It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thermite found in WTC dust

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Traces of Thermite found in WTC dust

video.google.com...

Researcher presenting evidence that many small chips of thermite were present in the dust of the WTC. He has found that the substance has the same chemical structure and also behaves like thermite when ignited. What are the implications of this? I'm not sure. Perhaps this substance, which may actually not be thermite but has a similiar chemical structure, was used in the composition of the building. It may have contributed to the buildings collapse. Perhaps it's evidence of something more sinister. I don't know. Interesting never the less. Thoughts?

*edited for better description
..................................................................................
Posting video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
* Link
* Description
* Review/Opinion


[edit on 2-5-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Efflux]




posted on May, 2 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Efflux
 


One of the largest chemical "residues" from thermite is sulfur. One of the largest sources of residue from the collapse(s) was powdered drywall. Guess what's in drywall, and is a much larger percentage of drywall as compaired to “thermite”?

Sulfur.

Here is some unbiased reporting on Mr Jones:


Jones' paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[19] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[20] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."


Basically, this guy uses his “credentials” to argue ideas that are widely discredited and not accepted by the scientific community at large.

And in referenece to that charge:



Jones maintains that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication, though it has never been published in an independent peer-reviewed journal. One journal that has published Jones' paper is the online "Journal of 9/11 Studies", which was co-founded by Jones for the purpose of "covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001" and is co-edited by him.[24] The paper is also published in Global Outlook,[25] a magazine "seeking to reveal the truth About 9/11"[26] and in a volume of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[27]

Bolded for emphasis by me

Now, the same guy that most serious, thinking people don’t believe and point to his unpublished ‘work’ as suspect, goes out and creates the pseudo-science “Journal of 9/11 Studies” in which to publish his very own “theories”. Of courrse, now he claims his work is ‘peer reviewed’ and published!

This is par-for-the-course for the so-called ‘truth movement’.

I apologize if my post appears to be somewhat “biting”. Honestly, I don’t know how else to be towards people like this Dr. Jones when they (IMO) distort truth, outright lie and flat-out scam the populus. My irratation is not with you, the OP but, with scammers like Jones who perpetuatate the myth of 9-11 being an inside job for their own gain.


[edit on 2-5-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
True, True. Good to know. I wasn't aware this guy isn't accepted by the scientific community at large. Viewing the video out of that context, makes his evidence seem pretty damning.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Thermite is mixture of aluminium powders and iron oxides (rust) - window
frames of WTC buildings were made of aluminium. Based on force of
collapse expect find aluminium shavings and powder in dust. Plenty of
rusty iron around too.

Military grade Thermite (Thermate or TH 3) has small amount of sulphur
added as binder and to produce flames and spatter burning particles to
increase incendiary effect. Barium nitrate also component - barium
used in flourescent light tubes as electron emittter - care to guess how
many flourescent lights were in those buildings?

Jone was a fringe character pursuing scientific marginal quests like
cold fusion and other theories on the kook line. When went off deep
end and spouting off about THERMITE, university gave him the heave
not willing to be dragged into the controvesy



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Nice post, very informative - star for you!

Thanks for posting that kind of information; it's very helpful =)



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Efflux
 


I had a second thought and it is this: please don't stop posting your ideas and thoughts. I wasn't at all trying to "gang-up" on you or imply that what you had to say was stupid, unintelligent or not worthy of discussion!

Everything you have to say about 9-11 is important and I will always offer my opinion but that's all it is. No more important that anything anyone else has to say.

I hope that my criticism of Jones doesn't cause you to think I was criticizing you.

P Lease, please, please continue to offer your thoughts and ideas about any topic on this board.

Don't let someone, like me, who has a knife-edge style of writing prevent you from offering amazing ideas and thought-provoking discussions.

SAP



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

If I'm reading you right, there's no way of proving Themite was used, even if you find what some claim to be evidence of it. Does that about sum it up?

If not, what physical evidence could have been found in the debris pile that would categorically prove Thermite was present?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Originally posted by thedman
Thermite is mixture of aluminium powders and iron oxides (rust) - window
frames of WTC buildings were made of aluminium. Based on force of
collapse expect find aluminium shavings and powder in dust. Plenty of
rusty iron around too.


I am not a scientist. I am not a "truther". I am an objective thinker. That same thinking (in reference to 9/11) applies to the official version and the "truth" version. I never thought it was important for the the towers to collapse by demolition or by fire. There is enough evidence to support a continuation of investigation into the acts of 9/11 itself. Basically, I am a fence sitter in most regards to 9/11. Just clarifying my position here. So stay with me.

When Jones is talking about thermite, he is refering to these spheres found in the dust. Not the dust itself. He is pointing out that the makeup of the compound that is thermite is found in these spheres. He is not saying that the dust contains the same material as thermite, but is contesting these spheres are thermite, not evidence of thermite.

Unless you are implying that when the towers fell it somehow united or merged these different elements (aluminum shavings from window sills and risty iron) to create these spheres that match the chemical makeup (what are the chances of that?) of thermite I don't see where your argument has any substantiality. So please clarify when you say "window
frames of WTC buildings were made of aluminium" and in what way does this relate to what Jones is saying.



Military grade Thermite (Thermate or TH 3) has small amount of sulphur
added as binder and to produce flames and spatter burning particles to
increase incendiary effect. Barium nitrate also component - barium
used in flourescent light tubes as electron emittter - care to guess how
many flourescent lights were in those buildings?


Same thing here. I don't understand why it matters that lightbulbs that carry the same elements as thermite lowers the credibility of Jones' evidence.

I am not trying to provoke. I would just like to understand from your perspective.



Jone was a fringe character pursuing scientific marginal quests like
cold fusion and other theories on the kook line. When went off deep
end and spouting off about THERMITE, university gave him the heave
not willing to be dragged into the controvesy


I don't fully understand the scientific community, so I apologize if this sounds ignorant, but is every scientist that pursues alternative energies considered a fringe character and a kook?

edit to add reply to:

[edit on 2-5-2008 by abelievingskeptic]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Don't worry, I understand you're not criticizing me. The fact is, I'm just not really an expert on the subject matter. OK, so putting aside the fact this guy is a kook, he tells us the composition of thermite. I really have no idea what other things, such as fluorescent light bulbs share similar elements. I really don't understand thermite very well, outside the fact that it can be used as a bomb. Now the question is, is this ACTUALLY pieces of thermite from a bomb or remnants of something that shares a similiar composition. If parts of the building used in the construction, shared characteristics with thermite. Such as the ability to brightly ignite when exposed to flame, as this man suggests, that could help explain why the buildings fell. Now my next a question, and I'm asking you guys. Suppose these were actually parts of a thermite bomb. When such a thing was detonated, would it leave behind trace marks such as this? Would they be completely incinerated or would such flakes be left behind?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Again, I am not a chemist or scientist. And unless he has presented these "spheres" of thermite falsely, I see no reason not to believe him. Only another scientist with the qualifications should denounce or corroborate what Jones has presented.

Going off of the latest videoObviously, the thing to



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Again, these are not individual elements found in the dust. Elements of fused spheres, can you explain how the powdered aluminum(assuming you are correct in saying it should be expected that a collapse would turn window frames to powder) iron oxide, and sulfur fused together into small spheres and chips?
What is your explanation for the presence of potassium?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Agreed, not found in plain, old dust. However, we are talking about millions of tons of pulverized debris. Is it unreasonable the to think all sorts of "un naturally" occurring chemicals should and would be found in the wreckage?

Also, and this is critical: why after more than six years later has not a single person who worked during the clean up come forward with the obvious signs of a CD?

No "tags" found in the residue of the collapse. Not an inch of det-cord (and it would have taken literally tens of miles of this stuff). Not one investigator (and there were hundreds) has come forward with any evidence what-so-ever.

It really is this simple: evidence of a conspiracy would be easily found and demonstrated. Instead, you have frauds "exposing" "new" information in power point presentations years after the fact based on......photos found on Google.

This isn't science; don't be fooled. It's pseudo-science.


[edit on 3-5-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Agreed, not found in plain, old dust. However, we are talking about millions of tons of pulverized debris. Is it unreasonable the to think all sorts of "un naturally" occurring chemicals should and would be found in the wreckage?


Yes, it is unreasonable to just assume that because there was a huge mess and pulvarized material that it is conceivable to find the exact makeup of thermite in these spheres. No offence. But, considering they know how hot the fires wereand they know what materials that make up WTC. To just randomly get the same chemical makeup of thermite would probably one in a trillion shot. Also, fom what I understand very little in sample materials was confiscated, and was never tested for such materials as thermite. The problem here is that there was NO criminal investigation. They already thought they "KNEW" what brought the towers down....fire. If they knew already, what is the point in gathering evidence? And you have to remember how fast the cleanup process took place.

Again, to be honest, I was not a proponent of cd for a long time. And I am still on the fence about it. Especially until another scientist comes out and corroborates the findings. If Jones is correct, this should be fairly easy, I am assuming. If no one else comes out to agree, then he will expose himself as pseudoscience, and his career will be rubble, just like the towers. And rightfully so at that.



Also, and this is critical: why after more than six years later has not a single person who worked during the clean up come forward with the obvious signs of a CD?


well, it depends on what you consider as "obvious" signs. If you consider the mulitiple witnesses that concur on hearing "bomb like" booms coming from the tower just before it fell as evidence, then there you go (I don't consider that as full proof, I think it would sound like that or similar as the floors hit the ground. It must have been immensly loud). And ask yourself this. If you were part of the crew immediately after it fell, what would you be keeping an eye out for? Explosive material (something you probably have not seen before or could recognize amongst millions of pounds of wreckage, especially if you were a firefighter, medical position or once cleaup actually started to take place, then a heavy equipment operator...how many of those people do you think could recognize the materials that could be used for CD?) or humans?



No "tags" found in the residue of the collapse. Not an inch of det-cord (and it would have taken literally tens of miles of this stuff). Not one investigator (and there were hundreds) has come forward with any evidence what-so-ever.


I am not sure what a "tag" is, but would det chord be need if thermite is being used? And again I don't know, but tens of miles seems like a stretch.



It really is this simple: evidence of a conspiracy would be easily found and demonstrated. Instead, you have frauds "exposing" "new" information in power point presentations years after the fact based on......photos found on Google.


Now, I don't know this Jones guy, but he has a phd and I am assuming a respected position somewhere. If he would be willing to lose all that, then I am willing to listen. If he is full of it then it will be exposed. But I am waiting until other scientists look at what he has found and then call it a bunch of hooey before I write him off.

And as far as evidence, I think, if you take the whole picture into consideration there is enough evidence to at least look farther into it, "officially". I see no harm in that.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by abelievingskeptic]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by abelievingskeptic]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   


Again, I am not a chemist or scientist. And unless he has presented these "spheres" of thermite falsely, I see no reason not to believe him. Only another scientist with the qualifications should denounce or corroborate what Jones has presented.


Ever hear of a thermal lance? - pipe filled with iron and aluminium rods
and feed pure O2, lit by cutting torch. Burns at 7000 F and will cut
through anything - steel, concrete. When burns leaves slag of iron
and aluminium oxides, similar to the "micro spheres" Jones babbles
about. The thermal lances were used to cut away heavy steel beams
for removal. Jones is a fool who only considers his own bizarre fanatasy
and ignores anything else.....



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



The thermal lances were used to cut away heavy steel beams
for removal.


He said the samples were gathered immediately. I don't know what exactly what "immediatly," means, but I imagine before deconstruction began.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by abelievingskeptic
Unless you are implying that when the towers fell it somehow united or merged these different elements (aluminum shavings from window sills and risty iron) to create these spheres that match the chemical makeup (what are the chances of that?) of thermite I don't see where your argument has any substantiality.


It would be like throwing an egg, some flour, sugar etc. into a bowl and calling it a birthday cake. Exactly. What are the chances of that?

The "chances" of 9/11 seem to keep adding up.


I don't fully understand the scientific community, so I apologize if this sounds ignorant, but is every scientist that pursues alternative energies considered a fringe character and a kook?


Just remember, Galileo was a heretic also for saying the earth was round by the "scientific community".



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by abelievingskeptic

Yes, it is unreasonable to just assume that because there was a huge mess and pulvarized material that it is conceivable to find the exact makeup of thermite in these spheres.


Actually, it's quite conceivable that these elements would be found after the rubble burned. All the elements were there. They were exposed to high/melting temperatures. They fused into these spheres naturally. It's called fly ash.

I believe that Jones has dropped the spheres as proof of thermxte being used.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
What an easy way to "get away with it" if thermite was actually used.

You can blame ANY evidence found as:

1. Naturally occuring thermite.

2. All the chemicals were present to begin with.

So, even if thermite WAS used to fell the towers, there's always an out.

Plausible deniability comes to mind.

And to think that any perpetrator who came up with the plans of this wouldn't have thought along these lines is fallible IMO.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I feel like the debunkers are being a bit deceiving and shady on this thread(from the neutral man's perspective).

First it was, "Oh this is debunked already. It's in the drywall, etc", while offering no futher explaination.

Then it was brought up that the elements were in compounds, and not just random dust, it became, "Well they could have fused etc etc".

If that was the case, why wasn't it brought up to begin with?

If they are such "thermite"/buiding-collapse experts, why didn't they bring it all up at the very beginning?

Are there any examples of other building collapses that had "thermite" residue that you can compare with, or are people just making stuff up as they go?

I find it hard to believe that anyone could predict what would fuse with what in a building collapse.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Another thing to consider is the fact that thermite has legitimate civilian uses. One use that I see thermite used on a daily basis is to join a break in continuous rail lines on the railroad. I imagine it would be used to join any long stretch of metal where welding is not smooth and strong enough. A disposable mold made of some type of light weight ceramic is placed over the joint, a metal blank is inserted to act as filler and thermite is ignited in the mold to to melt and reform the metal in the required shape.

I don't have any information about the WTC towers specifically, but were the subway rails under the towers continuous rail? Were there other continuous rail or guide systems in place in or under the towers? Perhaps the guide rails in the elevator systems? I don't know, but it is important to remember that most military compounds have found uses in our everyday lives for things most people aren't aware of.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join