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

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Again and again... I'm tempted to post my thoughts, even though I realize they're very likely to be dismissed as more paranoia, fantasy or conspiracy theory...

1. The U.S. took 9/11 as an opportunity to exert its military and economical hegemony. As the poet said, "se non e vero, e ben trovato". Plus, there were quite a few uncanny coincidences - such as the military exercise taking place at the exact time of the attacks...

If you're speaking of planned military exercises, none of them were actually running on 9/11. The closest thing was run in June of '01 and simulated an attack via UAVs.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/.../dot-e/jte/01jcmd.html

2. If it were a conspiracy, I don't think it would have required "thousands upon thousands" of people involved and "in the know"... A few dozen, at most, would have been enough. As for what's keeping them quiet: The first best two incentives are money and fear. Anyone can be blackmailed into doing anything these days - for his sake, or his family's. Or they could simply be killed afterwards. History is full of examples.

If only a few dozen were involved, I'd like you to actually outline who those few dozen were. Most conspiracy theorists believe the NIST and FEMA were both involved because of their "shoddy" reports. That alone is more than a few dozen.

In order to blow up the WTC you would need thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of detonation cord, and a sophisticated control system. Not only would the amount of 'stuff' be staggering, but it would take dozens of trucks to haul everything to the WTC. Most controlled demolitions are wired by teams of 12 - 20 guys and can take up to a month to get everything in place -- and that's for a building much smaller than ONE of the three buildings truthers claim was demolished. What I'm saying is that the logistics of simply placing explosives in the WTC would involve dozens of people and their ability to wire a building so thoroughly without detection is highly suspect.

3. I don't think any government is above killing its own people in order to reach political or economic gains. The U.S. is no exception...on the contrary. A quick example comes to mind, since it was used as a comparison event: Pearl Harbor. Only in recent years did it come to light that Washington knew the attack will take place, but chose to keep quiet and use it as a reason to enter WWII.

Facts are much nicer than beliefs. Regarding your World War II tale, there is no credible evidence that the US knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

To push the point though, if the US KNEW the attacks were coming, why would they allow nearly the entire Pacific Fleet to be taken out of commission? If the Japanese had followed up with a ground invasion of Hawaii, this country would have been in serious trouble. If the government knew that the attack was coming they could have achieved the same domestic impact by allowing the Japanese to kill some sailors, but moving at least a few of the battleships out of the harbor.

Returning to 911, though, point #3 is entirely irrelevant.

4. Many aspects of 9/11 were suspicious... Why was the Pentagon lawn so quickly and conveniently swept clean (on the same day!), and the plane crash site was covered with sand? This goes against any crash investigation methodology. Also, speaking of crashes, there certainly wasn't enough debris left in either Washington DC or in Pennsylvania... I've seen only one plane crash site in "real life" before, along with many others on TV... and they looked nothing like that. Also, I do not remember any human remains being mentioned, whatsoever, and you DO come across those at a plane crash site...

The lawn was cleaned because the FBI wanted all the debris from the site as evidence. In order to do that they needed "numerous" dumpsters, all of which needed to be hauled across the lawn, which was too soft for big trucks. The FBI, therefore, approved the construction of a road, part of which involved laying sand. That's in Civil Engineering Magazine, November 2001 in case you're curious.

No debris from the plane at the Pentagon?
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_3.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_5.html - wheel rim
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_4.html - engine remains
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_6.html - fuselage
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_14.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_18.html

How much debris to expect to find when a plane hits a fortress-like building at 450 - 550 mph?


Finally, if you don't believe an airplane slammed into the Pentagon, then why don't you indulge me and tell me exactly what happened? Please. I want to know because there is no "other" story about 9/11. The ONLY comprehensive and complete story that best fits the evidence we have at hand is the official account of events. There is no comprehensive "other" story. So please, make your case.

5. Follow the money. There were billions to be made from the ensuing Afghano-Iraqi debacle... Some companies and individuals got filthy rich - and, more importantly, gained a whole lot of influence.

Nonsense. Not nonsense in the typical way, but I mean that you're essentially saying "haliburton made a ton of money off Iraq, Cheney was VP, therefore haliburton helped perpetrate 9/11." Prove it. Provide ANY shred of evidence that Cheney was involved. Just remember that adding Cheney and Haliburton as perpetrators violates your 2nd point which was that not many people needed to know about 9/11. Now we're involving the VP and a company he's related to.

If I told you that 9/11 was perpetrated by Iceland because it was sick of the NATO airfields on its island, wouldn't you ask me the same thing? You'd want evidence that Iceland was somehow involved in 9/11. If you're going to make an accusation like that, you must provide something beyond just a story. Stories abound -- facts are few and far between and there are no facts, accounts, or testimonies that fit the story you're trying to spin.

6. Dismissing any suspicions as "outright lunacy" is counter-productive. Any half-skilled PR campaign can skew public opinion against any ideas contradicting the official version...
7. Not all those who doubt 9/11 are trolls, people with no social interaction, uneducated or naive. Many of them are not even U.S. residents - which can work for or against them, depending how you chose to interpret it.

There is a very comprehensive report about 9/11. There is a broad-based consensus among demolitions experts, disaster specialists, investigators, and people in the know that planes (and nothing else) brought down the WTC and a plane slammed into the Pentagon. They have data, facts, pictures, testimony, and evidence to prove all of this. Questioning is great, but when questioning turns into obstinate denial of fact in the face of overwhelming evidence it crosses into the "outright lunacy" end of things.

8. As long as there's a reasonable doubt concerning 9/11, critical thinking is recommended... This was not a clear-cut "terrorist goes kaboom!" situation.

See above.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
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.

Why are you assuming what hit the pentagon came diving down out of the sky? Not even the official reports suggest that. Here is some videos they did release:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8#t=1m20s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bapUohJn1E8

But there were other videos confiscated and still not released:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
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).

That is just absurd. Of course they could track the plane, as noted in this testemony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
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).

That is just absurd. Of course they could track the plane, as noted in this testemony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

What about the other two, and more important, points???

Read the 9-11 committee report. The flight time from Langley Air base in Newport News Va and Washington DC was longer than the amount of time need for them to have gotten there and taken some type of action.

Same thing with the plane that headed towards NY city.

And even more important is the fact that our civil air traffic control system is not set up to integrate with the military at all. The fighter jets that headed to NYC were left circling over Long Island Sound because they weren't sure what they were suppose to be doing.

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: 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.

No man, I'm saying the problem isn't who did it. It doesn't matter who did it. Whenever an event like this happens normal people like you will always turn to authority for answers & orders..... without question.

You see what I'm saying?

Since these tinfoil nutters are so "crazy", why try & justify your beliefs to them? I don't argue about the meaning of life with homeless crackheads. LOL

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What about the other two, and more important, points???

I don't have any reason to contest them, just the one I did, and I figure I'll wait to see how he responds to that before I consider addressing flaws in his longer post.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
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.

Why are you assuming what hit the pentagon came diving down out of the sky? Not even the official reports suggest that. Here is some videos they did release:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8#t=1m20s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bapUohJn1E8

But there were other videos confiscated and still not released:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77

Sigh, notice what I wrote. None of those cameras are aimed at the sky. They aren't intended to pick up airplanes or missiles or alien spacecraft approaching the Pentagon. Whatever the Department of Defense might or might not have on video that is unreleased isn't going to change the story. They aren't going to have a time-stop version of the aircraft approaching the building. No video is going to "prove" that a plane hit the pentagon, that proof lies in the rubble, the impact, and the eye witness accounts of a plane slamming into the side of the building.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
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).

That is just absurd. Of course they could track the plane, as noted in this testemony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

No. The FAA and NORAD are two separate organizations. NORAD, responsible for defending this country against INCOMING attack did not possess the capability, prior to 9/11, to track airplanes within the continental United States. The tracking of the hijacked planes was done by the FAA who relayed that information to NORAD. They had an enormous amount of difficulty finding the planes because their identification beacons were disabled. Essentially, the FAA staff had to sort through about 4,000 active flights to find the four planes with missing identity tags.

Why is that important? Because let's look at another situation that only a few months after 9/11. In January 2002, Charles Bishop took a Cessna 172 and crashed it into the Bank of America Tower in Tampa, FL. NORAD didn't learn of the rogue plane until it overhead the FAA discussing the situation and was only able to scramble fighters after the plane had already hit the building. All-told, it took 45 minutes for fighters to arrive on-scene, too late to do anything. -- This is months AFTER 9/11. Imagine on that morning NORAD trying to sort out what the fuck is going on, trying to get info from the FAA, trying to determine if the plane was hijacked and trying to figure out what the hell they were going to do about it.

The problem on 9/11 was that NORAD was not prepared for an attack with a hijacking originating within the United States. It wasn't until after 911 that they took the responsibility of tracking all 40,000 domestic flights within the United States. It wasn't until after 9/11 that they increased the number of fighter jets on standby. It wasn't until well after 9/11 that NORAD was in any position whatsoever to effectively stop a hijacked plane originating from within the United States from slamming into a building or a bridge or anything. No amount of Monday Morning Quarterbacking is going to bring back those people who died and no amount of it is going to change the facts that our defenses were caught completely off-guard and, even if everything had been reported immediately and we knew that those guys were going to hit the WTC, there probably was still little that could have been done.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
No man, I'm saying the problem isn't who did it. It doesn't matter who did it. Whenever an event like this happens normal people like you will always turn to authority for answers & orders..... without question.

You see what I'm saying?

Since these tinfoil nutters are so "crazy", why try & justify your beliefs to them? I don't argue about the meaning of life with homeless crackheads. LOL

Yeah, I see what you're saying. You're proffering yet another version of the ridiculously oafish and sophomoric "lemming" argument and making the squalid assumption that people like me haven't actually looked into the facts of the matter; that I merely take my marching orders willingly and without argument. That's the first point where you are wrong. You also try to imply that you are somehow more aware than those "normal people" and can see beyond what they see. Odd, but you haven't demonstrated any of that alleged great knowledge and awareness in the least concerning this matter. In fact, about all you seem to be doing is demonstrating a paranoia about authority, an underpinning and the great foundation common to most truthers.

btw, I'm not trying to justify any beliefs to truthers. Truthers are hopeless. I just want to prevent the truthers from poisoning the minds of others with their hocus pocus, superficial baloney. So if you have nothing to add related to the facts of the matter around 9/11, kindly step aside and allow those who are aware of the facts deal with this.

You see what I'm saying?

 

[spacejamz]

it is kinda of scary that some people have wasted 8 years of their life on this crap...

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
it is kinda of scary that some people have wasted 8 years of their life on this crap...

Well, think of the JFK conspiracy. 40+ years and we still have people believing the CIA killed JFK or some such nonsense.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: spacejamz
it is kinda of scary that some people have wasted 8 years of their life on this crap...

Well, think of the JFK conspiracy. 40+ years and we still have people believing the CIA killed JFK or some such nonsense.

true, but they didn't have the internet back then to spew their crap...

 

[event8horizon]

im surprised noone is focusing on the paper. i have one problem with it. they dont test for the other byproduct of a thermite reaction. if one watches the vids about thermite, the white smoke is aluminum oxide. i didnt see where they tested for that during the reaction or after. that would be one part of the puzzle IMO. as for elemental aluminum, prof jones is posting and answering questions at this website. elemental aluminum is a very big deal.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3


this is a prof jones post:
2. In the section of MEK results in the paper, we state:
" Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon,
located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very
little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the
matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migra-
tion and separation of the components. This is a significant
result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
bound chemically."

In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate.

3. From the paper: " Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac-
count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result."

This result also rules out the possibility that the aluminum is present as kaolin. Again, this is why we did the experiment -- to determine whether elemental (not chemically bound) aluminum was present, and it was.

4. Most debunkers overlook the high energy/gram yield of the material -- the DSC results -- along with the formation of iron-aluminum rich spheres. See Figures 20, 23 and 25 and associated text. These results mean that a high-energy-yield and high-temperature reaction occurs upon ignition of this red material. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT ORDINARY PAINT CAN GIVE SUCH HIGH ENERGY/GRAM ACCOMPANIED BY THE FORMATION OF FE-AL RICH SPHERES, nor can they do it!

 

[event8horizon]

from the rj lee report. they did some research into the wtc dust foe the deusche bank.
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC...20Morphology.Final.pdf


Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel).

 

[event8horizon]

more for the inquiring minds-

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf


Abstract
In an effort to better understand the conditions that led to complete collapses of the World Trade Center
Towers and WTC 7, we apply scanning-electron-microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive x-ray
spectroscopy (XEDS) methods to analyze the dust generated, with an emphasis on observed micro-spheres
in the WTC dust. The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the
WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories.
The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the
WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office
materials in the WTC buildings.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
im surprised noone is focusing on the paper. i have one problem with it. they dont test for the other byproduct of a thermite reaction. if one watches the vids about thermite, the white smoke is aluminum oxide. i didnt see where they tested for that during the reaction or after. that would be one part of the puzzle IMO. as for elemental aluminum, prof jones is posting and answering questions at this website. elemental aluminum is a very big deal.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3


this is a prof jones post:
2. In the section of MEK results in the paper, we state:
" Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon,
located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very
little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the
matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migra-
tion and separation of the components. This is a significant
result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
bound chemically."

In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate.

3. From the paper: " Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac-
count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result."

This result also rules out the possibility that the aluminum is present as kaolin. Again, this is why we did the experiment -- to determine whether elemental (not chemically bound) aluminum was present, and it was.

4. Most debunkers overlook the high energy/gram yield of the material -- the DSC results -- along with the formation of iron-aluminum rich spheres. See Figures 20, 23 and 25 and associated text. These results mean that a high-energy-yield and high-temperature reaction occurs upon ignition of this red material. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT ORDINARY PAINT CAN GIVE SUCH HIGH ENERGY/GRAM ACCOMPANIED BY THE FORMATION OF FE-AL RICH SPHERES, nor can they do it!

Could you please stop. Just STOP!! No one is focusing on the paper because it was talked about earlier in the thread. Although there is another reason, now I say this in as a gentle way as possible, the reason is the paper IS BULLSHIT!!! All of it. You have been pwned a hundred times on this by TLC and Beaujangles yet you still continue. Oh the humanity!!!

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Could you please stop. Just STOP!! No one is focusing on the paper because it was talked about earlier in the thread. Although there is another reason, now I say this in as a gentle way as possible, the reason is the paper IS BULLSHIT!!! All of it. You have been pwned a hundred times on this by TLC and Beaujangles yet you still continue. Oh the humanity!!!

All this does is encourage them. Quit posting and they go away, eventually.

I got trapped in one of these threads a while back and finally had to give up. Logic, reason and science are completely beyond their comprehension. They never answer questions or back up their assertions. If caught as they always are, they shift topics or focus on some irrelevant inconsistency to obfuscate the larger picture.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: event8horizon

<snip>

Could you please stop. Just STOP!! No one is focusing on the paper because it was talked about earlier in the thread. Although there is another reason, now I say this in as a gentle way as possible, the reason is the paper IS BULLSHIT!!! All of it. You have been pwned a hundred times on this by TLC and Beaujangles yet you still continue. Oh the humanity!!!

seconded...

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: event8horizon

<snip>

Could you please stop. Just STOP!! No one is focusing on the paper because it was talked about earlier in the thread. Although there is another reason, now I say this in as a gentle way as possible, the reason is the paper IS BULLSHIT!!! All of it. You have been pwned a hundred times on this by TLC and Beaujangles yet you still continue. Oh the humanity!!!

seconded...

Yeah, you guys are right. I just had to get it out of my system.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Could you please stop. Just STOP!! No one is focusing on the paper because it was talked about earlier in the thread. Although there is another reason, now I say this in as a gentle way as possible, the reason is the paper IS BULLSHIT!!! All of it. You have been pwned a hundred times on this by TLC and Beaujangles yet you still continue. Oh the humanity!!!

All this does is encourage them. Quit posting and they go away, eventually.

I got trapped in one of these threads a while back and finally had to give up. Logic, reason and science are completely beyond their comprehension. They never answer questions or back up their assertions. If caught as they always are, they shift topics or focus on some irrelevant inconsistency to obfuscate the larger picture.

im guessing u did NOT read the scientific paper?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: event8horizon

<snip>

Could you please stop. Just STOP!! No one is focusing on the paper because it was talked about earlier in the thread. Although there is another reason, now I say this in as a gentle way as possible, the reason is the paper IS BULLSHIT!!! All of it. You have been pwned a hundred times on this by TLC and Beaujangles yet you still continue. Oh the humanity!!!

seconded...

Yeah, you guys are right. I just had to get it out of my system.

well lets bring out your mind....what do u have to say about the paper. and i have not seen anyone pawn me??

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Could you please stop. Just STOP!! No one is focusing on the paper because it was talked about earlier in the thread. Although there is another reason, now I say this in as a gentle way as possible, the reason is the paper IS BULLSHIT!!! All of it. You have been pwned a hundred times on this by TLC and Beaujangles yet you still continue. Oh the humanity!!!

All this does is encourage them. Quit posting and they go away, eventually.

I got trapped in one of these threads a while back and finally had to give up. Logic, reason and science are completely beyond their comprehension. They never answer questions or back up their assertions. If caught as they always are, they shift topics or focus on some irrelevant inconsistency to obfuscate the larger picture.

what objections do u have about the paper?

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Vicken
debunked debunked and debunked

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

1) The amount of thermite needed to bring down that building would be literally tons. How would that go unnoticed?

2) Thermite does not burn horizontally.

3) None of the steel shows signs of thermite damage. Thermite does not burn evenly. It makes nasty holes with molten metal drips.

4) There is zero evidence of thermite.

Reposting for Event8. Here is one objection.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: JD50
OP I believe you.

Mee too

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
im surprised noone is focusing on the paper. i have one problem with it. they dont test for the other byproduct of a thermite reaction. if one watches the vids about thermite, the white smoke is aluminum oxide. i didnt see where they tested for that during the reaction or after. that would be one part of the puzzle IMO. as for elemental aluminum, prof jones is posting and answering questions at this website. elemental aluminum is a very big deal.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3


this is a prof jones post:
2. In the section of MEK results in the paper, we state:
" Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon,
located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very
little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the
matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migra-
tion and separation of the components. This is a significant
result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
bound chemically."

In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate.

3. From the paper: " Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac-
count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result."

This result also rules out the possibility that the aluminum is present as kaolin. Again, this is why we did the experiment -- to determine whether elemental (not chemically bound) aluminum was present, and it was.

4. Most debunkers overlook the high energy/gram yield of the material -- the DSC results -- along with the formation of iron-aluminum rich spheres. See Figures 20, 23 and 25 and associated text. These results mean that a high-energy-yield and high-temperature reaction occurs upon ignition of this red material. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT ORDINARY PAINT CAN GIVE SUCH HIGH ENERGY/GRAM ACCOMPANIED BY THE FORMATION OF FE-AL RICH SPHERES, nor can they do it!

I already commented on the shortcomings of the paper previously. But here's something else to chew on. Jones's conclusion about this being "super-thermite" shoots his own claims down in flames. Previously Jones said:

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 oF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.

In the paper Jones states:

As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a knownsuper-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.

Previously Jones claimed thermite was used precisely because it had a high ignition temperature and that even fire from the jet fuel could not have ignited it, so it would survive the airplane crash and be available when some mystery man flipped the demolition switch. However, even the truthers admit that the fires in the WTC exceeded 430°C. If that's the case then the fires would have ignited the super-thermite and caused it to react, completely screwing up any sort of controlled demolition.

So how does Dr. Jones rectify his previous claims with his new one? Seems he can't manage to keep his own story straight.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: Vicken
debunked debunked and debunked

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

1) The amount of thermite needed to bring down that building would be literally tons. How would that go unnoticed?

2) Thermite does not burn horizontally.

3) None of the steel shows signs of thermite damage. Thermite does not burn evenly. It makes nasty holes with molten metal drips.

4) There is zero evidence of thermite.

Reposting for Event8. Here is one objection.

1. one might find tons here:
from the research paper posted

1. How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived
During the WTC Destruction?
In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the
fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen
small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted
from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable
glass and concrete fragments had been removed by
hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately
0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling
showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated
dust. Further samples are being analyzed to refine this
estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers produced enormous
clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult to ascertain; but
clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust
must be substantial given the fraction observed in these samplings.

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

there were also multiple layered chips found. one might be able to bend and manipulte this stuff. premade sheets with layers and layers deep that could be wraped around steel...just one scenario.

3. it would be interesting to know what caused this only after alittle over 7 days of being in the wtc 7 pile. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl got there sept 19. he saw this when he arrived outside his hotel. now one has to assume this piece also came from the top of the pile since it was loaded just after 7 days. avaris flew over the wtc sites and did see some hot spots. one hot spot pretty much where column 79 (nist theory about wtc 7 revolves around column 79) was.

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

4. the paper proves there was thermite at the wtc.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
im surprised noone is focusing on the paper. i have one problem with it. they dont test for the other byproduct of a thermite reaction. if one watches the vids about thermite, the white smoke is aluminum oxide. i didnt see where they tested for that during the reaction or after. that would be one part of the puzzle IMO. as for elemental aluminum, prof jones is posting and answering questions at this website. elemental aluminum is a very big deal.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3


this is a prof jones post:
2. In the section of MEK results in the paper, we state:
" Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon,
located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very
little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the
matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migra-
tion and separation of the components. This is a significant
result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
bound chemically."

In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate.

3. From the paper: " Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac-
count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result."

This result also rules out the possibility that the aluminum is present as kaolin. Again, this is why we did the experiment -- to determine whether elemental (not chemically bound) aluminum was present, and it was.

4. Most debunkers overlook the high energy/gram yield of the material -- the DSC results -- along with the formation of iron-aluminum rich spheres. See Figures 20, 23 and 25 and associated text. These results mean that a high-energy-yield and high-temperature reaction occurs upon ignition of this red material. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT ORDINARY PAINT CAN GIVE SUCH HIGH ENERGY/GRAM ACCOMPANIED BY THE FORMATION OF FE-AL RICH SPHERES, nor can they do it!

I already commented on the shortcomings of the paper previously. But here's something else to chew on. Jones's conclusion about this being "super-thermite" shoots his own claims down in flames. Previously Jones said:

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 oF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.

In the paper Jones states:

As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a knownsuper-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.

Previously Jones claimed thermite was used precisely because it had a high ignition temperature and that even fire from the jet fuel could not have ignited it, so it would survive the airplane crash and be available when some mystery man flipped the demolition switch. However, even the truthers admit that the fires in the WTC exceeded 430°C. If that's the case then the fires would have ignited the super-thermite and caused it to react, completely screwing up any sort of controlled demolition.

So how does Dr. Jones rectify his previous claims with his new one? Seems he can't manage to keep his own story straight.

excellent question. at least tlc puts on his thinking cap!! id reccommed just asking him. i bet he didnt realize what temp the chips (nanothermite) reacted at when he was first thinking about thermite. after the test he will have to change his mind though. he is responding to posts here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761?page=2