Sorry for my prolific contents since your post, but I had no work today so I stayed up most of the night as my intrigue once again grew with the nanothermite theory.

It's strange though. As suggested by one if the articles linked above, Dmitry could have been disinformation intended to lead people away from the use of a nuclear device, because his theory is rather hard to believe (a device buried back in the early 1970s for future demolition). But one thing he said was that nanothermite didn't exist.

Now I am not sayng it doesn't exist, but everything I've read had been based on U.S. Army our other military reports. It's never mentioned when it was used affirmatively. There is one video allegedly showing being detonated, but it is a pretty generic video. It just seems odd that for an explosive that was first mentioned in 1997, today, nearly 20 years later, we still know nothing more than "theory" of how nanothermite works.

But I'll give the army the benefit of doubt. But I thought about how the above seemed peculiar when I couldn't find anyv specific data on nanothermite indicating it's explosive power. The sites that I searched were your sites above, and basically any site that was advocating a nanothermite explosive on 9/11, or a website simply discussing it as a military explosive.

However, on sites which dispute nanothermite, there is information. Specifically, it states that nanothermite is only 1/3 the power of TNT. That its initial speed upon detonation is 871m/s, which is fast, but not remarkable. I want to presume that this info is biased, but I cannot find competing info.

This article by A&E911 is an example. No specific data whatsoever, all the while maintaining it was nanothermite that caused the destruction.

I've often wondered why they steadfastly stuck with nanothermite and haven't even given a nuclear reaction points for possibility and also because the evidence is there. My hypothesis is this: I think everyone— whether they subscribe to the nuclear component or not— knows it's that the general public, uneducated or educated with 40 year old obsolete information on nuclear explosives, would think it crazy that it was being suggested.

Knowing this, perhaps Gage and co. do believe there is validity to this theory, but since proving exactly how the buildings were brought down is relatively low in priority compared to just convincing the public we were duped, maybe Gage has decided the nuclear theory, as credible or as supported by evidence as it may be, he realizes that integrating this in his talks would necessarily invite ridicule.