News 18/12/2008
actualised 25/4/2009 

Independent Analysis of WTC dust in Marseille to confirm Jones and associates discoveries (link to the pdf of the slides)

With a magnet, iron rich particles could be extracted from three WTC dust samples i (Frederic Henry-Couannier, Marseille)
received recently. We observed with an electro-microscope JEOL and analyzed (XEDS) them in order to get their chemical composition.
- Sample 1 comes from dust collected on a car windshield and put in a closed jar the 15th of september on Fulton Street. It has the smaller fraction of  iron rich particles.
- Sample 2 was collected by the end of september 2001 with a vacuum cleaner in an appartment (which windows were closed on 12/9) situated ~ 400 meters from the WTC and is mostly cellulose from a carpet. However the dust that can be isolated from the cellulose appears to have more iron rich particles than the dust from sample 1 (or may be the ferric component is easier to extract from this dust because it is more "fluid").
- Sample 3 was collected on a rooftop 2 blocks away from WTC (Ann street). Quite big iron rich particles could easily be extracted from this sample.

According to the USGS analysis , WTC dust had quite an homogeneous composition from various locations in Manhattan and was dominated by Calcium and Silicium (30% of Ca + Si). We then find (between 1 and 5 % each) Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum and Carbon. Amounts for all other elements are in general at less than the percent.
Thus we expect the main contamination of our iron rich particles (selected by the magnet) to be by Ca and Si.
On the other hand, other elements found at percentages greater than 10% in our iron rich sub sample would be worth noticing.

Photos from sample 1
1, 2, 3
, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
In this sample, microspheres could easily be missed in the background given the density of iron rich particles collected, many of them being sticked on a microsphere preventing the identification of the spherical shape. Dark areas are from the more conductive material (more metallic), bright areas are from the more insulating material.

Spectras from sample 1

1, the orange spectrum in the superposition was obtained from a small clean area at the surface of a microsphère : It shows that the microsphere is almost purely ferric. (dont mind the labels!)
The spectrum in
2 of any non spherical particle not surprisingly shows Ca and Si among the dominant components. But the high aluminum  peak is worth noticing. The small amount of iron suffices to explain the presence of this particule in our sub-sample (collected with a magnet).

Photos from sample 2
In this sample spherical particles appear much "cleaner" thus much easier to identify from the background which may be can explain that we observed many more of them.
The succession
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 departs from the millimeter scale toward smaller and smaller scales. The about 50 micons microsphere surface shows very interesting structures that we might interpret as the effect of a rapid cooling of an iron dropplet (to be confirmed).
6, 78 ,9, 10 : other microspheres with greater magnification of the surface.
 11, 12, 13 (Art photo), 14 (strange shapes)

Spectra from sample 2
1, 2 confirm that the microspheres are almost purely iron made
3 a spectrum from a microsphere area with the exceptional presence of several other elements more inexpected in the dust according to the USGS, Such as Zinc, quite rare i.e max several times 0.1% (USGS) and Nickel, very rare i.e. max several times 0.01 % (USGS).

Photos from sample 3
Almost nothing on our sample holder at the microscope : probably a bad be done again.
1, 2

Conclusion : we confirm the presence of numerous microspheres essentially from previously molten iron implying temperatures about 1500°C was reached at WTC. The known amount of iron in WTC dust (roughly  2% from USGS) and the amount of iron microspheres in our sub-samples (roughly 10%) implies that the microspheres alone represent ~ 0.2 % of the dust i.e  100 tons of melted iron per tower assuming a low value of 50000 tons of dust per tower and our subsample to be exclusively Ferric (thus 100 tons/tower is a minimum).
This large amount of melted iron in the form of microscopic dropplets, the low probability of contamination of one of our sample (in an appartment, low possible contamination to be confirmed) by melted iron particles from steel cutting at GZ seems to favour the pulverisation of molten iron by explosions at WTC. 
Another more recent analysis has shown that microspheres with Iron-Alu signature are indeed present (
Alu fraction much greater than ~ 2% normaly expected from other WTC dust according to the USGS) though these are not the most common one in our samples.  The explanation is simple: Alumine is most of the time expelled by a thermitic reaction.  We also found a redchip showing the same properties as the ones found by S.Jones and associates.

By the way we could also notice the presence in our iron rich subsample of other elements which are in principle very rare in the dust such as Nickel.
Open questions:
Thermite (even nano) as far as i can understand can hardly explain:
- Complete pulverisation of concrete and destruction of exterior columns at a distance. Only a fuel air explosive: thermobaric, the most powerful non nuclear explosive, can do that
- Yellow molten metal for hours in the street on top of the debris i.e. out in the open.
- The strontium abundance anomaly if confirmed

So there might be important physics probably in addition to thermite at WTC that may be should account for the unexpected chemical elements observed and long term heating.

I postulate that a large flux of the "strange radiations" discovered by Shoulders, Urutskoiev and others was produced at the WTC may be by the explosion of thermobarics and were trapped in the Iron in which they manifested in some experiments a relative long term stability (three days but it may be longer and unknown in other circumstencies). I postulate that these were responsible for the lengthy heating of the molten metal and nuclear transmutations giving rise to unexpected elements. On "strange radiations" read (with references therein) starting from page 16 for the experimental evidences: though still very enigmatic, the effects are real and easily reproduced many times. The theory that can account for most of these effects is the extension of an alternative theory of gravity which i called Dark Gravity and is developped in this website.
Important part of my motivation in investigating 911 is the possible manifestation of this new physics which (for the time being) i suppose was even not foreseen by 911 perpetrators and may be occurred as the result of two technologies being used on 911: thermite and thermobarics.
 All must (can) be clarified by analysis of dust samples (isotopic spectroscopy, XEDS spectroscopy... ). The longterm biological effects of these strange radiations are also a concern.

I'm a physicist with expertise in gravitational and high energy physics, not in chemistry. I did my best to have access to an electromicroscope without any delay (i have been waiting for the samples for monthes) and obtained this analysis thanks to a colleague working in the field of nanomaterials. You can contact me at any time ( and send samples to me at the following adress:
211 ancien chemin de Cassis bat B2 Res Semiramis 13009 Marseille France. I will do my best to have them analysed and publish the results here as soon as possible.

News 21/12/2008
Could collisions between columns at WTC produce droplets of molten steel?

Let us assume that our sample 2 is representative (according to the 
USGS analysis, the WTC dust had quite an homogeneous composition from various locations).

To produce 100 tons of melted Iron/tower ~ 0.1 % of the total steel mass of a tower must have melted. Hence an average 1 kilo of molten steel per 1 ton steel column.
To get 1kg of melted Iron ~
470 J/oC x 1500°C is needed in order to heat the iron up to the temperature of 1500°C then 270000J for melting it, thus a total of ~ 1 million Joules.
A one ton steel column falling from an average 200m and colliding another steel column releases an energy : 1000 x 10 x 200 = 2 millions Joules .. out of which at least 80 % will heat the ambiant air.  The rest, ~ half a million joules, will of course not concentrate its heating effect on our 1 kilo of steel but will rapidly spread over a much larger volume of steel heating it at temperature much lower than the required one.
Therefore there is not only no possibility for such a quantity of molten steel to have been produced by collisions at WTC but moreover it seems very unlikely that even one such dropplet of molten iron could have been produced in such conditions. On the other hand it is well known that collisions and rubbing are able to melt iron when meteoritic speeds of several km/second are involved ... but this have nothing to do with the conditions that could have been reached in a gravitationnal collapse.

Could the concrete be pulverised to 60 microns dust particles at WTC?

The average energy of one kilo of concrete at WTC was: 1x10x200 =2000 J. According to 
 Greening it could be pulverised to  60 microns dust because it only needed ~ 885 J/kg for that. Really?
The mechanical energy consumed by a 600 Watts drill is also almost mechanically (good efficiency) produced. In 10 seconds : 6000 Joules. Can you pulverise your one kilo concrete with it in 10 seconds ? Try!
The mechanical energy consumed and mechanically produced by an impact crusher (which converts electrical energy into gravitational energy of the product in a big rotating drum) and needed to crush one kilo of concrete to 60 microns dust is ~ 80000 J (corresponding to 21kWh/ton).  
So why are the WTC towers ~ two orders of magnitude more effective in crushing concrete than any machine optimized for that (drill, impact crusher...) according to 
Greening ?!

Simply because Greening completely neglects the fact that when collisions occur most of the energy is converted into heat: this is true for the drill, the impact crusher, but also for the towers! In the case of the impact crusher, 2.7% only of the
80000 J are crushing, the rest is heating all mechanical part of the machine and the concrete itself. 2.7% of 80000J = 2160 J (still somewhat greater than the 885 J/kg assumed by Greening for the WTC because the WTC concrete is a light one).
Why can Greening neglect the ridiculous efficiency of random collisions at WTC to produce crushing without anyone noticing that ?
Because his
885 J/kg are computed starting from the energy needed to fracturate concrete in traction (concrete is much less resistant in traction than in compression) and with 100% efficiency:  20 Joules per squared meter! How does he know that constraints in WTC random collisions were applied in traction with 100% efficiency ?
Conclusion: it is absolutely obvious that the energy that the towers could actually produce was orders of magnitude (i would say at least a factor 100) insufficient to pulverise the concrete to 60 microns. So why are even most truthers taking serious the Greening numbers in their balance?