Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
more info on 911
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 78, 79, 80  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tangent7Offline
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Total posts: 79
PostPosted: 05-04-2009 13:02    Post subject: more info on 911 Reply with quote

Not sure what exactly to say about this, but here it is:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dingo667Offline
I'm strange...but true
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Total posts: 2000
Location: Deep in the Fens, UK
Age: 47
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 05-04-2009 19:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just reading the article didn't really make me understand, but when I went to the site the abstract to the paper was printed, it made more sense:


http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Abstract


We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite
Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.



NIST reacted with:

"We get a lot of calls from people who have heard these theories," NIST spokesman Michael Newman told Newsday. "But we conducted what was probably the most complex investigation of a building collapse in history."


"We based our conclusion on the talents of the world's best engineers and scientists, state of the art computer models and 236 pieces of steel recovered from the site," reads the NIST FAQ.


Yeah, but these new scientists didn't need computer models, nor steel to reach their conclusions whilst NIST didn't use debris dust. It is actually a new finding, so why the useless comment?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Timble2Offline
Imaginary person
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Total posts: 7132
Location: Practically in Narnia
Age: 59
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 05-04-2009 19:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thermite is iron oxide and aluminium. There was a lot of melted aluminium around, the frame of the building was steel. Are these actually superthermite or a condensate from fine sprays of aluminium and iron oxide from the structure?
Back to top
View user's profile 
jimv1Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Total posts: 3235
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 05-04-2009 20:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timble2 wrote:
Thermite is iron oxide and aluminium. There was a lot of melted aluminium around, the frame of the building was steel. Are these actually superthermite or a condensate from fine sprays of aluminium and iron oxide from the structure?


How is steel aluminium? Explain the difference please?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Quake42Offline
Warrior Princess
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Total posts: 5818
Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 05-04-2009 21:14    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

How is steel aluminium? Explain the difference please?


I didn't read Timble's comment as stating that aluminium is steel - rather that there was steel and aluminium around. Aluminium is used in window frames etc.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Timble2Offline
Imaginary person
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Total posts: 7132
Location: Practically in Narnia
Age: 59
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 05-04-2009 21:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quake42 wrote:
Quote:

How is steel aluminium? Explain the difference please?


I didn't read Timble's comment as stating that aluminium is steel - rather that there was steel and aluminium around. Aluminium is used in window frames etc.


And aircraft of course.
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 09-04-2009 11:59    Post subject: Reply with quote

Er, yeah, what Timble said. It's not surprising they found aluminium and steel!

This thermite claim is utterly ridiculous anyway. The amount of thermite you'd have needed to bring down a building this size would have been immense. How was it not noticed? Who produced it? Who bought it into the building? Which demolition experts did they get to plan this? Where are the hundreds of people who would have been involved?

No building even close to the size of the WTC towers has ever been demolished with explosives, it would have been an unprecedented feat. I'd also question how exactly the thermite would have been used. It's not like conventional explosive, you can't place it like a shaped charge. A thermite reaction does not burn sideways!

I also urge anyone who actually believes this nonsense to engage their brain for a second and consider one very simple question: why?

Why, having organised terrorists to fly into a building, would the NWO/government/lizard people then go to all the trouble of arranging the world's biggest demolition job? Are we expected to believe that the incredibly destructive act of flying commercial airliners into two of the world's tallest buildings wasn't enough to achieve whatever it is you think they wanted?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dingo667Offline
I'm strange...but true
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Total posts: 2000
Location: Deep in the Fens, UK
Age: 47
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 09-04-2009 12:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

But it said that they think it wasn't ordinary Thermite and that the minute "chips" of the material were intermixed and had to be seperated. Apparently this stuff reaches more heat and therefore less is needed. It isn't Thermite they have found. That is the whole point. Also the point is that this particular test was NOT conducted by NIST, so they wouldn't know. Hence I think its interesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 09-04-2009 12:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dingo667 wrote:
But it said that they think it wasn't ordinary Thermite and that the minute "chips" of the material were intermixed and had to be seperated. Apparently this stuff reaches more heat and therefore less is needed. It isn't Thermite they have found. That is the whole point. Also the point is that this particular test was NOT conducted by NIST, so they wouldn't know. Hence I think its interesting.


Ah yes, 'super thermite'. It's thermite, it still has the same effect: burns very hot. You may need less, but it would still be a ridiculous amount to have the desired effect of bringing down a building. That still leaves the questions of who made it, transported it, planned the demolition and planted it in the building.

I would not place too much stock in their test claims either. As someone pointed out in the comments of the article this 'peer reviewed' journal is from a vanity press publisher and the authors paid for its inclusion. Hardly a suitable outlet for someone with legitimate and ground breaking revelations.
Back to top
View user's profile 
river_styxOffline
Chaos Magnet.
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Total posts: 2146
Location: Between Here aaaaaaand....There.
Age: 35
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 09-04-2009 12:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also with a building of that shape and size you'd really only have to hit in the optimum place to let gravity do most of the hard work for you. Although I'm not a structural engineer I imagine that the initial impact would start the process off, exposing the necessary support structures, and then the thermite would complete the rest. Think of it as a three stage process with natural forces, wind and gravity being the third.

Admittedly there are a lot of questions still unanswered about the whole thing. If anything I'd say it was a joint effort.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 30-07-2009 21:44    Post subject: Reply with quote

The most feasible suggestion for the demolition charges that I've heard is that they were planted by the WTC's owners or leaseholders not long after the 1993 truck bomb.The idea being to ensure the safe collapse of the towers in any future attack thus avoiding damages lawsuits.The terrorists or conspirators might not have known they were there.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-07-2009 22:31    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would the explosives not have been unreliable/unstable over such a long period of time?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 31-07-2009 04:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that provided the explosives didn't have to endure much of a temperature range and it wasn't too humid then they would remain viable. I don't actually know much about thermite but Timble 2 says it is iron oxide and aluminium, which sounds pretty robust.
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 31-07-2009 14:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
The most feasible suggestion for the demolition charges that I've heard is that they were planted by the WTC's owners or leaseholders not long after the 1993 truck bomb.The idea being to ensure the safe collapse of the towers in any future attack thus avoiding damages lawsuits.The terrorists or conspirators might not have known they were there.


You must have a very different definition of the word 'feasible' to the one in the dictionary.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 31-07-2009 15:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feasible in as much as it allows plenty of time for the covert planting of the charges,whereas hastily completing such an operation only a few days before 9/11 would have been far more difficult.
It helps explain WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's comments about "pulling the building" and similar comments by Building 7 workers and managers, one of whom had a countdown coming over his radio while he warned evacuees of imminent collapse :- when the countdown was heard to reach "one", Building 7 collapsed.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 78, 79, 80  Next
Page 1 of 80

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group