ACTIVE THERMITE FOUND in the DUST OF WTC

[Ufo Believer]

From the Bentham Science Publishers

Quote from artical: "We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later."

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Edited July 24, 2009 by Ufo Believer

[Paranormalcy]

There is commonly some amount of thermite present in such buildings, as it is a component element of some of the material, according to a documentary segment I saw, but do not recall the name of it, sorry.

[acidhead]

There is commonly some amount of thermite present in such buildings, as it is a component element of some of the material, according to a documentary segment I saw, but do not recall the name of it, sorry.

This thermite as presented in the paper is different than conventional thermite found in common building fires from the paint.

The paper calls it an active super thermite... possibly military grade.... needs to be investigated.

[__Kratos__]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=150853

16 page thread there already on this.

[aquatus1]

The paper calls it an active super thermite... possibly military grade.... needs to be investigated.

Active super thermite would be fairly useless to the military. It burns too fast and too hot to do much damage. I suppose it would make for a smaller flashbang, but that's about it.

[Agent X]

So how could the military put the hundred tons of thermite in such a building without being noticed?

[Benz]

So how could the military put the hundred tons of thermite in such a building without being noticed?

over time

[Lt_Ripley]

So how could the military put the hundred tons of thermite in such a building without being noticed?

alot of floors were closed off and said to be being worked on for quite a long time.

[KennyB]

If you were a security guard in a 20 year old building where there was construction and maintainence going on and some guy came driving up on a fork-lift with some pallets of 100lb sacks clearly marked redi-mix concrete, would you stop him and cut open a sack to see if it was really thermite? That is, if you knew what thermite looked like? Those buildings had construction going on all the time. Now if CDI had been doing the job, they would have used as little explosive as they could and cut a lot of the beams with cutting torches. This was a military job, they didn't care if they blew concrete and steel for several blocks. They used lots of explosives. They might have even used a fuel-air bomb in the basement. Witnesses said there was a hell of an explosion. There was liquid steel running out of a window in WTC2. Those sites had hot puddles for a month. Takes thermite and a lot of it to melt that much steel

[aquatus1]

If you were a security guard in a 20 year old building where there was construction and maintainence going on and some guy came driving up on a fork-lift with some pallets of 100lb sacks clearly marked redi-mix concrete, would you stop him and cut open a sack to see if it was really thermite? That is, if you knew what thermite looked like? Those buildings had construction going on all the time. Now if CDI had been doing the job, they would have used as little explosive as they could and cut a lot of the beams with cutting torches. This was a military job, they didn't care if they blew concrete and steel for several blocks. They used lots of explosives. They might have even used a fuel-air bomb in the basement. Witnesses said there was a hell of an explosion. There was liquid steel running out of a window in WTC2. Those sites had hot puddles for a month. Takes thermite and a lot of it to melt that much steel

Again, there were no demolition charges in the basement. If there had been, we would have seen it in the fall of the towers.

And you are claiming that the liquid metal that was seen was liquid steel. You have no grounds for this. We know, from the hundreds of thousands of fires that have been studied, that aluminum melts very quickly and often puddles and streams. There is no reason to believe that this fire would have been any different than other fires, and produced liquid aluminum.

[chemical-licker]

So how could the military put the hundred tons of thermite in such a building without being noticed?

My theory was good, remember the film die hard 3? when they blew up the underground station right next to the twin towers.

Well they packed the trucks they used to get the gold away in with the explosives, who gonna question these trucks or the contents and if they did the excuse was they were gonna blow up the underground station. brilliant theory or what

[acidhead]

So how could the military put the hundred tons of thermite in such a building without being noticed?

Edited July 26, 2009 by acidhead

[aquatus1]

More to the point, how could anyone use thermite to cut a vertical beam?

Thermite creates heat and melts its way through whatever it's on. You can't tie it to a beam; it'll melt whatever you use to tie it. Heck, the moment it ignites, it melts a patch and slides right off, like an icecube.

The Mythbusters did an episode replicating the burning Hindenburg. They literally caked cotton sheets with thermite and placed them on the wire Hindenburg model. These are 1/4 inch steel wires, wrapped in thermite, and when the model was lit, the wire remained behind. Why? Because thermite burns too hot, too fast, and like everything else, it takes the path of least resistance. It slid right off the 1/4 inch wires before it did any significant damage.

So I'll ask the same question I've been asking for months: how did they get thermite, let alone hundreds of pounds of it, to burn sideways? How did they melt a vertical beam with thermite?

[Godsnmbr1]

So I'll ask the same question I've been asking for months: how did they get thermite, let alone hundreds of pounds of it, to burn sideways? How did they melt a vertical beam with thermite?

Drilled a hole? I'm sure the government has some pretty nice power tools.

[aquatus1]

I'm sure they do. But how is a hole going to help? Drill a hole, stuff it with thermite, light it, and what little remains after the volatile reaction has splattered out at least half of it, what remains is going to melt downwards. All you end up with is a stretched out oval, rather than a hole.

[Agent X]

It just never ceases to amaze how some people can come to such conclusions without any evidence to back it up, as well as just making junk up to support their CTs.

[Scott G]

I'm sure they do. But how is a hole going to help? Drill a hole, stuff it with thermite, light it, and what little remains after the volatile reaction has splattered out at least half of it, what remains is going to melt downwards. All you end up with is a stretched out oval, rather than a hole.

First of all, thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. It may have been used to take down the first floor, which took some time, but the rest had to use stronger stuff, such as nano-thermite. As to other questions that I've seen brought up here, I recommend checking out the following well researched WTC demolition FAQ, by 9/11 Research:

Frequently Asked Questions: Controlled Demolition

Here's an excerpt of the beginning of the article:

9-11 Research provides abundant evidence and analysis concerning the total destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7. See this

directory

. We think that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by planned demolitions, and were not the result of plane crashes and fires. The following questions are frequently asked by people encountering the idea of the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center buildings. Other questions are addressed in other

FAQs

.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Scott G

[aquatus1]

First of all, thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive.

Yes, I know. It's an incredibly volatile incendiary, and it reacts so violently that it splatters quite a bit when it is ignited.

It may have been used to take down the first floor, which took some time,

Therein the issue. Had thermite been used to take out a floor, it wouldn't have taken some time. It would have been near instantaneous.

but the rest had to use stronger stuff, such as nano-thermite.

What do you mean by stronger? Nano-thermite isn't actually hotter than regular thermite. It just has different properties. Because it is so finely ground (yep, that's all it takes to make regular thermite into nano-thermite), it burns faster than regular thermite. That means that the same amount of heat in a given amount of thermite is now released in a much smaller time frame. This is useful in certain applications, but useless for others. For the purposes of destruction, nano-thermite would make a decent initiator, but as far as actually causing damage, it is simply too efficient. It releases heat too quickly. Metal doesn't have time to absorb it, and more porous material, such as drywall

As to other questions that I've seen brought up here, I recommend checking out the following well researched WTC demolition FAQ, by 9/11 Research:

Frequently Asked Questions: Controlled Demolition

Here's an excerpt of the beginning of the article:

9-11 Research provides abundant evidence and analysis concerning the total destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7. See this

directory

. We think that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by planned demolitions, and were not the result of plane crashes and fires. The following questions are frequently asked by people encountering the idea of the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center buildings. Other questions are addressed in other

FAQs

.

They don't actually talk about thermite in this site, nor do they actually address the nuts and bolts questions that have been asked here. Nor does it talk about thermite, other than a link at the bottom of the page. Basically, the entire page is little more than a firm assertion that it most definitely could be possible, but it doesn't go into the details that continue to be asked in these forums. They are little more than the same claims we hear in these threads all the time.

I'm not sure why you refer to this as a well-researched FAQ. Gathering reasons doesn't make something well-researched. Being able to support reasons makes something well-researched.

[Little Fish]

So I'll ask the same question I've been asking for months: how did they get thermite, let alone hundreds of pounds of it, to burn sideways? How did they melt a vertical beam with thermite?

popular mechanics says this:

"experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength"

it is strange that some people happily accept that fire could do it, but not thermite (and the inevitable fire that would follow thermite).

[+DieChecker]

And... it all boils down to the US Government being able to get Muslim fanatics into the country, train them to fly and then get them to crash the planes into those buildings. Otherwise blowing up the buildings would have had no purpose to it. So, we are to assume that, who?, the CIA who couldn't find a chemical shell to save their lives in Iraq, somehow worked this miracle and made everything come off perfectly, aside from the thermite, of course?

That is what I find hard to believe.

George W couldn't have a single person tortured without it getting out, but the WTC demolition... that is a secret that no one cracked on? Sure.

[aquatus1]

it is strange that some people happily accept that fire could do it, but not thermite (and the inevitable fire that would follow thermite).

I don't know about happily, but it is certainly accepted, because some people understand the nature of the materials being used.

Think of it this way: You have a sheet of drywall. You fill a bucket with water, place the drywall over it, and turn the whole thing upside down. Over the course of an hour, the drywall will absorb a great deal of the water, and likely crumble into uselessness.

However, if you take that same bucket of water, and splash the whole thing directly onto a sheet of drywall all at one go, the drywall will get a bit wet, but only superficially, and it will eventually dry loosing very little of it's integrity.

The first one was due to a prolongued exposure, which allowed the the drywall to absorb the water. The second was due to a quick exposure, which did not do as much damage because the drywall can only absorb so much at a time, and anything above that is wasted.

The same happens with steel. A prolonged exposure, such as an office fire, will give the steel plenty of time to absorb enough heat to weaken it. A quick flash of the same amount of heat will disperse too quickly for the steel to be able to absorb more than a bit of it.

It really does seem that people are arguing thermite just for the sake of thermite. In order to cut a steel member, you don't need thermite; a shaped charge will do the job much more efficiently, much more easily, and much less blatantly, than thermite. In fire can be started any number of ways that don't require thermite, and when you have the presence of several thousands of gallons of jet fuel, thermite should really be the last thing on your list of possible causes.

Really, there is absolutely no purpose for thermite, and plenty of reason for it not to be used.

[+DieChecker]

I'll just add that I was a Combat Engineer in the US Army from '92 to '97 and worked with a LOT of explosives. I went to the Sapper Leaders Course at FT Leonard Wood and learned a lot about Improvised and standard explosives there too. The structure of the building could have been compromised by a much smaller amount of explosives used stratigically. Even home brewed explosives would have been better then trying to use thermite to burn structural members.

We would use only several dozens of pounds of C-4 to take down a bridge. By comparison, it takes about a pound of C-4 to blow down a regular door, and about twenty pounds to drop a large tree. The key is not how much you use, but where it is placed. With the amount of wreckage and dust that was thrown around by the fall of the buildings, it would not be suprising that an amount of C-4 needed to blow the buildings would be overlooked.

But, as I pointed out earlier, I think the whole conspiricy theory is bunk. The idea that the Bush government proposed, executed and covered up such an operation is next to impossible.

It is much more likely that the steel was fatigued from the burning fuel and when the top stories began to fall, the rest went too. The buildings were supposed to be built to stand that kind of damage, but then no cars are designed to flip over, but recalls go out all the time because they do. I'd go look at the records of the contractors/builders and see if they did not somehow magically come in under budget, or cut corners due to being over budget. The idea that the buildings were built badly is much more likely, IMHO, then that the military spent months secretly loading up thermite to blow them up, after terrorists flew planes into them.

[itsnotoutthere]

Has anyone said wrong forum yet?

[+DieChecker]

Ummm.... Actually..... it is callled "World, News, Events & Current Affairs" under which a large number of non-current affairs topics can be posted.

[Scott G]

it is strange that some people happily accept that fire could do it, but not thermite (and the inevitable fire that would follow thermite).

I don't know about happily, but it is certainly accepted, because some people understand the nature of the materials being used.

Think of it this way: You have a sheet of drywall. You fill a bucket with water, place the drywall over it, and turn the whole thing upside down. Over the course of an hour, the drywall will absorb a great deal of the water, and likely crumble into uselessness.

However, if you take that same bucket of water, and splash the whole thing directly onto a sheet of drywall all at one go, the drywall will get a bit wet, but only superficially, and it will eventually dry loosing very little of it's integrity.

The first one was due to a prolongued exposure, which allowed the the drywall to absorb the water. The second was due to a quick exposure, which did not do as much damage because the drywall can only absorb so much at a time, and anything above that is wasted.

The same happens with steel. A prolonged exposure, such as an office fire, will give the steel plenty of time to absorb enough heat to weaken it. A quick flash of the same amount of heat will disperse too quickly for the steel to be able to absorb more than a bit of it.

How prolonged are we talking about? The office fires in the WTC buildings was nowhere near enough to bring the towers down. This is all explained in papers such as Steven Jones peer reviewed paper, Why Indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?. In it, he analyzes a paper from Bazant and Zhou, in which they claim:

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800o C… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

He makes short work of their claim:

But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not

enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800o C, although air temperatures could have exceeded that value.

Next, he brings up their claim, brought up as if it were the logical conclusion:

Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3),

the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported,

and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”(Bazant and Zhou,

2002, p. 2.)

Building on his case that the steel should never have reached 800o C, he shoots this myth down fast:

Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can]

suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse

observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in

WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).

They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800o C were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800o C as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity.

It really does seem that people are arguing thermite just for the sake of thermite. In order to cut a steel member, you don't need thermite; a shaped charge will do the job much more efficiently, much more easily, and much less blatantly, than thermite. In fire can be started any number of ways that don't require thermite, and when you have the presence of several thousands of gallons of jet fuel, thermite should really be the last thing on your list of possible causes.

From what I understand, thermite was probably only used at the initial stage; the idea was to weaken the first floor so that it would collapse in a non explosive manner. Afterwards, I don't think anyone in the mainstream Truth movement is saying that thermite was used; at that point, what was used was nano-thermite, which is a high powered explosive, and possibly other more conventional explosives. Why was nano-thermite used at all? I'm not sure; it may be better at bringing down iron based structures (and steel certainly has a lot of iron in it). Perhaps it's somewhat quieter. Regardless of the motivation for using nano-thermite, however, the fact of the matter is that nano-thermite has been found in the debris by indepedent researchers such as Steven Jones and Neils' Harrit.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Scott G