Thermite Finger Print – A Special Report by Visibility 9-11

Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan are among several authors of a new paper that has appeared in the prestigious scientific journal “The Open Chemical Physics Journal” and is titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.”

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. 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 (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device 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.

“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.”

“In short, the paper explodes the official story that ‘no evidence’ exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.”
The red/gray chips are the “loaded gun” of 9-11.”
— Dr. Steven Jones

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen | doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Read Online | Download: here or here.

Scientist Niels Harrit Speaks about Nano-Thermites at WTC on Danish TV 2 News (with English Subtitles)


WTC 7 “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” A short film by Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth featuring Ed Asner.

Russia Today: 9/11 Heroes in Life-Struggle as Obama Signs Multi-Billion War Bill

(Video) hy.poth.e.sis with Dr. Steven E. Jones

‘hy.poth.e.sis’ is a documentary film that follows physics professor Steven E. Jones during a pivotal point in his life. In 2005, Steven went public with a controversial theory regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. His assertion that the collapse was likely the result of pre-positioned explosives rather than the hijacked planes resulted in a backlash from the community and even threatened his standing as a professor at BYU. Despite hate mail, threats, and even bribery to end his research, Steven refused to give in to overwhelming pressure and continued his pursuit of the truth.



9/11 WTC Tower Collapses – Ten Years on, it’s time to apply some Simple Logic

 9/11 WTC Tower Collapses – Ten Years on, it’s time to apply some Simple Logic
by Paul Mason BE, MIE Aust, CP Eng

World Trade Center Exploding

In the 10 years since the events in New Yorkon September 11, 2001, much controversy has raged within the engineering world about exactly how all three buildings, including theTwinTowers collapsed, so rapidly, so symmetrically and so completely.  Over the subsequent years, different theories have been put forward and various computer models constructed that purport to simulate the collapse initiating mechanisms, but none have been able to satisfactorily demonstrate how the collapses could have been so rapid, so symmetrical and indeed so complete.  The very belated, USgovernment-sponsored official investigation and report did not address any of these questions and left a great many others glaringly unanswered.  However, it is my contention that if you apply some simple engineering logic, the answer appears rather straight forward (if rather concerning).

Who is the Author?

I am a 59 year-old Civil Engineer, an existing and long-time Member of the Institution of Engineers, Australia(Membership No. 34040) and a Chartered Professional Engineer.  I have worked, for the past 37 years, on many large scale engineering projects, being involved with design, construction and investigation of major structures, including buildings, bridges and dams.  I am currently employed as a structural specialist in a major state-government authority.  Through my education and work experience I am very familiar with the characteristics and behavior of steel and concrete and the manner in which they are incorporated into major structures to ensure that such structures have more than ample strength to resist all combinations of extreme loadings.  I have also witnessed many explosions associated with construction projects and at one stage of my career was a trained and licensed user of explosives.  However, one only really needs a good understanding of high-school physics to be able to recognise the very obvious flaw in the official explanations of the 9/11 “collapses”.

The Official ‘Story’ is far from a Scientific Explanation

The official story of 9/11 tells us, of course, that theTwinTowerswere damaged by the airplane impacts and the subsequent fires, to the point where they suddenly (and completely symmetrically) collapsed.  Sounds fairly plausible, doesn’t it?  Maybe, and I must admit, for several years, I didn’t think too much about it and just accepted that view and felt nothing but disdain for those evil terrorists who were so obviously responsible….after all, George W. told me so himself, …..many, many times!  However, a few years ago, after seeing and studying some videos of these “collapses”, I realised there was something very wrong with the official explanation.  The “collapses” could not possibly have been just collapses, because they completely violate Newton’s laws of motion, upon which much of science and engineering is based.  We all know that these collapses were sudden and very rapid. WTC 7 came down part of the way at  free-fall acceleration, as now acknowledged by NIST. The twin towers came down a little slower but still too fast to be explained as due to gravity alone.

We also know that as each tower collapsed, the whole structure, composed of nearly 200,000 tonnes of massively strong steel columns and similar amounts of solid concrete, were progressively pulverised, jettisoned outward, and upward, at great speed and were reduced to tiny fragments with thick, billowing clouds of concrete dust.  Anyone can see all of this very clearly on any of the video records.

If you haven’t already picked the obvious contradiction, then this is it:

  • For any object, to fall with free fall acceleration there has to be absolutely no resistance to that fall, that is, the object is accelerated by gravity alone and there is nothing to restrict and slow its progress.
  • In the case of the TwinTowercollapses, there was massive internal resistance within the buildings, below the impact zone.  So massive was this resistance of the remaining structural components that the buildings should not have fallen at all, let alone with near free-fall acceleration!
  • The vast quantity of extra energy that would have been required to produce both a near free-fall “collapse” and to simultaneously sever and eject the steel and pulveriseALL of the concrete into fragments and dust, can realistically, only have come from high-explosives charges, and a great many of them.  There is simply no other plausible or indeed scientific explanation to these simultaneous events.

To appreciate the extent of the internal resistance within the lower sections of the buildings consider these facts:

  • The Twin Towers were very well engineered steel-frame structures designed and constructed in accordance with strict buildings codes that ensure such structures have huge capacity to safely resist overloads.  This can easily be appreciated by studying the construction blueprints that have only recently become available, via a “whistleblower”
  • The Twin Towers were designed to be absolutely stable when subjected to combinations of hurricanes, earthquakes and even Boeing 707 impacts.  On 9/11 it was a still day, with no earthquakes and the buildings were known to have reduced occupancy.  These facts combined with the requirements of the building codes of the day, mean that at the time of the “attacks” the twin towers had perhaps four times the strength needed to support their own weight before any overload (or heating of components) could initiate even gradual deformations.
  • The main supports of the structure, the vertical steel members, (it was the floor slabs that were composed of concrete) necessarily got increasingly stronger toward the base of the buildings, to resist not just the weight of the building, but the huge additional forces that occur with hurricane winds and under earthquake loadings (not to mention the 707’s)
  • The main load carrying members were located within the central core of the TwinTowersand these were huge steel box section columns.
  • Towards the bottom of the TwinTowers, each of these box-section support columns were about a metre across and composed of 100 mm thick steel plate.
  • The airplane impacts occurred near the tops of the Towers.  Those impacts and the subsequent, low-heat fires would have had minimal, if any, effect on the strength and integrity of the buildings below the impact zones.

“Collapse Mechanism” is a Complete Absurdity

As a simple analogy of what the official story is telling us; imagine five bricks stacked up, end to end, on top of each other, to form a tower; the four lower bricks mortared together and the fifth sitting on top.  Now, if you were to pick up the top brick, raise it straight up for half its length and then drop it back on top of the other four, what would you expect to happen?  The official 9/11 story would suggest that the brick you dropped would just keep dropping, straight down, through the four-brick tower at near free-fall speed as if the other four bricks were matchwood, finally crushing itself, the whole lot turning into granules and thick clouds of dust.

While I would acknowledge that the construction of the Twin Towers was more complicated than the column of bricks, the principles involved are exactly the same. This brick collapse scenario is basically what we are expected to believe happened to the Twin Towers’ super-strong steel central core; IN BOTH BUILDINGS!  You don’t really need to be an engineer to recognise the complete absurdity of this assertion. How could the falling upper section, where the fires were, be stronger than the lower unheated undamaged section?

In essence, there is no scientific reason and indeed no likelihood whatsoever, that these buildings could have progressively disintegrated at near free-fall speed simply because their tops were weakened, (unless of course,Newton had it completely wrong).  By studying the videos, it is obvious and consistent with the buildings’ subsequent behaviour, that hundreds, if not thousands, of explosive charges were detonated progressively as the buildings came down.  There is, quite simply, no other practical way to so completely pulverise all of the structural components.  This should be clear to anyone, but again I can say this with some authority, having been trained in the use of explosives and having witnessed many high explosive blasts.

The “collapse” videos also reveal that as both of the Twin Towers fell, enormous quantities of fragmented steel and concrete were jettisoned at great speed, not just horizontally, but also upward.  Again, this behaviour is just not scientifically possible in a simple collapse scenario.  As everyone should be aware; gravity has never been known to propel any object upward and outward.  Steel itself is both an elastic and plastic material; meaning that it has the capacity to stretch and bend to absorb a large degree of overloading and then will gradually deform when this overload becomes too great.  On the rare occasions when steel structures do fail, they do so by bending and buckling, not by suddenly shattering in a brittle manner.  Steel will only shatter if it is subjected to extremely rapid and massive overload, as can only occur with high-explosives.  The flying fragments of steel that are seen in the collapse videos can realistically only be the result of explosive demolition; a simple gravitational collapse cannot possibly induce such behaviour in structural steel.

If, in fact, all of the steel was superheated by the fires, as some of the ‘theories’ claim, then it would be even less likely to shatter, instead it would gradually soften, bend and deform and slowly sag into a mangled heap.  And incidentally, before and since 9/11, fires have never been known to cause the complete collapse of any high-rise, steel-framed building anywhere in the world.  Consider the photo of the “Waving Woman” a survivor of the original airplane impact and later identified as Edna Cintron.  How was she able to survive and stand in the hole if there were “blast furnace” temperatures around her?  And what about the fire-fighter who made it up the stairs to the affected floors and reported via radio that the fires would be easily controlled?

Pancaking or Pile Driver?

The initial official story described the “collapse” as “pancaking” due to the failure of the floor support connections.  However, if this was the case, we would end up with a stack of cracked, but substantially intact reinforced concrete slab floors, piled up around a still-standing, massively strong central core.  Looking much like a 100+ quoits stacked up around a central spike.  There is no way that pancaking could account for reinforced concrete being completely pulverised to dust and all the steel chopped into convenient lengths. Realizing the absurdity of the pancaking theory NIST eventually adopted the “pile driver” theory suggested by Bazant. This theory is also absurd, as described below.

The flowing molten metal at the base of the Towers, observed and reported by many of the first responders, (but denied in the official account), suggests steel heated to several thousand degrees at critical points, by extreme-temperature cutting charges used to dismember the steel components, prior to them being blown apart.  Again, it is simply not scientifically possible for the fires created by the plane impacts, burning jet fuel (kerosene) and office fittings, to be anywhere near the temperatures required to turn structural steel into a flowing liquid.

Real World Collapses

Careful examination of the videos also show that the collapses of the twin towers only initiate AFTER large, sudden explosions can be seen just above and below the plane impact zones.  This behaviour is, again, completely consistent with an explosive demolition.  Many succeeding explosions can also be seen ejecting material outward up to the time when the whole structure becomes enveloped in thick clouds of debris, which then obscures any subsequent activity. It is clear that the first explosions occur above the plane impact zones and that the top sections commence to collapse before the lower section, thus refuting the “pile driver” theory.

Contrast the 911 “collapses” with real collapses that happen as a result of earthquakes for example.  When a large structure is subjected to extreme earthquake forces, which act both horizontally and vertically, its components can get broken and cracked to the point where they can no longer support their own weight and the structure falls.  In these cases, unlike the Twin Towers, much of the internal strength of the structure has been broken down by the massive applied energy of the earthquake; so, particularly with concrete structures, the fall may be relatively rapid.  But even though these structures may have suffered major and widespread internal damage, (as opposed to the local WTC damage) they still don’t, in any way, collapse in the explosive manner of the WTC buildings.

  • They do not collapse perfectly vertically (three times out of three)
  • They do not collapse at near free-fall acceleration.
  • They do not collapse with the progressive pulverisation of all the concrete.
  • They do not jettison their components outward and upward
  • They do not create incredibly huge billowing clouds of thick debris dust.  Such clouds are usually only associated with volcanic eruptions where extreme temperature explosions create “pyroclastic” dust clouds.

As noted previously structures that are predominantly of steel frame construction (like the Twin Towers) deform when subjected to massive overloads, rather than rapidly collapse because of the capacity of steel to absorb, first elastically and then plastically, sudden shock loadings.

On the basis of both this scientifically logical analysis and my long and extensive engineering experience, I am prepared to stake my professional reputation on the assertion that the three buildings in New Yorkon September 11, did not simply collapse, but were demolished with enormous amounts of explosive energy.

Not surprisingly, I have discovered that there are thousands of engineering professionals worldwide who are in complete agreement with me.  Many are members, (as indeed I am now), of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth (go to ).

So, how were all of these explosives planted in the buildings, (as indeed they must have been), and who did it?  That is something that engineering logic will not tell you, but it would be really nice to find out!…..and shouldn’t it be the duty of professional engineers everywhere to reject ridiculous unscientific assertions and demand satisfactory answers?

And, why aren’t these obvious flaws in the official account being challenged or even being reported?  Being only a structural engineer I am struggling to work that out, and I think my mate Isaac would pretty much feel the same!

Paul Mason BE, MIEAust, CPEng



(mp3) KPFA Media Round-up | 9/11: Ten Years After in America

source: KPFA

In September 2011, KPFA has sponsored unprecedented coverage to news, debate and information that has been banned from all corporate media outlets. During this “truth emergency,” this information and open debate is more important now that at any other time of our lives. Please enjoy and spread these important broadcasts around to everyone you know.

The Morning Mix with Project Censored


(From Media Roots)

Project Censored hosts a special tenth anniversary 9/11 commemoration show on KPFA radio. Abby Martin of Media Roots gives a special news report on 9/11 at 6:55 going over the costs of 9/11 wars, the neglect to the first responders and the true threat of terrorism. The show also features guests Dr. Anthony Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies and Kathy McGrade, Engineer and member of Architects and Engineers of 9/11 Truth.

DOWNLOAD: Morning Mix with Project Censored

911’s Footprint on America ten years later

  • HOUR 1 – moderator  Peter Phillips 911 Commission Report.


  • HOUR 2 – moderator Mickey Huff on The Science around the Twin Towers collapse.


  • HOUR 3 – live phone calls from the nation moderated by Veronica Faisant, Peter Phillips & Mickey Huff.


Original Posts:

AE911Truth: The Experts Speak Out (Full Movie)


(video) World Trade Center 7 TV Ad Gains Attention From Mainstream Media

Geraldo Rivera covers the “one enduring mystery of 9/11”, the collapse of WTC7.

-Follow-up from Fox News program Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano with an interview of Geraldo Rivera.

The “BuildingWhat?” TV ad began airing on November 2 and will run through the week of November 15. It is scheduled to air 350+ times, and is estimated to be seen by millions of viewers in the New York Metropolitan Area, reaching core target audiences multiple times.

The ad is appearing on thirteen channels including MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central, HGTV, Logo TV, Bio TV, Versus TV, MSG, Sports NY, VH1, HLN, CNBC and Bravo.

Physicist Jeff Farrer Describes Explosive Particles Found in the World Trade Center Dust

Direct links:

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:

(video) NIST Sued to Release Secret 9/11 Footage, NYFD Firefighters Describe Explosions in WTC Lobby Before Collapse


This video was obtained by a lawsuit against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies.