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

Also you still overlook the fact thatthe top section drops DOWN through the tower. Why cant you understand this part? The top sagged down, with one part acting as a hinge, and then it just drops down once the entire structure fails.

I already proved you wrong, and told you how.

You confirmed the time and angle at which you said the 'hinge' was active
in your video.

I showed you that the top section continued to rotate and at the final angle
was about a third of the original size.

Therefore your hinge theory has been snuffed out. It doesn't make sense
and the top section could not have telescoped into the building.

If your theory was correct and the hinge did work, the length on the
west side of the tower would have remained at full length.

See, you can't have a hinge and lose 2/3's of the top section at the same
time.

Go play. Go pretend to be a structural engineer with some of the other kids
here, or at randiland because after pointing out the obvious three times,
you still do not understand.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

I already proved you wrong, and told you how.

You confirmed the time and angle at which you said the 'hinge' was active
in your video.

I showed you that the top section continued to rotate and at the final angle
was about a third of the original size.

Therefore your hinge theory has been snuffed out. It doesn't make sense
and the top section could not have telescoped into the building.

If your theory was correct and the hinge did work, the length on the
west side of the tower would have remained at full length.

See, you can't have a hinge and lose 2/3's of the top section at the same
time.

Go play. Go pretend to be a structural engineer with some of the other kids
here, or at randiland because after pointing out the obvious three times,
you still do not understand.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by turbofan]

I went back to your side-by-side comparison. Interesting how they cut off on the right side the entire west side. I wonder why?

I re-watched the collapse video, and you can see that as the tower is tilting over, the west side wall of the top section actually sticks out over the bottom section. It appears that the top section rotated a small bit as it tilted, as if the top section was the ball, and lower section was the socket. The west side gives this away as when the hinge breaks, you can see the edge of the west side is actually sticking out over the bottom section. It appears that the western most core columns behaved as the "hinge", and as it failed that is when the downward movement happened. By then, the top is on the way down through the rest of the building. And why do we see for a brief glimpse of the top of the tower as it already is plunging through the topmost floors of the remaining structure?



I have a better idea, how about you explain how much explosives would have been needed to completely obliterate the topsection, and explain how the explosives did not go off in the impacts or fires, and where they should have been planted in relation to the WTC design.

reply to post by EvilAxis


You forget to look at what I posted earlier on how iron and steel behaves when allowed to rust in a large pile together.

And what you also fail to realize is that therm*te cannot burn continuously for weeks and months. When the reaction is done, its done. Therm*te also needs very high temps to begin, which means therm*te is not going to just slowly and surely in dust form, ignite and flow for weeks and months later.

And finding fused metals from deep in the pile, weeks later, is actually not an indicator of therm*te. Sorry. However, I did post an explanation on just what happens to iron when allowed to rust in a large pile, with heat and water. This provides a much better analysis of just how oxidation works and does give an idea of what was probably happening inside the piles. Once again, ships that carry iron ore have to take caution as when the iron pellets begin to rust, they can cause a serious problem. I would suggest you read up this first, as it also explains the whats and whys of oxidation. I'll even repost this one important part on what happens to the iron pellets inside the hold of a ship when they rust:

CHARACTERISTICS OF BURNING DRI (Direct Reduced Iron)
Interesting aspects of burning DRI are:
• Neither the fuel, which is iron, nor the products of combustion, which are iron oxides, are gaseous. So, there is no flame. Burning DRI is similar in appearance to burning charcoal, red hot, but without a flame.
• A hot spot propagates very slowly. It may take days, sometimes more than a week for it to propagate through a stack. This allows ample opportunity for action to be taken to prevent further damage.
• Temperatures can become sufficiently elevated to partially fuse the iron.
• Temperatures can also become sufficiently elevated so that water sprayed onto hot DRI might evolve hydrogen. (The hot metallic surface of the DRI can catalytically dissociate the water.) With sufficient concentration of hydrogen and with a heat source (the burning DRI) available, of course the hydrogen will burn. This leads to a remarkable situation. Burning DRI has no flame, but if a light spray of water is added (light enough to avoid quenching the combustion) a flame develops!

The conditions at the piles deep inside the WTC would have been very similar to what is being described here. High temps, fused iron, corroded beams, not to mention other NON-therm*te chemical reactions inside the pile with hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, iron, water, and such, plus everything else that got crushed burned and buried.

But again, what exactly is being claimed here? Was it therm*te, nano-therm*te, or was it explosives? Even if it was explosives with a "therm*te" cutting charge or whatever, none of this would explain the heat inside,nor does it explain just how much to even get close to this. also explosives do not cause beams to heat up for weeks and months. However, as I have shown, there is an alternative that is nothing more complicated than oxidation! Had Jones, or others even bothered looking at this first, I think this nonsense would have never gained ground. But since we see how clumsy Jones was in his "analysis", its no real surprise. Isnt the point of investigating something like this, is to check all possible, RATIONAL explanations first, before jumping to exotic lala-land? If someone disappears or runs away from, what do the police do first? Say a UFO took them? Or do they run the logical rational explanations first?

[edit on 5/5/2009 by GenRadek]

Also, here is a little site on therm*tes and some lovely videos of therm*te being tested.

I enjoy the video of 2000g of thermite being unable to burn through 1/4" steel plate.

www.amazingrust.com...

reply to post by GenRadek


Anything showing eutectics unable to eat through steel is irrelevant, seeing as how eutectics WERE found to have eaten holes through samples taken from WTC7 and WTC2 that are in the appendices of FEMA's report. So there is obviously SOME compound similar to thermite (thermate?) that ate through WTC steel, it was documented, etc.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by EvilAxis

 

You forget to look at what I posted earlier on how iron and steel behaves when allowed to rust in a large pile together.

I looked, but it didn't seem remotely pertinent, because the witnesses all described molten, not rusted metal.

Even when cold, metal welded or deformed at melting point does not resemble metal corroded by oxidation.

Originally posted by GenRadek
And what you also fail to realize is that therm*te cannot burn continuously for weeks and months. When the reaction is done, its done. Therm*te also needs very high temps to begin, which means therm*te is not going to just slowly and surely in dust form, ignite and flow for weeks and months later.

You didn't read my posts - I described it as "a fast reaction". I also suggested that maybe "an overkill technique might result in continued thermitic reactions after the towers were down, but regardless, it is not hard to see that the large mass of subterranean molten metal mixed with all the other materials could create a long-lasting inferno."

As I mentioned earlier - your argument suffers the same bind as Dr Shyam Sunder's:- It would take tons of explosives to bring down the WTC7, but office fires on a few floors did it.

In your version, active thermitic materials could not cause the molten metal and furnace-like fires that raged beneath the WTC for weeks after 9/11, but office fires on a few floors could.

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by GenRadek
You forget to look at what I posted earlier on how iron and steel behaves when allowed to rust in a large pile together.

I looked, but it didn't seem remotely pertinent, because the witnesses all described molten, not rusted metal.

A eutectic reaction also means the steel is turned to molten iron by definition. GenRadek apparently doesn't understand this.

Look up the definition of "eutectic" and see for yourself:

A eutectic reaction is a three-phase reaction, by which, on cooling, a liquid transforms into two solid phases at the same time.

www.soton.ac.uk...

That being just one example of a definition.

Eutectic = molten metal (not literally but for simplification for certain "debunkers"..). Eutectic means there WAS molten metal present, there had to have been, or else it would be impossible for a eutectic reaction to take place.

FEMA proved there was a eutectic reaction that corroded and ate holes through WTC steel. It MELTED said steel to produce those holes, lowering its melting point via sulfidation.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by GenRadekInteresting how they cut off on the right side the entire west side. I wonder why?

I don't know, ask the videographer. There are several better angles and
wide shots to see the bigger picture as we've already linked.

It appears that the western most core columns behaved as the "hinge", and as it failed that is when the downward movement happened. By then, the top is on the way down through the rest of the building.

It's nice to see that you've changed your theory to adapt to the items
I've pointed out. However, this still does not change the fact that we
can see the top section destroy itself at the same final angle in the wide
shot.

You also have to go back a few pages and tell me what force allowed
all of that upper mass to rotate...stop rotating...and then suddenly move downward?

Don't you find your theory a little odd as you consider this? You said
yourself that the core columns (now) acted as the hinge. So...they
must have opposed the downward movement of the upper floors.

Again I ask: If the core columns allowed this 'hinge' effect until well
after the top section blows itself apart, why would they suddenly fail
AFTER the hinge breaks? Where is this sudden change in force coming
from?

Try again and find the one second time stamp where you feel this
'hinge' breaks. You will find yourself in the same place unfortunately.

Before you reply, make sure the time stamp you give me shows an entire
top section intact as you cannot have a hinge while the top section loses
2/3 of it's length (height).

Geez the intellectual acrobatics you offical story folk have to go through must be tiring.

Buildings dont just explode into nano particles due to fire. The whole offical story is rediculous on its face.

At least flat earthers had what seemed to be common sense on their side.

*edit for woops*

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Neo_Serf]

reply to post by Neo_Serf


What buildings exploded into nano particles? The premise was that nano-particulate thermitic materials were uses in the destruction of the buildings. Unfortunately for the CTer's, there is no evidence of engineered nano-particulate demolition materials in the physical evidence or in various video streams.

reply to post by bsbray11


I do not deny that the steel was corroded to the point of holes, but what should have been first asked by those searching for truth is, how long was this piece in the pile? Was it taken out a day later? Three days? Five? Three weeks? A month? Two months? You see, for this observed event, knowing how long the piece was buried in the rubble exposed to the hellish environment that was known to exist inside would give a clearer understanding of just how corrosive and bad it was, and give a clearer understanding of how oxidation occurs in such environments. Time is what should not be forgotten.

Again, I provided some information on just how pyrophoric iron is, especially when exposed to the conditions that were expected inside the pile. Specifically, heat, water, and sulfur mixing together and time. I'm sure that had the pile remained untouched for a few more months, I wouldnt be surprised if more steel was discovered in this way.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I do not deny that the steel was corroded to the point of holes, but what should have been first asked by those searching for truth is, how long was this piece in the pile?

See, you're just demonstrating to me again that all you know is what you've heard from other "debunkers." I'm not talking about any type of chemical corrosion. I'm talking about a eutectic reaction. Look up what that means, and THEN you'll see why it would make no sense for this reaction to occur over a long period of time rather than as rapid as any such eutectic reaction will occur.

reply to post by bsbray11


BS,
The rate of reaction is determined by the limiting reagent. There is no reason why sulfides formed from the decomposition of drywall would not have reacted over time with the steel heated by the fires that burned for many weeks that were fueled by contents of the towers. There is no time constraint; as the sulfides are formed they would react and the steel would erode.

okay, i just read some new dr. greening stuff. he does have a problem with the analysis (surprise). and so, the debate goes on.
his new tack is that iron rich spheroids are common in fly ash. jones calls BS and invokes newton's third law.
i agree with the paper. in order to create those iron rich spheres, the temperature of the reaction of the red/gray ships must jump to 1200 degrees C, and the DSC is not capable of measuring a brief peak like that. the iron rich spheres are proof that the temps were reached, though.



[edit on 7-5-2009 by billybob]

reply to post by billybob


The DSC measures heat flow as the temperature is changed. Why wouldn't it be able to measure a conflagration?
Of course, the spheres may have been in the sample all along which is why they were not seen to form.

reply to post by pteridine


they thought of that. there were no spheres before the reaction. the spheres were produced by the reaction.

reply to post by billybob


Look at figure 3c in the paper. This is material that was magnetically separated. Additionally, only some of the spheres were "iron rich"; many were not.
It is unfortunate that Jones' team did not know that there are much better solvents than MEK to disrupt polymeric organic structures. They should seriously consider asking a chemist to help them, next time.

posted by pteridine
reply to post by billybob

 

They should seriously consider asking a chemist to help them, next time.

Really? What is wrong with chemist Professor Niels Harrit?

Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

It can explode and break things apart, and it can melt things.

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

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

reply to post by pteridine


the fact that the spheres that were iron were only present after the reaction is the salient info. iron spheres can only be formed by dropping molten metal through air. the other spheres are interesting, too, i'm sure, but focusing on what is known is the key to efficiency.

reply to post by SPreston


He screwed up the DSC by doing it in air but foolishly published the results, anyway. Bad science or fraud; either one is unacceptable.

That is what is wrong with Professor Herrit.