Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

Originally posted by mmiichael
I claim some but not sufficient scientific background to accept fully or refute knowledgeably every facet of the chemical and engineering components of the collapses. But, within reason, I attempt to review what is out there, from all sides of the fence.

Sounds like a cop out to me. "Within reason" to you is apparently dismissing even federal reports out-of-hand simply because they don't serve to justify what you already believe. I don't consider that reasonable. I even trust most of the data the NIST team gave in their reports, because the manipulation in those reports didn't come from the experimental data but from the methodology and what they ultimately proved and didn't prove. The reports are really pretty straightforward and telling in themselves if you really look at them, like the part of the FEMA report I just linked you to, for example.

Where my biases do come in, is the observation of consistently manipulated data and forced conclusions

You mean like how FEMA and NIST started with the hypothesis that the planes and fires alone brought down the buildings and never investigated any other theories? Or how they never even bothered to find out why a eutectic reaction had occurred on the surface of steel columns recovered from the buildings, because it didn't have anything to do with their theoretical failure mechanism? Is that not forcing conclusions? I suppose you would say "no" but at the same time you won't even read the same federal reports I'm talking about with an open mind when they say anything you don't want to read.

I do not see this in the sources that go to great length to scientifically explain what happened as being a combination of uncontrolled fires and loss of structural integrity.

FEMA actually does not conclude what happened to WTC7 and just says further investigation is needed. They said the same about the melted steel samples in the appendix I linked you to. NIST never followed up on the melted steel, and if you want to get into their WTC7 report we can.

My admitted prejudice is in accepting demonstrably solid science as opposed to the more dubious strains.

It doesn't get much more demonstrable than the chemical analyses presented in that appendix. Still waiting for a legitimate response to that, at least an acknowledgment that you assumed wrong about the existence of it.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus


Just a quick question for Pterdine and Michael.

Do you believe the official story? or

Do you believe the Govt did allowed it to happen? or

Do you believe something else??????

[snip]


I have been reading materials from both sides of the fence for about 2 years now and it seems (to me) overwhelmingly obvious that 911 was an INSIDE JOB.

[snip]

Either the Govt has made it look like it was them or it was them. I will go for the latter on this one.

I can only answer for myself, naturally.

I have read equal amounts on both sides of the fence. The INSIDE JOB stuff may sounds convincing, but specifics all seem to fade in the sunlight.

From what I have been told, the American intelligence community was severely fragmented and withholding communication from each other in 2001.

I have the impression there were some people cognizant of an impending major attack on lower Manhattan. How high up this knowledge filtered and in what detail I can only guess.

The narrower focus of this long thread pertains to the collapse of the WTC structures, and evidence of controlled demolition. I argue from the feasibility and logistics perspective, as well as rationale. My oft repeated query - why risk getting busted to destroy further already destroyed buildings? Were more death and devastation required on the same day after the horrifying destruction caused by two fuel laden planes flown into buildings and so many innocents sickeningly killed?

The convoluted pseudo-science I have seen supporting the controlled demolition claim is not convincing.

I find the emphasis on this aspect of 9/11 inordinate. I think because there is so much to examine in the way of video and photos, accounts, and so many opportunities for amateur scientific speculation.

Once you move away from the controlled demolition, there is less real scrutiny applied to the more serious aspects of the alleged 'false flag' operation supposedly engineered by the US administration.

Paraphrasing another ATS member, inadequately addressed in the search for evidence:

- how, when and by whom it was planned?
- where is the paper trail?
- who supplied the explosives, detonation charges, cabling & control devices?
- when, what types, how much?
- where is anyone going on record who fitted out the buildings for demolition?
- where is the recorded communication to support such a huge operation, which would involve hundreds over a long period of time?
- where is someone on record having seen any of this, or having any reliable information about it?


I don't know what the Official Version is. I get the sense that the out-of-hand rejection of whatever it is, in favour of contorted logic and twisted data, comes more from a need for rebellion rather than a quest for truth.

A vast self-sustaining sub-culture has developed. Many find a desperately needed sense of purpose and identity in it. They're instant heroic fighting truth-seekers, in the luxury of their own home.

Eight plus years of absorbing as much as I can on the subject has convinced me that Middle Eastern terrorists hijacked 4 passenger planes and successfully attacked 3 major US landmarks. I have seen nothing to dissuade me from the scientifically supported evidence that the collisions and fires caused the complete destructions and collapses as reported.

I'm sure details in the analysis of the causes of the WTC building collapses will be further refined. But from the overwhelming amount of hard data and objective reporting I've seen, what has been widely reported is sound.

Ironically reading the so often specious arguments of Truth seekers on ATS has shaped my conclusions more than anything.


Mike


[edit on 28-4-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Just curious mmiichael, if anybody else ever mentions the eutectic reactions that took place on WTC columns, sulfidating the steel and lowering its melting point, are you still going to dismiss it out of hand and cover your eyes and ears to anything about it? Or have you looked at the report and seen it yourself?

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Just curious mmiichael, if anybody else ever mentions the eutectic reactions that took place on WTC columns, sulfidating the steel and lowering its melting point, are you still going to dismiss it out of hand and cover your eyes and ears to anything about it? Or have you looked at the report and seen it yourself?

No, I haven't looked at every report and study, properly and improperly reported, on WTC. No one has.

All anyone can do is look at many, and defer to credible summaries of the rest.

I don't know who did the one you are referring to, or how accurate it is. Many studies I've seen are not credible. Do you claim the technical expertise to discern how substantiated it is?

Like anyone concerned with anything so vastly complex, I rely mostly on the cumulative consensus of qualified professional and experts who show as little bias.

When hundreds weigh in with the verdict of controlled demolition - many or most agenda driven - and tens of thousands with knowledge and expertise, many foreign, most not connected with the government, painstakingly demonstrate the collapses were due to a combination of enormous impact trauma, uncontrolled fires, loss of crucial structural integrity - that's where I put my money on.


Mike


[edit on 28-4-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
No, I haven't looked at every report and study, properly and improperly reported, on WTC. No one has.

All anyone can do is look at many, and defer to credible summaries of the rest.

No, I'm afraid one can do much better than "defer to credible summaries." In your case, you apparently don't even recognize the FEMA report, one of the only two with access to physical debris, as a "credible source." What I am talking about in particular is a chemical analysis of collected debris, one of very few available to the public. The most recent was done by Jones, et. al., and coincidentally they seem to have found the exact same substance. Who is credible then, mmiichael? How would you define the word?

I don't know who did the one you are referring to, or how accurate it is. Many studies I've seen are not credible.

Um. Why don't you actually read it? If FEMA and NIST aren't credible sources, who is? Public engineers who didn't even have access to the debris or even structural documentation? Anyone that agrees with you? Can you do any better than that, please? Not for me, for yourself.

Do you claim the technical expertise to discern how substantiated it is?

I don't have chemical degrees but yes I understand the science. That report was written for the general public mind you. Big words and numbers don't scare me, I'm an electronics engineering major and enjoy physics. Pretty rare in such a stupid country today that someone would actually understand science, isn't it? Would you like to talk about it or even read the report? Or continue living in a fantasy world where you get to make up all the rules on what's credible and what's not?

[edit on 28-4-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

I don't have chemical degrees but yes I understand the science. That report was written for the general public mind you. Big words and numbers don't scare me, I'm an electronics engineering major and enjoy physics. Pretty rare in such a stupid country today that someone would actually understand science, isn't it? Would you like to talk about it or even read the report? Or continue living in a fantasy world where you get to make up all the rules on what's credible and what's not?

I don't live in a fantasy world, have a science background, and don't have to take insults from you.

I don't read every single report that anyone refers me to. That is an impossibility for me.

I have a professional life and many interests. I have chosen not to devote as much time to WTC theories and studies as others.

But like with many things, I try to get a basic grounding with primary source material, and then absorb what I can from those who do devote their time and energies to a chosen field.

The Jones report got me really going on this subject, because it's so outlandishly exploitative of the gullibility of laymen. The guy is a slimeball.
And correctly or not, I take the quality of his work as indicative of others mining the same vein for attention and profit.

I absorb what I can, then extrapolate from as generous a sampling as possible. If I were to consider a new car, I don't have to be a licensed mechanic, study the design, and test drive every model. I rely on my understanding and experience, and then supplement it with reading what those with extensive specific knowledge say. I also read movie reviews rather than seeing them all to find the best.

So I'm sorry, I will not get around to fully reading and digesting very page of the report, just as I will never be able to adequately tackle all the incoming reports on developments in my own professional field.

You will probably take this as an avoidance tactic.

I am on this list to look at insights others have gathered. My conclusions are based on my own readings combined with the syntheses of others. This is not the Renaissance, when one could read everything extant on any given subject.

I do not expect you to read and absorb everything I have. Nor is the reverse a reasonable expectation.


Mike


[edit on 28-4-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't live in a fantasy world, have a science background, and don't have to take insults from you.

I don't have to insult you. Why don't you do what I keep asking, and read the report I linked you to?

So far, all you've done is challenge its credibility on the fact that you don't like what it says.

Really, you can't do any better than that?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't live in a fantasy world, have a science background, and don't have to take insults from you.

I don't have to insult you. Why don't you do what I keep asking, and read the report I linked you to?

So far, all you've done is challenge its credibility on the fact that you don't like what it says.

Really, you can't do any better than that?

If you are referring to the linked

fema403_apc.pdf

I lack the indepth knowledge of the chemistry involved to comment on it
knowledgeably.

From the summary conclusion, severe sulfur corrosion is indicated. No conclusion on the source and rate is ventured. This is a standard safe position to take rather than unfounded speculation.

If this is what you were referring to, admitted unknowns are involved. But they are not necessarily suspicious.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
If this is what you were referring to, admitted unknowns are involved. But they are not necessarily suspicious.

No. It is not. The fact it's been ignored is.

Originally posted by mmiichael
I lack the indepth knowledge of the chemistry involved to comment on it
knowledgeably.

Well, it says it was corrosion from a eutectic reaction. Thermite and thermate are two examples of eutectic reactions. You can add different ingredients in different ratios and modify the reaction. You can even greatly reduce the grain size and increase the surface area between the reactants so much that they explode instead of slowly spewing out large sparks. You're right, they couldn't comment on where it came from, when it got there, how it got there, etc. No one ever did. If it isn't suspicious then it's at least extremely sloppy investigation because while it could have been nothing it could have also caused the failure of the tested samples. No one ever figured that one out so I guess we're still waiting for an answer, aren't we?

Originally posted by bsbray11

it says it was corrosion from a eutectic reaction. Thermite and thermate are two examples of eutectic reactions. You can add different ingredients in different ratios and modify the reaction. You can even greatly reduce the grain size and increase the surface area between the reactants so much that they explode instead of slowly spewing out large sparks. You're right, they couldn't comment on where it came from, when it got there, how it got there, etc. No one ever did. If it isn't suspicious then it's at least extremely sloppy investigation because while it could have been nothing it could have also caused the failure of the tested samples. No one ever figured that one out so I guess we're still waiting for an answer, aren't we?

I'm hoping someone else with knowledge of chemistry will respond to this more definitively.

Just on your stated reasoning: therm*te are examples of eutectic reactions, but you don't give any others. There may be more common ones. And this still doesn't indicate therm*te was present.

I don't think the study was suspicious or sloppy at all. Do you realistically expect every piece of retrieved rubble could be tested and all possibilities tested for?

There were thousands of businesses in those buildings. We don't know what materials may have been in the process of handling by some, say a shipping company, what was being stored, etc. There were tens of millions of items, mostly prosaic, like furniture, office equipment, building parts, etc. All would have been thrown together with fires, explosions, and stages of collapse. There was a heating and cooling system in the basement. There would have been all sorts of uncommon chemical reactions between materials falling together at extreme temperatures.

Hundreds of different chemical reactions, only a representative sampling would ever be possible.

There was thorough testing on an enormous amount of materials, but not all, and not all to the same degree. The lack of any possible data yield and full analysis supplied does not infer an attempted deception.


Mike

Some further input from a scientist friend up on this stuff:

Paraphrasing:

One pound of thermite melts 1.8 pounds of steel to produce 2.8 pounds
of slag. WTC core beams were about 2,000 ponds per sq. ft.

Any thermite not in direct contact with steel would be wasted when it burned. Why thermite is not used to demolish structures.

Massive chucks of slag were not found in the rubble (I know, Evil Empire ordered it picked)

Thermite would have to melt through 5 inch thick columns weighing 2000 pounds per sq. ft. with millisecond accuracy necessary for a controlled demolition and without anyone seeing a spectacular white hot glare from all over the towers as the thermite burned.

Let's forget that WTC7 was seen and recorded slowly giving way before it finally fell.

Let's forget tons and tons of the stuff would have to be installed secretly at precision points.

Again, the thermite claim is at best very bad science fiction.



Mike



[edit on 28-4-2009 by mmiichael]

If you can't post without being insulting and condescending, don't post..

There have been any number of "In Thread" advisories and apparently some of you don't get it.

Warnings are next folks..

You have again, been advised.

Semper

Originally posted by mmiichael
Just on your stated reasoning: therm*te are examples of eutectic reactions, but you don't give any others. There may be more common ones. And this still doesn't indicate therm*te was present.

All I had to do was mention the word and you're already trying to discredit the idea that there was any in there. If there was anything common that would be an obvious explanation, shouldn't someone have thought of it by now? The stuff ate holes through the column. Regardless of what you call it, it was there, and that's what it did. You can assume whatever other things you want, but it's still a fact that a eutectic reaction did take place on the steel, and melt it.

I think it's a very good question as to how it got there, don't you?

I don't think the study was suspicious or sloppy at all.

That's your opinion, that you must be assuming, because you just told me earlier that you weren't qualified to interpret the FEMA report link I sent you.

There was thorough testing on an enormous amount of materials

I disagree.

Any thermite not in direct contact with steel would be wasted when it burned. Why thermite is not used to demolish structures.

Thermite has been used to demolish buildings, it's been on TV (I'm sure someone has screen shots, etc.), and your point is completely irrelevant anyway because the steel analyzed in the FEMA report had already been eaten through by the eutectic reaction. That's one of the things that would potentially indicate this wasn't an uncontrolled, "natural" event.

Massive chucks of slag were not found in the rubble

There was a lot found in the rubble that indicate of extreme heat. Ever seen "the meteorite"?

Let's forget that WTC7 was seen and recorded slowly giving way before it finally fell.

You mean when the Penthouse fell? That was the first event, then the whole roof line and the entire building gave. If you count all the down-time in between as a "slowly giving way," why not (maybe that's when the eutectic was eating through the columns? ), but the roof line still accelerated at the rate of gravity. Physically it did exactly what any controlled demolition would do, where the building's interior is gutted so as to provide no resistance when the rest comes down.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
Just on your stated reasoning: therm*te are examples of eutectic reactions, but you don't give any others. There may be more common ones. And this still doesn't indicate therm*te was present.

All I had to do was mention the word and you're already trying to discredit the idea that there was any in there. If there was anything common that would be an obvious explanation, shouldn't someone have thought of it by now? The stuff ate holes through the column. Regardless of what you call it, it was there, and that's what it did. You can assume whatever other things you want, but it's still a fact that a eutectic reaction did take place on the steel, and melt it.

I think it's a very good question as to how it got there, don't you?

No evidence of quantities of thermite, thermate, or magic-super-nano-thermi/ate.

Tons of the stuff would be required leaving tons of slag. So far only an old man has come up with a bag of rubble with claimed to be magic therm*te beans in it.

Hey, wouldn't it be ironic if someone actually had a box of it in his office for some reason, he was about to go to the post office to send off. But among the millions of tons of debris, it would be lost completely.

A therm*te ignited controlled demolition is not possible given all the recorded evidence, witnesses, analyzed material.

You might want to channel you investigative talents to sales of the material in 2000-01. Likely the largest purchase in history. You obviously are very concerned about proving therm*te was planted in those building. You're not just trying to demonstrate some knowledge of it's properties.

Nothing personal, but I'm going to end this particular conversation. I feel I'm being provoked to respond to a torrent of quasi-scientific speculation that wants to ignore bonafide facts and cumulative evidence.

Keep me posted on any massive thermite purchases you dig up. My guess is Cheney or Rumsfeld owned a secret manufacturing plant. Dr. Jones might still find traces on their clothes.


Mike


[edit on 28-4-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
No evidence of quantities of thermite, thermate, or magic-super-nano-thermi/ate.

I know this is basically a mantra but you can't deny a eutectic reaction took place on the columns that ate holes through them. I just showed you a report with an in-depth analysis of such a sample. No number of logical fallacies or putting words in my mouth is going to change that. Doesn't matter what words you use to describe it. It happened, it's there in the report.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
No evidence of quantities of thermite, thermate, or magic-super-nano-thermi/ate.

I know this is basically a mantra but you can't deny a eutectic reaction took place on the columns that ate holes through them. I just showed you a report with an in-depth analysis of such a sample. No number of logical fallacies or putting words in my mouth is going to change that. Doesn't matter what words you use to describe it. It happened, it's there in the report.

You systematically avoid data and questions except ones you think you have an answer for, that are consistent with the thermite suggestion by the Jones paper.

QUESTION: is only some form of thermite capable of your eutectic reaction?

Either your answer is "Yes" or "No" No reply will imply that you don't know or will not concede that other materials could produce a similar reaction.


Everything seems to go back to Jones who planted the thermite seed.

Ignored in the discussion of thermite (paraphrasing):


The constituents of thermite are present in practically every structure built in the last 60 years. The Jones paper methods are inadequate to establish the primary claim, the presence of elemental aluminum. His methods provide qualitative rather than quantitative results.

There is no adequate demonstration of the presence of thermite in the samples. There are many of alternative explanations for the presence of aluminum and iron in his samples. From the data provided by Jones paper all we are told is that the elements were present.

He significantly overreaches the results in the conclusions. Jones et al limited themselves to presenting EDS spectra and claim the presence of elemental aluminum. In a rigorous test of something so critical one would expect quantitative results combined with analysis of backscatter imagery.


No evidence of alleged planted tons of thermite or byproduct at WTC site.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
QUESTION: is only some form of thermite capable of your eutectic reaction?

I'm not even saying thermite did anything, if you will actually read my posts. I'm talking about a eutectic reaction, which is exactly what it was and is exactly what is described in the report. They even list chemically all the things they found on the sample. It ate holes through the steel.

I'm not talking about Jones or thermite. You're the one who keeps bringing them up, probably because that's all you know about. Any eutectic reaction that can eat through steel will do. Oh! And guess what? There was one: it's in the FEMA report. From WTC7 and WTC2 samples, at least.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm talking about a eutectic reaction, which is exactly what it was and is exactly what is described in the report. They even list chemically all the things they found on the sample. It ate holes through the steel.

I'm not talking about Jones or thermite. You're the one who keeps bringing them up, probably because that's all you know about. Any eutectic reaction that can eat through steel will do. Oh! And guess what? There was one: it's in the FEMA report. From WTC7 and WTC2 samples, at least.

In the context of a thread about the Jones paper and the implication of thermite, I assume your concern about an observed chemical reaction related directly to it.

A quick search for your specific comes up with this:

" A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron.

In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity. "


... "The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain.

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines."


www.wpi.edu...

The explanation seems pretty unmysterious.

Mike

[edit on 28-4-2009 by mmiichael]