Red/Gray Thermitic Chips?
These "chips" are described in the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" by Harrit et al. published in "The Open Physics Chemistry Journal" in 2009.
So-- are they real thermite? And if so, was it really in the dust or planted there somehow?
Or, are they some by-product of what was used to blast the WTC-- namely nukes?
Note, the chips are half iron, half aluminum, and the outer columns of the WTC were iron with aluminum cladding. Could the intense, high temp nuke blasts have fused small bits of iron with small bits of aluminum, to create this supposed "thermite"?
Also, there are also iron microspheres in the dust, that definitely could be nuke products-- vaporized steel particles from the WTC structure.
In some sense, if this "thermite" finding gets lots of people hooked on the idea of demolition of the WTC, it's not a terrible thing-- particularly if this leads to real action. But hopefully people will eventually realize that thermite simply CAN'T account for all the features of the WTC destruction, and wake up to nukes.
One basic critique of the thermitic chip paper is that the authors do not provide any quantification of the chips-- i.e. what percentage of the dust was these chips? How rare or common were they?
But really, the key questions are:
1) do we believe these chips were there?
2) could the chips be formed from a nuclear blast event rather than be manufactured thermite?
UPDATE: AP points out there is no verified chain of custody for the dust, so this could never hold up legally.
So-- are they real thermite? And if so, was it really in the dust or planted there somehow?
Or, are they some by-product of what was used to blast the WTC-- namely nukes?
Note, the chips are half iron, half aluminum, and the outer columns of the WTC were iron with aluminum cladding. Could the intense, high temp nuke blasts have fused small bits of iron with small bits of aluminum, to create this supposed "thermite"?
Also, there are also iron microspheres in the dust, that definitely could be nuke products-- vaporized steel particles from the WTC structure.
In some sense, if this "thermite" finding gets lots of people hooked on the idea of demolition of the WTC, it's not a terrible thing-- particularly if this leads to real action. But hopefully people will eventually realize that thermite simply CAN'T account for all the features of the WTC destruction, and wake up to nukes.
One basic critique of the thermitic chip paper is that the authors do not provide any quantification of the chips-- i.e. what percentage of the dust was these chips? How rare or common were they?
But really, the key questions are:
1) do we believe these chips were there?
2) could the chips be formed from a nuclear blast event rather than be manufactured thermite?
UPDATE: AP points out there is no verified chain of custody for the dust, so this could never hold up legally.
posted by spooked at 9:58 AM
10 Comments:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html
claim is that the chips were manufactured, right?
No thermite will recruit new believers. Not covered by the controlled media. Krugmann (Beer mug man) did not slip it in, right?
Radiation-induced cancers
Watch this video ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y
"where he spent ONE MONTH filming 29 tapes"
have cancer?
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html
Google "9/11 Cancers"
If multiple mini nukes were used, why only one mushroom cloud, per building?
Why did the multiple emp's not affect the cameras, helicopters, fire engines, hand held radios?
buka001,
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
There is a lot of reference to 9/11 "research". Interesting to follow. Who has the best guess? They may be keeping score at the lodge headquarters, where it is known in minute detail, and sometimes getting some laughs.
Real research is of course when something collectively not known, by anyone.
David - Anonymous Physicist has no understanding of what he is talking about. Nuclear tests conducted in the 60's proved that an EMP cannot be detected beyond the blast radius of SURFACE detonations (a detonation below an altitude of 10km). WTC was on the surface. Hence if many mini nukes were used the EMP would not have extended past the surface of the building, as AP claims the blast radius extended to this point.
So his theory falls apart completely because of an ignorance of physics.
His theory therefore has a serious problem.
Weapon altitude is extremely critical to the generation of a noticeable EMP. The fact that Anonymous Physicist is unaware of this critical factor is disturbing.
buka001,
For now, think about this: the people dying of radiation-induced cancers ...
http://www.anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com/
from A.P.--
First it is disingenuous to state what you have stated without listing the URLs.
Then RE EMP, we have these statements and URLS:
"A surface or low-air burst would produce local EMP with severe intensity, traveling through the air out to distances that could go beyond the distances of building collapse (hundreds of meters)."
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nmbook/appendices/ap_B.htm
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:ccl3y1UTvBMJ:www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec06.pdf+EMP+cannot+be+detected+beyond+the+blast+radius+of+SURFACE+detonations&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera
"When the nuclear detonation occurs near to the ground.. many of the analytic tools with which we understand EM coupling in the simple plane-wave case no longer apply." Note the use of the word "may" in this paragraph, implying at very low altitude nuclear detonations, the top physicists are unsure what happens regarding EMP.
Of course, nothing else can explain the phenomena I cited, except EMP. So we have had a real-time experiment of what happens when successive fission bombs are set off starting at 900 feet and going down to the surface. And every decent physicist knows, theory must take a back seat to experimental evidence! This is especially true when the theorists admit that they do not have a simple understanding of a phenomena in the range discussed herein.
Post a Comment
<< Home