Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

page: 1
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+10 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.


The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2 Bentham Science Publishers


Download PDF of full article here

Firstly, let me declare my position - that the three WTC towers could not have imploded on 9/11 without some method of controlled demolition. Originally, this was a view I found too incredible to countenance (argument from incredulity). Having given the topic much attention, I now find the official theory - that they were brought down by a combination of fire and damage impossible to sustain.

The question of how, seems somewhat academic to me. I'm more interested in who. Nevertheless, if to a reasonable degree of certainty the first question is answered, maybe more people will demand an answer to the second.

It's with that in mind that I approach the publication today of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
First author of the research is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry, an expert in nano-chemistry.

Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU

More details about the authors here

A back-scattered electron image featured in the newly published paper:



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
This may be academic to you, but if this truly were the case wouldn't the mainstream scientific community all sign on?
Is this like the global warming debate? Are there scientist from both camps "whipping it out" to sell a book, get published, stroke the ego, etc...
If this were so clear cut how could it not merit a line on Drudge or on our Yahoo mail page?
Scientific evidence I don't think can be rationally debated. Do they have it or not is what I'm asking? Has anyone in any type of authority or with expertise provide an alternative explanation for the results you have posted?


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
This may be academic to you, but if this truly were the case wouldn't the mainstream scientific community all sign on?
Is this like the global warming debate? Are there scientist from both camps "whipping it out" to sell a book, get published, stroke the ego, etc...
If this were so clear cut how could it not merit a line on Drudge or on our Yahoo mail page?
Scientific evidence I don't think can be rationally debated. Do they have it or not is what I'm asking? Has anyone in any type of authority or with expertise provide an alternative explanation for the results you have posted?


As a civil engineer I can tell you this much: there was not enough potential energy in those buildings to pulverize the concrete into micron-size dust particles and obliterate those structures in the manner that they were. In my opinion explosives must have been used. In fact, my initial reaction upon seeing those towers crumble was "Oh my God, they somehow planted charges in the World Trade towers"! I was stupified when the official investigation claimed fire from the jet fuel caused a "pancake collapse" of the skyscrapers. That kind of collapse can only happen when all of the load bearing columns are completely compromised simultaneously, which sometimes happens in the more powerful earthquakes. When it does happen the various floors of the building wind up neatly stacked like, well, like a stack of pancakes. All you have to do is look at any of the pictures of the total destruction that lie in the wake of the New York 9-11 attacks to see that a pancake compression simply did not occur on that day. Those skyscrapers, at one time the tallest in the world, were reduced to a pile of smoking rubble. Again, the potential energy contained in those structures was simply not sufficient to produce the devestation that we all witnessed that day. The additional energy had to come from somewhere. The easiest explanation to my mind is explosives.

To the question, why aren't scientists around the globe jumping on the 9-11 truth bandwagon and declaring the official explanation to be false and the science offered up to explain it as bogus, you don't suppose it's because they're scared do you? You're an engineer or a scientist and the Congress of the United States of America just floated a bald-faced lie in the face of the worst attack that has ever happened on American soil. You immediately recognize that they are lying, but why? They must be trying to hide something or two. How far is the Government of the United States willing to go in order to protect and reinforce their cover-up? 3,000 people were murdered that day. Would another murder matter in order to maintain the charade? Most scientists are either working at universities or involved in research that depend on government grants in order to continue to function on a daily basis. It is only logical to assume that those funds would be in jeopardy if you should actually speak out in a public forum against the government's official version of the events of that day.

In spite of that there is a growing number of professionals, from scientists and engineers, to pilots and military personnel, to diplomats and governmental heads from around the world that are adding their voices to the many others who are demanding that the truth be told about what happened on that awful day.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

posted by Res Ipsa
This may be academic to you, but if this truly were the case wouldn't the mainstream scientific community all sign on?


posted by godless
As a civil engineer I can tell you this much: there was not enough potential energy in those buildings to pulverize the concrete into micron-size dust particles and obliterate those structures in the manner that they were. In my opinion explosives must have been used. In fact, my initial reaction upon seeing those towers crumble was "Oh my God, they somehow planted charges in the World Trade towers"!

To the question, why aren't scientists around the globe jumping on the 9-11 truth bandwagon and declaring the official explanation to be false and the science offered up to explain it as bogus, you don't suppose it's because they're scared do you? You're an engineer or a scientist and the Congress of the United States of America just floated a bald-faced lie in the face of the worst attack that has ever happened on American soil. You immediately recognize that they are lying, but why? They must be trying to hide something or two. How far is the Government of the United States willing to go in order to protect and reinforce their cover-up? 3,000 people were murdered that day. Would another murder matter in order to maintain the charade? Most scientists are either working at universities or involved in research that depend on government grants in order to continue to function on a daily basis. It is only logical to assume that those funds would be in jeopardy if you should actually speak out in a public forum against the government's official version of the events of that day.



This should be adequate reason for most academics in the scientific community to keep their professional opinions to themselves. And after considering the additional incentives of the 'accidental deaths' and 'suicides' of notable 9-11 personalities such as Barry Jennings and Kenny Johannemann and Wendy Burlingame and John P O'Neill.

NIST reluctantly forced to admit to 2.25 seconds of freefall by high school physics teacher



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
This may be academic to you, but if this truly were the case wouldn't the mainstream scientific community all sign on?


Additional to SPreston and godles's comments: - the answer, I'm afraid, is yes and no. Many (like godless) in the mainstream scientific and engineering community have: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, 660+ Engineers and Architects Question 9/11, 7 Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation (PDF), etc.

Very many others are unaware of the issues, thanks to the mainstream media's incessant promotion of the official story and scrupulous censorship of information which challenges it.

Coupled with this, very few major scientific journals would dare put their heads above the parapet by publishing a theory that almost pre-supposed government complicity in the horrors of 9/11. In an ideal world, scientific merit would be the issue. In the real world, the panel will protect the political and financial well-being of its journal. When the stakes are this high, the peer review process is, to a large extent, a gatekeeper's charter.

Nevertheless, several other peer-reviewed papers that contradict the official accounts of 9/11 (as per the 9/11 Commission, NIST etc.) have already been published, but typically they received no mainstream publicity:

The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Volume 23 (Research in Political Economy) edited by Paul Zarembka (2006), Elsevier Science Press
Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 Allen M. Poteshman, 2006, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
11 septembre 2001 : des volumes inhabituels sur les options peu avant l'attentat Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini, 2007, University of Zurich - Swiss Banking Institute
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
pp.35-40 (6) Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, Volume 2 (2008)
Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley and Steven E. Jones (17 February 2008) The Environmentalist Springer Netherlands

NIST's study into the destruction of the towers, it should be noted, was not peer-reviewed: “I wish that there would be a peer review of this... I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Is this like the global warming debate? Are there scientist from both camps "whipping it out" to sell a book, get published, stroke the ego, etc...
If this were so clear cut how could it not merit a line on Drudge or on our Yahoo mail page?


First, let's be clear - this is not somebody "whipping it out" to sell a book. It was exhaustively peer-reviewed "with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter". Furthermore, (unlike most technical specialist journals) the Open Chemical Physics Journal is free access - see download link above.

I don't expect to see the major industry journals or popular science magazines covering this (for reasons stated) but as for the lack of internet news coverage - it was only published a few hours ago.

There are two camps for sure, but I don't think many realize how small the official camp is compared to the growing number of highly accredited engineers and scientists on the other side.

Many seem to assume that any scientist not actively engaged in criticising NIST must be tacitly acquiescing. Clearly this is an illogical assumption.

Although there are about 1.5 million engineers in the US, the same four who "investigated" the Oklahoma City Murray building bombing turn up six years later as the ASCE team on the WTC collapses. One of them (Corley) is also involved in the Weidlinger study on behalf of Silverstein (which arrives at a different theory about the cause of the collapses!). Two of them work on the Pentagon Building Report. Another 6 who work on the FEMA report become part of the NIST team. Apparently very few engineers were either required or willing to work on the government's investigation.



And, of course, FEMA and NIST are federal agencies, like the Bush appointed 9/11 Commission, with institutional conflicts of interest that guarantee a lack of independence.

9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts”



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Scientific evidence I don't think can be rationally debated. Do they have it or not is what I'm asking? Has anyone in any type of authority or with expertise provide an alternative explanation for the results you have posted?


The evidence in this case could only be debated by challenging it's provenance, but the scientific interpretation of the evidence can and should be rationally debated. That is a major purpose of publishing the paper - to invite the wider scientific community to scrutinise the findings.

Although NIST, at least in their public posture, never seriously considered a controlled demolition hypothesis, several of the key engineers involved in the investigation were better qualified in explosives technology than structural collapse analysis and NIST has a long-standing partnership with NASA for the development of new nano-thermites and has a long history of working with leaders in nano-thermite technology.

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

NIST have not provided an alternative explanation for the nano particle findings. Just as they dismissed the evidence (when pressed) of molten metal beneath the buildings, they have simply ignored it's existence. No dust samples analysed - no awkward evidence to hand wave away.

If you were trying, after the fact, to cover up the demolition of the towers by nano-thermites, you could not do better than select insiders with expertise in nano-thermites - maybe the same experts who provided the technology used in the crime. What better way to ensure incriminating evidence - unignited thermite, molten metal, countless reports of explosions, molten metal cascades pouring from the buildings, etc. - did not hamper a pre-defined conclusion?

Professor Steven Jones early discussion of the dust analysis


A fuller version of the NIST molten metal cover up:




[edit on 4-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
First, it's common knowledge and well-documented that a thermite reaction occurs when molten aluminium contacts iron oxide.



We have discovered that when a glass poor waste stream containing aluminum and steel is processed in the high temperature environment of the incinerator, a violent thermite reaction occurs. The thermite reaction generates enough heat and thermal shock to damage or destroy the incineration equipment. The present invention provides an inexpensive, effective method of preventing the thermite reaction.

During the high temperature incineration process in oxidizing atmosphere, aluminum and iron (steel) are converted to their oxides. In the absence of glass, the maximum rate of oxidation of iron (steel) is below 1200° C. and the maximum rate of oxidation of aluminum occurs at 1375° C. As a result, at 1200° C. molten aluminum metal is in contact with iron oxides (FeO, Fe 3 O 4 , Fe 2 O 3 ) and a violent thermite reaction between the aluminum metal and iron oxides is initiated.


It's no surprise at all that there are products of thermite-like reactions in the WTC dust clouds.






Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips.


A residue is a part of the actual explosive itself that does not combust and not a combination of chemicals and/or compounds which could potentially be recombined to form a pyrotechnic metal cutting/welding compound such as thermite.

Detonation (hyper-sonic combustion) residues are the unreacted pieces of the actual explosive compound itself which is left behind at the conclusion of each micro-reaction %100.00 of the time.

If any form of thermite had been used to cut the steel there would be tons of actual unreacted thermite in the dust, you wouldn't need to reverse-engineer thermite from it's products as this paper attempts to do.


The unexploded thermite would have completely mixed throughout the profile of the dust cloud that fell all around the attack site, absorbed by plants including grass lawns, trees and lichens. Easily detectable amounts of the speculated multi-tons of pyrotechnic compound would still be present today in the lichen's branches, accumulated at the base of the roots of trees and chemically combined with the soil beneath any grass and in the sludge at the bottoms of lakes and ponds. As these materials were washed down in to the sewerage system, the pyrotechnic particles would form a layer of scum along the concrete walls in the sewerage complex at the level the water was at when it flowed in, and form a layer of silt which would still be present today and which will still be present many years hence. After the clean up of the area, the places where the steel and rubble were stored would still contain easily detectable amounts of the pyrotechnic thermite, or super-thermite or whatever, today, now and for many years to come.




Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.





... thermite ignites at...(about 900 °C or above)



1550°C

The lowest I've found is 1200°C.

Whatever, that the chips ignited at a temperature far below the ignition temp. of any form of thermite is at least as indicative of the likelihood that the red/gray chips contain no unreacted thermite at all.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
You'll have to bear with me a little here - I'm not a chemist and I'm guessing you are.

You say thermite-like reactions in the WTC dust should not be considered anomalous because: "During the high temperature incineration process in oxidizing atmosphere, aluminum and iron (steel) are converted to their oxides. In the absence of glass, the maximum rate of oxidation of iron (steel) is below 1200° C. and the maximum rate of oxidation of aluminum occurs at 1375° C. As a result, at 1200° C. molten aluminum metal is in contact with iron oxides (FeO, Fe 3 O 4 , Fe 2 O 3 ) and a violent thermite reaction between the aluminum metal and iron oxides is initiated."

But this reaction is taking place in a high temperature incinerator in an oxidizing atmosphere. NIST reported "maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000° C." at the WTC.

Are you claiming that a violent thermite reaction between the aluminum and steel would be initiated at 1,000° C or less?

Can you point to records of this process recorded at any other high-rise fire (many of which have burned longer and hotter)?

Surely if this were the case, any building constructed of steel and aluminium would be an incendiary device waiting to go off in the event of a fire.


Originally posted by undermind




Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.





... thermite ignites at...(about 900 °C or above)



1550°C

The lowest I've found is 1200°C.

Whatever, that the chips ignited at a temperature far below the ignition temp. of any form of thermite is at least as indicative of the likelihood that the red/gray chips contain no unreacted thermite at all.


But it was precisely this which lead them to conclude it was not thermite, but nano or super-thermite, which ignites at lower temperatures.


As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430ºC, 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 900ºC) but very likely a form of super-thermite.



[edit on 4-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   


You say thermite-like reactions in the WTC dust should not be considered anomalous because: "During the high temperature incineration process in oxidizing atmosphere, aluminum and iron (steel) are converted to their oxides. In the absence of glass, the maximum rate of oxidation of iron (steel) is below 1200° C. and the maximum rate of oxidation of aluminum occurs at 1375° C. As a result, at 1200° C. molten aluminum metal is in contact with iron oxides (FeO, Fe 3 O 4 , Fe 2 O 3 ) and a violent thermite reaction between the aluminum metal and iron oxides is initiated."

They should be considered anomalous. There is no way the heat generated from burning jet fuel had enough time to oxidize the amount of iron needed to carry out such a violent reaction. The amount of iron oxides generated would be quite small in such a situation, and even if native thermite reactions occurred they would in turn be quite minuscule. I don't buy this theory at all.

One of the byproducts of a thermite reaction is red hot molten iron and aluminum oxide. Remember all the images of molten iron leaking from the windows? Where did this come from? If burning jet fuel caused rapid oxidation of the iron and then ignited some type of fairy tale thermite reaction there is still no way it made its way down several floors. It would have been localized to the immediate vicinity. Not only that, but the molten iron would not have been POURING out.

Let's also consider the sheer amount of molten iron present after collapse. It's said that the cleanup crews noted red hot molten iron under all the debris weeks after the event took place. Where did this molten iron come from? There is no way it was generated during the collapse by some kind of miraculous kinetic friction event.

A few more things: There are various styles of thermite. Some react at a higher temperature, and some react at a lower temperature. Adulterants can be added to decrease ignition temperate. Decreasing particle size of said iron oxide and aluminum powder would also decrease ignition temperature. I should also note that the thermite reaction does not have to use aluminum or iron oxide. These can be replaced with other oxides and/or metals as long as the principles of the reaction is kept in mind.

I'm sorry, but there shouldn't even be any debate over this. The beams were cut with a thermite based compound. This greatly compromised stability, and then the final charges were ignited. The rest is history.

Riddle me this: the owner(s) of the WTC buildings would only be able to collect insurance money in the case of a structural failure, and not a controlled demolition, right? Sounds like a case of insurance fraud to me, but maybe this conjecturing of mine is pointless. This point may be mute, but my others are valid.

I'm also thinking about the neatness of the operation. The buildings fell in the classic demolition style collapse. Would terrorists even care if collateral damage occurred? I don't believe they would've even taken the care to properly carry out the exercise. I mean come on, wouldn't they rather take out as much as possible? It seems like terrorists would rather the buildings fall sideways. Sure collateral damage did occur, but it would've been much more devastating if they had fallen sideways.

Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong, and I'm sure some of you won't hesitate to do so.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Aleilius]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aleilius
Riddle me this: the owner(s) of the WTC buildings would only be able to collect insurance money in the case of a structural failure, and not a controlled demolition, right? Sounds like a case of insurance fraud to me, but maybe this conjecturing of mine is pointless. This point may be mute, but my others are valid.


Your other points sound valid to me, and speculation about an insurance fraud perpetrated by Larry Silverstein is understandable. The particulars of his insurance claims, his "Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it” comment and the fact that he, his daughter and son all failed to keep their scheduled meetings in the WTC that morning, provide potent grounds for suspicion.

Indeed, without knowing any of these circumstances, Dutch demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, concluded the WTC 7 was demoed after the attack to save the otherwise huge cost of repair or safe deconstruction work. Were that the case, the subsequent insurance claim would be a scam.

We cannot assume direct involvement in the crime from the suspicious circumstances pertaining to Silverstein. They might only indicate foreknowledge and cover-up. Besides, given that cutting charges must have been laid before 9/11, the crime in question is far graver than insurance fraud.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Sorry, but only a moron would believe that those three buildings collapsed in the fashion that they did without explosives of some kind. I've seen many buildings demolished and they all look the same; exactly like those buildings on that fateful day.

Looks like they found the smoking gun evidence.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
After reading the paper, the biggest discrepancy I note is that the material is extractable with methyl ethyl ketone. Given that and the elemental composition of the material before and after, I recommend that Jones study paints, especially metal primers, in his next experiment.


[edit on 4/4/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Bits of melted plane stuck to oxidized iron beams would be expected to be found.


On every single piece of steel collected and tested? That's some dispersment of the aluminum.


Red iron oxide is not a component of commercial thermite.


Who said anything about commercial thermite?


Reaction of elemental aluminum with a transition metal oxide is also expected.


Really? Please quote a source with precedence or your own scientific findings. If it is your own study, please show a reproducible lab experiment so we can peer review it.


This "publication" is as worthy as the others in Stevie's captive journal that publishes all sorts of unscientific garbage and claims to be "peer reviewed."


And there comes the insult. It's really getting old guys and gals.



This is not evidence of anything but a fire with aluminum and steel present.


Please present experimental data to back up your "claims".



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I read the paper and edited my post. See above.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
After reading the paper, the biggest discrepancy I note is that the material is extractable with methyl ethyl ketone. Given that and the elemental composition of the material before and after, I recommend that Jones study paints, especially metal primers, in his next experiment.


So, the steel was painted and primed? Or do you mean primed for fire suppression?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Could there have been thermite in the airplanes???? Just a question.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by wasaamerican
Could there have been thermite in the airplanes???? Just a question.

Not a practical plan. Igniting it on impact would have been obvious. To do any damage, there would have to be tons of the stuff, and to melt beams it would need contact for seconds to minutes.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Well it could have been in the suitcases thta would leave time for hesitation depending on what they where made of. Some of the bad guys I met worked in german airports.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, the steel was painted and primed? Or do you mean primed for fire suppression?


Extraction with MEK and the before and after backscatter compositions say "paint." Red primer comes to mind. There are analytical techniques that could readily identify paint, such as FT-IR or Raman of the individual chips or extracts. Jones assumed thermite so that is what he analyzed for.





new topics

top topics



 
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join