Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Revisiting Thermite

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Revisiting Thermite

Within the 9/11 truth movement there are a vast number of individuals who believe that the 3 buildings that fell that day were brought down by controlled demolition. Also some of these people do not believe conventional explosives were used by rather a thermitc material known as "nano-thermite". To be very clear from the outset I am not a chemist, this thread is based on what I have discovered by looking at the research done by others on both sides of the fence on the issue of thermite. I would therefore strongly encourage anyone who truly believes the thermite theory to actually take the time to read all links and watch all the videos as they do this topic more justice than I can.

But to get on with the rest of the thread, this theory of thermite really came into the public eye thanks to a article written in 2005 by Dr. Steven Jones in which he said that


I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.


Please keep in mind this was published in 2005, it was not until 2009 that Jones published his “proof” of thermite. In his 2005 work it is quite clear that he was basing his assumption of Thermite on others observations. Overall this piece of work by Dr. Jones is wholly underwhelming he makes a couple of other errors such as claiming that WTC-7 fell in about 6.6 seconds when this false and it actually took longer than that and that it collapsed “completely into its own footprint” again this is not true.

Regarding Molten steel...




The observations that Jones used to arrive at his conclusion that there was termite used was the presence of molten steel. Yet in the paper he makes no effort to explore any other possible cause of this but seems to take a jump right into speculating about thermite.

Largely due to his theories after a very long year Jones’s employers at Brigham Young University (BYU) put him on paid administrative leave during October of 2006. They stated that their reason for this was due to what they saw as Dr. Jones’s increasingly speculative research that had not gone through the proper scientific venues. In addition to Jones claiming that Thermite had been used to demolish the towers on 9/11 his other "speculative" work included a paper about how Jesus Christ had visited ancient America. In short BYU put him on leave because his work was lacking any academic credibility. Regardless Jones eventually resigned from BYU.

However, there is a little twist in this story of Jones and Thermite, and it stems from something else he happened to say in his 2005 paper. As well as making a speculative hypothesis on the presence thermite Jones (to his credit i must say) also had this to add:


I would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author


Some people picked him up on this offer and rather than providing him with a few pictures they went one better, they provided him with actual dust they had collected on 9/11 and provided him with samples so he could test out his hypothesis.

In all Jones received five dust samples from people who had gathered the dust shortly after the towers collapsed from various places around Manhattan. These people then basically left the dust in a bag up in their attic or somewhere until about 6 years later they read about Jones and provided him with their dust samples.

Armed with these samples in 2009 Dr. Jones (et al) published their findings from the analysis of the dust samples in their paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal which is part of the Bentham Science group of journals. Now not to bore everyone with the science but Dr. Jones found what he was looking for, he found red/gray chips which he says have the chemical composition of thermite (he calls the red portion of the chips unreacted thermite) and he also discovered Iron/aluminium spheres in the dust which supports the suggestion that thermite was present in the dust. He then claims that this is evidence of Thermite being used on 9/11 but goes on to argue that super “nano-thermite” was used that could have been “painted” on to the steel and cut right though it in referencing another paper discussing the highly experimental nano-thermite in 2000. Essentially Jones et al jumped from someone doing a experiment in a beaker to this stuff being used to bring down 3 buildings in what would (if true) be the most complex controlled demolition/covert operation in human history.


So Jones argues that he found nano-thermite in the dust of the world trade center and he goes from finding that to saying that nano-thermit incendiary devices (the gel) were used to demolish the world trade center buildings, including WTC-7 another big leap. An important point to note is that just because Jones found evidence of thermite in dust samples does not mean it was used to destroy the buildings it only proves it was present in the dust and there is also the very probable possibility that he just found some sulpher, because it was there it’s found in building materials and Aluminium oxide is used in paint. More information is provided in the video below.



edit on 14-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)
edit on Sat Sep 14 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: corrected link to 2nd vid




posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Another interesting point to raise about these findings is that after he published this paper he then had a accompanying documentary “Hypothesis ” throughout this documentary Jones repeats statements saying he didn’t know what to expect when he looked at the results of the dust samples. But in 2005 he said he believed there was thremite used, then in 2007 he starts testing them and finds his thermite but all way through this documentary he is saying “i didn’t know what to expect”... hmmmm..... sounds to me like a lie....

Anyway

There are several other massive flaws with Jones findings, to start with anyone who is familiar with academic writings know that a good measure of the validity of research can be determined by the paper it is published in. Bentham open journals who published Jones work claim to be peer reviewed, claim to be, but they’re not.

After suspicions about their “peer review” system one researcher used a computer program to generate an “Accademic Paper” and submitted it to Bentham open for publication, it was just utter gibberish, but it was published and passed the “peer review”. For Jonse’s work to be published then in this journal rather than adding weight to his findings it actually makes them look a bit silly. And on top of that following the publication of Jones et al publication in the journal the editor of “the open chemical physics journal” quit over it because she had not been informed of its publication and disapproved of it. There is also another key point to make, any respecting academic who found some huge ground breaking evidence on the scale that jones had found would not go to this kind of journal he would go to one of the bigger papers like Nature.

Regardless.

This video provides a fantastic explanation of just how dubious this very publication was.



But that’s not the only problem, nor is the fact that he can’t actually prove where his samples came from but even if you think about his own results it makes no sense. In the paper Jones states that 0.1% of the sample was found to have these red “unreacted thermite” chips, that means based on that sample for every kilo of dust 1 gram would be unreacted thermite. The whole point of the thermite would be to undergo a reaction and melt through the steel, well that what Jones would have us believe, yet at the same time also seems to argue that loads of it didn’t react?. He expects us to believe that loads of this extremely highly reactive thermite did not ignite?

In yet another inconsistency Jones received 5 samples but only tested 4, the reason he cites for this is because the owner of the fifth sample didn’t want o be named, so rather than calling him Mr. X, Jones just omitted this sample completely form the paper. Doesn’t add up to me a individual not wanting to be identified in a piece of academic writing is not grounds to dismiss he/her samples. Mr X was obviously quite happy to submit the samples and these samples should have been included and a pseudonym used for Mr.X. I can see no reason why this would not be possible, unless Jones did test it and just not like the results.

And not only that but other more, lots more robust science looking at 9/11 dust after Jones work arrived at a different conclusion stating that


The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminium particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite


Or to be put simply while this research debunked Jones claims, no elemental aluminium, no thermite.

This is consistent with other research looking at assessing the dust from the destruction of the world trade center’s also did not find any evidence of thermite or other explosives such as the US Geological Survey who were called in shortly after 9/11 to analyse the dust. They found lots of similar chemical elements as Jones did but they don’t seem all that shocked to find them, Sulphur is used in building materials for example as already stated.

By far the biggest problem with Jones claim is that thermite cant melt steel, National Geographic proved this in their documentary, they took a whole load of thermite and tried to cut steel with it and failed. Thermite does not cut steel!



However, since then this video has appeared on line:



Clearly shows that Thermate can cut steel, yes that right Thermate, not Thermite!

Jones found no evidence of Thermate, Thermate uses Sulpher (which he did find) and Barium Nitrate (which he did NOT find) to increase the thermitic effect of the reaction additionally the video clearly shows that thermate causes lots of noise, something that is not evident prior to the collapse of WTC-7. So while yes this might demonstrate that thermate can cut steel it does not prove that the thermite that Jones claims to have found in WTC dust could cut steel. There is no evidence of thermate in the 9/11 dust because there is no evidence of barium nitrate in the WTC dust presented by Jones. No barium nitrate, no Thermate.

So, lets get back to Ground Zero, clearly thermate could have theoretically been configured to cut through the steel columns however no one has found any evidence for the existence of thermate at Ground Zero. Additionally there is no evidence in the photographic history as we cannot see any of these huge flashes that thermate and thermite both create nor is any explanation given as to how they could control this incredibly volatile substance. let alone plant it in the building's

There is so much more about this "Thermite debate" that does not add up, for example Jones refuses to hand his samples over for further independent testing, and further more if he does have this proof why has he not handed it over to the proper authorities. And surly, if you had found this ground breaking evidence you would at the very least publish it in a more well known Journal rather than the rag it was originally published in.

So to summarise Jones et al publish a piece of research that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny in a journal that was not peer reviewed, has been refuted by many in the scientific community and has never been corroborated.

And a final note, many truthers often ask me “show me one other building collapsing due to fire”

Now it’s time to turn that on its head, so truths, show me one other steel framed high skyscraper that has been demolished using thermite?

PS, If anyone has time i would also highly recommend this video as it really sums up many of the main points raised in this thread.


edit on 14-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin I am guessing that you are one of the few that believes the official story . You mention that "no one has found any evidence at ground zero for thermite" but ,they removed all the evidence from the crime scene ...As far as peer review or pal review as some call it we see that sort of stuff happening ie. climate-gate ..so there are people in places that take care of information or misinformation ...Even if you are correct in saying that Jones is not the most credible one to be saying the things he has said ,at least he got it right in saying it was a inside job IMO ....peace
 



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Nicely written thread. I gave you a S@F even though I disagree with you.

We've done this 9/11 topic over and over on this board, and we've been doing it
for a long time now.

We've arrived at the point where we have two main camps, the OS'ers and the CT'ers
...and, of course, the straggling few that are undecided.

Lots of evidence has been presented--lots of hyperbole and drama from both camps.

It's gonna take something very substantial to sway anyone's opinion at this point...

But all we have are rehashed bits and opinion pieces, each slanted and biased by
the presenter to fit his agenda.

As in your claim that building seven did not fall into its own footprint...

Please, the top of building seven fell quite neatly straight down onto the base.
The fact that at the bottom the rubble spread out is inconsequential.
Building seven did not "topple over." It did not fall outside of its foot print.
Building seven did indeed suffer a global and near free fall speed collapse
straight down.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
but those beams in the video have not been fireproofed big fail .

have you got any with fireproofed beams being tested those beams only had primer on them .

failed experiment i say



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 




I am guessing that you are one of the few that believes the official story


No, I believe what happened that day nothing else nothing more, and what happened did not involve thermite.




You mention that "no one has found any evidence at ground zero for thermite" but ,they removed all the evidence from the crime scene


Now i really dont understand how any proponent of "the truth movement" could make this claim, Jones claims that he has evidence of thermite so if your above comment was true then he could never make that claim. Also the fact that you are wrong, there do exist dust samples and there does exist parts of the towers and so on.

Yes some of the derbies was destroyed but that's not what this thread is about, this is about the claims made in regards to termite.



far as peer review or pal review as some call it we see that sort of stuff happening ie. climate-gate ..so there are people in places that take care of information or misinformation ...Even if you are correct in saying that Jones is not the most credible one to be saying the things he has said


Yes sometimes things slip through the gaps of the peer review processes that is very true, but the point i was making is that Jones work published in a rag, it might as well have been written down on a cigarette packet.




at least he got it right in saying it was a inside job


So you are saying that even though he might be totally wrong about thermite, that does not matter because he believes 9/11 was a inside job and so do and therefore it does not matter that he is wrong.

yeah because thats how you deny ignorance....



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin I never based my beliefs on what Jones said ..I put it on the many other evidences put forth and on the omissions and lies put into the official report ....peace
 



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 





I never based my beliefs on what Jones said .


Then to clarify,

Are you saying that you do not believe that thermite brought down the buildings?
edit on 14-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin I am saying with certainty that I would have no way of knowing just who what when where why and how those things happened that day ...but in my opinion given the fact that I have been reading and considering many things about that day and before and after ,It Was a inside job ....peace
 



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   


This should be the second video in the OP i have asked a mod to fix it but for now here it is
edit on 14-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
While that last video is just a mis-labeled (I think innocently so) bit of evidence for molten steel at Ground Zero, there is plenty of other evidence both pictures and verbal of molten iron or steel on site.

To my mind (the only mind that counts to me, I can't be held liable for other people's refusal to do real research or cognitive dissonance) the reality that mininukes took down the towers is undeniable. This in particular by Jeff Prager is a wonderful read:

thepythoniccow.us...

Also see 'the anonymous physicist' and Ed Ward M.D.; all three have proven beyond any doubt that nukes were involved and that some guy in a cave and 19 hijackers could not have been the perpetrators.

If anyone can read the entire Jeff Prager pdf and debunk it authoritatively, I'd be glad to discuss it. But read it first, it will take a few hours. (I've noticed knee-jerk debunkers answer immediately without enough time passing to actually do the research).



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 





I would have no way of knowing just who what when where why and how those things happened that day


Now these are your words not mine you by your own admission admit that you dont know the who,what,where, when and why of what happened on 9/11

yet you still finish with this.



,It Was a inside job


Sorry that does not make any sense you can not on the one had say you know nothing about 9/11 and then on the other hand say you know it was a inside job, your last post is one big paradox.

To be clear, I think you actually know quite a lot about 9/11 and your pleading ignorance to avoid my question so i will ask again.

Do you believe that thermite brought down those buildings.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Well, this OP is chock full of misinformation, disinformation, and misdirection. Let's try to clear some of it up, shall we?



OtherSideOfTheCoin
errors such as claiming that WTC-7 fell in about 6.6 seconds when this false and it actually took longer than that

An absolute, and deliberately dishonest piece of disinformation right there. Proponents of the official conspiracy theory claim that when the penthouse fell off or fell into the roof, that is the time the building started to collapse, which is BS.

Something falling off of a building or falling through the roof of a building does not constitute a building collapse. When the entire building itself starts collapsing, that is the start of the building collapsing.

I would be willing to bet that if the building collapsed 5-minutes or 20-minutes after the penthouse fell into the roof, official-conspiracy-theory-proponents would count that time into the collapse time like they're doing now. Utter nonsense.



OtherSideOfTheCoin
and that it collapsed “completely into its own footprint” again this is not true.

This statement is just playing semantics. It collapsed mostly into its own footprint. You can substitute any other word for "mostly" and then claim "not true".



OtherSideOfTheCoin
In addition to Jones claiming that Thermite had been used to demolish the towers on 9/11 his other "speculative" work included a paper about how Jesus Christ had visited ancient America.

I can't even begin to wrap my head around why someone would add this into 9/11 discussions concerning Dr. Jones. Someone's religious views are not related to 9/11, or their scientific research.

Someone's religious views are only "speculative" to those closed-minded individuals who lack knowledge and research in the science and theology fields.

But that paper about Jesus Christ had absolutely nothing to do with his retirement from BYU. The only reason the OP added this unrelated nonsense is to discredit Dr. Jones in the eyes of god-fearing Christians.



OtherSideOfTheCoin
Regardless Jones eventually resigned from BYU.

More false information. Dr. Jones retired from BYU, and maintains the status of Professor Emeritus.



OtherSideOfTheCoin
any respecting academic who found some huge ground breaking evidence on the scale that jones had found would not go to this kind of journal he would go to one of the bigger papers like Nature.

They went to numerous different media to present their findings. Most mainstream media publications would not entertain any alternate theory concerning 9/11. And most of them still don't to this day.



OtherSideOfTheCoin
he can’t actually prove where his samples came from

Actually, he can and he has. Claiming the contrary is proof of deliberate deception, or lack of research.

Dr. Jones got his original dust samples from Janette MacKinlay, who passed almost 3 years ago. She lived across the street from the World Trade Center, and obtained the dust from her apartment.

She is interviewed in the latest "Loose Change" movie: Loose Change: An American Coup (video) where she talks about giving dust samples to Dr. Jones.



OtherSideOfTheCoin
Jones found no evidence of Thermate, Thermate uses Sulpher (which he did find) and Barium Nitrate (which he did NOT find)

But the link you posted earlier quotes Dr. Jones as saying:


"I can be proven wrong," Jones said. "I accept that. But whoever does it will have to explain this molten metal to me, and especially all the barium found. That's nasty stuff that's not going to be used in a building."


Not to mention, the FEMA metallurgical analysis indicates that thermate may have been the culprit that damaged the steel that was tested.



OtherSideOfTheCoin
for example Jones refuses to hand his samples over for further independent testing

Is that so? Do you have a source for this claim? There have been several independent researchers who have also obtained their own dust samples, and have concluded the same as Dr. Jones.



OtherSideOfTheCoin
show me one other steel framed high skyscraper that has been demolished using thermite?

There isn't a need to. The buildings on 9/11 would've needed a quieter option to bring them down.

However, I personally do not believe that thermite/thermate was solely responsible for the destruction of three WTC buildings based on my years of research. I believe at least two different types of explosives were used. I don't know what capacity or where thermite/thermate would have been used.


Now, for those wanting to see the exact scientific process, with images and videos, that Dr. Jones used when he examined the WTC dust, you can watch his documentary called "9/11 Science and Society" here:






edit on 14-9-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: sp



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




... for example Jones refuses to hand his samples over for further independent testing...


I am curious...why do you not exhibit the same level of indignation over the NIST refusal to release the input and results data as it relates to WTC 7?

ETA: And enough about the "footprint," crap...nearly every single building ever demolished by any means has some material that falls outside of the boundaries where the original building stood...find one that does not...that would be the miracle...
edit on 14-9-2013 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

totallackey
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




... for example Jones refuses to hand his samples over for further independent testing...


I am curious...why do you not exhibit the same level of indignation over the NIST refusal to release the input and results data as it relates to WTC 7?


I do ,

If you read my thread "revisiting WTC-7" you will note that under the section regarding the failings of the offical story I list NISTs refusal to fully disclose specific information regarding the data input for their computer modeling



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin If you read my whole statement in which I said IMO based on what I have read about that day and about the days after as well as the days before , it was a inside job ...and lets face it ,do you think that there is anyone that can put into words exactly what happened on 911 ...you have not put out the definitive thread to 911 and I don't think anyone could ...but a person only needs enough evidence to make a judgement and not every detail ....because we know that there will always be incidental things that can only give us a blurred picture of the facts ...peace
 



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
That Discovery Channel video about how thermite couldn't have melted the steel columns raises another question: if an incendiary specifically designed to attack steel and capable of very high temperatures didn't really affect a steel beam, how did residual kerosene and office fires over a mere 56 minutes (in the case of the second tower hit, first one to collapse) do it? Hell, that's hardly enough time to cook a hot dog.

The problem is that any 'solution' has to fit ALL the evidence, not just cherry-picked parts. Small tactical nuclear weapons fits perfectly with both the explosive nature of the collapses as well as the dust produced, as well as the longlasting heat in the basements, far longer than any residual thermite/mate could have still been producing heat. Certainly not oxygen-starved office content fires, three whole months later even with millions of gallons of water being thrown on it. Only residual fission has the ability to produce heat like that and we have Fukushima to refer to, to prove it. If thermate was the main incendiary used, the towers would have looked like massive torches, too bright to look at; small nukes hidden inside the core and easily placed there would have looked just like what we saw; hundred-ton steel assemblies being blown hundreds of feet laterally, the residual moisture in the concrete floor panels exploding into dust that eyewitnesses said was hot and 'crackling', people showing signs of radiation damage including hanging skin and reports of people 'vaporizing', the over 1000 missing bodies, the complete inability to find any recognizable office furniture in the pile; I could go on and on.

Really people, this isn't that hard. The 911 Commission and the government it swore allegiance to didn't want Americans to know that it's own government, or by proxy the government of Israel, would nuke a major city and kill thousands of citizens to gin up a war against Israel's enemies and the main suppliers of oil on the planet. Any other discussions are just sidelining and disinfo.
edit on 14-9-2013 by signalfire because: typo



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by signalfire
 


You honestly think nukes were used? You also think it takes 57 minutes or more to cook a hot dog.

Would you be surprised if I told you it only takes a few minutes to cook hot dogs? Ask just about anyone. As far as nukes go that would be a impossibility. They have never made one that small they can't. Also nukes explode outwards and there were no signs of a explosion as such. Remember the fires just needed to weaken the metal not melt it. Also nuclear explosions can be detected across the world.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
Regarding Molten steel...

I forgot to add the following in my previous post. This should clear up the molten steel debacle:




Numerous witness describe seeing molten steel beams.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

_BoneZ_

An absolute, and deliberately dishonest piece of disinformation right there. Proponents of the official conspiracy theory claim that when the penthouse fell off or fell into the roof, that is the time the building started to collapse, which is BS.




It's NOT BS the reason the penthouse fell was because the structure below it had FAILED!!!!

If the structure below it had not failed we would not see the penthouse fall!!!






top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join