Support 911Blogger


How to Debunk WTC Thermite

wtc_thermite_2The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory. Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is very straightforward and is in no way mysterious.

To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.

  1. Molten metal: There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble. No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which produces the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.
  2. The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months. Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images produced by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire. Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.
  3. Numerous eyewitnesses who were fleeing the area described the air mass as a hot wind filled with burning particles.[1] This evidence agrees with the presence of large quantities of thermite byproducts in the air, including hot metallic microspheres and still-reacting agglomerates of thermite.
  4. Numerous vehicles were scorched or set on fire in the area. Photographic evidence shows that cars parked within the lower-level garage areas of the WTC complex burned as if impacted by a super-hot wind like that described by the eyewitnesses. All non-metallic parts of the cars, including the plastic, rubber, and glass, were completely burned off by a hot blast.
  5. There was a distinct “white smoke” present—clearly different from smoke produce by a normal structural fire—as indicated by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence.[2] The second major product of the thermite reactions is aluminum oxide, which is emitted as a white solid shortly after reaction.
  6. Peer-reviewed, scientific research confirmed the presence of extremely high temperatures at the WTC. The high temperatures were evidenced by metallic and other microspheres, along with evaporated metals and silicates. These findings were confirmed by 9/11 investigators and by scientists at an independent company and at the United States Geologic Survey.
  7. The elemental composition of the metallic microspheres from the WTC dust matches that of metallic microspheres produced by the thermite reaction.
  8. The environmental data collected at Ground Zero in the months following 9/11 indicate that violent incendiary fires, like those produced by thermite, occurred on specific dates. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis of these data show that the components of thermite spiked to extraordinary levels on specific dates in both the air and aerosol emissions at Ground Zero.
  9. Carbon nanotubes have been found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of 9/11 first responders. Formation of carbon nanotubes requires extremely high temperatures, specific metal catalysts, and carbon compounds exactly like those found in nanothermite formulations. Researchers have discovered that nanothermite produces the same kinds of carbon nanotubes. That finding has been confirmed by independent analysis in a commercial contract laboratory.
  10. A peer-reviewed scientific publication has identified the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust. One of the critical aspects of that paper has been confirmed by an independent scientist.

There is also a great deal of indirect evidence for the thermite theory. This includes the attempts by NIST to downplay the evidence for thermite. It also includes things like a weak effort by Rupert Murdoch’s National Geographic Channel to discredit the ability of thermite to cut structural steel, which was itself roundly discredited by one independent investigator. It is now unquestionable that thermite can cut structural steel as needed for a demolition.

Therefore, debunking the WTC thermite theory is not easy but is very straightforward. Doing so simply requires addressing the evidence listed above point by point, and showing in each case how an alternative hypothesis can explain that evidence better. Given the scientific grounding of the thermite theory, use of the scientific method, including experiments and peer-reviewed publications, would be essential to any such debunking effort.

That is almost certainly why we have seen no such debunking. Instead, the people working to refute the WTC thermite theory have resorted to what might be called a case study in how NOT to respond to scientific evidence.

The failed thermite theory debunkers have produced:

  • Thousands of chat room comments and other posts yet not one peer-reviewed scientific article.
  • Alternate hypotheses that have little or no evidence to support them. For example, the mini-nuke hypothesis and the “Star Wars Beam” hypothesis.
  • Government scientists declaring that the evidence simply doesn’t exist.
  • Attempts to exaggerate the meaning of the evidence, for example by saying that thermite or nanothermite could not have caused all of the effects seen at the WTC.
  • Deceptive efforts to introduce the government contractors who produced the official accounts as independent scientists.

The last of these methods has been the most popular. Trying to debunk the tenth piece of evidence for WTC thermite, NIST contractor James Millette produced an unreviewed paper that purports to replicate the finding of nanothermite in the WTC dust. This was apparently organized in the hope that doing so would discredit all of the evidence for thermite at the WTC.

Millette is well known for having helped produce the official reports on the analysis of WTC dust. He was responsible for creating the form that was used to pre-screen all materials found in the dust prior to any analysis by official investigators. Those official reports did not mention any of the evidence listed above, in particular failing to report the abundant iron microspheres scattered throughout the WTC dust. Additinally, Millette’s official report team did not find any red-gray chips, let alone nanothermite.

As he worked to debunk the WTC thermite research, Millette was still unable to find any iron microspheres. But he did claim to have finally found the red-gray chips. Curiously, he did not attempt to replicate the testing that would determine if those chips were thermitic.

Claiming to have found the chips, Millette perfomed an XEDS analysis for elemental composition but failed to do any of the other tests including BSE, DSC, the flame test, the MEK test, or measurement of the chip resistivity. Having inexplicably “ashed” the chips at 400 °C in a muffle furnace, thereby proving that they were not the nanothermite chips (which ignite at 430 °C), Millette ignored the remainder of the study he had set out to replicate.  Because he did not do the DSC test, he could not do XEDS of the spheres formed from the chips. Since he had still not found spheres in the dust, he could not test those and this allowed him to ignore the testing of spheres produced by the thermite reaction.

ftir911Millette rested his case on FTIR, which I have also performed on chips from WTC dust but with a much different result. Like Millette’s paper, my FTIR work is not yet part of a peer-reviewed publication and therefore should not be taken as authoritative evidence. There has been less urgency to this supplemental work because what has been done to date has received no legitimate response from the government or from much of the scientific community. That sad fact should be the central point of discussion today.

In any case, Millette attempted only one tenth of the tests in his struggle to replicate (or refute) one tenth of the evidence for thermite at the WTC. His un-reviewed “one percent approach” was nonetheless very convincing to many people, including some of the people who produced the official reports for 9/11. But it is obvious to others that Millette’s work was not a replication in any sense of the word.

I’m looking forward to the peer-reviewed scientific article that finally does replicate the nanothermite paper or any of the other peer-reviewed scientific papers that give evidence for thermite at the WTC. Hopefully, we can approach those efforts without concerns about the sources and without recalling all the deception and manipulation that preceded them.

Until then, it is important to recognize the difference between the superficial appearance of science and the actual practice of science. Ignoring 90 percent of the evidence is not scientific. And replication of the 10 percent means actually repeating the work. If thermite debunkers and alternate hypothesis supporters can find the courage and focus to step through that challenge, maybe they can begin to add to the discussion.


[1] Here are only a few examples of the hot wind:
“Then the dust cloud hits us. Then it got real hot. It felt like it was going to light up almost.” -Thomas Spinard, FDNY Engine 7
“A wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block.” – David Handschuh, New York’s Daily News
“When I was running, some hot stuff went down by back, because I didn’t have time to put my coat back on, and I had some — well, I guess between first and second degree burns on my back.” -Marcel Claes, FDNY Firefighter
“And then we’re engulfed in the smoke, which was horrendous. One thing I remember, it was hot. The smoke was hot and that scared me” -Paramedic Manuel Delgado
“I remember making it into the tunnel and it was this incredible amount of wind, debris, heat….” -Brian Fitzpatrick FDNY Firefighter
“A huge, huge blast of hot wind gusting and smoke and dust and all kinds of debris hit me” -Firefighter Louis Giaconelli
“This super-hot wind blew and it just got dark as night and you couldn’t breathe” -Firefighter Todd Heaney

[2] For example, see Joel Meyerowitz, Aftermath: World Trade Center archive. Phaldon Publishing, London, p 178. See photograph of the event on 11/08/01 that shows a stunning and immediate change of cloud-like emissions from the pile, from dark smoke to white cloud.

http://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/

 

The title is catchy; the evidence is solid.

Thanks, Kevin -- well done summary.

You are correct that while we have done repeated experiments and tests (following scientific methodology) and then published in peer-reviewed journals, the "debunkers" have not followed suit.

Your essay basically challenges debunkers (or alternative theorists) to do actual experiments of their own - and to publish peer-reviewed papers regarding their claims.

Historically, when I spoke of thermite evidence (usage on 9/11) at the Utah Academy of Arts and Sciences in April 2006, I was immediately thereafter contacted by a fellow (C. Martin Hinckley) who identified himself as a government contractor and strongly warned me to not speak of thermite or its use. More about this fellow and his threatenings are documented in the video "Hypothesis", available on youtube.

More Published Papers Please!

Is anyone here on good terms with Ryan or Harrit? Ryan mentions experiments regarding nanothermite and nanotubes and also unpublished FTIR data. This sounds like excellent material for a couple of new papers and we should provide some encouragement. Do they need funds raised for more experiments and publishing costs?

More funds are needed

That's a no-brainer. Problem with studying the WTC-dust is that independant scientists have run out of it. At least that's what Niels Harrit told the audience (of which I was a part) 2 years ago in Amsterdam. But I believe Denzel Washington has some dust that he has kept, apparently for over 12 years now (I believe I read that on this site).

Other than that, NIST must have some fair amount of dust as well. And surely more people from NYC must've kept some of it as a reminder of what happened that day.

Let´s get it together then

The first thing that strikes me is that we may not need more research for the FTIR paper, but maybe someone here could ask Ryan to make sure? At first I thought the simple thing would be to ask Ryan to write up a paper for the Journal of 9/11 Studies but given due consideration I think it would be a better idea to raise some funds for a mainstream journal. My reasoning is that we should use all the work done by Chris Mohr and his friends to advertize the paper by Millette that never got published, which would be especially fitting because they emphasized above all Millette´s FTIR data. The JREF forum members that directed Mr. Mohr to Dr. Millette did us a huge favor and we should seize the opportunity.

If more dust is needed then lets put 911blogger and ae911 to use and advertize for dust. Ask NIST for dust. Whatever it takes.

JREF 9/11 is a forum for failed clowns

It can be amusing if you have tons and tons of time to waste (as they seem to). But there is little honest attempt at establishing facts. Their primary purpose is to discredit legitimate 9/11 inquiry. Until recently, many of them thought that nanothermite was an imaginary substance invented by Drs. Harrit and Jones. Seriously.

They have discredited themselves

That forum has been self-destructing since their own hero Dr. Greening gave them the finger, but it seems poor Chris Mohr did not understand the kind of company he has involved himself with. I don´t know if he has realized how sad and ridiculous they all look with their unreviewed and unpublished rubbish of a paper by Millette, but judging by the sorry state of the forum these days it seems all but the dumbest have left the building so to speak.

But they did us a huge favor by getting a NIST contractor involved with and stuck with an unpublished thermite paper. The display of a gov. funded contractor backing away from "a debunking" of Harrit´s nanothermite paper is one of the best adverts possible, much better than most made available by cash. They have given us a great opportunity to put out more thermite papers and easily spread the word with fantastic back-up.

I know the upcoming paper by Mark Basile will benefit from this but the truther community should use this opportunity to put out more papers.

JREF: Shills?

JREF appears to be a classic example of pseudoskepticism. As such, they tend to very selective of what they express skepticism about, cherrypicking what they address - and they tend to favor authority opinion and the establishment position on an issue (especially when controversial), and disregard data, facts and findings that run counter to those opinions and positions. This is clearly their take on 9/11, and as such their approach is a perfect example of abusing the scientific method .

The 9/11 Commission followed an exact parallel - disregarding, misrepresenting, distorting, omitting or flagrantly lying as regards findings, data and facts that ran counter to their predetermined, politically mandated, conclusion.

RE: shills

I think most of them are just people with way too much time on their hands trying to look smart by defending the establishment. But there are most likely also a couple of shills amongst them to toe the party line. And then there are the odd exceptions that are bothered by the 9/11 event and need to find convenient answers that soothe their concerns, and put themselves back to sleep. I think Chris Mohr might be one of those, but I suspect that most of these types left the JREF forum a long time ago due to the childish hostile name-calling and general level and frequency of BS.

In the last 12 months or so it seems some of them realized that Millette left them holding a turn in their hands, and Tony Szamboti and others demolished their beloved myths regarding the collapse initiations of the Twin Towers and WTC7. The JREF 9/11 forum is in shambles and so is the whole "debunker" scene. It is about time we forget about these clowns and move forward with more published papers and lawsuits!

Tons of 911 Dust!

Why can't a court order be obtained to secure samples from the Fresh Kills Landfill?
About two million tons of material obtained from Ground Zero were taken to the landfill for sorting.
This is a high security landfill and nothing else has been taken there after the final clean up at Ground Zero,
there would be no question as to whether the dust was really from Ground Zero. I always wondered why no one ever tried to use legal means to secure dust samples from Fresh Kills.

Tons of dust!

That is an excellent question but I don´t have the answer. Maybe this IS a venue for more dust and perhaps NIST is another...? Kevin Ryan is most likely the one to ask for comments, and I suggested in a previous comment here that "we" talk to him about this kind of stuff to prepare for getting out more thermite papers.

Important. re. Collecting WTC dust samples....

I am sure people already know this...but it's always worth repeating:

Re. WTC dust - for any sample and its subsequent analysis to have value and credibility - the dust should come from a place with the minimum risk of contamination. Its collection should be carefully documented and the dust should be placed inside of a clean, chemically inert container. The entire collection process, right up until being sent or delivered to the lab should also be video recorded in good lighting conditions - for documentation backup as well as providing additional verification of the chain of custody. Any sample which is not properly collected or documented is of far less value, as debunkers will (rightly) seize on that deficiency and jump on it from a great height.

The dust and debris which are in the Fresh Kills landfill have been subject to rainwater from the surface for 12 years, which would have leached down into the landfill alongside other material deposited there before and afterwards, and likely have resulted in cross-contamination rendering the samples virtually useless. WTC dust for collection and analysis should preferably be from a dry and unused space. There must be many places which would qualify as such in Lower Manhattan - such as roof spaces, attics and other unused or undisturbed spaces where the microscopic dust may have collected on the day and was never cleaned up.

Just my 2 red cents/

Good Catch

Maybe the landfill is no good, but I do wonder. You are probably right that there are other more likely options. What about asking NIST for dust or even Dr. Millette? What about asking AE9/11Truth to put up a couple of ads for dust?

Are we sure that Harrit et al are out of dust? I seem to remember something about Harrit talking about receiving more dust in one of his lectures..

Harrit Jones "Thermitic Material" Paper in Chinese

Both Ryan and Harrit are giants in the 911 Truth movement. Their work has been so important to the Patriots. To answer your question, yes, they need money.

I lead the effort to translate Harrit and Jones' et. al. "Thermitic" paper into Chinese.

The Chinese translation took over two years of careful work using members/scientists from the Chinese Science Academy. Academics in Chinese and English were also used to provide the finished polishing touches to the paper.

I have been in southern China but will return to Beijing soon and restart my effort to get this paper published in a scientific journal.

I argue that although scientific peer reviewed articles usually can be printed one time, the new translation constitutes a new work and should be exempt from this rule. If not, I still need to be in Beijing to get this paper out main stream.

I will tell you this. Every Chinese scientist and academic have responded the same way to my questions.
1. Did you find any scientific flaw within the paper?
A. No
2. Any chance the nanothermite chips being paint?
A. (Universal chuckle/derisive laugh) No.
3. Did you find any typos, grammar, translation or even layout mistakes?
A. No.

A much needed effort, many thanks!

Thank you indeed for this great effort. I would almost guarantee that the people of China have had very little chance to read about the reality of 9/11, as regards proper, successfully peer-reviewed, science.

The Chinese get it.

The great thing about my three years teaching in China was you could talk about 9/11 and people would say: "Oh, that makes way more sense than what we were taught in school." Some would add: "Of course all governments do bad things to their own people -- always have, always will."
It's the same in Uzbekistan where I work now.

Excellent and timely summary.

Excellent summary, Kevin. The "thermitic" explanation is the only hypothesis that has evolved as a result of hard data, analysis, and experiment - the heart of the scientific method. All other "explanations" of the collapse of the WTC towers and #7 are either speculative, or politically motivated.

***

There's another issue with the "thermitic" hypothesis which I have hardly ever seen discussed:

"Why on earth would the perps use thermite to demolish a building(s) rather than the types of explosives in common usage in the demolition business"?

I can think of at least *four* reasons:

(1) (Nano)thermitic composites are composed principally and typically of (nanoparticulate) aluminum and ferric oxide. (There are variations). Both these substances are chemically stable in the that they do not outgas or otherwise break down at normal temperature and pressure. Aluminum very slowly oxidizes on the surface at NTP, and ferric oxide is completely inert at NTP. Explosives in common use - which would have been tested for if any inquiring body had conducted tested for explosives - produce breakdown byproducts and a distinctive residue set and reaction products. NIST did *not test* for any form of explosives and explosives residue in the WTC dust; had they conducted tests for these products, the results would have turned up negative, on account of the benign nature of the reaction products/components of thermite! Very convenient indeed....

(2) These chemical characteristics of normal military or blasting charges are also the basis of explosives detecting security technology and equipment, and explosives sniffing dogs are trained to detect such using their keen sense of smell. Thermitic composites cannot be detected by equipment designed to detect more commonly used nitrate/perchlorate/organic compound based explosives. Likewise, explosives sniffing dogs would have turned up a blank. The WTC was bombed in 1993 using an ANFO (ammonium nitrate + fuel oil) type of bomb, and security in in the complex in the the years after this attack had been drastically tightened. By employing thermitic composites, the bomb detection security systems at the WTC would have been readily bypassed, ie rendered useless. Again, very convenient!

(3) nanothermite provides the perfect cover as regards explosives residue, in that the reaction products of (nano)thermite are metallic iron and aluminum oxide, two very common substances that would not raise suspicion or indication of a controlled demolition.... and since the Twin Towers framework was made of steel (iron), and the airplanes' fuselages were built of aluminum, the use of thermite provided the tailor -made cover. In other words (nano)thermite was 100% ideal in preventing any forensic examination from readily identifying explosives…that is, using normal tests for normal explosives.

(4) This is a little more speculative, but perhaps worthy of consideration: Perhaps a thermite demolition would have a different, or unfamiliar set of qualities, (sound, light etc), to the usual telltale signs of the traditional building demolition sequence that everyone has seen countless times on television over the decades.... to what we have been accustomed...therefore causing less suspicion the part of the public?

Explosives

I think it's likely a combination of explosives were used. The authors of the various papers are careful to not rule out the use of conventional explosives in conjunction with thermitic materials.

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/The_World_Trade_Center_Columns_Have_Explosive_Blast_Damage

Secondary explosions, bombs

Kevin gives an excellent summary of the thermitic evidence at the WTC, which either contributed to the demolitions or was solely responsible for them. However, there's also evidence for secondary explosions prior to the demolitions and for basement bombs.

I haven't read anything by AE911Truth or Kevin Ryan regarding bombs in the WTC as something apart from thermitic materials and what role (if any) they might have played in bringing down the buildings. Perhaps they were only for terrorism as someone recently suggested? But they do seem to be part of the explosive evidence. Whoever planted or parked bombs in the WTC was part of the 9/11 plot same as those who planted nanothermite.

Why use conventional high explosives for the other detonations?

I totally concur, re. secondary explosions, which happened in the lower basement levels of both of the Twin Towers around the time of the airplane impacts (and inside WTC7 during the initial period), and also in the Twin Towers between the plane strikes and the subsequent destruction of the buildings. However, nano-particulate thermite ('nanothermite') has been demonstrated to have high explosive properties, as regards detonation velocity etc. From the wikipedia entry for 'nanothermite":

quote:
.... Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.....

and https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

It is not impossible that *all* of the detonations were caused by nanothermite - why would the perps use conventional high explosives (bearing in mind the risk of detection, see my post above) when it appears that nanothermite can do the same job. Since this material has been developed by the US military over the last 3 decades or so, it is not inconceivable that aspects of its development are classified, thus there is no way of verifying how far advanced its development was in the year or two leading up to 9/11, when the perps would have needed to acquire this material in large enough quantities to do the job in hand.

Bombs for Terror?

I don't see why bombs or conventional explosives would have been needed to accomplish the demolitions and agree that nanothermite could have been the sole factor..... but bombs could have been used for terror. I'm going on the news reports of trucks or cars parked at the WTC that were said to have bombs or explosive devices. I agree with your assessment for why nanothermite would have been used and that it could account for all the blast damage. (jkeogh might disagree)

As for the secondary / basement explosions, do you think they played a functional role in bringing down the buildings, or do you think they were simply for terror as kawika suggested. Just curious what you think.

Sources

Anyone have links to numbers? I'll make a resource page on 911encyclopedia if so. High explosives yield blast velocities in the range of 3000m/s to 9000m/s and achieve pressures of around 700tons/in^2, which is why metal behaves like a liquid when the shockwave interacts with it.

http://www.uxoinfo.com/uxoinfo/ordhazards.cfm

2500m/s for one nanoenergetic mixture:
http://udini.proquest.com/view/nanoenergetic-gas-generators-pqid:2505665221/

I presume that nanoenergetics are responsible for the main sequence, the lack of floor pans and the floor by floor explosions seem to require large areas to explode. And the color of the gas generated is consistent with Aluminum Oxide. As many have pointed out, thermite would be a excellent choice for pre-weakening as well.

But stuff like this: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Relics_in_the_Rubble_Bent_Hbeam.wmv makes me suspect conventional high explosives were used for some structural elements.

Here is the signature of a kicker charge: http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4124.jpg

Could explain the large quantity of chips and spheres

I don´t think anyone ruled out conventional explosives along with thermite type materials but why would anyone need ce´s? Nanothermite based cutter charges would not need the ultra high power delivered by conventional explosives because they would rely on the molten metal to do the cutting, not the shock-wave.

We may not have ready sources to indicate that there were nanothermites capable of matching the best high explosives at the time even though we have sources indicating that they have the potential to match or exceed them. But even if the culprits had been stuck with lower power nanothermites and still wanted to use some as explosives along with cutter charges to direct and control the collapses, then they simply would have been forced to use a lot more of it per floor compared to C4. This would actually explain why there is such a sh$$load of chips and spheres in the dust!

Effects on concrete

In large part, the evidence concerns the effect of nanothermite on steel. But one of the striking things about the destruction of the WTC towers is how thoroughly the concrete was pulverized and reduced to dust (something else that--like the swift collapse of the steel structures--gravity does not account for). Could that also have been an effect of nanothermite, or might conventional explosives be a more likely explanation?

And what about those reports that bomb-sniffing dogs had been removed from the towers some time in the weeks prior to 9/11? That would have made the situation more favorable for bringing in more conventional substances in addition to nanothermite.

RE: effects on concrete

Did someone not include nanothermite infused tiles under the floors in a "hypothetical" scenario to explain the observed pulverization? The culprits must have tried to minimize as much as possible the use of conventional explosives, but perhaps they still used some. Unfortunately I don´t think we can ever say for sure because any traces in the dust may have decomposed by now and most of the steel evidence was destroyed.

The removal off the dogs may suggest the use of conventional explosives but it is not strong evidence. Was all security removed or just the dogs? If the masterminds told the security apparatus to "stand down" at certain times, would they had to specifically mention the dogs? Would they bother to explain that "you can leave the dogs though because they can´t detect our stuff"? When you get rid of the dogs you also get rid of the persons that handle them which are presumably also trained just as well as the dogs..

That was Jim Hoffman...

with his hypothetical blastscenario, with the thermitic ceiling tiles. Don't really know what to think about that scenario.

Another thing to ponder over are the vast amounts of paper sheets that were flying around when the Towers had just disintegrated. I asked David Griscom about that one or two years ago, about what could've caused that (that is, paper sheets remaining intact while concrete got pulverized and steel beams melted, in other words, why didn't all of that paper get burned while there obviously was a tremendous amount of heat present?). He replied that it had to do with pressure that created all or most of the destruction, not heat.

I believe this issue of the paper sheets hasn't been covered all that much. One more mystery to add to the large volume already present.

More papers needed..

One way to find out if conventional explosives were needed to account for some of the observed phenomena would be to get more papers on the matrix material specifically, and also the chips found with multiple layers and the strange white coating that Ryan mentions in the FTIR slide. Harrit et al. could perhaps figure out what kind of effects these additional materials add to the std nanothermite mix. Their referenced papers suggest that these kind of additions add explosive power, and perhaps they could figure out roughly the composition of these layers and hence the power potential.

I hope to see at least one more nanothermite paper published before 9/11 2014. Either Basile´s paper or Ryan´s FTIR paper, or both.

RE: downvote of "More papers needed"

Mr. Downvoting Man, why the hate? I fail to see what is so offensive about that post.

Paper rain

Shockwaves cause more damage to structures that break when deformed.
Paper existed in the buildings in huge amounts, it's a flexible 2D structure. It's strength to density ratio is higher than steel (but I cant find the number atm....). Intuitively I don't find it surprising that large amounts of paper survived. The file cabnets, desks, chairs, computers and telephones on the other hand...

Somewhere I remember a interview where a first responder was talking about finding the tough plastic star wheel bases that many swivel chairs have. Anyone know where that clip is?

The majority of steel melting most likely happened during the pre-weakening stage and in the pile of exothermic debris after the event. As Mr. Griscom said, explosives do work via gas pressure, the heat that thermite based explosives generate is just a way to get the gas generating material it's coupled to to do it's thing.

It's a somewhat common claim that "the concrete was pulverized", and it's true, but of course it's not absolute. A spectrum of concrete sizes were generated. The speed which they fall out of the dust cloud is a function of their mass and volume.

Pics: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Concrete

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength

Thinking about it again after what you wrote about the...

properties of paper, it is kinda logical that large numbers of paper sheets would survive. So no real mystery here :)

Btw, do commercial demolition companies use nanothermitic explosives already? Or are these being used exclusively by the military up till now? Surely these kinds of explosives are being used right now? We're 12 years down the road, so...

Thanks for your reply.

Several explanations

Distraction. Like a magician, the bombs in the basement that coincide with the impacts were overlooked by the action well above.

The reason: Blogger nk-44 and chopoz did speculate it was for a hidden, a concealed controlled demolition. With the plane impacts main members of the statical structures in the basement could have been taken out without destroying them completely. Maybe straight horitontally cuts, to be effective in totally leveling the buildings at the very collapse onset. Maybe the only loud task in the destruction of the Towers. And if they were to take place later with the onset of the fall it could have been to obvious.
Other goals, possible implied in the bombings. To destroy safety. security surveillance, to hinder anyone reaching the fire impact zones by destroying the local elevators, to destroy water risers for the Sprinkler (like photographed by John Labriola in the lower floors of the WTC North Tower core) to reach the cover that "fire did it" was more plausible. There are many valid reasons other than pure terror for the bombings.
And I wonder why it took years that Kevin reported on it and freed the infos from their outsider stance within even the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Plane Strikes - Prove It NIST

The jet engine is composed of steel and titanium - melting points of 2800-3040F. The wings are more flammable because of light, strong composition with Aluminum, carbon fiber, other metals and plastic in some models. Jet fuel burns at 1400, so if those wising to use a jet as a bomb, as the scenario was with the WTC, and cause it to melt the steel in the WTC, the jet engine would have to burn fuel at the temperature of the engine - which means the jet engine might even start melting on the runway or soon after. The jet would also have to include a furnace on board. End of NIST fantasy.

SAD TO SAY.......

There is no difference on 911 than JFK................... We know the truth, as do most Americans. Twelve years, and fifty years. The same results. The problem is MSM. Until that changes ...... Nothing does.

No Event Exists in a Vacuum

Love the connection made between JFK and 9/11. However, 9/11 is different from the first of the great American political conspiracies. The difference is that we are all informed by what we've learned about conspiracies by the 50 years of relentless digging done to find the truth about the Kennedy assassinations. The media dam on what actually happened to JFK is collapsing with books like The Man Who Killed Kennedy-The Case Against LBJ and LBJ - Master of the JFK Assassination. I don't know what the last straw will be, but when that dam bursts it will bring down the 19-Arabs-with-box-cutters nonsense with it. That will not take another 38 years.

I hope you're right

.............. but even after fifty years the lid on the truth remains. The only tool for truth is the internet. I have told well above 300 people about 911, only 4 refuse to look into it. The others agreed, and the response was always the same....... Oh well what you going to do?........... PASS IT ON !

Take comfort in the fact....

....that's it's never too late until it's too late. We can still turn things around, we can still make it happen as a human race, we can still throw out the "bad" guys (primarly the socalled leaders of all the countries, sometimes with the best intentions though) who bring nothing but misery and suffering, if "we" as a whole decide to do so.

But first more people need to know about the scams that are being pulled, about the lies that are fed to them day in and day out. More people need to know that there are many many people outthere who already know that they're being f...ed every day, and who want that to stop.

So, pass it on indeed. No guarantees, but if we don't pass on the information, the odds of creating this better world for ourselves and future generations will diminish, every day. There's not that much time to waste.

Undebunkable Thermite

All scenarios for the WTC destruction involve thermitic materials. Kevin Ryan has provided overwhelming evidence for thermite and clear instructions for how someone could go about trying to debunk it. Good luck with that. Basic scenarios:

1. These were demolitions using exclusively thermitic materials, however there were also bombs in the buildings for reasons not necessarily part of the demolitions. (terror, etc.)

2. These were demolitions carried out exclusively with thermitic materials, which accounts for all the blast damage and pulverized dust. There were no bombs in the basement or elsewhere. (Which means that police and news reports of trucks and vans at the WTC believed to contain explosives are wrong --- despite the fact that truck bombs and van bombs were in NYC on the morning of 9/11 with apparent foreknowledge of the WTC attacks). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDqNLrOd_SY

3. These were demolitions carried out with a combination of nanothermite and conventional explosives.

Regardless, nanothermite is part of the equation. The two scenarios that are clearly false are.....

4. These are demolitions which did not use thermitic materials.

5. These are not demolitions.

nanothermite bombs

I add to scenarios 1 and 2 that nanothermite can account for bomb reports, since different formulations yield different results, some of which can be quite explosive. Were the extra layers of the nanothermite chips found in multiple layers some sort of modifiers to add explosive power where needed? What about the white coating that Ryan mentions in that description of his FTIR test chip?

The Thing From Another World

This was a film made in 1951, I think, and curiously, members of the Air Force used a "thermite bomb" to melt ice in order to recover a crashed flying saucer. 1951!!!

Sci Fi

Do we know when the compound thermite was first produced, or when it first went by that name? I wonder if it was later than the film, and those who developed it liked what had been an imaginary name in the film script, and adapted it for their 'real-world' purposes. In other words, I wonder if it's a case of science fiction preceding science fact.

Here's a history of it...

Popular Mechanics: Skyride Tower Felled by Melting Steel Legs (1935) - Thermite
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-25/skyride-tower-felled-melting-steel-legs

The SkyRide Towers, an attraction built for the Chicago World’s Fair in 1933, consisted of two 628-foot-tall steel towers, connected by an aerial suspension system that ferried passengers from one tower to the other. At the time, its staggering height made it the tallest structure in Chicago.

Two years after its construction, the Skyride Towers attraction was closed and scheduled for demolition. The October 1935 issue of Popular Mechanics reported that while demolition teams used conventional dynamite to bring down the West tower, they decided to bring the East Tower down with a thermite compound, which was used to melt two of the steel legs:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/575-popular-mechanics-ignores-its-own-historical-records-of-thermite...