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

reply to post by wasaamerican

What I meant by seconds to minutes was for the reaction to occur for that time while the thermite was touching the target beams, not a time delay. Impact would tend to scatter the thermite.

There are a few things I don't get about this claim about thermite...

First, if my understanding is correct, thermite is Little more than powdered aluminum with maybe Some other components. Since the towers were famous for being clad in aluminum, how can there not be "traces of aluminum" found in the wreckage? Claiming the residue must be thermite is like saying a bakery must have secretly been brewing beer because yeast was found there.

Second, the girders in the towers were huge, and thick as battleship armor, to support the weight of the towers. They would need tons of the stuff to destroy the towers, with wires strung up all over the place Like Christmas lights to set them off. There'd be no way to hide it from the, what, 50,000 people who worked in the towers, not to mention the army of full time custodians, inspectors, electricians, etc. whose Job it was to inspect every nook and cranny in their Job duties anyway.

Third, the girders didn't Just evaporate when the towers fell. They Littered the whole area, and despite the hundreds of volunteers and workmen at ground Zero, not one, not one living soul, ever found evidence of melted or cut girders. I've seen the photos, and all the girders were snapped Like twigs or broken at the Joints, not cut.

Then there's the most glaring problem: Bush was a putz. An administration that couldn't even give bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels, or out a CIA agent without hordes of Journalists tracing it back to him, could hardly pull off the most complex conspiracy in recorded human history with the sheer flawless perfection of a Supernatural act without leaving so much as a whisper of evidence behind.

Yeah, It's fun to hypothesize conspiracies as a mental exercise, but trying to flesh them out in the real world doesn't always work. If anything I posted is incorrect, please enlighten me.

Of course the tin foil loons never consider other sources of alumium/iron
oxides and spheroids

Much of the heavy steel columns were cut using thermal lances aka
burning bars - metal tube with aluminium and/or iron rods feed oxygen
and lit with torch. Would burn at 7000 degrees and cut through anything -
steel or concrete like butter.

Here are pictures of thermal lances in operation

www.motorsportsartist.com...

home.hiwaay.net...

We're discussing two different things, that's OK.

1. The temperature of the fires
2. Chemical archeology of the event

My view on the temperature of the fires is based on the color of the smoke, which is a good indicator, as pointed out bythisauthor:

It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

An element that's important to me is that in criticizing opposing viewpoints, very often the language of the truth movement is couched scientifically, but skewed to assert parameters as given, but which have originated as assumptions.

The above quote provides a good example. How is “...the maximum 1,000°C”? Is he saying it's impossible that the fire wasn't hotter?

My understanding as a lab & field applied science technician (not a chemist EA ) is:

Black smoke = < 1000 deg C

Red smoke = 900 to 1200 deg C

White smoke = > 1000 deg C


OK, so he uses his photo:
www.plaguepuppy.net...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d1c7f1477ca.jpg[/atsimg]



Others show the plume much whiter:
www.libertynews.org.nyud.net:8090...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/697b35e3274a.gif[/atsimg]



Above I mention chemical archeology.

Again I make the point that there would remain an extensive chemical record of the event, available to anyone who cared to collect and analyse the samples.

Again I make the point that all combustion reactions, including it's hypersonic form (detonation) and in its pyrotechnic form (ignition of thermite, for example) is always, without exception, 100% of the time a reaction that does not complete.

Mixed almost perfectly throughout the profile of the dust clouds, there would be identifiable amounts of the compounds used if such an idiotic scheme had actually been implemented.

Means - Motive - Operendi

With the proofs in your article, combined with the following summation from 2006 ... there should be no question.

onlinejournal.com...

The real bottom line was that the Towers were two financial white elephants. And both Silverstein and Greenberg had to know that. The tenancy was dropping. They were out of date. And most dangerously, they were asbestos bombs, loaded with the dangerous building material when they were completed in 1972-73.

By law the buildings could not be taken down by internal demolition. And since it would cost a billion dollars or more to take the towers down beam by beam, it would be at great loss to the Port of Authority or its leaseholder. Thus the reasons are obvious to take WTC down in act of terror also a false-flag operation. Remember, the concept for the WTC Towers originated with the Nelson and David Rockefeller, members of the Council on Foreign Relations and among the world’s elites. A “New Pearl Harbor” would serve those interests well.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam



And combined Operation Northwood’s with your information, and you will see the similarities. But this time they pulled it off and got away with it.

The largest daily newspaper in Denmark, "Politiken", got the article in todays edition with the following headline:

"CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT 9/11 ARE GETTING NEW LIFE.

A new analysis render it likely that explosives were present in WTC on 9/11."


politiken.dk...


Many thanks to you, dear editor!



[edit on 5-4-2009 by djeminy]

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

From page 1:

Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint
chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown
that this was not the case.

I'm guessing you didn't read this far?

[edit on 4/5/2009 by Griff]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
First, if my understanding is correct, thermite is Little more than powdered aluminum with maybe Some other components. Since the towers were famous for being clad in aluminum, how can there not be "traces of aluminum" found in the wreckage? Claiming the residue must be thermite is like saying a bakery must have secretly been brewing beer because yeast was found there.

Can you explain how this aluminum became nano-sized?

Also, these chips are more than just "traces of aluminum".

Second, the girders in the towers were huge, and thick as battleship armor, to support the weight of the towers. They would need tons of the stuff to destroy the towers, with wires strung up all over the place Like Christmas lights to set them off. There'd be no way to hide it from the, what, 50,000 people who worked in the towers, not to mention the army of full time custodians, inspectors, electricians, etc. whose Job it was to inspect every nook and cranny in their Job duties anyway.

Weak argument. First, you say it would take tons of thermite, but yet you think fire did the exact same thing.

Second, if this material is easily applied (like a paint) who is going to be the wiser?

Third, the girders didn't Just evaporate when the towers fell. They Littered the whole area, and despite the hundreds of volunteers and workmen at ground Zero, not one, not one living soul, ever found evidence of melted or cut girders. I've seen the photos, and all the girders were snapped Like twigs or broken at the Joints, not cut.

You've seen photos of every piece of steel? Wow, you got a better look than the NIST team then.

Then there's the most glaring problem: Bush was a putz. An administration that couldn't even give bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels, or out a CIA agent without hordes of Journalists tracing it back to him, could hardly pull off the most complex conspiracy in recorded human history with the sheer flawless perfection of a Supernatural act without leaving so much as a whisper of evidence behind.

I would say un-reacted thermitic chemicals is "a whisper of evidence" left behind. Eh? I wonder why NIST still refuses to do an analysis of the steel for chemical residues?

Yeah, It's fun to hypothesize conspiracies as a mental exercise, but trying to flesh them out in the real world doesn't always work. If anything I posted is incorrect, please enlighten me.

Your wish is my command.

[edit on 4/5/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by thedman


Do thermal lances produce a red/grey chips all over every piece of steel collected?

Do thermal lances produce red/grey chips that are identical to un-reacted thermite all over every single piece of steel?

Originally posted by thedman
Here are pictures of thermal lances in operation

www.motorsportsartist.com...

That's some steady hand to make that perfect 45 degree cut with perfectly straight cuts from a thermal lance.

BTW, I thought all those "grooves" meant that that column was cut by an oxyacetylene torch? Can't have it both ways ya know.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There are a few things I don't get about this claim about thermite...

First, if my understanding is correct, thermite is Little more than powdered aluminum with maybe Some other components. Since the towers were famous for being clad in aluminum, how can there not be "traces of aluminum" found in the wreckage? Claiming the residue must be thermite is like saying a bakery must have secretly been brewing beer because yeast was found there.

You're misrepresenting what was found in the wreckage. It's a lot more than "traces of aluminum."

There'd be no way to hide it from the, what, 50,000 people who worked in the towers, not to mention the army of full time custodians, inspectors, electricians, etc. whose Job it was to inspect every nook and cranny in their Job duties anyway.

Just curious why you wouldn't believe the firefighters who saw flashing lights during the detonations and who said it looked just like a controlled demolition, or the WTC building engineer who heard explosions from the sub-levels both before and after the planes impacted the towers?

It's one thing to conclude it would've been too massive and sophisticated to be a controlled demolition, but another to ignore or dismiss the MANY witnesses who heard "secondary explosions" or the firefighters and law enforcement who warned of "secondary devices."

Third, the girders didn't Just evaporate when the towers fell. They Littered the whole area, and despite the hundreds of volunteers and workmen at ground Zero, not one, not one living soul, ever found evidence of melted or cut girders. I've seen the photos, and all the girders were snapped Like twigs or broken at the Joints, not cut.

Not true. There are many photos of standing girders at the base cut at an angle. I've also read posts from professional salvage workers who say they'd NEVER cut beams at an angle. It's not only much more difficult, but highly dangerous.

Then there's the most glaring problem: Bush was a putz. An administration that couldn't even give bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels, or out a CIA agent without hordes of Journalists tracing it back to him, could hardly pull off the most complex conspiracy in recorded human history with the sheer flawless perfection of a Supernatural act without leaving so much as a whisper of evidence behind.

What makes you think Bush was anything more than a trained chimp who did what he was told? If you think Cheney, Rumsfeld and the PNAC "New Pearl Harbor" cabal was incapable of pulling this off, well, you should think again.

It's a much bigger stretch to argue that 9/11 could've been missed by U.S. intelligence agencies or intercepted by fighter jets over several hours by the world's most sophisticated military.

And what makes you think there wasn't a "whisper of evidence" left behind? There's more than enough evidence (or lack of evidence) in the Pentagon and WTC 7 alone (not to mention the "dancing Israelis" who were arrested on 9/11 attempting to blow up the George Washington bridge) for any competent prosecutor to get a criminal conviction.

Yeah, It's fun to hypothesize conspiracies as a mental exercise, but trying to flesh them out in the real world doesn't always work. If anything I posted is incorrect, please enlighten me.

For anyone who's taken the time and effort to investigate 9/11 beyond the ridiculous and impossible official story, it's way beyond hypothesis, but there's nothing fun about it. To think that our own government is capable of first degree mass murder of their own citizens is horrific and unsettling.

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

Let's assume it is just paint. Shouldn't the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST), HAZMAT, OSHA et al be slightly interested in a commercial steel paint out there that has thermitic qualities?

Also, could you please explain how NANO sized aluminum particles were even possible in the late 60's/early 70's. Thanks.




[edit on 4/5/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 4/5/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by djeminy


Hopefully they will soon translate the 9-11 article for this edition
Politiken.dk in English

Originally posted by SPreston
Hopefully they will soon translate the 9-11 article for this edition

Translated here:

/cpoysn

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

From page 1:

Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint
chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown
that this was not the case.

I'm guessing you didn't read this far?

[edit on 4/5/2009 by Griff]

Yes, but the way that they ruled out paint was to compare the red chips to "paint" to see how MEK affected both. This is disingenuous, because the type of paint and its drying time and post drying environmental conditions would have to be replicated if this high school chem lab type of analysis were to have any substance at all. FTIR or laser raman would have been a better analytical technique. This proves nothing other than the presence of an organic binder.
I also question the DTA/DSC analysis. Note that they are not keeping the material in an inert atmosphere when heating it but are flowing air over it. If it was thermite it wouldn't need air to react. If it was only the aluminum oxidizing it would. If that were the case, it would have more thermal energy on a w/w basis than thermite... which, not surprisingly, is exactly what the paper claimed.

Shoddy analysis gets Stevie more limelight but proves absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

Let's assume it is just paint. Shouldn't the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST), HAZMAT, OSHA et al be slightly interested in a commercial steel paint out there that has thermitic qualities?

Also, could you please explain how NANO sized aluminum particles were even possible in the late 60's/early 70's. Thanks.

What thermitic properties? Elemental aluminum burns in air.

"Nano-" is the latest favorite prefix of the popular science press. Nano- sized particles were always possible. What was difficult was producing them, on demand, in a narrow particle size range and at low cost. Even now, agglomeration is always a problem.

Originally posted by pteridine
high school chem lab type of analysis

Yes, I'm sure university professors know not what they are doing.

Pot shot number from you.

Stevie

Pot shot number two.

Something wrong? Heat getting a little hot for you (pun intended) that you can't debate without the names and pot shots? And that includes thedman too.

Originally posted by pteridine
What thermitic properties? Elemental aluminum burns in air.

So, you are saying that we work in death traps. Better hurry and let OSHA know. You wouldn't want that on your shoulders if other buildings decide to explode when on fire now would you?

"Nano-" is the latest favorite prefix of the popular science press. Nano- sized particles were always possible. What was difficult was producing them, on demand, in a narrow particle size range and at low cost. Even now, agglomeration is always a problem.

So, how did these nano-sized aluminum particles get into a paint from the 60-70's? Are you saying that this paint company just happened to accidentally produce these?