More Information On 9/11

Dingo667

I'm strange but true.
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,813
Likes
57
Points
64
#2
Just reading the article didn't really make me understand, but when I went to the site the abstract to the paper was printed, it made more sense:


http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conte ... 7TOCPJ.SGM
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Abstract


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. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite
Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.



NIST reacted with:

"We get a lot of calls from people who have heard these theories," NIST spokesman Michael Newman told Newsday. "But we conducted what was probably the most complex investigation of a building collapse in history."


"We based our conclusion on the talents of the world's best engineers and scientists, state of the art computer models and 236 pieces of steel recovered from the site," reads the NIST FAQ.


Yeah, but these new scientists didn't need computer models, nor steel to reach their conclusions whilst NIST didn't use debris dust. It is actually a new finding, so why the useless comment?
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,743
Likes
1,190
Points
234
Location
In a Liminal Zone
#3
Thermite is iron oxide and aluminium. There was a lot of melted aluminium around, the frame of the building was steel. Are these actually superthermite or a condensate from fine sprays of aluminium and iron oxide from the structure?
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,546
Likes
7,294
Points
294
#4
Timble2 said:
Thermite is iron oxide and aluminium. There was a lot of melted aluminium around, the frame of the building was steel. Are these actually superthermite or a condensate from fine sprays of aluminium and iron oxide from the structure?
How is steel aluminium? Explain the difference please?
 

Quake42

Warrior Princess
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
9,310
Likes
3,771
Points
219
#5
How is steel aluminium? Explain the difference please?
I didn't read Timble's comment as stating that aluminium is steel - rather that there was steel and aluminium around. Aluminium is used in window frames etc.
 

hokum6

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
833
Likes
10
Points
34
#7
Er, yeah, what Timble said. It's not surprising they found aluminium and steel!

This thermite claim is utterly ridiculous anyway. The amount of thermite you'd have needed to bring down a building this size would have been immense. How was it not noticed? Who produced it? Who bought it into the building? Which demolition experts did they get to plan this? Where are the hundreds of people who would have been involved?

No building even close to the size of the WTC towers has ever been demolished with explosives, it would have been an unprecedented feat. I'd also question how exactly the thermite would have been used. It's not like conventional explosive, you can't place it like a shaped charge. A thermite reaction does not burn sideways!

I also urge anyone who actually believes this nonsense to engage their brain for a second and consider one very simple question: why?

Why, having organised terrorists to fly into a building, would the NWO/government/lizard people then go to all the trouble of arranging the world's biggest demolition job? Are we expected to believe that the incredibly destructive act of flying commercial airliners into two of the world's tallest buildings wasn't enough to achieve whatever it is you think they wanted?
 

Dingo667

I'm strange but true.
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,813
Likes
57
Points
64
#8
But it said that they think it wasn't ordinary Thermite and that the minute "chips" of the material were intermixed and had to be seperated. Apparently this stuff reaches more heat and therefore less is needed. It isn't Thermite they have found. That is the whole point. Also the point is that this particular test was NOT conducted by NIST, so they wouldn't know. Hence I think its interesting.
 

hokum6

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
833
Likes
10
Points
34
#9
Dingo667 said:
But it said that they think it wasn't ordinary Thermite and that the minute "chips" of the material were intermixed and had to be seperated. Apparently this stuff reaches more heat and therefore less is needed. It isn't Thermite they have found. That is the whole point. Also the point is that this particular test was NOT conducted by NIST, so they wouldn't know. Hence I think its interesting.
Ah yes, 'super thermite'. It's thermite, it still has the same effect: burns very hot. You may need less, but it would still be a ridiculous amount to have the desired effect of bringing down a building. That still leaves the questions of who made it, transported it, planned the demolition and planted it in the building.

I would not place too much stock in their test claims either. As someone pointed out in the comments of the article this 'peer reviewed' journal is from a vanity press publisher and the authors paid for its inclusion. Hardly a suitable outlet for someone with legitimate and ground breaking revelations.
 

river_styx

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
1,825
Likes
10
Points
69
#10
Also with a building of that shape and size you'd really only have to hit in the optimum place to let gravity do most of the hard work for you. Although I'm not a structural engineer I imagine that the initial impact would start the process off, exposing the necessary support structures, and then the thermite would complete the rest. Think of it as a three stage process with natural forces, wind and gravity being the third.

Admittedly there are a lot of questions still unanswered about the whole thing. If anything I'd say it was a joint effort.
 

Bigfoot73

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,114
Likes
7
Points
44
#11
The most feasible suggestion for the demolition charges that I've heard is that they were planted by the WTC's owners or leaseholders not long after the 1993 truck bomb.The idea being to ensure the safe collapse of the towers in any future attack thus avoiding damages lawsuits.The terrorists or conspirators might not have known they were there.
 

Bigfoot73

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,114
Likes
7
Points
44
#13
I think that provided the explosives didn't have to endure much of a temperature range and it wasn't too humid then they would remain viable. I don't actually know much about thermite but Timble 2 says it is iron oxide and aluminium, which sounds pretty robust.
 

hokum6

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
833
Likes
10
Points
34
#14
Bigfoot73 said:
The most feasible suggestion for the demolition charges that I've heard is that they were planted by the WTC's owners or leaseholders not long after the 1993 truck bomb.The idea being to ensure the safe collapse of the towers in any future attack thus avoiding damages lawsuits.The terrorists or conspirators might not have known they were there.
You must have a very different definition of the word 'feasible' to the one in the dictionary.
 

Bigfoot73

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,114
Likes
7
Points
44
#15
Feasible in as much as it allows plenty of time for the covert planting of the charges,whereas hastily completing such an operation only a few days before 9/11 would have been far more difficult.
It helps explain WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's comments about "pulling the building" and similar comments by Building 7 workers and managers, one of whom had a countdown coming over his radio while he warned evacuees of imminent collapse :- when the countdown was heard to reach "one", Building 7 collapsed.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,468
Likes
14,049
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
#16
It seems to me the main point being obscured here is that thermite is an incendiary / pyrotechnic material and not an explosive at all.

The online article linked in the opening post claims:

In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.
... yet the abstract to which it points never uses the term 'explosive' at all.

The paper's cited author never refers to the discovered material as an 'explosive'.

It's not until the very last paragraph that the cited author is quoted as stating:

"explodes the official story that 'no evidence' exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings. The red/gray chips are the 'loaded gun' of 9-11."
... which is the first and only place the alleged thermitic material is correctly alluded to as a 'pyrotechnic' (albeit it immediately following a reference to 'explosive', of which thermite is not an example).

:roll:
 

ted_bloody_maul

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,588
Likes
5
Points
69
#17
Bigfoot73 said:
Feasible in as much as it allows plenty of time for the covert planting of the charges,whereas hastily completing such an operation only a few days before 9/11 would have been far more difficult.
It helps explain WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's comments about "pulling the building" and similar comments by Building 7 workers and managers, one of whom had a countdown coming over his radio while he warned evacuees of imminent collapse :- when the countdown was heard to reach "one", Building 7 collapsed.
Is it really feasible that Silverstein would admit in a pre-recorded documentary, even by mistake, that he had the building (rather than the operation) pulled? That comment has been turned over many many times but it only seems to strike those predisposed to believing the conspiracy theories as suspicious. The producers of the documentary clearly didn't find it suspicious.
 

Bigfoot73

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,114
Likes
7
Points
44
#18
I concede that Silverstein's comments do seem less incriminating after viewing the 9/11 debunking videos on YouTube,but that still leaves other telling evidence, such as the video of a series of explosions running up a corner of Building 7.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,588
Likes
5
Points
69
#19
Bigfoot73 said:
I concede that Silverstein's comments do seem less incriminating after viewing the 9/11 debunking videos on YouTube,but that still leaves other telling evidence, such as the video of a series of explosions running up a corner of Building 7.
Don't think I've seen that one - have you got a link by any chance?
 

Bigfoot73

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,114
Likes
7
Points
44
#20
Needless to say I can't find the actual video any more but Xenomorph911WTC has footage of TV anchormen commenting on how the collapse looked"engineered for safety reasons" as one of them puts it. WTC7WasPulledshows some explosions although on a different side of the building to the one I remember seeing,and thetruthwillout and enjoyourmatrix have interesting stuff too.
There's also film of the BBC coverage where they report the collapse 20 minutes before it happened.
Sorry but I'm not web-savvy enough to know how to post live links.
 

hokum6

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
833
Likes
10
Points
34
#21
Bigfoot73 said:
There's also film of the BBC coverage where they report the collapse 20 minutes before it happened.
Yeah the NWO really messed up there, spend 8 years planning the demolition of a building then they told the news organisation from another country about their plans before it happened. Oops! Maybe they had a work experience kid who got confused.

Or maybe...the BBC got word of the imminent collapse from all the firefighters who said it was going to come down and who were ordered out of the area by their chief because the whole thing was on fire and structurally unstable, and they jumped the gun.
 

Bigfoot73

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,114
Likes
7
Points
44
#22
The whole building wasn't on fire - it was a small fire which was going out. As for structural unsoundness, there wasn't any, The fire was near the top of the building yet it collapsed at the bottom first.The fire fighters withdrew because of the risk,not the inevitability, of imminent collapse.
Why would the BBC have wanted to 'jump the gun'?
How was it that, with the fire some way down from the top (and going out), and the collapse seemingly starting at the bottom, the first sign of that collapse was the structure on the roof somehow detaching itself and falling over the side?
 

hokum6

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
833
Likes
10
Points
34
#23
There wasn't any structural unsoundness?



That big hole doesn't look particularly sound to me. I guess all those fire-fighters who said they heard the building creaking were in on the conspiracy too. How much do you think they got paid to watch their friends and colleagues die that day?

"The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini"

And where did you get the idea that it was a small fire that was going out?

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco"

"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn"

Many more quotes here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitn ... fwtc7fires

WTC 7 was on fire on multiple floors and had chunks ripped out when debris from the other towers hit it. There are numerous reports and photos from fire fighters, civilians and reporters confirming this. There is no more evidence of the presence of explosives than there is for the bigger towers, and like those there would be no need for them. It was on fire and structurally weak, there was nothing they could do to avoid it coming down.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
3
Likes
0
Points
7
#24
Yep the manner of fall for building wtc 7 was one of those 1 in 10 million things.

it just looked like it was demolished nice and neat.

pure coincidence like being hit by lightning on a perfectly clear day.
 

Bigfoot73

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,114
Likes
7
Points
44
#25
So how come it fell in on itself rather than topple over in the direction of the SW corner damage?
Where are all these fires in this pic? Or in fact any pic?
How did the damage have no effect on WTC7's structural integrity for so long then suddenly cause it's complete free-fall speed collapse ?
 

ted_bloody_maul

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,588
Likes
5
Points
69
#26
Fires on the lower floors caused the supporting structure to weaken. The building didn't come down entirely consistently with a controlled demolition either as the east side of the tower pulled down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

CNN had reported some time before the BBC that WTC 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing". Seems more likely to me that the BBC reporter made a mistake rather than let slip what 100's of other people would have to have known (unless, of course, the conspirators informed only the BBC).
 

hokum6

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
833
Likes
10
Points
34
#28
Bigfoot73 said:
Where are all these fires in this pic? Or in fact any pic?


Ignoring any visual evidence, can you just confirm that you believe that hundreds of eye witnesses - including New York police and firemen - were lying about the building being on fire?

How did the damage have no effect on WTC7's structural integrity for so long then suddenly cause it's complete free-fall speed collapse ?
Er...why didn't it collapse the moment it was on fire? That makes no sense.

Let's just get this silly free fall thing out the way before you take it any further: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Take note of the bit at the bottom about how both WTC 7 and the main towers are many times taller than the largest building destroyed by a controlled demolition. Have a think about the time and manpower needed to plan the destruction of buildings of that size. Never mind the complete lack of evidence for explosives or any kind of planned demo job, that single fact alone makes 9/11 conspiracies utterly ridiculous.


I know why 9/11 conspiracies are so attractive. When you saw those events on TV it seemed unreal, like a movie, and you wonder how something like that could happen. It was so destructive and so brutally effective, how could it just have been a few guys hijacking a plane. But none of the alleged evidence in support of a conspiracy stacks up and all it takes is a bit of rational thought and logic to realise that they are all a bit silly. The most ridiculous thing is that you ignore the eye witness accounts of people who were there on the day, and you disregard the expert opinion of scientists and engineers with real qualifications and experience, and you believe the word of nobodies analysing YouTube videos. People who are desperate to find a conspiracy will find one, even if they have to twist the facts.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,025
Likes
144
Points
114
#29
hokum6 said:
...

Let's just get this silly free fall thing out the way before you take it any further: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Take note of the bit at the bottom about how both WTC 7 and the main towers are many times taller than the largest building destroyed by a controlled demolition. Have a think about the time and manpower needed to plan the destruction of buildings of that size. Never mind the complete lack of evidence for explosives or any kind of planned demo job, that single fact alone makes 9/11 conspiracies utterly ridiculous.


I know why 9/11 conspiracies are so attractive. When you saw those events on TV it seemed unreal, like a movie, and you wonder how something like that could happen. It was so destructive and so brutally effective, how could it just have been a few guys hijacking a plane. But none of the alleged evidence in support of a conspiracy stacks up and all it takes is a bit of rational thought and logic to realise that they are all a bit silly. The most ridiculous thing is that you ignore the eye witness accounts of people who were there on the day, and you disregard the expert opinion of scientists and engineers with real qualifications and experience, and you believe the word of nobodies analysing YouTube videos. People who are desperate to find a conspiracy will find one, even if they have to twist the facts.
Nonetheless. Three steel cored buildings, including two of the tallest ever built, which had been specifically designed, back in the Nineteen Seventies, to withstand the impact of a 707 airliner, were totally pulverised and demolished, in prime time.

Did it look totally unreal, just too spectacular to be true? Perhaps it was. Why should it be so surprising that people might be more willing to believe the evidence of their own eyes, rather than the explanations of experts, given specific instructions, as to what to look for, what to examine and kept on a tight leash?

Just don't expect to see anything like it again, any time soon.
 

Quake42

Warrior Princess
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
9,310
Likes
3,771
Points
219
#30
Why should it be so surprising that people might be more willing to believe the evidence of their own eyes, rather than the explanations of experts, given specific instructions, as to what to look for, what to examine and kept on a tight leash?
TBH I never thought it hugely surprising that towers would collapse under those extreme circumstances, so I'm not sure what "the evidence of my own eyes" means in this context.

Your post implies that the legions of engineering experts who have looked at this are all either (a) in on the conspiracy or (b) so stupid that they are unable to demonstrate any independent thought. It's simply not credible.

Even if one accepts that it was all a conspiracy - America's Reichstag fire - why on earth would it be necessary to demolish the towers and take all the attendant risks of one of the many hundreds of people who would need to be involved blowing the whistle? Wasn't flying planes into the towers dramatic enough?

None of it makes any sense whatsoever and seems to be the preserve of fantasists who, at best, cannot accept that there may be worse things in the world than Western governments and, at worst, blame everything on the Jews. This insanity really needs to stop.
 
Top