Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

Originally posted by hooper

Wow, five conspiracy websites. One of which I already told you I won't deal with because of their advocacy of violence. Try and use your own words.

Seriously? Killtown? Is that what you're referring to? I always looked at their name as ironic, so I know you're full of it now...you'd be in front of me mocking the TeeVee if you were so squeamish.

So why do you even post on my threads Hoop? You've given yourself a pass that allows you to decide with a wave of your magic wand what links are worthy of your attention, so what's your point in hanging around? If you're not interested in a real discussion, I'm no longer interested in humoring you...'specially since I'm starting to see your true colors.

reply to post by Yankee451


I read through those links briefly (mostly the first two).

Is the argument that the shots were taken from roughly the same location? Is that why they must be fake?

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by hooper

Wow, five conspiracy websites. One of which I already told you I won't deal with because of their advocacy of violence. Try and use your own words.

Seriously? Killtown? Is that what you're referring to? I always looked at their name as ironic, so I know you're full of it now...you'd be in front of me mocking the TeeVee if you were so squeamish.

So why do you even post on my threads Hoop? You've given yourself a pass that allows you to decide with a wave of your magic wand what links are worthy of your attention, so what's your point in hanging around? If you're not interested in a real discussion, I'm no longer interested in humoring you...'specially since I'm starting to see your true colors.

No not killtown. Yes, I do reserve the right to decide which links are worthy and which ones are not. I rarely posts links with exceptions to some public sites, NIST, FBI, etc. Here's the analysis of a discussion - you say something and then I respond then I say something and you respond. Not I say something and you post a dozen links.

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I read through those links briefly (mostly the first two).

Is the argument that the shots were taken from roughly the same location? Is that why they must be fake?

Same location and the same point in time...note the position of the plane in the Tina Cart and Richard Clark shots.

Here's a TV and video archive so you can make your own comparisons:
www.911conspiracy.tv...

Here's a plot of their locations using their perspectives.
www.youtube.com...=0m26s

Originally posted by hooper

No not killtown. Yes, I do reserve the right to decide which links are worthy and which ones are not. I rarely posts links with exceptions to some public sites, NIST, FBI, etc. Here's the analysis of a discussion - you say something and then I respond then I say something and you respond. Not I say something and you post a dozen links.

Okay man, I can't help you...I'm not clairvoyant and I don't know what the hell you're talking about anyway. You say you are against violence, but evidently that excludes the violence perpetrated in our names every day around the world, so all I can say is good luck and lets stop wasting each other's time.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by hooper

No not killtown. Yes, I do reserve the right to decide which links are worthy and which ones are not. I rarely posts links with exceptions to some public sites, NIST, FBI, etc. Here's the analysis of a discussion - you say something and then I respond then I say something and you respond. Not I say something and you post a dozen links.

Okay man, I can't help you...I'm not clairvoyant and I don't know what the hell you're talking about anyway. You say you are against violence, but evidently that excludes the violence perpetrated in our names every day around the world, so all I can say is good luck and lets stop wasting each other's time.

I think I mentioned before that one of the administrators of the letsroll forum has advocated hanging one of the 9/11 eyewitnesses for treason because her story contradicted one of his conspiracy fantasies. Violence is a necessary evil. But not in that case.

Originally posted by hooper

I think I mentioned before that one of the administrators of the letsroll forum has advocated hanging one of the 9/11 eyewitnesses for treason because her story contradicted one of his conspiracy fantasies. Violence is a necessary evil. But not in that case.

What a bunch of hogwash. You're a member at a forum where Jared Laughner was also a member, and he did more than just talk about it didn't he? How many thousands of people are on ATS? Does each one speak for all of ATS? Dross!

If this is your idea of an interesting conversation, then we have nothing left to discuss.

reply to post by Yankee451


Laughner was not an administrator. If anyone I am responding to advocates that kind of violence, I quit.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Laughner was not an administrator. If anyone I am responding to advocates that kind of violence, I quit.

Interesting story. It's been a pleasure chatting.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by hooper

Wow, five conspiracy websites. One of which I already told you I won't deal with because of their advocacy of violence. Try and use your own words.

Seriously? Killtown? Is that what you're referring to? I always looked at their name as ironic, so I know you're full of it now...you'd be in front of me mocking the TeeVee if you were so squeamish.

So why do you even post on my threads Hoop? You've given yourself a pass that allows you to decide with a wave of your magic wand what links are worthy of your attention, so what's your point in hanging around? If you're not interested in a real discussion, I'm no longer interested in humoring you...'specially since I'm starting to see your true colors.

No not killtown. Yes, I do reserve the right to decide which links are worthy and which ones are not. I rarely posts links with exceptions to some public sites, NIST, FBI, etc. Here's the analysis of a discussion - you say something and then I respond then I say something and you respond. Not I say something and you post a dozen links.

In my opinion, a discussion includes fact-based claims.

Do a simple search on the chemistry of the compound called thermite/thermate and if you're not up to date with your chemistry, read up on phase diagrams, melting points, sulfur, and catalysts.. My educational background is in biochemistry.

Thermite is a pyrotechnic compound (meaning it has observable qualitative evidence of something like heat/light when it reacts). Thermite includes a metal and a metal oxide, which when combined produces an exothermic reaction (releases energy stored in the bonds). Most types of thermitic reactions are not explosive at all, but simply create a very high temperature.

The WTC does have components naturally built into its building that can participate in thermitic reactions, yet these reactions need catalysts and other substrates to complete the reaction.

If we consider the element sulfur, we can see why it's addition to a these compounds may be useful in different applications. To make it short, sulfur reduces the melting point of the steel (through creation of sulfides). Catalysts such as potassium permanganate will reduce the activation energy of such a reaction. A phase diagram of the compound will allow you to understand this.

Once combined and activated, these combinations can cut through steel easily. These combinations of material are used in the military for a variety of different things, including weakening buildings. Here's an example of thermite application: combinedsystems.com... .

A more detailed chemical analysis of these combinations can be found in lobdill's analysis if you would like to search it.

When samples of the hardened metals from the WTC were taken in for analysis by private researchers, the "chemical signature" of the materials were equivalent to the chemical signature of commercial thermite.

Furthermore, chemical quantitative analysis of the metal reveals Fe, Al, S, K, Mn. Iron, Aluminum, Sulfur, and components of Potassium Permanganate.

How it was used is really unknown, yet the qualitative visual observable burning of thermite/thermate has been positively identified and readily identifiable from any pictures of the WTC buildings burning.

I'm not saying that the government was in on it, or that it was an inside job.

All I'm saying is scientifically speaking, how can you explain the addition of these elements, catalysts, melting point reductions, oxidation-reduction reactions in the WTC's?

I'm not going to go read some opinions of people who don't understand what they're talking about and buy into the entire conspiracy, but there are significant things that the public doesn't understand.

The facts are:

-These elements were present at the WTCs on 911
-If the scenario was simply airplanes attacking the buildings, then you would not find these elements, and in the ratios that they were in
-These same elements were also found in the building that was not attacked, and the cores holding up the building were cut in the same fashion as the other buildings
-The chemical signature of the aggregate combination of these elements are overwhelmingly similar to commercial thermite, analyzed through several analytical methods
-The color of the smoke agrees with the physical color of thermite when reacted to completion (this doesn't necessarily mean it was thermite, but the color does agree with how it burns)
-The FEMA sponsored building study in 2002 reveals sulfidation and oxidation (through simple analytical techniques)
-Scanning Electron Microscopy with X-Ray Microanalysis inarguably identifies all of these elements in WTC samples as well


Again, I am not suggesting that our government implemented or facilitated these attacks. For all we know, the attackers could have inserted these chemicals in the WTC's beforehand. Science is a universal language, and I'm sure explosives and their chemistry are a constant focus of these groups.

However, it doesn't make sense that these inarguable scientific FACTS are ignored and refuted. Why is there such a measure against revealing the truth?

Obviously we don't know the entirety of the story.

Originally posted by Moneer189
In my opinion, a discussion includes fact-based claims.

When samples of the hardened metals from the WTC were taken in for analysis by private researchers, the "chemical signature" of the materials were equivalent to the chemical signature of commercial thermite.

Furthermore, chemical quantitative analysis of the metal reveals Fe, Al, S, K, Mn. Iron, Aluminum, Sulfur, and components of Potassium Permanganate.

-Scanning Electron Microscopy with X-Ray Microanalysis inarguably identifies all of these elements in WTC samples as well

However, it doesn't make sense that these inarguable scientific FACTS are ignored and refuted. Why is there such a measure against revealing the truth?

EDAX analyses identifies elements, not compounds. Mn is found in paint dryers and steel. S is there in tons as CaSO4. Fe was most of the building superstructure. Al was the cladding. K is a common ion.

The facts are not ignored. Erroneous interpretations are refuted. Sloppy laboratory work by Jones, et al., has caused many to state that thermite has been proved. It hasn't.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Moneer189
In my opinion, a discussion includes fact-based claims.

When samples of the hardened metals from the WTC were taken in for analysis by private researchers, the "chemical signature" of the materials were equivalent to the chemical signature of commercial thermite.

Furthermore, chemical quantitative analysis of the metal reveals Fe, Al, S, K, Mn. Iron, Aluminum, Sulfur, and components of Potassium Permanganate.

-Scanning Electron Microscopy with X-Ray Microanalysis inarguably identifies all of these elements in WTC samples as well

However, it doesn't make sense that these inarguable scientific FACTS are ignored and refuted. Why is there such a measure against revealing the truth?

EDAX analyses identifies elements, not compounds. Mn is found in paint dryers and steel. S is there in tons as CaSO4. Fe was most of the building superstructure. Al was the cladding. K is a common ion.

The facts are not ignored. Erroneous interpretations are refuted. Sloppy laboratory work by Jones, et al., has caused many to state that thermite has been proved. It hasn't.

I can't say that Jones's work is the best scientific research that has been done, and you're right that that specific analyses of EDAX is elemental in nature.

However, this method can quantify amounts of the elements, and is nonintrusive in terms of the integrity of the compound. It can be localized to different areas of a sample, as it simply is a beam. Therefore this does reveal the elements, as well as the relative concentrations.

Maybe I should take another approach, because you seem to know what you're talking about. Let's take a look at some other types of samples.

Thermitic reactions from red/gray chips through differential scanning calorimetry, SEM/X-Ray, BSE Imaging have revealed much of what happened at WTC.


Focusing the beam on a silicon-rich region of these chips (after solvent treatment) reveals only silicon and oxygen (that is, aluminum and silicon are not bound chemically in these samples). Furthermore, in a region with a high concentration of aluminum in other samples, aluminum concentration significantly exceeded the oxygen concentration (2-4:1 ratios). Therefore, some of the aluminum may be oxidized but there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum (meaning some aluminum in samples must exist in elemental form).
Given the very high surface area/volume ratio of these samples, and the fact that aluminum particles were covered with a layer of aluminum oxide, regardless of size, it makes sense that a significant oxygen content could and should be found within the aluminum.

Yet, oxygen was found a significant number of times in high concentration with Fe, even though samples were soaked with MEK solvent. Using quantification techniques of XEDS results and oxygen fractions to trace elements, there is about a 2:3 Fe to Oxygen Ratio, telling us that Iron Oxide is present (reactants, not products, in a thermite reaction).

This tells us that thermite MAY be present, but only calorimetric tests can reveal its type of reaction. If it doesn't react, then obviously this is not thermite.

Using a scanning calorimeter, it was shown that samples ignited near 400 centrigrade at measurable kiloujoule releases (can be found through integration of DSC peaks). More evidence for thermite. These samples obviously were pre-ignition samples.

In post-ignition samples iron rich spheroids were observed. The iron contents of post-calorimetric samples revealed substantial elemental iron, at about a 2-4:1 ratio.

This tells us that not only did the reaction occur at the previous stated temperature, but (along with aluminum analysis) there was an oxidation/reduction reaction characteristic of thermite.

Furthermore, the observations show substantial amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen mixed together in a very fine way. The calorimetry test shows vigorous reaction at a temperature below the oxidation point of ultra fine aluminum in air, similar to nano-thermite that was synthesized at Lawrence Livermore Lab.

During ignition and comparison of commercially available macro-thermite, spheres and spheroids were formed
extremely similar to sample data. The analysis of commercial thermite (elemental/stoichiometric/quantitations/microscopy) reveals such striking similarities that there can only be one conclusion, and that is that the samples are undoubtedly thermite.

The only discrepancy is that DSC comparisons between Macro-grade commercial thermite and sample reveals a 2 to 1 ratio of temperature needed to ignite the reaction.

According to several well documented researchers and scientists, nano-thermite has about 1/2 the temperature initiation of macro-thermite.

The rest of this post is now also opinionated. Everything else has been fact.

I see where you would think that just because these elements can be present in the forms you say they are (which I won't even argue). Let's say that's true.


For those elements from your sources to come together in such a way as to oxidize/reduce each other, and in nearly the same exact chemical composition/makeup/relative quantity of commercial-grade thermite, with high surface area/volume ratios, in the presence of fine grade aluminum, to have been separated from their original forms and combined, to be found in strikingly similar anatomies from samples coming from several different areas, to be naturally made fine grade to a point that can ignite at 400 centrigrade, is almost as possible as winning the lottery for for 30 days, consecutively.


The results are clear. It was thermite, and very likely to be a nano-form of thermite.

I understand that you have your reasons and biases, as we all do.

Again, I'm not saying that the government was involved, whatsoever.

Again, we don't know the full story.

I have no doubt in my mind that thermite was involved. It's clear and definitive.

What is interesting, also, is the fact that these elements were found in less than 100nm structured parts. However the thermite got there, it must have been made through technology that is ahead of our time.

What's also interesting is that commercial grade thermite was probably not even used. It was most-likely (and this can't be 100% verified because of the fact that nobody can get nano-grade thermite) nano-thermite based on how "pure" and fine these samples were in terms of their elemental analyses.

Again, it is clear that thermite was used.

reply to post by Moneer189


Note the photos of the red chips after the DSC. They are still iron oxide red which means that any thermitic reaction self extinguished or the reaction wasn't thermitic to begin with. Note also that the Jones team ran the DSC in air. The exotherm is likely organic binder in red paint combusting, as two of the four chips produced more energy per gram than thermite or any combination of thermite and high explosive shown in the paper.

Jones wanted thermite to be there and so he tried to make the analyses show what he wanted. Alas, he provided some real data and showed that thermite was not there, at all.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Moneer189

 

Note the photos of the red chips after the DSC. They are still iron oxide red which means that any thermitic reaction self extinguished or the reaction wasn't thermitic to begin with. Note also that the Jones team ran the DSC in air. The exotherm is likely organic binder in red paint combusting, as two of the four chips produced more energy per gram than thermite or any combination of thermite and high explosive shown in the paper.

Jones wanted thermite to be there and so he tried to make the analyses show what he wanted. Alas, he provided some real data and showed that thermite was not there, at all.

edit on 4/18/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

These are very reasonable arguments, however there are several flaws. As stated, it is very clear that an oxidation reduction reaction occurred during calorimetry, as measured by solvent and ratio analysis, which is surely revealing a thermitic reaction.

furthermore, commercial thermite revealed nearly identical chemical signatures and post ignition iron concentrated sphere cores.

Also, remaining iron oxide simply makes sense, as it is not the limiting Reagant. Ratios of elements reveal clear interactions.

The fact that more energy was created gives evidence to the fact of a purer form of thermite, although it sure is possible that organic reactions occurred as well. because of the nature of dsc, flame ignition was also used and revealed very similar results.

The overwhelming similarities of commercial thermite analysis are really undeniable.

Originally posted by Moneer189

These are very reasonable arguments, however there are several flaws. As stated, it is very clear that an oxidation reduction reaction occurred during calorimetry, as measured by solvent and ratio analysis, which is surely revealing a thermitic reaction.

furthermore, commercial thermite revealed nearly identical chemical signatures and post ignition iron concentrated sphere cores.

Also, remaining iron oxide simply makes sense, as it is not the limiting Reagant. Ratios of elements reveal clear interactions.

The fact that more energy was created gives evidence to the fact of a purer form of thermite, although it sure is possible that organic reactions occurred as well. because of the nature of dsc, flame ignition was also used and revealed very similar results.

The overwhelming similarities of commercial thermite analysis are really undeniable.

The oxidation reduction reaction is called combustion, as Jones errantly ran the DSC in a stream of air and invalidated his results. Note figure 30 in his paper. As you can see, the energies of chips 3 and 4 are far greater than thermite or any combination of thermite and the high explosives shown.

"The fact that more energy was created gives evidence to the fact of a purer form of thermite..." is completely incorrrect. The energy limit is based on a stoichiometric mixture of any size particles. If it were a 'purer form' it would not have self extinguished. Given its failure to react, it would appear that Jones found red paint.

reply to post by pteridine

Jones wanted thermite to be there and so he tried to make the analyses show what he wanted. Alas, he provided some real data and showed that thermite was not there, at all.

Perhaps a remedial reading course would benefit you. You obviously are unable to read and understand Jones’ paper [color=gold]”Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.”


So far, no one has been able to debunk Jones’ science, so now some make up lies attempting to deceive ATS readers. In fact, I have not heard of anyone other than Jones having 911 WTC dust samples in their possession.

Originally posted by pteridine
The oxidation reduction reaction is called combustion, as Jones errantly ran the DSC in a stream of air and invalidated his results.

It's not "called combustion" simply because oxygen was present. Thermite can react in the presence of oxygen too, in case you didn't know, but I'm sure you do.

You jump to illogical conclusions that anyone can see. This is one of them. Other evidence was mentioned, all pointing to it being thermite, and you take the presence of air and therefore conclude it must have been combustion. Again, the logical errors are not hard to pick out of your posts.

I'm not going to pretend to know as much about chemistry as Moneer, but your problem is that I do know what a logical fallacy is, and you are posting them. I've also seen how when you have no more wiggle-room in your arguments you just switch topics completely. There really is no use even talking to you, but I'm sure Moneer hasn't figured this out yet. Poor guy.

reply to post by bsbray11


Yes, thermite can react in the presence of oxygen. But because oxygen was present, the DSC data cannot prove thermite. The excess energy says that combustion was certainly present and thermite could have been present. Examination of figure 26 shows a residue after DSC that still contains iron oxide, meaning that some, if not all of the iron oxide did not react. If some of the iron oxide did not react then the chips may not be as "highly engineered" as claimed. Maybe they are merely lowly engineered or not thermite at all.
Then we consider the quantities; 10 to 100 tons was claimed by Jones. So we have 10 to 100 tons of unreacted material that is in thin layers like paint that is the same color as the paint covering the steel structure. The thin layers, if thermite, would not really do anything to the metal that they were on. When confronted with this, Jones said that maybe the chips were electric match ignitors for other explosives. So now there were 10 to 100 tons of unlit electric match material for explosives of some kind. This would imply that many more tons of explosives never went off or the plotters decided that they wanted to be caught and just added tons of unnecessary material to be discovered.
All Jones has to do to show thermite is to run the DSC under argon and show exotherms. This will prove the possibility of thermite and allow him to do the next experiments to show what caused the exotherms. Alternatively, he could send the chips out for XRD and see if Al metal were present or if the Al were part of an aluminosilicate clay filler, common in paint. He has known about this for two years and said that he had another paper in preparation that corrected the inadequacies of the Bentham paper. Until that is published, he cannot claim thermite.

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, thermite can react in the presence of oxygen. But because oxygen was present, the DSC data cannot prove thermite.

That's quite a different statement than,

Originally posted by pteridine
The oxidation reduction reaction is called combustion, as Jones errantly ran the DSC in a stream of air and invalidated his results.

You see where you get caught up in yourself?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, thermite can react in the presence of oxygen. But because oxygen was present, the DSC data cannot prove thermite.

That's quite a different statement than,

Originally posted by pteridine
The oxidation reduction reaction is called combustion, as Jones errantly ran the DSC in a stream of air and invalidated his results.

You see where you get caught up in yourself?

The certain redox reaction is combustion. This means that he masked any other reaction that might be occurring. His desired result was to find thermite [hardly the scientfic method] and his errant operation of the DSC in an air stream vice N2 or Ar doesn't allow him to claim thermite.