With the advent of the discoveries surrounding the 9/11/01 nano-thermite evidence, along with what is about to come down the pike, I decided to do a cursory layman study of “nanotechnology”.

One nanometer (nm) is one billionth, or 10-9, of a meter. It takes about 3-10 atoms to span the length of a nanometer. 1 nanometer = 1,000 microns (µm) (micrometers). A red blood cell is 7 microns in diameter. A bacterium might be 200 nanometers in length.

This 10 minute video gives an excellent overview of nanotechnology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4CjZ-OkGDs

Nano-aluminum is burned in this 5 minute video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWvhthVsVDs taken from http://www.qsinano.com/index.php

Nano-Science and nanotechnology is an exploding field, expanding almost exponentially. The resulting products, applications, and developments hold much promise in our future. There are even instructions on how some homemade nanoparticles can be made? http://opensourcenano.net/projects/project1/ & http://www.bmbf.de/pub/nanoparticles_small_things_big_effects.pdf The proliferation of viable, valuable products resulting from this technology could potentially bring a new, true wealth to the people of this planet. Hopefully, enlightenment will coincide with this era. “9/11 Truth” is pertinent towards this enlightenment.

Kevin Ryan has repeatedly been discussing some of the ongoing research into the nano-composites found in the World Trade Center dust.

I should mention that there are some startling revelations revealed in some of these interviews (e.g. the floors of the WTC Buildings which had upgrades.)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/18935
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16945

In this interview ( http://www.911blogger.com/node/19377 ) , Kevin mentions a paper coming down the pike:
“…The new paper that I mentioned is much more conclusive than anything we’ve published before….”
“…we can do much, in conjunction with the science, to zero in on the culprits by considering the intersection of three paths. That is, 1- who had access to such technologies at the time that these explosives were likely to have been installed, 2- who had access to these highly secure buildings, and 3- who was involved in the cover-up investigations that followed? If we examine that short list and consider motives, I think we’ll find those who actually committed the crimes of 9/11.”

Published in a “mainstream” journal, The Environmentalist, is a paper by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones (August 4th, 2008) which cleverly brings to light these nano-composites: “Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials”. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.html

Kevin also writes an article entitled: “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites” http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html
These articles and links can be found at “Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice” http://stj911.com/ and “Journal of 9/11 Studies” http://www.journalof911studies.com/

In December 2007, Professor Steven E. Jones gives a presentation of his discoveries regarding the red-gray chips. 7 minute video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147&hl=en

Jones gives some more information in this 2 minute video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NnpEteuUE8

Richard Gage of “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”. AE911Truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org/ ) brings up the nano-thermite evidence in their newest DVD video presentation: “9/11: Blueprint for Truth — The Architecture of Destruction”.

New Reports on the Twin Towers Released
by James Gourley

On January 8, 2008, I submitted a FOIA Request to NIST asking for all records that relate to the fireproofing upgrades made to the Twin Towers prior to 9/11. I was recently successful in getting three new reports about the condition of the Twin Towers just prior to 9/11 released.

One report is a fire engineering assessment completed by Burro Happold in February of 2000. The other two reports were property condition assessments done by Merritt & Harris, Inc. a year or so prior to 9/11. These reports together total hundreds of pages, and I want them widely released so they can be analyzed in light of the NIST reports on the collapses of the Twin Towers. Note that the Merritt & Harris reports are very large files.

Merritt & Harris Report #1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NRZG0EYP

Merritt & Harris Report #2: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SXPY2FU6

Burro Happold Report: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=42IO10P8

Please report any interesting findings here.

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics has recently published a paper I authored. It can be found here, beginning on page 915: (PDF 224kb)

Normally, such a publication would be announced [here] at 911Blogger to let everyone know we are still making progress publishing criticisms of the official fairy tale in mainstream technical journals, in the hopes of reaching more members of the scientific and engineering community.

While I am excited this paper will be reaching new audiences, and I would like to share that fact with you, I am writing today for a different purpose.

Not much is ever written about what we go through to get these papers published. The publication of this paper is a case study in the struggles we face. I’d like to relate to you exactly what I had to go through to get this paper published, and what influences the substance of it have already had. I hesitate to reveal some of the information below, but as will become clear, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics personnel have demonstrated a complete lack of scientific ethics, and I feel like I have no choice but to publish exactly what occurred in the lead up to my paper’s publication.

Before I begin, let me make it perfectly clear that I do not want anyone to call, email or otherwise harass the editors or staff at the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or the authors of the papers I talk about below. Such behavior is extremely counterproductive, and I do not support or endorse such actions.

The Bazant/Greening Paper

In June 2007, I was sent a link to a paper by Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Frank Greening, and others, that had been submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) for peer review and publication. This paper (the Bazant/Greening Paper) can be found here: (PDF 729kb)

After reading through the Bazant/Greening Paper, I came up with essentially the same criticism that I was eventually able to get published this month at JEM. The Bazant/Greening paper repeated and expanded upon Dr. Bazant’s theory of crush down/crush up collapse progression. This crush down/crush up theory was first developed by Bazant in 2001, and expanded on by Bazant & Zhou in 2002, and Bazant & Verdure in 2007. I find the crush down/crush up theory completely unbelievable for the reasons I stated in my paper.

Back in June 2007, I sent an email to the editor of JEM that basically laid out my criticisms of the Bazant/Greening paper. About three weeks later, one of the Associate Editors of JEM sent me an email that read as follows:

Dear Mr. Gourley:

We recently received your critique on the paper entitled “Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?” I have attached a standard reviewer form that is filled out by each person as they review an article. If you could please complete this form so that we will have a better understanding of where your comments fall on our standard scale, we would appreciate it very much. When completed, you can e-mail the reviewer form to [redacted] or [redacted]. Thank you for the time and effort that you have already put into the review of this paper, and we look forward to receiving your further comments.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

I completed the reviewer forms that evening, and sent it back to JEM the following day. The reviewer forms allowed me to recommend for or against publication of the paper. I, of course, recommended against publication until my concerns were addressed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials

by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
© The Author(s) 2008

Received: 17 February 2008 Accepted: 14 July 2008 Published online: 4 August 2008

Abstract Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. These spikes occurred on specific dates in October and November 2001, and February 2002. Additionally, data collected by researchers at the University of California Davis showed similar spikes in the levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is hypothesized.

1 Introduction

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.

• Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
• Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
• Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
• A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).

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. Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants.

Apart from the extensive but failed efforts to extinguish the fires, there are several other physical indicators of the presence of energetic chemical reactions in the rubble at GZ. These include the following.

1. Photographs and witness testimony evidencing molten metal and explosions accompanied by white dust clouds (Jones 2006; Meyerowitz 2006; PBS 2002).
2. Extremely high temperatures in the fires at the WTC (Jones et al. 2008a).
3. Unusual spikes in volatile organic chemical (VOC) emissions, suggesting abrupt, violent fires on specific dates.
4. Unusual species in the environmental monitoring data, also corresponding to specific dates.

Explosions followed by white dust clouds, and molten metal at GZ, are of particular interest in this analysis. A white dust cloud is one of the products of the thermite reaction. The white dust in this case is aluminum oxide, released from the extremely exothermic reaction between
aluminum and iron oxide. The other product of the thermite reaction is molten iron. These facts, coupled with evidence for extremely high temperatures at the WTC, suggest that investigators should examine the potential for such pyrotechnic materials at the WTC. The environmental data described below give more compelling evidence to support such an inquiry.

2 EPA data on VOC emissions from GZ

Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, access to environmental monitoring data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) WTC response was obtained (EPA 2004). The data set shows that spikes in the levels of airborne VOCs occurred on specific dates at GZ (Austin Tobin Plaza, WTC 1 or WTC 2), with levels of the related contaminants rising sharply and then falling dramatically back to baseline levels, usually within 1 day or less. An example is shown in Fig. 1, for detections of benzene.

Benzene is a major product of the combustion of plastics and other organic materials. In a typical structure fire, when plastics are abundant, benzene levels have been seen at levels as high as 26 ppb (MOEE 1997). Apart from fires, benzene is seen in high-traffic areas of urban settings, with mean levels of *4 ppb (Crebellia et al. 2001).

Serious health consequences are known to occur when breathing benzene at 100 ppb, and it is known to cause diseases such as leukemia (HHS 2007). Note that, for the first few weeks after 9/11, the levels of benzene detected at GZ were relatively low, although perhaps higher than historical levels from structure fires. But the maximum value detected in November 2001 was 180,000 ppb, and the average daily detection for October and November 2001 was 18,000 ppb. The five peaks in benzene detection occurred on 5th October, 11th October, 3rd November, 8th November, and 16th November.

Read the rest of this entry »