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

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You are leaving out the significant fact that the horizontal support braces were designed to hold up only the one floor, and were rated to hold up only that one floor's worth of weight. It wasn't holding up the one floor's worth of weight plus the weight of all the floors above it, the way most other buildings are designed and the way the doubting Thomases incorrectly believe they were.

NIST found that one floor had a factor of safety of 11. That's 11 times it's own load.

But, you will say dynamic load and I'll tell you that NIST also found that each floor could hold 6 in dynamic load.

So, tell me again how 6 floors worth of vertical support just gave way all at once again. You may say that the cap was over 6 stories tall. But, then I'd have to ask you what caused the cap to become detached in the first place to cause it to fall.

Once the floors began to fall, the stress would have been transferred to the vertical support columns in the core and on the exterior walls horizontally, rather than vertically.

Not really. The vertical support columns held the floors from day one. No amount of floor failure would stress the columns anymore than they already are. Other than what is stated below.

I think you might be thinking of Euler's buckling. It's the theory (law...not sure) that states a long slender column will buckle if not horizontally braced.

But, then we have to remember that the interior core columns were internally braced. What happened to the core that made it come down with the floors?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, becuase every video of the collapse in existence shows that the structural failure begain up at the ninety-somethingth floor, where the aircraft hit, and proceeded downward in a chain reaction. It didn't start down in the underground parking lot.

Just hypothetically:

If the core were severed in any way after the plane strikes and anywhere below them, would the collapse look the same from the outside?

Meaning: Of course it's going to collapse from it's weakest point on the exterior.

Thus, whichever scenario actually happened, it necessarily has to take into account that it had to have happened at the location where the aircraft crashed into the buildings.

This is false as I've stated above.

[edit on 4/24/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Melted steel? Oh you mean the red hot beam and debris (of which we know neither the composition or what the heck it was) being pulled out of the pile? If it was molten, then a claw from an excavator wouldnt be able to pick it up now can it? Try picking up a melted popsicle. But seriously Griff, we do not know what that debris was and where it came from. I do agree it is obviously hot, and there is something falling off the ends, but thats about as far as we can go with trying to figure out what it is. Tezz is always asking for serial numbers of every shred of the aircraft to prove it is what it is, because without it he doesnt believe. As for the molten whatever is being pulled out, we need more information as to what it was, ie an analysis of the debris, where was it from, what was it, etc etc. One cant be nitpicky on one topic, while accept another on face value without the same pickyness.

Molten Metal
Iron Burns

Griff, as I have posted before, these two links give a better alternate reason, which is more likely as to why the pile was cooking the way it was for so many weeks. But as I said, to understand what is said it is best to read through the whole thing to understand chemical reactions (NON-therm*te) that also occur in such environments. and I know, is a heck of a long read, but the info is there and it does make a lot more sense than having therm*te somehow planted everywhere in paint-form and in dust and in special explosive form.

Isnt it strange Griff, that the NIST and FEMA would bother mentioning "molten steel" if it is also connected with the entire conspiracy? Why didnt they just omit it? I dont think it would have been THAT hard to exclude these reports. Unless you expect me to believe they didnt get memo from the "inside job" crew that is suppose to control everything of the attacks and clean up. I dont know Griff, but I thought FEMA is suppose to be a part of the grand NWO plan, and as such, be able to control everything in the reports and stuff. And for them to go through all this trouble of making it look like a terrorist attack, and then have it all blown by mentioning "molten steel" in one of their very own reports! Seems unlikely.

[edit on 4/24/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by turbofan

Much more likely than three towers falling for the first time ever on the
same day due to fire.

So you agree that after :06 and 23 degrees, the hinge 'snaps' and the
top section begins to come down toward Earth at this point.

It would follow that the West wall of the upper section (the side previously
hinged) should remain at a constant length as the upper block crushes
the remainder of the tower.

note: this side of the tower had no "drop distance" and therefore did not
slam into any lower section of the tower.

Do you agree with this fact of physics and as required by your hinge theory?

turbofan, as you can see in the video, the area that was hinged did snap. Now as it began its descent, is also impacts the area below, if it didnt already start collapsing from the failures of the floors from the other side.

When the hinge snaps, it means it is no longer connected to the rest of the tower. The top section is already on the way down. The west side (ie the longer side) is also falling down. It get destroyed. you have to remember that the whole building is falling apart and no one part will stay completely solid.

Also it is important to notice that the "hinge" could have also been the core columns failing on one side, with the exterior columns connecting and holding up that side. Its important to remember the floor and columns design of the WTCs.

Here is a graphic showing how the WTC deformed prior to collapse!
WTC Deformed

[edit on 4/24/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Then explain why we keep arguing if there was molten steel?

Why would FEMA mention molten steel and then all of a sudden John Gross (who probably was even on the FEMA team) denies any molten metal at all with a smug look on his face?

Also, how does the possibility of other eutectic reactions occurring in the rubble pile negate the possibility of therm*te being used to aid in the collapse?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Here is a graphic showing how the WTC deformed prior to collapse!
WTC Deformed

Does anyone else notice something missing?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dcda24fcff21.jpg[/atsimg]

That pesky core structure can't be explained away so let's just ignore it.

reply to post by Griff


Griff...I noticed that too, but as I read down deeper I did see the central core mentined, and even diagramed in another picture.

As to the clip you showed, perhaps it would have been too cluttered?

Or, the intent was to explain just the one aspect, the forces acting on the outer vertical columns and their relation to the truss beams. I know that sometimes when explaining complex concepts it is best to start with simple explanations, then add on more detail. Sorta like the way we teach mathematics (or flying!!)

Just my tuppence...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Thus, whichever scenario actually happened, it necessarily has to take into account that it had to have happened at the location where the aircraft crashed into the buildings.

So the Young Modulus of the core and perimeter columns spontaneously went to zero somehow then?

I'm sure glad we've got such a crack team of physicists, structural engineers, metallurgists, and materials scientists on this thread. I learn something every day here.... [/sarc]

Why don't you "master debunkers" do yourselves (and us) a favor:

www.thefreedictionary.com...

www.answers.com...

The Ambiguity of Pronouns in Samuel Johnson's Rambler No. 172
www.victorianweb.org...

Edit: While you're at it, this is the thing that I've found to be most deficient in your collective "debunking:"

APA Citation Style
www.library.cornell.edu...


[edit on 24-4-2009 by rhunter]

Originally posted by rhunter
Edit: Can someone provide us with a link where the molten materials "were explained time and again?"

Bump for General Radek. I'm still waiting on a source for that "steel" melting point too, weedwhacker.

Edit: Here's a "pearl" from GenRadek's link above (from Electrical Engineer Mark R. Ferran, presumably):

Not only does it [iron] burn/oxidize, but it can burn/oxidize at low temperatures.

Hint:
www.thefreedictionary.com...

So those "rust belt" cars and trucks have been "on fire" for years then?

[edit on 24-4-2009 by rhunter]

[edit on 24-4-2009 by rhunter]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Bait and switch. I was discussing how the floors fell. I wasn't discussing what happened to the support columns as yet.

You are calling me out for a bait and switch on your thread derail? This topic is about active thermitic material being found in the dust, which you fellas have yet to provide an example of any paint that has the properties of the chips being discussed.

For that, you haven't been reading ExilAxis' posts. He posted...or at least, I believe he was the one who posted it, I'll need to double check... a quite beautiful photo of one of the support girders that shows it had been bent over in a ghastly angle before tearing like a piece of paper. NOT cut, NOT melted, but TORN. It's clear that as the floors fell the columns were being pushed/pulled sideways by their connections to the floors and they were literally torn and/or broken to pieces.

No, it's not clear, unless you are suggesting the floors held up the columns and not the other way around. How would a failed connection from the floor to the column break the column?

Thus, I do not have to tell you that whatever vertical structural strength the columns may have had, it was negated once the forces of the collapse began pushing and pulling them horizontally.

And I still don't get why you believe and entire floor fell 12 feet. Not only, as Griff pointed out, were the floors capable of holding many times their weight(so they should have been able to hold the next floor ups weight plus their own with out failure), but how did an entire floors connections to the core and perimeter fail at once to allow an entire floor to drop 12 ft to the next? I know the sagging you mentioned earlier, but do you have any proof that the sagging floor failed, and further, any proof that it wasn't just a localized failure, but an entire floor falling at once? Perhaps a video of this sagging floor collapsing?

reply to post by rhunter


Well maybe if you would bother reading the links I posted earlier, you may see and learn something about chemistry. Rather than ridicule what you obviously dont understand, how about read it, and then let your mind grow. Knowledge is power.

But I guess things you dont understand will always seem like magic or voodoo. Sad really, as basic chemistry is being mocked by you. Oh well. I guess if you cannot figure something as simple as what rust (oxidation) is in terms of chemistry then how are you suppose to understand more complex issues like therm*te and other higher forms of sciences? not trying to insult you, but seriously questioning your reasoning.

Oh and here is a hint as to what combustion is:
combustion
Noun
1. the process of burning
2. a chemical reaction in which a substance combines with oxygen to produce heat and light [Latin comburere to burn up]

And for fun, what is rust? (ie oxidation) And how does it form?

[edit on 4/24/2009 by GenRadek]

You can check and you will find that I rarely enter into these discussions about this subject. It is full of some serious implications that could end up destroying this nation that I love. It is full of anger and bitterness as well and it is all fully justified and righteous for the most part.

I remember on that day sitting in front of a bank of internet connected computers and 3 monitors on different news channels as I do most mornings. I am an information junky and a tireless digital packrat. I can mostly be found at the computer, even if I am at the gym, or the gun range, or shopping.

That day I was early because I wanted to do a commercial for the shop I was working at. I had just hooked into the digital recorder and started checking email and then it happened.

I was in abject disbelief as my mind told me that what was happening seemed implausible given that I was raised in an airforce family and was aware from hearing my folks talk about such things when we lived in that DC area it was protected by air defense batteries.

Someone would have had to tell air defense to stand down if a non responding aircraft flew into intercept range. Only a military flight with special permission could penetrate that air space. When we were stationed at a TAC base right near there I heard my mom say that if someone just went the wrong way in that air space they risk being shot out of the sky.

Then on my mind was my own military training in explosives as I was an inquisitive student and I tended to get all information out of an instructor as I could. My knowledge of cutting charge placement and controlled demolition is good but not good enough to bring down 3 building in that perfect of a manner as far as dropping them each in their own foot prints thus avoiding as much damage to the surrounding area as possible.

I was watching the BBC on one TV to get the British reaction and witnessed the lady in front of the WTC7 when it was still there standing saying that it had collapsed. I figured at the time it was a false background which is often used to keep the TV person out of harms way but seemingly in the scene for on the spot reporting effect.

So I did not put 2 and 2 together on that one until it was pointed out years later. Lets just say that while I am certainly no scholar for 9/11 truth I have enough life experience, training, and understanding of physics that I just rejected the whole thing as a staged event.

The thought was shaking. My business partner was a first Gulf War vet and his special operations training had his skin visibly crawling when he digested this information with me on that morning.

I remember he and I talking that morning mulling over the shocking days events recording everything we could and he said to me questioning; "I wonder how they got that much explosive into the building and got it to work that perfectly. It is nearly impossible to get a building to fall like that without weeks of prep and for that size of a building tons of material; trails off then said "Who was in charge of security in those buildings and who could have pulled off that kind of demolition that perfectly and how?"

I had to think on that one and had no answer for him but shortly after that I realized he was asking himself not me. He then said he would make some discrete inquiries. I remember a week later I saw him talking on the phone and he was visibly shaken. He was looking devastated. I ask him to elaborate and he would just shake his head and talk about protecting his children and his wife. He started to drink heavily and would tell me about some of the horrors he experienced attached to drug interdiction in Central America. Haunting things that disturbed him at night some times.

When he was done he would only say that this time we are living in scared him more than any nightmare of close combat or haunting collateral damage memories.

I have never talked about it publicly but this latest paper which I read done by this highly qualified and capable team of research scientist just put so many pieces together for me. It suddenly tied the technical with the possible in a way that no scientific paper I have ever read has on the subject of the towers collapse has. I have read them all by the way.

The kind of operational methodology that automatically formed in my mind from this new evidence was as equally shaking at the original event. Clearly from the literal mountain of the loaded gun that was all over the place no one saw what was in front of their faces. This because this material was engineered in such a way that at the time it would not have been noticed by most experts. It was so new of a material to emerge from the black ops world that no one outside of a small technical circle even knew about it.

To boot it was the same color bright red as you would expect of a fire proofing paint to be. It contained a polymer binder and the other 80% of the ratio was composed of this nano-thermite which if designed to be self leveling and self assembling and would form something like a cross between a detonation cord and a thermite charge.

The security contractor has been pointed out already as being Bush family connected. I need not labor the point but I am betting this is what my ex-special forces combat vet friend found out with his inquiries. He has never been the same. His life went to pieces after that but I will not elaborate on that point.

The trail of evidence is beginning to have a clear direction it seems. The Reichtag Fire indeed. How diabolical. No one in their right mind would want to think this was the the truth of this subject. That allows evil to do its heinous deeds right in your face I guess.

In Jan., 1933, when Adolf Hitler Hitler, Adolf (ä`dôlf hĭt`lər) became chancellor without an absolute majority, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections were set for Mar. 5; a violent election campaign ensued. On Feb. 27, 1933, a fire destroyed part of the Reichstag building. Hitler immediately accused the Communists of having set the fire. President von Hindenburg proclaimed a state of emergency and issued decrees suspending freedom of speech and assembly.

History repeats itself. Will we ever learn?

[edit on 4/24/2009 by UFOTECH]

reply to post by UFOTECH


The scientists are not highly qualified or capable given that they did some poor experimental work and had gaping logic faults.
No evidence.

reply to post by pteridine


Care to elaborate on the logic faults and faulty experiment work. I read the same paper and their work looks pretty solid to me. The spectrograph work was very compelling as well as the observation of the material under SEM.

The combustion profile was a practical match for the target material. The micro spheres for instance. That data was highly compelling. You can not get away with a couple of lines in substancesless rebuttal of that entire paper with tests done on a variety of instruments. Go troll that unthinking spunk some place else.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

Sorry I missed this.

Have you observed the DSC curve for this, "sawdust"?

Just wondering if you noticed the temperature scale and energy release
per gram?

Did you also notice the control sample of superthermite which was tested
under the same conditions?

A simple, "yes", or "no" answer will suffice.

Thanks.

Yes, I brought the scale to the attention of others when I explained Jones' faulty science. The energy for thermite is low because the weight of the oxide is high. Burning aluminum in air would have a much higher value. To do the calculations for yourself, look up heats of combustion and divide by the molecular or gram-formula weight to get energy per gram. I would be surprised if Jones ever bothers to answer you because he will only get himself in deeper.

reply to post by UFOTECH


I have pointed them out on this thread and a duplicate thread. Search on my name and look at the pertinent posts. Jones' team is either incompetent or is perpetrating fraud.

reply to post by impressme


WW,
I see that you still do not understand what I have written. Perhaps you should show, point by point why Jone's paper is good science. You should easily be able to prove me wrong with your knowledge of the internet.

reply to post by pteridine


How many papers have you read on nano-thermite? Have you read the unclassified ones at least? When he first mentioned this and I read their paper I had to go and do some digging on just that thing. His energy calculations were based on combustion testing of the left over material that was obviously undetonated. It likely was undetonated because its low concentration or imperfectly nano-material structure if it was indeed nano-thermite which has some very interesting characteristics.

I suppose you are a nano-energetics chemist as well and worked for the government labs that developed these materials? Have you compared his experimental data to actual nano-thermite material or are you basing your opinion on his very limited research using macro scale thermite for a comparison?

reply to post by UFOTECH


There is no nano-engineered thermite in the samples that were analyzed. Look at the SEM photos and it becomes obvious. The particle sizes are all over the map. There is no proof of elemental aluminum. There is only proof of carbonaceous binder which burns in the air flowing in the DSC. The energy/gram results vary widely depending on the individual samples because of variations in amounts of binder to unreactive materials such as aluminosilicate clays.

posted by GenRadek
Here is a graphic showing how the WTC deformed prior to collapse!
WTC Deformed

posted by Griff
That pesky core structure can't be explained away so let's just ignore it.

Are not these 'government loyalists' just the most dishonest people you have ever seen? They do this all the time; trying to snow their opponents while imagining they will not see through their lies and half truths.