Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

[Alt+F4]

It says right in the scientific report that thermite was found.

Tell you big-shot brother to write-up a scientific paper and get it peer reviewed. Has your brother studied the WTC dust and tested it for thermite?

If he hasn't, then his opinion means nothing.

Again, there was no thermite found in any WTC dust. Themite has on occasion been used in arson cases therefore Arson Investigators (called Fire Marshals in the FDNY) are trained in thermite identification.

No thermite, period. The lurkers, newbies and other readers aren't buying your lies.

 

[lapman]

It says right in the scientific report that thermite was found.

Wrong. They speculate that nano-thermite was found. Yet they fail to produce a sample of real nano-thermite for comparison. Add to that the fact that they do not name the paint that they used. So, what they did was form their conclusion first, then try to mold the data to fit their predetermined conclusion. This is why they had to publish in an obscure vanity rag whose peer-review credibility is suspect at best and are completely unable to get published in an established journal. They "found" thermite because they patently refuse to accept any other source of the material, not because it was really there.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

another JREFer said oxygen is pumped into coal fires.

Personally, I don't really care what they do at coal mines, it has nothing to do with this thread.

it has to do with how fires can burn underground for extended periods of time, which you seem to think is impossible without thermite

 

[Sabrina]

what's your evidence that coal was buried underground at ground zero. Please produce evidence.

Also, please define your terms. What is "super-duper-nano-therm*te"?

Hoffman's paper does not include that term in the glossary.

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

excerpt from glossary:

"scanning electron microscope: A kind of microscope used to produce very high-resolution images of a sample's surface by scanning it with an electron beam.

thermitic: Having the characteristics of thermite, and thus the ability to release large amounts of energy on ignition."

Please note that in the alphabetically arranged glossary, "super-duper-nano-therm*te" should have appeared between "scanning electron microscope" and "thermitic".

Just as a small point here... I'm not speaking to the paper itself, but one of the words used in the paper, namely "thermitic".

A check of dictionaries finds that such a word does not exist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thermitic

Closest word is "thermotic":

Thermotic

Ther*mot"ic\, Thermotical \Ther*mot"ic*al\, a. [Gr. ? heat, fr. ? hot.] Of or pertaining to heat; produced by heat; as, thermotical phenomena.

Source: Dictionary.com

How can one argue that there is a "thermitic reaction" when no such term exists in any of the known languages on Earth? Especially when considering that all legitimate uses of the word "thermite" refer to an INCENDIARY compound, not an EXPLOSIVE compound?

Thermite is not now, nor will it ever be, an explosive. It is an incendiary device that burns strictly downward at extremely high temperatures very very VERY quickly. Any military member who's ever had to handle AA&E could tell you that.

The idea that thermite in ANY form was used to bring down the towers of the WTC is ludicrous on the face of it, because of thermite's properties of burning only in a vertical direction, at extremely high temperatures, and burning out extremely quickly. So I'm sorry, but this paper fails before it even gets started.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Just as a small point here... I'm not speaking to the paper itself, but one of the words used in the paper, namely "thermitic".

A check of dictionaries finds that such a word does not exist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thermitic

Closest word is "thermotic":




How can one argue that there is a "thermitic reaction" when no such term exists in any of the known languages on Earth? Especially when considering that all legitimate uses of the word "thermite" refer to an INCENDIARY compound, not an EXPLOSIVE compound?

Thermite is not now, nor will it ever be, an explosive. It is an incendiary device that burns strictly downward at extremely high temperatures very very VERY quickly. Any military member who's ever had to handle AA&E could tell you that.

The idea that thermite in ANY form was used to bring down the towers of the WTC is ludicrous on the face of it, because of thermite's properties of burning only in a vertical direction, at extremely high temperatures, and burning out extremely quickly. So I'm sorry, but this paper fails before it even gets started.

they probably mean aluminothermic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminothermic_reaction

 

[lapman]

what's your evidence that coal was buried underground at ground zero. Please produce evidence.

Coal is a combustible material. Are you saying that thermite was the only combustible material in the debris pile?

The rest of your post is just a bunch of that have no meaning and is only a diversion from the fact that you can't back your claims with evidence.

 

[Galileo]

Again, there was no thermite found in any WTC dust. Themite has on occasion been used in arson cases therefore Arson Investigators (called Fire Marshals in the FDNY) are trained in thermite identification.

No thermite, period. The lurkers, newbies and other readers aren't buying your lies.

It says in the report that thermite was found.

Nine scientists with PhDs in chemistry, physics, and mathematics studied the dust with sophisticated scientific intruments for two years. Their paper was peer reviewed by other scientists.

You have a very weak argument.

 

[T.A.M.]

OMG 3 pages in 3 hours...accomplishing nothing, over the same ridiculous point.

Oh well, so what else is new.

TAM

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It says in the report that thermite was found.

Nine scientists with PhDs in chemistry, physics, and mathematics studied the dust with sophisticated scientific intruments for two years. Their paper was peer reviewed by other scientists.

You have a very weak argument.

people TRAINED TO IDENTIFY THERMITE studied the debris ON SITE in the DAYS AND WEEKS FOLLOWING THE COLLAPSE and found NOTHING

yours is the weak argument

 

[zooterkin]

another JREFer said oxygen is pumped into coal fires.

Where?

The closest I can find is this, which is actually saying nothing of the sort:

millenia even


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/10013541.html


of course the same process wouldnt work for thermite, these fires burn a long time because oxygen is restricted underground, thermite is self oxidizing so a lack of oxygen wouldnt slow it down, it would still burn fast as ever

 

[Galileo]

Wrong. They speculate that nano-thermite was found. Yet they fail to produce a sample of real nano-thermite for comparison. Add to that the fact that they do not name the paint that they used. So, what they did was form their conclusion first, then try to mold the data to fit their predetermined conclusion. This is why they had to publish in an obscure vanity rag whose peer-review credibility is suspect at best and are completely unable to get published in an established journal. They "found" thermite because they patently refuse to accept any other source of the material, not because it was really there.

"The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

"This thread is only about the three scientific points made by Jim Hoffman in his article, or related points about the science of the thermite paper.

It is NOT about:

* theories about chain-of-custody

* theories about the Bentham Scientific journal

* theories about Dr. Steven Jones or the other scientists"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140738

 

[lapman]

It says in the report that thermite was found.

Nine scientists with PhDs in chemistry, physics, and mathematics studied the dust with sophisticated scientific intruments for two years. Their paper was peer reviewed by other scientists.

You have a very weak argument.

Name the scientists and their qualifications that peer-reviewed it. According to the complaints about the rag, it could have been an economist, botonist and a sex-therapist that did the review. Most likely, the "peer review" was performed by the bank teller that took the deposit of the check to insure that it was legit.

 

[Galileo]

Coal is a combustible material. Are you saying that thermite was the only combustible material in the debris pile?

The rest of your post is just a bunch of that have no meaning and is only a diversion from the fact that you can't back your claims with evidence.

No, I'm not saying thermite was the only combustible material in the debris pile.

 

[lapman]

"The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

"This thread is only about the three scientific points made by Jim Hoffman in his article, or related points about the science of the thermite paper.

It is NOT about:

* theories about chain-of-custody

* theories about the Bentham Scientific journal

* theories about Dr. Steven Jones or the other scientists"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140738

You're the one that keeps bringing up the "peer-reviewed" claim. So your complaint is baseless.

 

[Galileo]

people TRAINED TO IDENTIFY THERMITE studied the debris ON SITE in the DAYS AND WEEKS FOLLOWING THE COLLAPSE and found NOTHING

yours is the weak argument

The nine man scientific team just found the thermite, what you say is not relevent.

Show me evidence that anyone at ground zero was specifically trained to be able to see very small thermite particles in dust.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

"The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

"This thread is only about the three scientific points made by Jim Hoffman in his article, or related points about the science of the thermite paper.

It is NOT about:

* Anything that plainly shows I am wrong"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140738

fixed that for you

 

[lapman]

No, I'm not saying thermite was the only combustible material in the debris pile.

Good. There was 110 floors of combustible material that was compressed into ~10 floors. Nobody says that oxygen was abundant, but was available. That would easily create the same circumstances that are in the coal fires. That is why it is a fair comparison.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The nine man scientific team just found the thermite, what you say is not relevent.

Show me evidence that anyone at ground zero was specifically trained to be able to see very small thermite particles in dust.

they are trained to see the effects of thermite on the structure, they saw none

so your guys found rust and aluminum, big deal

 

[nicepants]

you think the office contents burned underground for 14 weeks? Where did the oxygen come from to fuel the fires?

The same place it came from before the collapse.

Composition of Earth's Atmosphere

Nitrogen 78.1%
Oxygen 20.9%
Argon 0.9%
Carbon dioxide, Methane, Rare (inert) gases 0.1%

Testing done on the 236 steel beams salvaged from the WTC shows that most were not heated at all, and none were heated enough to lose any structural integrity.

If you believe that then you must also believe that thermite didn't melt any of the beams either.

 

[Galileo]

they are trained to see the effects of thermite on the structure, they saw none

so your guys found rust and aluminum, big deal

The nine scientists found thermite, and they published the findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Your claims are not relevant nor are they supported by evidence.