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

[Modelworks]

blah, you can find the materials that make thermite in any fire that involves iron and aluminum. Nothing hard about making it.
From the anarchist cookbook about making explosives:

Thermites are a group of pyrotechnics mixtures in which a reactive metal reduces
oxygen from a metallic oxide. This produces a lot of heat, slag and pure metal. The
most common thermite is ferroaluminum thermite, made from aluminum (reactive metal)
and iron oxide (metal oxide). When it burns it produces aluminum oxide (slag) and
pure iron. Thermite is usually used to cut or weld metal. As an experiment, a 3 lb.
brick of thermite was placed on an aluminum engine block. After the thermite was
done burning, only a small portion of block was melted. However, the block was very
warped out of shape plus there were cracks all through the block.

Ferro-thermite produces about 930 calories per gram The usual proportions of ferro-thermite are
25% aluminum and 75% iron oxide The iron oxide usually used is not rust (Fe2O3) but
iron scale (Fe3O4). Rust will work but you may want to adjust the mixture to about
77% rust. The aluminum is usually coarse powder to help slow down the burning rate.

Aluminum powder and rust. Not exactly uncommon in a fire.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ok, I bit and read the paper. It's fundamentally flawed. First, the sample collection process is hardly verifiable. The response might be "what would people have to gain" really isn't germane. It's still flawed, because the samples were preferentially selected and therefore biased. What should have happened is that the sample site needed to be investigated and other components analyzed to see if there were other factors which would apply and perhaps clarify these samples in context.

Let's skip that for the moment and look at the data and conclusions. What could be said is that the sample has thermitic properties. That's about all. That doesn't mean that it's thermite. It's entirely possible that this is a result of a lot of aluminum ramming into a lot of steel resulting in a great deal of heat and pressure, but not evenly distributed. If that were the case then the resulting product could very well be "thermite" but something coincidental, not causative.

So there are many possibilities here, yet they make an argument that it's thermite because it might be. That's a huge bias in their analysis. If it was intentionally planted, why isn't it homogeneous? Why chips?

I don't know what it is, but if I assume that the product was properly examined (and with the inherent bias that screams from this paper I'm reluctant to buy that entirely), then all we can say is that we don't know what it is or how it got there. We only know that something weird was there which may or may not be causally connected, and that ignores the sample bias.

This isn't a very helpful study.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

I'm sure that there is some fancy-pants psychological term for when people are so horrified by the realization of how frail they and their support structures really are that they make shit up to feel stronger.

I noticed this with the OKC bombing of 1994. It's amazing how many people were so hoping that there was something BIG behind it. The Iraqis. The Iranians. The Illuminati. Anything but a handful of unhinged guys and a truck full of fertilizer. Surely it can't be that easy!. Doesn't that make you feel vulnerable? To know that an easily acquired truck and a slightly-less-easily-acquired amount of fertilizer could bring the building that you're in right now down. Not only that, but a federal building with the guards and the cameras and the comings and goings. Isn't it an easier thing to believe that huge amounts of money and manpower and secret deals and efforts all had to go into it, and that any slip up along the way would have resulted in the Murrah building still being there? Don't you feel safer, now.

The fact is that the 9/11 hijackers bet that passengers and crew of those planes would not want trouble, would believe that it was a hijacking like they had heard about before, saw in the movies, and then they steered the planes into buildings. Landing a plane is hard, taking off is hard, pointing it at buildings and keeping it in line to them, not so much...

But I guess that making it a reciprocal international conspiracy between the U.S. and Al Quaida and dozens of others makes people feel safer that it won't happen again.

Wrong...

You, right now, are incredibly vulnerable. One of your co-workers could be planning on gunning everybody down. There could be a car bomb in your parking lot. Somebody somewhere has surely put together that a big enough smoke bomb in a crowded theater/stadium will cause panic which will kill as many people as a decent sized bomb anyway.

In the end, this is the sort of truth that lies behind all conspiracy theories. People know there is more to the story than they're being told. But they don't know how to talk about what's actually happening. So they make up stories, with simple villains and simple motives, to explain things. If anything, it's a way for people to comfort themselves about a world that is probably nastier than what their own theories imagine.

You're not safe. You've never been safe. You'll never be safe. You play the odds all your life.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
wall of text

Logic and reason are not allowed when speaking of 9/11. Only youtube videos.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

There wouldn't be any conspiracies if our government wasn't so fucking shady. I mean there are hundreds of cameras surrounding the pentagon and all we get is some shitty quality slide show that barely even looks like a plane. Instead of going to the source of the terrorists who did this, we go to Iraq. Of course after we get there and ruin the country, we don't even find any traces of nuclear weapons. You would think with all the crazy technology we have, we would have found Osama Bin Laden by now. Government passes a fly by night Patriot Act that shits all over our constitution. The list goes on and on.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
While your perception of reality is apparently based off TV programing, I don't watch much at all myself, and have never even heard of the show you mention. As for your argument of intuition, you are overlooking the bolded above.

I'm not the one claiming they can sense a "tell" just like some dude on a TV show. You are. Like I said previously, your intutition is by no means any proof and is nothing but pure speculation on your part.

People are combining legitimate arguments with absurd ones to dismiss them all as a whole, that is the conflation I refer to and it's there to see for yourself if you care to look. But again, there is far too much here for me to expect anything good to come from addressing it all, I'd just wind up making a huge post hardly anyone would read.

And what are those alleged arguments? You claim they exist then try to dodge them by brushing them off.

I'm not claiming to be some bearer of ultimate truth here, just pointing out one obvious flaw in the official "truth", one you linkboted to compilations of dismissals which don't address my point and otherwise continue dance around rather than addressing.

You're not making any point at all. Your allegations consists of a Youtube video, a speculative claim, something about how NIST changed their report, and a link to a website that's an appeal to authority. (Wow, look at the "experts" we have behind our beliefs.) You wave it all around as if it's very meaningful and damning yet you completely FAIL to explain exactly why it's so damning.

Provide something substantial. If not you're just wasting everyone's time here with the same old tiresome tactics that we always see from the truthers.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: kylebisme
If you can't tell the guy answering the question here is bluffing, I don't recommend ever playing poker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng#t=6m35s

^ Huh? Physics dictates a constant rate of acceleration of gravity as 9.81 m/s^2.

He was bluffing when claiming WTC7's fall took notably longer than freefall, as is made obvious by the tell of scratching his nose after his statement, along with NIST later revising their report to admit freefall.

Anyway, the amount of conflation in this thread is absurd, leaving far too much nonsense for me to bother addressing all it. However, for suggesting anyone who disputes the official story is crazy, I hope you might take the time to look though this list:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Too much nonsense and weak appeal to authority at that website to address, so I'll just leave you with this:

http://www.debunking911.com/

How about you adesss the obvious bluffing in the video I posted. Better yet, watch the whole thing.

And by the way, the website was in response to the "I'm an engineer" and "I'm a pilot" comments, along with the argument about survivor's families.

The natives are restless......hahahaa
These threads are great for bringing out the crazies, I didn't realize how many of the day to day posters are certifiably insane. I guess you learn something new every day.

Man this thread is so piled high full of shit that those who see no conspiracy theory have to wade through this mess to get to the other side!!

 

[ahurtt]

HOLY CRAP! R U Serious!? ZOMG I can't believe this! What's active thermitic material?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
kylebisme

The collapses were filmed in real time. Demo charges might have been easily observable if not concealed by the fires. More importantly, we know where the the collapses began, and it would have been suspect if the points of origin were any distance from the impact points.

Of course the conspiracy theorists don't mention it. It would cast doubt on their arguments.

edit:

Sat on this page for a few before this post and missed FaaR's response. Good post, but I would mention that thermite doesn't make a big bang. It makes a hell of a bright light though, and sets even the hardest to combust materials alight immediately.

As mentioned, hard to imagine any detonating circuits surviving the fires for any length of time (they had to be in the fires or the collapse point would have been elsewhere). They would have to have been remotely activated since there was no guarantee that one of the planes might not be significantly delayed due to a maintenance problem or other incident ( a real "oops" if one of the towers dropped without a plane hitting it). So please, no speculation that the charges were enclosed in fireproof boxes with timers.

There are many videos showing flashes thoughout the buildings, here is a couple examples

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i70gWoQj40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCAoJuDw2Ic

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
There wouldn't be any conspiracies if our government wasn't so fucking shady. I mean there are hundreds of cameras surrounding the pentagon and all we get is some shitty quality slide show that barely even looks like a plane. Instead of going to the source of the terrorists who did this, we go to Iraq. Of course after we get there and ruin the country, we don't even find any traces of nuclear weapons. You would think with all the crazy technology we have, we would have found Osama Bin Laden by now. Government passes a fly by night Patriot Act that shits all over our constitution. The list goes on and on.

you are crazy. of course the government is full of liars, but when it comes to events like this they must be unquestionably trusted. I mean some people might use something like this to serve their own purposes, but the Federal government? of course not. you're crazy man.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
There wouldn't be any conspiracies if our government wasn't so fucking shady. I mean there are hundreds of cameras surrounding the pentagon and all we get is some shitty quality slide show that barely even looks like a plane. Instead of going to the source of the terrorists who did this, we go to Iraq. Of course after we get there and ruin the country, we don't even find any traces of nuclear weapons. You would think with all the crazy technology we have, we would have found Osama Bin Laden by now. Government passes a fly by night Patriot Act that shits all over our constitution. The list goes on and on.

you are crazy. of course the government is full of liars, but when it comes to events like this they must be unquestionably trusted. I mean some people might use something like this to serve their own purposes, but the Federal government? of course not. you're crazy man.

:laugh:

 

[jackschmittusa]

kylebisme

Saw nothing in those videos that resembled demolition charges.

 

[fornax]

TLS, as I said, you're clueless when it comes to science publishing. You said:

No self-respecting scientific journal requires that researchers pay to have their articles published.

I simply remarked that what you said above was totally, absolutely wrong, and that virtually all "self-respecting" science journals have page charges, with a very few exceptions. That is, they require that authors pay on the order of $400 per page for their published papers.

And what on Earth do you mean by "Many science journals have a charge to defer the peer review process". Peer reviewers are not usually compensated for their reviews (otherwise I would have been substantially richer )

You may want to pursue an argument about the article itself, although I wonder how, since your science knowledge in general, and material science in particular, seems to be very weak, to be charitable. However, the fact that the journal requires that authors pay for publishing their papers, is irrelevant.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Many science journals have a charge to defer the peer review process. However, this particular "journal" is brand new (2 months old) and Bentham already has a reputation for vanity publishing. But surely you knew that already?

Oh wait, no you didn't or you wouldn't have begun flapping your yap in the first place on the issue.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
kylebisme

Saw nothing in those videos that resembled demolition charges.

What do the flashes resemble to you then? Furthermore, there are many reports of secondary explosions, some examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdc0OsLN_nU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpTcpCOwBwY

 

[benzylic]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
kylebisme

Saw nothing in those videos that resembled demolition charges.

What do the flashes resemble to you then? Furthermore, there are many reports of secondary explosions, some examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdc0OsLN_nU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpTcpCOwBwY

planes carry very flammable fuel right?

 

[wwswimming]

let's talk about what's important.

what effect does this have on the price of Gold ?

i remember reading an article about the Bank of Canada having a vault with about $70 billion in gold at one of the WTC towers (1, 2, or 7).

so -
A/ if Canada had foreknowledge, they prudently removed the gold from the vault before the vault was rendered into dust.
B/ if Canada did not have foreknowledge, but another party did - how could they gain access to the gold, without Canada's permission ?

So either the gold ended up in that pile of soup at the bottom of the pile of debris (which is consistent with the official conspiracy theory that the US government did not have foreknowledge), or the Canadian government quietly went along with "the program" because they knew there was a high chance that the building their vault was in was like Seagate 7200.11 firmware, problematic.

I would like to find a way to debate this for money. on television. "9-11, Sheep vs. Historians".

Since you all are so confident of your positions in the official conspiracy theory, would you accept a reference of an SF Chronicle article if we made a bet ? they had an article about Willie Brown getting a warning phone call.

How about a British paper like the Guardian ? they had an article about author Salman Rushdie receiving a phone call warning him not to fly.

of course, my record keeping is not complete. i did not archive every article i read about 9-11 as pieces of the puzzle emerged in the weeks, months, & years after the attacks.

at least everybody agrees that it's appropriate for the attacks to be thoroughly investigated, and for the 9-11 perpetrators to be investigated, hunted down, and incarcerated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdjOLY6P1Pc

/\ C-Span interview with guy who helped rescue people the day of 9-11.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: fornax
TLS, as I said, you're clueless when it comes to science publishing. You said:

No self-respecting scientific journal requires that researchers pay to have their articles published.

I simply remarked that what you said above was totally, absolutely wrong, and that virtually all "self-respecting" science journals have page charges, with a very few exceptions. That is, they require that authors pay on the order of $400 per page for their published papers.

And what on Earth do you mean by "Many science journals have a charge to defer the peer review process". Peer reviewers are not usually compensated for their reviews (otherwise I would have been substantially richer )

I didn't say peer reviewers are compensated. I said they charge to help defer the peer review "process." That process involves editors and administrative staff.

You may want to pursue an argument about the article itself, although I wonder how, since your science knowledge in general, and material science in particular, seems to be very weak, to be charitable. However, the fact that the journal requires that authors pay for publishing their papers, is irrelevant.

How would you know what my science knowledge consists of? You haven't bothered to discuss the actual issue yet and, truthfully, you seem more interested in delivering a smackdown to me than participating in any discussion. Lord knows this thread could use some actual scientific discussion because the truthers sure aren't bringing anything to the table except youtube links and highly dubious claims.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
let's talk about what's important.

what effect does this have on the price of Gold ?

i remember reading an article about the Bank of Canada having a vault with about
$70 billion in gold at one of the WTC towers (1, 2, or 7).

so -
A/ if Canada had foreknowledge, they prudently removed the gold from the vault
before the vault was rendered into dust.
B/ if Canada did not have foreknowledge, but another party did - how could they
gain access to the gold, without Canada's permission ?

So either the gold ended up in that pile of soup at the bottom of the pile of debris
(which is consistent with the official conspiracy theory that the US government did
not have foreknowledge), or the Canadian government quietly went along with "the program"
because they knew there was a high chance that the building their vault was in was
like Seagate 7200.11 firmware, problematic.

I would like to find a way to debate this for money. on television. "9-11, Sheep vs. Historians".

Since you all are so confident of your positions in the official conspiracy theory, would you
accept a reference of an SF Chronicle article if we made a bet ? they had an article about
Willie Brown getting a warning phone call.

How about a British paper like the Guardian ? they had an article about author Salman
Rushdie receiving a phone call warning him not to fly.

of course, my record keeping is not complete. i did not archive every article i read about
9-11 as pieces of the puzzle emerged in the weeks, months, & years after the attacks.

at least everybody agrees that it's appropriate for the attacks to be thoroughly investigated,
and for the 9-11 perpetrators to be investigated, hunted down, and incarcerated.

The gold actually belonged to the Bank of Novia Scotia and it was stored in WTC 4, not 1, 2, or 7. The gold was removed from the vault some weeks after 9/11 and relocated elsewhere.

One of the problems is that the facts around 9/11 become so twisted and distorted because some people remember hearing something about things they aren't really sure about, repeat them in error, then someone else repeats their error and it continues to propagate. You are doing the very same thing. Before you demand any sort of investigation you should look thoroughly into the facts yourself because it appears you don't have a very firm grasp on them.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Evan

^ Huh? Physics dictates a constant rate of acceleration of gravity as 9.81 m/s^2. I don't see the conspiratorial significance of WTC7 falling at freefall.

Overall, you'd really have to be as dumb as a doorknob to believe in a conspiracy. As in certifiably stupid and/or paranoid.

QFT! :thumbsup:

 

[piasabird]

So they found the same thing around the Brooklyn bridge so this proves that Hillary Clinton blew up the twin towers.

After watching the video it looks just like a bunch of pie and the sky conjecture.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: mxrider

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
kylebisme

Saw nothing in those videos that resembled demolition charges.

What do the flashes resemble to you then? Furthermore, there are many reports of secondary explosions, some examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdc0OsLN_nU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpTcpCOwBwY

planes carry very flammable fuel right?

Very flammable, not explosive.

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Evan

^ Huh? Physics dictates a constant rate of acceleration of gravity as 9.81 m/s^2. I don't see the conspiratorial significance of WTC7 falling at freefall.

Overall, you'd really have to be as dumb as a doorknob to believe in a conspiracy. As in certifiably stupid and/or paranoid.

QFT! :thumbsup:

You call quoting a non-sequitur and ad hominem "truth"?

Here is some truth for you:

http://video.google.com/videop...id=-275577066688213413

 

[KlokWyze]

Is it ironic that an event that absolutelyneeds to be objectively looked @ is basically just a cluster fuck of emotional responses & illogical beliefs? rhetorical, etc.

No, let's argue over trivial aspects refusing to observe the obvious.

What's worse: murdering 3,000+ for some insane religious beliefs or using the event to murder & exploit millions/billions more?

I'm quicker to insult some neocons than some "liberal-hippie-tinfoil-nutters". Now, why are so many of you so perturbed by "crazies"? Don't tell me the "let the families who suffered from 9/11 rest" BS, because quite a few of these people are pro investigation of the event rather than just outright, blind trust of everything the government says even though they've switched their story more times than crack smoking purse snatcher.

I'm going to ask again what's worse:

A: religous nutters mass murdering 3,000+ people
B: government institutions using the event to kill 100,000+ (well beyond that due to the destabilization) & exploit 300,000,000 americans, 3,000+ soldiers killed, how many wounded, how much money, how much time focused on this ridiculous shit?

Maybe Americans should spend their time focusing on government accountability instead of hating on "tinfoil-nutters", after all, these guys are just nutters. There is no truth to their words. Why do they bother you so much though? lol

 

[kylebisme]

Excellent post, KlokWyze. On that note, a word from JFK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpmi7dBet0c

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
Is it ironic that an event that absolutelyneeds to be objectively looked @ is basically just a cluster fuck of emotional responses & illogical beliefs? rhetorical, etc.

No, let's argue over trivial aspects refusing to observe the obvious.

What's worse: murdering 3,000+ for some insane religious beliefs or using the event to murder & exploit millions/billions more?

I'm quicker to insult some neocons than some "liberal-hippie-tinfoil-nutters". Now, why are so many of you so perturbed by "crazies"? Don't tell me the "let the families who suffered from 9/11 rest" BS, because quite a few of these people are pro investigation of the event rather than just outright, blind trust of everything the government says even though they've switched their story more times than crack smoking purse snatcher.

I'm going to ask again what's worse:

A: religous nutters mass murdering 3,000+ people
B: government institutions using the event to kill 100,000+ (well beyond that due to the destabilization) & exploit 300,000,000 americans, 3,000+ soldiers killed, how many wounded, how much money, how much time focused on this ridiculous shit?

Maybe Americans should spend their time focusing on government accountability instead of hating on "tinfoil-nutters", after all, these guys are just nutters. There is no truth to their words. Why do they bother you so much though? lol

The entire problem is that there is plenty of proof this was caused by a small group of religious nutters. There exists absolutely ZERO proof that our government was involved in 9/11. Innuendo, speculation, and unanswered minutiae - all of which is founded primarily in paranoia and blatant partisanism - doesn't qualify as proof.

When the tin-foil hat wearers bring something concrete to the table that's scientific, testable, and obeys the laws of physics and known scientific principles in the first place then there'll be something to consider. As it is the truthers are blowing smoke up everyone's ass and out of their own.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
There wouldn't be any conspiracies if our government wasn't so fucking shady. I mean there are hundreds of cameras surrounding the pentagon and all we get is some shitty quality slide show that barely even looks like a plane. Instead of going to the source of the terrorists who did this, we go to Iraq. Of course after we get there and ruin the country, we don't even find any traces of nuclear weapons. You would think with all the crazy technology we have, we would have found Osama Bin Laden by now. Government passes a fly by night Patriot Act that shits all over our constitution. The list goes on and on.

One of the most fundamental assumptions made in 9/11 conspiracy theories is that the government has more power than it really does. First, the security cameras in place just about anywhere aren't designed to pick up something moving 500+ mph. I assumed that the cameras were ~30 fps, but I was informed by someone on these forums who does security installations that many cameras used are much slower than that. Second, the cameras aren't HD. Third, the cameras aren't aimed at the sky, they're aimed at roads, sidewalks, passageways, and doors.

Your argument about the cameras is the same as the "why didn't they just shoot down the planes argument" which is based entirely on the assumptions that, prior to 9/11, (a) NORAD was able to track airplanes inside US airspace (false), (b) that NORAD was able to scramble planes to any point in the country at any moment (false), (c) that the FAA was able to identify the hijacked planes immediately (false).

Like the security cameras, the perceived power and ability of the government dramatically exceeds its real-world abilities.