Thermite Compound Found in World Trade Center Dust

An article published by The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009 details that a team of scientists lead by a Danish University of Copenhagen researcher have found traces of what appears to be unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite, or nano-thermite, in four different samples of the World Trade Center dust collected by eyewitnesses. The unique compound shows immense reactivity to heat and ejects the same iron-rich spheroids observed in the ignition of commercial thermite.

An English-subtitled Danish television interview with the lead researcher, Niels Harrit, who believes that the discovery of this thermite compound implies foul play, is shown below, followed by an abstract from the research paper.

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.

The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

, , ,

  • jf

    It would behoove you to investigate what Thermite is a little more, like it’s chemical make up. It would probably help you understand why it shouldn’t be surprising to find at the site of a plane crash into a giant office building.

    • Tholin

      Thermite is rust and aluminum mixed and ground into a powder and to ignite you apply heat…theres videos on youtube on how to make it at home and burn holes into…well everything.

      • jf

        @tholin – what are airplanes and giant old buildings made of?

        @A. Listro, et al; clarification appreciated. Crazies have enough reason to be crazy, and Angries have enough (rightful) reason to be angry as is imho.

        • $927230

          Are airplanes made of aluminum and rust? That sounds pretty unsafe.

          • jf

            well 1984160360 pound buildings built in 1970 and 767s are not made of bubble gum and unicorn dreams..

    • Dan Mac

      This is not random residue. This is super, explosive grade thermite. And Building 7 was not struck by a plane–yet it collapsed, also, at free fall speed–perfectly, into its own footprint.

      • jf

        I’m not entirely positive that what I would expect from jumbo jets colliding with buildings such as the WTC in regards to the various metal dusts and debris, et cetera would be what I called ‘random residue’.

        That said, I was not entirely positive the point you were making could not be true; even though the paper seemed incredibly hand wavey in some critical points. However, as another pointed out here, someone else with a better chemistry background than I has already debunked this, with a lot of the same argument I made below.

      • $927230

        Buildings fall like that all the time.

      • Tuna Ghost

        Thermite doesn’t explode, guy. And no building on 9/11 fell at freefall speed into its own footprint, despite what everyone likes to claim.

  • jf

    To aid you in that quest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

  • jf

    It would behoove you to investigate what Thermite is a little more, like it’s chemical make up. It would probably help you understand why it shouldn’t be surprising to find at the site of a plane crash into a giant office building.

  • jf

    To aid you in that quest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

  • jf

    Okay having read most of the paper; this is all sorta misleading. The headline really shouldn’t be ‘termite found!’ because that will be found at basically every plane crash. However, what they’re saying is that they believe they’ve identified weapons grade thermite.

    Now in there, they’re basically saying it looks a lot like the weapons grade super/nano-thermite sample we’ve received, but under the section where titled something to the effect of ‘does this occur in nature?’ they mostly side step the issue and at no point in time address the possibility that plane crash + office equipment + building equipment + fire/vaporization = what they’re found.

    That said, they’re a bit ahead of me in this particular department of knowledge, and it may be virtually impossible for that to occur; but the way they’re presenting it and the way they sidestepped the naturally occurring question coupled with the actual conclusions they draw at the end of the paper makes me think that the answer is ‘yeah thats another explanation’

  • jf

    Okay having read most of the paper; this is all sorta misleading. The headline really shouldn’t be ‘termite found!’ because that will be found at basically every plane crash. However, what they’re saying is that they believe they’ve identified weapons grade thermite.

    Now in there, they’re basically saying it looks a lot like the weapons grade super/nano-thermite sample we’ve received, but under the section where titled something to the effect of ‘does this occur in nature?’ they mostly side step the issue and at no point in time address the possibility that plane crash + office equipment + building equipment + fire/vaporization = what they’re found.

    That said, they’re a bit ahead of me in this particular department of knowledge, and it may be virtually impossible for that to occur; but the way they’re presenting it and the way they sidestepped the naturally occurring question coupled with the actual conclusions they draw at the end of the paper makes me think that the answer is ‘yeah thats another explanation’

  • GaelicGal
    • Dan Mac

      Look again: http://www.ae911truth.org/

      And remember–these volunteers have nothing to gain and a fraction of the funding. Truth usually takes a long time to make itself clear. Proving and dis-proving cannot happen on a single look. Be skeptical of everything–and keep an opened mind.

      • Tuna Ghost

        You are aware that the guy behind 9/11truth.org was last employed by Church of Latter-Day Saints to “prove” that the events in the Book of Mormon actually happened, right? And that he still claims those events are historical fact?

  • GaelicGal
  • Tholin

    Thermite is rust and aluminum mixed and ground into a powder and to ignite you apply heat…theres videos on youtube on how to make it at home and burn holes into…well everything.

  • Jsh
  • Jsh
  • A. Listro

    As the poster of this article, I’d like to say that I don’t buy into the idea that this is necessarily a thermitic compound of any kind, as I think it would be difficult to distinguish the chance formation of a thermitic material (aluminum and iron oxide) resulting from the mix of materials that occurred during the destruction of a building with a manufactured thermite. However, I’m not a scientist, and there could be more to it than that, so in the least, I would hope this adds something of concern to the debate. Thanks for the forums.randi post – I hadn’t found that one.

    • myst

      Hey i can answer that for you there is zero chance for a Nano-thermite or reguler thermite to form in a building fire or jet fire. This by no means is new news the group of over 1500 scientists refereed to below have been pointing to this for years.

      http://www.ae911truth.org/

      • MAgickrunk777

        Also as they will tell you Nano-thermite can only be made in a very hi-tech lab on the level of government laboratory’s.

        • Aorta

          Too bad they don’t mention that the scientific establishment does not agree with this study. They say straight out that the author misrepresents the facts. Be more skeptical and less cynical.

          • A. Listro

            Where are you getting this information? Please provide links that corroborate your claims.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Actually, there was a Disinfo article featuring an Alex Jones broadcast in which Steven Jones debates with a chemist from a lab in…Arizona, I think? The guy explains what the small bits of iron oxide or whatever are and where they come from, and points out quite reasonably that any explosion large enough to bring down a building that size, thermite-enhanced or otherwise, would have been heard miles away and been captured by the thousands of video cameras in operation at the moment.

            Looking for it, but can’t seem to find it…”Alex Jones 9/11 Steve Jones” brings up an awful lot of hits on the Disinfo search function, as you can imagine.

          • A. Listro

            *Please provide links that corroborate your claims.*

          • Tuna Ghost

            Don’t I have an honest face?

            Anyway, the general debunking of all this thermite nonesense: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

            Note where he says a great deal of the claims rest on “rationalized technology”. There’s no evidence this technology exists, but conspiracy theorists need it to exist, so it exists.

            This article

            http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more-bad-science-surrounding-the-nano-thermite-red-herring/

            has a good list of reasons to not trust the “nano-thermite found in WTC dust” claims.

            I’m glad you persuaded me to hunt down the debate I mentioned, because I discovered (much to my embarrassment) that it involved neither alex jones nor steve jones. It was on Coast to Coast, and it featured Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for Truth and a guy named Dave Thomas from New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Dave Thomas makes some very good points that Gage dances around and does not address (for obvious reasons).

            http://www.disinfo.com/2010/08/coast-to-coast-am-911-debate-with-richard-gage-and-dave-thomas/

          • Dan Mac

            Dave Thomas–sorry–does not speak with sound logic–unless he is a dis-info agent. Then his logic is perfect: spin long, confusing words and phrases a long way around to confuse and sound smart to those who aren’t.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Look guy if you don’t understand long confusing words, that is not Dave Thomas’ fault. To pick one point out of many that Thomas raised and Gage refused to comment on: any explosion powerful enough to topple a building that size would have been captured on any of the thousand recording devices in operation at the moment. It also would have been heard a mile away by everyone. The 9/11 truthers have no explanation for this beyond theorizing some sort of new technology for which there is no evidence of existing and that they can’t explain.

          • 4alandi

            nanothermite doesn’t explode, and can be applied on as paint…
            and seismic graphs show explosions/activity unaccounted for in the official document, or any video records.

          • Tuna Ghost

            The theory runs that nanothermite was used as an accelerant to make a more powerful explosion…a more powerful explosion that didn’t make a noise? This is what the conspiracy theorists never get to. Big explosion=big noise. You can’t get around that.

            Regarding the seismic activity, the two seismologists at the observator who supposedly support the findings (according to various websites and Alex Jones) were Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Lam would later go on record in Popular Mechanics saying, and I quote: “There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.” The website on which I saw the graph (Whatreallyhappened.com) choose the graph that displays activity over a 30 minute time span, in which the seismic activity appears as a sudden spike. Another graph, one far more detailed, one that actually measures the seismic activity in seconds instead of a half-hour chunk, shows small activity as the plane strikes with growing intensity as the buildings crumble to the ground. Of course, Whatreallyhappened.com doesn’t show you that graph. Maybe they didn’t notice the other one. Maybe they weren’t actually looking very hard, eh?

          • ArgosyJones
          • Tuna Ghost

            I’d like to watch that, but since i don’t live in the States I can’t. Describe it for me?

          • ArgosyJones

            It’s an old episode of a 60′s saturday morning cartoon, The Rocky and Bullwinke Show. In this episode, the bad guy is trying to get the secret formula for Hushaboom, the silent explosive. Silent explosives are kind of a contradiction in terms and I suppose they wouldn’t show up on the seismograph either (they are a key element in some 9/11 conspiracy theories though). I guess it isn’t that funny when I try to explain it.

          • Tuna Ghost

            This fella

            http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/05/game-over.html

            provides a translation of an article in danish detailing how, after Harrit’s article was published, the editor in chief in resigned. Here are some salient bits, taken directly from the article:

            “They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.

            She feels not only stabbed in the back, but is puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

            “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

          • Dan Mac

            Take your own advice. Be more skeptical–especially of the scientific establishment!

          • Tuna Ghost

            Typical response. Scientific community is lying except when backing up your own claims. C’mon now, buddy. Let’s get real here.

          • 4alandi

            ok, well if that’s your logic, how can you believe that official story or not even find it incongruous if the official flight path of flight 77 disproves the official story?

          • Tuna Ghost

            …except that it doesn’t. Despite many claims that there are “records” that show Flight 77 was off course before the hijackers were supposed to have taken control, these records have never been produced. People mention New York Times articles, Guardian articles, and what-have-you. But there are no such articles noting any irregularity. USA Today once had a graphic that seemed to show Flight 77 going off course earlier than the official story (the only graphic ever used to corroborate this theory), but where is USA getting its information? From a company called “Flight Explorer” that tracks that sort of thing. But the actual Flight Explorer graphic is different from the USA today graphic, and supports the official timeline.

            All of this is easy to find. I can show you if you want. It’s not hard to find, you just have to actually be interested in looking at the evidence impartially. All of the evidence, not just the evidence that sort of seems to support your theory.

          • Tuna Ghost

            obviously, that should read “But where is USA Today getting its information?”. Forgive the typo, I haven’t gotten much sleep lately.

      • A. Listro

        Who says there’s zero chance? Can you provide a direct link?

        • NANOMANO

          All you have to do is look into how it is made. Nano-thermite requires hitech labs to make.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

          look at the production section: A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center.

          it cant be made outside of a lab….period

      • ArgosyJones

        group of over 1500 scientists

        The site you link to is architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. Neither one of these professional groups has any particular knowledge of explosives. Nor are they necessarily ‘scientists’.

  • A. Listro

    As the poster of this article, I’d like to say that I don’t buy into the idea that this is necessarily a thermitic compound of any kind, as I think it would be difficult to distinguish the chance formation of a thermitic material (aluminum and iron oxide) resulting from the mix of materials that occurred during the destruction of a building with a manufactured thermite. However, I’m not a scientist, and there could be more to it than that, so in the least, I would hope this adds something of concern to the debate. Thanks for the forums.randi post – I hadn’t found that one.

  • Marklar_Prime

    The specific explosives used are rather irrelevant. Unless Newton’s third law and the law of conservation of momentum were suspended on 9/11 there is no reasonable explanation for the near free fall collapse and nearly complete disintegration of the towers except explosive demolition.

    • jf

      newton’s third law:

      “The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear [...]”

      I think the word you’re potentially missing is ‘equal’, Mind you the estimate for each tower is 992,080,180 pounds vs the approximate maximum weight of a 767: 412,000 pounds. Naturally you’ll want to account for the planes speed as well, but I think when you sit down and do the math you’ll find the word you missed when quoting the third law there was ‘equal’.

      Once you accept the, the problems with the law of conservation of momentum should be fairly self-evident, meaning: “In a system consisting of bodies on which no outside forces are acting; the total momentum of the system remains the same.”, here what I think you’re misunderstanding is that the building is the outside force, among other things that are less immediately relevant (gravity).

      I’d be more than happy to read your proofs, or links directly to such.

    • Tuna Ghost

      Demonstrably fasle, guy. Everything you have claimed has been debunked. There are numerous places with explanations; if you’d like I can point you to them.

  • http://twitter.com/Marklar_Prime Marklar Kronkite

    The specific explosives used are rather irrelevant. Unless Newton’s third law and the law of conservation of momentum were suspended on 9/11 there is no reasonable explanation for the near free fall collapse and nearly complete disintegration of the towers except explosive demolition.

  • jf

    @tholin – what are airplanes and giant old buildings made of?

    @A. Listro, et al; clarification appreciated. Crazies have enough reason to be crazy, and Angries have enough (rightful) reason to be angry as is imho.

  • myst

    Hey i can answer that for you there is zero chance for a Nano-thermite or reguler thermite to form in a building fire or jet fire. This by no means is new news the group of over 1500 scientists refereed to below have been pointing to this for years.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

  • MAgickrunk777

    Also as they will tell you Nano-thermite can only be made in a very hi-tech lab on the level of government laboratory’s.

  • Dan Mac

    This is not random residue. This is super, explosive grade thermite. And Building 7 was not struck by a plane–yet it collapsed, also, at free fall speed–perfectly, into its own footprint.

  • Dan Mac

    Look again: http://www.ae911truth.org/

    And remember–these volunteers have nothing to gain and a fraction of the funding. Truth usually takes a long time to make itself clear. Proving and dis-proving cannot happen on a single look. Be skeptical of everything–and keep an opened mind.

  • jf

    I’m not entirely positive that what I would expect from jumbo jets colliding with buildings such as the WTC in regards to the various metal dusts and debris, et cetera would be what I called ‘random residue’.

    That said, I was not entirely positive the point you were making could not be true; even though the paper seemed incredibly hand wavey in some critical points. However, as another pointed out here, someone else with a better chemistry background than I has already debunked this, with a lot of the same argument I made below.

  • Anonymous

    Are airplanes made of aluminum and rust? That sounds pretty unsafe.

  • Anonymous

    Buildings fall like that all the time.

  • jf

    newton’s third law:

    “The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear [...]”

    I think the word you’re potentially missing is ‘equal’, Mind you the estimate for each tower is 992,080,180 pounds vs the approximate maximum weight of a 767: 412,000 pounds. Naturally you’ll want to account for the planes speed as well, but I think when you sit down and do the math you’ll find the word you missed when quoting the third law there was ‘equal’.

    Once you accept the, the problems with the law of conservation of momentum should be fairly self-evident, meaning: “In a system consisting of bodies on which no outside forces are acting; the total momentum of the system remains the same.”, here what I think you’re misunderstanding is that the building is the outside force, among other things that are less immediately relevant (gravity).

    I’d be more than happy to read your proofs, or links directly to such.

  • jf

    well 1984160360 pound buildings built in 1970 and 767s are not made of bubble gum and unicorn dreams..

  • Tuna Ghost

    Thermite doesn’t explode, guy. And no building on 9/11 fell at freefall speed into its own footprint, despite what everyone likes to claim.

  • Tuna Ghost

    You are aware that the guy behind 9/11truth.org was last employed by Church of Latter-Day Saints to “prove” that the events in the Book of Mormon actually happened, right? And that he still claims those events are historical fact?

  • Tuna Ghost

    Demonstrably fasle, guy. Everything you have claimed has been debunked. There are numerous places with explanations; if you’d like I can point you to them.

  • Sarasai

    This is incredible, but more incredible is that it is ignored by the official media. I posted it when it came out on my myspace and sent it to several big newspapers in germany … not one reaction. Very glad you post it again, never stop to work for the truth!
    Sarasai

  • Sarasai

    This is incredible, but more incredible is that it is ignored by the official media. I posted it when it came out on my myspace and sent it to several big newspapers in germany … not one reaction. Very glad you post it again, never stop to work for the truth!
    Sarasai

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Theres nothing to see here, children. Cows turn themselves inside out all the time.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Theres nothing to see here, children. Cows turn themselves inside out all the time.

  • Dazedb42

    I think the analogy I like the best is that of the combustion heater. Made of steel and glass it burns wood. When you have a fire going for several hours do you expect the structure to suddenly buckle and give way?

    • quartz99

      If I was burning something hot enough, either inside or next to it, to cause structural failures? Yes, yes I _would_ expect it to suddenly buckle and give way, probably with little to no warning. It’s called physics.

  • Dazedb42

    I think the analogy I like the best is that of the combustion heater. Made of steel and glass it burns wood. When you have a fire going for several hours do you expect the structure to suddenly buckle and give way?

  • Anonymous

    If I was burning something hot enough, either inside or next to it, to cause structural failures? Yes, yes I _would_ expect it to suddenly buckle and give way, probably with little to no warning. It’s called physics.

  • Aorta

    Too bad they don’t mention that the scientific establishment does not agree with this study. They say straight out that the author misrepresents the facts. Be more skeptical and less cynical.

  • Aorta

    Too bad they don’t mention that the scientific establishment does not agree with this study. They say straight out that the author misrepresents the facts. Be more skeptical and less cynical.

  • A. Listro

    Who says there’s zero chance? Can you provide a direct link?

  • A. Listro

    Where are you getting this information? Please provide links that corroborate your claims.

  • Pingback: If anyone has any doubts about 9/11 being an inside job… « The World according to Neurojunky

  • Tuna Ghost

    Actually, there was a Disinfo article featuring an Alex Jones broadcast in which Steven Jones debates with a chemist from a lab in…Arizona, I think? The guy explains what the small bits of iron oxide or whatever are and where they come from, and points out quite reasonably that any explosion large enough to bring down a building that size, thermite-enhanced or otherwise, would have been heard miles away and been captured by the thousands of video cameras in operation at the moment.

    Looking for it, but can’t seem to find it…”Alex Jones 9/11 Steve Jones” brings up an awful lot of hits on the Disinfo search function, as you can imagine.

  • A. Listro

    *Please provide links that corroborate your claims.*

  • WhiteRose

    Perhaps it was probably building materials or other made in China products. Do you know whats in every product you buy? Also take into account the huge number of ingredients in an office tower.

  • WhiteRose

    Perhaps it was probably building materials or other made in China products. Do you know whats in every product you buy? Also take into account the huge number of ingredients in an office tower.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Don’t I have an honest face?

    Anyway, the general debunking of all this thermite nonesense: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

    Note where he says a great deal of the claims rest on “rationalized technology”. There’s no evidence this technology exists, but conspiracy theorists need it to exist, so it exists.

    This article

    http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more-bad-science-surrounding-the-nano-thermite-red-herring/

    has a good list of reasons to not trust the “nano-thermite found in WTC dust” claims.

    I’m glad you persuaded me to hunt down the debate I mentioned, because I discovered (much to my embarrassment) that it involved neither alex jones nor steve jones. It was on Coast to Coast, and it featured Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for Truth and a guy named Dave Thomas from New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Dave Thomas makes some very good points that Gage dances around and does not address (for obvious reasons).

    http://disinfo.com/2010/08/coast-to-coast-am-911-debate-with-richard-gage-and-dave-thomas/

  • Tuna Ghost

    This fella

    http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/05/game-over.html

    provides a translation of an article in danish detailing how, after Harrit’s article was published, the editor in chief in resigned. Here are some salient bits, taken directly from the article:

    “They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.

    She feels not only stabbed in the back, but is puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

    “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

  • neuro

    one word: jenga

  • neuro

    one word: jenga

  • NANOMANO

    All you have to do is look into how it is made. Nano-thermite requires hitech labs to make.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

    look at the production section: A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center.

    it cant be made outside of a lab….period

  • NANOMANO

    Building 7’s Mystifying Implosion
    Baffling as the Towers’ “collapses” were, even
    more perplexing was the destruction of World Trade
    Center Building 7.
    “Unprecedented,” says
    Rice. “Unexplainable,” says
    Huebner. “No plane hit this
    building,” points out
    Graham Inman, a chartered
    engineer in London.
    Few Americans have
    given any thought to the third World Trade Center
    high-rise destroyed on September 11th, since it was not
    repeatedly televised. Kamal
    Obeid, S.E., ponders it. “A
    localized failure in a steel-framed
    building like WTC 7 cannot cause
    a catastrophic collapse like a
    house of cards without a
    simultaneous and patterned loss of
    several of its columns at key
    locations within the building.”
    Videos show “simultaneous failure of all
    columns,” wrote Inman, “rather than [the expected]
    phased approach,” in which undamaged columns
    would show resistance sequentially.
    Though the building housed “offices of the CIA,
    the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense,
    among others,” Rice notes, the 9/11 Commission left
    WTC 7’s collapse out of its report. FEMA’s 2002
    inquiry blamed WTC 7’s collapse on fires, though it
    admits that its “best hypothesis has only a low
    probability of occurrence.” Rice notes that the media
    have “basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7
    hidden from public view.”

    • Tuna Ghost

      There are several lucid, detailed explanations available for why Building 7 collapsed. They even have eye-witness accounts by some of the emergency response personnel that went inside the building, videos, and diagrams. I can point you to them. The information is freely available to anyone. Would you like me to point you in their direction? All you have to do is ask. No one is keeping the collapse of WTC 7 from public view. The information is available to everyone who actually has an interest in doing research, instead of just making unsupported claims that they heard from someone else.

  • NANOMANO

    Building 7’s Mystifying Implosion
    Baffling as the Towers’ “collapses” were, even
    more perplexing was the destruction of World Trade
    Center Building 7.
    “Unprecedented,” says
    Rice. “Unexplainable,” says
    Huebner. “No plane hit this
    building,” points out
    Graham Inman, a chartered
    engineer in London.
    Few Americans have
    given any thought to the third World Trade Center
    high-rise destroyed on September 11th, since it was not
    repeatedly televised. Kamal
    Obeid, S.E., ponders it. “A
    localized failure in a steel-framed
    building like WTC 7 cannot cause
    a catastrophic collapse like a
    house of cards without a
    simultaneous and patterned loss of
    several of its columns at key
    locations within the building.”
    Videos show “simultaneous failure of all
    columns,” wrote Inman, “rather than [the expected]
    phased approach,” in which undamaged columns
    would show resistance sequentially.
    Though the building housed “offices of the CIA,
    the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense,
    among others,” Rice notes, the 9/11 Commission left
    WTC 7’s collapse out of its report. FEMA’s 2002
    inquiry blamed WTC 7’s collapse on fires, though it
    admits that its “best hypothesis has only a low
    probability of occurrence.” Rice notes that the media
    have “basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7
    hidden from public view.”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3H3JH5ZJ7Y3XX3KXAXOBY55Y4U Amy

    I cannot believe people are still debating if 911 was an inside job or not. Anyone with common sense and vision should be able to see Building Seven blow the heck up. I guess the people still claiming terrorism from the middle east work for the Elite trying to keep the truth from coming out. No human can be this ignorant.

    • Tuna Ghost

      That’s right, if you’re not with us you’re against us—wait where have I heard that before

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3H3JH5ZJ7Y3XX3KXAXOBY55Y4U Amy

    I cannot believe people are still debating if 911 was an inside job or not. Anyone with common sense and vision should be able to see Building Seven blow the heck up. I guess the people still claiming terrorism from the middle east work for the Elite trying to keep the truth from coming out. No human can be this ignorant.

  • Dan Mac

    Take your own advice. Be more skeptical–especially of the scientific establishment!

  • Dan Mac

    Dave Thomas–sorry–does not speak with sound logic–unless he is a dis-info agent. Then his logic is perfect: spin long, confusing words and phrases a long way around to confuse and sound smart to those who aren’t.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Look guy if you don’t understand long confusing words, that is not Dave Thomas’ fault. To pick one point out of many that Thomas raised and Gage refused to comment on: any explosion powerful enough to topple a building that size would have been captured on any of the thousand recording devices in operation at the moment. It also would have been heard a mile away by everyone. The 9/11 truthers have no explanation for this beyond theorizing some sort of new technology for which there is no evidence of existing and that they can’t explain.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Typical response. Scientific community is lying except when backing up your own claims. C’mon now, buddy. Let’s get real here.

  • Tuna Ghost

    There are several lucid, detailed explanations available for why Building 7 collapsed. They even have eye-witness accounts by some of the emergency response personnel that went inside the building, videos, and diagrams. I can point you to them. The information is freely available to anyone. Would you like me to point you in their direction? All you have to do is ask. No one is keeping the collapse of WTC 7 from public view. The information is available to everyone who actually has an interest in doing research, instead of just making unsupported claims that they heard from someone else.

  • Tuna Ghost

    That’s right, if you’re not with us you’re against us—wait where have I heard that before

  • 4alandi

    nanothermite doesn’t explode, and can be applied on as paint…
    and seismic graphs show explosions/activity unaccounted for in the official document, or any video records.

  • 4alandi

    ok, well if that’s your logic, how can you believe that official story or not even find it incongruous if the official flight path of flight 77 disproves the official story?

  • Tuna Ghost

    The theory runs that nanothermite was used as an accelerant to make a more powerful explosion…a more powerful explosion that didn’t make a noise? This is what the conspiracy theorists never get to. Big explosion=big noise. You can’t get around that.

    Regarding the seismic activity, the two seismologists at the observator who supposedly support the findings (according to various websites and Alex Jones) were Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Lam would later go on record in Popular Mechanics saying, and I quote: “There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.” The website on which I saw the graph (Whatreallyhappened.com) choose the graph that displays activity over a 30 minute time span, in which the seismic activity appears as a sudden spike. Another graph, one far more detailed, one that actually measures the seismic activity in seconds instead of a half-hour chunk, shows small activity as the plane strikes with growing intensity as the buildings crumble to the ground. Of course, Whatreallyhappened.com doesn’t show you that graph. Maybe they didn’t notice the other one. Maybe they weren’t actually looking very hard, eh?

  • Tuna Ghost

    …except that it doesn’t. Despite many claims that there are “records” that show Flight 77 was off course before the hijackers were supposed to have taken control, these records have never been produced. People mention New York Times articles, Guardian articles, and what-have-you. But there are no such articles noting any irregularity. USA Today once had a graphic that seemed to show Flight 77 going off course earlier than the official story (the only graphic ever used to corroborate this theory), but where is USA getting its information? From a company called “Flight Explorer” that tracks that sort of thing. But the actual Flight Explorer graphic is different from the USA today graphic, and supports the official timeline.

    All of this is easy to find. I can show you if you want. It’s not hard to find, you just have to actually be interested in looking at the evidence impartially. All of the evidence, not just the evidence that sort of seems to support your theory.

  • Tuna Ghost

    obviously, that should read “But where is USA Today getting its information?”. Forgive the typo, I haven’t gotten much sleep lately.

  • ArgosyJones
  • ArgosyJones

    group of over 1500 scientists

  • Tuna Ghost

    I’d like to watch that, but since i don’t live in the States I can’t. Describe it for me?

  • ArgosyJones

    It’s an old episode of a 60′s saturday morning cartoon, The Rocky and Bullwinke Show. In this episode, the bad guy is trying to get the secret formula for Hushaboom, the silent explosive. Silent explosives are kind of a contradiction in terms and I suppose they wouldn’t show up on the seismograph either (they are a key element in some 9/11 conspiracy theories though). I guess it isn’t that funny when I try to explain it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_M6F3RJVEWJ24QKMCHFNVK7ADVE Winston Smith

    so obviously an inside job! When I read below that people argue that wt7 could fall in the manner observed naturally from office fires ir blows my mind. Freefall can ONLY occur if all the supports are simultaneously removed. (why would a building’s collapse exhibit every characteristic of a controlled demolition if it were not one, especially he only times those features have ever been present was in CT’s?

    The North Tower antenna does the same thing, no jolt. No conservation of momentum,proving it could not possibly have been gravity driven collapse. This is physics. There are no exceptions. And it becomes very painfully obvious by NIST’s behavior amd the Bush admin’s reluctance to even investigate, the disposal of the structural steel, etc that this was an inside job.

    Attacking the Harrit paper by saying the editor quit in protest (or betham itself) is just a foolish distraction..
    and does not address it’s findings. All samples tested contained high-tech advance engineered aluminothermic explosives! what the hell? NOT paint chips. address that.

    You think gravity caused that level of damage to to the twin towers? The buildings got progressively stronger as they went down. The core columns got thicker (at the base, the larger core box columns were almost 53″ of solid steel each) it is simply impossible for the top smaller part of the building to crush all the lower section and remain intact. Look at the work of
    http://911speakout.org/?page_id=8
    and
    http://911speakout.org/?page_id=10

    the evidence is simply overwhelming and irrefutable.Those structures could support many times their real world weights..and the level of energy in their destruction of 1&2 (the speed and symmetry and thoroughness of destruction, the excessive heat, pulverized concrete (resulting in 1100 missing bodies and tens of thousands of body parts blasted for blocks in every direction, the 99 days underground fires, molten metal, etc) ALL reveal explosives. Lots and lots of explosives

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_M6F3RJVEWJ24QKMCHFNVK7ADVE Winston Smith

    so obviously an inside job! When I read below that people argue that wt7 could fall in the manner observed naturally from office fires ir blows my mind. Freefall can ONLY occur if all the supports are simultaneously removed. (why would a building’s collapse exhibit every characteristic of a controlled demolition if it were not one, especially he only times those features have ever been present was in CT’s?

    The North Tower antenna does the same thing, no jolt. No conservation of momentum,proving it could not possibly have been gravity driven collapse. This is physics. There are no exceptions. And it becomes very painfully obvious by NIST’s behavior amd the Bush admin’s reluctance to even investigate, the disposal of the structural steel, etc that this was an inside job.

    Attacking the Harrit paper by saying the editor quit in protest (or betham itself) is just a foolish distraction..
    and does not address it’s findings. All samples tested contained high-tech advance engineered aluminothermic explosives! what the hell? NOT paint chips. address that.

    You think gravity caused that level of damage to to the twin towers? The buildings got progressively stronger as they went down. The core columns got thicker (at the base, the larger core box columns were almost 53″ of solid steel each) it is simply impossible for the top smaller part of the building to crush all the lower section and remain intact. Look at the work of
    http://911speakout.org/?page_id=8
    and
    http://911speakout.org/?page_id=10

    the evidence is simply overwhelming and irrefutable.Those structures could support many times their real world weights..and the level of energy in their destruction of 1&2 (the speed and symmetry and thoroughness of destruction, the excessive heat, pulverized concrete (resulting in 1100 missing bodies and tens of thousands of body parts blasted for blocks in every direction, the 99 days underground fires, molten metal, etc) ALL reveal explosives. Lots and lots of explosives

21