THE MOST SOPHISTICATED MASTERPIECE OF DEMOLITION

[Waza-Minooo44]

I quote you from this site

"Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not."

"Samples" taken by random non-expert Truthers, who held onto them for 6 years before asking someone to look at them? And these random samples taken for no good reason by Truthers turn out to be a magical kind of thermite that only Truthers have heard of? And then some Truther psychologists, sociologists, and a physicist examine these random samples that could have come from anywhere, and claim that it supports the conspiracy theory they were looking for it to support? And no independent researchers can back up their findings... are they all in on the conspiracy too?

The "samples" are most likely rust and aluminum-based fire retardant coatings if they are anything. There's no evidence of thermite, or that there was any actual demolition done.Your source is nonsense and more nonsense.

Are you even reading these posts, or are you posting just to see your name on the Internet?

In order to prove your position you have to convince me those scientists ( Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen) doesn't speaking the truth .

 

[ImprobableJoe]

In order to prove your position you have to convince me those scientists ( Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen) doesn't speaking the truth .

Really? You already believe it, and the only thing that will convince you is... what? Nothing at all, it seems to me. What you really need to do is convince me that I should take your non-experts seriously.

Listen to me very carefully: none of them are experts capable of analyzing the samples. Can you explain to me why the names of a physicist, psychologist or sociologist would be attached to a paper on chemistry? Why haven't they presented their samples to an independent laboratory for independent confirmation? Why is it that ONLY Truthers take this seriously, and every real expert thinks that your position is a joke?

You still refuse to consider any evidence or logic that refutes your story, but I'll ask again: why didn't the magic thermite destroy the buildings the moment they were doused in burning jet fuel? Thermite burns hot and fast and then goes out. Why didn't it ignite when covered in jet fuel?

 

[Laurens]

Maybe the criminal used wireless ignition control system.

Still doesn't explain how the fires didn't set them off.

It's quite amusing really, its almost as bad as the 'God did it' argument. When faced with the question of what kinds of fireproof, silent, undetectable explosives were used the answer is almost always 'some kind of secret technology that only the government knows about'.

When has thermite ever been used to cut through vertical steel columns and successfully bring down high rise buildings?

How come the buildings can be seen clearly to collapse from the point of the worst damage (the impacted areas)? That doesn't say demolition to me.

When did they prepare the buildings for demolition without anyone noticing? bearing in mind it normally takes a lot of work, often removing the cladding from walls etc to expose the columns. And it would have taken a hell of a lot longer bearing in mind that they had to be secretive about it.

Why weren't the remains of the 'wireless ignition system' found anywhere?

How in the hell did they manage to pull of a magical demolition that didn't look like a demolition at all (to us reasonable folk at least )?

 

[IBSpify]

"Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not."

You did not answer the question, the lack of presence for either Aluminum oxide or barium nitrate makes the use of thermite laughable, these are the 2 main byproducts of thermite, if they are not present thermite could not have been used.

 

[Finger]

"Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse. This indicates the whole structure was being weakened in advance"~Niels H. Harrit

guess what he is talking about ?



The site you are refereeing at he is debunking an idea of 2005 this one is Old . Check this site from a group of scientist :


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#installation_feasibility

Since this particular claim has already been addressed so many times, I need only copy-paste my response from a different thread.

The curious thing about that "river of metal" is that it doesn't appear to occur anywhere else on either of the towers. Only that specific corner of that specific tower (Tower 2.) It just so happens, that that corner is where most of the debris from the plane crash is likely to end up. This contrasts with the debris of Tower 1 where the debris is more spread out:

Since we know that large amounts of fire, aluminum, and other debris were present in that section of the tower, it far more likely that the molten substance is aluminum (possibly having reacted with other debris.)

Just thought I'd address it since noone else had. The last thing we need is this guy falling back to this argument saying, "You couldn't give me an answer for this!"

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Waza. Before you make any more ridiculous claims, perhaps you should check this out to see if they haven't already been debunked.

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/911/

The Skeptical Inquiry Consortium

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, there have been many conspiracy theories put forth as to what "really happened". Conspiracies range from the US allowing the attacks to happen for countless reasons to the Jews are responsible, and pretty much everything you can imagine. Since JFK and possibly the Oklahoma City Bombing there has not really been much conspiracy theorists could banter about, so it is not surprising that when this tragic event happened, almost instantly conspiracy theories began to flood the Internet.

It seems as though, right now as we are entering 2008, that a lot of these conspiracy theories are falling off into the trash-can of history, but incase they decide to return or incase someone does not know better, we decided to create a series of articles on 9/11.

 

[Waza-Minooo44]

Listen to me very carefully: none of them are experts capable of analyzing the samples. Can you explain to me why the names of a physicist, psychologist or sociologist would be attached to a paper on chemistry?

okay you know what i have a question for you ,

how can a mere of fire can collapse steel structure in symmetrically way ???


But for the sake of argument , do you remember the well known tower in madrid called Windsor Tower which happened in 2005 ? the whole building was engulfed in an inferno of flames for 24 hours and It remained standing. This can be classified as combustion based on how much oxygen is being supplied and from the picture sounds like welding torch .As in the case of normal surface fires, the temperature is typically limited to 500-650,° C. And if the fire reached above 650,° C then the steel will glow red .

Can you explain to me why the names of a physicist, psychologist or sociologist would be attached to a paper on chemistry?

this question is irrelevant . why would bunch of none-chemists( psychologist or sociologist) attached to a paper on chemistry ??

Listen to me very carefully: none of them are experts capable of analyzing the samples.

Then what do you say about this picture ?

Listen to eye witness account they heard of explosives .

but I'll ask again: why didn't the magic thermite destroy the buildings the moment they were doused in burning jet fuel? Thermite burns hot and fast and then goes out. Why didn't it ignite when covered in jet fuel?

because i don't know the criminal where did they place the super thermite. But the most important part is that the eye witness account heard of explosion in the building . A normal fire can't destroy steel structure because the maximum temperature can reach is between 500-650 . Above 650 steel begin to melt and weakened and create red glow . Nano thermite can do both job at the same time explosive and give intense heat maybe around 3000 F . Where is my proof ?


Micro-spheroidal particles in WTC dust consisting mostly of iron were documented in at least two scientific reports by 2005: a compilation of data by the USGS and a report for the owners of a skyscraper adjacent to the World Trade Center complex that sustained heavy damage in the attack.

The significance of these nearly microscopic iron-rich droplets is not difficult to grasp. Molten iron is one of the two principal products of the thermite reaction, the other being aluminum oxide, which tends to dissipate as an aerosol. The molten iron condenses and solidifies into particles whose size is a function of the thermite's reaction rate. Fast-acting super-thermites produce tiny droplets that become very nearly spherical due to surface tension.

Another proof , Active Thermitic Material Discovered showing chips from the four different dust samples.

Look if you think for one moment that a mere airplane can really damage the twin towers you are sadly mistaken because Each tower was designed to survive the impact and fire from a collision by a 707-340 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel. The similar- sized 767-200s that hit the towers were each carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

So, in other words, you aren't actually thinking about what we're saying, because you just keep repeating the same debunked nonsense over and over. Repetition doesn't make it true.

Stop wasting our time.

 

[Laurens]

The eye witness testimony of bombs isn't exactly that compelling. How many of them say it "sounded like explosions" which is quite different from saying "it was explosions". It was a confusing event, no one on the ground would have known exactly what was going on like we did watching it at home (I guess we didn't have much idea at home either, but more so than they did). Its fair to say that there would have been crashes and bangs of various kinds, that may, in the confusion have caused people to believe there were explosions.

If you remove the people saying that it sounded like explosions, you don't actually have many people saying there definitely were explosions - and that few could easily have simply been wrong.

I wonder what those people would say if asked now... Without the confusion, panic and terror, and knowing what actually happened. I don't think their testimony accounts for much.

As for the recorded sounds of explosions, again this could easily have been accounted for by things falling and crashing. You would have to do better to prove there actually were explosions, and you would have to do a hell of a lot beyond that even, to prove the explosions were bombs, that the bombs were planted by the government. If you can show those things, I might start to believe it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The eye witness testimony of bombs isn't exactly that compelling. How many of them say it "sounded like explosions" which is quite different from saying "it was explosions". It was a confusing event, no one on the ground would have known exactly what was going on like we did watching it at home. Its fair to say that there would have been crashes and bangs of various kinds, that may, in the confusion have caused people to believe there were explosions.

If you remove the people saying that it sounded like explosions, you don't actually have many people saying there definitely were explosions - and that few could easily have simply been wrong.

I wonder what those people would say if asked now... Without the confusion, panic and terror, and knowing what actually happened. I don't think their testimony accounts for much.

As for the recorded sounds of explosions, again this could easily have been accounted for by things falling and crashing. You would have to do better to prove there actually were explosions, and you would have to do a of a lot beyond that even, to prove the explosions were bombs, that the bombs were planted by the government. If you can show those things, I might start to believe it.

BTW, from personal experience: incendiary combustion doesn't sound remotely like the sort of high explosive required for building demolition... and I've got the hearing loss to prove it.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I always thought the thermite explanation was a little bizarre.

Admittedly I'm not an explosive expert (though I did use to work for a munitions R&D lab) but in my own experience putting down my old car, thermite would be piss-poor at taking down those towers.

The problem is that it burns strait through everything (including engine blocks). So it would essentially gut the core of whatever structure it was placed in (possibly) down to the sub-basement. This might be a good thing if you were trying to take down a conventional skyscraper, but as I understand it most of the WTC's weight was supported by its exterior structure not its core, meaning that thermite would do comparably little damage.


I honestly think that the conspiracists chose thermite only because the type of people who are prone to buying into the theory also happen to be (for some strange reason) the same people who know what thermite is. So it has that, "oh, I knew that, look how smart I am," effect that medical shows go for when they mention necrotising fasciitis, then leave enough time for you to blurt out to your TV watching compatriots, "that's flesh-eating bacteria," before the show confirms it.

Also, it's easy to substantiate. I mean, who would have predicted that there might be trace amounts of aluminum and rust in the wreckage of an office building exposed to the elements?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I always thought the thermite explanation was a little bizarre.

Admittedly I'm not an explosive expert (though I did use to work for a munitions R&D lab) but in my own experience putting down my old car, thermite would be piss-poor at taking down those towers.

The problem is that it burns strait through everything (including engine blocks). So it would essentially gut the core of whatever structure it was placed in (possibly) down to the sub-basement. This might be a good thing if you were trying to take down a conventional skyscraper, but as I understand it most of the WTC's weight was supported by its exterior structure not its core, meaning that thermite would do comparably little damage.

The problems go further than that. The conspiracy idiots propose magic thermite with a lower combustion temperature, but that would somehow be immune to the heat of burning jet fuel and office supplies for hours on end.

Further, I have the sort of experience that you have, except in metallurgy. I know from intimate personal experience that steel can be compromised at temperatures well below the melting point.

Also, it's easy to substantiate. I mean, who would have predicted that there might be trace amounts of aluminum and rust in the wreckage of an office building exposed to the elements?

Yes, for fuck's sake, who would have ever thought that a giant building might contain aluminum, rust, iron, and even aluminum-based fire-retardant red "paint"?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Guys, can't you see this is all lies.

It's the thermite man, and they said "pull"!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Guys, can't you see this is all lies.

It's the thermite man, and they said "pull"!

Yeah, and some random witness said "explosion"! And Bush misspoke! And there were Jewish people in those buildings! That's proof!!

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

And you know those Jews were only in there to prevent people from thinking of what it actually is: An evil Zionist conspiracy to control the stock market. Oh, those Jews.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

And you know those Jews were only in there to prevent people from thinking of what it actually is: An evil Zionist conspiracy to control the stock market. Oh, those Jews.

The Jews, and the CIA, and the governments of several Muslim nations, and the Bush administration, and all of the media, and Popular Mechanics, and all of the scientific community, and a grand total of 100,000+ people who are all in on it, and not a single one of them will ever come forward.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

And why? Because they are part of the Illuminati NWO! They laugh at you while you are here "debunking" the Truth,®! You are their tools! Your own dollar has the NWO Illuminati pyramid on it and all barcodes have 666 on them, the MARK of the BEAST! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

 

[Finger]

okay you know what i have a question for you ,

how can a mere of fire can collapse steel structure in symmetrically way ???


But for the sake of argument , do you remember the well known tower in madrid called Windsor Tower which happened in 2005 ? the whole building was engulfed in an inferno of flames for 24 hours and It remained standing. This can be classified as combustion based on how much oxygen is being supplied and from the picture sounds like welding torch .As in the case of normal surface fires, the temperature is typically limited to 500-650,° C. And if the fire reached above 650,° C then the steel will glow red .

The Windsor Tower was not entirely steel-framed like WTC towers 1, 2, and 3. Windsor had a concrete core. But despite this, it actually did suffer a partial collapse. Guess which parts of the building collapsed? The steel parts.

What you've done is, like so many other truthers, is make the mistake of thinking that buildings are all alike. They aren't. Buildings with even subtle differences in design can react very differently to the same thing. And WTC Towers 1, 2, and 3 were designed substantially different from Windsor.

because i don't know the criminal where did they place the super thermite. But the most important part is that the eye witness account heard of explosion in the building . A normal fire can't destroy steel structure because the maximum temperature can reach is between 500-650 . Above 650 steel begin to melt and weakened and create red glow . Nano thermite can do both job at the same time explosive and give intense heat maybe around 3000 F . Where is my proof ?

Steel is at 50% its original strength at temperatures of 593,°C. You are wrong that "normal" fires top out at 500-650,°C. There are all sorts of things in office buildings that can and do increase the temperature of any given fire. According to conservative estimates, parts of the fires in WTCs 1 and 2 reached 1000,°C.

Look if you think for one moment that a mere airplane can really damage the twin towers you are sadly mistaken because Each tower was designed to survive the impact and fire from a collision by a 707-340 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel. The similar- sized 767-200s that hit the towers were each carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel.

Right. And the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable too. The architects and engineers of the World Trade Center had low-speed collisions in mind during the design of the twin towers. The scenario they had imagined was a plane accidentally hitting the tower while trying to land at JFK. They did not anticipate an intentional crash at 500+ miles per hour.

As for eye-witness accounts and recorded sounds of "explosions": I fortunately happen to have a personal friend who is a demolitions expert. A few months back, we worked out the decibel level that would be associated with the bear minimum demolitions package required to bring down the top section of either WTC 1 or 2. We used TNT, not RDX, in our calculation since TNT isn't as brisant (and is therefore, quieter.) The following video is probably the only one taken from this close to the towers as they start to collapse. If we are to hear the audible signs of demolition charges at all, we would hear them here.

(Yes, he says "explosion." But he's a goddamn reporter. Not an explosives expert.)
Anyway, my friend and I estimated the distance of the reporter from the top of the tower to be roughly 400 meters. From this distance, the decibel level of the previously described demolitions set would be about 147-150. For a frame of reference, a quiet night in a desert is 30 decibels. Human speech is about 60. Eighty-five db is when you start to get mild ear damage and 125db is when your ears start ringing. Most microphones (like the one being held by the newscaster in that video) would cut out entirely and be damaged at around 120db. 180db is the level of "ear death" where your ear tissue would be instantly and irrevocably destroyed. So really, 147-150db (a conservative estimate) would be more than enough to severely damage both the microphone and the ears of everyone around the towers as they fell. So why is it that we don't hear anything even remotely that loud in the video? Furthermore, most of the supposed eye-witness accounts of "explosions" come from either inside or right next to the towers. Being that close would put these people well within the ear death range.

Here's a great response paper to the claims of conspiracy theorists from a man who is probably the world's foremost expert on building demolitions. He also references seismic equipment that his firm had installed at a job site nearby. Equipment that doesn't show signs of demolitions at all. It's an interesting read if you're actually interested in learning about these subjects and not just repeating what other, less qualified people have told you is true.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Steel is at 50% its original strength at temperatures of 593,°C. You are wrong that "normal" fires top out at 500-650,°C. There are all sorts of things in office buildings that can and do increase the temperature of any given fire. According to conservative estimates, parts of the fires in WTCs 1 and 2 reached 1000,°C.

I was a metallurgical lab technician for over three years. I can tell you from experience that steel is compromised at temperatures well below 1000,°C. Steel has various transformation temperatures well below the melting point, and several of those points involve chances for the steel to absorb or emit carbon. In either case, the steel loses its strength or resilience, and would not be able to bear the full loads for which it was designed.

 

[Laurens]

There are major differences between the recorded fires in steel framed buildings and the events of 9/11. I shall name a few

The other buildings did not have planes smash into them at high speeds. The impact of the planes to the WTC was a huge contributing factor to their collapse. The outer columns were completely severed at the point of impact, so too were many of the interior columns, so the whole distribution of weight etc was affected by the impact and was a huge factor in the chain of events that led to the collapse.

The other buildings most probably had their fire proofing intact. The impact of the planes on 9/11 knocked off the spray on fire proofing and exposed the steel to the full force of the fires. Also the sprinkler system was damaged in the impact.

The impact of the planes made a HUGE difference, if there was just fires in the WTC the chances are it wouldn't have collapsed. However the planes damaged the structure, the fireproofing and the sprinkler system, which basically allowed the fires to do their worst, and bring the towers to the ground.