Nano Thermite found in WTC dust 9/11

As everybody knows there are a lot of conspiracy theories about what happend on 9/11 2001. Loose Change, second edition being the most well know "documantairy" about the conspiracy. Even though Loose Change is far from the truth I still had a lot of questions without an answer.

But in April 2006 a group a Danish scientists, working for Bentham Open, found evidence of Nano Thermite (an explosive) in the dust from the WTC after they collapsed. They published there finding in a report called: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Here you can find the website from Benthem Open, and you can download the full report here also:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

If you don't want te read the entire report but an summery with some explainations then you should go here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...ml#pyrotechnic

Are you not into reading at all, then watch both of these two youtube video's where one of the scientists is interviewd (english subtitels)

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irOj1...940&feature=iv

I am not a person who wantes to believe that the american coverment somehow did this, though with proof like this its hard to think that isn't the case.

So please people be open minded! read or watch the thinks above before comenting, and don't simply state that you think conspiricy is stupid or something like that. Argumentation, that's the keyword.

Last Thread on the topic

Pulling from that, my take on the chemistry:

Originally Posted by me

In terms of the chemistry and its implications, the important question is not "is the material thermitic" or even "is the material dangerously reactive", its "are the thermitic properties of the material necessarily intended".

Thermitic materials are not chemically complex and there components (aluminum and metal oxides) are not rare. This means that, in general, Thermites may arise in an industrial or even rural setting unintentionally - a classic example in urban legend is an Etch-A-Sketch, which contains aluminum dust and and steel components and so may give rise to a trace amount of Thermite over a long period of time.

The presence of some aluminum and some rust dust in the WTC wreckage - even if it was well mixed to the point of being incendiary - would not be surprising because after all its just aluminum and rust dust. But what the paper publishers claim to have found is a little more complex than that: iron nanoparticles on the scale of 0.1 micrometers (1 ten-millionth of a meter) intimately mixed with aluminum and other trace elements in such a way that the resulting incendiary is more "powerful" than commercial grade Thermites. The publishers feel these properties to be indicative of design.

Personally, I don't believe they've cited anywhere near enough information on the spontaneous generation and proliferation of metallic nanoparticles to support their conclusion... hell I'm not sure enough research on that topic even exists (though I do know that such materials certainly aren't a rarity in modern materials chem). Until they can show that ultra-fine Iron is necessarily - or even most likely - a product of human design, they don't really have much going for them.

All in all though, cool find.

For the last time, the WTC bombings were not caused by the US government, and there is no logical reason for the US government to cause them.

Just FYI the first world trade center bombings had a chemical weapon (I want to say anthrax but I really don't remember) placed inside the trucks that were blown up (thankful by the wrong support beams) with the idea of killing the rescue workers. So the idea that a bomb would have been planted in there as a kinda back up plan in case the planes didn't work wouldn't surprise me. And I'm talking about Al-Queda doing it, not America.

SheikahSage: Actually, there is a lot of evidence to suggest the US government was in involved.
This documentary proves it.










































In all seriousness, I agree. There is no conspiracy, and I think its an insult to the people who died at the WTC and Pentagon to suggest there is.

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

For the last time, the WTC bombings were not caused by the US government, and there is no logical reason for the US government to cause them.

Thank you very much for your input, and I'd especially like to thank you for responding to the thread in a totally creative and cool way. In fact, I've never seen an answer like yours.

I would say that, one way or another, mmmmm_pie's suggestion of doing more research into the possibility of this material being generated naturally (for want of a better word) must be investigated before conclusions can be drawn.

There is no conspiracy. If there were bombs planted, they were likely planted by the same group who hijacked the planes.

Point is though, if you know anything about metals, heat, and the construction of skyscrapers, then you know that crashing a jetliner into one is more than enough to bring one down.

Jet fuel burns so hot that it basically makes metal turn to liquid.

I really wish someone would direct me to where all the kiddies were told that skyscrapers are indestructible fortresses.

I mean, hell, if you've ever been up in one, you'd know they actually SWAY. These things are not invincible at all.

Originally Posted by Danger

Thank you very much for your input, and I'd especially like to thank you for responding to the thread in a totally creative and cool way. In fact, I've never seen an answer like yours.

And thank you for your input as well. Your witty and inventive sarcasm definitely shows you are more mature than the person your quoting. I especially like how you didn't even talk about the topic, and instead just insulted someone; it really solidifies your point of view.


Anyway, no, there is no conspiracy. I honestly don't see why people feel they need to make up these theories. I mean, we have people who think FDR planned/knew about Pearl Harbor, people who think we didn't land on the moon, etc. Either these people are just being jackasses and ignoring the facts, or they are simply too stupid to see the facts.

Originally Posted by Anann

There is no conspiracy. If there were bombs planted, they were likely planted by the same group who hijacked the planes.

Point is though, if you know anything about metals, heat, and the construction of skyscrapers, then you know that crashing a jetliner into one is more than enough to bring one down.

Jet fuel burns so hot that it basically makes metal turn to liquid.

I really wish someone would direct me to where all the kiddies were told that skyscrapers are indestructible fortresses.

I mean, hell, if you've ever been up in one, you'd know they actually SWAY. These things are not invincible at all.

I'm going to address this before someone asks. While jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to burn steel beams it burns hot enough to weaken steel by over 50%. Thus the building would be unable to hold it's self up and it would crash down EXACTLY as it did.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3p...onspiracy_tech

This explains my points. And it's been a while since I've seen it so I'm sure my points were off. That video shouldn't be (since it's the History Channel).

I'd really like them to do some sort of mythbusters episode on this, like they did with the moon landing a few months ago.

Jet fuel in massive amounts such as found in those airliners can indeed turn metal to liquid.

The steel girders themselves did not have this happen but that is due to the density of the girders. They were however heated high enough that they began to bend and eventually broke under the immense weight they were supporting.

Originally Posted by attackʞɔɐʇʇɐ

And thank you for your input as well. Your witty and inventive sarcasm definitely shows you are more mature than the person your quoting.

What did you say? Your avatar was distracting me.

Originally Posted by attackʞɔɐʇʇɐ

I especially like how you didn't even talk about the topic, and instead just insulted someone; it really solidifies your point of view.

Put it this way: If it so was Buddhists hijacking dinosaur birds and crashing them into WTC, I really wouldn't change my view of this topic.

Originally Posted by Danger

Thank you very much for your input, and I'd especially like to thank you for responding to the thread in a totally creative and cool way. In fact, I've never seen an answer like yours.

Originally Posted by attackʞɔɐʇʇɐ

And thank you for your input as well. Your witty and inventive sarcasm definitely shows you are more mature than the person your quoting. I especially like how you didn't even talk about the topic, and instead just insulted someone; it really solidifies your point of view.

Originally Posted by Danger

What did you say? Your avatar was distracting me.

Ah, a great example of a typical SD discussion.

Put it this way: If it so was Buddhists hijacking dinosaur birds and crashing them into WTC, I really wouldn't change my view of this topic.

What do you mean?

They never bothered to state their views. All they did was insult another poster.

Originally Posted by Anann

They never bothered to state their views. All they did was insult another poster.

Which is the reason topics on here only go so far. It really annoys me. But I'm used to ultra-conservative forums (while still being down to earth) so this at least shows me the left wing thinking a little bit.

I hope you're not saying that claiming 9/11 was a conspiracy is tied in to being a liberal. Because I'm fairly liberal and I'd say anyone that claims 9/11 was set up by the U.S. government is retarded.

Originally Posted by Shmehzzie can

I hope you're not saying that claiming 9/11 was a conspiracy is tied in to being a liberal. Because I'm fairly liberal and I'd say anyone that claims 9/11 was set up by the U.S. government is retarded.

I am by no means saying that. You could put right wing "The government is controlling us" in that some group. I'm saying that the forums I normally go to are pretty cut and dry on all issues (and most everyone seeing things from the Conservative stand point) and these boards take more of a Liberal stand point. And I'm not insulting any side. Most of my friends are Liberal (oregon is filled with liberals from vegans to burning down saw mills).

Aight then.

For the record, Bentham Open is not a real journal. It's what we call a "vanity journal", where people pay to have the journal show their article without any actual peer-review, to give the illusion of authenticity.

Real science doesn't rely on fraud.