WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[GlennB]

Why would you assume, in this hypothesis, that the nanothermite survived the fires, or that it needed to?

Because if it didn't,why would every single red/grey chip in the dust be unreacted nano-thermite, according to Harrit? [/truth mode]

 

[ergo]

I think they would argue that the reacted nanothermite was evident in the form of the iron-rich microspheres, found in concentrations of up to 6% of the dust, by RJ Lee.

But my question was about this commonly expressed but faulty logic among 9/11 "debunkers" that demolition materials, including thermitic materials, 1) would have to survive the fires in order to serve their demolition function, and 2) wouldn't survive the fires. So is the argument that demolition materials are somehow deactivated in the presence of hydrocarbon fires? If so, how? Or is it that they would ignite and misfire, ruining the sequence necessary for controlled demolition?

 

[beachnut]

I think they would argue that the reacted nanothermite was evident in the form of the iron-rich microspheres, found in concentrations of up to 6% of the dust, by RJ Lee.

...?

What did it do? React after 911? The RJ Lee study was done when? What is your point?
RJ Lee, found stuff in one building. There was not 6 percent iron micro-spheres in WTC dust. RJ Lee's study includes all the clean up dust which made way into the building he studied, and he found no thermite.

Looks like using RJ Lee is self-debunking. Is that your point?

Why can't 911 truth followers and you refute Millette's study? Do you do chemistry? Did you take Chem Eng 101 yet? 12 years and nothing valid from Jones and 911 truth.

 

[Africanus]

I think they would argue that the reacted nanothermite was evident in the form of the iron-rich microspheres, found in concentrations of up to 6% of the dust, by RJ Lee.

How can such an assumption be made without actually proving ti?

But my question was about this commonly expressed but faulty logic among 9/11 "debunkers" that demolition materials, including thermitic materials, 1) would have to survive the fires in order to serve their demolition function, and 2) wouldn't survive the fires. So is the argument that demolition materials are somehow deactivated in the presence of hydrocarbon fires? If so, how? Or is it that they would ignite and misfire, ruining the sequence necessary for controlled demolition?

Harrit et al. claim that their thermitic chips ingite at 430°C, so yes I think it is a valid question how this stuff survived the impacts of the planes and the resulting fires.

 

[ergo]

Harrit et al. claim that their thermitic chips ingite at 430°C, so yes I think it is a valid question how this stuff survived the impacts of the planes and the resulting fires.

So the argument is that all the demolition substance hypothetically present in the buildings would ignite with the plane impacts and fires? That is still not inconsistent with a nanothermite hypothesis since, obviously, it could have activated on the floors that were burning, and not on the floors that were not.

So that's not a valid critique, unless you're trying to argue that demolition materials somehow become deactivated in the presence of fires. If that's the argument, you'd need to explain how.

 

[TheRedWorm]

So the argument is that all the demolition substance hypothetically present in the buildings would ignite with the plane impacts and fires? That is still not inconsistent with a nanothermite hypothesis since, obviously, it could have activated on the floors that were burning, and not on the floors that were not.

So that's not a valid critique, unless you're trying to argue that demolition materials somehow become deactivated in the presence of fires. If that's the argument, you'd need to explain how.

Remind me again, what exactly is the nanothermite hypothesis?

 

[grandmastershek]

Remind me again, what exactly is the nanothermite hypothesis?

Fairly simple really, it explodes when you need it to, but is also quiet when it is likewise convenient. What Ergo is avoiding is that what was observed was the Towers collapsing at the point of impact.

 

[Africanus]

So the argument is that all the demolition substance hypothetically present in the buildings would ignite with the plane impacts and fires? That is still not inconsistent with a nanothermite hypothesis since, obviously, it could have activated on the floors that were burning, and not on the floors that were not.

So that's not a valid critique, unless you're trying to argue that demolition materials somehow become deactivated in the presence of fires. If that's the argument, you'd need to explain how.

If the temperature in the resulting floors reaches the auto ignition temperature of the "demolition materials", this stuff will ignite automatically. According to Harrit et al. their thermite ignites at 430°C, a temperature that is well below the temperatures reached during the fires in the Twin Towers.

 

[Gamolon]

Why would you assume, in this hypothesis, that the nanothermite survived the fires, or that it needed to? In the case of the Twin Towers, you're talking about a maximum of 90 minutes between jet fuel fires and total building collapse.

Did you read ANY of the threads posted lately?

The thermite that Dr. Millette failed to identify, was likely what caused the initial toppling in the WTC Twin Towers.

It is particularly noticeable in the WTC2 (South Tower) collapse.

As can be seen in the news videos, a steady stream of brightly glowing molten metal cascaded from a corner location.

Seconds after this molten stream halted, that corner failed and the WTC 2 topple began.

Getting back to your question, once the upper sections of WTC 1 and WTC 2 started to topple a background of destruction noise was generated that would easily disguise the additional noise created by igniting sequenced conventional explosives.

MM

MM says thermite first initiated the toppling, which was followed by conventional explosives.

How did the thermite survive the impact, explosion, and then fires to then ignite and sever columns at a later time? A you can see., MM chooses to ignore that which shows his crazy notions to be just that. Crazy.

 

[Gamolon]

it could have activated on the floors that were burning, and not on the floors that were not.

Then why did the upper section not fall when the thermite activated if that was what it's "intended" use was for?

 

[Gamolon]

RJ Lee noted the high percentage of iron-based microspheres in the 9/11 WTC dust.

Explain how your "cut corners" on a couple of floors equals "high percentage of iron-based microspheres".

 

[gerrycan]

Right. Floor by floor core removal.

[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/southcorestands1.gif[/qimg]

I guess this part of the core WASN'T part of your "script".

Looks kind of small to be the whole core column section.

 

[ergo]

How did the thermite survive the impact, explosion, and then fires to then ignite and sever columns at a later time? A you can see., MM chooses to ignore that which shows his crazy notions to be just that. Crazy.

Again, I ask: why would you assume it did? We are talking about a 60 - 90 minute period between fuel ignition and collapse time. Maybe that's how long it takes.

Then why did the upper section not fall when the thermite activated if that was what it's "intended" use was for?

If that's MM's hypothesis, you can argue that it did. I don't think themite or nanothermite act like conventional explosives. You've seen the various youtube videos of how it works? It doesn't even necessarily produce a bang. It eats away at the target material. This is not inconsistent with the time for collapse we observe in the towers.

 

[ergo]

If the temperature in the resulting floors reaches the auto ignition temperature of the "demolition materials", this stuff will ignite automatically. According to Harrit et al. their thermite ignites at 430°C, a temperature that is well below the temperatures reached during the fires in the Twin Towers.

Right... and that would mean that the nanothermite ignites and starts working?

 

[DGM]

Again, I ask: why would you assume it did? We are talking about a 60 - 90 minute period between fuel ignition and collapse time. Maybe that's how long it takes.

So, you're so convinced that you need to make up the properties in order to ignore the obvious fires?

 

[beachnut]

...
RJ Lee makes repeated reference to blast furnace-like fly ash.

RJ Lee noted the high percentage of iron-based microspheres in the 9/11 WTC dust.
... MM

Blast furnace-like, aka WTC fires. Simile mixes up 911 truth and has them create fantasies with their failure to understand simile.

RJ Lee noted what? You are using a study of the insides of 130 Liberty Street Property, aka Deutsche Bank, for your WTC dust samples? Inside samples from after 911, 8 Months after 911. Eight months after. There goes that chain of evidence for 911 truth fantasy thermite.

You are using samples from inside a building after May 10, 2002 for the iron rich microspheres which 911 truth liars jump to thermite, after Jones made up thermite out of thin air and then he was fired for going nuts on 911. RJ Lee samples are not WTC dust, it is clean up WTC dust, pre 911 dust, 911 dust which was found in One Building, all which means nothing.

The real iron percentage in real WTC dust samples was at the same levels as background soil samples. Oh my, we have nothing but BS from 911 truth for 12 years of solid failure.

Millette found no thermite, and Jones found no thermite, and lied.

 

[Africanus]

Right... and that would mean that the nanothermite ignites and starts working?

Yes. Si. Oui. Ja. Sic.

 

[Myriad]

Does anyone know of a peer-reviewed study that shows a method of iron oxide reduction to iron at temperatures less than 2750 F (the melting point of solid iron)? Jim Millette wanted to do this and more over a year ago and ran out of time. I did go to WikiAnswers and asked how to reduce iron oxide to iron, and a simple answer: take the rust, surround it in sand, heat it up in a wood fire and voila, iron oxide reduced to iron! But alas, this is not peer-reviewed. Any linkies friends? Also appreciated would be the peer-reviewed studies of temperatures at which iron-rich spheres can be created. I failed to find peer-reviewed studies, not that I feel the need for them but someone else certainly does.

This is called smelting. It's been done since ancient times. It takes heat and a reducing atmosphere. Melting the iron is not required.

A peer-reviewed paper? That would be a bit like finding a peer-reviewed paper that says wheat can be made into bread.

 

[Dog Town]

This is called smelting. It's been done since ancient times. It takes heat and a reducing atmosphere. Melting the iron is not required.

A peer-reviewed paper? That would be a bit like finding a peer-reviewed paper that says wheat can be made into bread.

It needed to be said! I think, I love YOU!

 

[Dog Town]

eta: Seriously, MM, do you ever verify your facts before posting?

NO!