Thermite confirmed in 911 WTC Dust Samples

[merril]

marabod – these materials are not found in nature “intimately mixed” on a nano scale.

A source of these elements might be abraded paints.

For example, from the same report, page 157

Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, PDF p. 157

Fineness Of Grind Scale

[Q24]

A source of these elements might be abraded paints.

I will quote straight from the paper that began this thread: -

• Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case.

• The initial objective was to compare the behaviour of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.

• Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.

• Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 10¹⁰ ohm-m.

• The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction. If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use.

As suggested, that would be some very unusual and dangerous paint.

[aquatus1]

What the heck...where's my post?

[Q24]

What the heck...where's my post?

Did you check the toilet? HAHAHA!!! Sorry that was just my joke, I am sure you will find your post.

[aquatus1]

Well, please forgive the lack of quips and comebacks. They were there, but for some reason, my original post is not here.

Can we talk in degree Celsius (^oC) rather than degree Fahrenheit (^oF) though please? Celsius seems the primary measurement and is used throughout the NIST WTC investigation. Just I was a little shocked to read thermite burns at “4,500 degrees” before I realised what was going on!

I'll do my best, but I'm going to ask for a little larger margin of error, as Celsius is foreign to me.

Also I do not believe the thermite would be pooling anywhere for any amount of time. The theory that metal sat nicely in a little ‘pooling cup’ while being heated and then throwing itself out of the building is all of the official story’s making – not one I find plausible. Pretty much as soon as the charge is initiated and the reaction begins I believe the flow becomes visible.

Excellent. Thank you for clarifying.

Aw, and I thought you were going to show how the flow cannot be thermite.

Oh, really now, like anyone could type one post and ever convince you of anything.

We are in the middle of showing you how the flow isn't thermite right now.

So, when we last left our heroes, they had determined that the flow could not have been pooled, but rather must have been created spontaneously and flowed straight out the window.

But this leads us to a conundrum. One of the defining properties of thermite is its conductivity. The reason it is so good at melting things is because it can pass the heat from within itself to other objects insanely quickly. Unfortunately, this exact same property also means that thermite rapidly loses heat, and along with that, fluidity. Pure thermite can flow quite well for four or five feet before it loses its plasticity and solidifies. Mixed thermite much less so. The moment thermite begins mixing with whatever steel or concrete it is melting, it loses heat to those materials. You have doubtless already seen several videos of people using different thermitic methods to melt various things. You can see them cutting apart steel girders or concrete blocks, and what you see when they are done are ugly drippings of metal hanging off the column, often solidified in place before they even reached the ground. Mixed thermites can flow maybe 2 feet before solidifying.

And so our problem. With such a rapid onset of solidification, how can this flow be thermite?

[MARAB0D]

The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.

Iron Oxide, used in thermite, does not contain any material, which can cause particles of it to swell in MEK. It is only some organic base, which can swell in it or dissolve - but when being mixed with such, Iron Oxide can not be used for thermite, as the base would isolate it from Aluminium and the reaction would not take off. Direct contact of the reagents is paramount for any chemical reaction! Moreover, the speed of any reaction in solid phase is proportional to the surface area of contact between the reagents, and all "nano-thermites" only make sense when they do not contain any agents, isolating the components, otherwise why bother grinding Fe2O3 and Al so fine to just agglomerate them back into the lumps???

What it probably was - just paint chips, previously heated or aged enough for the epoxy base to lose its porosity and contained water. I doubt very much that solidified epoxy dissolves in MEK at all, because it is a polymer - however I have to admit that I never tried doing this myself, maybe the fresh one does it... However I know that epoxy indeed tends to swell in organic solvents.

[Q24]

Iron Oxide, used in thermite, does not contain any material, which can cause particles of it to swell in MEK. It is only some organic base, which can swell in it or dissolve - but when being mixed with such, Iron Oxide can not be used for thermite, as the base would isolate it from Aluminium and the reaction would not take off.

But, according to the paper, the red layer did swell and the reaction did ‘take off’.

So there obviously is a thermite mix that performs this way and what you are saying is not necessarily true in all cases.

[Q24]

We are in the middle of showing you how the flow isn't thermite right now.

As of right now I can’t even see you have started showing how the flow cannot be thermite.

But this leads us to a conundrum. One of the defining properties of thermite is its conductivity. The reason it is so good at melting things is because it can pass the heat from within itself to other objects insanely quickly.

I agree, thermite can transfer heat very quickly but it should be noted, obviously not instantly.

Pure thermite can flow quite well for four or five feet before it loses its plasticity and solidifies. Mixed thermite much less so. The moment thermite begins mixing with whatever steel or concrete it is melting, it loses heat to those materials.

I will take your word for how far thermite can travel as there is no reason the flow cannot have originated within 5 feet of the window.

You have doubtless already seen several videos of people using different thermitic methods to melt various things. You can see them cutting apart steel girders or concrete blocks, and what you see when they are done are ugly drippings of metal hanging off the column, often solidified in place before they even reached the ground. Mixed thermites can flow maybe 2 feet before solidifying.

I have seen videos as you suggest where thermite is used for cutting and the metal solidifies fairly quickly. I have also seen videos such as

where thermite quickly flows over a surface that it is capable of melting through.

And so our problem. With such a rapid onset of solidification, how can this flow be thermite?

Thermite does not necessarily solidify rapidly if it is not in contact, or only in fleeting contact, with a surface for it to transfer heat to. As seen in the video above, thermite is capable of melting through and mixing with the material of the car but because of the violent reaction and slope of the bonnet a large amount of the thermite continues to flow.

Where are we up to?

A displaced charge for which thermite becomes visible upon activation, located close to the window.

This sounds well within reason.

[aquatus1]

As of right now I can’t even see you have started showing how the flow cannot be thermite.

Then you need to pay more attention.

I agree, thermite can transfer heat very quickly but it should be noted, obviously not instantly.

Okay...

So, insanely quickly is acceptable?

I will take your word for how far thermite can travel as there is no reason the flow cannot have originated within 5 feet of the window.

Please clarify: With this statement, are you claiming that the flow is pure thermite, with little metal, or are you claiming that it is thermite that has melted a large chunk of steel

I have seen videos as you suggest where thermite is used for cutting and the metal solidifies fairly quickly. I have also seen videos such as

where thermite quickly flows over a surface that it is capable of melting through.

Yes indeed, and that is why I specified about pure thermite. As you can see, the unmixed thermite is quite liquid and splashes and flows freely. It's so hot that it glides over a little bit of melt, like an icecube. It is this property, in fact, that makes it useless for melting through vertical columns, but we'll get to that later.

Thermite does not necessarily solidify rapidly if it is not in contact, or only in fleeting contact, with a surface for it to transfer heat to. As seen in the video above, thermite is capable of melting through and mixing with the material of the car but because of the violent reaction and slope of the bonnet a large amount of the thermite continues to flow.

Yes, the thermite that is mixed with the melt cools much faster than the thermite that remains pure.

Where are we up to?

We're still on reason #1.

A displaced charge for which thermite becomes visible upon activation, located close to the window.

This sounds well within reason.

Well, maybe, but let me get a clarification for the above first.

[Q24]

Then you need to pay more attention.

Maybe you need to put forward better reasons.

So, insanely quickly is acceptable?

I would prefer to drop the “insanely”.

Please clarify: With this statement, are you claiming that the flow is pure thermite, with little metal, or are you claiming that it is thermite that has melted a large chunk of steel

As the WTC2 thermite is flowing and at an extreme temperature, I would assume it is mostly pure thermite with little additional metal.

Yes indeed, and that is why I specified about pure thermite. As you can see, the unmixed thermite is quite liquid and splashes and flows freely. It's so hot that it glides over a little bit of melt, like an icecube. It is this property, in fact, that makes it useless for melting through vertical columns, but we'll get to that later.

Well that would depend how the thermite charge is setup against the column.

We're still on reason #1.

[aquatus1]

Maybe you need to put forward better reasons.

Nope. You only get one at a time.

I would prefer to drop the “insanely”.

Then we need to keep in mind that "quickly" in reference to thermite conductivity is something far different than "quickly" in terms of demo charges and "quickly" in terms of regular metal. Frankly, it's a little to unspecific for me, and I know that you take advatage of being unspecific to wriggle around too much.

As the WTC2 thermite is flowing and at an extreme temperature, I would assume it is mostly pure thermite with little additional metal.

Well that would depend how the thermite charge is setup against the column.

As I said, we'll get to that later. First settle one point, then we can move on.

Yep.

I know you like to jump from topic to topic anytime you run out of things to say, making it look like you aren't losing any arguments. I'm not giving you that option.

[MARAB0D]

But, according to the paper, the red layer did swell and the reaction did ‘take off’.

So there obviously is a thermite mix that performs this way and what you are saying is not necessarily true in all cases.

We are talking about a microscopic observation! Can you advise, how can one evaluate this "take off" under a microscope? By "extensive white smoke" from the sample slide? How can you even heat a nano-size piece of sample when at these levels of magnification any normal microscope has an optical part almost touching the sample? Apparently they hardly could do anything else, but placing a pinch of this dust onto a coiled wire and bringing it into the Bunsen burner flame - and this must surely produce at least one visible tiny spark, as any city dust has something combustible in it. Remember, that this all was reported by the same Chemist who estimated 10 to 100 tons of thermite, planted into the building! By now he is probably already selling v!agra on the net, and you are still studying his "report"...

Edited: censorship evasion

Edited May 7, 2009 by marabod

[el midgetron]

We are talking about a microscopic observation! Can you advise, how can one evaluate this "take off" under a microscope? By "extensive white smoke" from the sample slide? How can you even heat a nano-size piece of sample when at these levels of magnification any normal microscope has an optical part almost touching the sample?

The "sample" wasn't "nano-sized". The "chips" contained nano-particles of aluminum. From page 3 of the report -

"The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to

their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major

dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from

roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray)."

Page 21 & 22 of the report will answer your questions about how the samples were heated. Although, it would probably be a good idea to at least skim the entire report so you know what it contains and can obtain your own answers next time you have these types of questions.....

Edited May 8, 2009 by el midgetron

[MARAB0D]

The "sample" wasn't "nano-sized". The "chips" contained nano-particles of aluminum. From page 3 of the report -

"The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to

their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major

dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from

roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray)."

Page 21 & 22 of the report will answer your questions about how the samples were heated. Although, it would probably be a good idea to at least skim the entire report so you know what it contains and can obtain your own answers next time you have these types of questions.....

Midge, just, please, get lost and don't make me to die laughing - your education level has been already assessed! There is a Schnobel Prize pending for a researcher, who can "discerne" nanoparticles "by eye"! Why the hell stupid no-good Dutch Anton van Levenguk was bothered inventing some "microscope" when there are computer-literate individuals with such abilities? Just tell me, what is it YOUR eye can see - DNA? cellular membranes? polyethylene molecule?

Just for educational purposes: "nano" means 10 power <-9>, this makes a nanometre to be 1/1000th of a micron, which by itself is 1/1000th of a millimetre. The commonly used non-metric unit, smaller than 1 nanometre is 1 Angstroem, equal to 1/10 of a nanometre - this is the diameter of Hydrogen atom. You may find a good job looking for someone's lice eggs, any billionaire would gladly make you a millionaire for this service!

[MARAB0D]

only to clear up - a particle sized at 1 nm would look under a 1000x microscope (and that is a LARGE magnification!), as 1 micron would look to a naked eye. At the same circumstances a particle sized 1 micron would appear to look 1 millimetre large. It is much easier to do a genetic engineering, than to ignite a nano-size particle under a microscope.

[el midgetron]

Midge, just, please, get lost and don't make me to die laughing - your education level has been already assessed! There is a Schnobel Prize pending for a researcher, who can "discerne" nanoparticles "by eye"! Why the hell stupid no-good Dutch Anton van Levenguk was bothered inventing some "microscope" when there are computer-literate individuals with such abilities? Just tell me, what is it YOUR eye can see - DNA? cellular membranes? polyethylene molecule?

You are just not understanding. No one is "discerning" nano-particles with their eyes. It really would be wise of you to read the report.

They can't see the nano-particles with their eyes. They can see the chips containing the nano-particles with their eyes. Think of it like seeing a brick building from a long ways away. You won't be able to distinguish each brick but you can still identify the larger structure they are part of.

Just for educational purposes: "nano" means 10 power <-9>, this makes a nanometre to be 1/1000th of a micron, which by itself is 1/1000th of a millimetre. The commonly used non-metric unit, smaller than 1 nanometre is 1 Angstroem, equal to 1/10 of a nanometre - this is the diameter of Hydrogen atom. You may find a good job looking for someone's lice eggs, any billionaire would gladly make you a millionaire for this service!

"The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to

their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major

dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm."

Here is a 3 mm fuel cell to demonstrate the size of the larger chips -

[MARAB0D]

You are just not understanding. No one is "discerning" nano-particles with their eyes. It really would be wise of you to read the report.

They can't see the nano-particles with their eyes. They can see the chips containing the nano-particles with their eyes. Think of it like seeing a brick building from a long ways away. You won't be able to distinguish each brick but you can still identify the larger structure they are part of.

"The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to

their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major

dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm."

Here is a 3 mm fuel cell to demonstrate the size of the larger chips -

Ohhh, Midge! It is really a pity you never were my Chemistry student, otherwise I would have explained to you that 3 mm size pieces are very rare to be discovered in the dust... They sure look similar to your image though...

[Q24]

As I said, we'll get to that later. First settle one point, then we can move on.

Yep.

I know you like to jump from topic to topic anytime you run out of things to say, making it look like you aren't losing any arguments. I'm not giving you that option.

It’s comical how you accuse me of topic jumping. Look at my responses and you will see the only times I deviate slightly are where either it is directly relevant or YOU have brought another issue into the discussion. For example: -

In your post #185 above, you introduced, “It is this property, in fact, that makes it useless for melting through vertical columns, but we'll get to that later.”

Now I’m sure you would like to get away with this erroneous statement but it deserves immediate response to correct - “Well that would depend how the thermite charge is setup against the column.”

Then you act as though I’m the one jumping topic, “As I said, we'll get to that later.”

What is happening here is that you can throw in additional issues when you like but you berate me for responding to them! As I said, quite comical.

Anyhow your insistence on limiting discussion to the thermite flow seems to have brought us to a bit of a dead end where I have responded to your doubts and there is nothing left to address. Unless you actually have a reason that can be upheld, then there is nothing to say that the WTC2 visible flow is not thermite.

[Q24]

We are talking about a microscopic observation!

I will second everything that el midgetron has tried to help you understand and agree it is best to read the paper before discussing its findings.

[MARAB0D]

I will second everything that el midgetron has tried to help you understand and agree it is best to read the paper before discussing its findings.

You are free to second anything at all, as this does not add any sense to the thing which is discussed. I won't repeat the response to el midgetron, as it contains enough for anyone educated to think about. "Nano" is not seen under a common microscope, and under electron microscope one can not ignite anything, specially of a nano size. Just re-read the name list of those who signed that mentioned report, and see for yourself how many of them can be considered experts in Chemistry! There is one only Chemistry technician, whose "findings" and "opinion" is verified by the architects, civil engineers, lawyers and real estate agents! I wish the same group said something on Hubble telescope techniques...

[acidhead]

Ohhh, Midge! It is really a pity you never were my Chemistry student, otherwise I would have explained to you that 3 mm size pieces are very rare to be discovered in the dust... They sure look similar to your image though...

I find it amusing when self-confessed 'teachers' talk down to their students or forum members... reminds me of Jalyemurph's belittling comments.

...What's your creditials Marabod? ... 'kitchen chemist'?

[MARAB0D]

LOL, acid - what is YOUR credentials allowing you to ask for credentials? This is a forum, I am saying something, Chemistry-related - if you disagree and possess no expertise to challenge me yourself, you are always welcome to provide a link to a respected chemical source, which proves me wrong. Such source can be an approved text book, an extract from university lectures, CRC book, patent text, Chemical Encyclopaedia etc - but it can not be a politicised article, using chemistry-related terminology to support a conspiracy theory.

In the general case, however, you can simply perform an experiment to make sure if I was misinterpreting something - for example in the current case you can try to ignite a nanoparticle under a microscope or to examine the dust from your own window frame and try to discover in it an airborne piece of 3 mm size. Too easy!

[el midgetron]

In the general case, however, you can simply perform an experiment to make sure if I was misinterpreting something - for example in the current case you can try to ignite a nanoparticle under a microscope or to examine the dust from your own window frame and try to discover in it an airborne piece of 3 mm size. Too easy!

Are you saying that the collapse of the towers which involved tons of concrete, steel and misc materials being crushed by choatic force, is going to produce a substance comparable (in size mixture) to common house-hold dust?

You are correct about one thing, common house-hold dust is "airborne" materials that are very small, which is why they get kicked up and tossed about in the air and clutter your home. However, the WTC dust was generated and distributed in a vastly different method. Your suggestion that there shouldn't be any 3mm pieces in the WTC dust (because there isn't in common house-hold dust) is about like suggesting that you should be able to find giant steel beams or even the remains of WTC victims in the dust from your own window.

The circumstances that cause common house-hold dust just don't compare to the circumstances that caused the WTC dust. And there is an experiment you can preform to prove this - keep a daily record of the amount of dust that collects on your window frame each morning when you wake up. Let us know when you wake up to find your entire neighborhood suddenly blaketed in dust two inches deep. We await your results.

[MARAB0D]

Are you saying that the collapse of the towers which involved tons of concrete, steel and misc materials being crushed by choatic force, is going to produce a substance comparable (in size mixture) to common house-hold dust?

You are correct about one thing, common house-hold dust is "airborne" materials that are very small, which is why they get kicked up and tossed about in the air and clutter your home. However, the WTC dust was generated and distributed in a vastly different method. Your suggestion that there shouldn't be any 3mm pieces in the WTC dust (because there isn't in common house-hold dust) is about like suggesting that you should be able to find giant steel beams or even the remains of WTC victims in the dust from your own window.

The circumstances that cause common house-hold dust just don't compare to the circumstances that caused the WTC dust. And there is an experiment you can preform to prove this - keep a daily record of the amount of dust that collects on your window frame each morning when you wake up. Let us know when you wake up to find your entire neighborhood suddenly blaketed in dust two inches deep. We await your results.

Midge, this is not serious what you are saying. Dust is just dust, nothing more, and there can not be giant steel beams or fragments of human remains in it, you confuse the "dust" with the "rubble". It is precisely the dust which was sampled and studied, not the rubble. Dust is always airborne, and 3-mm pieces can not be airborne and can not freely travel in the air, unless we are talking some sort of a sandstorm. Just look at the map of locations, where the dust was collected (somewhere at the thread start)...

[MARAB0D]

Dust is a general name for minute solid particles with diameters less than 20 thou (500 micrometers). Particles in the atmosphere arise from various sources such as soil dust lifted up by wind, volcanic eruptions, and pollution. Dust in homes, offices, and other human environments consists of human skin cells, plant pollen, human and animal hairs, textile fibers, paper fibers, minerals from outdoor soil, and many other materials which may be found in the local environment.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust