Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

[Curious George]

Did you read and understand the Harrit et al. study, linked to in the OP?

You haven't identified any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the study. Correct?

Nope, I read your posts. Did you just answer questions with another question?

 

[Nous]

Of course there were explosives planted at the WTC. @Smart Guy did it.

Uh, what did the Russians say?

It’s certainly interesting how a couple of indisputable facts relating to the collapse of the WTC buildings induces such anxiety that people start jabbering. It’s like that thing where people put their fingers in their ears and yell “Nah nah nah nah nah, can’t hear you, stop talking!”

I am certain that George Bush would tell you that he feels your pain.

 

[Nous]

Nope, I read your posts.

So you won't be able to identify any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. study.

Why do you think that anyone is interested in your mere religious beliefs about the collapse of the WTC buildings?

Did you just answer questions with another question?

All of the questions you asked are answered in the Harrit et al. paper, which is the topic of the thread.

 

[Curious George]

So you won't be able to identify any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. study.

Why do you think that anyone is interested in your mere religious beliefs about the collapse of the WTC buildings?

All of the questions you asked are answered in the Harrit et al. paper, which is the topic of the thread.

Nope, don't have a religion about it. Just no need to cook up anything when the reported story seems to coincide with everything. But perhaps it is because I have not delved deep enough. So, when someone like you, who has delved deeply into the subject comes around...I listen. Then when I hear that person spouting off alleged facts, with no concern for objectivity or alternative explanations, I am thankful I didn't waste my time digging deeper. For, if all you got is what you've posted, then there isn't much to it. But, I'm sure I could find all the answers in the paper, or online. But that would involve delving deeper. So, serve up your conspiracy on an irrefutable, silver platter. If you can't do that it is not worth my time. If someone does, I'll gladly change my tune. After all I am not the one clinging tightly to straws. You however seem quite attached to this conspiracy.

 

[Nous]

Nope, don't have a religion about it. Just no need to cook up anything when the reported story seems to coincide with everything.

You haven't accounted for any of the evidence noted here, such as the findings of Harrit et al. of red/gray chips in the WTC dust that have all of the characteristics of unreacted nanothermitic material, including composition of elemental aluminum, and which exhibit an exotherm narrower and more energetic than reference super-thermite.

You haven't accounted for, or quoted any scientist who has accounted for, the presence of temperatures far higher than open-air hydrocarbon fires burn, as indicated by the variety of evidence of molten iron or steel prior to and during the collapse of the WTC buildings.

2500 architects and engineers agree on these distinguishing features of controlled demolition vs. gravitational induced collapse due to fires:

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse
2. Sounds of explosions
3. Symmetrical structural failure
4. Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance
5. Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
7. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
8. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
3. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations

1. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
2. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
3. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed​

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html

Obviously you haven't accounted for any these facts or cited or quoted any scientist or engineer who accounts for these facts.

Here’s what happens when one tries to find scientists to defend NIST’s story:

 

[BSM1]

You haven't accounted for any of the evidence noted here, such as the findings of Harrit et al. of red/gray chips in the WTC dust that have all of the characteristics of unreacted nanothermitic material, including composition of elemental aluminum, and which exhibit an exotherm narrower and more energetic than reference super-thermite.

You haven't accounted for, or quoted any scientist who has accounted for, the presence of temperatures far higher than open-air hydrocarbon fires burn, as indicated by the variety of evidence of molten iron or steel prior to and during the collapse of the WTC buildings.

2500 architects and engineers agree on these distinguishing features of controlled demolition vs. gravitational induced collapse due to fires:

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse
2. Sounds of explosions
3. Symmetrical structural failure
4. Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance
5. Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
7. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
8. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
3. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations

1. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
2. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
3. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed​

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html

Obviously you haven't accounted for any these facts or cited or quoted any scientist or engineer who accounts for these facts.

Here’s what happens when one tries to find scientists to defend NIST’s story:

Even if what you say is true, what would be the point of taking down the buildings?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even if what you say is true, what would be the point of taking down the buildings?

Exactly. The American government has proven it really doesn't necessarily resort to defense to launch a military campaign. It has such a long history of just going in an attacking unprovoked that it seems doubtful they would have staged this attack to gain public support to invade Afghanistan, especially when they made up an excuse to invade Iraq.

 

[BSM1]

Exactly. The American government has proven it really doesn't necessarily resort to defense to launch a military campaign. It has such a long history of just going in an attacking unprovoked that it seems doubtful they would have staged this attack to gain public support to invade Afghanistan, especially when they made up an excuse to invade Iraq.

Although you and I may butt heads on a couple of points I agree with you. There was no demonstrative "end game" from the Twin Towers attack.

 

[Wirey]

It’s certainly interesting how a couple of indisputable facts relating to the collapse of the WTC buildings induces such anxiety that people start jabbering. It’s like that thing where people put their fingers in their ears and yell “Nah nah nah nah nah, can’t hear you, stop talking!”

I am certain that George Bush would tell you that he feels your pain.

Does this mean that they weren't impressed? Or were you so sure that you're spouting nonsense that you didn't bother to mention it?

 

[Nous]

Even if what you say is true, what would be the point of taking down the buildings?

Gosh, perhaps "the point of taking down the buildings" was to induce "shock and awe" in the population. Watching those towers explode top-down certain did induce shock and awe among millions of Americans.

 

[Nous]

Exactly. The American government has proven it really doesn't necessarily resort to defense to launch a military campaign.

"The American government" certainly didn't prove that the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust are anything other than nanothermitic material. "The American government" didn't prove that steel-framed buildings can violate Newton's Third Law whereby a small upper portion can somehow, due to hydrocarbon fires and asymmetrical structural damage, magically suddenly fall upon the larger lower portion and crush it to the ground then crush itself. "The American government" didn't prove that steel-framed towers that have suffered structural damage to one side and random office fires can suddenly drop into their own footprint.

 

[BSM1]

Gosh, perhaps "the point of taking down the buildings" was to induce "shock and awe" in the population. Watching those towers explode top-down certain did induce shock and awe among millions of Americans.

Again, for what purpose?

 

[Nous]

It’s certainly interesting how a couple of indisputable facts relating to the collapse of the WTC buildings induces such anxiety that people start jabbering. It’s like that thing where people put their fingers in their ears and yell “Nah nah nah nah nah, can’t hear you, stop talking!”

I am certain that George Bush would tell you that he feels your pain.

Does this mean that they weren't impressed?

I don't have a clue as to what you're asking here. Who is "they" in your sentence? "Impressed" by what? And how is it supposed to relate to anything I said?

 

[Nous]

Gosh, perhaps "the point of taking down the buildings" was to induce "shock and awe" in the population. Watching those towers explode top-down certain did induce shock and awe among millions of Americans.

Again, for what purpose?

Again, gosh, perhaps the purpose was to drum up support for invading and going to war with certain Middle Eastern countries.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, gosh, perhaps the purpose was to drum up support for invading and going to war with certain Middle Eastern countries.

Again, the American government has never done such a thing before. What disasters did they undertake to invade Iraq? The first or second time? What about South and Central America throughout the 19th and 20th centuries? Korea? Vietnam? Why would they do it just this once, when they have never before or since done such a thing?

 

[Wirey]

I repeat post 184:

Thank Goodness for @Nous ! The Russians have been trying for years to discredit the Americans so they can get the US-backed sanctions against their country lifted. Now, here is the smoking gun. The material used to connect ground wires found in the wreckage of a building that had a plane slam into it. The only logical conclusion? CIA bomb! The US government has gone too far and may now be discredited on the world stage!

Please, contact the local Russian consulate in your area, and offer to provide this evidence to them. As soon as they have it, we'll see it raised at the UN and the whole world will know! @Nous you'll be eternally famous! Unless, you know, the entire idea is so baseless and without merit that only a loon would believe it. Here's where to go:

2650 Wisconsin Ave NW, Washington, DC 20007, United States

See you on MSNBC!

How did the Russians react when you showed them this information that will save their economy? You'll be the most famous whistleblower ever! Snowden will die of shame! Or, are you only willing to run that line in here where no proof is necessary and you'll never have to face, you know, reality? See, if I had a million dollar secret about a government murdering it's own citizens for business interests, I'd spill the beans. I'm surprised someone who genuinely believes that the entire world can't find the truth, except one guy in his mom's basement with a laptop of course, isn't prepared to put it out there to save us all from the CIA outer space lasers or invisible bombs or whatever it is you think dropped the towers. So, one more time:

What did the Russians say when you provided them with salvation?

 

[BSM1]

Again, gosh, perhaps the purpose was to drum up support for invading and going to war with certain Middle Eastern countries.

They never had to do anything as drastic as this to find a reason to go to war. Even so, this is so much overkill that only the gullible would buy that the government could cover-up something so large and devious.

 

[Nous]

Again, gosh, perhaps the purpose was to drum up support for invading and going to war with certain Middle Eastern countries.

Again, the American government has never done such a thing before.

You are welcomed to substantiate your claim. You haven't substantiated any of your claims on this thread yet.

There are numerous known examples of false-flag operations in the history of the world, and certainly people in US government positions positions have proposed false-flag operations. Moreover, there are numerous other possible reasons for someone (not in the US government) wanting to shock and awe the American public into supporting an invasion and war against Islamic countries.

Regardless of any of your ideas about what "the American government has never done," it doesn't change any of the findings of the Harrit et al. study on the red/gray chips, which you haven't been able to show any error in.

 

[Nous]

I repeat post 184:

Thank Goodness for @Nous ! The Russians have been trying for years to discredit the Americans so they can get the US-backed sanctions against their country lifted. Now, here is the smoking gun. The material used to connect ground wires found in the wreckage of a building that had a plane slam into it. The only logical conclusion? CIA bomb! The US government has gone too far and may now be discredited on the world stage!

Please, contact the local Russian consulate in your area, and offer to provide this evidence to them. As soon as they have it, we'll see it raised at the UN and the whole world will know! @Nous you'll be eternally famous! Unless, you know, the entire idea is so baseless and without merit that only a loon would believe it. Here's where to go:

2650 Wisconsin Ave NW, Washington, DC 20007, United States

See you on MSNBC!

How did the Russians react when you showed them this information that will save their economy? You'll be the most famous whistleblower ever! Snowden will die of shame! Or, are you only willing to run that line in here where no proof is necessary and you'll never have to face, you know, reality? See, if I had a million dollar secret about a government murdering it's own citizens for business interests, I'd spill the beans. I'm surprised someone who genuinely believes that the entire world can't find the truth, except one guy in his mom's basement with a laptop of course, isn't prepared to put it out there to save us all from the CIA outer space lasers or invisible bombs or whatever it is you think dropped the towers. So, one more time:

What did the Russians say when you provided them with salvation?

I don't have a clue as to what you're jabbering about here. Back to the topic: you have not been able to show any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper, correct?

 

[Nous]

They never had to do anything as drastic as this to find a reason to go to war. Even so, this is so much overkill that only the gullible would buy that the government could cover-up something so large and devious.

See my post to Shadow Wolf above.

You haven't been able to show any error in the methodologies or findings of the Harrit et al. paper, have you?