If anyone has any doubts about 9/11 being an inside job…

January 19, 2011 § 13 Comments

this should put an end to it.    Thermite Compound Found in World Trade Center Dust.  Thermite is an extremely hot explosive, and it is used to demolish buildings.  It melts steel like butter.  There is no other explanation for how thermite is in the WTC debris except to indicate that this is how/why the buildings came down.  For a very interesting perspective on this topic, I recommend Jesse Ventura’s show, Conspiracy Theory, where he takes a look at this from a whole new angle.

About these ads

§ 13 Responses to If anyone has any doubts about 9/11 being an inside job…

    • neurojunky says:

      This does not debunk the conclusion reached by the study. If you read it carefully, it is about an editorial dispute, not a rejection of the conclusions of the study… This isn’t btw, the only study in which nanothermite was found in the WTC debris…

  • theantiv says:

    Jones makes much of finding “uncommon chemical elements in abundance”, however we can’t help but wonder why this is any surprise. The destruction of more than 250 floors of office building, and subsequent fires burning for months might surely be expected to produce many different chemicals. And sure enough, that’s exactly what it did.

    A USGS survey, for instance, listed the following major elements that it discovered in samples of WTC dust: Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus. Four of these are flagged by Professor Jones as possible indicators for thermate (Sulfur, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese), yet the authors of this study don’t seem to require any special explanations for them at all.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/

    • neurojunky says:

      It doesn’t seem that you’ve even bothered to read this study. You imply that the presence of many different kinds of elements are present is the only evidence presented to indicate thermite, which is not the case. You know what, go bury your head in the sand. The government is your friend, would never do anything to deceive you, and is telling you the truth, just like they did at the Gulf of Tonkin, the assasination of JFK, and of course govt doesnt condone or ever engage in torture, respects human rights, and is only concerned about truth, justice, and the American way.

      • theantiv says:

        Ah yes. The old troother assumption that all their opposition are nothing but a bunch of naive kids think the government is working in their best interests. With all do respect, that assumption is getting in credibly old. If you even knew the slightest thing about me you’d realize that I don’t even like the government. However you don’t have to subscribe to pseudo-science and wacky conspiracy theories to not like the government. That’s the main difference between us.

        I have read the story. In fact there are numerous holes in it. The levels of many of the elements (that Jones claims are traces of thermite) are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building. The detected lead dust concentrations were lower than would be found outdoors in older cities affected by tailpipe emissions from leaded gasoline…

        http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html

  • olebamadude says:

    Actually, theantiv, the levels of chemical components, in addition to the variety of components, led to the conclusions by the European scientists that nano-thermite was present. Some level of many elements could of course be expected. But what they observed in samples was roughly corresponding to (as I recall) about 100 TONS of the incendiary. And we are talking here of only one sample and thus probably just one building.

    Just throwing in a bit of spice. You guys carry on this interesting debate.

    • theantiv says:

      Do you have a source for that by any chance?

      • neurojunky says:

        We agree about skepticism then. Thats good. Are you saying that the official 9/11 account, emboddied by the 9/11 report, is an accurate account of what happened? There are a ton of inconsistencies, fabrications, obfuscations, and bullshit, that no rational person who looks into can say that the governments version is accurate. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but there is a ton of evidence that there was, at minimum, government foreknowledge of the event, and more likely, government participation. Not the entire government, of course, but criminal elements within the government. I don’t think this is a “wild conspiracy theory”, but the conclusion of an honest evaluation of the evidence.

      • theantiv says:

        I do believe some aspects of the 9/11 Commission Report are heavily flawed and filled with inaccurate data and a possible conflict of influence. But the major problem with the report was that there was a possible but not definite cover-up. I’m not talking about the same cover-up you’re referring to. They weren’t trying to hide the idea that the government was responsible for the attacks. I’m talking about the idea that the government is trying to cover up the fact that they completely ****ed up in terms of national security prior to the attacks.

        I doubt participation though. I’d expect a credible whistle-blower to have come up since 9/11 if that were the case. There were signs of 9/11 going to happen, but government being the center competence that it is didn’t take it seriously enough.

      • olebamadude says:

        Unfortunately it has been some time since I read the report of the European scientists. However, you should be able to dig it up yourself quite easily. The lead scientist has gone on European television quite a few times, and I know that these appearances are on YouTube and such. Also, his original research paper, which is where I first read about the high concentration of incendiary materials in the WTC dust beds, is in one of the engineering journals as I recall.

  • neurojunky says:

    The age of an argument does not detract from its merits. In my experience most people that believe the official story do in fact have an unhealthy faith in their leaders. However, despite this, I have yet to see any substantive argument against “troothers”, conspiracy theorists, or this article. For the first two you are merely engaging in ad hominem attacks. I do not agree with the official theory, but I don’t think that everyone that believes it is stupid. They may be gullible or naive, or just even perhaps idealistic. I think the same consideration should be extended to to those that do believe that there is a much more sinister side to 9/11, and not to demonize them or denigrate them. To dismiss someone by calling their view wacky is to say nothing at all of their views and is not a valid counterargument. Furthermore, I don’t see anything in this article that can be defined as psuedoscience. If you are referring to some of the topics in my blog, then yes I am interested in some fringe topics. In fact, I’ve included topics such as esp and astrology in my blog when they merit rational consideration because of the unusual results of respectable studies. Dismissing such phenomena without even considering the *evidence* is to traffic in ignorance and myopic intolerance.

    Finally, to say that their paper had “holes” in it is not saying anything. If you know anything about science, a hypothesis either supports the theory, or disconfirms it. No hypothesis is flawless, and thus every paper has “holes” in it, if by that you mean is is not 100% conclusive. However, if you read the article, and look at the results, I think their conclusions are entirely supported by the data. You claim that because the chemicals and elements that are used in thermite might be found in common office/building materials means that thermite was not used. That would be like me setting my house on fire with gasoline, and then telling the arson investigator that petroleum distillates are found in common household items, and therefore I didn’t use gasoline. The paint chips that were analyzed had the molecular properties of militarized thermite, and even reacted like thermite in their tests when they ignited it.

    • theantiv says:

      It is healthy to be skeptical of your government. However there’s a difference between that and making wild and unrealistic accusations.

      Alright then. I can provide more evidence to suggest that the article is heavily flawed. For example, Professor Jones tells us that a metal low in chromium, with “abundant manganese” rules out the possibility of it being structural steel. Checking the steel specifications for the time tells us otherwise, though:

      http://www.911myths.com/html/low_chromium__abundant_mangane.html

      He also claimed that Sulfidised metal reported by FEMA, and sulfur recorded in Professor Jones’ own analyses are supposed to indicate the use of thermate. For example, he says “In recent years the use of thermite reactions as incendiary devices has gained popularity with arsonists because they are easily ignited with a match, burn quickly and can generate a very intense heat in excess of 4000 degrees F.”

      However, FEMA says the temperature of the steel only reached 1,800 degrees F. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

      Also, according to Jones sulfur could be 2% of the thermate, with 1000 pounds of explosives in each building would be sufficient, which would give us 20 pounds of sulfer. But according to Frank Greening’s table (http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf)there’s far more SO2 available from other sources then thermite, 4360kg to 80kg on this estimate, and that’s only considering some of the major sources. Some of these are more speculative then others, so please read the whole paper to assess them for yourself, but even if we throw away the 3,500kg contribution from “Molten aluminum reactions with gypsum”, for instance, that still leaves 860kg from elsewhere.

    • theantiv says:

      I got a lot more than that if you’d like.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading If anyone has any doubts about 9/11 being an inside job… at The World according to Neurojunky.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: