Thread by @drbairdonline

Why do so many #911Truth advocates who REFUSE to consider evidence that WTC was NUKED actually BELIEVE red/gray chips aka nano-thermite caused the Twin Towers to EXPLODE the way they did when NONE of the scientists who discovered the chips actually EVER said they could?
Thread
1/

Even Prof Niels Harrit, lead author of the Open Chemical Physics Journal paper that first reported on the chips in April 2009 has for years REGRETTED ever saying the chips were “explosive” which he says he only did ONCE & that was in a TV interview right after article appeared
2/

In June 2012, Prof Harrit told Lilou Macé he mistakenly called the chips "explosive" b/c "if you have 3 minutes, or 5 minutes, you do not have time to explain the difference between an incendiary and an explosive. It very fast becomes complicated."
3/

Actually it wasn't 3-5 minutes. Prof Harrit is referring to a live studio interview broadcast on Danish TV2 at 10:40 pm on 6 April 2009 that actually went on for 10½ minutes and at NO TIME during the interview does Prof Harrit seem rushed to explain.
4/

To Prof Harrit's utter surprise (as he told RT in July 2009), this video (that he says a friend of a friend recorded) went viral on Youtube & thus helped lead the charge for “the explosive nano-thermite consensus” that ignores his later disavowals
5/
web.archive.org/web/2010112711…

But wait a minute. Didn’t Harrit et al actually call the red/gray chips “explosive” in that famous 2009 Open Chemical Physics Journal paper? Well, that’s rather a matter of semantics, or, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends upon what the meaning of the word "or" is.
6/

A close reading reveals the paper actually never calls the red/grays chips "explosive" although it includes several rather - perhaps deliberately - ambiguous statements like its most often quoted concluding sentence. So what does "or" mean here?
7/
web.archive.org/web/2011020223…

"Or" doesn't seem to mean that some of the red/gray chips were "pyrotechnic" and others were "explosive". "The results clearly show the similarities of the red/gray chips from the different dust samples from all four sites." Thus, whatever one chip was, all the chips were.
8/

Several times Harrit et al say their analysis of the chips strikes them as SIMILAR to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reports on nano-thermite & since LLNL has written abt making explosives using nano-thermite THUS the chips MIGHT HAVE BEEN part of some explosive
9/

Even if we accept the chips were “pyrotechnic”, because the authors NEVER actually SEE the chips explode or MEASURE the chips’ explosivity, the only logical way to interpret the paper’s conclusion is the chips MIGHT HAVE BEEN part of some “explosive”, they simply didn’t know
10/

That at least is the way Prof Harrit must interpret the paper if he is correct in only calling red/gray chips "explosive" ONCE (Danish TV2). In all his other interviews (eg Lilou 2012) Harrit always says something like the authors didn’t really know what the chips did on 9/11
11/

However, Prof Harrit was being disingenuous when he admitted to Lilou that the 2009 paper was “to some extent misunderstood b/c people call them explosives”, should have said FULLY misunderstood since almost EVERYBODY believes the authors WERE calling the chips explosives!
12/

Indeed, Prof Steven E Jones, one of the co-authors, often stated categorically that the red/gray chips WERE explosive. But, as we will see, when challenged, Prof Jones always backs down saying he always thought the chips served only as pyrotechnics in fuses & electric matches
13/

Prof Jones was the first person to publicly suggest that "superthermites" might have been used in the destruction of the Twin Towers in July 2006 a year BEFORE he was the FIRST to discover the red/gray chips in the WTC dust in June 2007! Coincidence?
14/
web.archive.org/web/2006082017…

In 2006 Prof Jones' "controlled-demolition hypothesis" involved only cutter charges to cause the WTC buildings to "collapse," suggesting incendiary thermite could explain reports of "molten metal" but explosive superthermite could have been used in lieu of RDX or HMX
15/

In 2006 Prof Jones also introduced the idea of super-thermite electric matches (which will brought up again in the 2009 paper) which he thinks could have been used to remotely trigger the charges via radio signal
16/

In paper published in Journal of 9/11 Studies (Sep 2006), Jones wrote "Based on these and other discoveries, the possible use of incendiary thermites and explosive superthermites on 9/11 should be investigated immediately and vigorously."
17/
journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/…

Prof Jones, by comparing with the known controlled demolition of the Landmark Tower, in this 2006 paper also amazingly estimated it would have taken only 1300 pounds of explosives per Tower & 570 pounds for WTC7!
18/
journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/…

In 2006 Prof Jones wrote "Remarkably, the controlled-demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily." It would only have taken "a small team of operatives" using incendiary thermite, explosive superthermite & superthermite electrical matches!
19/

One would have thought that 2009 paper's affirmation that red/gray chips were nanothermite would have strengthened Prof Jones' confidence in his all-encompassing controlled-demolition hypothesis, but curiously he starts distancing himself from it right after paper comes out
20/

When Dr Frank Greening emailed Prof Jones calculations of "a temperature rise less than 10 °C for full rx of 100-micron thermite coating on an upper floor core column", all Jones could suggest is probably other explosives used in WTC & nanothermite chips "maybe just fuses"
21/

By "fuses" Prof Jones was undoubtedly referring to the fuse or initiator for shaped charges that he says was "the more likely context in which nano-thermite was used in the World Trade Center buildings" during his November 2009 talk in Australia
22/

Prof Jones told Dr Greening he wasn't concerned whether the red/gray chips were used as explosives. "The fact remains that this material exists in the WTC dust & the central question to me is not HOW it was used, but rather WHO made the stuff and why?"
23/
web.archive.org/web/2012011109…

Nevertheless, following release of the 2009 paper, Prof Jones, contrary to Prof Harrit, asserted over & over that the red/gray chips ARE explosive as he did on 30 Aprill 2009 in Sacramento talk titled “Nanothermite: What in the World is High-Tech Explosive Material Doing..."
24/

Using SAME slide he used in 2006, Prof Jones says nano-thermite is "an explosive" & points to photo that he says shows it exploding. Like a good professor, he even gives the audience a quiz: "Superthermite is (a) incendiary or (b) explosive?" (Yes.)
25/

In Jones' conclusion, the slide clearly states “we have found a very energetic, highly-engineered, explosive material” but closed captions show Prof Jones actually says “explosive pyrotechnic material” ala ambiguous “pyrotechnic or explosive material” of 2009 paper.
26/

Prof Jones then admits “I don’t know exactly how this material was used" but again says it doesn't matter. "The point is there’s a lot of it & it shouldn't be there in a commercial building" that’s all anyone needs to know to get investigation started
27/