If you follow politics, you’ve probably heard plenty of politicians complaining about the lies of their opponents.

It’s a staple diet of democratic political discourse. Does a day go by when Parliament (or Congress) is in session in which copious accusations of lying aren’t hurled across the chamber? If so, I must have missed them.

Arlen Specter: these days, he a Senatorial liar; Adolf would not have been surprised

But how many politicians do you know who admit to telling lies? Telling lies themselves, that is – and not just lies but really big lies. Politicians like that are certainly unusual.

I’ll thicken the plot. How many politicians do you know who brag about telling really big lies in a best selling book published before their political career gets underway? Such a politician would be rare indeed.

Yet that’s what a lot of people seem to believe about Adolf Hitler. If they don’t actually believe this, they certainly like to make out they do.

Take this quotation, which has become famous thanks to its frequent repetition on the Internet:

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

Yuk! What a nasty mind! (In case don’t know already, those are the words of Adolf Hitler, written in his semi-autobiographical book ‘Mein Kampf’, published in the mid 1920s).

Adolf Hitler: according to legend, the politician who bragged about lying

It’s astonishing, when you think about it, that Hitler got away with boasting about all the Big Lies he was about to tell. How did he still get so many votes? Did Germans 70 years ago admire politicians who brazenly admitted they were huge liars? Amazing!

Actually, it is amazing – too amazing by half. In fact, it’s nonsense.

The quoted words of Hitler are authentic enough (it’s a translation into English from the original German). But some rather significant context is missing…

Here’s the paragraph that follows… in the same translation of Mein Kampf, as provided by Wikipedia:

“From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. Schopenhauer called the Jew “The Great Master of Lies.” Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.”

Ah – now the famous quotation makes more sense! Hitler wasn’t talking about his own lies at all. Like most politicians, he was complaining about other peoples’ lies. That’s a lot more plausible!

As of today, a Google search for the first paragraph alone (in red) – inside inverted commas so the search is for the exact text – returns 384 results. By contrast, a search for the second paragraph alone returns 4 results. Clearly, a lot of people are quoting Hitler’s words about ‘the Big Lie’ out of context. About 100 to 1 on that count!

World War Two: it ended in 1945, as anyone left in Hiroshima can explain

It’s hardly surprising when this kind of thing happens in wartime. Propaganda against Hitler was to be expected during World War Two. But why propagandize against a man who died over 60 years ago? Rather odd, don’t you think?

It’s clear when searching for instances of this notorious quotation that many of the folk who repeat it are Jewish. That strikes me as even odder. Surely they’d do well to stop quoting from that particular page of Mein Kampf? Hitler was, after all, being very rude about them – as the smallest amount of research makes apparent.

Now, for pointing out such elementary and easily verifiable facts in today’s ‘western world’, it’s customary to be branded a ‘Fascist’ or ‘neo-Nazi’’. That really just demonstrates how far rational discourse has been debased by slavish conformism to one particular, absurdly biased, historical narrative.

Just in case I’d latched onto a statistical artifact, I found another version of the same quotation, this time in the Jewish Virtual Library. The words are essentially the same, but the punctuation is different and in this instance the two paragraphs are collapsed into one.

All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, where as in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. Schopenhauer called the Jew “The Great Master of Lies”. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.

The Warren Commission's absurd 'magic bullet' lie

Once again, I did a Google search for the first part of the text (shown in red above) – then the second half (in blue). On this occasion, Google returned 385 and 16 results respectively.

I rest my case – or to coin a phrase from Gerald Posner, ‘Case Closed‘

Posner, for those who haven’t heard of him before, is a truly epic liar of our own era.

He’s the man who still promotes the risible ‘magic bullet’ theory – a recycled lie originated by fellow-liar Arlen Specter, formerly adviser to the 1964 Warren Commission. In the early 1990s, he wrote Case Closed – a book that supposedly vindicates the Warren Commission’s verdict on the Kennedy assassination.

These days, Specter is a US Senator who lies often and unremittingly, mainly for the benefit of the military industrial complex and the Israel Lobby…

An Ethiopian Jew: does his genome have more in common with Simon Peres' than mine?

Incidentally, Zionists are very well-represented among those people on earth who still believe what I suggest might appropriately be called Hitler’s mistake (not all lies are deliberate – sometimes misinformation is spread by people who don’t know better).

By what conceivable stretch of the imagination are Jews a ‘race’? (whatever ‘race’ actually means). Compare and contrast Jewish folk from Ethiopia or India with Jews from Sweden or Lithuania? Can you spot the difference? Me too.

Apparently, Hitler couldn’t. But many folk believed strange things three quarters of a century ago.*

In modern civilized society, we expect ideas to evolve and become more factually-based over time. It’s a natural process… but of course, it’s a process impeded by the incessant repetition of one-sided untruths.

______________________________________

Footnote *

In fairness to Hitler (a rare trait in the 21st Century), I suspect the word he used in Mein Kampf to describe Jews was ‘Volk‘.

Should this really be translated into English as ‘race’?

This is what today’s Wikipedia has to say on the translation into English of the word ‘Volk’ – and its changing usage over time (emphasis added):

Background

In German the word Volk can have several different meanings, such as folkpeople in the ethnic sense, and nation. (simple people), people in the ethnic sense, and nation.

German Volk is commonly used as the first, determing part (head) of compound nouns such as Volksentscheid (plebiscite, lit. “decision of/by the people”) or Völkerbund (League of Nations), or the car manufacturer Volkswagen (literally, “people’s car”).

19th century and early 20th century

A number of völkisch movements existed prior to World War I. Combining interest in folklore, ecology, occultism and romanticism with ethnic nationalism, their ideologies were a strong influence on the Nazi party, which itself was inspired by Adolf Hitler’s membership of the Deutsche ArbeiterparteiMein Kampf himself denounced usage of the word völkisch as he considered it too vague as to carry any recognizable meaning due to former over-use. Today, the term völkisch is largely restricted to historical contexts describing the closing 19th century and early 20th century up to Hitler’s seize of power in 1933, especially during the years of the Weimar Republic. (German Workers’ Party), even though Hitler in even though Hitler in Mein Kampf himself denounced usage of the word völkisch as he considered it too vague as to carry any recognizable meaning due to former over-use. Today, the term völkisch is largely restricted to historical contexts describing the closing 19th century and early 20th century up to Hitler’s seize of power in 1933, especially during the years of the Weimar Republic. himself denounced usage of the word

Nazi era

During the years of the Third Reich, the term Volk became heavily used in nationalistic political slogans, particularly in slogans such as Volk ohne RaumVölkischer Beobachter (“popular observer”), an NSDAP party newspaper. Also the political slogan Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer (“One people, one country/empire, one leader”); and the compound word Herrenvolk, translated as “master race”. — “(a) people without space” or

Even though Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf often erroneously applied specific biological and zoological terms such as race, species, and others, the Nazi-era use of Volk could not, depending on context, be interpreted as “race”, “Germanic”, or “European.” In Nazi propaganda, several peoples made up a race, so these two terms did not denote the same thing during the Nazi years. The German people was considered part of the Germanic race which latter officially included the Scandinavians, the English, and the Dutch as well (while Hitler himself also included the Celts), so Volk did not equal Germanic either. Nazi-era publications on pre-history only differed whether their Germanic race equalled the Indo-European race or the Germanic race itself was part of a family of Indo-European races, since indogermanisch is the common German term for Indo-European.

Today

Because Volk is the generic German word for “people” in the ethnic sense today as well as for “people entitled to vote” (Wahlvolk), its use does not necessarily denote any particular political views in post-1945 Germany. However, because of its past, the word is rarely used with Bevölkerung (“population”) serving as a substitute.

We’ve all heard of  ‘wishful thinking‘ – the very human tendency to believe what we’d like to be true. Wishful think has been around a long time.

More recently, eminent theologian and 9-11 sceptic David Ray Griffin has coined the term  ‘fearful thinking‘.

He believes it’s key to understanding what prevents otherwise rational people from recognizing the obvious about 9-11.

As Griffin describes it, fearful thinking is when “you won’t believe what you actually fear to be the truth”. Ironically, the more common expression for this phenomenon is to be in a state of ‘denial’.

Professor Griffin, a scholar whose academic career has delved deeply into the intriguing field of ‘Process Theology’, has performed an enormous service to the world by devoting himself almost full-time, since 2003, to the ’9-11 Truth Movement’. It can’t be fun for a man with his sights on the higher planes of human existence to spend years analyzing the cesspits of murder and deceit.

David Ray Griffin: A clear voice of reason on 9-11

Since 2003, his output of books about 9-11 has been prolific (and he’s even managed two remarkable new books about philosophy in his spare time!).

Griffin is a calm, reasoned voice in a debate that easily gets over-heated. He’s hard to discredit and sideline. Because Griffin is so hard to knock over, the main reaction of the mainstream media has been to ignore him.

David Ray Griffin plays an admirable role as a unifying figure in the 9-11 Truth Movement. He directs his critique, diplomatically, against ‘The American Empire’. In my opinion, he understates the role of Zionists in the atrocity and subsequent cover-up.

Like a true religious man, he’s charitable to detractors. In the video above, Griffin gives Noam Chomsky the benefit of the doubt over the latter’s dissembling nonsense about 9-11.

The rest of us don’t need to be so quite so kind. Noam Chomsky is highly suspect. His bizarre and irrational approach to facts about the Kennedy Assassination has long been suspicious. His analysis of  Israeli-American relations, over the years, has been selective and misleading. Now 9-11…

Noam Chomsky: Bernie Madoff of the left-wing intelligentsia?

If Noam Chomsky isn’t a Zionist mole, he does a convincing imitation of the role.

An increasingly popular term for people like Chomsky is ‘left gatekeeper’.

The job appears to be misleading the politically progressive masses over a small number of topics crucial to Israel’s survival. Beyond those few topics, Chomsky is a hard-working and often insightful author, who’s done fine work for many progressive causes over many decades.

But Chomsky’s blind spots and occasional lies necessarily impair his overall credibility. “Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus“

Likewise, I view Alexander Cockburn and George Monbiot with deep suspicion since their well-publicized comments about 9-11 (and in Cockburn’s case, on the Kennedy assassination also). When they’ve written about 9-11, it’s been to waffle and dissemble. Like Chomsky, they avoid strong arguments that damn the official version of events and parody the Truth Movement’s more flaky side. That’s intellectual dishonesty. It’s also covering for mass murderers.

As Griffin says, most people don’t like to think about evil on a vast and well-orchestrated scale.

It’s just too fearful to think about.

_________________________

See also The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers by Canadian journalist Barry Zwicker.

I remain, broadly speaking, a cautious optimist about President Obama’s intentions and basic decency as a human being. Of course, I also remain less than enamored by some of his staff.

Why did Obama pick Zionist extremists with obvious first loyalty to Israel for a range of key positions – men such as Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross and Rahm Emanuel?

The Obamas Dance: graceful, but which way is he leading?

Pessimists argued it was Obama showing his true spots as a Zionist and stooge of the Illuminati, Bilderbergers or (insert your favourite term here…)

Well, maybe. I’d have thought at least some consideration should be given to an alternative hypothesis. Barak Obama isn’t Superman, after all. He can’t turn the Titanic round in 5 minutes. It’s going to take time. Meanwhile, the Zionist Lobby in the USA is simply too strong to take on by frontal assault. Obama understands the need for a change of course, domestically and in international affairs. But he has to work at it gradually – and meanwhile, give the Zionists some of the goodies they consider reward for ‘allowing’ his rise to the Presidency.

This issue – Obama’s real intentions – remains obscure to me and to many. Both the man and his administration are an enigma.

Take Palestine policy. Obama seems genuinely keen to see a fairer deal in Israel/Palestine, based on the so-called ‘Two State solution’. His willingness to politely face down the Israeli Government on the settlements issue – in public – has Zionist foot soldiers in a state of apoplexy. Yet the deal he’s proposing can’t really work; for Palestinians, it’s just the latest phase of a 92-year con.

Not much left for the 'Second State'

The Israeli leadership have no intention of being a ‘partner for peace’; they never tried. The only Palestinian State Israel might allow would be overcrowded, fragmented, starved of water, unable to defend itself, permanently at Israel’s whim and corrupted by Zionist infiltration. Such is the brutal, supremacist momentum of Israeli Zionism.

But was it ever on the cards that Obama demanded something else, something genuinely more fair and workable – such as a pluralistic single state (the South Africa solution), with equal rights for all citizens?

Such a radical departure from the international ‘consensus’ of recent years, into which the Palestinian President and his coterie have also been corralled, would have been nice -, but it was always too much of a stretch for Obama to move fast in that direction. A political leader can surf historical waves if the conditions are right – but he can’t make a wave out of a ripple.

If the land that used to be called Holy is to end up a genuinely sane and normal society, based on the rule of (equal) law for all its citizens, more groundwork must be done first. Part of what’s necessary, perhaps, is to pursue the existing ‘Peace Process’ with real vigor, something that hasn’t happened for eight years. If the ‘Two State Solution’ proves inherently unworkable and impossible, it will become evident through the process. Perhaps we need to approach closer before we can see the ‘Two State Promised Land’ is just a mirage.

That, for what it’s worth, is my gloomily optimistic appraisal of what Obama is up to in his Israel/Palestine policy, Undoubtedly I’m missing a lot of nuance; major things may be going on behind the scenes unknown to the public, as was the case during the JFK Administration.

It’s also quite possible my analysis is way off mark. Perhaps Obama is truly a super-salesman for the Zionist-biased American Military Industrial Complex? Perhaps his push for Middle East peace is pure charade? That’s possible. Time will tell. For now, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to abandon all hope in Obama as a force for good.

Assuming he’s essentially a good guy, Obama faces great dangers.

Lee Harvey Oswald: too risky to reincarnate him as an Al Qaida operative

Assassination is on peoples’ minds, but I think that unlikely.

The only group of terrorists with the potential (as well as the motive?) to murder Obama are the same combination of forces who almost certainly slaughtered JFK: a motley assortment of discontents to do the deed, orchestrated by a devious conspiracy of Zionists, in and out of Israel, with the mass media covering up.

And there’s the rub – far too many people are aware, by now, that the Zionists have a track record of assassination that makes the Roman elite look like wimps. If Obama does get shot – even with the usual trickery one can anticipate (e.g. blame it on Bin Laden, Iran, White Supremacists and/or ‘Holocaust deniers’) – far too many informed people would START with the idea that Israel probably plotted the murder. It would make life for Israel – and American Jews – very uncomfortable.

Obama most obvious challenges are the twin policy giants: a global economy in turmoil and global environment in peril. They are historical challenges of unparalleled magnitude. But there’s more…

Obama also faces the momentum of what I’ll call the 21st century ‘legacy of lies’. The previous Administration was up to its neck in criminal behaviour, aided, abetted and often controlled by right-wing Zionists. 9-11 was the quintessence of insider criminality. Huge numbers of people now know that the official Bush era story of 9-11 is sheer bunkum. The ‘War on Terror’ was a lie from the start. Bin Laden is essentially a fictional bogeyman.

Presumably Obama knows this. Yet he allows the lie to continue – even reiterates it himself. Why? It’s a good question. As with Palestine policy, it’s possible to make excuses for Obama. But getting sucked into lies until they become your own is really playing with fire. It is also these lies that are used to justify the war that Obama does seem to be stoking up, not watering down: conflict caused by US interference in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A fair and sustainable future cannot be built on foundations of lies

The key, I think, is to pressure the Obama Administration to set up an independent, competent and honest 9-11 inquiry. This can be achieved only by an unprecedented public clamor – unprecedented because it would run completely against the tide of mass media opinion. The western mainstream media are desperate to prevent such an inquiry. Elements within the mass media risk exposure to criminal charges – quite apart from the devastating impact the overturning of the 9-11 myth would have for Zionist momentum.

When the penny finally, drops for a critical mass of Americans, that Israel was behind both the killing of JFK and the atrocity of 9-11, solving the Palestine Question may become a whole lot easier…

The crime of 9-11, like all other crimes, left forensic traces.

A WTC tower explodes into dust: only fools believe fuel fires cause explosions like that

Slowly, incrementally, a concerned and vigilant public is assembling evidence that an honest official investigation process would have gathered long ago, had any such investigation ever happened.

The latest key finding has been published as a peer reviewed scientific paper that documents unusual material in dust from four locations close to the 9-11 WTC explosions/collapses. These are interpeted as the chemical fingerprints of hi-tech high explosives.

The paper – Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 Center Catastrophe – is published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009. There are several authors including Dr Stephen Jones, a chemist already well-known for earlier work on the mystery of 9-11.

The broader significance of discovering traces of “Active Thermitic Material” is not discussed in this academic paper. But Einstein is not really needed to figure it out.

Traces of these unusual powerful explosives indicate pre-planning was used to bring down the WTC buildings which directly caused nearly 3,000 deaths. The official story is a criminal attempt to cover up the truth and shield the real perpetrators of this appalling mass murder from justice. The criminals clearly had ready ready access to the buildings well in advance of the day – and must include elements of the Bush Administration, ‘Intelligence Agencies’ and mass media. In the case of the 9-11 collapsing skyscrapers, if not in other cases too, ‘Al Qaida’ is a patsy.

In stark contrast to standard procedure followed after almost every other serious crime, after 9-11 the authorities chose to avoid evidence that conflicted with their pre-conceived conclusion about guilt. They made no effort to fairly evaluate information they did have. From the very first of the series of official inquiries into various aspects of the 9-11 atrocity, the guilt of ‘Al Qaida’ was taken not as a hypothesis, but as a given.

When it assumed – in advance of any inquiry into 9-11 – that ‘Al Qaida’ was the guilty party, the Administration of George Bush followed the precedent set by the Johnson Administration in 1963/4 that made investigation of the Kennedy assassination such a farce. The Warren Commission was not a genuine investigation of President Kennedy’s murder: it’s brief was to find out how Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, had committed the crime. Dishonest key participants, such as Arlen Specter, did the rest, fleshing in enough detail of how mythical events supposedly occured to provide mainstream America with a feel-good story, which persisted at least until the Congressional Inquiry of the late 1970s.

The Al Qaida Boogeyman: a Childish Story for the Dumbed-Down and Credulous

Likewise, every official inquiry into 9-11 has assumed the culprits are already known: all the observed havoc was allegedly caused by 19 Muslim Fundamentalist Arab Hijackers (15 from Saudi Arabia) under the malign orders of Osama Bin Laden, then resident in Afghanistan.

No attempt has ever been made – in any of the official US investigations into 9-11 – to account for the copious evidence that conflicts with those improbable assumptions. The entire investigatory process has been an obvious travesty of justice. In 1964, the Warren Commission nearly gave Betrand Russell apoplexy. I wonder how the doughty old philosopher would have coped with the 9-11 Inquiries?

The only good thing that can be said about those inquires is that they happened at all. At least in the USA there has been a sham process of public investigation; in Britain and Australia, the biggest mass killings of recent times (the July 7th 2005 London bombings and the 1997 Port Arthur atrocity) were followed by no inquest, trials or inquiries whatsoever!

Tiny spheres in WTC dust contain the same elements as the residue of thermite

People who should know better still snigger about ‘tin foil hats’ when issues such as this are raised. Making puerile wisecracks when justice has been so blatantly traduced is a sad reflection on the jesters. Perhaps they think the Gulf of Tonkin is the name of a milkbar? Maybe they’d have giggled at My Lai?

They also remind me of people we now laugh about, just a few hundred years ago in pre-Enlightenment times, who believed in witches and blood-letting. They have a propensity for accepting well-promoted myths based on no real evidence – and moonlight as part-time exorcists and quacks.

Having invested so much of their own persona parroting conformist twaddle, they’ll find it especially embarrassing to concede the joke’s been on them all along.

_______________________

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 Center Catastrophe (Emphasis Added)

CONCLUSIONS

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The
red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:

1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.
3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite
   or super-thermite.
5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.
6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very hightemperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the
   oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].
10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.