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

[Shadow Wolf]

Building fires do not cause the formation of red/gray chips of active thermitic material consisting of ntimately mixed nanoparticles and exhibiting a narrower, more energetic exotherm than reference super-thermite. Nothing could be more ridiculous.

You claimed there was molten metal. If that were the case, the metals reached a much high temperature than what is needed for the oxidation process, which you would have known had you read the sources presented to you.

The reason that NIST repudiated the "pancaking" hypothesis is because all the evidence contradicted it.

We saw it happen. It's one video everywhere.

The reason that you are unable to specify any evidence by which to conclude the official story for the buildings completely collapsing at free-fall or near-free speed due to hydrocarbon fires is because that story is utterly nonsensical and false. All of the evidence directly contradicts such a story.

All you did was repeat yourself when asked a yes/no question.

False. Just because steel is heated enough to "glow" some color does not mean it has reached melting temperature. I think most middle school students learn such stuff.

Except you claimed it did melt.

False. All three WTC buildings collapsed symmetrically; none fell to one side.

Look at the picture above. It was not symmetrical. And the top of one of the towers did factually start to slide to the side if you watch the videos.

The molten steel is well documented: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

So were the fires not hot enough to cause the metals to glow, was it not hot enough to cause oxidation, or was it hot enough to melt the metals?
And no, there fires simply were not hot enough to melt it. And if you look at the pictures, there is no way these hunks of metal are molten.

 

[Curious George]

Are you unable to follow Formula A and perform those calculations?

For the Sample 1 microsphere (Fig. 3), with atomic percents O (63), Si (14), Fe (11), Al (9), K (1), Mg (0.4), Na (0.4), Ni (0.3) and S (0.2), I get weight percents of 26.35 Fe, 43.23 O, and 16.86 Si.

For the Sample 2 microsphere (Fig. 5), with atomic percents O (60 ± 2), Fe (39 ± 2.5), Mn (0.7), Si (0.4), I get weight percents of : ~68.33 Fe, ~30.11 O, and 0.35 Si. Note that there was no Al peak for this sphere.

And for the largest microsphere (Fig. 4), with atomic percents Fe (65), O (18), Al (11), S (4), Cu (0.6), Mn (0.6), Ni (0.4), my calculations yield weight percents of: 81.8 Fe, and 6.48 O. There was no Si peak in this microsphere.

Thus, these microspheres are quite different in their elemental composition than fly ash. Unlike fly ash, these microspheres in the WTC dust are truly "iron-rich".

Ok, now I understand what you were trying to say. Why on earth would you think that a microsphere found in fly ash, would have the same chemical composition of fly ash. That doesn't make sense. So, we are back to the realization that these microspheres likely came from fly ash.

 

[Nous]

Building fires do not cause the formation of red/gray chips of active thermitic material consisting of ntimately mixed nanoparticles and exhibiting a narrower, more energetic exotherm than reference super-thermite. Nothing could be more ridiculous.

You claimed there was molten metal.

There was molten metal--molten steel or iron, in fact--produced in the destruction of the WTC buildings on 9/11, a fact that is unaccounted for by the temperatures that open-air hydrocarbon fires reach. Molten steel--or some process, such as the thermitic reaction, that produces molten iron--is the only possible way that the iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust, by three independent researchers, could have been formed.

In post #108, you quoted my question and challenge in #105: "What was the error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper that you identified? Show us that you're not lying," which was my response to your claim that you had shown some error in the methodology or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper. And you responded in #108 "I'm lying about firescale?" That is why I pointed out that building fires do not produce red/gray chips such as Harrit et al. examined, characterized and found to be unreacted nano-thermitic material.

The reason that NIST repudiated the "pancaking" hypothesis is because all the evidence contradicted it.

We saw it happen.

If you believe you saw floors pancaking one on top of one another, it was in your own hallucinations. NIST repudiated that hypothesis for the reasons I noted--all the evidence contradicts it.

All you did was repeat yourself when asked a yes/no question.

Obviously you still can't cite any evidence by which to conclude that the WTC buildings collapsed symmetrically, at free-fall or near-free-fall speed, due to scattered hydrocarbon fires and asymmetrical structural damage.

Look at the picture above. It was not symmetrical.

I have no idea what picture you're talking about. None of the buildings fell to one side (toppled over). All fell symmetrically. Here is FEMA's diagram of the debris fields of the Twin Towers:

Note the symmetry of the debris fields.

And no, there fires simply were not hot enough to melt it. And if you look at the pictures, there is no way these hunks of metal are molten.

Video of molten metal--which is not aluminum--dripping from South Tower shortly before collapse:

Firefighter testimony and more evidence of molten iron/steel:

 

[Nous]

Ok, now I understand what you were trying to say. Why on earth would you think that a microsphere found in fly ash, would have the same chemical composition of fly ash.

I don't have a clue as to what your gibberish is supposed to mean. It seems you might be unaware that fly ash consists of microspheres.

You indicated above (#108) that fly ash could be the source of the iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust. Fly ash is not the source of the microspheres found in the WTC dust, due to the fact that fly ash and the iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust have quite different elemental compositions.

 

[Curious George]

I don't have a clue as to what your gibberish is supposed to mean. It seems you might be unaware that fly ash consists of microspheres.

You indicated above (#108) that fly ash could be the source of the iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust. Fly ash is not the source of the microspheres found in the WTC dust, due to the fact that fly ash and the iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust have quite different elemental compositions.

Lol, this is where you are mistaken. You assume they do not based on the composition of fly ash in general. A microsphere found in fly ash wouldn't need to have the same chemical composition as fly ash.

 

[Nous]

You assume they do not based on the composition of fly ash in general.

Show us that it's possible for fly ash to have a chemical composition of more than 81 wt% Fe and no Si whatsoever.

Do you know where fly ash comes from?

 

[Curious George]

Show us that it's possible for fly ash to have a chemical composition of more than 81 wt% Fe and no Si whatsoever.

Do you know where fly ash comes from?

Why, show me that it is not possible.

Yes it comes from the combustion of pulverized coal which creates temperatures well in range of iron's melting point. So, why is it impossible for a microsphere that is iron rich to be in it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Video of molten metal--which is not aluminum--dripping from South Tower shortly before collapse:

Even your own precious NIST said it was aluminum.

 

[Nous]

Why, show me that it is not possible.

Gladly. (Notice that I am unafraid of assimilating information on the topic here.)

Fly ash from bituminous coal is 20-60% SiO2, 5-35% AlO3, 10-40% Fe2O3, and 1-12% CaO.
From Subittuminous coal: 40-60% SiO2, 20-30% AlO3, 4-10% Fe2O3, and 5-30% CaO.
From Lignite: 15-45% SiO2, 20-25% Al2O3, 4-15% Fe2O3, and 15-40% CaO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Chemical_composition_and_classification

 

[Nous]

Even your own precious NIST said it was aluminum.

My bolding:

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color [of the metal dripping from the South Tower] implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000°C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650°C and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures. (As some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in the video clip above, the white-hot interior is evidently exposed as the metal "splashes".) Also, the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground (right photograph) further rules out aluminum, and suggests a mid-flight thermite reaction (typical of thermite).

[. . .]

The absence of dark smoke trailing behind the falling liquid material indicated it was not fuel-soaked debris. Indeed, white ash is seen in these videos trailing away from the falling liquid material. Falling molten steel would not produce such a white ash, whereas thermites produce a white aluminum-oxide ash which indeed trails away from the falling molten metal generated in the reaction, corresponding to the observations.​

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

 

[Nous]

Just to note: No one has pointed out any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper that found the red/gray chips to consist of unreacted thermitic material made of nano-particles and exhibiting an exotherm narrower and more energetic than reference nano-thermite.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just to note: No one has pointed out any error in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper that found the red/gray chips to consist of unreacted thermitic material made of nano-particles and exhibiting an exotherm narrower and more energetic than reference nano-thermite.

We have been: You just haven't been paying attention.

 

[Nous]

We have been: You just haven't been paying attention.

Show us that you're not lying. Specify the error in the methodology or conclusion that you or someone else has identified in the Harrit et al. paper.

 

[Curious George]

Gladly. (Notice that I am unafraid of assimilating information on the topic here.)

Fly ash from bituminous coal is 20-60% SiO2, 5-35% AlO3, 10-40% Fe2O3, and 1-12% CaO.
From Subittuminous coal: 40-60% SiO2, 20-30% AlO3, 4-10% Fe2O3, and 5-30% CaO.
From Lignite: 15-45% SiO2, 20-25% Al2O3, 4-15% Fe2O3, and 15-40% CaO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Chemical_composition_and_classification

That unfortunately doesn't prove anything. That is a range of composition by composition that discusses fly ash as a whole not individual microspheres that might be found in fly ash.

 

[Nous]

That unfortunately doesn't prove anything. That is a range of composition by composition that discusses fly ash as a whole not individual microspheres that might be found in fly ash.

You're confused.

There is no form of fly ash that is void of Si. And there is no form of fly ash that consists of 80% Fe.

 

[Curious George]

You're confused.

There is no form of fly ash that is void of Si. And there is no form of fly ash that consists of 80% Fe.

No, no you are confused. That there is no form of fly ash that is void of Si or 80% Fe, does not mean there is not a microsphere in fly ash that is both void if silicon and 80% iron.

 

[Nous]

No, no you are confused. That there is no form of fly ash that is void of Si or 80% Fe, does not mean there is not a microsphere in fly ash that is both void if silicon and 80% iron.

Even if by some weird accident, "a microsphere of fly ash that is both void of silicon and 80% iron" had been produced in a coal-burning power plant, there is basically zero chance that it would have been found in the handfuls of dust examined by RJ Lee Group, USGS and Jones et al. USGS noted a microsphere is consisting of only iron and oxygen. To believe that such a microsphere was produced by coal-burning and that in the tons of dust USGS just happened to pick up the cupful that contained it is utterly absurd.

If you were to inform yourself of the research on the WTC dust already linked to here, you would find that the report by RJ Lee Group noted the presence of “vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components” in addition to the iron-rich microspheres, and stated that “[t]hese types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust.” http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

There were both fly ash spherules and, chemically distinct from these, iron spherules found in the WTC dust.

The billions of of iron-rich microspheres that were in the WTC dust prove the existence of temperatures much higher than those produced by hydrocarbon fires. There is ample other evidence of such high temperatures:

High Temperatures, Persistent Heat & 'Molten Steel' at WTC Site Contradict Official Story

Extremely high temperatures were evident before and during the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and at Ground Zero. Seven minutes before the destruction of the South Tower, a flow of molten metal appeared, accompanied by several smaller flows, as documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The material’s glowing color showed that its temperature was close to “white hot” at the very beginning of the flow and “yellow-orange” further down. Iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust are additional proof of temperatures above the melting point of iron. Pyroclastic-like, rapidly expanding dust clouds after the destruction of the Towers can also be explained only by the expansion of hot gases.

The high-temperature phenomena at Ground Zero are documented by various sources:

Bechtel engineers, responsible for safety at Ground Zero, wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers: “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.”

The fact that high-temperature phenomena were an important issue at Ground Zero is underscored by the large number of thermal images acquired: images by SPOT, MTI, AVIRIS/NASA, "Twin Otter"/U.S. Army, and at least 25 images by EarthData, taken between Sept. 16 and Oct. 25. In addition, temperature measurements by helicopter were taken each day, and the firefighters used onsite sensors too.

Many witnesses, including rescue personnel and firefighters working on the piles, described the phenomenon of “molten steel.” Terms used in witness statements are, for example, “molten steel,” beams “dripping from molten steel,” “molten steel … like you’re in a foundry. Like lava, from a volcano.” A photograph taken on September 27 by a Ground Zero worker shows an excavating machine lifting debris from the WTC wreckage dripping yellow/orange molten metal.

WTC clean-up workers and 9/11 artifacts architect Bart Voorsanger, in the PBS video “Relics from the Rubble,” described what must have been several tons of “fused element of steel ... molten steel and concrete and all of these things …all fused by the heat,” weighing several tons each. These foreign objects came to be known as “meteorites.”

[. . .]

FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.

The extremely high temperatures contradict the official story. Office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° F). This was even acknowledged by NIST’s Co-Project Leader, John Gross . . .​

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...eel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html

Continue reading.

 

[Curious George]

Even if by some weird accident, "a microsphere of fly ash that is both void of silicon and 80% iron" had been produced in a coal-burning power plant, there is basically zero chance that it would have been found in the handfuls of dust examined by RJ Lee Group, USGS and Jones et al. USGS noted a microsphere is consisting of only iron and oxygen. To believe that such a microsphere was produced by coal-burning and that in the tons of dust USGS just happened to pick up the cupful that contained it is utterly absurd.

If you were to inform yourself of the research on the WTC dust already linked to here, you would find that the report by RJ Lee Group noted the presence of “vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components” in addition to the iron-rich microspheres, and stated that “[t]hese types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust.” http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

There were both fly ash spherules and, chemically distinct from these, iron spherules found in the WTC dust.

The billions of of iron-rich microspheres that were in the WTC dust prove the existence of temperatures much higher than those produced by hydrocarbon fires. There is ample other evidence of such high temperatures:

High Temperatures, Persistent Heat & 'Molten Steel' at WTC Site Contradict Official Story

Extremely high temperatures were evident before and during the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and at Ground Zero. Seven minutes before the destruction of the South Tower, a flow of molten metal appeared, accompanied by several smaller flows, as documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The material’s glowing color showed that its temperature was close to “white hot” at the very beginning of the flow and “yellow-orange” further down. Iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust are additional proof of temperatures above the melting point of iron. Pyroclastic-like, rapidly expanding dust clouds after the destruction of the Towers can also be explained only by the expansion of hot gases.

The high-temperature phenomena at Ground Zero are documented by various sources:

Bechtel engineers, responsible for safety at Ground Zero, wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers: “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.”

The fact that high-temperature phenomena were an important issue at Ground Zero is underscored by the large number of thermal images acquired: images by SPOT, MTI, AVIRIS/NASA, "Twin Otter"/U.S. Army, and at least 25 images by EarthData, taken between Sept. 16 and Oct. 25. In addition, temperature measurements by helicopter were taken each day, and the firefighters used onsite sensors too.

Many witnesses, including rescue personnel and firefighters working on the piles, described the phenomenon of “molten steel.” Terms used in witness statements are, for example, “molten steel,” beams “dripping from molten steel,” “molten steel … like you’re in a foundry. Like lava, from a volcano.” A photograph taken on September 27 by a Ground Zero worker shows an excavating machine lifting debris from the WTC wreckage dripping yellow/orange molten metal.

WTC clean-up workers and 9/11 artifacts architect Bart Voorsanger, in the PBS video “Relics from the Rubble,” described what must have been several tons of “fused element of steel ... molten steel and concrete and all of these things …all fused by the heat,” weighing several tons each. These foreign objects came to be known as “meteorites.”

[. . .]

FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.

The extremely high temperatures contradict the official story. Office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° F). This was even acknowledged by NIST’s Co-Project Leader, John Gross . . .​

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...eel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html

Continue reading.

Ok. As far as the microspheres, I am pleased that you acknowledge it is a possibility, however remote you might find such a possibility. Moreover, I hope you can see the qualifiers in the report you are quoting as well.

However, it seems to me you are moving the topic from the "microspheres" to other evidence that is indicative of higher temperature readings than the average estimates. That is fine. Those temperatures can be accounted for by other mundane occurrences that do not involve invoking conspiracy theories. Namely, that pockets of gas from either combustible materials already in the wtc, or a product of the burning-such as the burning of pvc pipe- could account for pockets of higher temperatures than the average estimates.


On the temperature analysis though, how many iron rich microspheres would we expect to find from a nano thermite explosion?

You seem quite critical of rationalizing what happened based on the face of the story. But, are you equally critical of rationalizing what happened on the face of the conspiracy theories?

I am certainly not the person who is going to say that this or that happened or did not happen without study. (And study does not include latching on to one paper's findings in hopes of validating a giant conspiracy). However, the truth is much more likely closer to the reported story here than giant government conspiracy. You are fighting an uphill battle and trying to make extraordinary claims. The veracity or falsity of these claims will hopefully come to light one day. But, if you are going to try to make an argument for some mass conspiracy, then you will need to have more than concepts that can easily be countered by mundane explanations.

Perhaps, you should ask yourself why you are so eager to believe some sinister conspiracy.

 

[Nous]

Ok. As far as the microspheres, I am pleased that you acknowledge it is a possibility, however remote you might find such a possibility.

So your religion about the events of 9/11 depends a series of occurrences that have an infinitesimal probability of happening--something that you can't explain logically: the production of billions of iron-rich microspheres being created by some unknown freak accident and making their way into the concrete of the WTC buildings.

What a stupid religion you have.

However, it seems to me you are moving the topic from the "microspheres" to other evidence that is indicative of higher temperature readings than the average estimates. That is fine. Those temperatures can be accounted for by other mundane occurrences

Go right ahead.

 

[Curious George]

So your religion about the events of 9/11 depends a series of occurrences that have an infinitesimal probability of happening--something that you can't explain logically: the production of billions of iron-rich microspheres being created by some unknown freak accident and making their way into the concrete of the WTC buildings.

What a stupid religion you have.

Go right ahead.

Lol, no I don't have a religion about 9/11, that you see 9/11 thoughts as a religion, speaks volumes though.

I look at the events and know that something happened. I know that planes crashed, I know that there was a fire, I know that the buildings collapsed. What I don't know is that in addition to the planes and the fire is what you propose with meager evidence.