There you go, contradicting yourself again. First you tell us it was "powerful explosives" pulverizing concrete to dust, now you say it was super duper nano thermite pulverizing concrete to dust. No doubt you will go full circle again and we'll be back to powerful explosives.

The problem with switching theories in mid stream is, first you need to know WTF you are talking about, then you must show good reason why. What we really need is a believable explanation of how the phantoms in your conspiracy dream managed to rig two 110 story towers and one 47 story building with all the charges necessary to demolish the buildings in the manner you claim.

Since the 9/11 truth movement is the mob of malcontents making the accusations and allegations, the burden of proof is on you. So far you haven't produced a shred of credible and verifiable evidence to back up your charges. And, I guarantee your repeated posting of 9/11 porn pics is NOT and never will be proof of anything.

You don't have to tell me where you got those lies and disinformation.
There are many who have infiltrated the truth movement in order to weaken the truth movement.
Ken Jenkins is a cover-up agent.
The one frame per second on Pentagon surveillance cameras is a lie. The average frames per second is 7.5 to 15 frames per second on convenience store surveillance cameras. Considering the Pentagon's budget there would be no reason for them to use anything less than 30 frames per second on their surveillance cameras.
Since Jenkins deliberately lied about that, he most likely lied about everything.
Look at this page of Jenkin's website.
http://www.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle/why-not-use-a-plane-2
He tries to convince readers a 757 hit the Pentagon.
Jenkins lies just like you do.
No wonder you like him.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, who doesn't kiss old payne's withered ass is a cover-up artist. Everybody, and I mean everybody, who doesn't buy old payne's anti-Semitic bullshit is a Zionist shill.

Old payne is the smartest mofo on earth, he knows who every bad guy on earth is and who every good guy is; he knows who all the liars are and who all the truthers are. He knows every minute detail about the workings of the government--not just the US government, but all governments on earth, he has all the inside scoop on every move they make. He knows every technical detail regarding every piece of technological equipment, machine, and sophisticated system employed by every government, industry, and individual on earth. He knows what laboratories, universities, research groups, and scientific institutions can be trusted and which ones can't. He even knows which ones are on the government payroll. He knows all there is to know about the laws of science, chemistry, metallurgy, fire science, fire behavior and fire fighting. He has phenomenal knowledge of every type of explosive in existence and has technical expertise on how they are all used and in what applications. He knows more about engineering than all the engineers on earth. He knows everything. The crazy bastard is omniscient.

Given such a vast and all encompassing knowledge of the way the world works, it is a shame he doesn't have a clue who his enemies are. All he has to do to identify the most dangerous one is look in a mirror.

Been thru this once with you... now you just lie...T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering is a fellow troofer but a good engineer




T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite.

Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. (1)



Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It's not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive.”

Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.

EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2)

“Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.”

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2)

Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

Later in the paper Jones says

“"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive

You have to be pretty gullible to really believe that the Syrian government just conducted another gas attack on it's population, irrespective of what CNN and FOX News has stated. Why you ask? Listen to some people in the region tell you why.

https://youtu.be/qr_ByQH2QY0?t=1s

Published on Apr 4, 2017
Similar to 2013 chemical attack, the Western governments, and corporate mainstream media accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons, this time in Khan Shaykhun, in Idleb.
This video discusses the disgusting and criminal usage of chemical weapons in Syria, indicating that it is not the Syrian government but the Islamist\terrorist groups behind the attacks.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/04/05/western-lies-and-chemical-false-flag-attacks-in-syria/

Been thru this once with you... now you just lie...T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering is a fellow troofer but a good engineer




T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite.

Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. (1)



Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It's not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive.”

Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.

EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2)

“Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.”

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2)

Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

Later in the paper Jones says

“"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive

Did you read the title of the link you posted? It reads, "Nanoscale chemistry yields better explosives."
http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
Whether the explosives are defined as thermite or Sol-Gel, they both consist of nano particles which can be shaped into explosives or cutting charges to perform special tasks.
The article was published in 2000, so this material was available for use on the three towers.
9/11 was probably the first large-scale use of this material.

.