super thermite found in 9/11 dust from WTC towers: Part 2

But there was still molten steel at the site three weeks afterward. And no plane crashed into WTC-7. It seems that only buildings in NYC collapse in free-fall fashion without the aid of Boeing 757's flown into buildings by amateur pilots, and of which the collapse was  announced 23 minutes early by CBS and BBC reporters. Emergency workers described "popping" sounds as if explosions occurred in planned sequence, and debris blown out of windows as if a professional demolition was taking place.

As I recall (and this is from reading about this during the time of the original release of the report, so it's been a while so I'm just going by memory, which is faulty at the best of times) one of them was in the process of being upgraded with new UPS equipment (big boxes being shipped in, some temporary workers coming and out) and I can't give any easy explanation for the other computer room ... but being controlled access areas once someone did gain access they had relatively uninterrupted and hidden ability to do whatever they wanted, and computer rooms usually have raised floors, which are perfect places to rig something that had a good chance of going undetected for long periods of time, and computer rooms are areas where big boxes being moved into them would not be considered unusual activity ... yes, unlikely, but then again how likely was it that on the same day four planes could be hijacked with box cutters, and how likely is it that the only three sky scrapers in history to collapse from fire all fell on the same day?

Before 9/11 if someone asked what was more likely to happen? Four  planes being hijacked with box cutters and flown into skyscrapers to bring them down, or someone sneaking a pile of explosives into two secured computer rooms disguised as UPS equipment, rigged them under the raised floor and used them to bring down two skyscrapers ... which one would you have considered as a "reasonable scenario"?

Personally, before 9/11 I would have said both are rediclious, but I might consider the computer room scenerio at least good enough to make it into a decent B-movie, while  four planes being hijacked with box cutters (especially after being part of the generation where planes being hijacked to Cuba under gun point was rather common but finally remedied with some basic security measures) would have seemed impossible.

The New Phenomenon of Steel Buildings Crushing Themselves

Webgear wrote:

No Yards, how did they gave access to these rooms? I would speculate that these rooms would have been under a great deal of surveillance.

 
[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.htm]lSecrecy surrounds WTC private security outfit[/url]
Another drawback to neocon/neoliberal ideology
 

jas wrote:

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Quote:

1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours

The Column Failure Theory

Wherein All the Columns Suddenly Become as Wet Noodles

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.htm]Secrecy surrounds WTC private security outfit[/url]

This link doesn't work Fidel, nor do any links on that particular aspect work from any other sources I've checked. They've all got the 404 message.

Webgear wrote:

Fidel, do you have any comments about post 50?

I would like to hear your thoughts.

As I've said, I'm the wrong guy to be asking about things that should be addressed by professional people. The nine researchers have put this out there as a challenge to other experts on the matter.  However, [url=http://agenda911.dk/article.php?story=nanothermite_tv2new]Niels Harrit said:[/url] 

Quote:

We are not saying only nano-thermite was used.
Thermite itself dates back to 1893.
It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat.
The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 °C.
This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron.
Nanotechnology makes things smaller. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed.
When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly.
Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive.
It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

And, Jas, I fixed that link

It's still a 404. But I think the reference you are trying to link to is found on this page:

Secrecy surrounds a Bush brother's role in 9/11 security, SmirkingChimp.com, 1/20/03 [cached]

jas wrote:

Aw, Unionist. I was just getting your 'Truther' t-shirt ready for you.

But I may still have an I Found Bin Laden! puzzle game for you.

 

OMG, I tried googling that puzzle game cuz it sounds great, and I ended up [url=http://shibumi.org/eoti.htm][color=purple]HERE[/color][/url].

What the heck do I do now?

I feel as if I've entered a realm from which there is no return.

Show me the way - The Truth - please.

From Fidel's Code 404 link:

Quote:

An article in New York Newsday documented the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs just five days before the attack.

I read somewhere that the dogs left on their own, after receiving some kind of message from Mossad.

I'll post the link as soon as I locate it...

Unionist, what do you make of the crazy claim that their Islamic terrorist friends turned on them in "blowback" fashion just in time for 9/11?

Because if what warmongering hawks(and even some warmongering Liberal Democrats) claim is true, then that would make their Islamic gladios a legit replacement enemy for the former Soviets and "red menace" You honestly didnt fall for any of that cold war baloney, did you?

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Unionist, what do you make of the crazy claim that their Islamic terrorist friends turned on them in "blowback" fashion just in time for 9/11?

Couldn't be. You're right. The U.S. and its agents never have a falling out. That Noriega thing was just a false flag op. The U.S. always has complete control over everything.

But Noriega was stuffed so far away in a US gulag that they have to pump air to him. And he's just a little guy who should have been able to hide behind any of several banana trees in Latin America or anywhere really. Allende didnt escape their wrath, and neither did Patrice, or Che, or a string of other famous lefties who couldnt evade Murder Inc.

OBL, otoh,  is a 6'5" Saudi with a wonky kidney needing regular medical attention. Thousands of CIA agents in every major city in the world  cant spot him? Well, they did run into him at least once since blowing back at, or off,  his former employers , but he got away. Same thing with the "al-Qaida" hijacker specialist arrested by the RCMP in Vancouver just months before 9/11 and released on the FBI's instruction.

Quote:

Why, I don't even believe there's a war going on in Afghanistan. U.S. vs. Taliban? Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee? Ha! Score one for you, Fidel.

And Iraq? OBL offered to raise a civilian army of Afghan jihadis and Saudi nationals to help remove the infidel in Baghdad. "No", said their friends in Washington. We can use you and your CIA-ISI database of expendible jihadis to invade Iraq and attack the real Iraqi  insurgents for us after we finish up operation shock and appall. [Zbiggy, Blackwell etc and OBL likely sealed it with a spit 'n handshake, we can be sure]

You wrote:

Me wrote:

Because if what warmongering hawks(and even some warmongering Liberal Democrats) claim is true, then that would make their Islamic gladios a legit replacement enemy for the former Soviets and "red menace".

Not sure I follow the logic, but I'll give you 1/2 point for that.

"al Qa'eda"! Theyre the neo-fake cold war menace on the block. CIA and OBL, Hekmatyar etc were bosom-bestest of friends when they waged holy ol' jihad on Afghan army and Sovietsky soldiers in the Stan, man. 

ElizaQ wrote:

One fairly in depth analysis of the Jones report.

 Instead of just combing through the report and posting potential other explanation as rebuttals to some comments here I decided to just post the whole thing.

None of it completely discounts the conclusion that 'thermite' was found in the dust outright but it does elaborate on potential issues with that conclusion and how with a real through going over of this reports findings don't necessarily lead to ONLY that explanation for what the Danish team found.

But we are not discussing Jones's earlier 2006 piece, but the report issued last week by a Danish scientist Niels H. Harrit, apparently with Jones as part of his research team.

The new report is here: The Open Chemical Physics Journal 

Quote:

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.

The questions asked by your article probably bear as much on this as the previous one, but there it is. Perhaps the new report answers some of those questions.

Here is an interview on Danish TV with Dr. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen: April 9th, 2009

21

Or... were they made by a [i]special[/i] "cleanup crew" in an attempt to obscure nano-thermite marks that would otherwise be blatantly obvious to any truth-seeking amateur metallurgist? Hmm, "Heywood Floyd", [i]if that's even your real name...[/i]

(Okay, I hate to admit it, but it IS kinda fun to throw off the shackles of common sense, throw my dignity to the wind, and just conjecture wildly! It's like streaking at the Library!)

Thanks for the video link, Cueball.

Quote:

When you see a 47-storey building, 186 m tall, collapse in 6.5 seconds, and you are a scientist, you think "what?"

Actually, I found the interview to be rather accommodating. I think some tougher questions certainly could have been asked. Notice also the interviewer starts his piece off reporting, if we can trust the translation: "Apparently, the  two airplane impacts did not cause  the towers to collapse..." which is a statement suggesting fact rather than supposition. That's probably not the most accurate way they could have reported that.

As to the question, "Why has no one discovered earlier that there was nano-thermite in the buildings?" The obvious answer I was expecting was "Because no one was looking for it! No investigation was done!!"

Have a look at the photo on the first page of my link. You can see the top of the tower toppling to one side.

http://www.debunking911.com/

As to why the bomb did not cause the tower to collapse? It is because the parkade didn't collapse as a result. The loads in the destroyed columns were redistributed to the other columns.

This happened with the 9\11 events as well. The loads were redistributed to the intact columns. However, the fires weakened the floors causing them to sag and pull the exterior walls in. This caused the eventual collapse when the floors let go.

Why did one floor collapsing cause the whole tower to fall? Momentum. The building was not designed to withstand the imact of all the floors above the impact point smashing into the floors below.

I have found the site I linked to be very useful in understanding the events surrounding the collapse of all three buildings.

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Have a look at the photo on the first page of my link. You can see the top of the tower toppling to one side.

 

http://www.debunking911.com/    

It's interesting to note that they point to the same web site, cooperativeresearch.org,   as does Peter Chamberlin wrt Osama bin Laden. Except that Chamberlin and others describe a much more intimate relationship between the US government and military, and their Islamic gladios bin Laden, Yousef, Hekmatyar wrt their first attack on WTC in 1993. [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7787]Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida[/url]

Quote:

The story of bin Laden is the story of the secret CIA/ISI insurgent camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Osama was 22 years old in 1979, when he was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp near Peshawar, Pakistan.   

"Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities was used to finance the recruitment of Mujahedeen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden."  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7746  

Researcher Kurt Nimmo writes:

"The database of Islamic fighters that was collected by the program was labeled n Arabic, 'Q eidat ilmu'ti'aat', which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word 'Al Qaida" which is the Arabic word for 'base.'"  http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=3569   

And "debunking911.com" makes no mention whatsoever of cold war hawk [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-major-r-owens/charlie-wilson-vs-osama-... Wilson[/url]

Quote:

After brief moments of culture at the Kennedy Center he works out sexually in his well placed Washington apartment. We cheer for Charlie and hope that he'll stay sober and score big.

Meanwhile, between his chosen projects of passion, Charlie masters the earmarking game, pinpoints a devastating Soviet military weakness, and launches a "Stinger Missile" manufacturing, distribution, training and deployment movement that turns the tide of the war.

Instead of building a huge embassy in Kabul and digging in, the Soviets pull out. Trained by Charlie's well financed Pakistan Intelligence Service, the Taliban march in. They are fundamentalist idealists who don't cut throats and use bayonets on women. For dressing improperly they stone their women to death.

As a postscript to the obligatory happy ending the movie infers this latter part of the scenario above by shocking the smug audience with a phrase including that FCC forbidden four letter word: "And then we fucked it up."

Ya, Charlie, cold war hawks "fucked up", and we can be sure it was accidentally on purpose, too.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

[quote]

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.

[\quote]

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

As generally accepted by structural engineering and structural mechanics experts (though not by some laymen and fanatics seeking to detect a conspiracy), the failure scenario, broadly proposed by Bazant (2001), and Bazant and Zhou (2002), on the basis of simplified analysis, and supported by very realistic, meticulous and illuminating computer simulations and exhaustive investigations by S. Shyam Sunder's team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, 2005), may be summarized as follows:

a) overload of some columns due to initial stress redistribution,
b ) lowering of yield limit and creep,
c) lateral deflections of many columns due to sagging floor trusses,
d) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffess of sagging floors,
e) multi-story buckling of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling), and
f) local plastic buckling of heated column webs finally led to buckling of columns (Fig. 1b). As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. (Bazant, Verdure, 2006)

[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html]Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's[/url]

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/aircraftcomparison.g...

Quote:

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

How could a team of engineers be 100% wrong not once but twice on that day for false flag gladio like no other? Cutter charges? A new 9/11 investigation is needed. Clearly.

 [url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html]Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered[/url]

Quote:

  7

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut.   Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8  

Quote:

...

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3  

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC.

Heh. No kidding.

"de-flunking" wrote:

In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses.

9-11 research wrote:

The truss-failure/pancake theory offered a way around the obvious problem with the
column failure theory: the need for all the columns to be heated to 800º C. It offered instead prerequisite conditions that were far less implausible: that trusses holding up the floor slabs were heated to that temperature, and began to experience some combination of expansion and sagging. Floor trusses are much easier to heat because, unlike the columns, they are not well thermally coupled to the rest of the steel structure.

The Truss Failure Theory was abandoned by NIST's investigation in 2004 because NIST was unable to get floor assemblies to fail as required by the theory. Documentaries that had promoted the truss failure theory became obsolete, and were quietly replaced with updated versions.

Fanciful Theory Doesn't Begin to Explain Total Collapse

""de-flunking"" wrote:

not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner.

?? The South Tower's core was barely hit. Moreover, how does an over-engineered steel highrise core get levelled?

""de-flunking"" wrote:

For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse.

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

0