Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

Originally posted by Seventh

How many cars were partially burnt?, in places where there was loads of paper which wasn`t burnt at all, plus none working phones and radios, the guys in the basement whom discovered the 50 ton hydraulic press (and I know it`s not the weight) and the 300 lb plus steel and concrete door vaporised, the heat still there 3 months after, they did try and disinfo this as tons of nano thermite every where lol.

Cars that were partially burnt does not imply a nuclear explosion nor does non-working phones and radios.The guys in the basement that discovered the press and door that had been disrupted would not have known that they had discovered a door and a press had the items been vaporized. Energy requirements for vaporization of masses of this size are such that many more things would have been vaporized or aflame and no one entering would have escaped alive.
The heat after three months is a result of slow burning fires. Such fires can become extremely hot because the rubble insulates them and protects them from being extinguished while air is introduced through void spaces in the rubble. Thermite would not explain this at all as it burns rather quickly and would be expended after a short time.

reply to post by pteridine


My mistake I mis-stated the press bit, they were the guys that stated it had vaporised, and the cars are a prime example of EMP, semi burnt and catching fire under erratic circumstances, energy bombs do not have to be nuclear based btw and nothing gets the job done as efficiently by completely removing any clues, apart from the steel ofc, which was treated accordingly and rapidly removed.

Apart from those injured and trapped or dead, the majority of people were around the impact zones and above, traces of 1700 + of them where never found, they were understandably crushed and heavily mutilated, but what reduced them to microscopic particles and deposited parts of bodies no bigger than this - (16th of an inch) on rooftops over 400 feet away?.

Having 40 + storeys mostly reduced to dust come tumbling down on you, will leave a mess, but completely vaporised like all the furniture does not add up.

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by pteridine

 

My mistake I mis-stated the press bit, they were the guys that stated it had vaporised, and the cars are a prime example of EMP, semi burnt and catching fire under erratic circumstances, energy bombs do not have to be nuclear based btw and nothing gets the job done as efficiently by completely removing any clues, apart from the steel ofc, which was treated accordingly and rapidly removed.

Apart from those injured and trapped or dead, the majority of people were around the impact zones and above, traces of 1700 + of them where never found, they were understandably crushed and heavily mutilated, but what reduced them to microscopic particles and deposited parts of bodies no bigger than this - (16th of an inch) on rooftops over 400 feet away?.

Having 40 + storeys mostly reduced to dust come tumbling down on you, will leave a mess, but completely vaporised like all the furniture does not add up.

Energy bombs do not have to be nuclear but any such device would put out a great deal of heat and blast from expanding air. No such observations were made.
The human body parts found on rooftops were likely from the passengers on the airplanes.
Why do you think all the furniture could have been vaporized without vaporizing anything else such as the paper that was in the furniture and the people in the offices? The furniture was crushed, not vaporized.

Originally posted by pteridine

Energy bombs do not have to be nuclear but any such device would put out a great deal of heat and blast from expanding air. No such observations were made.
The human body parts found on rooftops were likely from the passengers on the airplanes.
Why do you think all the furniture could have been vaporized without vaporizing anything else such as the paper that was in the furniture and the people in the offices? The furniture was crushed, not vaporized.

Real life beckons, time to go, it`s been good debating with you, thanks , a short video to end with.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Seventh


I take it you are now more educated that when we started and now know the difference between intuition and evidence.

This guy seems quite credible to me.

From the web

I presume you are referring to my articles and references to the documentary movie 911 Mysteries: Part 1: Demolitions. The 9/11 "conspiracy theory" material you cite, is not "theory" at all; it is fact. Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies (d=½gt2) is a well-established scientific maxim that exists outside of political paradigms. It is not a theory that the buildings fell nearly as fast as an object would in a vacuum without resistance --- it is a fact we all witnessed. The only way a building can fall that fast is Controlled Demolitions (CD) removing the resistance of the floors below. The math has been shown that the "pancake" theory would have required the buildings, with all the resistance of the floors below the impact contributing, should have fallen in around 96 seconds - not 8.5-10.5 seconds. Have any of the mainstream television news networks discussed Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies? If not, why?



Couple that with:



1.) Evidence of squibs (CD explosions) visible throughout the buildings as they are falling (regardless of whose video you look at)



2.) The fact that the news reported the ground floor windows blown outward hundreds of feet below the crash site.



3.) Explosions in the basement destroying the parking garages - before and after either plane hit



4.) Traces of thermite and thermate being found on some of the columns that were shipped to so-called "freedom parks;" and



5.) The ground still burning at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit eight weeks after the collapse - only thermite/thermate with its built-in oxygen supply (in its iron oxide compound) can provide that massive amount of heat so many weeks later, buried deep underground - not jet fuel underground in an oxygen-less environment.



6.) steel beams weighing hundreds of tons thrown laterally 400 feet and imbedding themselves in neighboring buildings



7.) Larry Silverstein admitting to having building 7 "pulled" (controlled demolitions terminology for demolishing a building) on a PBS documentary...





I'm not going to go on. Applying a principle of inductive logic called Ockham’s Razor where the simplest explanation must be assigned until another more complicated one is proven, the evidence that controlled demolitions were used is overwhelming. For those who want to see the documentary, go to www.911mysteries.org and order it….But that's only if they want to consider scientific evidence and eyewitness testimony.

If you want to continue to believe the government's story while we're "in a time of war," there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not saying who did the WTC controlled demolitions, I don't have any evidence to that end; I'm only saying that based on the scientific facts and evidence available, it has been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that controlled demolitions were used. "Who" is up to the historians to figure out.

As far as "damaging" our country with "theories" I submit our country and its constitution has already been irreparably damaged since 1861 by politicians and bureaucrats not being held accountable by the now acquiescent, corporate-controlled press. We haven't had our constitutional republic destroyed from enemies without or from conspiracy theorists within - neither of them have the power to ignore our constitutional rights, put us in jail for violating fictional laws, or plunge our country into nearly $9 trillion of unpayable debt...please consider who does have that power...

Socially ostracizing those in the media who ask these tough questions would be a disaster, but unfortunately it is built in to human nature. Please refer to my editorial on page two of this issue in that regard.

David Deschesne

Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
1.) Evidence of squibs (CD explosions) visible throughout the buildings as they are falling (regardless of whose video you look at)

2.) The fact that the news reported the ground floor windows blown outward hundreds of feet below the crash site.

3.) Explosions in the basement destroying the parking garages - before and after either plane hit

4.) Traces of thermite and thermate being found on some of the columns that were shipped to so-called "freedom parks;" and

5.) The ground still burning at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit eight weeks after the collapse - only thermite/thermate with its built-in oxygen supply (in its iron oxide compound) can provide that massive amount of heat so many weeks later, buried deep underground - not jet fuel underground in an oxygen-less environment.

6.) steel beams weighing hundreds of tons thrown laterally 400 feet and imbedding themselves in neighboring buildings

7.) Larry Silverstein admitting to having building 7 "pulled" (controlled demolitions terminology for demolishing a building) on a PBS documentary...

You just posted these standard Truther website disinfo points to another thread. So we might as well let people here see what are really the facts provided by another member.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow - another internet genius at play.....

1) Squibs - usual sequence is to detonate explosives then watch building fall. Why are the so called "squibs" being seen as building collapses?

Just ahead of the debris wave....

It is air being forced out of structure ahead of the debris wave coming down. The pressure wave was strong enough to flip over fully loaded
fire trucks

2) Windows blown out in lobby - this happened at IMPACT time, in North Tower not 102 minutes later when building collapsed. Blast was caused by jet fuel falling down elevator shafts and igniting. Number of people in yhe lobby were badly, even fatally burned by this.

Reference Lauren Manning, Jennieanne Maffeo, Vasana Mututanont who were badly burned then

3) Parking Garages destroyed - False, parking garages were intact until building collapse. Must be thinking of 1993 bombing which blew giant hole
in basement garage

4) Traces of Thermite - False this is idiot Stephen Jones who claimed to find so called "thermite" on steel beam for a monument. What was found slag from cutting torch used to slice beam up for shipment.

Worker slicing columns with thermal lance - which uses iron and aluminum rods with pure 02 to reach temp of 7,000 F. Also produces aluminum oxide
slag - same as thermite

5) Thermite when ignited burns quickly usually under a minute it can not burn for 3 months. What was burning was contents (furnishing, paper, etc) in debris pile. Oxygen to fuel fires came in through voids in pile. Coal mine fires can burn underground for years - witness Centralia PA which has been burning since 1962!

6) Steel beams - on one hand say WTC collapsed in "own footprint" as proof of demolition, now saying since beams flung 400 feet from tower this is proof, Somewhat inconsistent and illogical, Beams (actually exterior wall panels) were tossed outwardly force of collapse - WTC was over 1300 ft and those at top would fly for distance before hitting ground

7) Silverstein - The pull comments comes year later when being interviewed for PBS show. It was during a call from FDNY chief who told him WTC 7 was being abandoned, Silverstein did not order it and could not as it was FDNY chief in charge not Silverstein. Also "pull" is term used by firefighters to evacuate - as in "pull those men out!"

Hope set you straight, but rather doubt it.....

btw found your one-man show tabloid pseudo-newspaper "Fort Fairfield Journal" fascinating. Mixing chipper local news like girls winning regional beauty pageants alongside promotion for your SATANIC COUNTERFEITS Anti-Christ themed book. Fascinating mix.


M



[edit on 6-8-2009 by mmiichael]

FYI GL's:

The study has been independently checked and the results have been
reproduced by two other scientists. Mark Basile from the Netherlands
is expected to published the results in a reviewed forum.

Good luck with the paint theory as Jones futher explains how it cannot
be paint in his latest presentation.

So, you all got your wish. The tests have been duplicated, what are you
going to complain about now?

reply to post by turbofan


Why can't it be paint? As thermite, it wouldn't do anything in a thin layer.

Time to start watching these presentations so you can get up to speed with the info.

Originally posted by turbofan
The study has been independently checked and the results have been
reproduced by two other scientists. Mark Basile from the Netherlands
is expected to published the results in a reviewed forum.

Good luck with the paint theory as Jones futher explains how it cannot
be paint in his latest presentation.

So, you all got your wish. The tests have been duplicated, what are you
going to complain about now?

This guy Mark Basile is in New Hampshire.

A French lab has done a thorough microscopic and spectroscopic analysis
and comparison - and guess what - it's paint - not thermite.

Details and link to the French pdf below

Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.

"An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips."

"All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet."

"Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs."

We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.

darksideofgravity.com...

Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.

We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.

Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes

"The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen intermixed with plate-like particles"

"By placing the beam on a cluster of plate-like particles, the spectrum in Fig. (11a) was generated. The spectrum in Fig. (11b) was acquired from a cluster of the smaller bright faceted grains. Again it was observed that the thin sheet-like particles are rich in Al and Si whereas the bright faceted grains are rich in Fe. Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen"

"The results indicate that the smaller particles with very bright BSE intensity are associated with the regions of high Fe and O. The plate-like particles with intermediate BSE intensity appear to be associated with the regions of high Al and Si. The O map (d) also indicates oxygen present, to a lesser degree, in the location of the Al and Si. However, it is inconclusive from these data whether the O is associated with Si or Al or both."
Until now.

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)

Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.

One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination

"The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings."

Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.

It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.

The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.

This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe2O3) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED

For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.

We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.

When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.

If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.

M







[edit on 11-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Yep, It's Paint! So Much for the "Thermite" Excuse

No, it's not paint. Unfortunately for you who believes air can accelerate out of a forward moving tube under it's own legs, cannot grasp the science...
so please stop posting garbage in this thread.

The second scientist from France is Frederic Henry-Courannier. His
conclusion supports Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit.

Nice try with the disinfo.

Please try sourcing the French lab that disagrees

[edit on 11-8-2009 by turbofan]

Dear Truthers,

Please copy these links and paste them anywhere you see claims that the
chips are paint. This is Dr. Jones explaining the charts and why the chips
cannot be paint. You will also see reference to the two new independent
studies confirming the thermite paper:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by turbofan
Dear Truthers,

Please copy these links and paste them anywhere you see claims that the
chips are paint. This is Dr. Jones explaining the charts and why the chips
cannot be paint. You will also see reference to the two new independent
studies confirming the thermite paper:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

And this, for those that like some peer review status ....


www.911blogger.com...

Thanks for posting that link. There is an excellent exchange about mid
page between Dr. Jones, and Dr. Greening.

Even Dr. Greening agrees it's NOT PAINT and he would be considered
an opposition of Dr. Jones.

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo,
Your link is to the video of Jones' presentation from April. Of course, it still proves nothing with respect to thermite.
I note that he said he went to the hardware store and bought a paint solvent, MEK, to soak the chips in and they didn't dissolve. Actual laboratory work uses higher grade solvents from reputable chemical supplers to minimize contamination. Even so, why did he think that MEK would dissolve cured paint? It is unfortunate that he has no trained chemists on his team or they could have advised him about appropriate solvents to use for this application.
I wonder why high tech "nano-thermite" would be loaded with kaolinite clay. Perhaps it is to disguise it as paint?

reply to post by Seventh


I read the blog about how "grueling" the reviews were. If this paper is the result, his staff theologian must have been doing the technical reviews.
He should try to get some analytical chemists to review his paper so he can hope to publish it in a scientific journal. This would have the effect of bringing it to the attention of a much broader scientific audience because Bentham journals are not considered to be scientific literature and are not generally read by the scientific community.

reply to post by pteridine


To be blatantly honest, it should not be down to independent investigations in the 1st place, NIST`s ignorance and negligence to do certain tests borders on illegal and in some cases I believe they actually crossed the line...

14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues
From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] “Did the NIST investigation
look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought
down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives
or thermite residues? The combination of thermite
and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot
knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel” [3].
We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues
of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable
admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials
including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion
investigations by the NFPA 921 code:
Unusual residues might remain from the initial
fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite,
magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials [26].
Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of
thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure
for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain
why they have not looked for these residues? The code
specifies that fire-scene investigators must be prepared to
justify an exclusion [26].
NIST has been asked about this important issue recently,
by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:
Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it
didn't look for evidence of explosives?” Neuman
[spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]:
"Right, because there was no evidence of that."
Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if
you don't look for it first? Neuman:

"If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time

... and the taxpayers’ money.” [27].
The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous
if not for the fact that NIST’s approach here affects the
lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking
for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921
code is “wasting your time.” We may be able to help out
here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the
WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially
in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as
the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the
evidence for thermite use is mounting.

Surely the whole purpose of a test of this nature is based on not knowing if a certain substance is evident, that statement is absolutely ludicrous, the guy is blatantly stating `Oh we only run tests if we know 100% for certain there are traces of what we are looking for`.