Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand

by Jim Hoffman

"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure, chemical composition, and ignition behavior."

(snip)

1. Physical Structure

* The chips,whose structure is consistent from one sample to the next, are clearly an un-natural, manufactured material.
* The red layer is a nano-engineered composite, containing two types of nano-particles, each highly consistent in size and shape.

(snip)

2. Chemical Composition

* The red layers contain abundant aluminum, iron, and oxygen, where the iron is associated with oxygen, and the aluminum is mostly in a pure, elemental, form.
* The relative quantities of aluminum, iron, and oxygen match those of the most common thermite formulation: Fe2O3 + 2 Al .

(snip)

3. Thermal Behavior

# When the chips are heated to about 430ºC, they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC -- the melting point of iron.
# The residues produced by these reactions -- iron-rich spheres -- match those produced by igniting commercial thermite and particles found in WTC dust samples

(snip)

Conclusion

As this simplified summary of the findings of the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe shows, the distinctive red-gray chips found consistently in dust samples from the destroyed Twin Towers are clearly an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. It is not even remotely possible that the material could have been formed spontaneously through any random process such as the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Nor is it possible that the material was present in the Towers for some innocent reason.

The chips are clearly the unexploded remains of a pyrotechnic material -- likely a high explosive -- that was present in the Twin Towers in large quantities.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

The article includes photographs, graphs, links to further reading, and a glossary. Recommended.

What is "Active Thermitic Material"?

No one seems to know.

speak for yourself, please.

enlighten yourself

Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3...
*Address correspondence to these authors (NH) Department of Chemistry,
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark;
Tel: (+45)35321846; Fax: (+45)35320460; E-mail: harrit@nano.ku.dk,
(SEJ) at S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA; Tel: 801-735-5885;
E-mail: Hardevidence@gmail.com

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch9/activity.php

The Activity of Metals
The primary difference between metals is the ease with which they undergo chemical reactions. The elements toward the bottom left corner of the periodic table are the metals that are the most active in the sense of being the most reactive. … The rate of this reaction increases as we go down this column, however, because these elements become more active as they become more metallic.



Classifying Metals Based on Activity
The metals are often divided into four classes on the basis of their activity, as shown in the table below.
Common Metals Divided into Classes on the Basis of Their Activity
Class I Metals: The Active Metals
Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs (Group IA)
Ca, Sr, Ba (Group IIA)
Class II Metals: The Less Active Metals
Mg, Al, Zn, Mn
Class III Metals: The Structural Metals
Cr, Fe, Sn, Pb, Cu
Class IV Metals: The Coinage Metals
Ag, Au, Pt, Hg

http://www.shodor.org/unchem/advanced/redox/

(R)edox reactions are a family of reactions that are concerned with the transfer of electrons between species. Like acid-base reactions, redox reactions are a matched set -- you don't have an oxidation reaction without a reduction reaction happening at the same time. Oxidation refers to the loss of electrons, while reduction refers to the gain of electrons. Each reaction by itself is called a "half-reaction", simply because we need two (2) half-reactions to form a whole reaction.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

2 Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2 Fe
This is the chemical equation of the most common type of thermite reaction: Two atoms of aluminum react with a molecule of iron oxide to form a molecule of aluminum oxide and two atoms of iron. Because the aluminum holds the oxygen much more tightly than does the iron, the reaction releases a great deal of energy -- about three times as much per unit of weight as is released by conventional high explosives.

thermitic: Having the characteristics of thermite, and thus the ability to release large amounts of energy on ignition.
thermite: An energetic material that, when ignited, releases large amounts of energy thorough a chemical reaction in which oxygen is transferred from an oxidizer (such as iron oxide) to a fuel (such as aluminum).
nano-thermite: An advanced type of thermite in which the fuel (aluminum) and oxidizer (iron oxide) are in the form of intimately mixed nano-particles, generally embedded in a durable matrix.

From "Active Thermitic Material..." :
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.

since Chem 1, 2 and 3.

Having said that; Active is a useful terms for comparing the reaction potential between various materials and componds, but "Active Thermitic Materials" is meaningless. IMO it was placed in the "paper" by Jones etal as a rhetoric device to make the ignorant think something important was discovered.

The reality is there are dozens of thermitic materials in use everyday in all sorts of applications. Just because Jones etal found something that reacts at a very high temperature is wonderful but rather mundane.

to murder was everyday stuff that anyone could make. Turned out it was trillion spore anthrax and only a few people knew how to get it so highly refined.

If the material found in the dust is truly mundane, it ought to easy to identify. Someone should write a paper....

I don't see very many papers published these days on the notion that the earth is spherical (or roughly so - there's a bulge at the equator). A small, select group of people are convinced the components of Jones' samples present something other than what would be expected. It's up to them to produce convincing arguments, since their claims are the extraordinary ones. So far, they have not.

No one actually tried to identify the material.

The authors make the distinction that they found thermite in its original unreacted state, as you can see by a similar distinction in the abstract:



Clearly, active in the phrase active thermitic material is intended to emphasize that they found unreacted thermite. They also found what they believe to be the residue of a thermite reaction and they wanted to be clear when they were talking about thermite pre-reaction and when they were talking about thermite post-reaction.

starting to get the picture now, boys and girls?

:hi:

Far from it. It is highly flawed as has been discussed before.
Furthermore using the term 'active' to describe something as 'unreacted' doesn't make any more sense than the other explanations that have been thrown out as the post reaction material is no longer described as a 'thermic material'.

The term 'active' in this instance does not seem to have any meaning. I have yet to see anyone point to where a working definition is provided.

an unlit exploding cigar = active/unreacted, or meaning 'unburnt'












Kaboom! - now rendered (mostly) inactive


I say mostly inactive because after any explosive device goes off there is commonly some still active leftover residue left behind.

Active Exploding Cigars?

they could also put 'cancer sticks' on cigarettes boxes, but they don't.

understanding, and develop a new marketing strategy for the "Active Exploding Cigar" brand.

I forgot to laugh.

don't quit your day job (if you have one).

A container of iron oxide next to one of aluminum powder?

If active thermitic material is unreacted, then inactive thermitic material would be reacted thermitic material--residue.

And inactive thermitic material is thermite residue.

the authors might have a reason for the specific terminology used that we laymen might not be aware of?

LARED is attacking ad hominem without basis.

using the term "Active Thermitic Materials", then maybe we have something to argue about.

for suggesting the authors used the terminology for a dishonest purpose?

At least one of the authors is dishonest; Kevin Ryan. The conclusions of the paper is borderline dishonest, but few have the materials science background and understanding to see that.

I would call it an embellishment, most likely out of a desire to provide the truther community with something that sounds important in order to gain a wider distribution. There is always the possibility it was used out of plain old ignorance as it appears than none of the authors have any background in materials science. A rather large red flag.

is the way they are trying to pass off paint chips as thermite.

if the chips look like paint chips, then they are paint chips?

.

Maybe you haven't read the actual paper, or maybe you aren't much for technical literature in general. Those of us who have can see the significant flaws within. For example, the identification of the chips. The authors make a big deal of their dismissal of paint as an alternative, even devoting a section at the end of the paper to the question. What is clear, however, is that they did not take the time to determine what paint or primers were used in the WTC towers (not a difficult task) nor did they identify the paints they used in their comparison tests, which were not effective comparisons anyway (not all paints are soluble in MEK, for example). Instead, they pretend to be using the scientific method when the reality is quite different - this paper is propaganda, not science.

.

Because many qualified and highly credentialed scientists have read it and they disagree with you.

Because many qualified and highly credentialed scientists have read it and they disagree with you.

Like whom?

"Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France...We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers," according to Dr. Steven Jones.

If you want to establish that scientists are "qualified and highly credentialed," identifying one of them as a "physicist" and the other as "in New Hampshire" is not really the way to go about it. (Quoting Steven Jones isn't, either, but never mind that.)

Henry-Couannier seems to do most of his work on dark matter. Very cool, but it's not obvious how it qualifies him to hold forth on thermite, whatever it is that he intends to say about it.

Of course, if the arguments are inherently compelling, the qualifications don't matter -- and if the arguments are inherently uncompelling, they don't matter either.

instead of resorting to JREF playbook tactic #3:

(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”

Now a physicist isn't highly credentialed? I don't know Basile's background, except that as a chemical engineer he is certainly as qualified as most of "those who have read the paper and find it flawed."

The science has already been addressed in other threads. You're the person who dragged in credentialism back at post #64 -- it isn't my problem. (ETA: And if you don't see any salient difference between dark matter and thermite, of course that isn't my problem either.)

You said those who had read the paper found significant flaws. I said qualified and highly credentialed people disagree with you. You said, "Like who?" I named a physicist and a chemical engineer. You moved the goalposts, not I.

In fact, what you asserted is that "many qualified and highly credentialed scientists" have read the paper. That's an interesting question in itself: how many qualified and highly credentialed scientists have read the paper, regardless of their opinions about it?

Incidentally, being a physicist is certainly a credential, but not necessarily a qualification in this instance. I heard a lot about all the Ph.D.s who thought that the exit polls provided evidence of fraud in 2004. It didn't seem to matter much that all together they had almost no experience in survey research, that the people who did have experience in survey research thought they were out to lunch, or that their arguments were poor. So, I sort of feel that I have seen this movie before.

Do you doubt that many qualified and highly credentialed scientists have read the paper? How many is irrelevant. There were nine authors, all them qualified and highly credentialed. The first author is a nano-chemistry expert. There were multiple peer reviewers. Chemical engineer Mark Basile and French physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier have not only read it, they have corroborated it. Others in the truth community, like Jim Hoffman and Tony Szamboti have read it. Dr. Greening has read it and asked questions (which were answered), but to my knowledge, he has not claimed the paper is "flawed".

You asserted that those who have read it found it to have "significant flaws". Your assertion is incorrect.

Even if you take the data at face value, the paper's conclusions are simply and clearly not substantiated. First, the paper completely fails to prove that it's any kind of "thermitic material," even an accidental one -- specifically, it fails to demonstrate a signature matching any known thermite, thermate, or nanothermite, and it fails even to demonstrate that it contains any elemental aluminum at all (rather than just aluminum oxide). It actually proves that the material ignites at a lower temperature than any known form of thermite -- a temperature more in line with many ordinary materials. The paper offers nothing but indirect and inconclusive evidence that there was any thermitic redox reaction at all, with zero analysis of what percentage of this "highly energetic" material might have been involved. Rather, it calls the material "highly energetic" based on its energy density, saying that when burned, it released more energy per gram than explosives like TNT and RDX, completely ignoring that things like jet fuel and paper have many times the energy of any of those things. Surely, these "qualified and highly credentialed" authors know that it isn't energy density but rather release rate that makes a material explosive.

Nonetheless, these "qualified and highly credentialed" authors merely assume that it's some type thermite, even though it doesn't really look like one, and if it's thermite it must be nanothermite, and since nanothermite is explosive, this stuff that looks exactly like paint chips must be a "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material," with no serious attempt whatsoever made to rule out paint or other mundane material. The section claiming to have ruled out paint is a complete joke.

There's no way in hell this paper would have been published in a reputable journal with real peer review. When a paper is that flawed, if you point to people who haven't found any flaws, you're simply raising questions about their competence, not buttressing the paper.

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

This is what he said about it:

"...I have just read the Harrit et al. paper cover-to-cover with great relish. You see, I have been highly active in the field of inorganic materials physics for 43 years following receipt of my Ph.D. – and this paper ranks among the top 2% of the thousands of papers I have read in this field and the more than 500 on which I have been a referee!

"...I especially enjoyed the Harrit et al. paper because in reading it I could see the full complexity of he research necessary to deduce the nature of the red/gray chips they discovered, the authors’ wise selection of a battery of experimental methods adequate to this goal, their dedication to taking sufficient data to establish indisputable patterns, and finally their very careful consideration of what their evidence permits them to conclude with certainty and what remains to be learned from future experimentation.

"...So it’s perfectly obvious to me that Harrit et al. have done a terrific job of proving that the dust generated in the collapses of the WTC towers on 9/11/01 contains a ubiquitous thermitic component – which is not of a commercial nature, given the nano-structuring they demonstrated. Indeed, the only known nano-thermites in existence prior to 9/11 were those created in large, generally defense-related research laboratories. This is something Americans need to know."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Pardon-Our-Dust-or-Why-t-by-Michael-Green-090417-989.html

It shouldn't be too difficult to get this paper published in an actual chemical physics journal. Do let us know when that happens.

Riiiight. And from the standpoint of the Obama-McCain election, state boundaries were chosen randomly -- by individuals who could not possibly have foreseen the election -- so I find 100% probability that McCain stole Utah! Doh.

This fellow may actually be qualified to discuss thermite -- I don't know. (ETA: His bio at impactglassresearchinternational.com leaves me to wonder; he does seem to know a lot about glass, and at least he clearly has done work in materials science.) But based on this exploit, I have ample reason to doubt his judgment. And the overlap between election fraud woo and 9/11 woo continues to amuse me.

there are obviously no such things as either election fraud or conspiracies?

Could you at least try, or even pretend, to address my substantive points instead of just making stuff up?

whores can earn PHD's

This is kind'a cute also

given the nano-structuring they demonstrated.

I have read the paper in full at least twice and have found this nowhere. Perhaps I missed it.

It does seem that some PhDs will say anything for the right price, but I think that is not at all the issue here. It would be unfair to Griscom to let that stand without a response.

As far as I can tell, the issue here is that people -- even people trained in scientific methods -- have a strong propensity to believe what they want to believe, and not to think through the implications of their assumptions. Scientific training may even lull some people into false confidence in their own objectivity. I think that is true of Griscom here. Both in the election context and in the nano-JONES context, he seems to have scanted some issues that hinge not on expertise but on a modicum of critical distance.

I try to marinate in disagreement in order to avoid this fate myself. The danger is that when the disagreement is too poorly reasoned, it may actually tend to reinforce overconfidence instead of reducing it.

The thing about nano-structuring -- well, yes, that does seem to go beyond anything actually in the paper. Perhaps the business at the end of p. 27 (pdf p. 21)? (I'm inclined to stipulate that Griscom is referring to something, whether or not he has it right.)

To quote Griscom

"...I have just read the Harrit et al. paper cover-to-cover with great relish. You see, I have been highly active in the field of inorganic materials physics for 43 years following receipt of my Ph.D. – and this paper ranks among the top 2% of the thousands of papers I have read in this field and the more than 500 on which I have been a referee!

"...I especially enjoyed the Harrit et al. paper because in reading it I could see the full complexity of he research necessary to deduce the nature of the red/gray chips they discovered, the authors’ wise selection of a battery of experimental methods adequate to this goal, their dedication to taking sufficient data to establish indisputable patterns, and finally their very careful consideration of what their evidence permits them to conclude with certainty and what remains to be learned from future experimentation.

"...So it’s perfectly obvious to me that Harrit et al. have done a terrific job of proving that the dust generated in the collapses of the WTC towers on 9/11/01 contains a ubiquitous thermitic component – which is not of a commercial nature, given the nano-structuring they demonstrated. Indeed, the only known nano-thermites in existence prior to 9/11 were those created in large, generally defense-related research laboratories. This is something Americans need to know."

Sorry but this reads as nothing less than taunting in my view. Reading with great relish, top 2% out of thousands, especially enjoyed, wise selection of a battery of experiments, etc, etc. Give me a break, if I know that's nonsense he must. I find it impossible that someone with his background and education could possibly believe what he's writing. This is a game to him. Or maybe he just need to polish up his 9/11 truther image on a regular basis to keep funds coming.

LARED, that's facially reasonable -- and I know just what you mean -- but I have become convinced that it is fallacious. There is almost no limit to how stupid smart people can be.

One of my friends told me a story once about a particular 'conspiracy theory' he had hatched pretty much on his own, and how at some point he really did start to interpret all the evidence against the theory as evidence for it. Finally, a datum came along that was sufficiently disconfirming to cause him to reevaluate all his reasoning, at which point he thought, "How could I have been so bizarrely stupid about that?" Well, it's a form of human creativity. We can look at two stars in the sky and see a dog's tail.

I'm not sure what the crucial test would be to disambiguate deep confusion from willful hokum, but I think your statement actually points in the opposite direction. Don't you suppose Griscom is smart enough that if he set out to write willful hokum, he could fool you better? (Maybe not, but it's at least a consideration.)

And is there any reason to think that Griscom personally profits from this issue? I think it's not only unfair but harmful to assume that people can't be honestly wrong about these matters, because it tends to transmute fecklessness into martyrdom.

never attribute to malicious intent that which can be explained by blindness or stupidity.

Never confidently attribute to malicious intent that which can be explained by blindness or stupidity -- depending, of course, on the relative force of the alternative explanations. I'm not required to believe in the fundamental benevolence of Bernie Madoff. Folks are entitled to harbor suspicions of "LIHOP," at least in the absence of disambiguating evidence. And so on. The problem comes when people leap to the conclusion of malice when the facts readily admit of alternative interpretations.

Many years ago I got to participate in a simulated "crisis game." A bunch of mostly dovish undergrads faced off in a new Berlin crisis; as a "runner," I got to listen to deliberations on both sides. Within the first hour or so, the Soviet side rolled some tanks as a precaution, and the NATO side freaked. A textbook spiral of misinterpretations ensued. In the end, neither side started an all-out war, but both were sorely tempted.

Conspiracists famously seem predisposed to presume malice, but I think we all have that capacity. It's adaptive in some circumstances. Presuming benignity can be a very dangerous play. Eh, sometimes life just sucks. ;)

I accept the revision.

NIST found no evidence of explosives.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/Political.html

Hey, Dude! What Are They Doing to Our Country?

9/11 Was an Inside Job!

Just because the mainstream media "don't go there,"
doesn't mean it's not true.

The military-industrial complex had the motive,
the means, and the opportunity!

How could they have pulled it off? Check out Dave's
carefully researched hypotheses.

Did the World Trade Center towers collapse due to the
jetliner impacts and fires, or were they blown up?
Read Dave's analysis.




Nice beard though :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Everyone has an opinion. Griscom is a highly respected scientist with a long and impressive resume. He has more at risk by endorsing this paper than most people, and that's why his endorsement carries more weight. What does his beard have to do with anything?

No, I didn't. It's really bad form to treat other people's arguments and words as interchangeable, IMHO.

Backing up:

Yes, I do.


So far, you haven't demonstrated the relevant qualifications of any of them, much less "many."


What, if anything, qualifies him to opine on the identification of "active thermitic material"? I'm not in a position to say that he isn't]/i] qualified; I'm just looking for relevant information. Weird habit of mine.

There were multiple peer reviewers.

We don't know who they were or what their qualifications were -- and in case you've missed this, Bentham's open access series isn't really entitled to a presumption of competence at this point. If the authors had had their work published in an established journal of high reputation, I would have more confidence in the quality of the peer review.

Chemical engineer Mark Basile and French physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier have not only read it, they have corroborated it.

So far you've offered only Steve Jones's word for that, but the question remains: what qualifies these people to opine on thermite?

Others in the truth community, like Jim Hoffman and Tony Szamboti have read it. Dr. Greening has read it and asked questions (which were answered), but to my knowledge, he has not claimed the paper is "flawed".

I suppose these points address claims I didn't make. If you actually have reason to think that Dr. Greening believes that indeed the article offers support for a controlled demolition hypothesis, I would be interested to learn more.

First one OCTist responds that one doesn't need to be material scientist to find flaws in the paper, and the next OCTist responds that even with advanced degrees, one also needs a specific area of expertise to endorse it. Oh, the irony!

Edited to add: OTOH, why can't you just admit you made a broad sweeping generalization that simply isn't true?

If you want to disagree with something I wrote, I do ask that you disagree with something I wrote. Seems reasonable to me.

Instead, you continue to move the goalposts:


No, I didn't say that, and that is ridiculous. Anyone whatsoever can endorse the paper. No need even to read it.

I do believe that your assertion about "qualified and highly credentialed scientists" implies or should imply some prior knowledge of the subject matter of the paper. Perhaps you intended to refer to scientists who are "qualified" to talk about something, albeit not to talk about thermite. In that case, my response should be not 'you haven't demonstrated that' but 'it doesn't even matter whether that is true.'

There is no tension whatsoever between saying that one doesn't need to be a material scientist to find flaws in the paper, and saying that your claim about the scientists who have read it is unsupported. That said, I don't think it would count as "irony" if two people who you consider "OCTist(s)" disagreed; it would just underscore the poverty of your analytical categories.

(edit to correct typo)

My words:

"You asserted that those who have read it found it to have 'significant flaws'."

Your actual words:

"Those of us who have can see the significant flaws within."

What is the difference in meaning? If there were any difference, you might be justified in raising a ruckus about it. There is no difference, and as such, you are just creating a distraction. That's what posters do when they have nothing significant to offer.

Was my previous subtle hint to that effect not sufficiently clear for you?

Her quote is from post #45, which wasn't one of yours.

What OTOH is saying is that only specialists are qualified to judge the technical content of the paper, which is absolutely true. What I said was, "even taking the data at face value" (despite the dubious reasons for doing that), the paper jumps to unwarranted and rash conclusions not supported by that data. In other words, you do need to be a materials scientist to find flaws in the data, but you don't need to be a materials scientist to see the gaping holes in the logic of the paper.

Does that help?

I doubt there is one kind of specialist who is completely and exclusively qualified to judge all the technical content (not that you said otherwise). I do think that if someone avers that many "qualified" scientists have reviewed it, that the qualifications should be relevant to the subject.

I agree about the logical holes.

Steven Jones probably has, what, 30 years experience? Published, what, 40 articles in scientific journals? And the 8 other authors? I believe they know something about research, thanks anyway.

... to know that submitting that piece o' crap to a real peer-reviewed journal would have been a complete waste of time. The boyz could still do that and settle any issues about that, once and for all. That's exactly what they would do if they had any real confidence in their analysis and conclusions, because surely they know that's what it would take for their hypothesis to be widely accepted as the smoking gun they claim it to be. But I'd bet money at short odds they won't do anything like that. They seem to be quite content that their little fan club doesn't know the difference.

Ad homs. Why don't you OCTists learn some new tricks? :boring:

... in post #103, and then you just tried to duck under the point I made in post #132 by pretending to respond while ignoring what I said. But now you say, "Ad homs. Why don't you OCTists learn some new tricks?" You're the one who could use some new tricks -- that "ad hom" one is long since worn out -- and learning the actual meaning of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem">ad hominem wouldn't hurt.

:eyes:

Your laughable "response" to my criticism was to illustrate the last point I made: "When a paper is that flawed, if you point to people who haven't found any flaws, you're simply raising questions about their competence, not buttressing the paper." Why do you think I should be impressed with Griscom's glowing approval -- a guy who, btw, was already a noted conspiracy theorist who thinks all the 9/11 plane passengers are still alive, among other things -- when I pointed you to very specific logic errors and shortcomings that you can examine for yourself? Did you even attempt to see if I was correct? Why should I accept Griscom's pronouncement that the paper proves the material is thermite when it's painfully obvious that it does no such thing? You suggest I should accept that just because of his background, but what his background indicates to me is that perhaps Griscom is really more interested in any kind of confirmation of previously held crackpot theories than he is in looking for good science. And, btw, since Bentham allows authors to select their own "peer reviewers," was Griscom a reviewer? If so, that would be a clue how such a flawed paper got past review, huh.

Especially when you disparage the competence of someone with Griscom's resume. I'm aware Griscom has been ridiculed for his survivor theory, but all 9/11 theories have been ridiculed, and none sound more absurd than the OCT.

Bentham does not allow authors to select their own peer reviewers, the editors do. As in other journals, authors may recommend reviewers, but editors choose at least some reviewers not recommended by the authors. The reviewers remain anonymous.

"when I pointed you to very specific logic errors and shortcomings that you can examine for yourself? Did you even attempt to see if I was correct?"

If the errors are as obvious as you say, why don't you submit a rebuttal paper to a scientific journal? It's the only way your criticism is meaningful. Until then, I will rely on the opinion of those who have been published (and cited)--many, many, many times.

... except your appeal to authority fallacies. Good luck with that.

Griscom's opinion is about as expert as you will find.

About the paint chip theory...

Dr. Frank Greening posted this at the the911forum.freeforums.org regarding WTC paint:

"It's quite difficult to get much information on the WTC primer paint but it is mentioned in Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 433 - 438. Here you find a Table D-1 which gives the chemical composition of the primer. The main inorganic constituents are iron oxide, "zinc yellow", "Tnemec pigment of proprietary composition" and diatomaceous silica.
Now the Tnemec pigment caught my eye, but the fact that it's described as having a "proprietary composition" suggests that this material's chemical ingredients are "top secret". However, in the modern world of "right-to-know" legislation, you can determine the composition of just about any proprietary material by looking up its associated MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet).
I have done this for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer and this is what I have found reported as the ingredients:

Iron-oxide fume
Zinc compounds with traces of cobalt
Quartz and amorphous silica (SiO2)
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2)
Calcium Silicates and Aluminates

Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."

There is a completely simple and trivial way to rule out the actual WTC paint: Test some. Another serious flaw in the paper.

Are you saying that Greening now thinks the chips are paint? link?

might be primer.

Greening's post you quoted (but did not source) in post #157

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2628">Greening's post a few days later, from the same thread



He may have changed/elaborated his position later, but I haven't read the rest of the thread.

Or maybe you could do the research yourself? Where would you get WTC paint samples for testing?

You're trying to give him a pass on his egregious error.

in the first place, I'm not so sure the evidence was available to anyone who requested it. Secondly, why would you ask Jones to do your research if you are the one supposedly rebutting his paper?

He has done precisely the opposite. He has put together a sham paper that pays lip service to falsifying his claims and published it in a open access journal available only on the Internet, published in Pakistan for pay, and with demonstrably suspect publishing tactics.

It's quite obvious what Jones and the other authors have done. Fortunately for them, people like procopia are either unwilling or unable to see the scam for what it is.

... and if none of them have any paint on them, there are large piles of the stuff in a hangar at JFK.

the chips came from the steel? Couldn't they have come from interior walls, etc?

... shouldn't that be the first thing a competent research project should check? But yes, if it's not that, there are still a lot of things that would need to be ruled out before the ridiculous idea of thermite paint would become plausible. This "reer reviewed" paper ruled out exactly zero of them.

controlled demolition. Shouldn't that be the first thing a competent research project should check?

... using explosives. Not only do they start at the top, but the clouds of dust and smoke and even the "squibs" don't look anything like the very rapidly expanding cloud of smoke from a demolition charge: They look exactly like they are driven by escaping air. (If you can't see the difference, try stepping through the collapse videos and some CD videos frame by frame.)

They do, however, look VERY MUCH like the http://www.strimoo.com/video/12509995/Mort-d-un-batiment-MySpaceVideos.html">gravity-driven demolition of the Balzac-Vitry building.

Could be a clue there, Sherlock.

How can you claim it didn't? Control demolitionist Jowenko identified it as "absolutely" a controlled demolition. Also, there have been other cases of top-down controlled demolitions.

The Balzac-Vitry building was a controlled demolition and does not resemble the towers. The supports were placed closer to the middle of the building and removed to fail simultaneously, which is
extremely unlikely with fire.

the people who set up the interview showed him what they wanted him to see which, if you pay attention, we don't get to see. One of the ways we know it wasn't a controlled demolition is the span of time from the collapse of the penthouse to the collapse of the remainder of the building, something most "truther videos" leave out entirely. How do you know what Jowenko was shown?

According to the Dutch Public television documentary Zembla, Jowenko was shown a video of the collapse. Do you have evidence that he wasn't shown a video of the WTC 7 collapse? It doesn't matter which video he saw or what portion of a video he saw, any video of the WTC 7 collapse or any portion of one looks exactly like controlled demolition, as any honest observer would tell you.

If he was shown a video that starts AFTER the penthouse has already collapsed, that is a false representation, as there was a significant delay (I seem to recall 8-10 seconds) which would NOT be "just like a controlled demolition". Secondly, if he was looking at standard video of the collapse (whether it includes the penthouse collapse or not), the reality is the view of the lower part of the building is obstructed by other buildings so it would be impossible to tell that the collapse initiated on or close to the bottom floor. Jowenko was gamed and, more importantly, he states clearly that WTC 1 & 2 were NOT controlled demolition, which raises the question, why bring down only one of the three buildings by that method. In fact, I think it's hysterical that "truthers" only cite Jowenko with respect to WTC 7 and omit the fact he concludes otherwise about WTC 1&2. Some "truth" movement.

A five second delay after the collapse of the penthouse doesn't make it look unlike a controlled demolition. Look at any video of any controlled demolition and in most of them you will see similar delays or pauses.

Jowenko said the towers didn't look like controlled demolition because of the time it would take to set up the explosives. As we have learned, that isn't necessarily a factor. Jowenko wasn't "gamed." He was simply asked if the WTC 7 collapse video was a controlled demolition. I doubt if he would have said, "absolutely," if there were any factors in question. The WTC 7, especially, looks like a classic controlled demolition in any video available. If you were honest, you would argue that although it looks like a controlled demolition, that doesn't mean it necessarily is one. Denial of the obvious strains your credibility.

that is my problem...does it look somewhat like a controlled demolition? Somewhat. Does it look "just like a controlled demolition"? No, it doesn't and the penthouse is a clear example of that. Of course controlled demolitions are sequenced, so there are slight pauses as the building totally collapses. However, if it's a controlled demolition, what would be the point of having the penthouse collapse so much earlier than the rest of the building? I would think that demonstrates that the penthouse and the rest of the building were somewhat independent of each other and, other different circumstances, the penthouse might have collapsed but not the rest of the building (although I am guessing at that).

Again, the other issue is that the view of the bottom floors is obstructed by buildings in front of it in the video (I don't remember how many stories...I'm thinking at least 15-20, not sure) so it would have been impossible for Jowenko to determine where the collapse was initiating. Sorry, this is no "smoking gun" and, in fact, is much more like a cap pistol.

I didn't say WTC 7 was a smoking gun. I said it looked like control demolition. It has many characteristics of controlled demolition, and not one characteristic of collapse by fire.

The only way any steel framed building has ever totally collapsed at near free fall speed into its own footprint was by controlled demolition, and that's why the WTC 7 collapse looked like controlled demolition.

it didn't fall at "near free-fall speed". That's yet one more myth from "truthers". The only way they can try to make that claim is to dishonestly start the clock AFTER the penthouse has already collapsed when is obviously not when the collapse started. Similarly, if the view of the building was obscured by buildings in the way, how would anyone know when to stop the clock?

Do you want to honestly compare WTC 7 to the collapse of another building? Fine. The you will have to find:


1) Another 47 story building that took up an entire city block and

2) was a tube-in-a-tube-design and

3) that had a further unique design because it was built over an electrical substation and

4) had unfought fires raging for hours

5) was substantially damaged by the collapse of an adjacent 110 story skyscraper.

WTC 7 collapsed at a rate comparable to known controlled demolitions. I wasn't trying to prove WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, I was pointing out that it looked like one, and it does.

For the sake of comparison, none of the buildings that have been destroyed by known controlled demolitions had the same size, design, condition (certainly some were previously damaged), etc, yet all of them share the same collapse characteristics of near free fall, near symmetrical, total collapse.

The WTC 7 looked like it was destroyed by controlled demolition. It didn't look like it was destroyed by fire, flood, tornado, or earthquake, because each of those natural disasters result in their own unique destruction characteristics. Only controlled demolitions have resulted in near free fall, near symmetrical, total collapse, ever.

It's your claim, yet you're asking him to define the term you used? (setting aside for the moment the fact that it's a misapplied term)

He denied the collapse was near free fall speed, so apparently there is a specified range of seconds to qualify as "near" free fall? The collapse times for all 3 WTC buildings have been consistently described as "near free-fall" speed. Has even NIST denied near free fall speed? I don't think so.

that doesn't exist, at least in this context. Please learn the difference between "speed" and "acceleration".

regardless of the terminology used to describe it.

i've already pointed out why, but you refuse to listen. try to honestly time the collapse...start the clock when the penthouse actually collapses ahead of the rest of the building...and find bideo that affords an unobstructed view of the lower 30 stories and it's apparent that the collapse came nowhere near ''free-fall speed'' yet the ''truth movement'' keeps offering this tired myth up as if it's fresh evidence of a smoking gun instead of the cap pistol it actually is. more importantly, why doesn't it sound like a controlled demolition? where are the series of deafening explosions that accompany an actua controlled demolition?

You pointed out why, in your opinion, it didn't, and I pointed out why you were wrong.

Whether WTC collapsed at near free fall or not, when compared to other known controlled demolitions, the rate of collapse is about the same.

The delay after the penthouse collapse is consistent with delays and pauses in known controlled demolitions.

If you don't have at least a basic grasp of the physics, how do you expect to describe or analyze such an event properly?

One doesn't need a physics background to describe the collapses, that's a ridiculous assertion.

So what? We're talking about the entire collapse, not a portion of it.

Don't pretend that 2.5 seconds of free fall isn't significant. And also, please stop trying to obfuscate my point, which is this: The WTC 7 collapse looked just like controlled demolition.

Please explain.

Shall we start looking askance at pastry chefs?

But using physics is going to give you a better picture of what is happening. Physics is a way of thinking clearly and precisely and in a quantifiable way about what's going on in that building.

Don't you agree with that?

Compare it with videos of known controlled demolitons and they have identical characteristics.

Why not?

Physics illiterates like yourself don't have the language or the understanding to describe or analyze the collapses. This tangent is an excellent example. Anybody who makes the colossally stupid assertion that the building collapsed at "near free fall speed" should understand that their opinions and their posts are the objects of ridicule, rather than serious contemplation. If you want to argue coherently and productively about a subject, learn a little about it first.

flashes and dust from the charges would have been visible and audible at the base of WTC 7.

before seeing the video of it falling. His remarks before and after seeing the video demonstrate this completely.

Jowenko's statement was an inside job.

when it is obvious in the video, Jowenko had no idea the building collapse he was shown was WTC 7. He was very surprised to learn that.

you're assuming he even knew what building he was looking at prior to being shown the video. If the people manipulating him told him about Silverstein's misinterpreted "pull" comment, that's called "anchoring" and it certainly would have colored Jowenko's perception of the event.

Huh? How familiar could he have been with WTC 7 if he didn't even realize it collapsed on 9/11?

told him. Many people didn't know about WTC 7.

And he is specifically told that the building collapse he's watching is going to be Building #7. Your assertion to the contrary is inaccurate.

ETA: The video where Jowenko sees the collapse is right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

As you can see, he is clearly told that he's about to watch WTC 7.

Furthermore, at 3:30 on, Danny reveals he's already seen material about 7's collapse online.

In the next part:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

It picks up immediately after the first part ends. At 0:42, Jowenko gives the first hint that he's familiar with the Silverstein argument, but it isn't conclusive there.

At 1:10, Jowenko really gets into it. It's clear that he's talking about the Silverstein argument, unprompted by the interviewer. Nowhere between seeing 7 collapse and this point does the interviewer ever bring up the Silverstein demolition argument. Therefore Jowenko got it from him before the interviewer showed him the collapse, or he got it on his own from the Internet.

EATA: I'm sorry to keep editing this, but it's been a long while since I dealt with this. Jowenko makes an incontrovertible statement at 2:08 in the second video:



Jowenko says "pull it down" in English. There's no mistaking this. Again, the interviewer never prompts him on camera with this information. Jowenko's understanding of this event is colored by his interpretation of what Silverstein is saying.

... and all you can really tell by its fall is that the bottom isn't holding it up anymore. I used to say that there wasn't any way to tell the difference between a CD and the kind of progressive collapse supposed by NIST by just looking at the videos, because all you can SEE is gravity at work. However, I now believe that David Chandler's analysis is actually pretty good evidence for a progressive collapse, and it makes a CD MUCH less plausible. That's because his analysis shows that the collapse started slowly for the first 1.5 seconds, and then it shows 2.5 seconds of free-fall, equivalent to about 8 stories. The 1.5 second slow start is hard to explain as a CD, since blowing out the columns would have caused an immediate free-fall, not 1.5 seconds later. The 2.5 seconds of free-fall is likewise hard to explain as a CD unless the columns were blown out on 8 stories, which would be completely unnecessary in the first place, but especially unnecessary AFTER the collapse is already underway, caused by "something else," and extremely implausible since using enough explosives to blow out 8 stories would have been loud enough to be heard in New Jersey, easily, but there are no such sounds on any of the videos. The NIST FEA simulation, on the other hand, shows a progressive horizontal failure involving 7 or 8 floors, and with horizontal restraint removed from that many floors at once, those columns could have quickly buckled and then completely broken, leaving virtually nothing to slow the fall.

The main difference between the Balzac-Vitry building and the WTC 1 & 2 towers is that in the BV building, all the supports were pulled out simultaneously so it fell completely straight down, whereas the tilting tops of the WTC towers unambiguously proves that there was a progressive horizontal failure and then it fell straight down. In both cases, gravity did the rest of the damage -- not a single explosive required -- and you're just kidding yourself to say there isn't any similarity. But kidding yourself seems to be something you're good at.

By the way, I also assume that when you refer to "the towers," you mean (as I would mean) WTC 1 and 2 -- which presumably was not procopia's impression in writing #256.

Now that we're all clear about who isn't willing to admit an obvious mistake -- and in fact insists on blaming it upon the person who was misquoted -- I guess we're done. Good show!

However, I clearly admitted I was confused, and I certainly didn't blame it on you. :eyes:

Quite pathetic, really. Much like your defense of Jones' paper.

They only prove my point.

who could have prevented a whole tangent if she'd only gone back and looked at the posts she was trying to quote. :eyes:

I should have properly identified you, AZCat, as the poster who made the broad sweeping generalization which was proven to be incorrect. My apologies.

It still stands, as does your failure to recognize the significant flaws in Jones' paper. I don't expect this to change.

Obviously, not all of "those...who have read the it" find significant flaws in it. It is an absurd claim and diminishes your credibility.

Have you even read the paper?!

Both http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf">Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse? as well as Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method. I haven't found any flaws in either. Have you?

Considering that he just tried to present that thing as a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a reputable journal, I'm not inclined to believe any more of his claims.

until your side publishes a peer-reviewed rebuttal in any scientific journal.

I think it's foolish, but go right ahead.

;-)

but if that was their conclusion then they certainly aren't qualified.

:shrug:

are left to the individual. I have a set of criteria, just like you do. They probably are not the same. This may be why we rely on different sources for our information and analysis. I am confident in my own abilities to digest technical literature, while you seem to need to rely on others.

of the (unreliable) sources you rely on. NIST, for example, which did not even test for explosives in the face of overwhelming evidence of them.

Yeah, I was wrong about that. This, I'm not.

after all these months. This, you don't know about, as much as you think you do. No one knows what happened on 9/11, except the perpetrators and those complicit, and anyone who says they know is lying.

If I didn't, I'm sorry.

I can understand your problem. You have no idea who I am, nor do you have any idea what kind of education or experience I have. My opinion is pretty worthless to you. I, on the other hand, have a pretty good idea what I do and don't know.

While I understand your confusion over the events of September 11th, 2001, the quality of the Jones paper does not rest on those events - it can be assessed independently by asking a few basic questions: did the authors identify control substances; did the authors adequately explore alternatives to their hypothesis; did the authors eliminate as best as possible any externalities that might affect their results? The answer to all three of these questions is "no". Does this mean their conclusions are incorrect? Of course not! It just means that this paper is useless in determining the validity of those conclusions.

Who used this phrase? It was not used in the paper in question.

Someone here has wrongly suggested the opposite of "active" in this context would be "inactive."

In this context the opposite of "active" would be "inert."

From Wikipedia:
"In chemistry, the term inert is used to describe something that is not chemically active. The noble gases were described as being inert because they did not react with the other elements or themselves. It is now understood that the reason that inert gases are completely inert to basic chemical reactions (such as combustion, for example) is that their outer valence shell is completely filled with electrons. With a filled outer valence shell, an inert atom is not easily able to acquire or lose an electron, and is therefore not able to participate in any chemical reactions. For inert substances, a lot of energy is required before they can combine with other elements to form compounds. High temperatures and pressure are usually necessary, sometimes requiring the presence of a catalyst.
...
"In the area of weapons, an inert munition is one in which all energetic material such as primer, fuse, and explosive or incendiary fill have been removed or rendered harmless. Inert munitions are used in military training and are collected in museums and by private individuals."

The opposite of "reacted" would be "unreacted."

Certainly Jim Hoffman had the right idea when he tried "to make it simple."

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

The question remains what is "Active Thermitic Materials"? No one has provided an answer. I know what Therimtic Materials are, There are dozens
see here. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/658208-2dvIfX/webviewable/658208.pdf

Their contact information is right on the first page of the document.

Then you could let us all know what their response is to your question.

add some head banging music and willbill will post it as gospel.

Sounds like a oxymoron to me.

And LARED's point about the use of language to hype this "thermitic material" becomes valid. "Active" thermite is being used to distinguish it from "inactive" or "inert" thermite, but there is no such thing. So why would someone try to make a distinction between real and imaginary forms of thermite?

Please quote the paper where it says "active thermite."

We'd already established that.

now we know why.

their official report is a work of science fiction.

Do you think testing for explosives is part of the NIST's role in the investigations?

apparently, it is their 'role.'

Please provide a link so I can read up on this.

of the WTC attacks in 1993?

I'll give you a moment to edit after you realize your mistake.

was a car bombing. how did they know that without doing testing for explosives?

are they psychic?

You seem to think that the NIST was involved in the investigation of the 1993 attack, and that their responsibility in the investigation included testing for explosives. I don't think this is true. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it.

would have considered and tested for the use of explosives, A) given the well-known history of its use in attack on the WTC in 1993 That is more than enough reason to do proper testing for explosives, but also because the widespread reports of explosions taking place in the buildings.

But then, I don't expect competent work from anyone working under the Bush administration.

the cause of the collapses. It was their job, genius.

when explosives had already been ruled out?

how can they rule it out, without testing?

Oh, that's right, they're psychics.

Fortunately, NIST covered this question early on in one of their FAQs:

NIST can speculate all they want but that isn't proof of anything without being based on proper testing which they refused to do.

we have video of each tower collapsing, so it is easy to see where the collapses initiated. thus, it's easy to calculate the thermite needed to initiate such collapses and demonstrate its improbability.

the collapse videos aren't proof of anything.

are you honestly claiming that the videos don't establish that the collapses initiated at the impact zone?

not where it started.

Why are you trying to change the subject?

to understanding what caused it. i can't believe i have to explain this to you.

If you honestly think that NIST's calculation of the necessary amount of thermite is "wild, baseless speculation," would you care to substitute your own calculation? Or do you think that it is somehow logically impossible to make such a calculation, and all we can do is look at the physical evidence, or perhaps whine that we can't look at the physical evidence? Or what?

In other words, perhaps you could address the substance of the subthread.

NIST assumes in its FAQ that only one kind of explosive or one kind of thermite exists in the world, conventional thermite. Which is a false assumption right off the bat. Other variations include thermate, superthermite, nanothermite, the latter being the type that was discovered in the WTC dust as mentioned in the OP.

Their assumptions may have been true back in World War I, but don't hold true in the modern world, as there have been numerous advancements in explosives and thermite technology. Conventional thermite was invented in Germany before World War I, so the NIST report is about a hundred years out of date.

The site should have been tested for any kind of explosive, not just thermite.

From what I understand, thermite is an incendiary and nanothermite/superthermite and thermate (which I believe is a specific type of nanothermite/superthermite) are explosives.

NIST statement: 'This makes it (thermite) an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.'

Instead of thermite you can substitute the word 'firecrackers' or 'pancake batter' in that statement and it would still be true. It does not rule out the use of explosives since conventional thermite isn't an explosive, which makes it chemically different from explosive super- or nanothermites.

Robert Moore explains the misleading statements that NIST makes on this matter in his peer reviewed paper,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf">Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1

Excellent piece of work. It shows how NIST makes a multitude of false assumptions about thermite. In addition, it uses thermite as a straw man which isn't even an explosive as you pointed out. Start with a conclusion, work your way back and making up the facts to fit accordingly. Heckuva job, NIST!

...that it's such a lame excuse for an real investigation.. but so few people understand this that they've gotten away with it up until now.

The first is an incendiary, the second is an explosive.

Steven Jones and others have done such a good job in bringing the scientific aspects of the 9/11 movement to light that there's now an article in "The Raw Story" that came out on April 9:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html">Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble

"explosive" thermite is pure speculation until someone actually proves it exists or is more that just a laboratory curiosity.

Superthermites

...Metastable intermolecular composites (MICs), also called super-thermites or superthermites, are pyrotechnic compositions containing an oxidizer and a reducing agent which undergoes a very powerful exothermic reaction when heated to a critical temperature. They are variants of thermite compositions. MICs are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use...

...Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.

...MICs can be also added to high explosives to modify their properties. <5> Aluminium is typically added to explosives to increase their energy yield. Addition of small amount of MIC to aluminium powder increases overall combustion rate, acting as a burn rate modifier...

...Like conventional thermite, super thermite usage is hazardous due to the extremely high temperatures produced and the extreme difficulty in smothering a reaction once initiated. Additionally, with nanothermites, composition and morphology are important variables for safety. For example, the variation of layer thickness in energetic nanolaminates can allow control of the reactivity of it.<9> The thermite reaction releases dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn.

more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-thermites


...The last part probably explains the cause for the widely reported molten metal that burned for weeks.

the molten metal was aluminum - which has a melting point well below the temperatures observed in the rubble fire.

Since there were no observed temperatures hot enough to melt steel - where is the thermal evidence of thermate burning in the pile for weeks?

He did this way almost 2 years ago, back in May 2007, in his peer review paper titled http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf">Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method, which he published in the Journal of 9/11 studies.

Here is his refutation of the molten aluminum hypothesis:
********************************************************************
To test the second hypothesis , we performed experiments with molten aluminum. Simple metals incandesce when you heat them up, and orange hot represents a temperature of about 1000C. Aluminum alloy melts at roughly 600 C. We heated the steel pan and saw the pan glow yellow-orange. However, the melted aluminum contains many free electrons and will therefore reflect more light. Aluminum also has a low emissivity, meaning that the aluminum is glowing/incandescing but only very faintly. In daylight conditions, the liquid appears silvery due to the high reflectivity particularly when poured out. The glowing liquid flowing from the South Tower could not be aluminum because it does not appear silvery -- rather, it has an "orange glow" (in NIST's words and by observation also).

Also, aluminum is very difficult to ignite. We found that out by directing an oxyacetylene torch onto molten aluminum - and it oxidized but did not ignite with an "unusual flame" - no flame from the aluminum was seen at all.

NIST in a fact sheet in August 2006 stated:

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475C and 640C (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1000C) in the vicinity of the fires.

"Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery."

"However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."33

I read the word "can" in the NIST report and as a scientist wanted to perform experiments. Why didn't NIST do the experiments before making that statement (or did they)? Did they even try to mix aluminum with organics and pour the mixture out (like the flowing material at the South Tower) to show that it not only "can" but "will" emit an "orange glow"? We decided to perform the experiment ourselves.

The very next day after reading the NIST fact sheet in August 2006, a colleague and I performed the experiments with aluminum mixed with organic materials, mostly wood chips. The flow was silvery and simply did not resemble the orange liquid which poured from the south tower. The organics burned quickly when added to the molten aluminum. The ash floated on top of the aluminum liquid.

A young physics professor told me that he couldn't believe NIST would not have done the experiment to see if this worked - that one "can" get an "orange glow" by adding organic ash to aluminum. So we did another set of experiments and he joined the effort. This time we used wood ash from my wood-burning stove, pieces of carpet, plastic chips, later glass, and melted it all together with molten aluminum. The young physicist doggedly stirred and stirred the mix with a long-bladed screwdriver. He tried to mix the organics in with the molten aluminum, but they would not mix in! It's like oil and water, the organics tend to float and separate from the molten aluminum. And then in the end we poured the concoction out and the flow still looked silvery. He agreed with that because he saw it. Silvery, not orange. SO much for the NIST Fact Sheet(30) which states that "the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow."

If NIST can tell us how to do this trick, we will do the experiment again to test their suggestion. Meanwhile, we have observed that the organics float to the surface but do not make a uniform orange glow. Conclusion: poured out molten aluminum looks silvery (even if heated to the point where iron glows yellow/orange) and does not give the orange glow seen at the South Tower in the flowing material (even when mixed with organic materials).
********************************************************************

I am talking about the aluminum that melted in the rubble pile after the collapse(the "pools of molten metal" we keep hearing about), not the shower of molten metal that was observed before the collapse.

But since you bought up the subject, that shower proceeded the collapse by a not insignificant period time. Surely you are not saying that it was caused by the thermate charges are you? Why the time delay and why only one?

Which burns slower. The idea is that they wanted one floor to collapse without the explosions because to have explosions straight off the bat would probably look a bit too suspicious; so the first floor was done slowly, then the rest were just popped. One engineer mentioned that while only one side had molten metal flowing out, the other 3 sides had the tell tale characteristic of a thermite burn; that is, white clouds, the color of aluminum oxide smoke.

Didn't we just recently discuss the metalurgist who said it could have been aluminum oxide and dross, Scott? Yes, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x241323#242042">I believe we did. So, why are you still flogging this, if you still have no response to that argument? Because you figure you can still get some "truther" mileage out of it if nobody challenges it this time? Or the next?

did the NIST do testing on this molten material?

don't make any claims that you cannot prove.

Especially if no one tested it. You just created a trap for yourself and fell right into it. Congratulations.

I said it was molten metal, which is a fact.

hack was the one who claimed it to be aluminum, of which there is no proof.

Because once again the NIST failed to its job.

that were hot enough to melt aluminum. There is absolutely no evidence of temperatures hot enough to keep molten steel molten for weeks. You have to go where the logic takes you.

Do you have any actual tests done on this molten material to know it was steel?