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

[Nous]

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.

What are the "other possible sources" that produce such microspheres:

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).​

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

?

I didn't see where your anonymous webpage named any such "possible sources".

 

[Nous]

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

There is no evidence cited in any of these posts.

 

[Curious George]

What are the "other possible sources" that produce such microspheres:

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).​

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

?

I didn't see where your anonymous webpage named any such "possible sources".

Oh I'm sorry, did you still not read it? There was a host of different possible reasons...and steel wasn't the only one. So what I am hearing you say is that you don't understand.

I will try to explain. We could in theory account for all those other elements but iron, and now we can account for iron as well. And, the iron needn't come from just the steel. Cheers.

 

[Nous]

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.

Falling buildings do not create chips of intimately mixed nanoparticles of elemental aluminum and iron oxide that, when heated to a mere 400°C, demonstrate an exotherm narrower and more energetic that reference nanothermite.

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".

In what frame do you see the upper block decelerating when it impacts the lower portion, as required by the law of conservation of momentum?

The fact is that Chandler’s frame-by-frame analysis shows that not only does the upper block of the Tower not decelerate at any point, but actually accelerates as it moves downward. This fact is absolutely, unequivocally contrary to the idea that upper block crushed the lower portion by impacting the lower portion. When you accelerate a billiard ball across the pool table and hit another billiard ball, causing it to move, the law of conservation of momentum is preserved by the first ball suddenly decelerating (due to the effect of the opposite and equal force on the first ball).

Show us that what you claim happened is physically possible. Show an experiment where dropping a smaller object onto a larger object of the same material that is sitting on the ground results in the larger object being crushed to the ground, and without deceleration of the falling object.

Jonathan Cole performed such “pile driver” experiments with ice blocks and concrete blocks, and found, just as Newton’s laws dictate, that the smaller falling body decelerates upon impact, and is itself crushed by the opposite and equal upward force before it crushes the larger portion below it:

Of course, Chandler’s assumptions and Cole’s experiments are premised on the upper block of the Tower suddenly falling upon and flatly impacting the floor beneath. This could only have actually happened if the upward force exerted by the columns supporting the upper portion was suddenly wiped out. This could have only happened by suddenly removing those columns.

Ali Mohamad provides the calculations demonstrating the physical impossibility of the upper block of the Tower crushing the larger lower block while never declerating:

 

[Nous]

And you don't have to melt iron to produce these microspheres

Prove it.

.

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

What was the error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper that you identified? Show us that you're not lying.

 

[Nous]

What are the "other possible sources" that produce such microspheres:

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).​

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

Oh I'm sorry, did you still not read it? There was a host of different possible reasons.

So you can't name any "other possible sources" for such microspheres containing elements such as Al, Si, Cu, K or S. (Pssst: That's what all the non-morons here already knew.)

 

[Nous]

What did we see on that day? I was 15 and I remembered I watched two steel skyscrapers turn into dust and debris in mid-air, a process that defies logic, physics, common sense, etc, etc.
When Dr. Judy Wood wrote a book about this process, that is, dustification, I was relieved. I thought: "I am not a crazy person. Someone else has realized that the scientific evidence and the NIST report don't match".

Luca, I can't believe I have repeatedly forgotten to reply to your post! My apologies!

Many people noticed on 9/11 the impossibility of the Towers exploding from the top down as you did. I assume the impossibility of it was what was so shocking to me when I first saw it. But I just did not connect the dots--I didn't actually try to for a long time afterwards. I wasn't aware of the kind or extent of damage such a plane impact would likely cause, or how hot jet fuel burns, or even what temperature steel melts. And in fact, as I was watching the news that afternoon, it was my impression that the reports were that WTC 7 was going to be and had been intentionally demolished because it was such an unstable structure that it was going to fall anyway. It simply did not occur to me that it takes a long time and a great deal of skill to install explosives in a building and bring it straight down at free-fall speed.

Several years after 9/11 (maybe about 2005 or 2006?), I argued for a while on another discussion board that what a few people there were saying about the Towers being intentionally demolished and the events of 9/11 being a false-flag operation was simply insane. But they were trying to make "hypothetical arguments" (premised on some supposed principle) such as one sees people on this threat proposing. It was only when I stopped talking and began looking at the evidence that was trickling in at that time that I began to question the official conspiracy theory.

Anyway, I haven't read Judy Wood's book or any of her other work on this topic. But, as you probably know, her "directed energy" hypothesis receives a lot of criticism even (or especially) among those who question the official story of gravity-induced collapse of the 3 WTC buildings. The Journal of 9/11 Studies published this paper on her hypothesis: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ergy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf What is your opinion on this critique?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What was the error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper that you identified? Show us that you're not lying.

I'm lying about firescale? What I don't get, your insisting for evidence and proof and we've been giving it to you. But that you still make these points and still ask such questions is a very strong indication you aren't even reading what is being presented to you as evidence.
You said I can't emotionally deal with the truth, perhaps you can't deal with realizing you've bought into such an easily disprovable conspiracy theory.

 

[Curious George]

So you can't name any "other possible sources" for such microspheres containing elements such as Al, Si, Cu, K or S. (Pssst: That's what all the non-morons here already knew.)

Fly ash?

 

[Curious George]

So you can't name any "other possible sources" for such microspheres containing elements such as Al, Si, Cu, K or S. (Pssst: That's what all the non-morons here already knew.)

Oh and that little bit about pockets of higher temps to burn whatever really.

This isn't rocket science buddy.

 

[Nous]

I'm lying about firescale?

Are you claiming that firescale somehow demonstrates an error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper?

Obviously you need to do more than to merely upchuck single terms.

What I don't get, your insisting for evidence and proof and we've been giving it to you.

Specify whatever evidence and proof you believe you or someone else has "given" on this thread. State the proposition that one can supposed deduce from this evidence.

For instance: the evidence of the unreacted thermitic material in the WTC dust; the iron-rich microspheres found in the dust; the near-free-fall speed at which the 3 buildings fell; the symmetry with which they fell; the fact the upper block of the Towers could not have crushed the lower block without violating Newton's Third Law; the fact that there was no deceleration of the upper block impacting the lower stronger portion (but rather demonstrated an acceleration); the yellow hot molten metal flowing from the the South Tower just before it exploded; the pools of molten metal filling the basement pits of each of the 3 buildings. . . . these are all evidence or facts that contradict the official story of the destruction of these buildings. In contrast, you have not been able to cite and substantiate a single item of evidence or fact by which to deduce that the buildings were destroyed by gravity-induced collapse. You should get a clue from the fact that NIST was unable to use even the most unrealistically severe assumptions and show that the buildings can possibly collapse as they did due to such hydrocarbon fires and asymmetrical damage.

 

[Nous]

So you can't name any "other possible sources" for such microspheres containing elements such as Al, Si, Cu, K or S.

Fly ash?

You're asking?

Neither Class C nor Class F fly ash is consistent with the elemental compositions of the microspheres found by Jones et al. in the WTC dust samples, not even close.

In the United States, a typical chemical analysis for low-calcium [Class C] fly ashes (<10 % CaO), usually formed by the combustion of bituminous coal, shows 45–65 wt% SiO2, 20–30 wt% Al2O3, 4–20 wt% Fe2O3, 1–2 wt% MgO, ≤3 wt% alkalis, and ≤5 wt% loss on ignition (LOI) [9, 12, 13]. The high-calcium [Class F] fly ashes (≥10 % CaO) formed by the combustion of subbitummious and lignite coal typically contain 20–50 wt% SiO2, 15–20 wt% Al2O3, 15–30 wt% CaO, 5–10 wt% Fe2O3, 3–5 wt% MgO, ≤8 wt% alkalis, and <1 wt% LOI.​

http://www.springer.com/cda/content...367205-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1432951-p174960900

Jones et al. provide the atomic percentages of the constituent elements for 3 microspheres--typical spheres from samples 1 and 2, and the largest sphere. One can convert these atomic percentages to weight percentages using formula A, and calculate the weight percentage of each element composing fly ash using formula C, here: http://www.terramagnetica.com/2009/...mic-percent-to-weight-percent-and-vice-versa/ One finds that the microspheres in the WTC dust samples have a tremendously greater weight percentage of Fe and much smaller weight percentages of Si and Al than does fly ash. One of the microspheres in the WTC dust (Sample 1) did not even show a silicon peak, and another one (Sample 2) did not show an aluminum peak. These two elements are apparently primary and characteristic components of fly ash.

 

[Nous]

Oh and that little bit about pockets of higher temps to burn whatever really.

You're claiming there were "pockets of higher temp[eratures]" somewhere? Higher than what? And what do you claim caused these higher temperatures? Substantiate your claims.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you claiming that firescale somehow demonstrates an error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper?

I'm saying it's a very simple way of knowing that crap builds up on metal when it's heated up, which shows a problem with such papers. We should expect to find these iron microspheres because the metal in many places of the towers reached temperatures hot enough to make it glow, which is going to cause chemical changes to the metal, as well as cause it to develop these oxidized layers once it cools.

Specify whatever evidence and proof you believe you or someone else has "given" on this thread.

Are you seriously saying you've not seen any of the links provided here?

the near-free-fall speed at which the 3 buildings fell

That is not an indication of anything.

the symmetry with which they fell

The one tower clearly did not have a symmetrical collapse, and the other tower was "pancacked" as the top portion fell in on top of the rest. Either one is not something you see in a controlled demolition.

Does that, at all, look "symmetrical" to you?

the fact the upper block of the Towers could not have crushed the lower block without violating Newton's Third Law

Their collapse in no way violates Newton's Third law.

the fact that there was no deceleration of the upper block impacting the lower stronger portion (but rather demonstrated an acceleration)

So, I assume someone has set up exact replica models and hooked up all the appropriate equipment to test such an idea? There was so much dust we can't even really see how fast any of it went down.

the yellow hot molten metal flowing from the the South Tower just before it exploded; the pools of molten metal filling in the basement pits of each of the 3 buildings. . . .

Molten metal isn't yellow (typically, it turns white just before it melts, and then oozes into a red-orangish puddle), and there was no molten metal because the fires never got hot enough to melt it. Plenty of hot enough to make it glow red, but not melt it. And here you are saying it melted, and you actually asked me what would have provided fuel for the fires just to make it glow?

You should get a clue from the fact that NIST

So, is all you have this NIST and Harrit paper?

 

[Estro Felino]

Luca, I can't believe I have repeatedly forgotten to reply to your post! My apologies!

Many people noticed on 9/11 the impossibility of the Towers exploding from the top down as you did. I assume the impossibility of it was what was so shocking to me when I first saw it. But I just did not connect the dots--I didn't actually try to for a long time afterwards. I wasn't aware of the kind or extent of damage such a plane impact would likely cause, or how hot jet fuel burns, or even what temperature steel melts. And in fact, as I was watching the news that afternoon, it was my impression that the reports were that WTC 7 was going to be and had been intentionally demolished because it was such an unstable structure that it was going to fall anyway. It simply did not occur to me that it takes a long time and a great deal of skill to install explosives in a building and bring it straight down at free-fall speed.

Several years after 9/11 (maybe about 2005 or 2006?), I argued for a while on another discussion board that what a few people there were saying about the Towers being intentionally demolished and the events of 9/11 being a false-flag operation was simply insane. But they were trying to make "hypothetical arguments" (premised on some supposed principle) such as one sees people on this threat proposing. It was only when I stopped talking and began looking at the evidence that was trickling in at that time that I began to question the official conspiracy theory.

Anyway, I haven't read Judy Wood's book or any of her other work on this topic. But, as you probably know, her "directed energy" hypothesis receives a lot of criticism even (or especially) among those who question the official story of gravity-induced collapse of the 3 WTC buildings. The Journal of 9/11 Studies published this paper on her hypothesis: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ergy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf What is your opinion on this critique?

What a nice coincidence...yesterday night I was watching the documentary "Nine Eleven -The New Pearl Harbor" when I read your post. You really don't need to apologize...
I just think that it is very important to underline that a fact A doesn't imply necessarily a fact B. I don't believe in most conspiracy theories; and I don't know what really happened on that day.
What I am absolutely sure about is that there is no logical nexus between the plane crashes and the the "collapse" (well...Judy Wood say that they didn't fall, but almost totally turned into dust in mid-air) of the Twin Towers.
If these 3 steel skyscrapers had fallen like a house of cards (very rare and improbable), there would have been three huge piles of debris, which we didn't see on ground zero.
Does this imply that it deals with an inside job? Or with a conspiracy? Of course not. I can suppose that the perpetrators had already planned to demolish the buildings after hitting them with the planes.

 

[Curious George]

You're asking?

Neither Class C nor Class F fly ash is consistent with the elemental compositions of the microspheres found by Jones et al. in the WTC dust samples, not even close.

In the United States, a typical chemical analysis for low-calcium [Class C] fly ashes (<10 % CaO), usually formed by the combustion of bituminous coal, shows 45–65 wt% SiO2, 20–30 wt% Al2O3, 4–20 wt% Fe2O3, 1–2 wt% MgO, ≤3 wt% alkalis, and ≤5 wt% loss on ignition (LOI) [9, 12, 13]. The high-calcium [Class F] fly ashes (≥10 % CaO) formed by the combustion of subbitummious and lignite coal typically contain 20–50 wt% SiO2, 15–20 wt% Al2O3, 15–30 wt% CaO, 5–10 wt% Fe2O3, 3–5 wt% MgO, ≤8 wt% alkalis, and <1 wt% LOI.​

http://www.springer.com/cda/content...367205-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1432951-p174960900

Jones et al. provide the atomic percentages of the constituent elements for 3 microspheres--typical spheres from samples 1 and 2, and the largest sphere. One can convert these atomic percentages to weight percentages using formula A, and calculate the weight percentage of each element composing fly ash using formula C, here: http://www.terramagnetica.com/2009/...mic-percent-to-weight-percent-and-vice-versa/ One finds that the microspheres in the WTC dust samples have a tremendously greater weight percentage of Fe and much smaller weight percentages of Si and Al than does fly ash. One of the microspheres in the WTC dust (Sample 1) did not even show a silicon peak, and another one (Sample 2) did not show an aluminum peak. These two elements are apparently primary and characteristic components of fly ash.

Great, what are the weight percentages found in the wtc dust?

 

[Curious George]

You're claiming there were "pockets of higher temp[eratures]" somewhere? Higher than what? And what do you claim caused these higher temperatures? Substantiate your claims.

It's in the quote from the site I posted...try reading it.

 

[Nous]

Are you claiming that firescale somehow demonstrates an error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper?

I'm saying it's a very simple way of knowing that crap builds up on metal when it's heated up, which shows a problem with such papers.

Nonsense. Building fires do not cause the formation of red/gray chips of active thermitic material consisting of ntimately mixed nanoparticles and exhibiting a narrower, more energetic exotherm than reference super-thermite. Nothing could be more ridiculous.

And I feel certain that in any other context you would not dare make such an absurd suggestion. You only do so here because your beliefs about 9/11 are religion which you hold tenaciously despite any and all evidence to the contrary, and you cannot possibly engage in an objective and unbiased assessment of the evidence. You (et al.) believe that ordinary building fires can turn firescale into nanothermite, and that scattered office fires and random structural damage can cause a steel-frame skyscraper suddenly collapse into its footprint at free-fall speed for the same reason that fundamentalist Christians believe that Jesus fed the multitude of 4,000 with 7 loaves and fishes and had 7 basketfuls left over: it’s required dogma

We should expect to find these iron microspheres because the metal in many places of the towers reached temperatures hot enough to make it glow

False. Just because steel is heated enough to "glow" some color does not mean it has reached melting temperature. I think most middle school students learn such stuff.

Specify whatever evidence and proof you believe you or someone else has "given" on this thread.

Are you seriously saying you've not seen any of the links provided here?

The reason that you are unable to specify any evidence by which to conclude the official story for the buildings completely collapsing at free-fall or near-free speed due to hydrocarbon fires is because that story is utterly nonsensical and false. All of the evidence directly contradicts such a story.

the near-free-fall speed at which the 3 buildings fell

That is not an indication of anything.

The free-fall and near-free-fall rate at which the 3 buildings were destroyed indicates that the steel support columns that held the buildings up provided no (or little) resistance, i.e., that the support columns were destroyed before the portion of the buildings above them descended.

The one tower clearly did not have a symmetrical collapse

False. All three WTC buildings collapsed symmetrically; none fell to one side.

and the other tower was "pancacked"

The reason that NIST repudiated the "pancaking" hypothesis is because all the evidence contradicted it. It would have left the core standing, and, the fire tests showed that even with much hotter temperatures, heavier loads and longer burning times, the trusses didn't fail.

Again, you obviously have your own unique, non-physical ideas about the destruction of the buildings.

Their collapse in no way violates Newton's Third law.

That’s right. The irrevocable fact of Newton’s Third Law is one the most definitive methods by which to determine the falsehood of the official story in which the smaller upper portion of the Towers suddenly fell upon and crushed the larger lower portion to the ground, at near-free-fall speed no less, then crushed itself to smithereens. The physical impossibility of the crush-down/crush-up idea is the reason that no one has ever produced an actual example of a structure behaving in such a way.

The irrevocable fact of Newton’s Third Law and the law of conservation of momentum is how we know that if the smaller upper portion of the building had acted as a “pile driver” by suddenly falling upon and impacting the larger lower portion, we would have seen a dramatic decrease in the velocity of the falling upper block, exactly as one invariably sees when dropping one concrete block onto another, or rolls one billiard ball into another. Instead, the downward destruction of the Towers not only didn’t decrease in velocity, the descent eventually increased.

NIST acknowledged that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed for 8 stories (96 feet), meaning that resistance from the building’s 80 support columns was completely obliterated. This can only be accounted for by the sudden, simultaneous and complete mechanical removal of support from those 80 steel columns. It is not accounted for by NIST’s “progressive collapse” hypothesis, which it was unable to provide a model of, anyway.

the yellow hot molten metal flowing from the the South Tower just before it exploded; the pools of molten metal filling in the basement pits of each of the 3 buildings. . . .

Molten metal isn't yellow (typically, it turns white just before it melts, and then oozes into a red-orangish puddle)

I realize it's all just religion for you, but your comments indicate a severe ignorance of high school physics. Here are the color temperature indicators for steel: http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#3.1

and there was no molten metal

The molten steel is well documented: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf
You can find numerous videos on Youtube showing the yellow-hot molten metal flowing from the South Tower just before it exploded, as well as of eyewitness statements by firefighters, as well as of the pools of molten metal filling the basements.

The abundance of iron-rich microspheres in the dust are proof that temperatures were far higher than fires of jet fuel and office contents burn.

 

[Nous]

Great, what are the weight percentages found in the wtc dust?

Are you unable to follow Formula A and perform those calculations?

For the Sample 1 microsphere (Fig. 3), with atomic percents O (63), Si (14), Fe (11), Al (9), K (1), Mg (0.4), Na (0.4), Ni (0.3) and S (0.2), I get weight percents of 26.35 Fe, 43.23 O, and 16.86 Si.

For the Sample 2 microsphere (Fig. 5), with atomic percents O (60 ± 2), Fe (39 ± 2.5), Mn (0.7), Si (0.4), I get weight percents of : ~68.33 Fe, ~30.11 O, and 0.35 Si. Note that there was no Al peak for this sphere.

And for the largest microsphere (Fig. 4), with atomic percents Fe (65), O (18), Al (11), S (4), Cu (0.6), Mn (0.6), Ni (0.4), my calculations yield weight percents of: 81.8 Fe, and 6.48 O. There was no Si peak in this microsphere.

Thus, these microspheres are quite different in their elemental composition than fly ash. Unlike fly ash, these microspheres in the WTC dust are truly "iron-rich".

 

[Nous]

It's in the quote from the site I posted...try reading it.

I didn't see any such source on that webpage. If you know how to copy and paste the URL to the source, then do so.