Undetonated Explosive Material from 9/11 Rubble

reply to post by amance


I don't believe that there were any explosives. I also do not believe in nanothermite, nanothermate or micro-nukes. To have rigged both towers with shaped cutting charges, without being detected is a logistical impossibility. Trying to coordinate the detonation sequence would be a nightmare.

That the collapse of the towers started at the impact points, pretty much throws a monkey wrench into the explosives theory. How do you set up the detonation sequence in advance, when you don't know where the planes will hit the towers?

Originally posted by amance

Another extremely important fact that supports therm(ite/ate) explosives was the discovery of tiny spheres of steel indicating that steel was vaporized, as in 'boiled'. Jet fuel cannot vaporize steel... ever.

You should look into the sources and uses of flyash in NYC.

NYC is a common by-product of trash incinerators. It is used as a component filler in concrete, and was in practice during the time that the towers were built.

There are other minor, and less likely sources of flyash. Flyash contains these iron micro spheres...

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by amance

 

I also do not believe in nanothermite

I'm surprised you would say that. Its hardly any different than saying "I don't believe in TNT" or "I don't believe in black powder". A fair number of scientists claim to have been involved in creating nanothermite. Specifically, the Los Alamos lab has itself claimed to have created nanothermite.
See: www.technologyreview.com...

The Wikipedia article on nano-thermite doesn't offer any suggestions that the substance may not actually exist. Rather, it links to one or more articles that detail the manufacturing of the substance.

Maybe what you meant to say is that you don't believe that you do believe nanothermite exists, but don't believe it was used?

The idea of nuking a building to make it look like it natural collapse is the stupidest idea in the history of the world, whereas the idea of using a specially engineered explosive that doesn't make a bang sound is exactly what would have been most appropriate. And more importantly, there is evidence for nanothermite, but none for a micronuke.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by truthquest

Thanks for your response. I believe you may have mis-interpreted the quote from the article. While you are right that the quote says the ignition temperature does not match thermite very well, it also says that the temperature does match nano-thermite very well.

There was a match for nano-thermite in both ignition temperature characteristics of the combusted material according to the paper. Also, regardless of which explosive it matches, the paper seems pretty clear about the substance having characteristics of high explosive.

Do you disagree that the explosive substance found by the researchers was nano-thermite? If so, why?

I think it's paint, for reasons covered at great length here before. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to rehash all those arguments again.

The fact is, if you really want to believe it's nano-thermite nothing will change your mind.

The article researchers initially believed the explosive chips found to be paint chips. Their paper details a number of tests they did to determine whether the substance was paint. For example, the chips did not significantly respond to paint thinner, whereas all known paint does respond to paint thinner.

Ultimately, their primary reason for believing that they are not paint chips is that paint chips are not a high-explosive, and due to their high explosiveness, they would not be approved for use as a paint.

I created this thread for the purpose of finding reasons to believe what these researchers found was not nanothermite, therefore, I want to change my mind. All you have to do is offer evidence that what was found was paint chips or something else and I'll believe you.

Please tell me which of the tests they used to determine whether the chips were paint was faulty.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by truthquest]

reply to post by truthquest

The article researchers initially believed the explosive chips found to be paint chips. Their paper details a number of tests they did to determine whether the substance was paint. For example, the chips did not significantly respond to paint thinner, whereas all known paint do respond to paint thinner.

Where was the control group? A true scientific examination would have included a control group. Did they find samples of 40 year old paint and expose that paint to MEK? Or did they assume the expected reaction?

reply to post by truthquest


Sorry, no. I can't be bothered. The debate rattled on here for some time and I don't feel like going back over it now. People raised significant problems with Jones' work then and they satisfied me that it was deeply flawed.

Jones responded

-- that the thermite was part of detonatirs and not used as a cutter charge in the way some have claimed on this thread. He had no answer as to why no evidence of other explosives or bomb residue was found

-- that he would put together another, more fully-realised paper that would answer some criticisms


To my knowledge the second paper has not appeared. I imagine Jones is either embarrased or working out another angle by which to gain some notoriety or cash. But admittedly that's just my cynical assumption.

reply to post by truthquest


Also, the paper never explains why they were examining dust samples, collected without any discipline, in order to better understand what happened on 9/11. The only conclusion one can draw from this greatly flawed approach is that the persons writing this paper were actively engaged in promoting the most basic form of junk science. That is to say, they had a result in mind and were looking for facts to support it. This is the opposite of science.

Maybe I should clairify my statement. I do not believe that any thermite, thermate, micro-nuke or any other type of explosive was used to cause the collapse of the WTC.

Some time if you get the chance, fire a bullet through a piece of steel and then immediately go and feel around the hole. It will feel warm or hot. When the planes struck the towers, some of their kinetic energy was converted to heat. This could also help explain the steel micro balls.

To me Alex Jones is anything but a creditable source. He has an agenda of trying to promote himself and his radio show. His entire public identity is tied into the Truther movement. If that movement is discredited or goes away, so does he.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by JIMC5499]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I've got a few problems with the thermite theory. The major one is that there is no proof that there was any thermite there. The basic components of thermite are aluminum and iron oxide. You had an aluminum aircraft slam into a steel framed building. I would be shocked if you DIDN'T find residue. Another is how do you hold the thermit in place long enough for it to cut through a steel structural member? The only use of thermite that I have seen is a kit that allows railroad track rails to be welded with out heavy equipment. It uses a ceramic form to hold the thermite in place long enough for the weld to form.

I can appreciate your confusion. You are thinking that it was only thermite that was found. It was actually nano-thermites that were found in the dust at Ground Zero. Nano-thermites are a military grade explosive. Back in 2001, nano-thermites weren't even known about outside of certain laboratories the Pentagon had contracted with to make the stuff and Israel which also had a nano-thermite lab.

This sort of narrows down the possible suspects who put the nano-thermites in the WTC towers. Needless to say, 19 Saudi's/Afghanis living in a cave in Afghanistan would not have had access to nano-thermites. On the other hand, the CIA and MOSSAD... DID... have access to these explosives.

reply to post by Longbob


Nano-thermite would be a military grade incindiary not an explosive. The only place that I have even heard of something like this existing is in a thermobaric bomb. A thermobaric bomb uses a fine powder that is propelled by a small explosive charge. Once the powder is dispersed in to the air, an ignition charge fires and the resulting explosion uses up all of the oxygen in a given area.

This business of supposed explosive charges at the WTC seems to have gone full circle.

At first there were allegations of conventional cd. Then, in response to observations that there were no loud explosions or flashes to be seen at the moment of collapse as to be seen here :-

www.youtube.com...

Thermite, thermate, super, nano ( you name it ) came along to save the day. Silent but deadly. Trouble is, it turns out that therm*te is an incendiary with very limited application and hundreds of tons of it would have been required to achieve anything.

So, Jones is now claiming that therm*te was just used as some sort of fuse to conventional explosives. So we are back to asking where were the loud detonations and flashes and where is the explosive residue, remains of detonators, detonator cord etc ?

reply to post by Alfie1


Just a wild thought - what if everybody is right? The paint on the steel, while not engineered nano-thermite, may have degraded over time or somehow changed composition, possibly through some osmotic process with the steel and super heated when exposed to the fire caused by the jet crash? The NIST report indicates and common sense dictates that the enormous forces caused by the blast knocked off a lot of the fireproofing which would have exposed the paint finished steel.

Unfortunately, this means there is no conspiracy, just an accidental occurence.

reply to post by Alfie1


Don'y you know that they used "Hush-a-Boom". Google it.

reply to post by JIMC5499


You know what's even funnier.

I'm not even an American , and I care more for what happened than you people.

That's Funny

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, you mean to tell me that a floor on the WTC, which was built with light trusses held at each end by 1" bolts in special seats and dampeners, with a light corrugated steel/light thin concrete covering on top is going to withstand 10-30+ floors moving downward in one piece at the same time? That is some special floor, considering its connected to the exterior and interior columns and isnt giving much in terms of vertical resistance.

The only thing holding me back on this theory is how they got access to all the necessary structural beams, on multiple floors, without anyone noticing and when did "they" do this.
I'm pretty damn sure they wouldn't have been able to place the thermite the day of, or even a couple days before. And I don't think they'd want to leave a bunch of building-collapsing explosives laying around for something to happen prematurely.
And also had do you suppose they detonated it? Det cord? Wireless?

I'd like for someone to clear these things up, or at least provide their own opinion.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by grrrrt]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Longbob

 

Nano-thermite would be a military grade incindiary not an explosive. The only place that I have even heard of something like this existing is in a thermobaric bomb. A thermobaric bomb uses a fine powder that is propelled by a small explosive charge. Once the powder is dispersed in to the air, an ignition charge fires and the resulting explosion uses up all of the oxygen in a given area.

You're thinking of thermite just as I pointed out to the previous poster. Yes, thermite is a military grade incendiary. Nano-thermite is FAR different from ordinary thermite. Nano-thermite is HIGHLY explosive ! Take a closer look at videos of the towers coming down. Nano-thermites blew huge chunks of the buildings outward in all directions up to 400 feet away.( 400 feet is 133 yards or 1 and 1/3 football fields).

My suggestion would be to read the report at the link provided to gain a better understanding of the difference between the two.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Longbob]

reply to post by grrrrt


Tell me something ? You don't really suppose the Mossad agents that were using Urban Moving Systems as a cover actually carried in boxes labeled "Nano-thermite" or "Explosive", do you ?

And I guess you believe that no one at all made any deliveries to either of the towers in the weeks preceding the demolitions ?

The explosives were detonated by radio signal from Building 7. (This also again narrows down the list of possible suspects when you consider who had offices in the building.) Here is a hint for you. Al-Qaeda didn't have any office space in B7. On the other hand, Al-CIAda did.

Originally posted by sciemus
reply to post by Sean48

 

I have serious reservations about this study.

The authors have outright bias. Some openly admit in the title of the article to being members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and while I wouldn't doubt their ability to do neutral, unbiased research, on a topic like this, it immediately makes me look at it with a more critical eye.

My second reservation relates to their samples: the samples they all collected have problems in their chain of evidence and possible contamination issues. The first sample, for example, was collected and carried by hand, which immediately adds the risk of contamination. It was then stored in a plastic bag for approximately six years, both a contamination risk and a chain of evidence problem.

My third reservation also relates to the samples: they quickly claim it's thermitic. Sure, it has a similar chemical composition, but that means nothing. They admit that it ignites at a much lower temperature than thermite, but them claim that that is evidence for it being nano-thermite. But therein lies a further problem: this so-called super-themite was just barely off the drawing board by the time of 9/11. The time frame for implementing it would be very, very short.

My fourth reservation comes from one of their implications: themite pf one sort of another was used on the building. Why, then, is there so much left over to have been scattered across Manhattan? Would it not make more sense to have ignited all of it?

It feels very much like they're grasping at straws, and going immediately to the conclusions they want to go to.

I appreciate your well-researched thoughts.

Most university researchers have ideas about the what their work will reveal before their experiments begin, so is Steven Jones bias really out of the ordinary? The global warming scientists were specifically paid to reach a certain conclusion. While Steven Jones may hope for book sales, he was fired from the university simply for making public his hypothesis and research on the 9/11 debris. That indicates he very deeply believed the thermite angle. I suppose you could argue he is trying to vindicate himself more than average. But that is hardly something to disqualify him as every scientist enjoys their hypothesis to test true.

I have issues with the chain of evidence as well. However, that many (or all, I don't remember) of the samples contained the red-gray explosive chips in question, such a contamination would have to be more than simply touching it with a hand. What makes it a comfortable sampling for me and overcomes these evidence issues is that the chips were consistently found in different samples. My issues with the chain of custody are overcome by the consistency of which these explosive chips are found. If they did cross-contaminate samples, it would have to either an incredible mess-up, or possibly even have to be intentional fraud.

Any further independent studies should be able to prove or disprove the contamination allegations. There must have been hundreds of people who collected the dust as souvenirs. So, that contamination idea can be proven or dis-proven.

As for the time-frame of putting nanothermite into play, I'm not as concerned as you are. They had Los Alamos labs working on the stuff at the time. I'd say they would have been competent enough to produce any quantity requested. While nanothermite is sort of high-tech, its just a mix of different powders of fairly common elements. Nanothermite could have been one of many explosives used to bring down the building. 100nm particles are small, but not that small. These days if my memory serves right you can get most elements as 20nm size particles in powder form. If they can do 20nm particles for most elements today commercially in kilogram quanitities, then in 2001 100nm particle powders would not be all that spectacular of a technology.

As for why not all of it was detonated, that is a good question. If it was applied as a paint as some suggest, it makes sense to me that it may have a literally spotty performance, with some chips simply getting chipped off without detonating.

Originally posted by truthquest
A paper came out in the summer of last year highlighting fragments of undetonated explosives found in the rubble.
www.bentham-open.org...

The paper describes how a group of physics and chemistry experts reviewed samples of dust from 9/11. The samples contained small fragments of undetonated explosive. They arrived at that conclusion not only by actually exploding tiny bits of the material, but also noting that the byproducts of the explosion produced the signature of a very specific type of explosive:

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 known super-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.

The paper describes how the chips found in the debris are not paint chips or pieces of drywall as some had claimed prior to that research because paint and drywall do not explode, nor do burning them produce evidence of an explosion. The substance they found exploded upon ignition, and left behind evidence of an explosion.

At that time the article was released, Snopes.com, a website that tries to cover as much irrelevant information about 9/11 as possible, had a statement made on their page at www.snopes.com... such as:
False: "Thermite was found in the World Trade Center debris."
I vaguely seem to remember sending them an email telling them about the new paper. At some point after that paper was released, that statement marked as "false", has simply been removed completely rather than being changed to "true". I find it dishonest of Snopes to not publish a correction.

I'm writing this topic because I've mentioned this a couple times in other threads only to be met with dead silence... no replies and no stars. Clearly I'm missing something. What I'm wondering is why this particular point of 9/11 evidence is not considered smoking gun proof that 9/11 was an inside job. My question is: Why is this not smoking gun proof that the World Trade Center compound was brought down using explosives rather than brought down due to fire? I'm thinking that perhaps it is smoking gun proof, but people just have not bothered to read the paper. I admit maybe it isn't smoking gun proof and I'm just not seeing a flaw in the article, but until then I consider it a solid proof.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by truthquest]

One more bit of evidence to prove the government was duplicitous in blowing up two major corporate buildings? Who do you think owns the friken government? It's the corporations. And lets not forget both the ATF and FBI had offices in the towers. Having false, "almost lifelike" explosives, or even real ones is not unreasonable.