The World Trade Center Dust and the Message of its Iron-rich Microspheres.

www.journalof911studies.com... (A large pdf file)

Go to pages (22-pdf or 76-Report)

I have done a lot of 9/11 research and this is the first time I have read about this. The microscope pictures are interesting too. Actually the whole report is an interesting read, this report was made in the spring of 2007.

Is 9/11 dust just another smoking gun?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
www.journalof911studies.com... (A large pdf file)

Go to pages (22-pdf or 76-Report)

I have done a lot of 9/11 research and this is the first time I have read about this. The microscope pictures are interesting too. Actually the whole report is an interesting read, this report was made in the spring of 2007.

Is 9/11 dust just another smoking gun?

Well, since the source of this dust can't be confirmed, and since there are multiple possible sources for thsese "iron-rich microspheres" and since this paper was never submitted for peer review in any legitimate journal, I'd say there's not much to it.

Even if you wanted to bring down all 3 buildings, there would be no need for thermite...it would be a waste of time/energy/resources with no perceivable benefit.

reply to post by adam_zapple


Just because it's not peer reviewed doesn't make the information invalid.

This report asks many questions that aren't easily answered.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Even if you wanted to bring down all 3 buildings, there would be no need for thermite...it would be a waste of time/energy/resources with no perceivable benefit.

Except perhaps unless you wanted to ensure that steel beams are cut into short, easy-to-haul-away lengths that allow for destruction of evidence....

Just sayin'.

Have they issued warrants for the arrest of Bush, Cheney, et al for treason yet?

It strikes me that the very same bozos who just crashed the economy would have been neck deep in this mess, also. It would help explain the squirrely stock transactions just before the planes hit.

I'm forwarding this report to my congresscritters and demanding that they do a real investigation of 9/11.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Even if you wanted to bring down all 3 buildings, there would be no need for thermite...it would be a waste of time/energy/resources with no perceivable benefit.

Except perhaps unless you wanted to ensure that steel beams are cut into short, easy-to-haul-away lengths that allow for destruction of evidence....

Just sayin'.

Explosives are much more efficient at cutting steel...which is why they are used in building demolitions and thermite is not.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

Just because it's not peer reviewed doesn't make the information invalid.

I never claimed that...but the fact that the paper's author touts it as being peer-reviewed is enough to make me question his credibility.

T-H-E-R-M-A-T-E.

ThermAte, not thermite. Crucial difference.

ThermAte produces the observed results, thermite doesn't. ThermAte burns hotter.

R-E-A-D the transcript again. His statements about peer reviews referred to his papers on muons and fusion. He was trying to point out that he knows how to think through complex problems using scientific methodologies, and his peers agree that he has exhibited competence in that regard in the past.

His analysis makes vastly more sense and is much more credible than anything Bush & Co have ever tried to pawn off as the truth.

Originally posted by apacheman


His analysis makes vastly more sense and is much more credible than anything Bush & Co have ever tried to pawn off as the truth.

And that is why everybody should still be questioning 9/11

Originally posted by apacheman
T-H-E-R-M-A-T-E.

ThermAte, not thermite. Crucial difference.

ThermAte produces the observed results, thermite doesn't. ThermAte burns hotter.

Thermate is not an explosive either. It's just thermite with an additive to burn hotter/faster.

Originally posted by apacheman
His analysis makes vastly more sense and is much more credible than anything Bush & Co have ever tried to pawn off as the truth.

Argument from personal belief

Tell me what makes sense about using thermite to attempt to demolish a building, when it's never been done before, and when explosives are vastly more efficient.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by adam_zapple]

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by apacheman
T-H-E-R-M-A-T-E.

ThermAte, not thermite. Crucial difference.

ThermAte produces the observed results, thermite doesn't. ThermAte burns hotter.

Thermate is not an explosive either. It's just thermite with an additive to burn hotter/faster.

Originally posted by apacheman
His analysis makes vastly more sense and is much more credible than anything Bush & Co have ever tried to pawn off as the truth.

Argument from personal belief

Tell me what makes sense about using thermite to attempt to demolish a building, when it's never been done before, and when explosives are vastly more efficient.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by adam_zapple]

Zapple you can not be serious, right? Tell you what makes sense about using thermate or some other similar substance hmm lets see.

Maybe it could be that there is no explosion to be heard. The structure is already weakened from the impact of the plane and add the basically silent thermate into the mix I would guess you wouldn't even have to "cut" the column just let that stuff drip down the side of any said columns and you got yourself a collapse.

Btw, OP I have read that report and a few others on the spheres and they are interesting to read. Funny Zapple questions the authenticity of the sample in this report, he and other Debunkers should also keep in mind that there are many reports about these iron spheres that were found in numerous samples by multiple agencies. Maybe Zapple could enlighten us with what other possible scenarios could/would produce iron spheres that would be present in all of the dust samples being as you said there are multiple other possible sources. This should be good seeing as those previously mentioned agencies don't have a clue why the iron spheres would be present.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
...Explosives are much more efficient at cutting steel...which is why they are used in building demolitions and thermite is not. ...

If you very finely grind the aluminum and iron oxide, thermite *IS* an explosive.

www.youtube.com...
(10 minutes)

This video talks about this.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by apacheman
T-H-E-R-M-A-T-E.

ThermAte, not thermite. Crucial difference.

ThermAte produces the observed results, thermite doesn't. ThermAte burns hotter.

Thermate is not an explosive either. It's just thermite with an additive to burn hotter/faster.

Originally posted by apacheman
His analysis makes vastly more sense and is much more credible than anything Bush & Co have ever tried to pawn off as the truth.

Argument from personal belief

Tell me what makes sense about using thermite to attempt to demolish a building, when it's never been done before, and when explosives are vastly more efficient.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by adam_zapple]

Zapple you can not be serious, right? Tell you what makes sense about using thermate or some other similar substance hmm lets see.

Maybe it could be that there is no explosion to be heard. The structure is already weakened from the impact of the plane and add the basically silent thermate into the mix I would guess you wouldn't even have to "cut" the column just let that stuff drip down the side of any said columns and you got yourself a collapse.

So then you believe that explosives were not used?

Blue_Jay, I thought you might find this thread of interest...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by adam_zapple


Zapple, what does it matter if I believe explosives were used or not? Why can't you guys ever just answer a direct question especially when your going around saying that these spheres could of been produced any number of ways ...well name some , name one. Because in the reports I read (government reports) claimed they had no idea why they were present.

To be so uniformly present in so many samples (all known samples if tested I'm sure would produce the same results) is very strange to say the least. I mean how do you disperse millions of tiny droplets of iron that b/c of the surface tension in the air as it cools forms a perfect sphere, how does it disperse itself through all that dust samples?(you can try that one out too Zapple or maybe that will tie into the answer of the original question)

I imagine if a real criminal and disaster investigation would of taken place maybe we wouldn't be sitting here almost ten years later trying to understand all of the "anomalies" and "coincidences" that took place that day.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
I imagine if a real criminal and disaster investigation would of taken place maybe we wouldn't be sitting here almost ten years later trying to understand all of the "anomalies" and "coincidences" that took place that day.

Stillresearchn911, that's probably the best summation of the entire 9-11 truth movement I've ever read, well said.