New Thermite?

[D-Mack]

Re: New Thermite?

The best thing would be to ask the people who were inside, but most of them are dead and not many were talking over cell phones that day

[don]

Re: New Thermite?

In Uranium, it's manufacture produces a signature for every batch produced. I wonder if a "signature" is produced by thermite manufacture?

I wonder if the nanotechnology aspect provides that signature? If so, what hubris. We just had to try it out....:eek:

[Guest]

Re: New Thermite?

Fair disclosure. I have been, and likely will continue to be a firm opponent of anything to do with conspiracy regarding the world trade center, and in fact I consider most conspiracy theories to be evidence of softness or sponginess in the cerebrum. But I don't believe in setting up a "stockade" surrounding my viewpoints so that any item of news contrary to my viewpoint (particularly those which seem the most genuinely challenging) is greeted with a cross and holy water, as though it were a vampire.

[jdv]

Re: New Thermite?

What I'm curious about is even if this is a "smoking gun" that contradicts the official theory, would the new administration even want to publish it?
If I was president Obama, would I admit it? I'm not sure I would. The admission would be very damaging to America.

Look at all the counter-reactions that followed 9/11. If they were all based on a lie, how would the world react?
It would have to be a quick decisive trial, otherwise it just would make America look bad. And there would be so much propaganda from different viewpoints, it would be difficult for it to be truly decisive just based on the presence of thermite.

[metalman]

Re: New Thermite?

Excuse me, but why don't you guys put all the chatter about WTC conspiracies right out of your minds and just get a little interested in the Thermite find? They found it, and thermite has no business in a civilian skyscraper in downtown Manhattan. Thermite itself has no business anywhere in downtown Manhattan.

Screw World Trade Center dark mysteries. Just concentrate on whether thermite can plausibly exist in one of the tallest skyscrapers in NYC? That would be the *objective* method of inquiry.

Don must be banging his head against a wall by now and moaning about the irrational posts proliferating here.

F O R G E T T H E W O R L D T R A D E C E N T E R conspiracy theories and C O N C E N T R A T E on this set of carefully logged findings instead. Make iTulip proud, that you are all 100% agnostic.

had a little vile of thermite in my pocket and, just for fun, decided to sprinkle it on the 9/11 dust pile. he he!

gimme a break. basic forensics rules... no conclusion can be drawn from finding a bit of thermite dust there. you also have to prove that it could not have been placed there after the fact.

freddie... oh, freddie? off to rant and rave... one star rating...

[Guest]

Re: New Thermite?

I can always count on Metalman to represent the contingent intolerant of "stray thinking". Must not let our thoughts stray off the beaten path here! We now are "re-tasked" to list all the reasons why the presence of a little nano-engineered thermite at the WTC arrived there innocuously. :rolleyes:

Dude, frankly I could care less whether WTC was a conspiracy or not. I'm odd that way - just can't get cranked up on conspiracy theorizing. But your "straight and narrow" thinking is a wonder to behold. Sometimes I almost conclude your thought processes are traveling along a "virtual rail", they are so wondrously straight (and occasionally narrow).

Thanks to Don for an interesting post. Now Fred can summarily dump this in the darkest, dankest trashcan in Rant and Rave. We promise not to cry about the meanies.

[metalman]

Re: New Thermite?

I can always count on Metalman to represent the contingent intolerant of "stray thinking". Must not let our thoughts stray off the beaten path here! We now are "re-tasked" to list all the reasons why the presence of a little nano-engineered thermite at the WTC arrived there innocuously. :rolleyes:

Dude, frankly I could care less whether WTC was a conspiracy or not. I'm odd that way - just can't get cranked up on conspiracy theorizing. But your "straight and narrow" thinking is a wonder to behold. Sometimes I almost conclude your thought processes are traveling along a "virtual rail", they are so wondrously straight (and occasionally narrow).

here, this will keep you busy awhile... http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/...explosives.htm

[Guest]

Re: New Thermite?

I'm supposed to be busy indeed. I'm at work. Jeez, what an outmoded passe' idea that is, eh? Being at work and stuff.

here, this will keep you busy awhile... http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/...explosives.htm

[charliebrown]

Re: New Thermite?

im not ash, but the concentrations of this material seems high.
The paper says the chips comprise .1% of the dust by weight. Assuming that the cloud dispersed the chips uniformily it would mean that before the collapse the chips would have weighed an enourmous amount.
Does anyone have an estimate of the weight of the dust? If there was 1000 tons of dust, (10 rail cars worth, not a stretch I dont think) then there would be 1 ton of chips. Oh, and by the way, I assume that if it was a device intended to explode that most of the device would be consumed. Therefore the one ton of chips is what did not get comsumed. So now we are talking about a 10 ton device. I doubt that a 10 ton of chips would be on the plane, so they would have to be in the building before the plane hit. since the paper claims they are nano-particles, I dont think that the dust could be later contaminated by some other naturally occuring source. Therefore we should be able to go to a dump where dust has been dumped and search for these chips in other samples.
seems a little fishy.

[tombat1913]

Re: New Thermite?

had a little vile of thermite in my pocket and, just for fun, decided to sprinkle it on the 9/11 dust pile. he he!

gimme a break. basic forensics rules... no conclusion can be drawn from finding a bit of thermite dust there. you also have to prove that it could not have been placed there after the fact.

freddie... oh, freddie? off to rant and rave... one star rating...

It seems abundantly clear to me that you're on here saying it's bullshit and you haven't looked into the subject in any depth. If you haven't looked into it and have no intention to then go to another thread that you have interest in learning about and stop crying for FRED on this one. It's incredibly insulting to have you chiming in calling us conspiracy theorists when you refuse to even entertain the idea in any subjective fashion whatsoever. They found evidence of thermite all over New York!

[tombat1913]

Re: New Thermite?

Don,

Stop posting this stuff on itulip, it's an economics forum and they have made it clear they don't want it here. Furthermore they have no intention of taking the subject seriously. It's insulting for people who are knowledgeable and have taken many hours to consider the evidence to debate others who refuse to do the same but chime in with meritless nonsense. For those of us who want this information it is readily available elsewhere, and I'm sure that there is a forum on the subject where you could have sincere debate.

[flintlock]

Re: New Thermite?

are you kidding me? yet another '911... the gov't did it' thread? all this report proves is that chemists can be conspiracy theorists, too.

Seriously. They complain about being labeled conspiracy nuts, but what other conclusion do they assert would explain finding thermite dust there? It accidently got there? Aliens left it? If not a conspiracy then what? Its like saying a hooker was found dead in President Obama's bedroom, but we're not implying anything illegal went on. Sorry, but my first impression was the same as Metalman's. Maybe someone could enlighten me to what it does imply.

And what is the source of this info? Is it reputable?

[metalman]

Re: New Thermite?

It seems abundantly clear to me that you're on here saying it's bullshit and you haven't looked into the subject in any depth. If you haven't looked into it and have no intention to then go to another thread that you have interest in learning about and stop crying for FRED on this one. It's incredibly insulting to have you chiming in calling us conspiracy theorists when you refuse to even entertain the idea in any subjective fashion whatsoever. They found evidence of thermite all over New York!

no, no, no... i won't... won't get sucked in... no... ugh!

ok, ok! i'll bite!

so on top of the totally improbable event of not one but two jets crashed into sky scrapers you are saying at that those same buildings were rigged with explosives that went off at precisely the right time to make it look like the fires that melted the building cores actually did. note the saudi bad guys claimed only the ability to crash planes into buildings not to also blow them up at the same time. why not claim both?

how can anyone hope to make a dime investing if they lack a smidgen probabilistic thinking? what's wrong with the more obvious theory that a bunch of bad guys hit the terrorism lottery jackpot?

[ggirod]

Re: New Thermite?

When I read that, I almost immediately thought of the monumental amount of thermite that would need to be in there to leave unburned residues that well scattered in time and place. Then, my next thought was whether there was a well documented chain of custody for the samples. IANAL but if there was then such a paper trail would help defend against assertions of tampering with the samples. Otherwise, little can be said regarding the validity of the results.

One would hope with the reported concentrations that a small sample of some properly handled evidence should reveal similar results and if so there is definitely a puzzle to be investigated. Otherwise the alternate explanation of evidence contamination cannot be rejected and it will remain a matter of dispute forever. Carl Sagan is attributed with saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case, just documented provable evidence would probably do.

[Guest]

Re: New Thermite?

What about if the planes headed into the WTC were loaded with thermite? Is that a remote possibility? After all think about it - if you loaded thermite into the base of the towers, and the fires occurred at the 60th or 100th floor, the thermite would remain inert unless a charge went off. If the thermite were at the base of the building and a charge went off the buildings would not have collapsed from the top down - they would have evidenced disintegration from the bottom first.

All kinds of corollaries here which don't make it a slam dunk that if there is thermite present "it must have been a conspiracy" - yet people are so polarized on this question that everyone instantly lines up either "anti-conspiracy" or "pro conspiracy" as though we were all a bunch of metal filings lining up to a magnet. I have no idea why this item can't be examined without an instantaneous attribution to a world trade center conspiracy added into the discussion before anyone can even draw a breath.

They have apparently found it present in the dust, with what reads like a zero degree of uncertainty (it was cooked off in lab tests even, and the resulting residue a perfect match for thermite), and it is micronized thermite, which makes it that much more improbable.

Now if you were a complete agnostic, and you found "for or against conspiracy theories" to be a yawn of a detour for a discussion - you ask - what are all the possible ways it could be there? Thermite needs a charge to set off. Either it was "planted" in the upper floors where the planes hit, where it could get cooked off, or if it was planted below the impact levels, it would require a charge and some record of it's firing to set off the collapse would be evident.

Do the films of the WTC collapse show any evidence of a charge setting off at the base of the towers? No. There were people exiting the base of the towers via the stairs even as they began their collapse. If thermite was there and got cooked off by the upper fires, it would have had to be in the upper stories - or on the planes? Jeez now there's an improbable idea - loads of thermite on the planes headed for the WTC.

If the thermite cooked off at any segment of the building other than the floors around the impacts, it would have left a very distinct "secondary explosion" at another level of the buildings.

I am really dejected to see how many people line up rigidly to one or the other side of this totally over-pounded argument - both for and against conspiracies. You guys, married so passionately to your viewpoints - you are captive to your viewpoints if you remain in such a rigid posture either for or against.

Everyone here should try for ten minutes arguing for the exact opposite of what they believe "must" have occurred. Honestly, all the entrenched position taking reminds me of a bunch of barges "up-river", stranded in the mud at low tide.