First hour: Richard Forer is the author of Breakthrough: Transforming Fear into Compassion: A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict. “Forer who grew up in a secular, unaffiliated Jewish home, is the identical twin of a prominent member of an ultra-Orthodox sect of Judaism, and was himself a member of AIPAC, America’s Pro-Israel lobby. He knew where his allegiances lay – anything Israel did was justifiable in his mind. During the summer of 2006, Forer visited the Middle East and underwent a profound spiritual transformation. He saw destroyed villages, displacement, land confiscation, imprisonment without trial, torture, and other inhuman treatment of the Palestinians, and knew he needed to share his truth.” (source)
Jim Fetzer thinks David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage have “oversold nanothermite.” But I’m still buying.
Second hour: Jim Fetzer, U. of Minnesota Duluth professor emeritus, who along with Mark Hightower has been arguing that nanothermite has been oversold to the 9/11 truth community and worrying that 9/11 truth may be based on a false (nanothermite) theory. (Opposing views have been offered by Kevin Ryan in “The Explosive Nature of Nanothermite” and “Experiments with Nanothermite,” among other places.)
I got stuck on an email chain arguing this topic, which Jim thinks is of great importance, and he said he’d like to come on my show. Below is part of my dialogue with Jim, with whom I have agreed to disagree on this topic.
A.K. Dewdney recently wrote:
The “nanothermite” debate appears to be without genuine substance and a complete waste of time. The advice from the intel side is to ignore the whole thing. The basic thrust of messages from Hightower, Fetzer & Co. is that the word “nanothermite” is not officially classified as a “high explosive.” The assertions completely ignored the fact that there is not one “nanothermite”, but a potential infinity of preparations that might go under that name. The explosive force (brisance) would depend, among other things, on the state of subdivision of the components and the kind of matrix they are embedded in.
Does Hightower know the original composition of the nanothermite that was used, in part, to
bring down the twin towers? Of course not. Case closed.
Best wishes for cooler days!
This is unbelievable. Have me on and give me all the flack you can find from any source whatsoever. That Dewdney would so grossly misrepresent the issues simply dumbfounds me. Nanothermite has an detonation velocity of 895 m/s. To destroy concrete or steel requires detonation velocities of at least 3,100 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel. That means
NANOTHERMITE CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTROYING THE TT. To suggest this is a matter of rhetoric is to be utterly irresponsible.
We discuss the properties of the kind of nanothermite that has been under discussion from the beginning, not barium-nitrate-containing thermite as the military grade thermite and not copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite, which has an even lower detonation velocity, but iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite. I am skeptical that Dewdney has even read the article to
be making such a baseless claim. We have it right; they have it wrong.
And suppose Dewdney were right: THAT NO ONE KNOWS WHAT KIND OF NANO- THERMITE WAS USED? That would mean that Jones, Ryan, Harrit, and the others HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION for the many reports of “explosive nano-thermite” and the publicity it has been given by Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and others on the basis of the claims coming from this
“hard science” group. In which case, the situation is even worse, because if Dewdeny is right, THEY NEVER KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT!
I really cannot understand how anyone with a remotely scientific cast of mind could adopt the stance of A.K. DEWDNEY! I am simply stunned. This has nothing to do with the word “nanothermite” and everything to do with the properties of nanothermite. Those who want to dump this issue are in the perverse position supporting a false theory in the name of 9/11 Truth. How can anyone stand up for a theory of demolition that is provably false? How can Deets be the only one with a rational response to Mark’s research?
As a trained writing teacher, I don’t think you’re making it easy on your readers to understand why you’re right and the other side is wrong. All the emotional howling and yowling (“unbelievable! dumbfounds me! stupidity! incredible! never in my life!”) just gets in the way, alienating most of your audience and predisposing them against you.
Then there seems to be a merely semantic issue about what “nanothermite/nanothermate” means. Couldn’t those terms describe nano- engineered iron oxide and aluminum energetic materials mixed with other substances in a polymer matrix in such a way that the end product is indeed highly explosive? And though we don’t have any absolute proof that such things exist, the reports cited by Kevin Ryan certainly SUGGEST that they exist; and the findings of Harrit et. al. suggest that not only do they exist, but they were used, in very large quantity, in the destruction of the Towers. And even if most of the destruction were done by something else, the finding of nanothermite in the dust is prima facie evidence of demolition/arson that can be taken to court. Our objective as activists is not to fully explain what happened, but to prove a crime in court. The nanothermite evidence seems useful on that basis; the “DEW” stuff seems much less useful.
The existence of “DEW” (what does that mean?! a slingshot is a directed energy weapon for goshsakes!) at a scale that could “dustify” the Towers is a much bigger stretch, isn’t it? Are there official sources comparable to the ones Ryan cites that assert that “DEW” weapons of that power and sophistication exist?
I once met a credible guy who said he could very quickly and easily modify a microwave oven to severely and secretly injure people, and perhaps even take down a plane. The amount of energy necessary to do that sort of thing is trivial. The amount necessary to “dustify” the Towers would be gargantuan, and I haven’t seen any evidence that anything like that exists or even could exist. Judy’s book started out well, but she lost me in the middle with all kinds of unwarranted inferences and tortured logic.
I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong, just that you’re making it really hard to understand why you’re right.
You are full of shit! Mark and I have been very patient in laying out the case against nanothermite. Did you ever read “Has nano-thermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?“
And I assume you have read “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based on a false theory?” We have both been very patient with these thermite-sniffers until they start acting like ops–running away from the scientific evidence and hiding by withdrawing from the discussion thread initiated by Hightower.
Mark has sent me some references showing the extent to which this nano-thermite has been exaggerated. Consider the following summary remarks:
Dr. Steven E. Jones On Nanothermite In WTC Debris
August 26, 2010
A scientific presentation given by Dr. Steven E. Jones in Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009 on the finding of nanothermite in the World Trade Center debris.
Nanothermite is a military grade high explosive that leaves a very difficult to detect chemical signature because of the way it combusts. Nanothermite is not your normal everyday industrial grade thermite that you may have seen in debunking videos such as on the Myth Busters TV show.
Nanothermite is highly explosive and extremely powerful — and extremely difficult to manufacture.
Watch the presentation to see if that is an accurate summary. No doubt, many more like this could be found. Where were the nanothermite promoters to set the record straight that nanothermite could not be a high explosive? Because it SOUNDS NICE but it turns out to be FALSE. Which is why what Mark and I have done is essential to the scientific integrity of the 9/11 movement.
Plus the 10th observance of 9/11 is being discussed in TORONTO, not in NEW YORK, which I find very strange, but where the nanothermite proponents are going to be in the ascendency. This is the acid test for the “9/11 Truth” movement. If they can’t cope with it, there is NO 9/11 “Truth” movement.
Sure, Monday, 1 August, from 11 AM to Noon works fine. Thanks a lot!
First, keep in mind how wonderful it is that we disagree on this. We can be a shining example to the truth movement of how it’s possible to disagree and still be friends. And we can yell at each other on the air and make great radio!
So…you haven’t even tried to refute any of the points I made in the previous email.
“A.K. Dewdeny has posted that there are infinitely many varieties of nanothermite, where no one knows which was used on the Twin Towers… But if Kee is right, then the situation is even worse, because Jones, Ryan, Harrit and others have never even known what they were talking about!”
On the contrary: They know full well that there are infinite varieties of nanothermite, and that no-one but the perps knows exactly which one was used in the Twin Towers. They know that any kind of thermite is prima facie evidence of arson, so even if only ordinary thermite/thermate had been used to create or enhance fires, the presence of thermate residue in any form would be evidence of criminal arson or worse. They also know that military demolition charges designed to slice steel use thermite/thermate, and that advanced thermitic composite explosives is an “explosive” field of classified military research.
Doug Rokke says he knows of advanced, explosive thermitic composites, had contact with the people who have custody of them, knows that large quantities were stored at Redstone Arsenal, and suspects people he knows in the US military of complicity in 9/11 based on that personal knowledge. Based on his personal knowledge, he has no doubt whatsoever that military demolitions charges using thermitic materials can destroy buildings, and he is apparently convinced that the Towers were mostly done in with thermitic materials. Chris Bollyn has done research on Israeli companies allegedly developing high-explosive thermitic composites. Kevin Ryan’s article makes a good case that high explosive thermitic composites have indeed been developed in classified military research.
Every time I have had Jones, Ryan, Harrit, Szamboti, Gage etc. on my radio show, they have said that based on the dust residue analysis, thermitic materials are definitely part of the picture — but not necessarily the only factor in the demolitions. Speculation about classified military development of high-explosive thermitic composites, labeled “nanothermite” or “nanothermites” for convenience and brevity, has been clearly labeled as speculation — as Griffin does by saying “could” in the quote you furnished. These folks believe it is well-founded speculation, and they produce evidence to back up that opinion. Judy Wood, by contrast, has never produced comparable evidence that her speculations about DEW that could dustify the Towers are well-founded.
Please address only the factual issues here in any answer you may send. Below are point-by-point rejoinders to your email.
On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:34 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: Kevin, Have you read this, which I just sent out? Probably not. It should clarify where I stand on the questions you raise.
I withdraw my use of the phrase, “full of shit”, but I do not withdraw the implication that, as in the case of video fakery, you are unable to accept the consequences of a scientific analysis. I don’t care what you call me in emails, but on the radio, please say “full of [poop, excrement, feces, fertilizer, baloney, or any other euphemism not expressly prohibited by the FCC and its spokesman, George Carlin].” Please be specific about my exact words, as I have been about yours. Which words of mine are you disputing, and why? And why you continue to interject “space beams” into discussion is beyond me. I never used the expression “space beams.” And I have slammed Steve Jones for doing so.
How many times to I have to explain that I support RESEARCH on “space beams”, but do NOT endorse them.
That’s fine. But my point is that you’re being very hard on the thermite researchers because they haven’t proved that such a thing as high explosive nanothermite exists — although they have given good evidence (not proof) that it probably does — whereas you have been much easier on Judy’s DEW research, despite the complete lack of evidence that anything remotely like it exists. This indicates a double-standard.
That is surely not too subtle a distinction for a refined mind like yours. So stop accusing me of straw men. 99% of the 9/11 Truth movement BELIEVES that nanothermite is both a high explosive and was responsible for the decimation of the Twin Towers.
Please supply evidence about what percentage believes what. I don’t agree with your estimate here. You could do your own poll. For example: Q1: Do you believe that nanothermite alone was used to destroy the Twin Towers? Y/N Q2: Please choose from the following statements the one that most closely matches your belief. A) Public, civilian, peer-reviewed literature proves that nanothermate can be a high explosive. B) Reports about classified military research suggest, but do not prove, that nanothermates can be high explosives. C) Nanothermate can never be a high explosive, because Hightower and Fetzer say so. I predict that the majority would answer “no” to question 1, and “B” to question 2. As far as I can tell, those are the correct answers. If so, you’re getting all worked up over a non-problem.
Since we quote from Gage and Griffin in “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based on a false theory?”–and have quoted the promo for a Jones presentation in the very email to which you are responding–I am now disposed to believe that your emotional state has warped your capacity for serious reasoning about the issue involved here, which also appeared to me to be the case for video fakery.
What is the evidence for your conclusions about my emotional state? And what is wrong and/or dangerous about the Gage and Griffin quotes, given the points I’ve made?
I am adding Mark here, since he has plowed through the massive literature on nanothermite and, as a chemical engineer, has the education and training to evaluate it, which I as a philosopher and you as a humanist lack.
I would be perfectly happy to publish these email exchanges and allow readers to decide for themselves whether they are evidence for philosophers being more rational and dispassionate than humanists, or vice-versa.
I invite Mark to contribute to this discussion between us. And letme affirm that, no matter how intense our disagreement may be about this, I continue to hold you in hight esteem and regard you as among the mostimportant members of the 9/11 Truth movement who remains devoted to truth.
Likewise! You’re actually a pretty fun guy to argue with, though for some reason not everybody seems to realize it ; -) Best Kevin
Jim’s full email to which the above was responding:
Have you read this, which I just sent out? Probably not. It should clarify where I stand on the questions you raise. I withdraw my use of the phrase, “full of shit”, but I do not withdraw the implication that, as in the case of video fakery, you are unable to accept the consequences of a scientific analysis. And why you continue to interject “space beams” into discussion is beyond me. How many times to I have to explain that I support RESEARCH on “space beams”, but do NOT endorse them. That is surely not too subtle a distinction for a refined mind like yours. So stop accusing me of straw men. 99% of the 9/11 Truth movement BELIEVES that nanothermite is both a high explosive and was responsible for the decimation of the Twin Towers. Since we quote from Gage and Griffin in “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based on a false theory?”–and have quoted the promo for a Jones presentation in the very email to which you are responding–I am now disposed to believe that your emotional state has warped your capacity for serious reasoning about the issue involved here, which also appeared to me to be the case for video fakery. I am adding Mark here, since he has plowed through the massive literature on nanothermite and, as a chemical engineer, has the education and training to evaluate it, which I as a philosopher and you as a humanist lack. I invite Mark to contribute to this discussion between us. And let
me affirm that, no matter how intense our disagreement may be about this, I continue to hold you in hight esteem and regard you as among the most important members of the 9/11 Truth movement who remains devoted to truth.