Re: [OPE] The Science of 9/11

Jerry,

the nano-thermite evidence has been around some time ...already in
programmes on the twin ( - tri ) towers on the internet... what is the
reference to the journal and author(s) please.

paul B.

----- Original Message -----
From: <glevy@pratt.edu>
To: <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:35 PM
Subject: [OPE] The Science of 9/11

>
>
> FYI.
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message
> ----------------------------
> Subject: Deseret News: Traces of
> Explosives in 9/11 Dust (Smoking Gun Proving 9/11 Was an Inside Job)
> From: "Richard Curtis" <richardcurtis42@MSN.COM>
> Date: Sun, April 12, 2009 1:30 pm
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Something interesting happened
> last week but most of the world didnâ&euro;&trade;t notice. What
> happened was conclusive scientific proof was published that demonstrates,
> beyond all doubt, that 9/11 was an inside job. That sounds strange to say,
> conclusive proof and yet no one noticed. Well, in politics is that so odd?
>
>
>
>
> A retired physicist and a number of other
> scientists co-authored a scientific paper, which was published last week,
> in which they document the presence of a very high-tech explosive called
> â&euro;&oelig;nanothermiteâ&euro; in dust samples from areas
> around the World Trade Center. The existence of this explosive in the dust
> was established by sophisticated laboratory techniques. Extrapolating from
> their samples it appears there were tons of explosives in the World Trade
> Center and the residue of that is in the dust â&euro;&ldquo; it is
> the smoking gun.
>
>
>
> There can be no rational doubt
> that 9/11 was an inside job because those chemicals do not exist in nature
> or in any materials existing in the World Trade Center. They had to be
> explosives put in place for that purpose. That is the only logical
> conclusion.
>
>
>
> We know for sure that 9/11 was an
> inside job. Now why do I have to tell you (the reader) about this? Why are
> you not reading this in the New York Times? Why, better yet, are you not
> hearing this on Democracy Now? It is hard to say, but clearly this is
> difficult for people. It is hard to admit that our government would
> slaughter thousands of innocent people and blame others to rally support
> for systematic violence in other parts of the world.
>
>
>
> It is hard to admit that our government would murder us, lie to us, and
> use those lies to justify the slaughter a million Iraqis and stealing
> their oil. But that is what happened. We know it was an inside job, now we
> just have to get enough people to notice since the most of the media (the
> story below is a very curious exception) simply ignore science --
> especially when it matters.
>
>
>
> I am posting this
> message on a couple of lists where this topic has been controversial, in
> the past. I trust that finding the smoking gun will satisfy the doubters
> now. We have to stop these people, which seems to mean at present forcing
> the Obama Administration to investigate Bush era crimes (even though such
> an investigation will find the Democrats complicit). The nation deserves
> the truth and the world deserves the peace that can follow admitting the
> truth.
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.deseretnews.com/home/> Deseret News
>
>
> Traces of Explosives in 9/11 Dust, Scientists Say
>
>
> By
> <http://www.deseretnews.com/site/staff/1,5231,82,00.html> Elaine
> Jarvik
>
> Deseret News
>
> April 6, 2009
>
>
>
> Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the
> World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials â&euro;&rdquo;
> proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister
> mystery.
>
>
>
> Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired
> from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the
> controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a
> paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical
> Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey
> Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in
> Denmark.
>
>
>
> For several years, Jones has theorized
> that prepositioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid,
> symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the
> collapse of a third building, WTC-7.
>
>
>
> The newest
> research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the
> collapsing towers contained a "nanothermite" material that is
> highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the
> source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a
> theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government
> conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack
> would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq. The next
> step, Jones said in a phone interview on Monday, is for someone to
> investigate "who made the stuff and why it was there."
>
>
>
> A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately
> following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that
> Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to
> determine "the whole truth of the events of that day." They
> eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers.
>
>
>
> One sample was from a man who had swept up a handful of dust
> on the Brooklyn Bridge, where he was walking when the second tower fell.
> As the journal authors note, "It was, therefore, definitely not
> contaminated by the steel-cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero,
> which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC-7,
> which fell hours later." Another man collected dust in his apartment,
> about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12.
> There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an
> open window.
>
>
>
> Red/gray chips, averaging in size
> between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples. The chips were
> then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech
> tools. The red layer of the chips, according to the researchers, contains
> a "highly energetic" form of thermite. While normal thermite (a
> mixture of finely granulated aluminum and an oxide of metal) can be
> incendiary, "super thermite" is explosive. He says there is no
> benign explanation for the thermite in the WTC dust.
>
>
>
> Jones made headlines in 2005 when he argued that the rapid and
> symmetrical fall of the World Trade Center looked like the result of
> pre-positioned explosives. He argued that fires alone wouldn't have been
> hot enough to crumble the buildings; and that even if struck by planes,
> the towers should have been strong enough to support the weight of the
> tops as they crumbled â&euro;&rdquo; unless they were leveled by
> explosives.
>
>
>
> Essentially forced to retire, Jones
> says he is now paying for research out of his own pocket. He likens
> himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. "I
> would like to think I could stand up for the truth," he says. The
> dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed
> feelings about the implications. "As a young student said to me a
> while back: 'It's exciting from a scientific point of view, because things
> are now making sense. But I feel sad for my
> country.'â&euro;&permil;"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Apr 18 20:09:12 2009