ACTIVE THERMITE FOUND in the DUST OF WTC

[Scott G]

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.

Thanks for making that point. I head that the explosives may have been hidden in office tiles; I remember another source saying the elevator shafts were probably used (I believe that theory came from mechanical engineer Gordon Ross); I wish I could remember where I read these things with more certainty, but I read a lot and the sources at times escape me.

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.

No, it's not, as I explained in my previous post in this thread.

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.

The possibility of faulty design has been analyzed by many serious researchers and discarded. Here's an analysis detailing the faultiness in this reasoning:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Steven Jones paper, Why Indeed did the WTC buildings collapse? has pictures of the actual towers in construction, which can be seen on pages 34 and 35, making it clear that the building was rock solid as designed.

[Moon Demon]

Quote from artical: "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."

Yeah, sorry I don't believe that someone gathered "samples 10 minutes after the collapse". There is no way you could get near the collapse site within ten minutes of the collapse. You couldn't even see in front of you from the dust, much less bear the heat from the fires and collapse, and how about getting through panicking crowds and firefighters. Sorry, this just is not feasible. 100% lie

I think certain groups are so consumed with proving that 9/11 was an inside job, they are now willing to make up lies to help back up their theories.

[aquatus1]

How prolonged are we talking about?

Longer than the 20-30 second burn time of thermite.

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,

The reason Jones' had to create a journal to publish his papers is because no peer review group would validate his papers. The reason for that is the frequent violations of valid research technique. For instance, he frequently refers to pools of molten iron, but gives no evidence of their existence other than hearsay. Being that molten aluminum is not at all uncommon in office fires, but molten fire is all but unheard of, it is incumbent on Jones to show evidence that what was reported was indeed molten iron, not aluminum.

He also refers continuously to "thermite" cutter charges. There are no such things. Years after his papers were published, someone did patent an idea for one, however the patent filed did not have a prototype, nor, frankly, is it expected to work, as it is little more than a directed flash charge on a pole. If the brunt of one's theory relies on non-existent technology, you do not have a argument.

You say this is explained in the paper, however the paper (again, this was rejected by peer review) does not actually do so. It is a speculative piece. Take, for instance, the following:

"The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead, zinc and aluminum, and these metals can evidently

be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below)

temperatures. However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building)

or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two."

His entire argument for the existence of molten steel is that it looked like molten iron, despite his own admission that other office metals would be molten at the temperatures present. How you can rule out metals that would be molten when attempting to explain how steel might be molten is beyond me.

In short, the reason why Jones is not taken seriously is because his explanations require unsupported assumptions in order to work. It's a bunch of What If's? Jones knew this, and because of this, he created his own journal to publish these papers, and created his own peer review board, and even chaired it. Personally, I just can't take that sort of thing seriously.

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.

By first floor, do you mean the first floor of the building, or the first one above the point of impact?

Afterwards, I don't think anyone in the mainstream Truth movement is saying that thermite was used;

You got people postulating that hundred pound bags of thermite were brought in by mini-forklift. You are giving Truthers far too much credit for common sense.

at that point, what was used was nano-thermite, which is a high powered explosive, and possibly other more conventional explosives.

Again, the use of non-existent technologies does not make for a valid case.

Nano-thermite is not a high-powered explosive, or any sort of explosive at all. Just like any other thermitic reaction, it is an incendiary, nothing more, nothing less. And it is useless for demolition. It is simply too short pulse. Nano-thermite is more like flash powder than gun powder.

Frankly, even if nano-thermite was used on floors, it would require the use of sandblasting equipment to remove the 6 inches of foaming insulation on the trusses in order to paint the nano-thermite on. That's a major operation. And even then, it would not work for the previously mentioned reasons.

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.

Of course it was. Nano-thermite is made one of two ways (that I know of). First mechanically, by grinding. Second, by vaporization of aluminum and oxide particles. Both those forces, along with abundant aluminum and oxide, were present at the WTC. It was not only possible that nano-thermite was present, it was inevitable.

[+DieChecker]

No, it's not, as I explained in my previous post in this thread.

So you have clearly outlined how Bush and Co were able to do this and that the cover up was air tight. No one has stepped forward? No one has a continence? No one investigated any strange expenditures? No rumors? No stories by drunks? Nothing? I'll have to go back and look for that post.

You propose that this was designed, executed and perpetrated perfectly with only trace clues that it was done? That is harder to believe then saying werewolves did it. Or, that it was done by magic or psychics.

If you are right then surely some day someone will make a deathbed pronouncement and you will be vindicated. Till then this is a theory that is really out there.

Of course it was. Nano-thermite is made one of two ways (that I know of). First mechanically, by grinding. Second, by vaporization of aluminum and oxide particles. Both those forces, along with abundant aluminum and oxide, were present at the WTC. It was not only possible that nano-thermite was present, it was inevitable.

So, if I understand correctly, thermite is ground up metals and oxides. All of which are relatively common and would not be hard to find in any large scale demolition. Also, wiki says that thermite is used for welding sometimes. Are we 100% sure that these traces of thermite are not due to left overs from when the buildings were constructed? Is there any notes to if thermite welding was used?

Pictures of the construction prove little. The materials could have been inferior or they could have been assembled poorly. Pictures from a distance can not tell you the quality of riveting or welds.

[Ufo Believer]

Did anyone ever see this video at all?

Watch it and you might come up with some questions that you may want to ask the Government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

Pay very close attention to this video as well.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Ufo Believer

[aquatus1]

So, if I understand correctly, thermite is ground up metals and oxides.

More specifically, aluminum and iron oxide, although different metallic oxides result in different properties. Thermitic reactions are also known as aluminothermic reactions.

All of which are relatively common and would not be hard to find in any large scale demolition.

Well, it wouldn't be easy, but it would be present. The quantity formed is directly proportional to the amount of heat and pressure involved. Obviously, something like one of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing is going to provide plenty of that, even without the fire burning.

Also, wiki says that thermite is used for welding sometimes. Are we 100% sure that these traces of thermite are not due to left overs from when the buildings were constructed? Is there any notes to if thermite welding was used?

While thermite itself is usually only used to weld gaps (the vast majority is for railroad tracks; a ceramic mold is placed between the two track, some waste steel is added to the hopper, and about a pound of thermite is put on top. The whole thing melts and fills in the gap between the tracks, fusing to the steel), thermite is rarely used in building construction. However, pretty much all welding techniques use some form of thermitic reaction, which results in the same sort of residue left over. Thermal lances, in particular, are notorious for vaporizing large clouds of metals and leaving residue behind.