Study: 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble

Note: I don't know or intend to imply anything about the credibility of these sources.

Thanks, Steve. I read the original article yesterday, and found it
credible, though I'm obviously not a physicist or chemist, either. This
team analyzed four samples of dust, some of which had been collected as
souvenirs, anywhere from 10 minutes to a week after the collapse, at
various distances from Ground Zero. The authors write as though they
were surprised to find "superthermite," which ignited at 430 degrees C,
rather than 900 for conventional thermite; but such a substance had been
produced for the military in April 2000.

It would be a bit more credible if they had any similar samples from before 911 or from now, or from other high density urban areas. to act as controls. Without controls the data is meaningless.

I have no idea what you mean by "controls." These red and gray chips
were prominent in all four WTC samples. They were tested to see if they
were some kind of paint, but they were not; they were a very new type of
super-explosive, which is too expensive for widespread use. If you have
any red and gray chips like that in the dust in your apartment, send it

On Behalf Of Philip Berg

That is precisely the question. If one looks at the dust under my bed in the same way that they looked at dust, is it likely that some thermite dust can be found ? If these chips are tiny enough it might be that this stuff can be found everywhere. I don't know what the scale is. all they had to do is find some dust form 9/10 and dust form other cities and report that the frequency was significantly different.

They were found according to what you sent with electron microscopes. One can find a little of almost anything if the scale is small enough. How big were these chips. Do they have any similar samples taken before 911 and they did they go to any effort to collect them. Even in the most mundane circumstances controls are a necessity for any validity.

Controls are a basic concept in science.

For example, when I used to sample for asbestos in the air of various downtown highrises, I would always take samples both outside and inside. In addition , I would submit a blanc to the lab that had no air run through it. If asbestos showed up in the air samples inside the building and not outside or the blanks, it was likely that the problem originated in the building, not the sampling material, or outside. what would be interesting would if any industrial hygienists were taking any air smaples soon and before and soon after 911 for asbestos etc. that might be relooked at for this thermite.

Maybe the chips were big, and it can be easily shown that this finding was unusual. I do not know.

  At very tiny concentrations the stuff could have been endemic before 911 if the sensitivity is great enough. However , if they had samples from before 911 and had a statistically significant lower frequency of thermite "chips" then one would begin to wonder.

Thanks, Phil. These chips were large enough to be seen with the naked
eye, and, with their fine red and gray layers, had obviously been
manufactured. You are quite right about the importance of controls, in
general. In the present case, it wasn't that these chips were present
in a statistically greater concentration than on 9/10, or than in Los
Angeles; they were something none of the investigators had ever seen
before, which is what aroused their interest. And, indeed, they
determined it to be something only recently developed, and not widely
used, at least outside of military applications. This wasn't ordinary
thermite, whose use had long been suspected, but a new "superthermite."

So Phil, did you get a chance to read the analysis paper? It's very interesting. I don't think the link was in the original article so here it is -

I didn't read anything about control samples but the photos show how it's not naturally occuring. It's also highly flammable as they demonstrate, so if that were the case, general dust would be considered hazardous to everyone.

I also like the quotes about how it makes a great explosive, yet stable paint. Lovely.


I could notget past the summary on my Mac, maybe I just could not find the link to continue.. The summary did not did not say how big the chips were.

I hate biased science, just hate it. The article is very suspect until I can read it all because the author is clearly looking to find something . Good science looks to disprove something. Any good scientific theory must be subject to testing that can prove it is false. Most of the greenhouse garbage is written with the bias of trying to prove something. If you could cut and paste the article into an email, maybe I can get past the summary. Illiteracy in the scientific method is nearly universal. I have to do a lot of tai chi and bhuddist chanting to calm myself down and accept this fact.



This is what I absolutely hate about the so called science around global warming.