! They have dug up some articles on energetic nanocomposites with compounds found in thermite. The desperate stretching to try to make things fit with their thermite “hypothesis” is all too evident in the last few pages of their article! At one point they mention molybdenum spheres. Is this the microspherules that Jones has written about as due to thermite”? But in reality are likely related to the fused sand phenomena well-known to occur ever since the Trinity nuclear test in 1945.

At one point, the authors write, “but the pores of an energetic nanocomposite are also filled with a mixture of fine aluminum powder, and one or more finely dispersed metal oxides…” Are they here claiming that all “energetic nanocompounds” must contain the elements of thermite? This appears to be nonsense. In fact on the previous page, the authors use the word “often” in their description of the creation of thermite-like nano-compunds. In other words, they appear to claim– on the next page– to have dropped the “often” and try to imply that ALL energetic nanocomposites are thermite or thermite-like, when this is not true. (Here they go too far with their circular logic, as well.) But where do the authors state that “much of the work” on “super-thermite” energetic nanocomposites was done?

None other than Lawrence Livermore Labs–where they do everything from designing massive nuclear bombs to “remasterminding” the audio tapes of the Zapruder film. The authors then claim that these “energetic nanocomposites” were “somehow [their term] ignited” on the specific dates, into Feb. , 2002 and so led to the spikes in VOCs found. No discussion on the energy source needed to ignite these alleged “energetic nanocomposites” is included. This leads me to ask the following questions: Is not an energy source needed for igniting these compounds? If not, i.e., if they are so “ignitable”, why didn’t they “go off” during the highly energetic, explosive destruction of the WTC, five months earlier, or at any point in between? The authors’ conclusion includes, “…Thermite, discussed briefly above, is such a pyrotechnic mixture that cannot be easily extinguished…” Really? Why then does this video show thermite cooling down in about 5 minutes? Note that it stops glowing and appears that its container can be briefly touched at about that time. What about this experimental evidence?

Well maybe these authors would then claim that the nanocomposites of “superthermite” can do anything required of them to fit whatever data are ever released about the WTC destruction and its aftermath. But physically and logically we must realize that if any variation of thermite was used as the explosive to destroy the WTC, it was used up at that time. There is no energy left, if it were used up as an explosive. Furthermore if Jones et al are claiming that thermite or “superthermite” “cannot be extinguished”, and therefore is the first chemical reaction to go on forever, they are claiming new laws of chemistry and physics. They also thus appear to be claiming that they have found the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. They have also used circular logic by citing hypothetical “fires” to prove unextinguishable “fire” without any evidence or proof of a chemical fire. So Jones’, hypothetical superthermite “capabilities” allow it to both explode when his theory needs it to, and it also burns “forever” when his theory needs it to do that! How convenient, but how impossible. Note to Steven Jones: How do your superthermite molecules, when ignited, know when to explode, or to burn forever? Or are the very same molecules used up in the explosions, then resurrected for their later need to burn “forever”?

Now I have cited proven phenomena that readily explain everything that occurred on 9/11/01 and its aftermath. My archived articles demonstrating that numerous small nuclear bombs were used to destroy the WTC on 9/11 are here: wtcdemolition.blogspot.com. Those articles also demonstrate that the multi-million degree temperatures of the nukes vaporized nearly half of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the WTC, so that no DNA could be found from them, just like the missing furniture and other contents from the WTC buildings. But these great temperatures also readily provide for the creation of chemical compounds, in high amounts, that would not ordinarily be found in “structural fires.” Short-lived spikes could easily occur from agitation and/or uncovering, and collection of these fragments, and surrounding, affected material, during the six month long process of WTC clean-up. Due to the long half-life of Uranium-235 (700 million years), it was releasing high heat, in the spots where it was left over, until the fragments were removed. Again I have cited that a nuke only uses up 1-6% of its fissile material during its explosion, and also the likelihood of redundant nukes that were “fratricided.” There is no need to try to invent new chemistry or new physics, or a perpetual motion machine. My other articles on the China Syndrome Aftermath are archived here: wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com.

Conclusion:

The above paper by Ryan, Gourley, and Jones uses ad hoc and circular logic to reach an unproven and untenable conclusion. No jet fuel is proven, no presence of “energetic nanocomposite superthermite” is proven. No statement of the temperatures attainable by these alleged compounds was provided. No proof was provided that these compounds can yield new laws of chemistry and physics, and cause “unextinguishable” and indefinite “fires,” and thus act like a perpetual motion machine in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. All the evidence indicates that small nuclear bombs caused the WTC destruction, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. It is well known that the radioactive fragments in a China Syndrome event yield very high heat for up to 700 million years (or until they are removed from a site). The phenomenon is called “China Syndrome” precisely because these radiation-emitting fragments create heat high enough and for long enough time (eons), so that, in theory, they could eventually melt their way through anything, and reach the center of the Earth.

I don’t expect that the creation of desperate articles like the one examined here will ever stop, unless and until the People re-take the USA and indict the perps who destroyed the WTC with numerous, fission micro-nukes, and thus created the China Syndrome at the WTC. Likewise those who follow orders and continue to cover-up these facts are also liable for obstruction of justice and conspiracy after the fact.

In this post, I have previously detailed numerous falsifications of physical parameters, assumptions, observations, and circular “logic” employed in the 9/11 “collapse” papers of Z.P. Bazant, et al. Here I will first show that the most basic laws of Physics and even the basic tenets of Mathematics are flagrantly violated by Bazant’s nonsense. And I will also cite several other false assumptions and parameters Bazant used.

Let us examine the ludicrous, so-called crush down phase of Bazant, et al. We will ignore, for the moment, the obvious, massive, outward explosions seen on photos and videos, and the resultant evidence– or lack thereof– that indicates vaporization of people, furniture, and building structure occurred. Bazant ignores (as he must) that a “gravity-driven” event would never have such near perfect spatial (all around the towers) destruction symmetry. Such near perfect, spatial symmetry violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, commonly referred to as Entropy. Entropy refers to the increased state of DISORDER in naturally occurring events– which a theoretical “gravitational collapse” would be, once it has begun. Likewise the incredibly rapid, near-free fall time would also never happen from a “gravity-driven” collapse because of both Entropy and Newton’s third law– the reactant upward force of the bottom layers.

In other words, the near perfect symmetrical “collapse” is not only spatially impossible due to Entropy; the rapid time of the near perfect symmetry is also temporally impossible due to both Entropy and Newton’s Third law.

The truth is the rapid, near-perfect symmetry of “collapse”– all around the perimeter and the internal structure all at once– is proof of what is was– nuclear demolition with subsidiary help from conventional explosives as detailed here.

Now Bazant’s “analysis” begins with his differential equations, and all his results depend on these. But the most basic tenets of mathematics preclude the use of differential equations here. Such equations are part of the calculus. But the calculus is explicitly built upon the necessary use of what the mathematician calls “smoothly changing functions” or “continuous functions.” And rapid or immediate massive, or phase, changes do NOT allow for the use of the calculus or differential equations. Furthermore, I assert that this is part of why Bazant must ignore the vaporized people, furniture and tower structure. Such vaporization is called a “phase transition” by physicists and mathematicians, and is inherently NON-DESCRIBABLE by the usual calculus and differential equations. Indeed in recent times, new branches of math and physics had to be created to describe such transitions, or discontinuous changes. Such new maths include Chaos Theory and Catastrophe Theory. So the claim of Bazant, et al, to even use his starting differential equations is a mathematical and physical fraud, and the resultant remainder need not even be looked at, as it is all a charade.

But even though it has now been sufficiently proven that Bazant’s entire work is a charade, I will– for the purpose of further exposing his work– delve into some other parameters I didn’t expose in my first article here. First (tip to Spooked) is his equation 11 for “F”, the “energy per unit height that is dissipated by comminution [fracturization and pulverization] of concrete floor slabs and core walls…” To this equation, he adds a “Coefficient γ [gamma] (which is > 0) has been inserted in Eq. (11) as an empirical effectiveness coefficient specifying the fraction of Kc [Kinetic Energy] that is dissipated by the work of comminution, and not by other energy dissipation sources. The precise value of this coefficient is extremely difficult to determine theoretically because all the other energy dissipation sources would have to be accurately calculated and subtracted from the total loss of gravitational potential converted into kinetic energy of impact.” Here he, in roundabout fashion, alludes to the chaos present, and the entropy factor. Soon thereafter he writes, “…the equation of motion, has been set up under the assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution). Therefore, coefficient γ [gamma] needs to be calibrated empirically. In absence of any crushing experiments on the lightweight concrete used, the calibration of γ needs to be done the basis of comminution theory according to the size range of particles observed after the collapse. The result of such calibration gives γ = 0.74 as the optimum estimate.”

So his ad hoc gamma coefficient is admittedly dependent on “size range of particles observed after the collapse.” And my earlier article demonstrated how he deliberately falsified, by a proven factor of at least four, and possibly by as much as a factor of a thousand, the smallest pulverized particle size! He claimed 10 microns was the smallest size found, when one government study found particles of 2.5 microns, and did not bother to test for anything smaller. The evidence I earlier cited indicates there may well have been particles created as small as 10 nanometers. Furthermore, as Spooked recently pointed out, his admitted “assumption” of “perfectly inelastic collisions” is also ludicrous. And we see again how he mixes ludicrous theoretical assumptions and false observations to fudge his way to his intended result.

Finally, I must point out another false parameter Bazant used in his dust size analysis. He wrote:

“The distribution of particle sizes is, for the present purpose, adequately characterized by Schuhmann’s law of comminution [Refs: 19, 7, 18, 9](Fig. 4a):

m(D) = mc(D/Dmax)k Eq. (12), where m(D) = mass of all particles < D; Dmax= maximum particle size; and k = empirical constant (for which the typical value k ≈ 1/2 is assumed)”

Now I checked the references he used to get his k=1/2, and looked into Schuhmann’s “Law” of comminution. This is not a real law of Physics, but appears to be a correlation of dust particle size whereby the dust particles were created in only one of two ways–by “dropping” or gravitational collapse, and by the use of TNT, such as in mining. His k=1/2 was strongly used to derive his energy needed for pulverization during “gravitational collapse.” And this is perhaps why his article contains only those two possible tower destruction mechanisms—gravity and TNT! His entire paper uses equations, parameters, and assumptions that assumed the result from the beginning, instead of proving it. Other possibilities, including the actual nuclear mechanism employed, were ignored with his corrupt circular reasoning. Furthermore, Schuhmann’s “law” was found or derived in 1940, before nuclear bombs and nuclear energy. As I have written, the very different Physics– including the tremendous temperatures and pressure– of a nuke, obviate the use of equations, including a so-called [but not really] “law” whereby the force creating dust particles was assumed to be either “dropping” or TNT. See my first article cited above, for more evidence of bogus equations, parameters, observations, and assumptions in Bazant’s article. The pdf version of Bazant’s article appears to have been taken down now. Here is an html version.

It is clear from this, and my earlier article, and Spooked’s work, and that of others, that the entirety of the articles by Z.P. Bazant and colleagues is deliberate, corrupt, bad science and mathematics. As NIST, and the latest stooge, Seffen (see my earlier article here), base their “findings,” at least in part, on Bazant’s papers, this whole “gravity-driven” charade, or pristine pancakes as I have called them, has been more than adequately pulverized. And it can’t be put back together again.

UPDATE: A pdf version of Bazant’s article is now back up again, and it has been “revised” as of 12/15/07; this is its second official revision. A quick scan of the “revision” shows Bazant has hung himself out to dry even WORSE now!

Just one example. For the first time, Bazant, et al, have listed a “reference” for their claim of 10 microns as the smallest dust particle size. Perhaps Bazant, or some intel agent that frequents this place, informed Bazant of my article here decrying his lack of reference for his crucial claim of 10 micron smallest dust particle size. His revision now cites this website (!):

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

This conspiracy site is clearly a limited hangout itself, and proclaims the “virtues” of S. Jones who would like the world to believe that thermite remains at thousands of degrees for months after use (to hide the China Syndrome). And that website piece cited a sciencedaily.com web article which finally led to the author and the EHP article I cited in my article on the bogus science of Bazant! The EHP article is here.

One problem though, the EHP article clearly stated that 2.5– not 10– micron size particles were found and were an UPPER limit to the smallest particle size with the flimsy methods they used– likely so as not to find vastly smaller particles which apparatuses were available then to do– down to 10 nanometers, if they had wanted to find them. Nonetheless 2.5 micron size pulverized particles were found and noted in the EHP article.

So Bazant used roundabout references that led back to an article that calls him an out and out liar, as it clearly had 2.5 microns as an upper bound to the smallest particles found, and NOT the 10 microns that Bazant has stated and used in his “equations”! His collapse “mechanism” must energetically account for the smallest size particles, not just for the alleged “majority” or some such nonsense. I have just proven that Z.P. Bazant is guilty of scientific fraud, and I call for an immediate investigation. As 9/11 was a crime of mass murder, and only nuclear weapons account for all the destruction evidence, and the China Syndrome aftermath, and this could only have been carried out by the American government, Z.P. Bazant is now proven to be an accomplice after the fact. Indeed he may have been in on it before the fact, as his first bogus article on “gravitational collapse” was allegedly written and sent in two days after the event!

As New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison said when charging Clay Shaw, aka Clay Bertrand, as an accomplice in the murder of President Kennedy, “We got one of them now!” Years later, despite a faulty trial, Victor Marchetti who was CIA assistant Director (and future Director) Richard Helms assistant, revealed that Helms admitted to him that Shaw was indeed a “contract” CIA agent.

The deliberate lying by Z.P. Bazant about the smallest pulverized particle size is clear, and proves that “we got one of them now.” It is up to each of you now to publicize this far and wide on all blogs and try to get it to news sources. Don’t just try for the “911 truth” forums, for as I have written, these are virtually all run by intel operators– see how many of them will have their owner/moderator put up this article even though they read my work here. Please take the time to post this, and my other article cited at the top, at ALL forums– I’ve seen my article posted at sports forums– about anything, to turn up the heat on Bazant’s scientific fraud and the regime’s mass murder of 3000 Americans, which was used as an excuse to murder millions more innocent human beings around the world.

This work may have forced Bazant to finally cite a reference for his claim of the smallest dust particle size. Now that he has slipped up and proven his malfeasance, your help may now get him charged with fraud! And don’t forget, he admits, at the end of his bogus article, that funding for the article’s ludicrous claim of “progressive collapse was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation.” And we know the intel agencies frequently funnel money through other government departments. It’s time to do what Jim Garrison did– start indicting the perps!

“We got one of them now!”

Yes, that is VERY unlikely that “all the impact forces go into the columns” below with equal distribution among the columns!

So why even discuss it?

He SAYS because if it would fail symmetrically, it would definitely fail if there was an asymmetric collapse.

True, the building would “fail” with an asymmetric collapse– but IT WOULD FAIL IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MANNER THAN IF A TOP SECTION OF BUILDING FALLS ONE STORY SYMMETRICALLY AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED*!!!

If the building fails asymmetrically, it simply is NOT going to undergo complete symmetric collapse, as was seen.**

This, as shown in his paper, would NEVER happen:

PERIOD.

Bazant’s whole model for WTC collapse is a fraud.

* This is Bazant’s assumption, see here:

** What would be seen is the upper section falling apart and falling off to the side after crashing down one side of the tower. A major section of the tower– much of the opposite side from the collapse should be left standing.

1) Bazant, Z.P. (2001). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM News (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) Vol. 34, No. 8 (October), pp. 1 and 3 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001).

2) Bazant, Z.P., and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?—Simple analysis.” J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 128 (No. 1), 2–6; with Addendum, March (No. 3), 369–370 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001, revised Oct. 5, 2001).

You know, a cynical person might suspect him of a hidden agenda…

He has now put up a revised version which astonishingly seems responsive to a few of the critiques noted here.  For instance, relating to my previous post, now he has:Fc = Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, where Fe = energy “required to accelerate the mass dust and larger fragments ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part”.   The Fe is new, and is something I said was missing in my previous post.  He is still neglecting the energy required to expel outer columns hundreds of feet from the towers. He also now has a reference for dust size, as noted in comments, though amusingly, uses  the WTC7 conspiracy site as a reference!

Of course, in order to argue for rapid collapse, he still uses the ridiculous perfect inelastic collision assumption for his initial calculations of energy.

What’s not clear is if the paper, which has been revised twice now, is close to being published– and further, if the manuscript is being revised in response to reviewers’ critiques.  Normally, papers are not accepted to prominent journals if they are revised more than twice.  More than two revisions indicates flaws severe enough to preclude publication.Interestingly, the previous paper had at the top– “Submitted on May 27, 2007, to Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE”, which the new revised version does not have.   This suggests the paper was REJECTED by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

FIRST– his entire paper rests on differential equations for the time of the “collapse”, notably equation 2– the “crush down” equation.  He gives this equation on page 3, but for some reason it takes him until page 7 to note that “… Eq. (2), the equation of motion, has been set up under the assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution).”A perfectly inelastic collision is where a body A moving at velocity V strikes a body B, typically at rest, then both bodies stick together (the “accreted mass”), and then both bodies move together after that at the same final velocity.  If both bodies are similar masses, then the final velocity will be 1/2 of the original velocity.  If body A is much larger than body B, then the final velocity will be closer to the original velocity.

So there are three obvious problems with this:

1) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that no mass is lost during the collision, which we know is not the case as, during each “collision”, concrete was pulverized and and ejected AND outer columns were ejected — resulting in a loss of mass for each floor.

2) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that the collided floors stick together, which is highly improbable.  Further, we know that this is not the case as, during each “collision”, concrete and interior contents were pulverized, creating  a significant barrier of debris between floors.

3) most fatally, by its very nature, a perfect inelastic collision model cannot take into account the resistance from the supporting columns below when calculating the final velocity.  Another problem is that Bazant does not show any calculations revealing the mass he is using for the upper colliding mass and what mass he is using for the lower mass.   In fact, as far as I can tell, the collapse equations are derived indirectly, by a series of equations that calculate an overall collapse energy balance and that rest on dubious propositions (for example as described in part 2 below).

Now, Bazant should be doing collision calculations using  two equal masses, as the two floors that initially collide are similar masses!  But as far as I can tell, the model he uses the complete mass of the upper tower here, which will give a much faster final velocity, in order to obtain a rapid collapse time and a complete crush-down.  In reality, floor A colliding with floor B at velocity V should result in a final velocity of V/2– and this is under perfect conditions!    This halving of momentum would slow down any collapse greatly.  Now, I should note that for a real world collapse, the analysis would get complicated as, after the initial collision of floors, the floors above the first collided floor may be moving at the original velocity (though more likely at a slower velocity), which will lead to more floor-by-floor collisions– particularly in the upwards direction.  So there should be a great deal of crush UP during the “crush down” phase– a fact that Bazant et al completely ignore in their unrealistic analysis that favors a fast collapse time.  And of course, “crush up” is what is actually seen in the videos– the top part of the tower basically completely breaks apart as it moves downwards.  So Bazant et al. not only ignore basic logic but as has been pointed out before, ignores the visual record of what happened.

It is worth adding that Judy Wood’s “Billiard Ball example” for the WTC collapse was criticized by many people for assuming (essentially) perfect elastic collisions for each floor.   In fact, for reasons I noted above, an elastic collision is a much more reasonable assumption than an inelastic collision for floors striking each other. Obviously in the real world, though, a collision is not going to be perfectly elastic or inelastic– so models need to really take this into account better.  But overall, I find it shocking how UNREALISTIC the official collapse models are– they barely make an attempt at making a reasonable sequence of events for the collapse.  Jeesh– I sometimes think I could do a better job of explaining the official story.

SECOND– there is a problem with Bazant et al’s equation 4, which they claim specifies all the resisting forces to collapse:

Fc = Fs + Fa + Fb

where Fc is the total resisting force, Fs is the energy required to pulverize the concrete, Fa is the energy required to expel air, and Fb is the energy required to buckle all the columns.

The key problem here is that he completely neglects two important energy sources:

1) the energy required to eject outer facade columns hundreds of feet in all directions around the towers.

2) the energy required to expel pulverized concrete for thousands of feet all around the WTC complex.

Considering the masses of the outer wall columns, and the immense amount of concrete that was expelled, no one can seriously argue that these  are trivial sources of energy– particularly when Bazant is saying AIR gave enough resistance to collapse to bother calculating!!!

And, as has been discussed here before, Bazant et al badly under-estimate the energy required to pulverize the WTC concrete (see links above).  The bottom line, again, is that the official analyses of the WTC collapse (such as Bazant et al’s) are so fatally flawed that they essentially prove demolition by default! In other words, if expert scientists must resort to such rigged mathematical models to explain what happened, there can be little doubt they are covering up a very ugly truth.

This model makes sense– in the cartoon world of the Roadrunner, that is.

In the real world however, there are two problems with  Bazant’s “crush down, crush up” model:

1) it violates physics, as Newtons’ third law of motion says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  In the case of building floors hitting other building floors, as in a collapse, both sets of floors will get damaged– and in fact, the upper floors are more likely to suffer in this collision as they are by their nature, lighter and weaker than lower floors.  This counters the “crush down, crush up” model.

2) it violates what was actually observed– as it has long been clear that there was “crush up” of the upper sections of the towers as they fell.

If the paper by Bazant et al‘s is really the best the official story has to offer, there can be no doubt that the towers were fucking blown to kingdom come by the regime, and that the official collapse story is a load of horse swallop.