PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine
1. Jones claims to find elemental iron after ignition and elemental aluminum in the chips. His claims are not well supported by the EDAX and one material he has found is an aluminosilicate, like kaolinite, a common filler in...paint. This has been gone over many times.

I don't think Jones is claiming elemental aluminum from an EDAX alone but rather from a comparison of one taken before the MEK soak and one after the MEK soak. Or as it's stated in the paper "Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration and separation of the components. This is a significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not bound chemically."

So what I'm wondering is would a red paint containing kaolinite or another aluminosilicate demonstrate this same separation? All these claims of Kaolinite I read only take into consideration the "before MEK soak" XEDS spectra, but I have never seen an explanation for the "after MEK soak" spectra.

Or to put it in pictures:

Originally posted by pteridine
2. The DSC in an inert gas is the key experiment. It will remove all doubt as to the existence of a thermitic reaction. It will do so immediately, without guessing, innuendo, illogical conclusions, and bad science. Jones should have done this first.

I agree this should be done. Just like I believe NIST should demonstrate in real life that lightweight trusses could pull in exterior columns 55 in., rather than relying on "trial and error" inputs into a computer simulation. Or that a collapsing building could fall in free fall for 2.75 seconds. I believe if NIST were to do these things it would remove all doubt immediately. But I suppose we all have to wait for what we need.

Originally posted by pteridine
3. You do not know the origins of the spheres and no flame temperatures have been measured. Yet you claim that 2800F was the flame temperature because that is the MP of Iron and the spheres are iron containing.

Some of the sphere's diameters are greater than the width of the red or grey layers so it would be awfully hard to hide in a "before flame test" sample. They are obvious in the "after the flame test" sample, which I take as the formation of the spheres happening sometime between the before and after the application of the flame.

Are you claiming these spheres were really contained within either the red or grey layer and were somehow overlooked, even when they split a chip in half and looked at the cross section? Even though the spheriods from the flame test are 50 to 100 microns in diameter?

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones does not explain the major inconsistencies in energy release that he measured and that I told you about.

No they don't, you are correct. But they did make the exact same point you've been making when they say on page 27 "As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component."

But what makes me hopeful about these guys, rather than them being just charlatans like some people claim, is they actually included in their paper a section "What Future Studies are Contemplated?" and the very first thing they mention is "We observe that the total enegry released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic." So they agree themselves that more testing is required to figure this out. Only time will tell what else they are doing with these chips and the results.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by pteridine
He cannot explain ten tons [his estimate] of chips in the dust or their intended purpose. After being told that as paint on thermite, should they stay lit, they would only warm the steel, he claimed that they were "fuse material." Ten tons of unburned fuse implies many more tons of unexpended demolition materials.

I have a problem with his ten tons estimate and with his guess of it being painted on, but that's what they are... just guesses and speculations. What they actually concluded in the paper is an admission that they have no idea of application:

"We cannot determine at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted from the application method or the manner of reaction. While the application of a thin film might have suited specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching effect of the steel the material was in contact with may have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting. The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive."

So they don't know how it was applied, and rather than get on them for speculation, I think I'll wait for their next paper if and when it comes out and if it actually comes to a conclusion of how it was applied.

reply to post by NIcon


Every day that goes by I think it gets more "if" than "when".

And can someone explain to me why you CD guys are allowed super-secret military grade thermo thermate and the DEW guys and gals don't get the same pass with their energy beams?

Originally posted by pteridine
The did not see any iron rich spheres before analyses; that does not mean that they were not present.

And it certainly doesn't mean there were present before the study either. The fact that they say they weren't observed should automatically suggest they actually paid attention to this. You assume they didn't and base your entire argument as if that assumption were already proven.

When we tell you no one ever looked for explosives residues at any point, either, that doesn't make any difference to you. But because they don't go into great detail about how they paid attention to what was present before and after the reaction, and you automatically assume they didn't actually look before the reaction and are just making stuff up, based on nothing, and you yourself have no scientific credibility to begin with. Despite you thinking the people behind this paper were all crazy, at least two or three of them off the top of my head either had or still have tenure at a major university. Tenure meaning they are basically on salary and considered a permanent part of the staff until notified otherwise, and considered the most knowledgeable and credible authorities in their respective fields at the university. Steven Jones himself has a long, long resume of working with the best and brightest all over the world, even before 1990. He was a tenured professor of physics at BYU as I'm sure you well know, until he broke the academic ice with this controversial work and basically has been an academic martyr ever since thanks to a nation's worth of emotional thinking. These professionals said the iron-rich spheres weren't seen before, but they were seen after. If you want to assume they didn't actually look, go ahead, but when you rant on about that and act like you've refuted something, you need to remember this assumption and what little it's based on.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Well, TrickoftheShade, that's what I used to think about NIST's report on WTC 7, but then they actually came out with a report 7 years later. But I was patient and did not complain. So I think I can afford some courtesy and patience towards these guys, especially since they don't have a multi-million dollar budget and they don't have the weight of a federal government behind them and they practically have to go begging the public to send in samples. It has only been just under one year and two months since their paper came out.

As for the DEW guys and gals, I'm all for it, as long as they present a convincing case, but so far I have not seen it. But with this thermite stuff it's approaching a convincing argument, especially since all the literature I've read on this new technology expound on the exciting possibilities of different formulas and capabilities. It seems that NASA and the Military are all a-twitter with their projections of how much this stuff will do.

Originally posted by NIcon

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones does not explain the major inconsistencies in energy release that he measured and that I told you about.

No they don't, you are correct. But they did make the exact same point you've been making when they say on page 27 "As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component."

But what makes me hopeful about these guys, rather than them being just charlatans like some people claim, is they actually included in their paper a section "What Future Studies are Contemplated?" and the very first thing they mention is "We observe that the total enegry released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic." So they agree themselves that more testing is required to figure this out. Only time will tell what else they are doing with these chips and the results.

Yes, they do say this which makes their conclusion false. Further, the energy output is still excessive if the binder contains energetic material that does not include plain combustion. No combination of the explosives used as examples and thermite can exceed the energy of the chips burning in air. Burning is some or all of the energy released.

DSC under inert must be done before thermitic reaction can be considered.

[edit on 4/4/2010 by pteridine]

reply to post by bsbray11


The way science works is to do experiments that are unequivocal. Until he shows thermitic reaction in the absence of air and eliminates the possibility of combustion, none of his conclusions are valid. This is true whether or not people looked for thermitic residue, DEW effects, or piles of hacksaw blades.
No one has yet explained why this "highly engineered" demolition material self-extinguished after beign ignited by an oxy torch. Because of this, it seems more like lowly engineered paint.

reply to post by NIcon


The fact that they chose a poor solvent for the matrix does not give me great confidence in their analyses. The haphazard selection of MEK and their lack of knowledge on what might disrupt a paint matrix might have carried over into their analyses. The visible morphology of Kaolinite in the SEM [those white crystalline components] is telling. MEK will not take that structure apart. Looking at the elemental maps does not show Al alone.
SEM stages are aluminum; shine through from a sample that does not completely cover the stage where the beam is focused always shows Al.
Before he wastes any more time, he needs to show reaction in the absence of air.

reply to post by pteridine

But doesn't their weak MEK soak prove that the silicon and aluminum were not bonded? They could have used a stronger MEK but since that still would not have broken the Kaolinite apart I still don't see the point.

Most SEM stages are aluminum, but I also see some made out of carbon. But that doesn't matter as we know they used an aluminum mount. But what is also interesting is that they say they mounted them with "Carbon Conductive Tabs" which I'm finding are used for "less interference signals."

I find your comment, however, interesting as I see no Aluminum "shine through" in images 6 a-d, Figure 16, Figure 21, and Figure 33. I would assume that this "shine through" would have made it into all of their XEDS spectra samples, considering that some of these were taken of much smaller particles than were the ones made that do show the aluminum, thus making them even more unlikely to have "not completely cover(ed) the stage where the beam is focused". So are you saying they were selectively incompetent on some readings but not others? Why do you think the XEDS spectras in figures 6 a-d, 16, 21 and 33 had samples that "completely cover(ed) the stage" but in all others the samples didn't "cover the stage", thus allowing this "shine through"? Or do you think Figure 17 is the only graph of a sample that didn't "cover the stage" completely and allowed this "shine through"?

edited to make my last question more understandable

edited again to add Figure 16 as one of the ones without this "shine through" ... we must not forget Figure 16


[edit on 4-4-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by NIcon]

reply to post by NIcon


They do not say anything about the location or area of the beam. An analysis near an edge would provide an Al signal.

Elemental maps do not show Al without Si and O. It is unlikely that co-location of Al and SiO2 would occur in all cases.

There are too many inconsistencies to conclude thermite. I am disinterested in the outcome but not uninterested.

reply to post by pteridine

I realize they did not specify the location of the beam, that's why I was so curious about your statement. I'm not sure what your point was in bringing up this "shine through." I thought that perhaps you may have read something in the paper that would have demonstrated such a conclusion could be made.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
No, you didn't. I asked for a transcript of the conversation you are you refering to remember?

Again please explain to me how PULL IT could mean the firemen when they were already out of the building?

I gave you the statement from chief Nigro. Here is chief Haydens statement from Firehouse magazine that supports chief Nigros statement.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

reply to post by NIcon


No, there was not much in the experimental section. I was considering how elemental aluminum would suddenly show up in the EDAX analysis after MEK slightly swelled of the matrix. The matrix was not disrupted and the idea that only imbibing some solvent would allow free migration of particulate aluminum didn't seem plausible.

Why is it that buidling 7 was the only building that supposidly collasped from damage even though other buildings had more damage?

Other buildings at the WTC that were damaged but DID NOT collapse.








[edit on 6-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by pteridine

I'm not sure I understand when you say elemental aluminum "suddenly showed up." Aluminum showed up in all the readings before the soak, but it was so mixed with oxygen and silicon that it could not be determined if it was in elemental form. This intimate mixture is also one of the reasons they suspect it to be "highly engineered." But then they soaked it in the MEK and it swelled, which brings me to the next thing I don't understand in your response.

You say it only "slightly swelled" yet in the paper they call it "significant swelling." So I look at Figure 12B and see that the red layer after the soak seems to be approximately 250 to 300 microns thick which seems to me quite more than a "slight" swelling, as we know from earlier in the paper that the layers in their original state were 10 to 100 microns thick. So I'm gathering that the red layer swelled 150 to 200% of their original size which to me does not seem slight. If I were hit in the eye and my brow swelled that much, I would definitely not consider that slight.


[edit on 6-4-2010 by NIcon]

reply to post by NIcon


Swelling by a factor of two isn't really much swelling in polymer-solvent systems but I will not argue the point. I was more interested in the fact that the matrix was not disrupted. Had they used an appropriate solvent [CH2Cl2, DMSO, DMF, etc.] the matrix would have been dispersed and migration/precipitation would have occurred with ease along with separation, had they availed themselves of that. Unfortunately, there were no working chemists on the team. The only way for migration to occur in this system would be via fluid flow through channeling in the expanded matrix. None of the inorganic solids are soluble in the MEK so their movement would have to be entrained flow. The mechanism would include local disruption of the matrix and then differential flow to separate the aluminum from the silica. Flow would probably peak during imbibing and evaporation but displacement might not be large. I am not confident that the authors understand what they are invoking as they thoroughly botched virtually everything else including the erroneous conclusions arrived at by misinterpreting the energetics.
When they do the experiments correctly, starting with the DSC under argon, the thermite postulate will be readily resolved and they may even have a publishable paper. Truthfully, I am disinterested in the results and only critique the existing paper because non-scientists on ATS should not be subjected to "researchers" who have determined the conclusions before doing the experiments.
I think that we will not see a follow-on paper because I do not believe that they will get the results they want and will not want to publish them. Henryco has stumbled on the truth [paint] and can't believe it because he, too, needs a conspiracy.

reply to post by pteridine

I'm not sure if swelling by a factor of two is actually considered much in a polymer-solvent system, but I believe it would be in a certain sized matrix holding certain sized particles in it's "nooks and crannies."

What I picture is when the matrix expanded to twice or more it's size, these "nooks and crannies" holding these particles would also expand, sometimes to twice their size, sometimes to less their size. Since the particles do not expand along with the matrix, some will be forced out of their now smaller "nook," some will fall out of their now double-sized "nook", and some will be "squeezed" more tightly in their trying-to-contract "nook". Once those particles that didn't expand along with their new-sized "nook" and either fell out or were forced out, these particles became suspended in the MEK solution. And when they applied their "frequent agitation" the suspended particles then moved (or flowed) to a different location on this now expanded matrix. After 55 hours of this and after they removed the chip from the solvent and let it air dry so the solvent would evaporate, the particles then settled into their new spacious, rent controlled "nook." And from what I see in the paper, these particles seem to have suffered from a rather subtle form of racism, as the aluminum seemed to want to gather in "aluminum only" neighborhoods and the silicon seemed to want to settle in "silicon only" neighborhoods. Am I missing something here?

So to make my point more clearly: I do believe it's sufficient disruption when we take a certain size matrix that's holding particles of a certain size and then expand the certain size matrix to two or more times its original size and still have it hold the same size particles.

Edit to add another way of saying this:

Before the MEK soak we have a "hole" in the matrix of size 5 and we have a particle of the size 9. The particle says to itself "I like my current hole of size 9, it's comfortable, and I can't make it through that size 5 hole anyway, I'm staying put."

But then the Matrix expands and this "hole" goes from size 5 to size 10, or more. Well the size 9 particle's own hole shrinks from 9 to 8, and there's all this jiggling around and "Where did this flood come from?" anyway, so it decides, "Hey, I can make it through that hole now, I'm moving. Maybe I'll get away from all this jiggling around and this flood. I think I'll swim through that hole now"

Personification of inanimate objects is such fun.


[edit on 6-4-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by NIcon]