Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center (9 posts)

  1. Victronix
    Member

    Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2, pp.7-31 (25)

    Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.


    The paper is written beautifully and three essays have now been created by Jim Hoffman at 9-11 Research about the paper to help readers understand the ideas and their implications --

    Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust: Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of High-Tech Metal Incendiaries in Debris From the Twin Towers by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explos...

    Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows, Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explos...

    A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario: A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incindiaries and Explosives with Wireless Detonation Means by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasti...

    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    Didn't Steven Jones already find evidence of thermite years ago? I hope this news is for real and that it catches on, but I suspect that it will be dismissed one way or another. The average person (including me) doesn't know anything about thermite or iron rich spheres and so we'll simply be taking on faith whatever the supposed experts tell us.

    Who collected the dust, what was the chain of possession? Will the establishment press and scientific community even take the authors of this study seriously? Or will they just assume that any scientist who believes in the 9/11 conspiracy must be crazy and untrustworthy enough to fake their data?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  3. Arcterus
    Member

    The dust samples were collected by nearby residents immediately after the destruction of the towers, with the exception of one person who was not allowed to enter her home for a week.

    I believe that's elaborated upon in one of the Jim Hoffman essays.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  4. truthmover
    Administrator

    Raw Story

    "Scientists find active 'super-thermite' in WTC dust"

    A team of nine scientists have released a startling new report on the events of 9/11, using data from dust gathered in the days and weeks after the towers came down. They discovered that scattered throughout the dust samples were red and gray chips of 'active thermitic material', or an un-reacted pyrotechnic explosive.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_acti...

    The most important sample came out of Janette's apartment across the street from ground zero. The 'active thermitic material' could not have resulted from the subsequent demolition going on at the site.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  5. mark
    Member

    A story that says the dust allegedly proving a means of destroying buildings never done before that came from the apartment of an active member of the "truth" movement is not forensic evidence that can be replicated by anyone else.

    There was lots of aluminum in the tower cladding, but that couldn't be part of the dust in New York?

    I look forward to reading a demolition claim that analyzes the impacts of the 500 plus mph plane hitting the towers and the damage to the structure that this impact caused. Any actual scientific investigation would include this information, along with documentation from the firefighters who claimed that all three buildings were observed to be leaning before they gave way.

    It's not a coincidence that everyone from Democracy Now to Fox News is delighted to keep 9/11 "truth" focused on demolition claims and not warnings, wargames, the FBI agents who tried to stop the attacks, etc.

    Meanwhile, there's a real controlled demolition of Wall street underway -- the global financial crash.


    http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/04/cons...

    Jeff said...

    I know what the collapse of the buildings look like, and I have questions about WTC 7, but we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction.

    I'm talking about things like the coincident wargames including the live-fly simulation of hijackings; the al-Qaeda-ISI-CIA triangle and Omar Saeed Shiekh; Ptech; insider trading, Cheney taking on the new role of coordinating a response to terror attacks on US soil in May, 2001; the standing order for shootdowns changing in June 2001, discretion taken away from field commanders and entrusted to the Secretary of Defense (the order was rescinded after 9/11); names like Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh; Atta's drugs and spooks Florida odyssey; the destruction and cover-up of evidence; Jeb Bush's hand in purging flight school records, and on and on - that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That's the kind of stuff I wish I was reading when "9/11 Truth" hits corporate media, but it's not, is it? ...

    Do the people arguing the loudest for demolition, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?


    http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-kuwait...

    Rice Farmer said...

    The physical-evidence approach is a double-edged sword. It is admittedly a good tool to get people interested in considering possibilities other than the government's explanation. But from there on it's perilous. If independent investigators and observers had been allowed to examine the physical evidence, it might be a different story. But access was restricted and everything was cleaned up in record time. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the fact is that we have very little to work with. So arguing from the physical evidence is a very weak position that debunkers find easy to counter. We are reduced to "dueling simulations" and other such absurdities.

    On the other hand, Rubicon amasses known and verifiable facts, makes connections, and builds a solid case without setting foot in the quicksand of the physical-evidence argument.

    Debates with debunkers have taught me that they love to argue about what brought the towers down. But they avoid arguing about the evidence presented in Rubicon. They don't want to talk about the money trail or the war games, for instance. I got into a debate with Alexander Cockburn once. I did my best to engage him in debate about the evidence presented in Rubicon, but he dismissed it out of hand and talked only about the physical evidence. Debunkers know that Rubicon's approach spells the end of their argument, and that's why they consistently drag their opponents into the quicksand of the physical evidence.


    http://ricefarmer.blogspot.com/2006/10/logical-fal... A Logical Fallacy of 9/11 Argumentation

    Just as with the latest debunking article in the CounterPunch newsletter, debunkers apparently believe that by demonstrating that the WTC towers collapsed without help from demolition charges, they have won the whole 9/11 debate. This is a logical fallacy.

    I make no claims to knowing what really made the towers collapse. IÂ’m not a physicist or structural engineer, and honestly donÂ’t understand the intricacies of the argument. But understanding it isnÂ’t necessary to see the real purpose behind the debunkersÂ’ efforts.

    LetÂ’s say for the sake of argument that the debunkers are right, and the towers crumbled due to the impact of the jets and the heat of their fuel burning. What does this prove? It proves only one thing: that the towers did not collapse due to controlled demolition. ThatÂ’s all. It does not disprove complicity in 9/11 by US elites. This is the sophomoric fallacy peddled by Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Popular Mechanics, and the rest of the debunkers and left gatekeepers who concentrate public discourse on 9/11 into the narrow area of the physical evidence.

    How can people of supposedly high intellectual caliber make such simple mistakes in reasoning? The answer is that they aren't -- it is planned this way. Their physical-evidence argument is calculated to gut the 9/11 truth movement by focusing on this one weak area, and they believe it will work because the TV generation is weak on logic.

    Once again, letÂ’s say for the sake of argument that they debunkers are right about the towers, and even about WTC7, which they donÂ’t talk about much. Many in the 9/11 truth movement would experience great consternation at this because they believe the supposed demolition of the towers, along with the photographs of the Pentagon, are our best evidence.

    In reality, this is no great loss. First of all, as noted above, the assumption that the WTC buildings collapsed due to causes cited by NIST and debunkers does not at all disprove US complicity in 9/11. Second, due to the almost complete lack of physical evidence, this is actually our weak area. We shouldn't be concentrating our efforts here in the first place.

    Our best evidence is the huge body of excellent circumstantial evidence which points at US elites. Debunkers know this, which is why they shy away from discussing the war games, the money trail, oil and drug connections, gross contradictions in the official story, Middle Eastern connections, and the relationship between jihadists and the CIA.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  6. Arabesque
    Member

    Didn't Steven Jones already find evidence of thermite years ago?

    Yes, this is additional evidence on top of that evidence.

    I hope this news is for real and that it catches on

    I expect total silence from the mainstream media on this issue.

    I suspect that it will be dismissed one way or another. The average person (including me) doesn't know anything about thermite or iron rich spheres and so we'll simply be taking on faith whatever the supposed experts tell us.

    Yes it will be "dismissed", but this latest evidence was published in a peer reviewed journal, thus lending the findings more credibility. The publication of this evidence in a peer reviewed journal is a significant event.

    Once again, as I have said, it does not require a "physical evidence" argument to prove that NIST has participated in a cover-up. NIST by its own standards is required to test for thermite and did not. And even more significant, NIST researchers have connections to the nano thermite technology itself as Kevin Ryan has pointed out. An amazing "coincidence", I'm sure.

    Again the significant points are:

    1. The NIST cover-up. This is not a physical-based argument.
    2. The new research is peer reviewed and posted in an established journal.

    I have no doubt that the obfuscations will continue, but it is easily proven that a NIST cover-up has occurred and that itself is a basis for doubting the official story and establishing a new investigation.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  7. Victronix
    Member

    Some real news!! Translations from Danish . . .

    First, check out the front page -- http://videnskab.dk/content/dk

    Danish scientist: nano explosive material found in the dust from the World Trade Center 3. 3. april 2009 kl. April 2009 kl. 21:04 21:04 World Trade Center crashed perhaps gravel because someone had placed combustible nano materials in the buildings, and not because the two aircraft was throbbing in them. Analysis of the dust after the WTC has just published a scientific article, including en dansk kemiker. a Danish chemist. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl...

    and

    Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence of ancient knowledge of 9 / 11 3. 3. april 2009 kl. April 2009 kl. 21:03 21:03 It is no surprise to the Danish chemist Niels Harrit that the dust from the World Trade Center appears to contain traces of explosives similar nanotermit. The official explanation for the tower's collapse has never given any meaning, he said. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl...

    Posted 15 years ago #
  8. Arcterus
    Member

    NIST by its own standards is required to test for thermite and did not. And even more significant, NIST researchers have connections to the nano thermite technology itself as Kevin Ryan has pointed out. An amazing "coincidence", I'm sure.

    Here's Kevin Ryan's article on that for anyone who hasn't read it yet:

    http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_c...

    My particular liking of the article is that it disproves the notion that these are simply paint chips. Not only did it not dissolve in methyl ethyl ketone like other paints chips did, but these red/gray chips were found to have the same exothermic reactions as thermite/thermate, and when such tests were done on paint chips, they simply burned into ash.

    Someone should start a pool on what the next debunker excuse will be.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  9. truthmover
    Administrator

    Just heard Kevin Ryan on the Indymedia show on KPFK in Los Angeles. Hope that generates a bit more buzz.

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.