Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 218 times


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 09:17 AM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by shrike071



The only way we will ever know, is if a NEW governing body takes over and decides to lay-bare the lies, murder, and treachery of the previous leadership.


Which is about as likely as George Bush reciting Shakespeare's King Lear by heart. See here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 09:23 AM by shrike071
Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Which is about as likely as George Bush reciting Shakespeare's King Lear by heart. See here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I agree - but you're referring to what is essentially the same leadership as GWB. They're all cut from the same cloth, with the same interests at the core of their greedy little hearts.

When I said "new government", I meant a 100% fresh-start.


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 09:27 AM by dreamsnatcher
reply to post by mike dangerously



Hey Mike D, you hit the nail on the head for me with your thought on the command center. In my mind it always bothered me that they spent millions creating the command center and then in a real disaster no one went to it and then a building that they deemed worthy of COG for NYC collapsed from falling debris and a relatively small fire? WTC 7 sure does have some issues in my mind. And OP great find on the post but I doubt FX or CNBC will be covering it.


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 09:29 AM by pteridine
Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to
post by Ferris.Bueller.II



What I said before:

Barium Nitrate is an oxidising metallic element similar to iron. You have to remember the composition of "Thermate" is not uniform, just like other destructive compounds like C-4/Semtex/RDX (which are all plastic explosives).

Hence different corporations who produce Thermate will use different substitutes, instead of Barium Nitrate, they might have substituted with another oxidising metal like Iron.

The lack of sulphur in the analysis can probably best be explained by the fact that it is a multivalent NON-METAL and most of it burns up in the initial ignition reaction.



And what you said before is still wrong. Barium nitrate is not a metal, it is a salt. Substituting iron for barium nitrate would then make an iron rich thermite which may or may not readily ignite. Remember that the reaction depends on reduction of a metal oxide with a reducing metal. The addition of an oxidizer is what gets things hotter, quicker.
If the material was unreacted thermate and not paint chips, then it should be expected to have all of the constituents of thermate in it. There is no way of knowing because the experiment was botched.


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 09:38 AM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by pteridine



Barium nitrate is formed by combining alkaline Barium, which a is metal, with Nitrate ions, a highly corrosive salt of Nitric Acid.

Hence you get a soft, white, solid, metallic compound that is soluble.

Substituting iron for barium nitrate would then make an iron rich thermite which may or may not readily ignite.


Iron is one of the fastest oxidising metals there is. In an air-rich exothermic reaction Iron oxides would give off a lot of oxygen to burn, thus speeding up the reaction.

Iron(III) oxide is also used in an extremely exothermic reaction called a thermite reaction.

Iron Oxide

Iron Oxides can indeed be substituted for Barium Nitrates in the composition of Thermate.

[edit on 6/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 09:44 AM by pteridine
Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to
post by pteridine



Barium nitrate is formed by combining alkaline Barium, which a is metal, with Nitrate ions, a highly corrosive salt of Nitric Acid.

Hence you get a soft, white, solid, metallic compound that is soluble.

Substituting iron for barium nitrate would then make an iron rich thermite which may or may not readily ignite.


Iron is one of the fastest oxidising metals there is. In an air-rich exothermic reaction Iron oxides would give off a lot of oxygen to burn, thus speeding up the reaction.

Iron(III) oxide is also used in an extremely exothermic reaction called a thermite reaction.

Iron Oxide

Iron Oxides can indeed be substituted for Barium Nitrates in the composition of Thermate.

[edit on 6/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]


Barium nitrate is a SALT not a metal. Therm*te reactions are not "air rich" and will run in the absence of air. Adding iron to a mixture of aluminum and iron oxide would do nothing for the reaction but provide an additional heat sink to quench it if you could even get it started after dilution with iron. You do not understand the chemistry.


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 09:57 AM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by pteridine



You do not understand the chemistry.


You're the one who laughably claimed "Iron is not an oxidising metal", so don't give me your "holier-than-thou" attitude.

The point is Iron Oxides can be used in the formation of Thermate instead of Barium Nitrate. Which might possibly explain the absence of Barium nitrate.


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 10:02 AM by pteridine
Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to
post by pteridine



You do not understand the chemistry.


You're the one who laughably claimed "Iron is not an oxidising metal", so don't give me your "holier-than-thou" attitude.

The point is Iron Oxides can be used in the formation of Thermate instead of Barium Nitrate. Which might possibly explain the absence of Barium nitrate.


Your claim to replace barium nitrate with iron oxide makes thermate into thermite. Aluminum and iron oxide are thermite. Iron is not an oxidizer it s a reduced metal that can be oxidized. Your chemical knowledge also lacks a vocabulary.


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 10:05 AM by SLAYER69
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira




Or it could simply be rust.


Iron oxide
Iron(III) oxide—also known as ferric oxide, Hematite, red iron oxide, synthetic maghemite, colcothar, or simply rust—is one of the several oxide compounds of iron,




reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 10:10 AM by pteridine
reply to post by esdad71



When I read the article, which was pubished in a vanity journal [pay to publish] I found it lacking in logic, scientific merit, and rigor. The thermal analysis was done in air which negates any claims of thermitic reactions. The "this can't be paint" analysis was poorly designed, poorly controlled, completely lacking in scientific reasoning, and does not allow a conclusion that this is not paint. Given the makeup and physical structure, it is most likely paint, of some sort, and the bogus tests to show it isn't are laughable if not disingenuous and fraudulent.


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 10:13 AM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by SLAYER69



Or it could simply be rust.


Enlightening as always, thanks for stating the obvious Sherlock.

I'm not conclusively saying this proves the existence of Thermate at Ground Zero, but it does defy other rational explanation.

Oxidised rust is not going to survive a 110-storey building collapse where hundreds of tons of concrete come crashing down, pulverising everything into a fine powder.


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 10:20 AM by SLAYER69
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira



I'll ignore your ever present personal name calling. You seem to do that with everybody who disagrees with you. It's almost like you're trying to cover some sort of inferiority complex

Sad really.


Anyway as you may or may not know steel girders will rust if exposed to heat and water. Plenty of both followed the collapse.


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 10:44 AM by no_way!
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira



Case closed? You didn't get very far into your Google search of the subject. Thermite welding is used for welding underwater and I also found this - much more pertinent reference:

education.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Again, Mr Snippy, I am not saying that I do not find the presence of Thermite strange, all I am saying is that it may not be as 'case closed' as you think. Do you not think that there 'could' be an application within one of the worlds tallest steel framed buildings, built in the 60's for Thermite Welding?

Those large steel sections would be welded somehow and perhaps in those days this was a typical method due to practicalities of welding by other means at those heights.

Keep an open mind


reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 11:02 AM by billybob
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to
post by billybob

really. acetylene torches? that is completely wrong. there is NOTHING to do with acetylene torches.


Well, on page 15, Step 5, tell me what they are doing? I read it. It is written so a layman can understand what they are trying to accomplish and they did not find anything but a...it might be....


they are USING an acetylene torch, yes. but it's not like you said:

Originally posted by esdad71
There was NOTHING to prove nano-thermite was used. It was an inconclusive test. Acetylene torches and nothing else.
Actually, This thread should be closed for misidentifying itself in the title as there was NO active super thermite found. Just some concrete and paint...


....."and nothing else". the way you have it worded, you make it sound like the experiment (was executed solely with and) showed that acetylene torches and paint were identified as the SOURCE of these MYSTERIOUS red/gray layers. the torch was used to determine the material's reaction to heat. it IGNITED at 430˚C and created an orange flow which when cooled was shown to be contain iron microspheres similiar to the ones previously noted as MYSTERIOUS in other dust samples, and the PAINT tested under the same condition melted into a pile of fine black ash.
you ignore the microscopic chemical analysis. "torches and nothing else" is flat wrong. anyway, hopefully people will READ THE PAPER and judge for themselves.
other tests done identify the microscopic structure of the material and comparing it to ACTUAL paint.
there was no concrete and paint found, and that is the opposite of the conclusions of the paper. there are nine scientists that came to the conclusions, and your bad misinterpretation of what's in the paper is slightly infuriating.

here's the abstract.

Abstract: 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.
Keywords: Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites,
Nano-thermite.


"torches". is an electron scanning microscope a 'torch'? an optical microscope? an x-ray dispersive spectroscope? differential scanning calorimetry?

and, 'this thread should be closed'? can't stand the heat, get out of the laboratory. the experiment CONCLUDED the material is thermitic, and more energetic than regular thermite (hence, "super-thermite"). do your own study to refute, but don't LIE about what is in this study. paint and concrete is not thermitic.




[edit on 6-4-2009 by billybob]
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^