For many of us, the journey to understanding 9/11 has been long and winding. Some claim to have known something was wrong immediately … many jumped to conclusions. Others waited patiently for a credible explanation to emerge. Accusations and bad analysis was everywhere. By July 2005, Markos banned the discussion of the World Trade Center on the Daily Kos citing the need to “extraordinary evidence.”
When it became clear that the official story was being obfuscated, some took it upon themselves to do their own analysis. This has been a slow, painstaking process. The following article provides a timeline for the identification of an incendiary material that was found in the dust. This is a process that is typically routine under the National Fire Protection Act Guidelines 921. However, this was not done by those charged with analyzing the destruction of the skyscrapers.
Now that the “extraordinary evidence” had been brought to light, and is irrefutable, it is time for us all to look again. Now we have the evidence.
As Documentation of Thermitic Materials
in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble
Version 1.0, April 3, 2009
The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the ‘War on Terror’. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people — civilians — in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace.
By 2003 the United States had occupations of two countries, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principal alternative hypothesis — controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics — had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials.
By early 2009, the residue testing that NIST refused to do had been done by independent researchers, and reported on in a peer-reviewed chemistry journal. Small bi-layered chips, found consistently in dust samples, have layers of red nano-engineered material that is clearly aluminothermic: it has sub-micron-diameter particles of largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.
The publication of these results should be astounding to anyone who uncritically accepted the collapse explanations in TV documentaries and never looked seriously at any of the several bodies of evidence for controlled demolition.
The NIST investigation, having posted its Final Report with its absurd Building 7 joint-breaking-thermal-expansion theory in late 2008 and FAQ by Christmas, closed its doors before the independent researchers published their findings of active aluminothermic materials in WTC dust in a mainstream scientific journal; but not before they publicized findings of aluminothermic residues in the same dust samples; and not before they extracted from NIST a series of public statements, in press conferences and in written responses to requests for correction (RFCs), about the conduct of their inquiry into the cause of the skyscrapers’ total destruction.
|As a result, NIST spokespersons are on the record saying they did not test for pyrotechnics, and offering rationales for failing to perform such tests. Those rationale — or rationalizations — summarized toward the end of this essay, include the assertion that testing for pyrotechnics “would not necessarily have been conclusive”. That is partially true: failing to find pyrotechnic residues wouldn’t rule out demolition, since demolition might have been implemented using an untraceable fuel such as hydrogen gas. But finding abundant and distributed pyrotechnic explosive residues would conclusively favor demolition — particularly given the persuasive deductive arguments showing that the features of the buildings’ destruction are incompatable with a purely gravity-driven collapse.The following timeline is narrowly focused on the emergence of public evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic pyrotechnics, ranging from incendiaries to high-explosives, in the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7, and on the way official bodies — particular NIST — treated that evidence.||ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?NEWMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?NEWMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….
–Conversation between a reporter and a NIST spokesperson.