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

[Nous]

Um, what religion has "the WTC collapse was not caused by controlled demolition" as a part of its doctrine?

The word "religion" is used metaphorically here as representing the resolute holding of a belief or beliefs despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Curious George]

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

Perhaps you didn't read it or understand it because that is precisely what was done. In short, the iron spheres could have been created post explosion, as in when people cut the debris during clean-up, salvage, and rescue, higher temperatures could be produced by pockets of gas produced from burning PVC or from places where chemicals were stored. So yes. An alternative, plausible explanation is given. Sorry if that is a source of discontent for you.

 

[Curious George]

Perhaps you didn't read it or understand it because that is precisely what was done. In short, the iron spheres could have been created post explosion, as in when people cut the debris during clean-up, salvage, and rescue, higher temperatures could be produced by pockets of gas produced from burning PVC or from places where chemicals were stored. So yes. An alternative, plausible explanation is given. Sorry if that is a source of discontent for you.

oops I also forgot, that the spheres could have come from sources that were known to exist in the incident and trade building that already contained "iron spheres"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What are you claiming was the fuel for these fires that were "even hot enough to" cause steel beams to glow red?

It was an office fire...do you really even need to ask what the fuel was? And, yes, of course we know the fires were hot enough because there are pictures of it. Even small house fires can get really hot, far hotter than what most people realize.

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

"Anti-science?" I've done jewelry, welding, and some metal working. I've seen what happens to metal when it heats up with my own eyes. It's not shiny, it's not clean, and it doesn't look pretty once it cools down. And how can you call them "anti-science" when fire scale is widely observed and even explained by science? As are the chemical changes that metal (most things, actually) undergo when super heated.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

I think you're missing my point. If you're so passionate about this, you can (and should) file lawsuits and/or take this issue to the proper/official channels, not waste your time on a recreational web forum rabble rousing about this. If what you say actually has merit, it will stand in court. What random people on the internet think is irrelevant relative to how this would be processed through proper channels. This is part of why I lack interest debating the "evidence" with you on this topic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you're missing my point. If you're so passionate about this, you can (and should) file lawsuits and/or take this issue to the proper/official channels, not waste your time on a recreational web forum rabble rousing about this. If what you say actually has merit, it will stand in court. What random people on the internet think is irrelevant relative to how this would be processed through proper channels. This is part of why I lack interest debating the "evidence" with you on this topic.

I'm only doing because I said I would another thread...I had no idea it would morph into accusations of anti-science and being told what I can't emotionally handle.

 

[Milton Platt]

How do you propose that government spooks wired up the WTC with many tons of explosives without anyone noticing and managed to collapse the building pretty much where the plane hit yet the plane strike and consequent towering inferno didn't set off the many tons of explosives that said spooks had surreptitiously wired right in that place?

Also how do you propose that a conspiracy involving many thousands of people can be kept secret knowing the porous nature of the government system and the fact that most people would probably not be au fait with killing thousands of innocent civilians?

Answer these and I'll start thinking about red/grey chips...

How often does this have to be knocked down??? do some research. Read this link:

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

 

[Twilight Hue]

Who is more qualified in technical and engineering matters than 15 year olds?

12 year olds who play Call of Duty.

 

[freethinker44]

Let's just apply Occam's razor for a second. Which is more likely: that a 400,000 pound machine carrying 24,000 pounds of jet fuel and traveling at 600 MPH could cause a building to collapse, or the government murdered 3,000 people in a massive conspiracy, televised on live TV from beginning to end, in order to get public support, which they've never needed nor cared about in the past, to nearly bankrupt the country fighting a war against a bunch of opium farmers and cave dwellers.
Hmmm, it's a close call here, but if I must make a choice, I'm going with time traveling aliens.

 

[Augustus]

How often does this have to be knocked down??? do some research. Read this link:

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

Why was that aimed at me?

I was saying that given all of the other evidence against a conspiracy, looking at some minor technical detail is completely pointless.

If someone has a rock solid alibi in a murder trial, you don't need to start analysing the fabric of the clothes they were wearing at the time. Unless it is possible to show the seemingly rock solid alibi is false there is no point in looking at further, less important details.

Given the evidence against a conspiracy, the chances are that any technical finding can be explained by other means rather than 'it's a conspiracy'. Seeing as I don't understand the technical aspects anyway, I'll focus on the more important things that I do understand rather than wasting my time reading technical articles that are almost certainly flawed in their interpretation.

That was my point, not 'hmm that's interesting perhaps it is evidence for a conspiracy'.

 

[Nous]

Perhaps you didn't read it or understand it because that is precisely what was done. In short, the iron spheres could have been created post explosion, as in when people cut the debris during clean-up, salvage, and rescue, higher temperatures could be produced by pockets of gas produced from burning PVC or from places where chemicals were stored. So yes. An alternative, plausible explanation is given. Sorry if that is a source of discontent for you.

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by simply reading the papers already linked to on the iron-rich and molybdenum-rich microspheres found in the dust (which, by the way, cannot be formed except by the metals having been in a molten state):

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Provenance of dust samples analyzed in original work reported here.

Sample 1 was collected from inside the Potter Building located at 38 Park Row in New York City. It was collected by a Ph.D. scientist on 9/14/2001, just three days after the 9/11/2001 and before any major steelcutting operations had begun at ground zero. Rescue operations were on-going at the time of sample collection. Furthermore, the building is located about four blocks from ground zero and the sample was collected from dust that had worked its way inside the building, landing on an interior window sill. Thus, contamination from steelcutting operations at ground zero (which can produce molten steel spheres) can be ruled out with a very high degree of confidence. The iron-rich spheres collected in sample 1 are evidence of high-temperature melting and violent fragmentation during the WTC destruction and dust formation.

Sample 2 was collected by Jeannette MacKinlay about a week after 9/11/2001, from inside her apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St., New York City. WTC dust entered her apartment through two windows which broke as the South Tower collapsed. The holes in the windows were approximately 0.5 m X 0.8 m, and the apartment was on the fourth floor.

In both samples, elements besides iron are often present in the spheres which yield chemical signatures distinct from that of structural steel (such as Al, Si, Cu, K, S; see Figs. 3 and 4). These chemical signatures provide additional evidence that the spheres did not result from steel-cutting operations during clean-up. We have recently obtained a WTC dust sample acquired within twenty minutes of the collapse of the North Tower, near the Brooklyn Bridge, which also shows spherules like those shown in Figs. 1-5. These spheres cannot have originated from the later clean-up operations.​

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

The Harrit et al. paper provides a map of the locations where these two and the two additional samples examined in that study (all contained an abundance of such microspheres) were collected, one of which was near the Brooklyn Bridge. That sample was collected on 9/11.

 

[Nous]

It was an office fire.

Read this slowly and carefully: Fires fueled by burning office contents do not reach temperatures high enough to melt iron (or molybdenum) in order to produce iron-rich (and molybdenum-rich) microspheres.

 

[Nous]

I think you're missing my point. If you're so passionate about this, you can (and should) file lawsuits and/or take this issue to the proper/official channels, not waste your time on a recreational web forum rabble rousing about this. If what you say actually has merit, it will stand in court. What random people on the internet think is irrelevant relative to how this would be processed through proper channels. This is part of why I lack interest debating the "evidence" with you on this topic.

I find it really quite stunning that average Americans have so little knowledge of the law. Individuals who are not prosecutors cannot prosecute crimes. In order to have standing in a civil suit, a complainant must have suffered an actual and personal injury--an "injury-in-fact" (which I did not suffer in the events of 9/11); the injury must be "fairly traceable" to the defendant's actions (again, I have not even vaguely pointed my finger at anyone); and the injury must be capable of redress by the court.

 

[Nous]

I'm only doing because I said I would another thread...I had no idea it would morph into accusations of anti-science and being told what I can't emotionally handle.

So you still haven't been able to identify any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper. Right?

 

[Nous]

Let's just apply Occam's razor for a second. Which is more likely: that a 400,000 pound machine carrying 24,000 pounds of jet fuel and traveling at 600 MPH could cause a building to collapse, or the government murdered 3,000 people in a massive conspiracy, televised on live TV from beginning to end, in order to get public support, which they've never needed nor cared about in the past, to nearly bankrupt the country fighting a war against a bunch of opium farmers and cave dwellers.

Occam's razor leaves us with the hypothesis that the active thermitic material found in the WTC dust was the cause of destruction of the WTC buildings--otherwise, (1) one has to claim the collapse of the Towers violated Newton's Third Law (see Chandler's paper below); (2) one is left without an explanation of the 8-story free-fall of WTC 7; (3) one has no explanation for the extremely high temperatures required to produce the metallic microspheres found in the dust independently by 3 investigators; and (4) one already has the active thermitic material recovered from the dust, in the form of red/gray chips. The controlled demolition hypothesis also (5) accounts for the well-documented squibs coming from the falling Towers.

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.​

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

Chandler even made a brief video for those who find it too difficult to read and understand papers on physics.

 

[Nous]

I was saying that given all of the other evidence

What "evidence" are you referring to? You haven't accounted for any of the evidence presented on this thread, have you?

 

[Augustus]

What "evidence" are you referring to? You haven't accounted for any of the evidence presented on this thread, have you?

Posts #2, #20, #30

No. As, from my perspective, the probability that the 'evidence' in this thread is relevant or accurate is currently so small as to not even require further investigation. As I said, if a murder suspect has a rock solid alibi, you don't need to analyse the fabric of their clothing to establish innocence.

If you can come up with plausible answers to all of my questions then red/grey chips and tiny spheres might become relevant, until then it's not. When the tallest buildings in the world collapse after being hit by aeroplanes, then there are probably quite a few potential sources for anything found in the debris.

 

[Curious George]

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by simply reading the papers already linked to on the iron-rich and molybdenum-rich microspheres found in the dust (which, by the way, cannot be formed except by the metals having been in a molten state):

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Provenance of dust samples analyzed in original work reported here.

Sample 1 was collected from inside the Potter Building located at 38 Park Row in New York City. It was collected by a Ph.D. scientist on 9/14/2001, just three days after the 9/11/2001 and before any major steelcutting operations had begun at ground zero. Rescue operations were on-going at the time of sample collection. Furthermore, the building is located about four blocks from ground zero and the sample was collected from dust that had worked its way inside the building, landing on an interior window sill. Thus, contamination from steelcutting operations at ground zero (which can produce molten steel spheres) can be ruled out with a very high degree of confidence. The iron-rich spheres collected in sample 1 are evidence of high-temperature melting and violent fragmentation during the WTC destruction and dust formation.

Sample 2 was collected by Jeannette MacKinlay about a week after 9/11/2001, from inside her apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St., New York City. WTC dust entered her apartment through two windows which broke as the South Tower collapsed. The holes in the windows were approximately 0.5 m X 0.8 m, and the apartment was on the fourth floor.

In both samples, elements besides iron are often present in the spheres which yield chemical signatures distinct from that of structural steel (such as Al, Si, Cu, K, S; see Figs. 3 and 4). These chemical signatures provide additional evidence that the spheres did not result from steel-cutting operations during clean-up. We have recently obtained a WTC dust sample acquired within twenty minutes of the collapse of the North Tower, near the Brooklyn Bridge, which also shows spherules like those shown in Figs. 1-5. These spheres cannot have originated from the later clean-up operations.​

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

The Harrit et al. paper provides a map of the locations where these two and the two additional samples examined in that study (all contained an abundance of such microspheres) were collected, one of which was near the Brooklyn Bridge. That sample was collected on 9/11.

So, steel cutting and other cutting of debris is ruled out with a high degree of probability in some of the samples, yet still not accounting for other possible sources.... Sounds like you just really want to believe. I will certainly keep an open mind, and I will certainly weigh the evidence. However, when you try to assert something that incredible, you are going to have to remove those obstacles. This is a case of you saying x when there is a multitude of other possible explanations. So, far you have demonstrated only that it is less likely that some of the spheres came from the steel cutting. How much of this material is present? How much would you expect to find given your implied explanations?

You asked for alternative possibilities, I provided them. If this was iron clad evidence, you should have no problem dismissing all possibilities present. Sounds like the most probable explanations is iron spheres that were present in fly ash.

 

[freethinker44]

Occam's razor leaves us with the hypothesis that the active thermitic material found in the WTC dust was the cause of destruction of the WTC buildings

No, it would say you've found pulverized rust and aluminum in the debris of a collapsed office building. Not really that unreasonable.

--otherwise, (1) one has to claim the collapse of the Towers violated Newton's Third Law (see Chandler's paper below); (2) one is left without an explanation of the 8-story free-fall of WTC 7; (3) one has no explanation for the extremely high temperatures required to produce the metallic microspheres found in the dust independently by 3 investigators; and (4) one already has the active thermitic material recovered from the dust, in the form of red/gray chips. The controlled demolition hypothesis also (5) accounts for the well-documented squibs coming from the falling Towers.

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.​

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

Chandler even made a brief video for those who find it too difficult to read and understand papers on physics.

I had to watch that video a few times because what the narrator was describing was different from what I was seeing. You can clearly see the top act as a "pile driver". It looked identical to the control building he used as a comparison. The building was clearly falling from the top down, with the top destroying the building as it went down.
This video is even clear.

The top collapses and blows out the floors beneath it on the way down. And it shows the steel melting where the plane wrecked, by the way. So I'm sitting here looking at melted steel from the fires after the plane's explosion and then watching the building fall from the top down, crushing the building below it as it goes, and you're saying it didn't happen that way, even though I've watched it happen exactly that way from dozens of different angles taken from different distances and from different sources.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Read this slowly and carefully: Fires fueled by burning office contents do not reach temperatures high enough to melt iron (or molybdenum) in order to produce iron-rich (and molybdenum-rich) microspheres.

The average house fire reaches 1,100 F. Iron melts at 2,800 F. However, both iron and steel only need about 900 F to start glowing, which is when the metal begins to undergo changes, including becoming weaker and developing layers of oxide. And you don't have to melt iron to produce these microspheres - something you would know if you were reading the material presented to you. Interesting that they aren't even being presented to me and I'm reading more of them than you are, yet you want to so easily dismiss others?

So you still haven't been able to identify any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper. Right?

Only because you obviously haven't been reading or considering what I have been presented to you.