Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Thermite confirmed in 911 WTC Dust Samples


acidhead
 Share

Recommended Posts

Midge - this is like Hamlet said "words, words, words". I am not a demolition expert, but I do work with thermite and related mixtures when I do pyrometallurgy - like obtaining ferrotitanium or ferrovanadium alloys from the oxides.

Well, considering you don't claim to be a demo expert maybe I should just let it go....but I am still curious what qualifies you to make judgements about the quantity of explosives required to bring down a building? How exactly did you arrive at the numbers you quoted? Certianly after you made such a scathing condemnation of the study's sample process, you must have praticed a more sound method to reach your own calculations. I await your outline.

I even know how to weld steel with this thermite powder, not saying how it works. This is not an explosive, and hardly it can be used to demolish a building. All it can be used for is to WEAKEN the steel structures by applying local heat in excess of 2000C. The product of combustion of such powder can indeed contain microscopic spheres of Iron, but the absolutely main chunk of it is a solid molten metal piece - and these pieces were supposed TO BE SEEN on the steel columns which were removed from site lately.

When thermite burns, the flame seen is absolutely white with bluish tinge; also it produces specific white smoke (Aluminium Oxide). This smoke rather quickly solidifies and coats all nearby surfaces with a specific greyish dust of Aluminium Oxide - and this one is much easier to detect, than the nanograms of unreacted mixture in the rubble. The result must look like a bend of a steel column, having on it a large "droplet" of steel with the areas around coated with grey dust. Very specific damage. But this would only happen if the thermite mixture burns in a slow mode - if it is a "nano-size" mixture, it would burn so rapidly, that disperses itself without damaging the steel at all! It would be just like an old magnesium photo flash - it simply has no time to damage the steel, as one needs time to heat the columns to weaken them.

Usage of thermite as an "explosive" contradicts common sense, because as such it is far inferior to TNT or simple dynamite, hexagen and other common explosives.

"As a Chemist I can fully agree on thermite action being enhanced by nano-size of the mixture components. The report implies, that the steel structures were preloaded with thermite charges, which provided for the rapid collapse of the buildings when initiated by the burning airplane fuel." - marabod post number #18

So, you go from saying that only around 60 pounds of the thermite material would be needed to bring the WTC towers down to saying that thermite could not have been use at all? Umm, am I missing something?

"This latter question points to the fact that the total charge, needed to weaken, say, 10 structural columns locally, hardly exceeds 20-30 kilograms per building (given the efficiency of thermite mixture) - if the reacted material was 99%, then we are talking about the residual 300 grams of unreacted mixture, which was supposed to be localized nearby the damaged areas of the columns, not dispersed evenly over thousands tons of rubble (as random sampling of 4 only points must suggest)." ~ marabod post #18

Exactly what kind of chemist are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • aquatus1

    36

  • el midgetron

    36

  • Q24

    45

  • MARAB0D

    63

Well, considering you don't claim to be a demo expert maybe I should just let it go....but I am still curious what qualifies you to make judgements about the quantity of explosives required to bring down a building? How exactly did you arrive at the numbers you quoted? Certianly after you made such a scathing condemnation of the study's sample process, you must have praticed a more sound method to reach your own calculations. I await your outline.

"As a Chemist I can fully agree on thermite action being enhanced by nano-size of the mixture components. The report implies, that the steel structures were preloaded with thermite charges, which provided for the rapid collapse of the buildings when initiated by the burning airplane fuel." - marabod post number #18

So, you go from saying that only around 60 pounds of the thermite material would be needed to bring the WTC towers down to saying that thermite could not have been use at all? Umm, am I missing something?

"This latter question points to the fact that the total charge, needed to weaken, say, 10 structural columns locally, hardly exceeds 20-30 kilograms per building (given the efficiency of thermite mixture) - if the reacted material was 99%, then we are talking about the residual 300 grams of unreacted mixture, which was supposed to be localized nearby the damaged areas of the columns, not dispersed evenly over thousands tons of rubble (as random sampling of 4 only points must suggest)." ~ marabod post #18

Exactly what kind of chemist are you?

Now... the nano-size of the mixture enhances the temperature release and accelerates the reaction - and this is precisely why nano-sized thermite can not be used, as the reaction time is too short for the mixture to heat up the steel column. It would just puff in a second and thats it.

How did I arrive to the numbers? By experience! One needs only few ounces of the thermite to weld two steel rails together. Steel columns used in the highraises are just thicker rails if you like - so I estimated 2-3 kg per column to be enough to locally heat it red, to about 600-700C; this would soften the column in one point only, so if this is done to multiple columns on the same level, they won't be able to carry the weight of the upper stores anymore. But in this case the building may lean and the upper part may fall down. We all saw that WTC buildings colladsed, not fell - and this can be easily explained by the uniform weakening of the steel structures in the fire around the middle height of the building. These are not demilition-specific considerations, but based on generic Material Science. What most likely happened in WTC was local expansion of the steel elements in the area of the fire, and the weakened columns became unable to carry the weight - but this "local" was in macro-sense and the area of such local changes was several flour levels at once. Thermite can only heat a foot or two of the column length, and in this area the column may bend under the load, but not provide for the collaps of the building.

If you ever saw the tall steel structures in a fire, you must understand what I am saying. Say a pylon of the high voltage line bends away from the side, where the fire is - because on the hotter side the structures are becoming elongated due to the thermal expansion. When the heat is removed, it would often return to the initial upright position. Same happens when a TV tower is on fire - it bends, as the steel cables inside it expand, but when the fire has been put down it cools and straightens. These both examples I was observing myself - but differently from WTC the load on top of the heated area is much smaller than in a highraise and also in WTC the heating was practically even, which eliminated the bending and caused internal collapse instead.

I do applied technological research in extractive Metallurgy, being not just a Chemist, but also Chemical Engineer. While I won't dare to design a real multistoried building, such design was included in my curriculum and I was even making a project of full design for a 6-storied production building, so I have some understanding of the civil engineering and structural design too - but it is not my speciality. However as I can see, it is not my opinions which you really want to discuss, as you seem just upset that not everyone around you finds it an obvious fact, that US government authorised the WTC attack and prepared it thoroughly. By the way I do not deny such possibility, all I am saying that the current attempt to claim the proof for it is a hoax. Myself I find much more intriguing that there was no plane, seen or filmed near Pentagon building - same as that the attacked section of the building was under repairs and had no people inside. But apart of the scattered footages of the attack there is also no credible proof to this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself I find much more intriguing that there was no plane, seen or filmed near Pentagon buildin

actually there were plenty of witnesses of the plane...it flew over a highway at low altitude to the point where it was clipping street lights and knocking them over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/i]Exactly what kind of chemist are you?

I think he has a BS in Chemistry? :unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone wants a more "see it with my own eyes" type of example of how useless thermite is in a demolition, this is a clip from Mythbusters, Where Adam and Jamie are reproducing the destruction of the Hindenburg.

In this clip, a wire rig made of 1/4 inch steel rods is covered with a canvas backing literally painted with thermite (the Mythbuster tested three Hindenburgs, one with regular canvas, one with the paint coating used in the actual Hindenburg, and the third one with actual thermite painted onto it). You will notice that the thermite burns so hot and so fast that it literally slips off the steel before doing too much damage. The 1/4 inch steel skeleton is still there, even after being wrapped with thermite encrusted canvas and set ablaze.

The only way that thermite can be used is vertically, with gravity leading the way. You cannot cut a vertical beam, because the cut has to be horizontal, and thermite doesn't work horizontally. Gravity will pull it downwards. It will literally melt a little patch of steel and then slip off, if you attach it to a vertical beam.

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Chemist I can fully agree on thermite action being enhanced by nano-size of the mixture components. The report implies, that the steel structures were preloaded with thermite charges, which provided for the rapid collapse of the buildings when initiated by the burning airplane fuel.

However as a Chemist, practicing in the area of mining and extractive technologies, I can note the strange nature of the sampling program. Why would a Manhattan resident be collecting a random dust sample? Who can certify that all four samples studied were in fact originating from WTC site? What weight proportion the samples must constitute to the overall weight of the rubble and why were they dispersed so widely that became available for random sampling?

In my view this report is a hoax.

The answers to these questions are in the (PDF) report:

It was learned that a number of people had saved samples

of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across

Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their

samples to members of this research group. This paper discusses

four separate dust samples collected on or shortly

after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray

chips. All four samples were originally collected by private

citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy.

These citizens came forward and provided samples for

analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11

dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from

the dust. A map showing the locations where the four samples

were collected is presented as Fig. (1).

linked-image

SAMPLE #1. The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio

who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was

on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time

the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He

saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick

dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful

of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the

end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the

North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom

Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of

them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic

bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust

to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his

testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape

[17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected

about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It

was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting

or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began

later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7,

which fell hours later.

SAMPLE #2. On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New

York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of

1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found

a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry

near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm).

Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount

of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the

room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and,

on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis.

SAMPLE #3. Another sample was collected from the apartment building

at 16 Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm

on 9/12/2001. Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously

sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008

for analysis. Intermont sent a signed affidavit with each

sample verifying that he had personally collected the (nowsplit)

sample; he wrote:

“This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’

World Trade Center Towers, was collected from

my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hudson

Street on September 12, 2001. I give permission

to use my name in connection to this

evidence”. [signed 31 January 2008 in the presence

of a witness who also signed his name].

SAMPLE #4. On the morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay

was in her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty

St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC

plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of

dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break

inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly

wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building.

The building was closed for entry for about a week. As

soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment,

she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick

layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a

large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art

piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006

paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November

2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms.

MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several

witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust

directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored.

She has also sent samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and

Kevin Ryan. Results from their studies form part of this report.

5th SAMPLE (not used) Another dust sample was collected by an individual from

a window sill of a building on Potter Street in NYC. He has

not given permission for his name to be disclosed, therefore

his material is not included in this study. That sample, however,

contained red/gray chips of the same general composition

as the samples described here.

*************

In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered

and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in

Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical

shapes shows that the residue had been melted,

enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical

shapes. However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses

is more compelling that a thermitic reaction actually occurs

as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is

heated to no more than 430 °C.

linked-image

**************

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived During the WTC Destruction?

In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the

fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen

small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted

from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable

glass and concrete fragments had been removed by

hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately

0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling

showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated

dust. Further samples are being analyzed to refine this

estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers produced enormous

clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult to ascertain; but

clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust

must be substantial given the fraction observed in these samplings.

2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature?

Our observations show that the red material contains substantial

amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together

very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed

a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum

away from other elements and determined that elemental

aluminum and iron oxide must be present. In the product

collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were

not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich

and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris.

Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips

react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of

aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultra fine

grain (UFG) aluminum in air [18]. These observations

reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available

papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG

aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to

form pyrotechnics or explosives [19-21].

Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary

when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine

grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite”

reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred

to as “super-thermite” [20, 22].

************

Indeed, the red chips can be ignited using a torch and

they have properties of a pyrotechnic nanocomposite. All the

required ingredients are present – aluminum, iron, oxygen,

silicon, and carbon – and they are incorporated in such a way

that the chip forms (and sometimes ejects) very hot material

when ignited. The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which

characterize this energetic material. We have performed

these same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We

note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption

of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed

[29].

A report on an April 2001 conference discloses who was

known to be working on such explosives at that time:

The 221st National Meeting of the American

Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San

Diego featured a symposium on Defense Applications

of Nanomaterials. One of the 4 sessions

was titled nanoenergetics…. This session provided

a good representation of the breadth of

work ongoing in this field, which is roughly 10

years old.… At this point in time, all of the

military services and some DOE and academic

laboratories have active R&D programs aimed

at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials

that have potential to be used in

energetic formulations for advanced explosives….

nanoenergetics hold promise as useful

ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX)

and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to

their high degree of tailorability with regards to

energy release and impulse management [20].

The feature of “impulse management” may be significant.

It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have

just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation

while minimizing the noise level.

**********

5. Can Super-Thermite be Handled Safely?

The April 2000 report by Gash et al. states:

“The nature of the wet nanocomposites also affords

an additional degree of safety. In our

hands, the wet pyrotechnic nanocomposites

cannot be ignited until the drying process is

complete. This property should allow the production

of a large quantity of the pyrotechnics

that can be stored safely for some time and

dried shortly before its use” [19].

Safe handling of the malleable sol-gel material allows

easy coating of surfaces (such as steel), which the same

group, in a subsequent report, says they have achieved.

“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-,

spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat

surfaces. We have utilized this property to dipcoat

various substrates to make sol-gel

Fe2O3/Al/Viton coatings. The energetic coating

dries to give a nice adherent film.” “We have

prepared fine powders, pressed pellets, cast

monoliths, and thin films of the hybrid inorganic/

organic energetic nanocomposite” [25].

6. What is the Energy Release of Super-Thermite Compared to Conventional Explosives?

A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials

[21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3

composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB

explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).

linked-image

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more

energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the

blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite

is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in

evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most

likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again,

conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas

super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for

rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive

[6, 24].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have utilized this property to dipcoat

various substrates to make sol-gel

Fe2O3/Al/Viton coatings. The energetic coating

dries to give a nice adherent film

This is a nice observation - but has little to do with practical life. Explosive coating produces explosion, in which the shockwave is directed almost uniformly in all directions, and thus its damaging action is minimised. Easy test: add liquid Iodine solution to Ammonia solution, this would produce black crystals. Separate the crystals and while wet "paint" them on some metal or even paper surface. This is NJ3, Nitrogen Iodide - it spontaneously explodes when dry. Extremely strong explosive agent. When the surface is dry, you would hear the bang - just to find that no damage was produced to the surfaces. At best there would be few pin-holes on the paper. Just don't touch the thing when it is dry but refuses to explode, otherwise the pinholes would be in your fingers. When I was a kid, we sometimes were putting this mixture inside someone's door key-hole; when the key touches it, it produces strong bang, like a pistol shot, and may weld the key to the lock inside - so when in a relatively CONFINED space, it can do the damage, but not when it is left open.

Both Iron and Aluminium are extremely common construction materials - so it would have been surprising if they were not detected in the dust from WTC site. The wide spread of the sampling points, in which they were detected points to the fact that they were uniformly mixed with the other remains of the buildings, and this practically excludes thermite theory, as in this case there is supposed to be their localisation! Unless of course the entire buildings were uniformly "painted" by thermite. LOL - even this is almost possible, as the common red undercoat, used for metals, is a cheap anticorrosion paint, based precisely on almost nano-size Iron Oxide. The pigment for this paint makes a great thermite mixture!

As for the Aluminium component... There was enough around, it is not only window frames but the planes themselves, which were burning together with the buildings. Aluminium was supposed to be part-melted/part-burnt in the fire; in the areas of insufficient Oxygen it could even evaporate and then condense on the colder surfaces (say, on the steel columns, painted with red Iron Oxide paint).

In general the percentage of "thermite" in the buildings must be equal or near equal to the percentage of Iron Oxide in the paints and rust plus percentage of Aluminium constructions in the total weight of the rubble. Maybe a bit less, as Aluminium oxidizes in a fire...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a nice observation - but has little to do with practical life. Explosive coating produces explosion, in which the shockwave is directed almost uniformly in all directions, and thus its damaging action is minimised. Easy test: add liquid Iodine solution to Ammonia solution, this would produce black crystals. Separate the crystals and while wet "paint" them on some metal or even paper surface. This is NJ3, Nitrogen Iodide - it spontaneously explodes when dry. Extremely strong explosive agent. When the surface is dry, you would hear the bang - just to find that no damage was produced to the surfaces. At best there would be few pin-holes on the paper. Just don't touch the thing when it is dry but refuses to explode, otherwise the pinholes would be in your fingers. When I was a kid, we sometimes were putting this mixture inside someone's door key-hole; when the key touches it, it produces strong bang, like a pistol shot, and may weld the key to the lock inside - so when in a relatively CONFINED space, it can do the damage, but not when it is left open.

Both Iron and Aluminium are extremely common construction materials - so it would have been surprising if they were not detected in the dust from WTC site. The wide spread of the sampling points, in which they were detected points to the fact that they were uniformly mixed with the other remains of the buildings, and this practically excludes thermite theory, as in this case there is supposed to be their localisation! Unless of course the entire buildings were uniformly "painted" by thermite. LOL - even this is almost possible, as the common red undercoat, used for metals, is a cheap anticorrosion paint, based precisely on almost nano-size Iron Oxide. The pigment for this paint makes a great thermite mixture!

As for the Aluminium component... There was enough around, it is not only window frames but the planes themselves, which were burning together with the buildings. Aluminium was supposed to be part-melted/part-burnt in the fire; in the areas of insufficient Oxygen it could even evaporate and then condense on the colder surfaces (say, on the steel columns, painted with red Iron Oxide paint).

In general the percentage of "thermite" in the buildings must be equal or near equal to the percentage of Iron Oxide in the paints and rust plus percentage of Aluminium constructions in the total weight of the rubble. Maybe a bit less, as Aluminium oxidizes in a fire...

The thermite you constantly refer to is a 'commercial grade" thermite... yes?

The report(paper) performs several tests to confirm "a commercial grade" though the final conclusion states that the particles are most-likely a "super Thermite" compound....

Have you ever played with "super-thermite" the authors are talking about?

************

The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which

characterize this energetic material. We have performed

these same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We

note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption

of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed

[29].

A report on an April 2001 conference discloses who was known to be working on such explosives at that time:

The 221st National Meeting of the American

Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San

Diego featured a symposium on Defense Applications

of Nanomaterials. One of the 4 sessions

was titled nanoenergetics…. This session provided

a good representation of the breadth of

work ongoing in this field, which is roughly 10

years old.… At this point in time, all of the

military services and some DOE and academic

laboratories have active R&D programs aimed

at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials

that have potential to be used in

energetic formulations for advanced explosives….

nanoenergetics hold promise as useful

ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX)

and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to

their high degree of tailorability with regards to

energy release and impulse management [20].

********************

6. What is the Energy Release of Super-Thermite Compared to Conventional Explosives?

A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials

[21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3

composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB

explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).

linked-image

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more

energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the

blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite

is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in

evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most

likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again,

conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas

super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for

rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive

[6, 24].

Edited by acidhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acid, "energy" is nothing. There is more "energy" in a Valiant car than in several tractors - but you still can not use it to pull the plough. You presume that super-thermite is better for demolishing the buildings than a regular one - but they are both equally useless for this job, due to the different reasons. And both leave traces, what is more important - while if the task was to conceal the explosive usage, it was possible to use the one which does not leave any trace. For example oxycarbon mixture - just plain charcoal, impregnated with liquid Oxygen. Couple of times stronger than TNT and leaves only CO2... They use it in mining.

This "energy" released by super-thermite first of all pulverizes the charge itself - unless it is confined in a solid shell. But even if so, the amount of gases produced by alleged "organic" additive is miserable if compared to any conventional explosive, same is its destructive action. Thermite is NOT an explosive irrelevantly to how finely it is pulverised. Its military use is based on its ability to produce high temperatures - special thermite bombs are used to burn the city buildings. Civil defense dudes, and even women and children patrol the attics during bombing raids, quickly pick up these bombs and throw them in a bucket with water, this was common practice in WW2, my Grandma was doing this, said the bucket was heavy to run with... There is no risk of explosion from them! All they can do is to ignite the fire. In fact that mentioned "organic additive" is supposed to downgrade the effect in super-thermite, as it effectively separates the particles - and any chemical reaction in mixtures requires first of all CONTACT of materials. The reaction in mixtures is of a chain type of a sort - the heat from one area initiates the reaction in the next area - while the conventional explosions detonate at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, yeah - and "super-thermite" produces just a hot flash. Years ago I was teaching chemistry at school, and had accident with this, when my hand occurred in a middle of such flash. Cost me a few weeks of pain as all skin came off, but now I know not to use the second match if the first one "failed" to ignite. That one was made of finest possible grounded pigment and Aluminium fine powder, pulverised in vacuum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you argue both that the samples must not be legitimate because the amount of material to do the job would so small that any residue would be insignificant in relation to the thousands of tons of rubble and also argue that thermite of any sort would have been useless for the job?

This latter question points to the fact that the total charge, needed to weaken, say, 10 structural columns locally, hardly exceeds 20-30 kilograms per building (given the efficiency of thermite mixture) - if the reacted material was 99%, then we are talking about the residual 300 grams of unreacted mixture, which was supposed to be localized nearby the damaged areas of the columns, not dispersed evenly over thousands tons of rubble (as random sampling of 4 only points must suggest).

You presume that super-thermite is better for demolishing the buildings than a regular one - but they are both equally useless for this job, due to the different reasons.

You continue this curious argument by stating that by your calculations the amount of nanothermit found in the samples is of a much greater ratio and dispersed over a larger area than would be expected considering the small amount of nanothermite needed to "heat" the columns "red" But you also claim that nanothermite burns to fast to even heat the collumns at all???

How did I arrive to the numbers? By experience! One needs only few ounces of the thermite to weld two steel rails together. Steel columns used in the highraises are just thicker rails if you like - so I estimated 2-3 kg per column to be enough to locally heat it red, to about 600-700C; this would soften the column in one point only, so if this is done to multiple columns on the same level, they won't be able to carry the weight of the upper stores anymore. But in this case the building may lean and the upper part may fall down. We all saw that WTC buildings colladsed, not fell - and this can be easily explained by the uniform weakening of the steel structures in the fire around the middle height of the building. These are not demilition-specific considerations, but based on generic Material Science. What most likely happened in WTC was local expansion of the steel elements in the area of the fire, and the weakened columns became unable to carry the weight - but this "local" was in macro-sense and the area of such local changes was several flour levels at once. Thermite can only heat a foot or two of the column length, and in this area the column may bend under the load, but not provide for the collaps of the building.

When thermite burns, the flame seen is absolutely white with bluish tinge; also it produces specific white smoke (Aluminium Oxide). This smoke rather quickly solidifies and coats all nearby surfaces with a specific greyish dust of Aluminium Oxide - and this one is much easier to detect, than the nanograms of unreacted mixture in the rubble. The result must look like a bend of a steel column, having on it a large "droplet" of steel with the areas around coated with grey dust. Very specific damage. But this would only happen if the thermite mixture burns in a slow mode - if it is a "nano-size" mixture, it would burn so rapidly, that disperses itself without damaging the steel at all! It would be just like an old magnesium photo flash - it simply has no time to damage the steel, as one needs time to heat the columns to weaken them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you argue both that the samples must not be legitimate because the amount of material to do the job would so small that any residue would be insignificant in relation to the thousands of tons of rubble and also argue that thermite of any sort would have been useless for the job?

You continue this curious argument by stating that by your calculations the amount of nanothermit found in the samples is of a much greater ratio and dispersed over a larger area than would be expected considering the small amount of nanothermite needed to "heat" the columns "red" But you also claim that nanothermite burns to fast to even heat the collumns at all???

LOL, Midge - this is because the story is a fiddlestick from BOTH points of view! Mind you, what I say short-circuits the sources to myself - because differently from you, I am a professional, making living off Chemistry. You, on the contrary, are a "diletanto", who can not even understand my argumentation due to the lack of education in the discussed field. All you do, is to point to the statements of the others - and this would've been a really interesting discussion, if any of those "others" found the courage (or time) to post here in defence of their findings... but you really know not more about the mail delivered, than a mail-man who delivers it! You are just an amateur conspiracy theoretician, who already has the dreamed model in mind and looks for anything sensible and non-sensible to fit into it! Sorta "Moon is made of cheese", so you go out every night trying to smell it.

I suggest you to work it out, maybe the columns were maliciously coated with a special CIA-made nano-slime, which made them nano-slippery, so that the concrete load was sliding down off them like lamb off the spit. Makes similar sense. Or better turn your mind to your own professional area, whatever it is, and make a killing in it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha - somewhere above there was a reference to the fact that some of the researchers were victimized and even lost their jobs... I see this as a quite natural outcome, as the participation in the discussed program and support of the results of it only demonstrate that these people were completely out of the league. Neither did they know how the valid representative samples must be collected, nor do they know how the mixture-in-question works. Alas, there is plenty of blockheads, operating within Science and trying to compensate for their inability to become Einsteins by traditional means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, Midge - this is because the story is a fiddlestick from BOTH points of view! Mind you, what I say short-circuits the sources to myself - because differently from you, I am a professional, making living off Chemistry. You, on the contrary, are a "diletanto", who can not even understand my argumentation due to the lack of education in the discussed field. All you do, is to point to the statements of the others - and this would've been a really interesting discussion, if any of those "others" found the courage (or time) to post here in defence of their findings... but you really know not more about the mail delivered, than a mail-man who delivers it! You are just an amateur conspiracy theoretician, who already has the dreamed model in mind and looks for anything sensible and non-sensible to fit into it! Sorta "Moon is made of cheese", so you go out every night trying to smell it.

I suggest you to work it out, maybe the columns were maliciously coated with a special CIA-made nano-slime, which made them nano-slippery, so that the concrete load was sliding down off them like lamb off the spit. Makes similar sense. Or better turn your mind to your own professional area, whatever it is, and make a killing in it. :)

Umm yeah......So because you are a "professional" that some how gives you the magical ability to calculate how much (or as you argue, how little) thermite would be needed to bring down the towers and also claim (despite your fancy pants "profesional" calculations that suggested otherwise) that thermite is useless to use for the purpose for which your calculations found only a small amount would be needed?

LOL Its so embarassing, I honestly hoped you would offer a plausible explanation for your contradictions. However, you again displayed your "professionalism" by resorting to attacking me rather than explaining your disconected arguement.

Hey, maybe if you used the same method of calculation again you could find the proper dosage of viagera needed to cure cancer?

LOL, Midge - this is because the story is a fiddlestick from BOTH points of view!

BTW, your are the only one with two points of view. But maybe you need to be a scientist to understand that.......

If you bother responding again, please, please gather all your professionalism and legitimatly answer just this one question - How did you calculate that only "30 kilograms" of something "useless for the job" would be needed to complete the job its useless for?

Edited by el midgetron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles )

April 10, 2009

Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists found nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center. He is interviewed on danish TV2 News.

***********

Harrit estimates 10-100 tonnes of nano-thermite was used.

When asked how do you place such a material in a skyscraper, on all floors? How would you get it in?

He replied, "Yes. If I had to transport it in those quantities I would use pallets. Get a truck and move it in on pallets."

Then he was asked, "Why wasn't this noticed ....? ...that quantity of material placing it on all floors...I'm just surprised no-one noticed"

He said, "As a journalist you should address that question to the company responsible for security at the WTC"

Question: So you are in no doubt the material was present?

NH: You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it. Un-reacted thermite.

Edited by acidhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, your are the only one with two points of view. But maybe you need to be a scientist to understand that.......

If you bother responding again, please, please gather all your professionalism and legitimatly answer just this one question - How did you calculate that only "30 kilograms" of something "useless for the job" would be needed to complete the job its useless for?

Duh! The "job" was to make the building to collapse inside itself! For this particularly job thermite is useless in all its forms (as it was explained in the earlier posts to the people, who actually can read English). But the quantity estimated can probably cause it to fall on one of the sides... Next time don't eat baked beans before reading - the wind detracts you from the details discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrit estimates 10-100 tonnes of nano-thermite was used.

When asked how do you place such a material in a skyscraper, on all floors? How would you get it in?

He replied, "Yes. If I had to transport it in those quantities I would use pallets. Get a truck and move it in on pallets."

ROFL! Haven't I just suggested that the boys are completely out of the league? But this one at least knows that a truck can be used! A basic 100-ton truck... Or a convoy of 20 5-ton trucks, does not matter, would still do for a secret operation as the pedestrians would think they are delivering money... And a crane to lift the bulk-bags to the level of half the building height (sure they won't fit the lifts, these bulk bags or the pallets - unless CIA agents were manually pulling them up the stairs all night). Then you throw a cigarette butt - PUFFF!, and no plane is required at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duh! The "job" was to make the building to collapse inside itself! For this particularly job thermite is useless in all its forms (as it was explained in the earlier posts to the people, who actually can read English). But the quantity estimated can probably cause it to fall on one of the sides... Next time don't eat baked beans before reading - the wind detracts you from the details discussed.

...? ... the report concludes a "super" thermite ... NOT commercial thermite... NEEDS investigating.

"the job was to make the building to collapse inside itself?"--who said this?

"but the quantity estimated can probably cause it to fall on one of the sides" --it didn't though... go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...? ... the report concludes a "super" thermite ... NOT commercial thermite... NEEDS investigating.

"the job was to make the building to collapse inside itself?"--who said this?

"but the quantity estimated can probably cause it to fall on one of the sides" --it didn't though... go figure.

No one said - it has just collapsed inside itself, I was watching this on TV!

BTW the heat from 100 tons of even non-super thermite would probably melt the entire WTC plus a 500-meter deep hole in the ground...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Chemistry for dummies":

Thermite (any) is a stoichiometric mix to fit the equation Fe2O3 +2Al = Al2O3 + 2Fe

In simpler words, 160 grams of Iron Oxide in it is mixed with 54 grams of Aluminium, and produces upon burning 112 grams of Iron metal. This makes 112 grams of Iron per each 214 grams of the mixture - approximately one half of initial amount.

Iron melts at around 1600 C, and the temperature of the reaction is in excess of 2000 C - this means the Iron product comes in a liquid form (which allows to use thermite for welding).

Therefore, 100 tons of thermite would inevitably leave behind around 50 tons of molten steel. If someone here ever saw at least one ton of molten steel, this person would understand what I mean - to conceal the traces of such usage one must remove and hide 50 tons of solid steel stalactites and stalagmites! Moreover, this molten steel with the highest probability was supposed to form a steel tablet shaped and sized as the entire building floor - how could they remove it from the site at all??? Break in pieces with a giant chisel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, "nano", sorry, I keep forgetting!!! The flash from 100 tons of "nano-thermite" would be half-Manhattan in diameter - and everything alive within it would be evaporated... A sort of clean Hiroshima... To check this my statement I would leave to the conspiracy enthusiasts - just make 50, 100 and 200 grams of fine mixture ("nano" - not compulsory, even oldfashined magnesium photo mixture would do). Then - one takes the burning match, and another takes a measuring tape to determine the flash diameter, hahaha! The third watches and keeps records, which are further used to scale up to 100 tons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do you think of the ‘non-study’ carried out by the official NIST investigation that I detailed above?

Also out of interest, have you viewed the thermite resembling substance flowing from the failure initiation level of WTC2 in the minutes prior to its collapse?

No responses were received to either of the above.

In relation to the second question I am going to throw the information out here as it ties into the main topic regarding thermite at the WTC. The molten flow from WTC2 in the minutes leading to its collapse has been cited as supportive evidence of thermite since long before this latest journal paper was released. Viewing the images below it is not difficult to see why.

linked-imagelinked-image
WTC2 flow (left) Thermite reaction (right)

The ‘official’ story has put forward the idea of office debris, battery lead or aluminium as the cause of the WTC2 flow but these theories all suffer from the following negatives: -

  1. No thick/dark smoke expected from debris
  2. No flame expected from debris
  3. No silver colour to indicate aluminium or lead
  4. No dark/light patches/spots indicative of a mixture
  5. Experiments to replicate molten metal/debris mix have proven unsuccessful
The following observations leave thermite as the leading contender: -

  1. Light white smoke as given off from iron oxide in thermite reactions
  2. No flame as in thermite reactions
  3. Glowing orange/red as in thermite reactions
  4. Completeness of substance colouration and consistency throughout
  5. Timing of substance flow immediately prior to collapse

Of course there are still further issues such as the “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting” discovered by the initial FEMA investigation for which they speculated, “It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.” FEMA recommended a “detailed study” of this finding, which NIST ignored and has not been carried out to this day.

This is just to demonstrate that there is additional evidence supporting the use of thermite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duh! The "job" was to make the building to collapse inside itself! For this particularly job thermite is useless in all its forms (as it was explained in the earlier posts to the people, who actually can read English). But the quantity estimated can probably cause it to fall on one of the sides... Next time don't eat baked beans before reading - the wind detracts you from the details discussed.

So, what relavance would your "calculations" have at all? How do your "calculations" have eny relavance to the actual event? Your argument was that the amount of residue found was well beyond what should have been fround according to "your calculations". However, now you are stating that your "calculation" were not based on the actual effects but what you claim are the only possible effects.

Thats some nice spin on your part but hardly scientific. In plain therminology, you based your calculations on a completely hypothetical and unrelated scenario rather than what actually happened (possible with thermite or not). And before you go on about the potential of thermite in defense of your argument, rember that the context argument involving your "calculations" wasn't made in reguards to the damage witnessed or even suggested (by you), but the samples collected. So, while you decry the samples as being unaccurate by "your calculations", you have stated your calculation were not based on the actual event at all. In essence its irrelevent to what actually happened. Its beyond me why any "professional" would bother with such a meaningless exercise.

Of course, even your spin on the above issue doesn't account for other more blatant contradictions you have made. I guess again I need to quote your words reguarding the effects of nanothermite.

Reguarding the samples of nano-thermit collected you said this -

"so I estimated 2-3 kg per column to be enough to locally heat it red, to about 600-700C; this would soften the column in one point only, so if this is done to multiple columns on the same level, they won't be able to carry the weight of the upper stores anymore"

Yet, in reguards to the potential of nano-thermite you said this -

"if it is a "nano-size" mixture, it would burn so rapidly, that disperses itself without damaging the steel at all! It would be just like an old magnesium photo flash - it simply has no time to damage the steel, as one needs time to heat the columns to weaken them."

Eh? So, might I assume your "calculations" were not only based on an irrelevant event but based also on an irrelevant mixture of thermite? Clearly one substance cannot both heat something "red" (causing it to weaken and fail under its load) and also burn so fast as to not damage that substance at all. If my assumptions is correct (and I assume it is as your options to spin this are limited), than as a scientist, what was your reasoning to use two completely unrelated factors to calculate your formula in support of your argument reguarding the validity of the thermite mixture found in the samples?

This all causes me to have serious doubts in your "professionalism" and in the sincerity of your argument.

Edited by el midgetron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midge - the photo is impressive and weird, but you are stepping on your own toes! Your people quoted, DO NOT think this was a normal thermite, but some mysterious "super-thermite" which is supposed to be an explosive! The building picture, however, resembles quite ordinary thermite reaction - which is excluded by the findings of the "researchers" who claim it to have been a super-thermite. Do not you see a contradiction here? No explosion, no massive flash - nothing which can be attributed to this alleged nano-mixture!

The same time, resemblance to thermite does not constitute thermite at all. Radiation Laws explain that any heated substance would emit light with its wavelength getting shorter with the rise of temperature. All without exception substances start to glow red at about 650 C, and then the colour starts changing to orange when closer to 1000C and then to bluish-white at the temperatures over 1700 C. When you look inside a steel-making furnace, you can see that at 1720 C steel is practically of white colour - same it must be in thermite reaction. The pot, which they present as an example, contains a slow-burning conventional thermite mixture - and the temperatures, produced in it depend on how finely they ground the mixture, as when it is fine enough it would have higher temperatures than when it is coarse, so one can see the white colour flame immediately above the pot, but the steel flow underneath is colder and visually hardly exceeds 1700 C.

When a big building is on fire there are always some weird things observed, simply because no one exactly knows what was stored in these buildings. Something always explodes when heated (gas bottles, empty fuel cans, accidental ammo caches, transformers, even tyres etc), something always burns unusual way, something smokes with other colour...

The orange flow from the window on the photo can easily be some burning organics, for example aviation fuel from the plane, not necessarily a molten metal - but it can be Aluminium too, and one must miss something, expecting molten Aluminium to be "silvery" in colour, as it emits light like any other molten metal! Just put an Aluminium spoon in a camp fire - and afterwards you would find a little slab under the charcoals. The fact that this spot appears only in one window (at least on the photo) shows that the reaction was at one corner only - while the columns of the buildings are uniformly spread all over its area, and the thermite damage or even a complete destruction of one column only, can not bring the building down as the columns always have excess of strength and the weight would be simply re-distributed among the rest of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.