• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It is a ton and a half of tedious aggravating research which requires the wading through of many many a bull **** filled conspiracy theory manure piles.
Of which far to many people are far more interested in ratification than honest research.

Then there is the strong evidence that the OP is not really interested in the actual truth, but is merely looking for choir members.
What "strong evidence" is that? I presented the Conclusions of a paper that I had been told had already been shown to be erroneous. The fact that you are unable to identify any errors in the conclusions or methodologies of that study does not mean that anyone else has any disreputable motives. Just accept that it is a paper that presents facts that you consider sacrilege to your religion.
 

McBell

Unbound
Just accept that it is a paper that presents facts that you consider sacrilege to your religion.
you don't know jack **** about me or my beliefs, yet here you are assigning me beliefs based upon your faulty assumptions?

Thank you for fully demonstrating my point.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
One doesn't need a "theory" for the "why" of something in order to assess the evidence.
I think you do when the evidence is highly technical and open to interpretation.
What is "highly technical" or "open to interpretation" about any of this:

The company RJ Lee Group, the United States Geological Survey and Jones et al. independently found multitudes of iron-rich microspheres in the dust produced by the WTC destruction, exactly the same sort of microspheres produced when the red/gray chips were heated to just 400°C in the DSC. USGS even found and examined microspheres composed of (primarily) molybdenum. I assume that you can readily understand that these tiny metallic spheres could only have been formed if the metal had been in a liquid state and condensed into a sphere. The temperature at which iron melts is ~1540°C. Molybdenum melts at ~2,623°C, though the temperature may be somewhat lower if combined with certain other elements. These temperatures are much higher than office contents burn, and higher than jet fuel burns (most of which was consumed in the initial explosions, according to NIST). NIST estimated the maximum air temperature to have been 1100°C in the Twin Towers (other experts gives slightly lower estimates), occurring for only a brief period. The paint-cracking tests on steel members showed that none were exposed to temperatures higher than 600°C. Thus, the metallic microspheres (as well as other well documented phenomena) provide evidence of temperatures significantly higher than NIST's estimates for air temperature in the Twin Towers. Right?
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/cache/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf
http://www1.ae911truth.org/documents/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp_.pdf

? Quote whatever it is that is "highly technical" or "open to interpretation".
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
you don't know jack **** about me or my beliefs, yet here you are assigning me beliefs based upon your faulty assumptions?

Thank you for fully demonstrating my point.
If you don't want to or are unable to address the evidence presented in the OP, then why are you posting here--other than the fact that it's all sacrilege to you?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
How convincing can your statements be when they have such a selective sensibility and jump to conclusions so much?

Taking into account that the towers were commercial builidings with an extensive support infrastructure that, toegether, typically had 50 thousand people working inside them any given workday, and 200 thousand more walking through, we should expect a lot of weird statements and beliefs to happen, particularly as people, being people, attempt to find patterns and meanings in retrospect.


For what reason was the work being done on the WTC buildings in years (and months) prior to 9/11?

Is there any particular reason why you expect any of us to know whether said work was being done or that it corresponds to your description of it? Let alone to expect us to have a decent chance of knowing of a reason for it?

I am willing to guess that most of us don't even follow the work done on the buildings we live in.

The NIST Report repeatedly informs us that the SFRM (Sprayed-on Fire Resistive Material) on the structural steel columns in the Towers had been upgraded in the 1990s (I think 1996 and 1998). Apparently the buildings were not closed for this extensive work.

One would expect that it takes a lot to close the buildings, indeed.

The buildings were also practically empty every night after the cleaning crews left at about 3 a.m. until about 6 a.m.

That is about as expected as anything can be, given that they were commercial buildings.

There was obviously ample opportunity to rig the buildings with superthermite in the weeks, months and years prior to 9/11.

"Obviously", how?

Not that I have more than a guess on how easy exactly it is to obtain, transport or apply superthermite, but doesn't it take some serious qualifications and very specific knowledge to make such a claim? Why would any of us, including you, have the proper background? What are the odds that any two of us would? Not very good at all.

Scott Forbes, an employee of Fiduciary Trust with offices in WTC 2, reported that there was an announced and "unprecedented” power down on Saturday and Sunday prior to Tuesday September 11:

Dig long enough among those 50 thousand people for over a decade and you are likely to find people saying all kinds of things. Statistically, what are the odds that there were no delusional paranoids in such a huge population? Add other possible explanations for those claims, including that he is being accurate yet unduly sensationalistic, and that becomes not noteworthy at all.
 

McBell

Unbound
If you don't want to or are unable to address the evidence presented in the OP, then why are you posting here--other than the fact that it's all sacrilege to you?
I was commenting on the posts I quoted.
Sad that you seem unable to comprehend that.
Sadder still that you continue attempting to assign to me beliefs based upon your faulty assumptions.

You do know that flame baiting is against forum rules, right?
Even the sad sloppy attempt you have made with me.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Who said he did anything such thing? G. W. Bush can barely read.
Bush's involvement is just one of the conspiracies racing around the internet.

If this claim is representative, then I'd rather not waste time debunking the article.
To have the 'fact' that Bush can only barely read suggests
that we're too far apart on the facts to find common premises.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The fact that you simply cannot emotionally deal with
Whatever. Sense when have you ever known me well enough to judge what I can and can't emotionally deal with?
Evidently all you can do is just make assertions that you cannot show to be true.
Evidently, all you can do is ignore what I do post, and make laughably inane remarks about what I can and can't handle.
Again, I asked you to show that a building that suffers asymmetrical damage collapses into its footprint (at near-free-fall speed no less).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[41] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center; the flames visible on the east side of the building.[42][43] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[38] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[8] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[44] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[45] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[46] According to FEMA, the building started to collapse at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling, but differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed—at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA, and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST.[6][7][47] There were no casualties associated with the collapse.
The fires were bad...even hot enough to get make steel red-glowing hot. When pretty much any metal becomes glowing red hot, it undergoes chemical changes, it does become more brittle, and it does leave "fire scale," layers build-up that are left-over after the metal cools, the presence of your "thermite."
If you watch CNN's live footage, you could hear concerns being voiced about the main tower's support beams buckling, which may cause the building to collapse, and it did. One tower, the top began to slide over. This one was messy as it came down, and there is nothing to suggest it was a controlled demolition because dust and debris went everywhere. Damage is done to surrounding objects, including buildings. Fires break out as one consequence, and in WTC 7 the emergency-water system is severely damaged, and the fire fighters are unable to do anything to control the fire. It grows, spreads, and the building is destroyed.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
578px-WTC_Area_With_Building_Numbers_50dpi_contrast.jpg

Clearly you can see there was extensive damage to surrounding buildings. If you look at the top of the picture, you can see that 7 was hit so hard that even the building behind it took some hits.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How convincing can your statements be when they have such a selective sensibility and jump to conclusions so much?
Quote whatever "selective sensibility and jump[ing] to conclusions" you are referring to.

Taking into account that the towers were commercial builidings with an extensive support infrastructure that, toegether, typically had 50 thousand people working inside them any given workday, and 200 thousand more walking through, we should expect a lot of weird statements and beliefs to happen, particularly as people, being people, attempt to find patterns and meanings in retrospect.
The SFRM was sprayed onto the columns in the 1990s without closure of the buildings and without "a lot of weird statements". The red/gray chips appear as though this might be something like a primer or adhesive sprayed onto the columns. It seems you might be having difficulty putting 2 and 2 together. I'll do it for you: It's possible that the source of the red/gray thermitic material was sprayed onto the columns when the SFRM was sprayed on.

And it is also entirely possible that certain minimal but necessary explosives were installed in the buildings during the time when the bomb-sniffing dogs were "abruptly removed" just prior to 9/11. As you agreed, there would be lots of time to do such every night when the buildings were practically empty. There was also construction and remodeling work occurring in the building, probably constantly (e.g., floor 32 in one of the towers had been totally gutted and was being reconstructed, according to one of the maintenance employees). People who look like construction workers and who are hauling stuff up the maintenance elevators would not attract undue attention or provoke "weird statements" as long as "CAUTION: EXPLOSIVES" was not written on the packages or boxes that they were hauling up.

In any case, even if it is beyond your ability to imagine a possible scenario in which about a hundred pounds of nano-thermite was installed in each building without some tenant or visitor making "weird statements" that were reported, it still doesn't erase the evidence of the unreacted thermitic material and multitudes of iron-rich microspheres found in the dust, nor does it erase the fact that it isn't possible, except by violating Newton's Third Law, for gravity to have caused the upper few floors of the towers to fall upon and crush the lower ~100 floors to smithereens down to the ground. In the history of the world that has never happened because it violates the laws of physics.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Bush's involvement is just one of the conspiracies racing around the internet.

If this claim is representative, then I'd rather not waste time debunking the article.
To have the 'fact' that Bush can only barely read suggests
that we're too far apart on the facts to find common premises.
The topic of this thread does not concern George Bush. I believe you are the one who threw up this irrelevancy.

You didn't respond to my #55 to you:

I don't see why there should be much struggle for the average reasonable person to grasp this: The company RJ Lee Group, the United States Geological Survey and Jones et al. independently found multitudes of iron-rich microspheres in the dust produced by the WTC destruction, exactly the same sort of microspheres produced when the red/gray chips were heated to just 400°C in the DSC. USGS even found and examined microspheres composed of (primarily) molybdenum. I assume that you can readily understand that these tiny metallic spheres could only have been formed if the metal had been in a liquid state and condensed into a sphere. The temperature at which iron melts is ~1540°C. Molybdenum melts at ~2,623°C, though the temperature may be somewhat lower if combined with certain other elements. These temperatures are much higher than office contents burn, and higher than jet fuel burns (most of which was consumed in the initial explosions, according to NIST). NIST estimated the maximum air temperature to have been 1100°C in the Twin Towers (other experts gives slightly lower estimates), occurring for only a brief period. The paint-cracking tests on steel members showed that none were exposed to temperatures higher than 600°C. Thus, the metallic microspheres (as well as other well documented phenomena) provide evidence of temperatures significantly higher than NIST's estimates for air temperature in the Twin Towers. Right?

What have I said here that you think might be erroneous?​

Why not be unafraid to respond to the issues here?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The topic of this thread does not concern George Bush. I believe you are the one who threw up this irrelevancy.
I didn't make the claim that he can barely read.
This bespeaks unsupported partisanship.
And this all relates to judging whether committing time to thoroughly digest the article is worthwhile.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So obviously you cannot show that it is physically possible for WTC 7 to have collapsed symmetrically, falling into almost entirely into its own footprint, at free-fall speed for 8 stories, as a result of structural damage to one side of the building.

The fires were bad...even hot enough to get make steel red-glowing hot.
What are you claiming was the fuel for these fires that were "even hot enough to" cause steel beams to glow red?


Obviously you have your own ideas that are unrelated to anything NIST hypothesized, and unrelated to physics.

When pretty much any metal becomes glowing red hot, it undergoes chemical changes, it does become more brittle
Wow. Just wow.

You should probably try to avoid promoting you own anti-scientific "theories". They're laughable.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
And this all relates to judging whether committing time to thoroughly digest the article is worthwhile.
You could have read and possibly even "digested" the Harrit et al. article three times in the amount of time you've spent posting nonsense about George Bush.

Again, you didn't respond to my #55 to you:

I don't see why there should be much struggle for the average reasonable person to grasp this: The company RJ Lee Group, the United States Geological Survey and Jones et al. independently found multitudes of iron-rich microspheres in the dust produced by the WTC destruction, exactly the same sort of microspheres produced when the red/gray chips were heated to just 400°C in the DSC. USGS even found and examined microspheres composed of (primarily) molybdenum. I assume that you can readily understand that these tiny metallic spheres could only have been formed if the metal had been in a liquid state and condensed into a sphere. The temperature at which iron melts is ~1540°C. Molybdenum melts at ~2,623°C, though the temperature may be somewhat lower if combined with certain other elements. These temperatures are much higher than office contents burn, and higher than jet fuel burns (most of which was consumed in the initial explosions, according to NIST). NIST estimated the maximum air temperature to have been 1100°C in the Twin Towers (other experts gives slightly lower estimates), occurring for only a brief period. The paint-cracking tests on steel members showed that none were exposed to temperatures higher than 600°C. Thus, the metallic microspheres (as well as other well documented phenomena) provide evidence of temperatures significantly higher than NIST's estimates for air temperature in the Twin Towers. Right?

What have I said here that you think might be erroneous?​

Why not be unafraid to respond to the issues here?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
You could have read and possibly even "digested" the Harrit et al. article three times in the amount of time you've spent posting nonsense about George Bush.

Again, you didn't respond to my #55 to you:

I don't see why there should be much struggle for the average reasonable person to grasp this: The company RJ Lee Group, the United States Geological Survey and Jones et al. independently found multitudes of iron-rich microspheres in the dust produced by the WTC destruction, exactly the same sort of microspheres produced when the red/gray chips were heated to just 400°C in the DSC. USGS even found and examined microspheres composed of (primarily) molybdenum. I assume that you can readily understand that these tiny metallic spheres could only have been formed if the metal had been in a liquid state and condensed into a sphere. The temperature at which iron melts is ~1540°C. Molybdenum melts at ~2,623°C, though the temperature may be somewhat lower if combined with certain other elements. These temperatures are much higher than office contents burn, and higher than jet fuel burns (most of which was consumed in the initial explosions, according to NIST). NIST estimated the maximum air temperature to have been 1100°C in the Twin Towers (other experts gives slightly lower estimates), occurring for only a brief period. The paint-cracking tests on steel members showed that none were exposed to temperatures higher than 600°C. Thus, the metallic microspheres (as well as other well documented phenomena) provide evidence of temperatures significantly higher than NIST's estimates for air temperature in the Twin Towers. Right?

What have I said here that you think might be erroneous?​

Why not be unafraid to respond to the issues here?

Has someone already pointed out this?

"Iron Spherules: Another curious phenomenon thought to be linked to the structural steel is creation of tiny spheres of steel or iron, found in the dust after collapse. Several researchers report this, including Lowers and Meeker who documented a few examples of particles found to be nearly pure iron and quite spherical, approximately 7 microns in diameter; and the RJ Lee Group, who identified small, round iron particles as evidence of high temperatures. The significance of these spheres is still debated, along the following lines:

 As discussed previously, there is no evidence at all for large amounts of melted steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or some other highly localized process.

 It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

 There appear to be several plausible candidate sources of the iron spherules in office materials or other building contents. Perhaps the most obvious is the flyash itself used in structural concrete, a residue of combusted coal, which contains iron spheres in a variety of sizes that would have been liberated as the concrete was destroyed. Another example is magnetic printer toner, used to print financial instruments, that could have been present in printer cartridges or found in a large volume of paper documents. This candidate has the advantage of matching the size, shape, uniformity, and elemental composition of the observed spherules from one report. We also cannot discount their origin in building contents, rather than building structure, without much more careful study.

 The quantity of these spherules is unknown, but thought to be very small – the iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%, most of which was not in the form of spherules. A large quantity would suggest melting of steel on large scales, but a small quantity suggests otherwise.

 Small quantities of structural steel or other iron-rich objects could be partially melted through sheer friction, originating in the aircraft impact or the collapses.

 Much like the sulfidized samples, it is impossible to tell whether these spherules were created prior to collapse, after collapse, or both. After collapse, it is plausible for the debris to have reached much higher temperatures.

 As mentioned above, there is potential site contamination from salvage operations, in which numerous steel pieces were cut, involving nontrivial amounts of melted steel. It is also possible for the spherules to have been left over from the buildings’ original construction.

 Iron that appears to have melted may have merely oxidized, and surface chemistry effects of merely heated iron may give rise to tiny amounts of melting even at moderate temperatures.

 Chemical factors, combined with heat, could lead to eutectic mixtures of iron with other elements (such as sulfur) melting and dissociating at relatively low temperatures, potentially creating the iron spherules.

For purposes of this discussion, we will focus on the latter two inferences, and speculate that the spherules may be a result of a chemical process, catalyzed by moderate heat but below the actual melting temperature of steel. It is, therefore, possible (but unproven) that the spherules and the sulfidized steel are related.To further understand sulfidization, we should begin by attempting to understand the source of the sulfur. Sulfur is an abundant element, with numerous possible sources. The following is a brief list of some possible origins of sulfur:

 Diesel fuel, found in emergency generators and in vehicles in the WTC parking garages, contained a fairly high concentration of organosulfuric compounds, providing a possible source of sulfur in an energetically favorable form. WTC 7, where all but one of the sulfidized samples came from, had exceptionally large stores of diesel fuel to power emergency command and control equipment.

 Large banks of batteries existed in a few locations, as backup for computers involved in the financial services, and could plausibly have provided a significant quantity of sulfuric acid.

 Acid rain could have potentially exposed some surfaces to low concentrations of sulfuric acid over many years.

 Ocean water, bearing sulfate salts, was pumped onto the burning debris piles as part of the firefighting effort.

 Gypsum wallboard, omnipresent in large buildings, is almost entirely composed of sulfur-bearing minerals. However, this sulfur is not in an energetically favorable form, and some other chemical process would be required to react with steel structural members.

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute is continuing to experiment with sulfur compounds in an effort to recreate the reactions seen in the recovered steel. Given the complexity of the debris fires and the many chemicals present, it appears plausible that sulfidization could have occurred after collapse. Whether or not this could occur prior to collapse remains an open question, and if true, could be a factor in future building fires.

A related possibility, voiced by Dr. Greening, is that of burning plastics or other chemicals giving rise to other caustic compounds, such as creation of hydrogen chloride (which in contact with water forms hydrochloric acid) from burning PVC (polyvinyl chloride). This is relevant because large quantities of PVC, along with other plastics, are found in modern offices. Chemicals such as this could potentially catalyze sulfur reactions, and also lead to a chemical weakening of steel structural elements, an additional hazard. A historical example of this is the Plastimet Fire in Hamilton, Ontario, in July of 1997. In this fire, roughly 200 tons of PVC and other plastics burned over a period of a few days. Among the fire’s effects were reports of localized metal corrosion, linked to the creation of HCl gas which was measured at 53 to 930 micrograms per cubic meter.

The volume of PVC burned in this fire was comparable to the amount of plastics in the WTC fire floors, and it is also conceivable that caustic chemicals would be trapped within the structure, raising their concentrations to this level or possibly much higher.

However, the use of PVC in construction is not new, and there have been numerous studies on its effects in fires. Industry sources question its ability to weaken a structure through chemical means:


Burning PVC has resulted in corrosion damage to electrical equipment in the vicinity. This has led to suggestions that PVC should not be used in construction applications. Against this should be set other factors. PVC components can be formulated to combine a good technical performance and high resistance to ignition and flame-spread. Formulations can also be designed to reduce the quantity of hydrogen chloride emitted. There have been suggestions that hydrogen chloride from burning PVC may damage steel reinforcement in concrete, or significantly weaken unprotected steel structures. The UK Fire Research Station has shown that reinforcement is not normally affected. It has also been confirmed that unprotected steel structures are distorted and weakened by heat rather than by hydrogen chloride.

For applications with very high fire risks, for example oil rigs and nuclear installations, more expensive, high performance insulating materials are preferred to PVC. The cost of post-fire clean-up operations must be included in assessing the total cost of fire damage. Just as soot can be removed from affected equipment, so chloride corroded parts can be reconditioned. This is well recognized by fire salvage consultants and by insurance companies.
source:

http://debunking911.com/jones.htm#Iron Spheres[/quote]
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Has someone already pointed out this?


source:

http://debunking911.com/jones.htm#Iron Spheres
This anonymous writer does not cite any scientific source or provide any explanation as to how iron spherules can possibly be formed short of the iron that formed them having been in a liquid state, which requires temperatures of at least 1540°C, well in excess of office-content and jet-fuel fires. Correct?

NIST estimated that the air temperatures in the Towers reached a maximum of 1100°C, which only occurred for brief periods in any one location. The paint-cracking tests performed on the few beams tested showed that none reached temperatures in excess of 600°C
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
One can present the information on online discussions boards, such as Religious Forums, so that others may be informed. Perhaps eventually enough people will become adequately informed so as to demand a new investigation. Perhaps with that, some of the people who perpetrated the 3000 murders and other deaths and injuries (e.g., from unleashing the environmental toxins that have killed and injured many people) will be punished.

Nothing is stopping you from filing suit against these people you think should be punished. That would surely force the issue without subjecting all of us here to this nonsense.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nothing is stopping you from filing suit against these people you think should be punished.
Really? What law is it that would allow me to prosecute someone that I might believe "should be punished"? Have you ever read the Constitution?

Anyway, I have not pointed a finger at anyone on this thread. This thread is about the assessment of the evidence. Why don't you speak to the evidence that has been cited here?
 
Top