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

[Wirey]

Prove it.

I'm not the one making an outrageous claim, am I? Go tell the Russians and we'll all see you on the news. Otherwise, you're another deluded windbag who won't back up what he says. The thermite in the tower rubble is form grounding welds, nothing more. Anyone who says different is either crazy, stupid, or a liar. Want to show me up? Russian Embassy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here are 42 documented false-flag attacks, several of which were perpetrated by the US: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html

Then why in the hell is 9/11 such a secret? Why hasn't it been on Wikileaks yet?

So you still can't identify any error in the methodologies and conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper?

I'm not reciting everything from earlier in the thread. It was provided, and this is all you ever reply with.
Everything you offer you, this is you response.

 

[Nous]

I'm not the one making an outrageous claim, am I?

Yes, your claims and ideas that thermite welding is used in the construction of buildings and that thermite welding somehow creates red/gray multilayered chips of unreacted nanothermite that are just hanging around in buildings are all outrageously, insanely ignorant. That's why you cannot find a speck of support to substantiate any one of those claims.

 

[Nous]

Then why in the hell is 9/11 such a secret?

9/11 is not a secret.

So you still can't identify any error in the methodologies and conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper.

It was provided.

Just give us the post number, to show that you're not lying.

If you actually had identified an error in the methodologies or conclusion of the Harrit et al. paper, you'd be happy to repeat so that others could be informed of this error. Right?

 

[Wirey]

Yes, your claims and ideas that thermite welding is used in the construction of buildings and that thermite welding somehow creates red/gray multilayered chips of unreacted nanothermite that are just hanging around in buildings are all outrageously, insanely ignorant. That's why you cannot find a speck of support to substantiate any one of those claims.

I notice you remove all traces of me asking you to prove your claims from my quotes. Russian Embassy ring a bell? Are you really so terrified of putting your name on the thing you profess to believe? There's a name for that, you know. It rhymes with "mowardice". I stand firmly behind the things I know to be true. I recommend it.

 

[Nous]

I notice you remove all traces of me asking you to prove your claims from my quotes.

You haven't asked me to prove any claim. Be sure to quote it.

I stand firmly behind the things I know to be true.

None of the idiocy about thermite welding being used in construction of buildings, and about it creating red/gray multilayered chips of unreacted nanothermite which are just hanging around in buildings is true.

 

[Wirey]

You haven't asked me to prove any claim. Be sure to quote it.

No, I said if you believe and have proof, show the Russians. I've explained why repeatedly. And again, you avoid it because you know what you say is a lie. It would be sad if you were at least honest enough to just slink off, but you try to selectively choose information so you can continue to disseminate a lie. What the hell is that all about? If you're right, the Russians will prove it for you. But we both know how that will end, don't we? So you continue to obfuscate.

Thermite residue is from grounding says science. Crazy says........

 

[Shadow Wolf]

9/11 is not a secret.

But there is no evidence to suggest it was some secret government plan, because we have crystal clear evidence for so many of them, but nothing for 9/11. People talk, but no one's talked. Paper's have been found in the past, but Wiki-leaks in the digital age of making information far more easier to obtain and distribute, has nothing about it. Manning and Snowden found evidence of illegal spying, but nothing else.

 

[Nous]

No, I said if you believe and have proof, show the Russians.

If I believe what and have proof of what, show the Russians what?

Are you not able to write a coherent sentence?

So, again, you haven't not been able to show any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper. And you haven't been able to substantiate any of the lunacy about thermite welding being used in construction of buildings, creating red/gray chips of unreacted nanothermite which is just hanging around in buildings. Right?

 

[Nous]

But there is no evidence to suggest it was some secret government plan, because we have crystal clear evidence for so many of them, but nothing for 9/11.

When you become able to substantiate your "no evidence" claims, be sure to provide the links.

You still haven't haven't been able to show any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper. Right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When you become able to substantiate your "no evidence" claims, be sure to provide the links.

"No evidence" obviously isn't a position that needs to provide evidence. It isn't making a claim.

You still haven't haven't been able to show any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper. Right?

Right? Wrong! We did show these errors, we did provide sources for our claims, but you ignored them.

 

[Nous]

"No evidence" obviously isn't a position that needs to provide evidence. It isn't making a claim.

So, in other words, you're just babbling nonsense when you claim that there is "no evidence" for something?

We did show these errors, we did provide sources for our claims

Prove it. Here are the findings and conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small- scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:

1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.

2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.

3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.

4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.

5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.

6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.

7. 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.

8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].

10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.​

http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, in other words, you're just babbling nonsense when you claim that there is "no evidence" for something?

It's not nonsense. It's called "burden of proof." You make a claim, and it is solely on you to provide the evidence. It isn't the job of everybody else to disprove it because you have to prove it, so that it can be disproven if there are errors in the evidence.

Prove it. Here are the findings and conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper:

Why am I going to prove something when all you have to do is start at page 1 of this thread and read back over it? It's been provided, it's been given, but yet you act as if it hasn't.

 

[Nous]

It's not nonsense. It's called "burden of proof." You make a claim, and it is solely on you to provide the evidence.

So what evidence are you going to provide to prove the truth of your claim that there is no evidence that anyone but al Qaeda conspired in the events of 9/11?

Why am I going to prove something when all you have to do is start at page 1 of this thread and read back over it? It's been provided, it's been given, but yet you act as if it hasn't.

I have no problem repeating the facts I've noted and substantiated here, such as the fact (a) that you obviously haven't identified any error in the methodologies and conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper;

(b) that you haven't been able to show that it's physically possible for the small upper portion of a stable building to suddenly fall upon the larger lower portion and crush the lower portion, then crush itself;

(c) that you haven't been able to show that it's physically possible for a building to drop straight down due to asymmetrical structural damage and random office fires.

I am unashamed to point out the fact that 2500 architects and engineers agree on the following distinguishing features of controlled demolition vs. gravitational induced collapse due to fires:

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse
2. Sounds of explosions
3. Symmetrical structural failure
4. Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance
5. Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
7. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
8. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
3. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed



As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations

1. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
2. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
3. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed​

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html