Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

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...

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.

It doesn't matter what they've found in the debris, it could've been a " I DID IT" note, signed by GWB complete with DNA and fingerprints and a signed photograph of GWB piloting the planes, they still won't go after the ones that perpetrated the crime.



[edit on 6/4/09 by DataWraith]

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.

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 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]

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 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.

This comes as no surprise to me at this late date. Nevertheless, if true, when is something going to be done about it?

How can we demand a real investigation in such a way that we cannot be ignored by our elected officials (who apparently believe we are all children who can't handle the truth about one more horror our government has committed on the people.) 9/11 certainly isn't the first time, nor will it be the last if nothing is going to be done about it.

Meanwhile, Dick "death squads" Cheney is everywhere these days, practically asking for another hit on American soil. It's probably going to happen and when it does, the wingnuters will blame Obama, unlike when they refused to blame Bush and Cheney for 9/11 and anthrax, even though they were warned over and over by everybody from Putin to Mubarack to some guy from a phone booth in Jamaica.

I intend to start a meme that if there is another attack, it's Cheney whose behind it, since it seems he is the man who really wants one.

Have any of you read the article? Did any of you take the time? I would wager that not 1 in 10 of the posters of this thread read it. That is why you all sound so silly in this case. There is NO evidence of active super nano thermite!!!!!

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 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,

Wait a second, wait a second. This actually had me interested right up until the name Dr. Steven E. Jones came up.

Dr. Steven E. Jones, the co-discoverer of this apparently world shaking revelation, is the same Steven E.Jones who presented a paper at BYU back in 2005 claiming that the WTC collapse was a government conspiracy, he is also a founding member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. BYU booted him out on paid administrative leave and deleted his paper from the BYU database for his lack of scientific objectivity.

Now this same guy is the one coming up with "evidence" that will give all his former theories substance? You don't think that calls his scientific objectivity into question just a tad?

Seriously people, NIST examined the WTC debris every which way using hundreds of different samples examined by a dispersed team of engineers, and now you are turning all that on its head because of a report by a discredited conspiracy theorist who has nothing to lose and everything to gain by this?

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 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 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 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

thanks ptedrine, I figured you would have read it.

Folks, the bottom line is that there is no presence or evidence of anything remotely comparable to active nano-thermite that is found in the case study. None. There is a chip that contains normal levels of specific compounds that are naturally occurring in just about any building that is constructed.

This is another in a long line of bogus, disinfo articles that are created to lure the weak minded to a conspiracy that has no traction and wants to do nothing but sells DVD's and bumper stickers. If you think these people truly give two #s about anything other than attention you have been mislead.

The only thing scarier than the government is a conspiracy troll who thinks he is smarter than the government...

[edit on 6-4-2009 by esdad71]

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]

Originally posted by esdad71
Have any of you read the article? Did any of you take the time? I would wager that not 1 in 10 of the posters of this thread read it. That is why you all sound so silly in this case. There is NO evidence of active super nano thermite!!!!!

from the conclusions of the paper:

4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite.

you are flat out lying about what is in the paper. YOUR conclusions are NOT the conclusions of the paper.



[edit on 6-4-2009 by billybob]