Millette study fails to refute crucial findings by Harrit et al

The study by Dr. Jim Millette has confirmed that the red/gray chips found in the dust associated with the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) are paint chips. The WTC steel featured several different primer paints, with Tnemec used for the perimeter columns, and Laclede - which contains no zinc - for the floor trusses. However, this does not mean that the paper by Harrit et al is useless. On the contrary, the Harrit study did find physical evidence of accelerants. The paint chips are certainly not thermitic; they contain no elemental aluminum. But they were contaminated by a small amount of accelerants, with elemental Al part of the composition. The most likely source is fireproofing that was directly adjacent to the primer and was "upgraded" between 1996 and 1998. For WTC1, there is an exact match between the five floors of the impact zone (94-98) and the five contiguous floors with upgraded SFRM of a high density compared to SFRM on other upgraded floors. When Harrit's chips were heated to 700 °C, the primary exotherm seen in differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) traces denotes combustion of the paint's organic material, which is probably Laclede primer's epoxy binder. The yield from thermite - or from aluminum reacting with iron oxide in the paint - was up to five orders of magnitude lower than the yield from organic material. This would explain the absence of a secondary peak from thermite, although the Intermont curve has an interesting trough at 640 °C and then gradually goes into positive territory at 700 °C. The MacKinlay samples' 395 °C peaks are consistent with polyisobutylene (BR), used as a binding agent in plastic explosives. Millette found no elemental Al after an MEK soak, and no evidence of thermite. Harrit et al not only found elemental Al after an MEK soak, but also iron-rich spheres in the residue after chips were subjected to heating in a DSC - evidence that a thermite reaction had occurred. The conflicting results may be due to the fact that Millette's chips were "washed in clean water" prior to analysis, whereas Harrit's "samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified". Elemental aluminum and oxidizer(s) from the accelerant weren't in the chips; they were on the outer surface of the red layer, which corresponds to the left-hand side of Harrit's Figures (12) (b) and (15) (c). Information contained within this page not only proves beyond all doubt that OBL and KSM did not orchestrate 9/11, but identifies the principal perpetrators.

Introduction

In April 2009, a peer-reviewed paper entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe and published in Bentham Open's The Open Chemical Physics Journal provided evidence supporting the theory that nano-thermite was used to take down the Twin Towers and WTC7 in a series of controlled demolitions on 9/11/01. The Harrit et al study purportedly found "compelling" evidence of a highly energetic, active, unreacted thermitic material in samples of dust taken from the vicinity of the WTC following its catastrophic destruction.

This was the latest in literally tons of corroborating physical evidence for controlled demolitions, such as numerous reports of molten steel and molten metal found in the debris pile, iron-rich spherules indicating a previously molten state that were found in the WTC dust (including a sample collected ten minutes after collapse of the North Tower, eliminating the possibility of contamination from the clean up), an orange-yellow flow of molten material from the South Tower caught on video in the minutes preceding collapse that is indicative of an iron-rich melt and totally at odds with the "office fires" scenario, and heavily sulfidated and partly evaporated steel members from WTC7, which was not even hit by an aircraft, yet completely collapsed - at free-fall acceleration for part of the sequence - into its footprint. There were extraordinarily persistent underground fires that raged for five months despite being smothered with thousands of tons of concrete dust, hosed with three million gallons of water and exposed to another million gallons of rain all within the first ten days, and sprayed with thousands of gallons of the fire retardant foaming agent Pyrocool FEF - of which 500 gallons sufficed to extinguish the Nassia oil tanker fire within a mere twelve-and-a-half minutes. A steel beam was seen to be "dripping from the molten steel" as late as February, 2002.

There were dozens of oral reports of explosions. And video footage that NIST desperately tried to keep under wraps - until a lawsuit was filed by the International Center for 9/11 Studies - contains rumbling blast sounds (audible with headphones or subwoofer), seconds before WTC2 and WTC7 are seen to start collapsing. In the WTC7 video, the east penthouse begins its descent about a second after the blast can be heard, and so the blast precedes the initiation of collapse by about three seconds after allowing for the speed of sound across ~2,250 feet to the camera. NIST still refuses to provide details of the input parameters for its computer models of the WTC7 fires, and claims that release of the material would "jeopardize public safety".

Carbon nanotubes were found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of people exposed to the WTC dust - the report said that this was "unexpected and requires further study". CNT are found in ignition residue of sol-gel nano-thermites. And CNT can be used to tune the gas pressure discharge of nano-thermite formulations that use aluminum or magnesium as the reducing agent and Fe₂O₃ or MoO₃ as the oxidizer.

Opponents of 9/11 truth - the so-called "debunkers" - have frequently lied and attempted to deceive with various specious arguments. For example, they claimed the Bentham paper was never peer-reviewed (see below). The Bentham paper does indeed have a few flaws. Yet in spite of that, it still provides evidence of active accelerants in the WTC dust, for which the authors deserve much kudos and a place in history.

What the thermite deniers got right - and why they have ultimately lost the debate

The "debunkers" turned out to be correct on one issue: their "paint chips" hypothesis, as demonstrated in the section below on Laclede primer paint. The evidence shows that the red/gray chips discovered by Dr. Steven Jones consist of a layer of red primer paint attached to a layer of mill scale, which is an outer oxidized layer of ~50 microns thickness found on structural steel. It is mostly comprised of magnetite, and is formed as the steel is rolled to produce the required shapes. Yet iron-rich spheres with Fe:O ratios up to 4:1 were found in the residue after these chips were heated up to 700 °C; none of the spheres were observed prior to heating. That is not possible from paint chips, unless there had been a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics (or probability)!

Those iron-rich spheres, evidence for a thermite reaction, are corroborated by elemental aluminum found in the red/gray chip that was soaked in MEK (see below). Iron oxide, which was contained in at least two types of primer paint at the WTC, does not reduce to iron without a chemical reaction such as a thermite reaction. And iron or Fe₂O₃ particles with a diameter of microns or larger do not melt at temperatures significantly lower than their bulk melting temperatures of 1,538 °C and 1,565 °C respectively. If Fe₂O₃ dissociates into magnetite and oxygen at 1,388 °C, then the melting point of magnetite is even higher at 1,597 °C. Moreover, the elemental aluminum - at least, some of it - must be nano-sized in order to ignite at 500 to 700 °C to create those spheres in a thermite reaction, and therefore was clearly created in a laboratory - e.g., a military lab. But thermite was only one of the accelerants employed at the WTC. Much of the physical evidence points to thermite or thermate, which was used at WTC2 and WTC7. Many of the red/gray chips, as we shall see, are from floors 94-98 of WTC1, for which we can be certain that powdered aluminum was applied as an accelerant, but the principal oxidizer was probably not Fe₂O₃. Since 100 nm diameter Fe₂O₃ was present as a pigment in the red primer paint, this could have reacted with nano-Al to produce the observed iron-rich spheres.

And it is established beyond all doubt that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory of "nineteen Arabs" with "box cutters" is a myth, believable only by infants, ignoramuses, halfwits, and those who are afraid to examine the evidence because their ego will not allow them to entertain the fact that they were wrong for more than a decade. Although the truth movement has not got everything right about 9/11, it is right about nearly everything, whereas the "debunkers" have got almost everything wrong. So much, in fact, that as Anthony Lawson so aptly remarks, it "either demonstrates a level of ignorance almost beyond belief, or something far worse".

How the accelerants were applied

An outline of the likely WTC1 demolition scenario is necessary in order to account for why the red/gray chips would have active accelerant material on the outer surface of the red layer of unwashed chips whilst containing no elemental aluminum within the chips. On the outer surface of the structural steel, e.g., floor trusses, is a layer of oxidized steel known as mill scale. Adjacent to this is the primer paint, and adjacent to that is the spray-applied fire resistive material (SFRM), popularly termed "fireproofing". The red/gray "chips" are flakes of primer (red layer) and mill scale (gray layer). The adhesion strength of the epoxy binding the primer to the mill scale can exceed the adhesion of the mill scale to the steel substrate, which is much lower than the ultimate strength of steel. After destruction / removal of the SFRM, whether by office fires, aircraft impact, building collapse or arson accelerant, flakes of the two middle layers remain as the "red/gray chips".

In 1995, following the 1993 WTC bombing, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority or PANYNJ) made a decision to upgrade the SFRM. This was carried out on individual floors as and when tenants vacated their office space. For WTC1, there is not only a remarkable correlation between the upgraded floors and the impact zone; there is an exact match between upgraded SFRM of high density and impact zone. Turner Construction had upgraded at least 31 stories, including the entire impact zone, by 9/11/01. FEMA 403 Chapter 2 describes the WTC1 impact zone as floors 94-98, and the WTC2 impact zone as floors 78-84.

The floors in the WTC1 impact zone, and floor 78 in WTC2, were all fully upgraded, which included removal of existing material. Some multiple tenant floors were partly upgraded when a tenant vacated, and in this case the SFRM was merely "patched as required".

The upgraded SFRM on the floor trusses was Cafco Blaze-Shield Type II. It's worth noting that this SFRM has a typical density of 15 pcf (240.3 kg/m³), but the Port Authority's 63 test measurements of upgraded SFRM density (as displayed above) found an average density of 18.9365 pcf or 303.3 kg/m³, which is 26.24% high. And the upgrade was specified to be 1½ inches for a 2-hour fire rating, a doubling of the previous ¾ inch, yet the upgraded SFRM had an average applied thickness of 2½ inches. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A.) Nevertheless, that over-specification is probably perfectly normal.

More importantly, the average SFRM density and applied thickness within the WTC1 impact zone (floors 94-98) is relatively high even for upgraded floors, at 21.24 pcf or 340.2 kg/m³ (41.6% higher than standard) and 2.993 inches (99.5% over specified thickness) respectively. The cohesion /adhesion for floors 94 to 98 is also relatively high at an average of 381.5 psf, which is 27.9% above the 298.2 psf mean for upgraded floors in Table 4-2. (And that doesn't help NIST's fire-induced collapses theory, which relies upon an assumption that aircraft impact was sufficient to dislodge sufficient SFRM in order that office fires sufficed to bring about the unprecedented total collapses of two steel-framed 110-story buildings, before we even begin to consider the fact that there was no aircraft to dislodge WTC7's Monokote MK-5 fireproofing.)

When we exclude the 15 SFRM density measurements from WTC1 floors 94-98, the average of the remaining 48 values in Table 4-2 is 18.2167 pcf (291.8 kg/m³) rather than the 18.9365 pcf (303.3 kg/m³) mean for all upgraded floors in Table 4-2. Thus, each cubic meter of SFRM within the five impact zone floors 94-98 weighed an average of 340.2 kg, which is an excess mass of 48.4 kg compared with the average of 291.8 kg for upgraded SFRM outside the impact zone. The excess mass of 48.4 kg for each 340.2 kg of upgraded SFRM within the impact zone is consistent with ~14.22% by mass of non-standard materials of a relatively high density - e.g., accelerants - embedded in the space between the fibers of the impact zone's "upgraded" mineral wool SFRM.

(Alternatively, if we multiply the impact zone floors' average SFRM density of 340.2 kg/m³ by their average SFRM thickness of 2.993 inches or 0.076 meters, then each square meter of the steel trusses' surface in the WTC1 impact zone was coated with an average 0.076 m³ * 340.2 kg/m³ = 25.86 kg of SFRM. This compares with an expected mass, after accounting for the additional thickness but taking the "normal" density as per the other upgraded floors, of 0.076 m³ * 291.8 kg/m³ = 22.18 kg of SFRM per m² of steel.)

FEMA provided a nice diagram of the WTC1 impact hole, confirming that the zone covered floors 94 to 98.

The information from NIST's Table 4-2 is tabulated below to show the mean values for average SFRM thickness, cohesion adhesion, and density. For a "repeated test", both values are counted. It can be seen that for WTC1, floors 94-98 all have an average measured SFRM density of 19.5 lb/ft³ or higher, and the remaining floors are all 19.0 lb/ft³ or lower with the exception of the 1997 report for the multiple tenant floor 85. The density is quite low in the 1999 measurements for floor 85, and some of the fake SFRM that was left over following the 1996 renovation to floor 94 may have been applied to a section of floor 85 in 1997.

And here is a graphical display of the above SFRM density data for WTC1 floors 79-102. For floors 81 and 85 which have two or three separate reports, the average density is taken. The impact zone floors 94-98 are right in the middle of a set of contiguous upgraded floors, and the exact match of relatively high density SFRM with the five impact floors is obvious.

For a 110-story building, there are 106 sets of five contiguous floors, from 1-5 through to 106-110. The number of sets is 110 + 1 - n, where n is the number of contiguous floors. The AA Flight 11 impact zone spanned five floors and the roll angle was 25°; UA Flight 175's impact zone correspondingly encompassed seven floors at a roll angle of 38°, give or take a few degrees. In both cases, if the height of the impact zone in feet is approximately 12n - 6 where n is the number of floors spanned, then the hypotenuse of the right-angled triangle with adjacent angle equal to the roll is ~127 feet. This is the length of the wingspan that causes damage (cf. the 156 feet 1 inch wingspan), with the wingtips doing negligible or no damage. If we include all sets from two to ten contiguous floors (which represents various roll angles up to 60° for a Boeing 767-200 series), the total becomes 111 - 2 + 111 - 3 + 111 - 4 ... + 111 - 10 = 9 * 111 - ( 9 * 6) = 945. Thus, the probability that the aircraft impact zone would cover the same number of floors, and the very same set of floors as those upgraded floors with an SFRM of particularly high density, is 1 in 945.

So there is a striking connection between the WTC1 impact zone and its upgraded floors with SFRM of a relatively high density compared to other upgraded floors. It's not merely a correlation; it's an exact match!

In another interesting "coincidence", the number of impact zone floors and the number of floors with higher density SFRM happens to match the number of contiguous floors that the 9/11 demolition planners would need to take out, in order for these floor failures to lead to a loss of lateral support for core columns, with consequent Euler buckling. Removal of five floors, after some columns had already been taken out or damaged, would increase the core columns' slenderness ratios to the point at which even the larger 42 ksi W14x257 members (at around floor 98) would probably buckle (see Appendix C).

Why 9/11 researchers know the official story is false

To believers in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, the idea that a leopard can never change its spots is anathema!

Then we have the fact that a shipping company - owned partly by the government of this particular foreign country the size of New Jersey whose leaders were friends with the new WTC controllers, and partly by a corporation whose subsidiaries include a chemical company engaging in development and production of fertilizers, potassium salts and bromine-based "flame retardants" that might be useful in deceptive building demolitions or passing on advice to a president of an SPC subsidiary who was "researching fire protection ideas from other nations" - moved out of the WTC on September 4, 2001 - one week prior to 9/11/01. Or the fact that the 1993 WTC garage bombing occurred two years after agents of this particular foreign country had inspected the garage of this particular shipping company in the WTC, and had concluded that the WTC garage would be vulnerable to a car bomb. Or the fact that one of those involved in the WTC bombing is suspected of being an intelligence asset of this particular foreign country. Or the fact that one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers was the cousin of a long-time intelligence asset of this particular foreign country.

Or the fact that this particular prime minister of this particular foreign country lived in the very same town (population: 4,500 out of a world population of 6.15 billion as of 2001) as a certain Popular Mechanics-reading billionaire businessman who'd "loaned" $250,000 to a certain New York Police Commissioner who was a "very good friend" of a certain New York mayor who was godfather to his children. Another resident of that town was the crooked boss (who later fled to Namibia after being wanted for fraud by the FBI) of a hi-tech company whose subsidiary won a contract to provide video "security" for the London Underground, ten months prior to the 7/7/05 London Underground bombings.

Or the fact that one of the alleged Flight 11 "hijackers" (who later turned up alive and well!) said he'd had his passport stolen when his Denver apartment was burgled in 1995, and the ex-Sayerat Matkal Flight 11 passenger who incidentally had made and lost a fortune in the dotcom boom and bust and, interestingly, "loved jumping out of planes", was a native of Denver. (And this particular prime minister's father - the supporter of terrorism and extremism - taught at Denver for part of his career, living there with his young family.) Or the fact that this particular Middle Eastern country's intelligence agency, the "Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations", has a history of stealing passports from the four corners of the globe - e.g. in New Zealand from a "tetraplegic man who had not spoken in years", or when murdering one of their enemies in Dubai, or in Lebanon. (One of this particular country's advocate groups even admits that the one fact alone that an ex-Sayeret Matkal guy was on Flight 11 is "quite a coincidence", although their confirmation bias blinds them to all of the myriad of other 'coincidences' and absurdities of the government conspiracy theory that prove it is a pack of lies. They claim they "don't understand", want to learn more, and want facts. There are enough verifiable facts in this section for any honest, unbiased investigator to understand the truth about 9/11. Were they to defend the honest majority amongst their co-religionists rather than the hypocritical, terrorist, criminal elite and a paranoid, brainwashed minority who've been tricked into aiding and abetting the political intriguers and warmongers, they would help to prevent conflict and best serve the interests of decent people from all races and religions. It's time to stop bigoted nonsense such as "my race is better than your race". Those who don't understand, who continually refuse to learn from those who do understand, will never understand.)

We could also start talking about "art students" - nationals of this particular Middle Eastern country out of around 193 countries in the world - who lived well within a mile of the alleged 9/11 "hijackers" in Hollywood, Florida. For example, the distance between the apartments of one infamous "art student" and Mohamed Atta was "some 1,800 feet". Or how the person who said that Hani Hanjour was a "good" pilot was a national of this particular foreign country and served in its "Defense Forces" in the paratroops regiment.

Or how the mother-in-law of the boss of the Weehawken "moving company" intelligence front made a transaction on a Florida property on Friday, September 7, 2001, four days before 9/11, and one week before this boss (presumably accompanied by his family) fled the US for this particular country. Or how a tightly-knit group of employees of this moving company who were foreigners and co-religionists of a certain prime minister, a certain Pentagon Comptroller, a certain duo who signed a 99-year lease for the WTC and insured against terror attacks six weeks before 9/11, a certain head of the Port Authority who negotiated the lease, a certain expert on building collapses and bioterrorism shortly to be mentioned below, etc., had strong anti-American sentiments. For example, they would hold frequent meetings in the company's office in which they spoke in Hebrew, and Americans would not be invited. And one of them said, "Give us twenty years and we'll take over your media and destroy your country". Or how workers at this moving company were told that that the company had closed down and they'd been fired just after lunch time on 9/11, which is before the photographing, celebrating, "dancing" employees - who were smiling, high-fiving, hugging one another, in a "jovial" mood, and "visibly happy on nearly all" of their 76 photographs - had even been arrested, and three days before their boss fled the country. Or how on September 10, 2001 one of them gave his brother "a really nice camera that had a big" lens. The brother who received the camera was seen kneeling atop a van parked at an excellent vantage point, a parking lot of an apartment block, photographing and celebrating the first plane impact into the North Tower before the news broke on the local AM news radio station, and had also been sighted at this apartment block the day before 9/11. Or how they "coincidentally" brought a Canon EOS SLR and a Pentax P550 into work with them on the morning of 9/11/01, and one of them remarked, "I am glad I brought my camera today". Or how, before the South Tower was hit, they not only celebrated because they already knew it was a terrorist act, but also had gone to the apartment block's parking lot that, in their own words, had the advantage of providing "a view of the entire length of both towers". Or how these "movers", when their van was stopped and they were arrested, were found not to have "equipment typically used in a moving company's daily duties" such as "work gloves, blankets, straps, ropes, boxes, dollies, rollers, etc", but did have cameras, passports, thousands of dollars of cash, and "airline tickets with immediate travel dates for destinations world-wide". Or how two of these moving company employees, nationals of a certain foreign country, were detained in Pennsylvania on the morning of 9/11/01, claiming to be on a journey from Weehawken, NJ to Columbus, OH, on a route that would take them within 2 or 3 miles of the Flight 93 crash site at Shanksville and Indian Lake in PA, when they were "supposed to complete a moving job" in their Penske box truck "in a different part of the country". Or how this "moving company" exhibited "little evidence of a legitimate business operation" and had an "unusually large number of computers relative to the number of employees for such a fairly small business".

[Hint: to check out those "moving company" links and much more, open the index for the page in a new window or tab, click on each topic of interest, and use the back button on your browser to return to the index.]

Or how "nationals" of a certain Middle Eastern country - whose president was jailed for seven years in 2011 after being convicted of "two counts of rape, as well as other sexual offenses against various subordinates" - were arrested near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in a truck that was "found to have traces of TNT on the gearshift and traces of RDX plastic explosive on the steering wheel", and a bomb-sniffing dog also detected traces of explosives on one of the occupants. They told local police they were delivering furniture from California, but "authorities doubted the story because of the early morning hour".

Or how two men described as "Middle Eastern", whose names reveal the particular foreign country of their origin, were arrested in Plymouth, Pennsylvania on October 11, 2001 after being seen dumping furniture from a tractor-trailer with a Florida registration and a sign posted on the side reading "Moving Systems Incorporated", and claiming to be in town to make a pick up but being unable to provide a name or telephone number of their customer. It is supposed to be purely "coincidental" that they were found to have a Sony video camera and tape with detailed footage of Chicago's Sears Tower, only three days after a bizarre incident in which a man from Fresno, California, whose parents had been aware of his "mental problems" for only one week, was arrested after bursting into the cockpit of an American Airlines Boeing 767 bound for Chicago's O'Hare airport, screaming, "We're going to crash into the Sears Tower" and that terrorists were "steering" the plane towards the Sears Tower. And that the aircraft drama occurred only one day after, as already mentioned above, agents of the particular Middle Eastern country had been caught and arrested inside the Mexican Congress chamber in possession of guns, grenades, dynamite, detonators and wiring while posing as "press photographers". And that a group of their co-religionist lawyers took over an infamous cult that brainwashes hapless victims and already had plenty of bases in California in 2001, even though it did not establish one in Fresno until 2004. And that a certain BSc architecture-qualified prime minister is married to a psychologist who served in military intelligence and worked as a flight attendant.

Similarly, we are expected to believe that it was just a "coincidence" that pork chop-loving, video gaming, sneakers/jeans-wearing, red Pontiac-driving, cocaine-snorting, money-worshipping, vodka-swilling, strip club-frequenting, gambling Mohamed Atta - the "devout Muslim" with such a hatred of Western culture that he was prepared to kill himself and thousands of others - steered a Boeing 767 to crash into the north face of WTC1 whilst banking at a 25° angle so that the impact zone covered five floors - the very same five contiguous floors that not only had upgraded SFRM installed between 1996 and 1998, but also had SFRM that was found to have a high density compared to that of the other upgraded floors. This is a coincidence too far!

(Official 9/11 coincidence theorists believe that the drinking, gambling, womanizing, drug-taking, pork chop-loving, video gaming, money-flashing "devout Muslim terrorists" - who gave every indication of being overpaid, overconfident Western intelligence operatives acting the role of "devout Muslim terrorists" - were in fact "devout Muslim terrorists", rather than overpaid, overconfident Western intelligence operatives. These official 9/11 coincidence theorists also think that Occam's Razor is a market competitor of Remington and Gillette.)

There is no credible evidence that Arabs were on the 9/11 planes. For example, of the four aircraft that were allegedly each boarded by four or five "Arab hijackers" with "box cutters" (and, by some accounts, "mace", a "bomb", and even a "gun"), there is no surveillance video to prove that any of these "Arabs" were at the departure airports Boston Logan, Washington Dulles and Newark International. The only video footage the authorities had of any of the alleged hijackers at any airport within days of 9/11 was at Portland International Jetport, Maine, and so a cock-and-bull story was fabricated in which two "hijackers" had inexplicably made a detour to Portland, almost missing their final flight. This also provided the opportunity for Atta's baggage to be 'found' with lots of incriminating 'evidence' after the connecting flight was delayed and the baggage supposedly missed Atta's final flight, as if a suicide pilot would choose to take their last will and testament with them on a plane that they were planning to crash into a skyscraper, rather than leave it some place where it would certainly be found (or alternatively destroy it, if they didn't want it to be found). A grainy "surveillance video" that lacks a time stamp, purportedly of "hijackers" at Dulles Airport, was not released until July 2004, and the images are not clear enough for a positive ID. Given that it took only 18 months to make the animation for all episodes of the highly acclaimed Walking With Dinosaurs documentary series, they should have done a much better job. But to be fair to the forgers, such 'evidence' is aimed at those with the attention span of a goldfish (or the brains of a stegosaurus).

An important role for the "art students" was to craft the "Arabs did 9/11" legend by stealing passports and finding Arabs to frame, for example by carefully observing the movements of Saudi Airlines flight engineers who'd been sent to Florida for pilot training because the airline was eliminating flight engineers from its three-member crews. The program had ended for some of the engineers shortly before 9/11, which is why they were leaving the Vero Beach, Florida area around that time. Problem was, it meant that many of the "dead hijackers" would turn up alive and indignant, most likely in Saudi Arabia, and those pushing the legend would have to resort to claiming it was just lots of cases of mistaken identity. A good exposition of the frame-up and the evolving list of hijackers' names can be found in Paul Zarembka's The Hidden History of 9-11.

If Satam al-Suqami, Waleed al-Shehri and Wail al-Shehri had been on the flight manifests, the authorities would not have initially claimed Adnan Bukhari, Ameer Bukhari and Amer Kamfar as hijackers in their place. Adnan was found to be alive and living in Florida. Ameer died in a small plane crash on September 11, 2000 - exactly one year too early. On September 14, 2001, Kamfar was reported as being possibly alive and "armed with an AK-47", and then he turned out to be alive and innocent and living in Mecca: one of those flight engineer / pilots who'd been recalled from Vero Beach to Saudi Arabia. And given that Ameer Bukhari had been dead for a year and Adnan Bukhari was not a hijacker, the claim that their names were on paperwork relating to a rented 2001 silver-blue Nissan Altima found at Portland International Jetport, Maine, was a lie. The alternative is a story that makes no sense: that Atta rented a Mitsubishi sedan in his real name, then bizarrely abandoned the Mitsubishi at Boston's Logan Airport and inexplicably rented a Nissan using identities stolen from the Bukharis to travel to Portland with Alomari on a journey that meant they would risk missing their connecting flight with the consequent failure of their mission.

It is often claimed that Osama bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11. A well-built, dark-skinned, right-handed man, dubbed informally as "Fatty bin Laden", whose only resemblance to the pale, olive-skinned, 6' 4" to 6' 6", approximately 160 lbs, left-handed Osama bin Laden is that they both sported a beard and wore a turban, appeared in a video that was conveniently 'found' in Jalalabad, a city with a population estimated at roughly 250,000 as of 1999. The chubby, right-handed individual admitted responsibility for 9/11 after Osama bin Laden, who reportedly died December 2001, had already denied responsibility on at least two occasions: September 16 and 28 of 2001. Various tapes of "Osama" were faked in the ensuing years, often merely consisting of audio, and sometimes accompanied by a still image. The tapes were broadcast at times that would help the Bush admin, such as days prior to the 2004 presidential election. The Washington Post reported in May 2010 that former CIA officers admitted the agency created tapes in which their "darker-skinned employees" acted the roles of Osama and his cronies. A video broadcast in 2009, for example, was so blurred that hardly any information could be gleaned from it, although in 2009 the parts of "Osama's" beard that were black had been white in 2007 and vice versa. And "Osama's" eyebrows, nose and other features kept changing from one video to the next.

Navy SEALs who murdered the male members of an innocent Pakistani family in Abbottabad in May 2011, after the powers-that-be decided they could not keep pretending that a dead man was still alive by faking audio / still images / blurry video footage, would have been briefed with photographs of the Pakistani gentlemen supplied from agents associated with the Kakul Pakistan Military Academy which was a few minutes' drive from "Osama's hideout". Thus, they would have imagined that they were targeting "Osama bin Laden" and his "courier". With the body of "Osama" having been dumped ("burial at sea"), with 22 members of SEAL Team Six - the same team that carried out the slaughter of the Khan family in Abbottabad - killed in a chopper crash in Afghanistan in August 2011 - thereby leaving any surviving SEALs involved in the killings in no doubt that they'd be putting their own lives on the line were they to actually debunk the "Osama killed in 2011" legend as opposed to merely revealing that Akbar Khan's guns were not loaded when he was shot in the head and then shot several times in the chest (which makes it patently obvious that the operation was to assassinate rather than capture an individual who would be passed off as "Osama"), and with surviving female members of the family obviously having been "encouraged" to play along with the official story - after another chopper 'accident' had conveniently provided a pretext for avoiding bringing any "Osama wives" back to the U.S. for interrogation on grounds that there was "no room", the evidence was conveniently eliminated. Moreover, a New York Times article dated May 1, 2011, (just hours before the butchering of the Khan family) on how U.S. aid to Pakistan was in excess of $1 billion annually, provided a thinly veiled threat as to the consequences should the Pakistani authorities put up more than a token resistance to the U.S. version of events.

Those SEALs killed in the chopper crash probably included those given secret orders that "bin Laden" was not to be taken alive under any circumstances and it was essential to get rid of the body. Surviving members of the raid team would have attended the briefing in which a lawyer told them it was not an assassination mission, and would assume that the killing of unarmed men by their teammates was simply a mistake, even a "reasonable" mistake. After all, the authorities would have no problem wheeling out some retired major-general to offer his legal opinion on how shooting an unarmed man was "understandable", was not "unreasonable", and how it was also "reasonable" to shoot him again several times after he was already "crumpled on the floor in a pool of blood with a hole visible on the right side of his head and two women wailing over his body".

It is clear that anyone who has access to the information yet continues to believe the official government story (myth) on 9/11 would be best advised to consult a doctor - preferably, one who specializes in problems of the mind!

The genesis of the WTC demolitions dates back to 1991, when agents of the world's most powerful global crime syndicate - whose principals have the leaders of the incumbent and opposition parties in the so-called Western "democracies" in their pockets - inspected the WTC garage and noted its vulnerability to a truck bomb. The February 1993 WTC bombing, which killed six and injured 1,042 in the resulting fires after a plan to substitute harmless powder for the explosives was called off by an FBI supervisor after having other ideas about how their $500 a week informant Emad A. Salem was to be used, served to provide the pretext for the fireproofing "upgrades" over the next few years. But they needed a willing, conniving US administration, and in January 1998 Clinton refused to give in to their blackmail over Monica Lewinsky. Those involved were from the same crime syndicate that planned to hit the WTC, as demonstrated by the fact that a certain BSc architecture-qualified prime minister who was a friend of the WTC7 developer traveled to Washington to negotiate with Clinton, "coincidentally" a mere three days after news broke of the Lewinsky scandal.

In March 2000 it was revealed that $2.3 trillion of accounting corrections that lacked receipts had been required to balance the Pentagon's financial ledgers. This provided the opportunity for bringing the new Bush admin into 9/11, albeit in a relatively minor role. The Pentagon attack was to kill "only" a hundred or two, as opposed to thousands in the WTC, although in both cases many more would be killed and maimed in the ensuing wars. A certain gentleman who was CEO at SPC International and co-signatory to a position paper that called for a "new Pearl Harbor" was nominated by George W. Bush in February 2001 to serve as Comptroller at the Pentagon and as Under Secretary of Defense, and was sworn in on May 3, 2001. Another gentleman who was CEO at Enron and would therefore know a thing or two about accounting fraud - who had been on "JINSA" trips to a certain foreign country sitting on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea - was nominated by Bush as Secretary of the Army on May 1, 2001, and sworn in thirty days later.

In the morning of 9/11, Thomas E. White, Paul Wolfowitz, Randy "Duke" Cunningham and others were at a breakfast meeting with Donald Rumsfeld, in which the latter predicted that some kind of "shocking" world event would occur in the near future. The meeting was about to break up as the first plane slammed into the North Tower. As the alleged Flight 77 was ten miles out from the Pentagon, a young man asked Vice President Cheney, "Do the orders still stand?" Cheney turned and whipped his neck around and replied, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Since there were no shoot down orders in effect at 9:37:45 - the time of the Pentagon strike - or earlier, and since there was no attempt to shoot down the object that struck the Pentagon, it follows that "the orders" were stand down rather than shoot down. In the afternoon of 9/11/01 Donald Rumsfeld said, "My interest is to hit Saddam Hussein", and ordered his aides to plan for striking Iraq.

Afghanistan was the first target in the crime syndicate's grotesquely misnamed "war on terror" (in reality "war and terror for profit and power") because the Taliban had banned opium poppy cultivation in the summer of 2000 throughout the 95% of Afghanistan that it controlled, severely hitting the profits of Western intelligence agencies and organized crime. In 2001 cultivation was down by 90% and production by 94% compared to 2000. Opium production rocketed after regime change; by 2007, the potential production was almost twice the previous high of 1999. Similarly, the original opium wars of the mid-19th century were also about the misuse of military force to enable satanic, avaricious psychopaths to continue profiting from the opium trade. Plundering $billions of Iraqi oil riches could be delayed for a year or two, until the public had been softened up with a new pack of lies about "WMD" such as "mobile germ warfare labs".

With the Bush admin heavily complicit in the Pentagon attack, they were forced to cover for the Mishpucka's WTC attacks, with the Mishpucka in their turn exploiting their control of the mainstream media to promote the official conspiracy yarn about cocaine-snorting, strip club-frequenting, pork chop-loving "devout Muslims" with "box cutters" who "got lucky", etc. The Pentagon Comptroller, who served as the Mishpucka's chief inside man in the piggy-backed Bush admin 9/11 sub-plot, would not have given the Bush conspirators advance information on anything they did not need to know, such as the plan to attack and demolish the WTC. Flight 93 was shot down before it could hit WTC7 because it was 41 minutes late due to airport congestion, and the confusion caused by the war games and exercises - effectively a military "stand down" - could not be maintained indefinitely. Rather than admit that, a Jessica Lynch-style "Let's roll" story about passenger heroics was concocted.

Seven years later, another fantasy about "thermal expansion" causing the collapse of WTC7 was foisted on the sheeple. The explicit testimony of Barry Jennings, an eyewitness who told of how he was trapped in the building by early explosions prior to the collapse of either Tower, directly contradicts the official theory as touted by NIST that flaming debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers had smashed its way into WTC7 and ignited fires on multiple floors - even though a "hijacker's passport" was "soaked in jet fuel" and still did not burn - and then those multiple fires led to "thermal expansion" of fireproofed steel, which in turn brought about the total collapse of the 47-story building that was never hit by a plane, twenty minutes after the BBC had already reported its collapse in what was claimed to be an "honest mistake", and an hour after CNN had already reported that WTC7 had "collapsed" or was "collapsing". Sadly, in yet another strange "coincidence", Mr. Jennings died on August 19, 2008, just two days before NIST released the draft version of its WTC7 report which, as with its other reports, selectively ignored the empirical evidence and the laws of physics and compartment fires. In another bizarre "coincidence", Dutch controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko died on July 16, 2011 in a car crash, just three days after Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College, had cited Mr. Jowenko's expert testimony that WTC7's collapse was a "controlled demolition" by "a team of experts" who had "blown away columns", three-and-a-half minutes into an interview for Press TV with Susan Modaress.

The orchestrators of state-sponsored terror have been forced to recruit disinformation agents to propagate nonsense about "holographic planes", about the WTC being demolished by space-based beam "energy weapons" capable of sustaining several times the total global power output for ten seconds at a time, and to have their assets set up so-called "9/11 debunking" websites to confuse newcomers with specious arguments and attacks on straw men. One intelligence asset even peddles an absurd hoax about the WTC being demolished with nuclear bombs that leave no physical trace and were built into the basements during construction with the full approval of the Nixon admin, who successfully managed to prevent Washington Post reporters from uncovering the scheme. When challenged, shills claim that the basement nukes were able to make the building collapses initiate at the impact zones by the use of "shaped charges". They have a similar 'explanation' for the Boeing 767-shaped impact holes in the Towers - it was done with cleverly placed (and timed) "charges"!

When the official conspiracy theory of "the Arabs did 9/11 with the aid of box cutters and an extraordinary run of luck" is assumed to be true, there is a host of absurdities, improbabilities and bizarre coincidences, along with contradictory physical, auditory and visual evidence. When the official conspiracy theory is consigned to the garbage bin and replaced with the correct hypothesis, the internal inconsistencies evaporate, the lengthy series of improbabilities and coincidences is transformed into a set of expected links within the causal chain of events, and the forensic and recorded evidence becomes consistent with what actually happened on 9/11/01. There is only one place for the official conspiracy theory: the garbage bin!

Which accelerants were used?

The WTC demolition planners' objectives were to leave as little evidence as possible of controlled demolitions, whilst transforming the buildings from being very unlikely to collapse in the event of office fires to extremely likely to collapse. These were deceptive demolitions that were supposed to look like the devastating consequences of a few "Islamic" "suicide pilots" and "airplane hijackers" with "box cutters" who were remarkably "lucky", and so apparatus such as C4, blasting caps, wires, det cord, or even "thermite charges" that can "penetrate a 1/2 inch thick steel target in less than 1 second", is ruled out unless it can be built to self-destruct, or unless the perpetrators were supremely confident in their ability to bribe, blackmail, threaten or "neutralize" anyone involved in the clear-up who might have talked.

Cafco Blaze-Shield Type II SFRM used in the WTC fireproofing upgrade, and the previous Type DC/F, are described as "proprietary formulations of slag wool and inorganic binders containing silicates and calcium sulfates". These mineral fiber SFRMs are generally supplied in a dry form, and "spray-applied with specially designed equipment that feeds the dry mixture of mineral fibers and various binding agents to a spraying nozzle where water is added to the mixture as it is sprayed onto the metal surface". NIST carried out heat capacity measurements on Blaze-Shield II, heating it up to 1,200 °C. Calcium silicate, for example, has a "melting point" of 1,540 °C according to Wikipedia and another source. Wiki quotes a "melting point" of 1,460 °C for calcium sulfate (anhydrous) which would be consistent with NIST's ability to determine sensible heat capacity at 1,200 °C. However, calcium sulfate decomposes in the reaction:

The reaction is endothermic, requiring 3.69 kJ/g-CaSO₄, and according to Kefa Cen et al the equilibrium decomposition temperature is typically within the range 1,450 to 1,550 K depending on the SO₂ concentration (and O₂, to a smaller extent). If we take the average 1,500 K or 1,227 °C, then that is consistent with NIST's measurement of specific heat at temperatures up to 1,200 °C.

Note that Dr. Astaneh-Asl found a steel beam that had partly "vaporized" in "searing temperatures" prior to collapse, and fireproofing that had "melted into a glassy residue". This is not consistent with "office fires", which should not be capable of delivering sufficient heat to vaporize parts of a fireproofed steel beam, or to heat SFRM up to around 1,227 °C and then deliver an additional 3.69 kJ/g-CaSO₄ in order to decompose it! In fact, the "glassy residue" suggests CaO and SiO₂, requiring decomposition of a silicate as well as CaSO₄.

The perpetrators aimed to allow for scenarios on each floor within the impact zone ranging from fully developed fires that encompassed the whole floor to fires that were limited to a small portion of the floor. Some of the non-flammable mineral wool of the Blaze-Shield II was most likely replaced with flammable fibers of a plastic polymer such as polyethylene. The principal polymer used was most likely low-density polyethylene (PE-LD), which has a low melt flow index (MFI) of 1.4 g/10 min compared with PE-HD (2.2 g/10 min), polystyrene (9.0 g/10 min), and polypropylene (21.5 g/10 min). Polyethylene's ignition temperature is relatively low at ~350 °C, and it has a high heat of combustion at 43.6 kJ/g. Combustion products of PE-LD include propylene (propene), which was detected at levels of 990,000 ppb at Ground Zero as late as February 9, 2002, the same month that a steel beam was reportedly "dripping from the molten steel". Of other species detected, benzene was more strongly correlated with propylene. The benzene / propylene ratio on six peak days varied from 0.616 to 1.957, whereas benzene / styrene extends from 0.322 up to 35.88, although the five peak days for benzene did at least coincide with those for styrene. Benzene, along with "a plethora of alkanes, alkenes and aromatic compounds", is another combustion product of polyethylene. "Emissions of benzene and its derivatives are maximized" at a PE combustion temperature of "around 700 to 800 °C".

Polystyrene has the main combustion product styrene, with others including benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene. Styrene peaked relatively early, on October 11.

There is a certain foreign country that produces "polyethylene, polypropylene [and] polystyrene" on "a large scale, the wide variety of grades aimed for local consumption as well as export". Carmel Olefins is one example of companies in the particular foreign country that produces low-density polyethylene, for example, with a melt flow index of only 0.2 g/10 minutes and heating value of 12.2 kWh/kg which is 43.92 kJ/g, or polypropylene with a melt flow rate of 0.28 g/10 minutes. The company is a subsidiary of Oil Refineries Ltd., a government-private sector joint venture, which produces a full range of petroleum products.

Other polymers used could have included cotton, to benefit from its low ignition temperature of ~255 °C. Since the plastic would be oxidized by the air that ventilated the office fires, an adjustment is required for energy calculation purposes in order to allow for the oxygen-depleted stoichiometry of the office fires environment. So for polyethylene, we multiply the typical yield of 43.6 kJ/g by a factor of 0.68 and obtain 29.6 kJ/g. (For details of how the 0.68 is derived, see here.)

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, (chapters 1-8) 5.2 reports on the frequent release of "streamers" emanating from burning zones at the tops of windows in WTC1. The streamers were "intense white smoke" from a smoldering polymer, although according to NIST this was polyurethane used as thermal insulation for the areas above aluminum head casings just inside and above the windows.

Plastics, when embedded within SFRM, would be capable of heating steel to the highest temperatures found in compartment fires, where the heat sources comprise a mix of plastics and other fuel with a lower calorific value such as wood, and the separation between fuel and steel is measured in yards rather than inches. However, plastics would not be able to produce the extremely high local temperatures associated with aluminum combustion when mixed with an oxidizer, as in the thermite reaction for example. In addition to the substituting of flammable for non-flammable fibers, the SFRM would be embedded with a combination of fuel plus oxidizer. Aluminum powder is the obvious choice for the fuel, and is evidenced by elemental Al found on the red/gray chips.

Researchers at Technion, which is a certain foreign country's "Institute of Technology", wrote that "Aluminum powders are used in propellant, pyrotechnic, and explosive formulations, as well as in combustion systems, to increase energy and energy density", and of how "remarkable ignition enhancement of the aluminum powders" could be achieved by "activating the metal particle surfaces or by using powders with a high reaction surface". They investigated and developed methods such as "iron coating" the aluminum particles and the "formation of porous aluminum particles". The Russian-born lead researcher, who has been at Technion since 1991, supplied nickel-coated aluminum powder manufactured at Technion for a study conducted at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark. Thirty-five miles from Newark is Stanhope, NJ, the home of Isolatek International, the manufacturer of the Cafco Blaze-Shield II SFRM used for the WTC fireproofing "upgrade" of the late 1990s. The other researcher, associated with Technion since 1968 and now head of its rocket propulsion center, was a paratrooper who served in two of the particular foreign country's wars in 1967 and 1973, and spent some of his career in the U.S., e.g. at the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Since 1999 he has been head of the foreign country's Sylvia and David I.A. Fine Rocket Propulsion Center, which has research interests including gel propellants as well as the previously mentioned metal combustion. The Technion Institute has a US support group based in New York that champions the particular foreign country. A certain passenger on Flight 11 who was ex-Sayeret Matkal, an MIT alumnus and Denver resident, also attended the Technion.

Rather than the Fe₂O₃ of classic thermite (which may still have been used in relatively low quantities within WTC1's fake SFRM, and was clearly used elsewhere at the WTC), there are better oxidizers available. When admixed with aluminum, these can deliver in excess of twice the energy density of thermite.

It can be seen from the above table that aluminum can be used with various oxidizers to form an incendiary, pyrotechnic or low explosive that is stable at room temperature. Potassium perchlorate (KClO₄), and ammonium perchlorate (NH₄ClO₄), are two examples that combine stability (shown as "O", "no reaction occurs" in a wet state at room temperature) with a high energy density of more than 9 kJ/g (see Appendix G for examples of reactions and the yields available).

Magnesium can be useful if all the psychopathic hoodlums want to do is load a 40-foot trailer with incendiaries and ignition device, drive it from the port of Duba, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia (which is not too far to the south of a certain country sitting on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea) onto a ferry and sabotage some of the scuppers (or check that the diluted combustion products clog the scuppers), so that the fire-fighting effort not only fails to extinguish the fire, but the drainage rate is too low and leads to a dangerous accumulation of water with consequent listing, ingress of sea water and sinking with the loss of 1,031 lives.

But magnesium is not so good for installations carried out three or five years before the operation is to go live. Similarly, its salts can produce very high energy densities when used with aluminum, but are too hydroscopic to make them suitable for use in long-term operations, for which potassium perchlorate is a good choice.

So, a combination of potassium perchlorate and powdered aluminum "can be stored for many years". For example, embedded in doctored SFRM fireproofing from 1996 or 1998 until 2001. It has a "rapid" burn rate, "very good" water resistance, no tendency to cake, and its flammability and ease of ignition are both regarded as 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. It's certainly no "high explosive"; the perpetrators hoped (to no avail) to minimize the number of oral reports of "explosions".

As to why the demolition planners would opt to use an Al/oxidizer propellant mixture in addition to an organic polymer when the propellant yield is relatively low, the role of the propellant was analogous to the role of the atomized jet fuel (which also supplied very little energy compared to the office combustibles). The droplets of jet fuel easily ignite because of a high surface area to volume ratio, and the resulting hydrocarbon deflagration brings about widespread ignition of office combustibles. One or two combustibles burning here or there would likely cause relatively little damage, whereas large fires (but not total collapses of steel-framed high-rises built to survive a 600 mph impact from a jetliner and to remain standing even if all of the jet fuel had been dumped inside and ignited a horrendous fire that killed many people!) were inevitable once fuel was burning at multiple locations over several floors.

Similarly, the office fires would first ignite the polymer on the outer edge of the fake SFRM at one or more places along the length of a floor truss. But without help the polymer combustion might extinguish and could be confined to a tiny proportion of the total length of the steel member, especially where the office fires fail to develop on the particular floor. So the burning polymer ignites the propellant, and a combustion wave propagates along the fake SFRM in all directions: along the length of the steel member in both directions, and towards the inner steel-facing side. The beauty of this (for evil architects of state-sponsored false-flag terror for power and profit) is that the combustion wave can also propagate along SFRM at steel/steel interfaces, such as a main truss to a transverse truss, or from one L angle shape of a truss bottom chord across the SFRM on a diagonal web rod to the parallel angle shape, or from a bottom chord to a top chord along a web rod's SFRM. If the propellant has a combustion velocity of 0.25 inches per second or 1.25 ft/min (for example, a 66.5% potassium perchlorate, 33.2% phenol-formaldehyde resin, 0.14% mixed impurities, 0.11% moisture, 0.05% hydrogen chloride rocket propellant is known to achieve a burn rate of 0.25 to 0.31 in/sec), then the time taken to burn a 60 feet length is 48 minutes.

WTC1 took 102 minutes to collapse, which at that burn rate would suggest a total length for the combustion path of 1.25 * 102 = 127.5 feet (although a few minutes can be taken off to allow for burning of the last sections of plastic). That could correspond to the floor with the least severe fires having the fake SFRM ignited at a limited number of points not far from the middle of the long 60-foot span. It's 30 feet from the midpoint along a double truss to the 137-foot long side of the core or the long perimeter side, and it's 104 feet along a transverse truss or intermediate support angle to each of the short sides of this rectangular tenant area, with the propellant combustion front turning a right angle at various points. The long axis of the WTC1 core was aligned in the east-west direction. (Perimeter columns 101 to 159 are on the north side.)

Within an hour, much, or all, of the entire floor's propellant is ignited. Initially the polymer cannot burn on the interior of the fake SFRM because of insufficient oxygen. However, the polymer is ignited all along the length of the members on the outer edge of the SFRM. After the propellant has done its job, some of the polymer has already been consumed, and the last sections to be ignited continue to burn in towards the steel.

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A says (p. 152) in regard to the fire behavior over the initial period 8:47 to 9:03, "Little fire growth has been observed on the 95th floor up to this time." They offer the explanation that "significant amounts of aviation fuel were not distributed on this floor." Interestingly, of the five impact zone floors with above average SFRM density and adhesion/cohesion, floor 95 has both the lowest density and the lowest adhesion/cohesion. At "around 9:03 a.m. there was a fire near column 95-225 on the 95th floor" (p. 160). But by 9:15:54 this fire had "died down". Later, by 9:35, a fire had "grown to cover over 40% of the length of the 95th floor, extending as far west as window 95-350. A small fire was also visible on the 95th floor just to the east of the center of the face."

Of all the upgraded floors, the SFRM of floor 97 is within the impact zone and has the highest density and adhesion/cohesion. NIST says (NCSTAR 1-5A p. 281), "The development of multiple fires and their rapid growth and spread over much of the 97th floor is not a typical behavior of building fires. While not conclusively demonstrated, a plausible explanation for the rapid growth is that this fire spread was accelerated by the presence of aviation fuel. Such a fire spread mechanism would require that the fuel was widely distributed over the 97th floor along the east, north, and west faces during the aircraft impact and that a significant portion of the fuel did not burn inside and/or was not expelled from the floor by the resulting fireballs."

This is rather like the "hijacker's" passport that was "soaked in jet fuel" but failed to burn and was "discovered" by a mysterious, elusive stranger, or the till receipt that allegedly survived a bomb blast on the London Underground and was "found" (after a certain New York mayor was located within a few miles of the Yorkshire source of the till receipt the day prior to 7/7/05, and was in London on the morning of 7/7/05). Whenever the official theory requires that something burns or explodes, it does; when that's not consistent with the theory, it remains in pristine condition, or maybe it burns after an inexplicable delay. And in their circular reasoning, where fire growth is slow, they 'explain' it by saying there couldn't have been much jet fuel there, and where fire growth is rapid, then there must have been a lot of jet fuel, even though, strangely, it was not ignited in the initial fireballs. It's all part of "Bush science". Or, to be more precise, "Mishpucka science".

Of the five impact zone floors, floor 95 could have had the lowest density of SFRM (low in parts, high in other parts) as a result of that floor being where upgrading work began in 1998 following floors 85 and 92 in 1997 which were not part of the plot, with some of floor 95's SFRM being the remainder of the 1997 batch before being substituted by the fake.

The fact that the impact zone floor with the lowest density SFRM matches the floor with "little fire growth" initially, and the floor with the heaviest SFRM had "rapid growth" of "multiple fires" that is "not a typical behavior of building fires" and had "maximum amplitude" of exterior columns' "inward bowing" (NIST NCSTAR 1-6D p.312), is at least consistent with hot products of accelerants dropping from fake SFRM in the ceiling to ignite objects on worktops and on the floor, thereby contributing to fire growth. Then again, it could easily be genuine coincidence.

After all, at a probability of 1 in 5 * (5 - 1) = 1 in 20, it's far more likely than three steel-framed high-rises totally collapsing on the same day, when that only happens three times every 100 years: 1 in (100 * 365.242 / 3)³ which is 1 in 1,804,589,277,000. And that's if we count these three times on 9/11/01 and forget that it had never happened before, and has never happened since! But let's make this even more "jet fuel friendly" and suppose that every steel-framed high-rise built to survive a 600 mph impact from a jetliner and associated dumping of "all of the jet fuel" (amounting to 23,000 gallons) has a 100% probability of total collapse whenever a plane with only 10,000 gallons of fuel hits it at only 465 or 590 mph. That leaves a 1 in 36,524.2 / 3 = 1 in ~12,175 probability for a third building to undergo total collapse when it isn't hit by an aircraft. (The government conspiracy theorist could propose that the involvement of "Arabs" who were "suicide hijackers" somehow guarantees the building's demise. When asked how, he would mutter darkly something about "evil spirits" or "voodoo".) Or thirty-year-old buildings being destroyed in multiple terror attacks six weeks after new controllers take over the lease for the first time in thirty years and insure against multiple terror attacks, which is 1 in 30 * 52 / 6 = 1 in 260. Or the NRO running an exercise of a plane crashing into a tower commencing at 9:00 a.m. on 9/11/01. If such exercises are carried out every six months, say, then the probability of such an exercise starting within ± 14 minutes of the first impact in a synchronized terror attack would be 28 in (60 x 24 x 365.242 / 2) = 1 in 9,392. Then there is the new leaseholder and his two children not turning up for work on 9/11/01, the new controllers being friends with five prime ministers of a country with a history of orchestrating false-flag terror attacks, the two hours' warning of the attacks sent from a country with a history of false-flag terror, the exercise "based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened" being conducted at 9:30 a.m. on the morning of the 7/7 simultaneous bomb explosions on the London Underground, etc., etc...

In the case of fully developed fires, one possibility would be simply to blow off the SFRM and let the fires do the work of heating the steel. If the perpetrators were able to fix a gas generating deflagrating / low explosive mixture with enough power to blow off around half of the SFRM, then they could cater for both scenarios: sections of remaining SFRM containing the plastic would do the job of heating the steel in zones where the office fires failed to develop, and the exposed steel would also be vulnerable where fires developed throughout the floor area, or within isolated pockets of fire. However, calculations indicate that the combustion velocity would need to be ~600 m/s in order for the expanding gases (N₂ and H₂O from an ammonium perchlorate mix) to have sufficient force to blow off the SFRM. Typical burn rates for AP formulations are only around 0.001 to 0.012 m/s depending on pressure. Or take the 1.25 ft/min mentioned above, which is 0.00635 m/s and within the range of AP burn rates. Addition of Fe₂O₃ speeds up the reaction, but not by five orders of magnitude.

The combustion velocities of aluminum/bismuth trioxide nano-thermites are up to 2,500 m/s, but there is no evidence that these were used on 9/11/01. Dr. Harrit's extended XEDS to 20 keV of a MacKinlay chip, in which Sr is labeled, has a small peak around 13 keV suggestive of a Bi l-beta line, but there is no clear corresponding l-alpha line at 10.836 keV. USGS found bismuth concentrations averaged 0.28 ppm in the dust, with 0.82 ppm the maximum. (One report claims an energy density of 20 MJ/kg for Al/Bi₂O₃, which is obviously wrong - the stoichiometric maximum is only 2.12 MJ/kg.) And the perpetrators would not have wanted to bring the buildings down too quickly, since it would have been harder to push the "fires did it" legend, and so a relatively low combustion velocity for the plastic-igniting propellant mix is the more likely possibility. Deflagrating agents would have been used selectively, consistent with oral reports of "explosions". In any case, the data on cohesion/adhesion performance of the SFRM on floors 94-98 in WTC1, averaging 381.5 psf compared to the 298.2 psf mean for upgraded floors, suggests that the perpetrators wanted the fake SFRM in the impact zone to remain on the steel, allowing the embedded accelerants to have maximum effect.

In the red layers, potassium is seen in Harrit Figures 11 and 14 (not labeled there). Chlorine is in Figure 18. Magnesium is in 17 and 14 (not labeled). Figure 14 also has zinc and chromium. Sodium is observed in Figures 7C, 11 and 18. Figure 18 also has phosphorus. Figure 25 has titanium, which was also found by Millette. Calcium and sulfur are frequently observed in Harrit and Millette spectra, and could have originated from the Blaze-Shield II as well as from wallboard, especially where the red layers are Laclede primer from floor trusses. Millette found plenty of magnesium and sodium. Potassium and chlorine was found less frequently, sometimes labeled but generally still at very low concentrations. Of these trace elements, Mg generally is the most prominent, followed by Na, with K and Cl very low. Millette specimen 9119-5230M3451B-red-gray(4) for example has an unmistakeable Mg peak, Na is also quite clear but a smaller peak, with K present but smaller yet again. 9119-4795L1560-red(6) is probably one of Millette's best for Cl, although Harrit Figure 18 is clearer. Phosphorus was seen in Millette 9119-4795L1560-red(2) and possibly (not labeled) in 9119-5230M3451B-red-gray(1) and 9119X0135b. The latter looks like it also has Na, K and Cl.

Kaolin from Georgia, for example, has been found to have titanium dioxide at a concentration of 1.44%, with potassium oxide at 0.44%, iron oxide 0.3%, sodium oxide 0.27%, magnesium oxide 0.25%, and calcium oxide 0.05%. However, Millette's structure2, of kaolin in ultra-thin section of a red layer, has no Na, K, P, or Cl. Talc, used in Tnemec primer, contains magnesium. The Laclede primer "vehicle" includes epoxy amine; cured epoxies can contain residual chlorine from the resin, although the concentration is generally too low to generate a Cl peak in XEDS spectra. In newly fractured cross-sections, and probably on washed chips, the accelerants would not be expected to show up, which rules out Harrit Figures 7 and 11 along with much or all of Millette's spectra, and shows that many of these elements have a prosaic origin. Thus, findings of various trace elements such as K, Na, Mg and Cl by Harrit and Millette are certainly not proof of accelerants used for demolition. On the other hand, if those elements had never shown up, it would have counted as evidence against the use of accelerants containing the elements in an oxidizer (along with powdered Al as the fuel).

The sodium and phosphorus in Figure 18 is interesting, since sodium phosphinate (NaPO₂H₂), also known as sodium hypophosphite, can be explosive when mixed with nitrates. For example, "a mixture of sodium nitrate and sodium hypophosphite constitute a powerful explosive", and "a mixture of potassium nitrate and sodium hypophosphite constitute a powerful explosive". USGS found mean concentrations of 2.88% Mg, 0.57% Na, 0.50% K, and 0.02% P in WTC dust. There is a certain foreign country that likes to use phosphorus (supplied by the U.S. government) to target innocent civilians.

According to the blogger Oystein's calculated values for the compositions of Laclede and Tnemec primers, the main differences are that Tnemec has 2.4% zinc as opposed to Laclede which has none, Tnemec has 1.9% Cr compared to 0.3% in Laclede, and Tnemec has only 0.14% Al compared to 2.4% in Laclede. The Al/Si fraction in Tnemec is only ~0.04, whereas in Laclede it is around 0.96. See Appendix I for more details. The various Harrit and Millette XEDS spectra are mostly more consistent with Laclede primer rather than Tnemec, but there are some where Tnemec looks the most likely candidate. However, the interesting elements such as K, Na, Cl and P turn up at times in chips that are most likely Laclede and in chips that are probably Tnemec. One of Millette's rather mysterious samples is 9119X0135b. It has small peaks for Na, P, Cl and K; there is Si, but Al is not even labeled.

A similar example without the P and Cl is 9119X0135c, which has a lot more Si but still no Al. And 9119-4808L1616-2a has Na and Si, but no Al labeled. And there is no Zn or Cr, which are constituents of Tnemec primer.

The White and Intermont samples exhibited endothermic troughs around 640 - 660 °C, as would be expected from melting of elemental aluminum. The White sample is more consistent with micron-sized Al with its endotherm at 660 °C, whereas the Intermont sample's trough is at 640 °C, which suggests nano-Al. Moreover, the Intermont curve swings back into the positive region at 700 °C, as if a thermitic reaction began at ~690 °C after molten Al had flowed and accumulated over a few minutes. Both particle sizes were probably used in the fake SFRM, to reduce the quantity of nano-Al required whilst retaining some advantages in ignition characteristics.

Both of the MacKinlay curves have a secondary peak at ~395 °C. Polyisobutylene / butyl rubber (BR) has a peak mass loss rate at 395 °C (see Table A-1 at this link), and is used as a binding agent in plastic explosives to reduce sensitivity and risk of premature detonation. It could have been used as a binder for a powdered Al/oxidizer propellant mixture.

Potassium perchlorate has well over twice the energy density of classic thermite. Thermites have the advantage that the products have very high boiling points, "so the energy released is not consumed in evaporation of reaction products". The classic Al/iron(III) oxide thermite reaction is shown below.

159.687 + 53.964 111.69 + 101.961
Fe₂O₃ + 2Al → 2Fe + Al₂O₃ + 851.5 kJ
-824.2 -1675.7
851.5 / 213.651 = 3.985 kJ/g

415.632 + 215.856    223.644 + 407.844
3KClO₄ + 8Al    →   3KCl + 4Al₂O₃ + 6048.2 kJ
3(-432.8)                  3(-214.6) 4(-1675.7)
6048.2 / 631.488 = 9.577 kJ/g

The third line shows how the heat of reaction derives from the molar heats of formation of the reactants and products. (Sadly, that link to thermodynamics data went down in August 2012; this page has useful data.) The first line shows the weights of the reactants and products (g), and the fourth line shows the energy density (kJ/g), which is the heat of reaction divided by the weight of the reactants. For Al/KClO₄ it can be seen that the aluminum oxide product, also formed in thermite reactions, constitutes more than 64% of the products, and the yield per gram of reactants is about 140% greater than in the classic thermite reaction. In any case, the gaseous potassium chloride product would rapidly cool to its boiling point of 1,420 °C and condense, and hot product dripping on the floor and on worktops would be useful in "encouraging" the office fires wherever they did not develop as the perpetrators hoped. Moreover, the colorless potassium perchlorate would be less conspicuous compared to reddish iron oxide powder, and so workers upgrading the SFRM would be unlikely to notice anything unusual. Although as mentioned below, if iron oxide was used and got noticed, it could be 'explained' as contamination by the rouge dust from the WTC's elevator cables. Al/KClO₄ is easy to ignite, and can be used to ignite other propellants.

In order to keep the calculations as "jet fuel friendly" (or "Bush science friendly") as possible, the -214.6 kJ/mol heat of formation for KCl assumes the product remains in gaseous phase. There is additional heat released as it condenses, and if we count that and take the -436.5 kJ/mol heat of formation of the crystalline phase, the above reaction becomes:

415.632 + 215.856    223.644 + 407.844
3KClO₄ + 8Al    →   3KCl + 4Al₂O₃ + 6713.9 kJ
3(-432.8)                  3(-436.5) 4(-1675.7)
6713.9 / 631.488 = 10.631 kJ/g

When aluminum burns, the gaseous oxide product has such a short life time that it condenses before it can escape the reaction zone or flame (see Appendix G).

Powdered aluminum and potassium perchlorate is the most likely metal/oxidizer mix used in the fake SFRM, possibly with a relatively low concentration of Fe₂O₃ as catalyst and with butyl rubber as a binder. This could account for some K and Cl observed on outer red layers of chips, and does account for elemental Al found on red layers and seen to react with iron oxide (either from the accelerant mix or in the primer paint) to form iron-rich spherules, accounts for the 395 °C secondary exotherms seen in the MacKinlay DSC curves, the endotherms in the White and Intermont samples, and the improbable collapse of WTC1. Fe₂O₃ and ammonium perchlorate are alternatives that may have been used as oxidizers. Sodium and phosphorus are interesting possibilities, and of course thermite or thermate was used elsewhere, such as WTC2. Low density polyethylene is the most likely plastic that was substituted for non-flammable mineral fibers.

Multiwall carbon nanotubes were discovered in 1991; single wall nanotubes were discovered in 1993. Large-scale production of SWNT by laser ablation method was achieved in 1996. Floor 94 of WTC1 had its SFRM upgraded in 1996, and floors 95-98 were upgraded in 1998. The discovery of how an ordinary photographic flash would ignite CNT was only reported in April 2002, and by 2005 (Manaa et al) it was known that single-wall CNT, such as those discovered at the WTC, could be used to ignite propellants or explosives. A paper by Rossi et al cites the 2005 Manaa study and reveals that the CNT were produced by the Houston, Texas-based Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc. (CNI). However, 9/11 was almost certainly too early to exploit a scheme in which the sort of brilliant flash that would typically be seen only once in a building's lifetime - such as when a plane had just crashed into it resulting in a hydrocarbon deflagration - was used to detonate concealed explosives. And in contrast to the results obtained by Manaa, in which the explosive burned for one-and-a-half minutes before detonating, the demolition planners would need to ensure that the explosive detonated instantly, so that it would be masked by the "exploding" jet fuel rather than embarrassingly having to be 'explained' as something to be expected in regular office fires.

CNT are found in ignition residue of sol-gel nano-thermites, and can be used to tune the gas pressure discharge of nano-thermite formulations that use aluminum or magnesium as the reducing agent and Fe₂O₃ or MoO₃ as the oxidizer.

The "explosives" used at the WTC were probably nano-thermite, tailored so that there would be just enough percussive blast to damage targeted structures without blowing out windows or making the blast so obvious that it would still be audible if recorded on a microphone half a mile away and replayed through laptop speakers (although it could be heard through headphones or sub-woofer). Nano-thermite, perhaps with added sulfur, was more likely to have been applied to the core columns of WTC2 or WTC7 in the planned impact zone, with the installation times being nearer to 9/11/01 than 1996, which would allow for further technological advances after the WTC1 SFRM "upgrade". The heavily sulfidated steel from WTC7 and from either WTC1 or 2 (Jonathan Barnett's Sample 2), and the orange-yellow melt pouring from WTC2's consistency with a cooling iron-sulfur melt hanging at its eutectic point at ~1,000 °C as it gives up its latent heat of fusion (and certainly inconsistent with molten "aluminum"!), indicates that a thermate variant was used. With Flight 93 shot down over Shanksville and Indian Lake before it could hit its intended target, accelerants installed at the planned WTC7 impact zone could have remained unreacted after the backup plan involving explosives on critical columns on lower floors was put into operation hours later.

The window of opportunity

There was the possibility of the planners switching the upgraded SFRM for the fake before they knew which upgraded floors would ultimately form a good contiguous set. In this case, all of the upgraded SFRM would have been switched in the hope that they would get at least five consecutive floors to target with their remote controlled plane. However, that can be ruled out, since it was public knowledge as early as June 1993 that WTC1 had at least seven contiguous vacant floors - including the entire 9/11/01 impact zone. And given the improbability of such a good match between impact zone and extra high density upgraded SFRM occurring by pure chance, it is fairly clear that the 18.22 psf SFRM density on floors other than 94-98 of WTC1 is entirely normal, and the extra 16.6% in the WTC1 impact zone reflects the characteristics of the substitute material.

Deloitte & Touche (formerly Deloitte Haskins & Sells) were badly disrupted by the February 1993 WTC bombing, which left them facing tax season deadlines and necessitated most of the employees having to move to their other offices at 1633 Broadway, where they were doubled or tripled up in space. And then in June 1993, Deloitte announced that they would not be returning to the WTC; they had been planning to move out even before the bombing, and it "did not make sense" to return only to later move away again. The Port Authority were left with "about seven and a half floors of prime space in Tower One" (which included the entire impact zone floors 94-98) for which they needed new tenants. This became the "last large block of contiguous space available in the complex". A 16-year lease deal was signed with Marsh & McLennan in May 1998 for space on floors 94-100 along with part of the 93rd floor. The "full floor" SFRM "upgrades" were arranged by the Port Authority whilst the floors were vacant, with the work on floors 95-98 all carried out and completed in 1998. Floor 94 was completed by December 27, 1996, but that was already part of the "large block of contiguous space available" after Deloitte had vacated.

Thus, the perpetrators were aware prior to 1996 that floors 94-98 were a contiguous set of vacant floors that would be upgraded, so they knew which floors should be sabotaged with the fake SFRM. Following the 1996 upgrade of floor 94, there was probably some surplus fake material which was applied to part of floor 85 in 1997, before floors 95-98 were refurbished in 1998. And then the next upgraded floor in the impact zone was floor 95, which (by cohesion/adhesion as well as by density) is the impact zone floor with SFRM that comes closest to that on the floors outside the impact zone. So some of the genuine SFRM from a remaining batch may have been applied there, before being replaced by the SFRM/accelerants composite.

NIST NCSTAR 1-1H, Chapter 13, shows that some modifications on the floors of interest were performed by the tenants, e.g. Marsh & McLennan, as well as by the Port Authority (PANYNJ).

None of the three steel-framed skyscrapers collapsed as a result of impact (since they remained standing for 56 minutes or more). In all three cases, debunkers are forced to rely upon the highly improbable, speculative claim that the ultimate determinant of unprecedented global collapse was "office fires" of burning paper, carpets, workstations, etc. Building 7 was not even hit by a plane, and its Monokote Mk-5 SFRM would have remained largely intact. But even in the case of the Twin Towers, it is extremely unlikely that aircraft impact could have "dislodged" sufficient SFRM (see Appendix B) such that "office fires" could have been the "straw that broke the camel's back". The perpetrators were well aware that plane crashes and office fires would be very, very unlikely to effect total collapse of even one building that was designed to survive aircraft impact and resulting fires from dumping of jet fuel. As for three when one was not even hit by a plane, it's no wonder that NIST were unable to release the first draft of their preposterous fantasy of "thermal expansion"-based collapse at WTC7 until August 21, 2008, a mere two days after the death of an eyewitness whose testimony annihilated their version of events. Thus, the plan would have involved a substitute 'fireproofing' material that was applied in the years prior to 9/11/01 under the guise of "upgrades" to existing fire protection measures.

By switching the official Cafco Blaze-Shield II replacement SFRM designated for the upgrade with a lethal SFRM/accelerants composite, most or even all of the maintenance workers - and certainly security - would not know there was anything sinister about the material that was being brought into the buildings and applied to the primer paint on the steel. As can be seen, even if the density was 26% high in general and the average thickness 2½ inches rather than the specified 1½ inches, and there was a remarkable match between an even higher density, cohesion/adhesion and thickness on the very floors that constituted the impact zone, no questions would be asked by NIST, FEMA, the Port Authority, the insurance companies, new landlords who took over the lease, or tenants, for whom the upgraded zones were probably declared out of bounds. And plenty of other maintenance work was carried out prior to 9/11, e.g. in the elevator shafts. Any iron oxide dust from thermite observed after spray-fitting could be blamed on the rouge dust from the WTC's elevator cables, a lot of which ended up in the machine rooms. But if thermite was used, it was less than 2% of the SFRM volume, and the iron oxide even less.

If classic thermite was used, then at maximum it was 14.22% of the SFRM: 48.4 kg/m³ out of 340.2 kg/m³, or 0.0484 g/cc. A 60% compacted Al/Fe₂O₃ thermite powder has a density of 2.541 g/cc. Thus, the volume of thermite per cc would be 0.0484 g / 2.541 g/cc = 0.01905 cc/cc = less than 2% of the volume, which is mostly taken up by mineral wool and the void between the fibers, with the accelerant occupying this void.

Unlike WTC1, WTC2 did not have a large group of consecutive upgraded floors, and so the perpetrators would have had to resort to another demolition technique. For example, one that risked a flow of orange-yellow molten metal in full view of the cameras. Previously molten metal from WTC2 was not only found to be abundant in iron and with relatively little aluminum in spots that could have been an Al₂O₃ thermite product; it also had sulfur, fluorine, potassium and plenty of manganese, suggesting the use of sulfur as in thermate along with potassium permanganate and powdered PTFE. The latter is used with powdered Al as an oxidizer in pyrotechnic compositions and as an igniter for solid rocket fuel propellants. (The manganese did not originate from an aircraft aluminum alloy, since in that case there would have been an Al:Mn ratio in excess of 100.) After the collapses, any unreacted metal/oxidizer accelerant would be ignited at irregular intervals between September 2001 and February 2002 in the debris pile, yielding extremely high temperatures and a molten iron product in the case of thermite.

Explosives were used to take out important columns at WTC7, where the tenants included the CIA, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Secret Service, the IRS, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a certain New York mayor's Office of Emergency Management. Footage of WTC7 that NIST tried to keep secret includes the sounds of plenty of explosions , including a low frequency boom that can be heard shortly before the east penthouse starts collapsing (that blast can be heard with headphones, although a subwoofer is better). In the video, the blast sound is about a second before the east penthouse begins descending, although the time difference is more like three seconds after allowing for the speed of sound over a couple thousand feet to the camera. There is an even clearer blast just before WTC2 starts collapsing.

Were the accelerants sufficient to bring about collapse?

In the general case, the temperature increase (°C) in the steel and the SFRM of the fake SFRM/accelerants composite is equal to:

(Ppoly * Ypoly + Pprop * Yprop) * 340.2 * Vfake
____________________________________________________
(1 - Ppoly - Pprop) * 340.2 * 1255 * Vfake + 550 * 7850 * Vsteel

...where Ppoly and Pprop are the mass fractions of the inserted polymer and fuel/oxidizer propellant mixture (or thermite) respectively in the fake SFRM, Ypoly and Yprop are the yields in J/kg respectively of the polymer and the propellant, Vfake is the volume of the fake SFRM in m³, and Vsteel is the volume of the steel in m³. The 340.2 is the density of the fake SFRM in kg/m³, the 1,255 is the specific heat of the SFRM within the SFRM/accelerants composite in J/kg.K, the 550 is an average specific heat for steel in J/kg.K, and the 7,850 is the density of steel in kg/m³. The numerator is the total yield in J, and this is divided by the energy requirements to heat the SFRM and the steel by 1 °C. (That's the part of the SFRM that is genuine, which was necessary to dupe the Turner Construction employees into believing that the fake composite they were spraying onto the steel in 1996 and 1998 was genuine SFRM, as applied to other upgraded floors outside of the planned impact zone. Most of the fake SFRM/accelerants composite was comprised of genuine SFRM mineral wool.)

Ppoly * Ypoly + Pprop * Yprop
_________________________________________
1255 * (1 - Ppoly - Ptherm) + 12,691.064 / VolRatio

...where VolRatio = Vfake / Vsteel, the volume of the fake SFRM/accelerants composite divided by the volume of the steel. To get the volume ratios, we just divide the cross-sectional area of the fake SFRM by the steel cross-section, so this is applicable for various lengths of steel. The above formulae can be used to calculate the temperature increase for various mass fractions and yields of polymer and propellant. For example, let's consider the case above of a fuel/oxidizer propellant mix with a yield of 8.7 MJ/kg, an assumption of one-third of this energy (2.9 MJ/kg) being transmitted to the steel and the SFRM, with this mixture constituting 14.22% of the total 340.2 kg/m³ density for the fake SFRM/accelerants composite. Of the remaining 85.78% (291.8 kg/m³), we'll suppose that 10% of this has the genuine SFRM non-flammable mineral fibers replaced with fibers of low density polyethylene. The PE-LD has a maximum yield of 43.6 MJ/kg, and we multiply by 0.68 to allow for the fuel-rich stoichiometry of the office fires environment, and multiply by another 0.75 to allow for 25% of the energy escaping to be absorbed elsewhere in the office. When Ppoly = 0.08578, Ypoly = 22,236,000 J/kg, Pprop = 0.1422, and Yprop = 2,900,000 J/kg, the specific case simplifies to:

Although this allows for the fact that not all of the heat from the accelerants will be transmitted to the steel, it does not even count the incoming energy from the office fires, which "debunkers" contend was sufficient to bring about total collapses of three steel-framed high-rises on the same day.

It can be seen that in the limit, where there is no steel and the requirement is only to heat the SFRM, the potential temperature rise is 2,394 °C. Of course, given phase changes and the relatively low temperature combustion of hydrocarbons in air compared to rocket propellants or thermite, that won't happen; this just illustrates that there can be large temperature increases even with fairly low volume ratios of SFRM to steel (before the requirement to heat the combustion "product" and "reactant" nitrogen of air comes into play at increasingly high SFRM : steel ratios). Even by the time temperatures are up to the region of 800 °C (beyond the transition to austenite), the heat capacity for steel should be taken as ~670 J/kg.K across the range 300 to 1,100 K for example, rather than 550 J/kg.K. Thus, a predicted increase from 25 to 800 °C is really 25 to 25 + (775 * 550 / 670) = 661 °C. The typical "debunker" is likely to accept that such a temperature would sufficiently weaken the steel, and global collapse would ensue.

Now let's take the case of the 1.09 inch diameter diagonal rods in the trusses that connected the top and bottom chords. The area of the steel cross-section is π (0.545)² = 0.933 ins². If the fake SFRM is sprayed on to a depth of 3 inches, the SFRM cross-section is the difference between the areas of two concentric circles: π (R² - r²) = π (3.545² - 0.545²) = 38.5 ins². Thus, the VolRatio of fake SFRM to steel is 41.3:1, and the temperature increase in the steel and the SFRM is 1,815 °C (not allowing for phase changes or limits on how hot the hydrocarbon polymer can burn in a ventilation-controlled office fire). Let's make this more jet fuel-friendly, and suppose that there is less SFRM on the top. Multiplying the SFRM cross-section or the VolRatio by 2/3, we get 27.5 as the volume ratio, which corresponds to a temperature increase of 1,621 °C.

The average measured SFRM thickness over floors 94 to 98 was 2.993 inches, although there were considerable variations in both thickness and density. That worked in the perpetrators' favor, since they didn't need to weaken all of the steel; only particular places along the length of a truss.

Next, take the case of the bottom chord, which is comprised of two L-shape angles, L3 x 2 x 3/8 inches (e.g., see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 2.4.1 or NIST NCSTAR 1-2A 3.3.1). The cross-sectional area of these angles is officially quoted as 1.73 ins², and it's roughly 3 x 3/8 + (2 - 3/8) x 3/8, which works out at 1.734 ins². The angles are arranged as short legs back to back, with some 1.09 ins between them (so that the diagonal rods can fit in). So there are two L-shapes; the vertical part is the 2-inch section, with 3-inches horizontally, back to back. It looks a little like this (not to scale):
__| |__
...an "L" rotated 90° counterclockwise for the left-hand one, then laterally invert that for the other one). Working clockwise starting from beneath the bottom right, there is a 3 x 3 inches area of SFRM, then 3 x 1.09 between them, then another 3 x 3 beneath the left angle. Then to the left, a 3-inch thickness should really mean a semicircle of radius 3 inches. Let's be jet fuel-friendly and suppose it's only 1.5 inches. Then the area above the left angle goes from a height of 1.5 inches up to 2.5 even if it is only 1/2-inch deep at the top (compared to the minimum spec of 1.5 inches and measured value of 2.993 inches!), making an average of 2 x 3. The middle top section has an area of 2.5 x 1.09 (assuming there's no diagonal rod at that point). Above the right-hand L-shape, there is another 2 x 3 area, and finally the area to the right is another 1.5-inch semicircle. The total area of the fake SFRM is 9 + 3.27 + 9 + 3.53 + 6 + 2.72 + 6 + 3.53 = 43.05 ins². Dividing by the area of the steel, which totals 3.46 ins² from two angles each of 1.73 ins², the volume ratio of fake SFRM to steel is 12.44:1, and the predicted temperature increase in the steel and the SFRM is 1,166 °C.

We can also check out the Al/oxidizer propellant mix's ability to heat and ignite the plastic. Immediately after ignition of the propellant, the plastic - and the genuine SFRM, depending on the configuration - will not all be at the same temperature. Even if the propellant cannot heat all of the plastic to its ignition temperature, there will still be relatively hot spots where ignition can occur, whereas if the propellant can heat all of the plastic to beyond its ignition temperature, then ignition is even easier and most of the plastic can ignite where oxygen is available. Since the plastic doesn't have its own oxidizer, it will initially burn at the outer edge of the SFRM/accelerants composite, gradually burning in towards the steel. It will also burn at any exposed sides at the edge of sections of remaining SFRM, adjacent to sections of SFRM that have been blown off.

Polyethylene (PE) is available in the form of fine powder or as fibres; for example, ultra-high molecular weight PE fibers are used in body armor. The advantage of having the Al/oxidizer powder intimately mixed with powdered PE is that the plastic is preferentially heated before energy is transmitted to the SFRM; thus, it is easier for the propellant to ignite the plastic (where air is present). The disadvantage is that it is harder for the combustion wave to propagate. If the PE is in the form of fibers and mixed with the SFRM, then the propellant combustion wave can be even more easily propagated, although in this case the PE does not get preferentially heated compared to the genuine SFRM.

To recap, in the above example the Al/oxidizer in the fake fireproofing has a yield of 8.7 MJ/kg, with one-third of this energy (2.9 MJ/kg) being transmitted to the steel and the SFRM. The "SFRM" consists mostly of genuine SFRM, but some of it has been replaced by a plastic polymer. The average measured density for SFRM on the impact zone floors 94-98 is 340.2 kg/m³, with 48.4 kg/m³ of this being the excess over the average 291.8 kg/m3 density for other upgraded floors in WTC1. Each cc of the fake fireproofing (SFRM/accelerants composite) weighs a total of 0.3402 g, consisting of 0.0484 g of Al/oxidizer (propellant), 0.02918 g of a flammable plastic polymer which is 10% of the remaining 0.2918 g, leaving 0.26262 g of genuine SFRM (assuming that none of that has been doctored in some relatively subtle way). That places the Al/oxidizer at 14.227% of the total, with the polymer (e.g. low-density polyethylene) at 8.577%, and the genuine SFRM is 77.196% by weight. The propellant, excluding heat that escapes to the surroundings without going on to heat the steel, genuine SFRM or plastic, yields 0.0484 g * 2.9 kJ/g = 140.36 J. Initially, this will heat the SFRM and the plastic before going on to heat the steel.

If the propellant has to heat powdered polyethylene that's mixed in with this powdered Al/oxidizer propellant, then the possible temperature increase in the plastic, without counting the limitation of adiabatic flame temperature (requirement to heat the combustion products of the propellant), is:

(See the document at this link, Table A-3, page A-6, for various specific heats. Low-density polyethylene, "PE (LD)", is shown as 1.55 kJ/kg.K.)

That compares with typical adiabatic flame temperatures for metal / oxidizer mixtures, so if half of the energy goes to heat the propellant products and half goes to heat the plastic, then an increase of half the previous figure at around 1,551 °C takes it up to well above the ignition temperature of various propellant mixtures and thermites, as well as of plastics such as polyethylene. The requirement to heat the plastic would slow the combustion wave, but should not be enough to stop it.

In the other case, where polyethylene fibers are mixed in with the mineral wool fibers of the genuine SFRM, we include the requirement to heat the latter. The table below shows NIST's values for the specific heat capacity of Blaze-Shield II. We initially assume 1.255 J/g.K to make this as "jet fuel friendly" as possible, although at lower temperatures an average value of 1.0 J/g.K is more appropriate.

140.36 J / (0.02918 g * 1.55 J/g.K + 0.26262 g * 1.255 J/g.K) = 374 °C temperature rise over ambient temperature, say, to 394 °C.

That excludes energy absorbed from the office fires and is still over the ignition temperature of polyethylene, at ~350 °C. They could have included some cotton, Tign ~255 °C, if they wanted to ease ignition of the polymer.

Or if we take a lower value of 1.0 J/g.K for the SFRM heat capacity, given that the average temperature over the heating range is well under 500 °C, the possible temperature rise in SFRM and polyethylene is:

140.36 J / (0.02918 g * 1.55 J/g.K + 0.26262 g * 1.0 J/g.K) = 455 °C temperature rise over ambient temperature, say, to 475 °C.

Thus, both powdered and fiber polyethylene are feasible possibilities. The perpetrators would have conducted tests to determine ease of ignition and combustion velocities. As in the space shuttle solid rocket booster propellant, Fe₂O₃ can be used to speed up the reaction, although it lowers the yield.

Debunkers may claim that a scheme involving accelerants could not bring down the WTC buildings. However, they are most vociferous in asserting that fires could have caused the collapses. If they claim that office fires and accelerants could not have brought down the buildings, then they are de facto admitting that office fires could not have brought down the buildings.

The particular country that conceived and orchestrated the WTC hits - the headline feature of 9/11 - managed to establish itself as a nuclear power (although hypocritically has been whining for decades about a certain country that doesn't have nukes). If it can produce its own nuclear weapons and obtain Dolphin-class submarines capable of firing nuclear-tipped warheads with a 900-mile range, it would certainly have facilities to conduct tests into combustion velocities attained with various propellant mixes embedded in mineral wool, and ignition of accelerants. On the other hand, a Saudi who can't even afford a decent video camera and is on dialysis living in a cave would not have the capability to bring down three steel-framed high-rises that were designed to survive 600 mph jetliner impacts and dumping of jet fuel, especially when one of the three planes has been shot down after it was forty minutes late due to airport congestion. (Or substitute a Jessica Lynch-style fiction about "let's roll" of your choice.)

The outer red-layer surface of some paint chips would have been contaminated with thermite or another Al/oxidizer accelerant, thereby leading to an observed separation of elemental Al following soaking in MEK solvent. With some of the Al being nano-sized, there would be a consequent thermite reaction and generation of iron-rich spheres when an unwashed paint chip was exposed to temperatures of up to 700 °C. Harrit Figure (12) (b) and the XEDS maps in Figure (15) are looking from the perspective of "the red layer and gray layer [...] side by side so that the interface between the layers is edge-on (perpendicular to the plane of the image) with the gray layer on the right". So elemental Al on the left of the image is consistent with thermite contamination on the outer surface of the red layer, the surface of the paint that was directly in contact with the SFRM.

Controlled demolitions using thermite, thermate and other aluminum-based accelerants, can also account for phenomena such as partial melting of steel girders, fireproofing found to have "melted into a glassy residue", and a wide-flange steel beam from WTC7 with parts of it that had been five-eighths of an inch-thick and had "vaporized" in "searing temperatures". However, the method described above which has an Al/oxidizer propellant mix with about 2.4 times the yield of thermite, or alternatively ~1.9 % thermite by volume within an SFRM-accelerants composite up to 4.3 inches deep, falls short of what is required. Approximately half-an-inch of thermite would be needed to melt the steel, so 1.9% by volume would be equivalent to 0.082 inches of thermite. If the accelerant has 2.4 times the yield of thermite, then it's equivalent to nearly 0.2 inches of thermite. Large amounts of thermite or other accelerant were most likely used selectively, but the perpetrators could not have risked widespread use of very large amounts of thermite, since the forensic evidence would be so obvious that even "debunkers" could not deny it.

The mysterious multiple gray layers

These multiple gray layers deserve a mention. In June 2012, German 9/11 researchers found a patent for "nanoengineered explosives" that has some similarities to the multiple layers of Harrit et al Figures 31 and 32. Californian chemist Daniel M. Makowiecki is the inventor, and the patent holder is Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC ("LLNS"). The patent describes: "A complex modulated structure of reactive elements that have the capability of considerably more heat than organic explosives while generating a working fluid or gas. The explosive and method of fabricating same involves a plurality of very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, each composed of reactive components, such as aluminum, separated from a less reactive element, such as copper oxide, by a separator material, such as carbon." Now it's interesting that the Harrit Figure 33 XEDS spectrum for a gray layer in one of these multi-layered chips shows mostly carbon, a little oxygen, but no evidence of iron. Thus, this gray layer is not steel or mill scale. and would be consistent with a "separator material" such as part-oxidized carbon with some hydrogen. The patent was filed September 19, 1993, and issued April 9, 1996, which corresponds very well with the timetable of WTC SFRM "upgrades" as described above.

Unfortunately, the design features layers with a thickness of "10 to 10,000 angstroms"; in other words, a maximum thickness of 10^-6 meters. Related designs have the same thickness range of 1 nm to 1 micron, since "that the layers are thin is a key feature of the invention". In Harrit Figures 31 and 32 the minimum layer thickness is ~25 microns, which is at least 25 times too high. The chip in Harrit Figure 32 has a red layer touching the dark-gray layer of Figure 33 that is mostly carbon, with the light-gray outer layer having a typical Figure 6 XEDS spectrum that is consistent with mill scale or steel. Harrit / Jones speculate that "red thermitic material" could have been "attached to rusty iron by an adhesive". But maybe it is simply red primer paint attached to mill scale by an adhesive; in this case, the adhesive having maintained a clearly distinct layer from the paint. It certainly doesn't look like aluminum separated from copper oxide by carbon, in nano-sized layers. As "debunkers" have suggested, multiple layers could be due to additional coatings of paint. There is no evidence that Makowiecki's "nanoengineered explosives" were used to demolish the WTC.

Why Millette's results differed from Harrit's

In March 2012, debunkers were cock-a-hoop over Dr. James Millette's report dated 01 March 2012 [cached], which concluded that the red/gray chips were consistent with paint rather than thermitic material, as debunkers had asserted right from the start. Millette found "no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment", and concluded that "The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments" and "the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite". Millette is broadly correct, although some of the gray layers appear to have too much carbon.

But there are two possible reasons why Millette and Harrit got different results: 1) Millette's chips were "washed in clean water" prior to any analysis, whereas Harrit's "samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified". 2) Harrit's MEK chip originated from a floor where the fireproofing had been "upgraded"; Millette's did not.

Millette's Appendix B shows photographs and spectra of "Red/Gray Chips From Dust From Four Sampling Locations", and one of these, sample M3451 from 49 Ann St., bears the description "(unwashed), mounted on a carbon tab". Indeed, this sample looks dirty in comparison to the other three samples, in which the red layer has a nice hue. This, however, is inconsistent with Millette's statement of his protocol: "...the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples. [...] particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water. The particles were dried and mounted on a carbon adhesive film on an SEM stub and photographed (Figure 6)."

Millette's Figure 6 example of chips that were "dried" after having been "washed in clean water" bears the description "Sample M3451 - Ann St." This is the very sample that is photographed as "unwashed". And bizarrely, on March 13, 2012, Jim Millette told Chris Mohr that he was "unclear about which samples were washed for the MEK samples". On February 3, when Mohr asked Millette how he cleaned his sample(s), Millette "didn't respond".

It seems rather like Millette is leaving his options open. Of course, this is not proof of deception. It is possible that Millette really did suffer from a selective amnesia on the very issue where ambiguity resulted from conflicting descriptions in his report. But it is consistent with the scenario of a scientist who needs to obtain the conclusion that will not jeopardize his government contracts, who is well aware that subjecting red/gray paint/steel chips to a good clean will remove traces of accelerant contamination on the outer red layer and allow him to confirm that they are merely a layer of primer paint on a layer of oxidized steel, yet who also wants to dissuade his critics from quickly pointing out that he hasn't replicated Harrit's protocol of leaving samples "unwashed". So he makes the statement about washing "each of the four WTC dust samples", providing himself with a plausible deniability of any intent to deceive, whilst inserting a description of "unwashed" and thereby failing to make it clear whether or not his protocol matches Harrit's. When questioned on the matter, he can try to laugh it off and avoid clarification by way of a "memory lapse". If necessary, he can subsequently say that the "unwashed" samples were washed after being photographed.

It is interesting that Millette would "laugh" at the entirely reasonable assumption that washing could eliminate trace amounts of contamination from the outer surface of the red layer.

But "the Bentham people" didn't do a cross-section on their MEK soak chip; "the analysis was performed on the as-collected [outer] surface of the red layer". And it would not have made any difference if their DSC chips were fractured (assuming a transverse fracture); the outer surface of the red layer would still be there. The original layers were 1) Structural steel used in the floor trusses 2) Mill scale, consisting of FeO - ferrous oxide - on the inside, closest to the steel member, Fe₃O₄ - magnetite - in the middle, and a very thin outer layer of Fe₂O₃ - hematite - that is invisible to the naked eye, thus, a gray appearance rather than red-brown-orange of hematite 3) Red primer paint - e.g., Laclede for the floor trusses, Tnemec for perimeter columns 4) SFRM (fireproofing). At demolition time, layers 2) and 3) become detached from 1) and 4) forming gray and red layers respectively, with the outer surface of 3) being contaminated with unreacted accelerant from "upgraded" fireproofing of 4) that was responsible for Harrit's findings of elemental aluminum and formation of iron-rich spheres.

Millette claims "If there's thermite it's in the chips, not on them!" The reality is the exact opposite. If there's thermite it's on the chips, not in them! It's on the outer ("as-collected") surface of the red (paint) layer. In any case, the accelerants probably used a perchlorate oxidizer along with powdered aluminum fuel, which classifies them as pyrotechnics rather than thermites.

Both Millette and Harrit fractured their chips before studying "the clean, cross-section surfaces". An exception to that is Harrit's MEK soak chip. Prior to the MEK soak, "an XEDS spectrum was acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. [...] the analysis was performed on the as collected surface of the red layer." The "as collected" surface of the red layer of Harrit's MEK soak chip would have been directly in contact with the SFRM (fireproofing), and hence was contaminated with nano-aluminum and the oxidizer, possibly including Fe₂O₃, within the fireproofing. Iron oxide from nano-thermite would not be distinguished in the XEDS from iron oxide in the paint pigment.

Thus, Millette most probably failed to replicate Harrit's study and results, since any contamination of Millette's chips with active accelerant would have been washed away prior to his tests. But he did confirm that the chips were paint and oxidized steel.

Shouldn't "suspicious" chips bearing evidence of accelerants be a tiny proportion of all the red/gray chips?

The reader may be asking a very good question: If WTC1, 2 and 7 amounted to 267 floors above grade, and only five of those floors (in WTC1) were fitted with fake SFRM embedded with accelerants, then how is it that it was so easy to find red/gray chips with traces of these accelerants, when the accelerants were present in less than one in fifty of all the floors? Harrit et al do not specify the proportion of red/gray chips in which iron-rich spherules were generated upon heating to well below the melting point of iron. The vast majority of the floors were not subjected to heating - whether by office fires, or by accelerants, and this was one factor that was certainly responsible for diminishing the prevalence of chips from floors outside of the WTC1 impact zone. Moreover, the steel subjected to heating from burning accelerants within its SFRM experienced very high temperatures and rapid temperature increases in comparison to steel that was mostly insulated by two or three inches of genuine SFRM and merely subjected to heating from burning office combustibles such as paper.

An alloy that is mostly comprised of magnetite (similar to mill scale) has a coefficient of linear expansion of 6.4x10^-6 per °C compared with 13x10^-6 per °C for steel, and so differential thermal expansion produces cracking and spalling of the mill scale layer on the outer edge of the steel. And any paint film simply spalls with the scale.

Another factor of interest is the apparently high carbon levels seen in the gray layers.

The blogger Oystein compiled a useful reference on peak heights in the gray layer spectra from Harrit and Millette. In pixels, the four Harrit C:O peak ratios of chips (a) to (d) are 20/266, 32/335, 30/320, and 33/324, and so on average the C peak is 9.16% of the O peak, ranging from 7.52% up to 10.18%. Millette has five gray layer spectra that exhibit a much wider variation in C:O peak ratio. Specimens 9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-gray(1) and 9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-gray(1) have peak ratios of only 7/201 and 7/215 respectively, and others have 5/23, 7/41 and 13/56. On average, Millette's C peak is 13.75% of the corresponding O peak, but 9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-gray(1) provides the minimum carbon of 7/215 or 3.25% and 9119-4795L1560(1)_pt1 has the maximum of 13/56 in which the C peak is 23.21% of the O peak.

(In Millette's report, for ease in locating an image, it would help to have specimen names / numbers included as part of the text adjacent to the image. Shorter specimen names and a more consistent naming / numbering system would be nice, too!)

If the carbon tab is responsible for these C peaks, then it is producing C/O peak ratios of up to 23% at times down to the above-mentioned Millette specimens 9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-gray(1) and 9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-gray(1) which have C/O peak ratios of only 7/201 and 7/215 respectively - 0.035 and 0.033 - and Harrit Figure 16 which has a C/O peak ratio of 0.048 and C/Si of 0.029.

According to Millette, the gray layers are consistent with an oxidized carbon steel. However, carbon steels have up to 2.1% carbon, and at above 2.1% the material is classed as cast iron, which generally tends to be brittle. At maximum, the structural steel used in the WTC construction was 0.3% carbon, e.g., the Japanese JIS G3101-73 grade SS50. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-3A or its Interim Report Appendix E.) The Laclede steel used for the floor trusses, which is a prime suspect for the gray layers in many of the red/gray chips, was evidently 0.19 to 0.2% carbon. There was 0.77 to 0.86% Mn, along with smaller proportions of P, S and niobium. Small peaks for manganese (k-alpha 5.898 keV) are seen in Harrit Figure 6 (a), (b) and (d), and noted by Oystein. Millette's gray layers do not show Mn, whereas a couple of them such as 9119L1560(1)_pt1 have Al, and so at least some of the red-gray chips studied by Millette did not have the same origin as chips (a), (b) and (d) of Harrit et al.

If the gray layers are mill scale, mostly Fe₃O₄ (magnetite) with a smaller amount of Fe₂O₃ (hematite) and a smaller amount of FeO, then magnetite is 72.36% Fe and 27.64% O by weight, and hematite is 69.94% Fe and 30.06% O. Let's say 72% Fe and 28% O, and deduct 0.3% for carbon - the maximum C content in WTC steels. Here is a simulated XEDS spectrum for 0.3% carbon, 27.85% oxygen, and 71.85% iron by weight acquired at 20 keV. Note the C peak (0.284 keV), next to the very large O peak and adjacent Fe l-alpha, is barely discernible above the noise floor.

In order to get the simulation to concur with Harrit Figure 6 spectra, the mass proportions need to be around 10% C, 25% O and 65% Fe. The corresponding atomic proportions are 23.4% C, 43.9% O and 32.7% Fe. This is ~1.342 O atoms for every Fe atom (which is quite a good match to Fe₃O₄), but there is so much carbon that there are only ~1.397 Fe atoms for each C atom. A combination of 0.411823 moles of CFe₃ (iron carbide or cementite) and one mole of FeCO₃ (iron carbonate) gives 1.411823 C, 2.235469 Fe and 3 atoms of O. So O/Fe is the desired 1.342, and Fe/C is a little high at 1.583 compared with 1.397, consistent with C being only slightly high in this crude quantification analysis compared to its actual abundance.

And see here for an interesting set of spectra obtained by the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. Each spectrum has a quantitative analysis showing the weight percentages for each element, and there are instances of various peak heights corresponding to carbon levels from 2% up to 74%. The example below of steel exposed to salt fog, obtained at 20 keV, has a few similarities to Harrit's gray layers. Although there is a few percent Cl, the C peak is well below the O, Fe k-alpha and l-alpha peaks, and is slightly below the Fe k-beta line. The C/O peak ratio is 0.06, compared with Harrit's of around 0.075 to 0.10. Yet the quantification places carbon at 8.92% by weight in this case.

Although there are many variables that can affect the XEDS carbon peak height, the results at least suggest that carbon levels in the gray layers are above the 0.19% to 0.2% expected in Laclede primer paint used on the WTC floor trusses. As the WTC1 demolition was in progress, with a powdered aluminum/oxidizer mixture and a plastic burning within the fake "upgraded" SFRM, the steel would have been exposed to high temperatures and gaseous combustion products such as CO, CO₂ and H₂O. Over the 102 minutes between initial ignition of accelerants and global collapse, carbon gases permeating through the hot, thin layer of primer and tens of microns into the outer layer of the steel would have carburized this outer layer. Gas carburizing of steel for hardening purposes is generally carried out in the 900 to 950 °C temperature range, typically by using carbon monoxide. The effect is just about possible in the WTC office fires scenario, but limited by the fact that there is more separation between the steel and the heat / exhaust source, and, contrary to popular legend, most of the SFRM would have remained intact. It is highly unlikely that office fires could have heated the steel to 900 °C, and even if they did, the amount of steel heated to such a temperature would be negligible. Steel with a higher carbon content is harder whilst correspondingly more brittle, since its relatively high content of iron carbide is hard and brittle.

TTT (time-temperature transformation) and CCT (continuous cooling transformation) diagrams indicate that cooling of the steel prior to collapse would not have been sufficiently rapid for formation of martensite, but bainite could have been formed if steel was heated by accelerants and then allowed to air cool after local combustibles had been consumed by fire. Try the CCT simulation at this page, selecting the "medium cool" (air cooling for a 70 mm diameter bar) option, and speeding up the simulation rate as the elapsed time progresses along the log scale. After cooling from 847 °C to 346 °C in 405 seconds, the austenite is transformed into bainite, which has a hardness and brittleness intermediate between pearlite and martensite. The trusses' diagonal rods were 27.7 mm diameter which would have meant more rapid cooling, or at least part compensated for temperatures well above 25 °C after the office fires had burned out. It can also be seen from the CCT diagram that bainite would still be formed at slower cooling rates, such as taking more than 1,000 seconds to cool to a temperature above 400 °C. And due to carburizing, the steel probably had more than the 0.4% carbon assumed in that simulation, which "shifts the CCT and TTT curves to the right", corresponding to formation of martensite at a lower cooling rate. Note the case of the 0.4% carbon 70 mm bar air cooling to 345 °C in 405 seconds is almost enough to go into the martensite section of the curve.

This link has examples of some steel bars that cooled from 900 °C to 200 °C in 1,000 seconds in "still air".

However, residual temperatures in cooling zones on fire-affected floors would most likely be well above a comfortable room temperature, and some SFRM would have remained on the steel even after burning of the propellant mix and plastic accelerants. So any WTC steel that reached 900 °C and subsequently cooled to 400 °C prior to collapse is likely to have required considerably longer than 1,000 seconds to cool, even though it would have heated up very quickly. A 1.09 inch (0.02769 m) diameter, 1 meter length of steel bar has a volume of 0.000602 m³, weighs 4.73 kg and requires emission of 4.73 kg * 500 K * 765 J/kg.K = 1.81 MJ to cool from 900 °C to 400 °C. (That averages heat capacity over the range 600 to 1,100 K, which includes a massive rise in heat capacity around the austenite / pearlite transformation temperature.) The emissivity of oxidized steel is 0.79, and the radiating area is 0.0435 m² if we take it as half the circumference times the length (supposing that remaining SFRM covers half the area). From the Stefan-Boltzmann law, if the radiating steel is as high as 1,173 K (900 °C) and the surroundings only 323 K, the net heat radiated is 0.0435 m² * 0.79 * 5.67*10^-8 W/m².K⁴ * (1173⁴ - 323⁴) = 3.67 kW, which requires 493 seconds for the transmission of 1.81 MJ. At 773 K and 323 K it is down to 0.0435 * 0.79 * 5.67*10^-8 * (773⁴ - 323⁴) = 674 W, requiring 2,685 seconds. A computation that recalculates temperature and rate of radiant heat transfer every second of simulated time concludes 1,692 seconds to cool from 1,173 K to 673 K at ambient temperature of 323 K. When the ambient temperature is raised to 523 K, the time taken increases to 2,058 seconds. Or at 623 K it takes 2,982 seconds to cool to 673 K. The times halve if there is no remaining SFRM, or lengthen accordingly if SFRM remains over more than half of the steel surface.

So an increase in brittleness from gas carburizing at high temperatures followed by formation of bainite is a possible, but not very probable, feature of steel from the WTC1 impact zone that was targeted by controlled demolition planners. Differential thermal expansion of mill scale and steel substrate, with consequent spalling of the gray layer with paint attached, appears to be the principal factor in accounting for a tendency for red/gray chips to originate from the WTC impact zone. But quantification of gray layer carbon content is a possible subject for further research.

The evidence of elemental aluminum

Harrit et al found aluminum and silicon in the red layer that were not bound chemically. Following migration and separation of the components effected by the MEK soak, BSE images showed regions of aluminum that were not accompanied commensurately with oxygen - see (c) and (d) in their Fig. 15 below. In contrast, the silicon remained bound with oxygen.

When the electron beam was focused on a region shown in 15 (c) to be rich in aluminum, the XEDS spectrum confirmed insufficient oxygen to account for oxidation of all aluminum, as demonstrated in Harrit's Fig. 17 below.

The aluminum was found (using a conventional quantification routine) to exceed the oxygen present by approximately a 3:1 ratio. Thus, some aluminum must have existed in elemental form. This is not consistent with paint!

One ploy of those who attempt to counter this evidence of elemental Al is to point to the fact that the Al-rich zones in Figure 15c tend to be along the left-hand side of the image where the surface of the chip becomes inclined nearer to a vertical than horizontal axis. The debunkers would have people believe that a high angle of incidence between the electron beam and its target makes the Al:O ratio seem higher than it really is, for example, by attenuating the O more than the Al. And the debunkers must also imply that whoever did this MEK chip analysis was barely more than a gibbering idiot who didn't understand how to operate the apparatus he'd been entrusted with - e.g. by failing to input the incident angle for the quantification routine, and that Farrer / Harrit / Jones et al signed off on the results without question. Thus, the reader has to fall for a false premise about the relation between the geometry and XEDS peaks, when a high incident angle actually lowers the Al peak in relation to the O peak by exaggerating the lighter elements. And the reader has to fall for another highly far-fetched premise, about Harrit's team having an incompetent buffoon conducting the XEDS on the MEK chip. In fact, since the debunkers' first premise is wrong, then if the Harrit team member had failed to input a non-zero incident angle into the quantification routine, it would make the Al:O ratio look lower rather than higher.

The reader may wish to check this out by downloading a free software package, which ironically is provided by NIST. DTSA-II allows one to input various materials by elemental composition and to carry out "simulations of energy dispersive x-ray spectra", for various beam energies and incident angles. The writer investigated the effect of incident angle on the Al:O ratio, and simulated Harrit's Figure 17 by trying various elemental compositions until the spectrum showed a good resemblance. Unless otherwise stated, default input parameters were set for the simulations, and mostly using the "sphere on a bulk" option. "Inclusion in a bulk" was found to give similar results for peak ratios. (A "bulk, homogeneous material" would probably be a better choice, but doesn't change the outcome.) The density was set to 2 g/cc, sphere diameter was 25 microns, probe dose was the default 60 nA.s, beam energy was 10 keV (as per Figure 17), and the instance count was ten. Variation of density from 1 to 4 g/cc was found not to effect any noticeable change in results. Increasing the probe dose time merely increased peak heights without affecting ratios. Peak heights from all ten instances were examined and an estimate of the mean was recorded. When the simulation of Fig. 17 was repeated, the average peak heights in the next ten instances were found to have decreased a little. In this case, the figures were averaged out over all twenty instances. The peak ratios changed by less than 1% after inclusion of the additional ten instances.

Firstly, to demonstrate the effect of incident angle, proportions of Al 1 atom and O 1 atom were inputted for the material. (The application allows for input of elements by atomic or mass proportions.) The following shows incident angle (degrees), peak height for O, peak height for Al, and the ratio of Al peak to O peak.

Incident Angle (degrees)	O, peak height	Al, peak height	Al / O
0	7,600	17,100	2.25
10	8,500	17,750	2.09
20	9,000	17,500	1.94
30	9,200	17,375	1.89
40	9,400	17,200	1.83
50	9,250	16,750	1.81
60	9,100	16,000	1.76
70	8,100	14,100	1.74
75	7,500	13,000	1.73

A few more simulations showed how this effect - of a higher incident angle reducing the Al/O peaks ratio - became more pronounced when the material had a significant carbon content, as per Harrit Figure 17. Carbon also increases the Al/O peaks ratio for a given Al:O ratio, by attenuating the O peak. On the other hand, an increase in the Al:O ratio made little difference to the incident angle effect, at least, when comparing angles of zero and 75 degrees. See Appendix A for this data.

For the simulation of Harrit's Figure 17, incident angle was taken as 75 degrees, assuming the beam was focused on an Al-rich region on the left-hand side of the Fig. 15 images. Fig. 12 (b) shows the red and gray layer side by side, with the interface between the layers edge-on and the red layer on the left. It is generally agreed that the images in Fig. 15 correspond to the bottom left region of 12 (b). Thus, the Al-rich region to the left of Fig. 15 corresponds to the outer edge of the red layer, which would have been in contact with the SFRM and any accelerant that had been embedded in it, and is therefore where the elemental Al would be expected. During the MEK soak and agitation, the aluminum in a thermite mix would have separated out from the denser Fe₂O₃. Conversely, KClO₄ is a little lighter than aluminum, and NH₄ClO₄ is even lighter. The regions of high Fe concentration on the MEK soak chip - Figure 15 (b) - (from iron oxide pigment of the primer) are on the top of the chip as opposed to the Al which is on the side, and it is a region of high Fe concentration (Figure 18) that shows a Cl peak and a smaller (unlabelled) K peak at 3.313 keV, along with Na, P and S.

Generally, the XEDS peaks referred to here are the k-alpha peaks. However, the Fe peak is l-alpha, since that is the labelled small peak apparent in Fig. 17, and l-alpha is much higher than k-alpha in these 10 keV simulations. The best replication used the following elemental composition.

Al, for example, was inputted as 56 atoms, which is a 2.8:1 ratio to the 20 oxygen atoms and could be described as "approximately a 3:1 ratio".

Averaging over twenty instances on the simulations, the peak heights were C 2562, Al 9450, O 1762, Fe 340, Mg 302, and Si 227. The peak ratios were quite a good match for Harrit's, as shown below. The values for the simulations, followed by Harrit Fig. 17 in parentheses, are Al/O = 5.36 (5.22), C/O = 1.45 (1.44), Fe/O = 0.19 (0.17), Mg/O = 0.17 (0.17), Si/O = 0.13 (0.11).

The next simulations determined what composition would correspond to the Fig. 17 spectrum in the case where the incident angle was zero (beam normal to the surface of the chip). It was found necessary to raise the amounts of O and C by a factor of ~2.

The average peak heights amounted to C 2400, Al 8300, O 1625, Fe 230, Mg 290, Si 210. These peak ratios, with Harrit Fig. 17 in parentheses, are Al/O = 5.11 (5.22), C/O = 1.48 (1.44), Fe/O = 0.14 (0.17), Mg/O = 0.18 (0.17), Si/O = 0.13 (0.11). As may be seen, this simulation is quite a good match too, but in this case the atomic ratio of Al to O has dropped to 1.4 to 1, which is still more than twice the 0.67:1 of Al₂O₃.

Debunkers suggest that much of the Al in Fig. 17 could have originated from the sample holder. But Harrit et al had their samples mounted on a carbon tab to shield from the Al and conducted numerous background studies to prove that the scaffold would not give a false Al signal. Dr. Harrit said, "As the controls also showed, the electron beam couldn’t even penetrate the carbon conductive tab used as substratum for the chip samples during measurement. That is, the Al/Mg scaffold was never hit in any of the spectral recordings published in the article."

We are told that Harrit et al used a "conventional quantification routine" and found "approximately a 3:1 ratio" of Al to O when focusing on an Al-rich region. And the region is also known to have significant C, so the Al-rich region selected was probably the upper left of the chip in Fig. 15. If the person who worked on the MEK chip had focused the beam on the left side of the chip where the geometry influences XEDS spectra, but had forgotten to input a non-zero incident angle, then the software would have calculated the Al:O ratio to be around 1.4:1, not 3:1. Thus, the available evidence indicates that the target Al-rich zone for Fig. 17 was indeed a region where the geometry influenced the peak ratios as debunkers suggest, but not in the way that they'd hoped. And Harrit et al correctly entered the input parameters and obtained an Al:O ratio of approximately 3:1, demonstrating the presence of significant elemental Al.

Upon heating to no more than 700 °C, the red/gray chips produced iron-rich microspheres with a "strikingly similar chemical signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated by commercial thermite", indicative of a thermitic reaction, and inconsistent with primer paint that was devoid of any traces of accelerants.

The iron spheres

These may be divided into four categories. There are spheres observed after heating red/gray chips to 700 °C in a DSC test - where spheres were not observed prior to heating, and there are spheres found in the WTC dust generated by the collapses. And both of these include spheres with widely varying Fe:O ratios, so that both can be roughly sub-divided into two groups. Some have a surplus of Fe in relation to O, which means that some of the iron must be elemental, whereas there are other spheres with plenty of oxygen. Although note that the Harrit Figure 25 post-DSC sphere has more oxygen than the Figure 21 sphere, yet the Figure 25 XEDS spectrum still shows a remarkable similarity to their Figure 24 spheres found after ignition of commercial thermite.

In the case of the chips heated to 700 °C, neither iron-rich nor iron-poor spheres should be produced. The spherical shape indicates a previously molten state, with surface tension maintaining the shape until it solidifies, and so the information of its molten history is preserved in its shape in the solid phase. The melting point of iron is 1,535 °C, hematite dissociates in air (1/5 atm O₂) into magnetite and oxygen at 1,388 °C, and the melting point of pure magnetite is 1,597 °C or 1,538 °C when impure. Thus, a thermitic reaction occurred, generating extremely high temperatures. The reducing agent was powdered aluminum from the accelerant embedded within fake SFRM installed when the fireproofing in the WTC1 impact zone floors 94-98 was upgraded in 1996 and 1998. The oxidizer was Fe₂O₃, either from pigment in the primer, or from the accelerant. The fact that the thermite reaction was ignited at temperatures no higher than 700 °C indicates that the aluminum must have been at least part comprised of nano-sized particles, and therefore did not originate from the aircraft or from regular building materials.

Debunkers suggested that the iron-rich spheres observed in Harrit's DSC tests could have been produced by carbon monoxide reacting with the Fe₂O₃ in the primer paint. Firstly, the reaction is barely exothermic.

The thermite reaction is capable of flame temperatures of at least 2,500 °C, and both reactions have two moles of Fe product, so as a rough approximation it is easily seen that adjusting the enthalpy of reaction by a factor of 24.77 / 851.5 would indicate a potential temperature increase of around 2,475 * 24.77 / 851.5 = 72 °C. It's higher than that, as specific heat is lower at low temperatures. Adiabatic flame temperature calculations predict an increase of 135 °C from ambient temperature of 298 K. When the starting temperature is 700 °C, the increase would be lower than 135 °C, given the higher specific heats of the products. However, even 835 °C is still well below the melting points of iron or iron oxides.

Secondly, the air flow rate of 55 mL / minute during the DSC heating provided ample oxygen for the burning of epoxy in the red layer, and so the amount of CO produced would be minuscule. If most of the exotherm occurred over a temperature range of 100 °C and the heating rate is 10 °C / minute, then the total air supplied is 0.55 liters, which at 1.2 g / liter is 0.66 g of air including 0.232 * 0.66 = 0.153 g of oxygen. If we suppose the heat released is ~13.1 kJ/g-O₂ in line with typical hydrocarbons, then that amounts to 2 kJ. If the yield is 7.5 kJ/g, then 2 kJ would equate to a 267 mg chip. Cf. the mass of the chip in Harrit Figure 2 (a) from sample 1 (MacKinlay), which is a mere 0.7 mg, yet was "one of the larger chips collected". The MacKinlay chips had the lowest yield, yet even if we take the maximum obtained of 7.5 kJ/g, the 0.7 mg chip could release 5.25 J. (The yield from the red layer's epoxy was probably ~25 kJ/g, since the mill scale does not contribute to the exotherm.) Thus, even when overestimating the heat released from the chip, the available oxygen is 381 times in excess of the amount required to support that energy yield.

One "debunker" claimed that "annealing of FeOOH and the transformation to Fe₂O₃ is a mechanism that will produce spheres at temperatures observed in the DSC. If you couple that with the fact that these spherical particles contain large amounts of Si/Al/Ca and sometimes Ti/S/K along with their respective sizes there is no way that anyone can say that to produce spheres you need temperatures of 1500 °C plus."

There is a process that includes dissolving ferrous sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO₄·7H₂O) in a glycerol / water mixture, stirring, heating at 120 °C for 24 hours, cooling to room temperature, washing with water and ethanol by centrifugation, drying overnight at 60 °C, calcination of α-FeOOH precursor structures at 300 °C for two hours, and cooling to room temperature, whereupon "urchin-like α-Fe₂O₃ spheres, hollow or solid" are obtained, with the hollowness controlled by varying the glycerol concentration.

Here are some of these "urchin-like" spheres. Hands up anyone who thinks there is a good resemblance to spheres observed by Harrit et al.

Source: Wang et al, The comparative lithium storage properties of urchin-like hematite spheres: hollow vs. solid, supplementary information

For ease of comparison, here are some Harrit / Jones spheres (they're about five times larger).

In Harrit Figure (21), for example, although Si/S/Ca was observed, this was only in trace amounts. Thus, the "debunker" claim of "large amounts of Si/Al/Ca" is invalid. Moreover, the Fe exceeds the O content by a factor of approximately 2, indicating plenty of elemental iron.

Akaganeite, β-FeOOH, has a standard enthalpy of formation of -554.7 ± 1.9 kJ/mol, and goethite, α-FeOOH, is correspondingly -561.5 ± 1.5 kJ/mol. Although goethite is used as a pigment, it is not specified in either Laclede or Tnemec primer used at the WTC. Transformation of FeOOH into Fe₂O₃ is not exothermic. For example, in the best case of akaganeite, and using the value for hematite at this reference for consistency, we have:

...which is endothermic unless the water vapor product is in liquid form (not exactly conducive to combustion!), in which case the enthalpy of reaction barely scrapes into the positive at +2.6 kJ, or 0.0146 kJ/g of FeOOH. Even in the unlikely event that FeOOH was present and the reaction proceeded, spheres of iron or iron oxide will not be formed.

There is an annealing process for high carbon steels known as spheroidization, in which the cementite (iron carbide) ends up as spheroids dispersed throughout the ferrite matrix. The carbon content of the steel is > 0.6%, which is more than twice as high as structural steels used at the WTC, and the process takes hours - typically "from 10 to 24 hours" unless the steel is subjected to equal channel angular (ECA) pressing which induces shear deformation, in which case the time required can be brought down to one hour and the temperature down to 600 °C (873 K). Generally, the steel must be held at around the ferrite or cementite - austenite transformation temperature of ~730 °C throughout that time; time at 500 °C for example does not count. So heating in a DSC from 20 up to 700 °C linearly over 68 minutes, in the absence of ECA pressing techniques, is clearly not going to result in spheroidization.

The claim that annealing of FeOOH could account for spheres that formed in the DSC is typical of "debunker" sophistry. He starts with a hare-brained speculative claim with no supporting evidence apart from the odd half-truth, and couples that with a lie described as "fact". Either these "debunkers" really are as silly as they look, or they have an ulterior motive - propping up a legend that was devised in the 1990s and sold to a shocked, unsuspecting public on September 11, 2001.

Another ploy of the trolls is to cite a page that states "For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron."

Now, that's certainly interesting information. But the deceivers' chicanery is intended to trick readers into making the intuitive leap that iron particles in the range of a few microns, say, will melt at a temperature between those values, for example at 600 to 700 °C which could account for the spheres found following DSC tests. However, a look at the curve for gold shows that such intuition leads to a misapprehension. The curve is far from linear, and the melting temperature across most of the tens of nm range is not far short of the bulk melting point. Other metallic nano-spherules "exhibit a similarly shaped curve".

An example of an iron oxide sphere found in WTC dust samples and evaluated by Jones et al is their Figure 5, which had atomic percentages for iron and oxygen of 39 and 60 respectively, indicating Fe₂O₃. Their Figure 4 was iron-rich, at 65% iron and 18% oxygen. That was the largest spherule from sample 2, which was collected from a fourth floor apartment, and clearly indicates elemental iron. Those iron-rich spheres should not be there under the demolition deniers' "office fires brought down three skyscrapers" scenario. Neither should iron-rich or iron oxide spheres be produced at temperatures of up to 700 °C in DSC tests. As for the category of iron-oxide spheres in the dust, the jury is still out on whether these are evidence for controlled demolitions or have a prosaic origin such as fly ash.

The US Geological Survey (USGS) found iron percentages in the dust to be 4.13, 2.16, 1.41, 1.42, 1.87, 1.87, 1.92, 1.71, 1.49, 2.78, 1.33, 1.72, 1.80, 1.85, and 1.45 from outdoor dust samples, 1.25 and 1.38 from indoor dust samples, and 1.25 and 0.55 from girder coatings; a geometric mean of 1.63%. If we include the RJ Lee Group's findings of 5.87% iron spheres, the mean increases to 1.74%. The USGS mean is more than 40 times greater than the 0.04% iron sphere composition found in "normal" office interior dust.

The above-grade floor slabs in each Tower constituted around 100,000 tons of concrete. Even taking this as a low estimate for the mass of the dust cloud, ignoring other sources such as gypsum, then 1.74% of 100,000 tons would be 1,740 tons of iron spheres per Tower. If this was the molten iron product of a thermitic reaction, it would need approximately twice that mass of thermite to produce it. 3,480 tons per Tower is a lot of thermite - much too high, it would seem. Given that there was ~56 tons of fireproofing per floor, 3,480 tons of thermite would be equivalent to the total fireproofing on 62 floors; i.e., slightly more than half, when it would need only five consecutive floors to be taken out - or four if the columns had already been heated by a combination of office fires and a bogus SFRM that rendered them even more vulnerable than wholly exposed steel, for there to be a serious risk of global instability and collapse through removal of bracing that resulted in too many core columns exceeding their critical slenderness value.

There are sources other than thermite that could account for iron-containing spheres, but these would be of iron oxide. So, if most iron spheres are iron oxide and those with relatively little oxygen indicative of thermite are a minority, then the thermite could be around a hundred to a few hundred tons per building, and in the case of WTC1, probably used on columns rather than floor trusses.

Portland cement contains about 3% (0 to 6%) ferric oxide (Fe₂O₃). A typical composition of starting materials for Portland cement manufacture is lime 68%, silica 22%, alumina 5%, iron oxide 3%, and other oxides 2%. In the cement manufacturing process, the raw materials are crushed and mixed homogeneously, and then fed into a rotary kiln to form the clinker. The kiln heats the mixture to ~1,450 °C although the flame temperature is said to be 2,000 °C, and the materials combine to form new compounds such as ferrites of calcium. If unreacted Fe₂O₃ decomposed into magnetite and oxygen at 1,388 °C, and if the magnetite reached its melting point of 1,597 °C and was dispersed into an aerosol of molten droplets within the kiln then it could conceivably solidify into spherules, which would be too improbable to account for a significant percentage. But the bulk of the mix to form the concrete is aggregate. In a typical example (below), albeit one that includes fly ash as 50% of the cementitious material, the cementitious material comprises some 16.4% of the mix, so even the maximum 6% ferric oxide would amount to less than 1% of the concrete. Any spheres would be a tiny proportion of that, and they'd be oxygen rich.

Iron and steel slags are used in concrete aggregates, but these tend to be for road construction and railroad ballast. Steel slag is "not recommended for use in rigid confined applications" such as "floor slabs". Manganese, iron and sulfur compounds could make up a few percent of the composition of iron and steel slag. If used in mineral wool, that would comprise a relatively small fraction of the WTC dust.

Fly ash, used as a substitute for up to 50% of the cementitious materials in a concrete mix, is a known source of iron oxide spheres. However, there is no confirmation either way as to whether or not the concrete for the WTC floor slabs contained fly ash. The Steven E. Jones team had a sample of WTC concrete that they crushed and looked for iron spheres. None were found.

An October 31, 1968 report of Engineering News Record states that "a mixture of high-early strength cement, water and fly ash" was used to grout sockets in the Bathtub, for a system of exterior anchors that was designed to support the slurry wall until the sub-grade reinforced floors were in place to take over the job. Early use of fly ash in concrete applications tended to be for structures such as dams rather than buildings, and after the 1970s it was increasingly used in buildings. In 1983 the government issued guideline encouraging its use in federal projects, and in the 1980s the Washington, D.C. area Metro subway system was built using more than 200,000 cubic yards of concrete containing coal fly ash. The new One World Trade Center is confirmed as having a "greener" fly-ash concrete, supplied by Eastern Concrete Materials Inc.

Class F fly ash can have as much as 19% iron oxide. The greatest proportion of iron oxide would be found in a high-volume fly ash (HVFA) concrete featuring Class F fly ash. An example would be coarse aggregate 1,089 kg/m³, fine aggregate 726 kg/m³, type 1 Portland cement 177 kg/m³, Class F fly ash 178 kg/m³. Thus, the fly ash is ~50% of the total cementitious material and 8.2% of the 2,170 kg/m³ concrete mix. If 19% of the fly ash is iron oxide, then 1.56% of the concrete mix is iron oxide. If 1.56% of 100,000 tons of dust is iron oxide, making 1,560 tons, then it's not too far off the 1.74% average of USGS and RJ Lee. Thermite could then account for the 180 tons shortfall.

That doesn't count iron oxide from the cement. But given that the concrete for the WTC floor slabs was poured in the late 1960s, which is relatively early in the history of fly ash as a cementitious substitute in concrete in buildings and long before the modern-day predilection for recycling and propaganda about so-called "global warming", a 50% proportion of fly ash would be unlikely, even if it was used. If the cementitious material is 16.4% of the total including aggregate, and three-quarters of the 16.4% is cement with 6% iron oxide, then that iron oxide comprises 0.738% of the total. With fly ash replacing one-quarter of the 16.4% cement, even if it has 19% iron oxide, which is high even for Class F fly ash, that would account for another 0.779%, making the total ~1.5% . Those figures of 6% iron oxide for cement and 19% for Class F fly ash are both at the high end of the ranges, and more typical values would be 3% and 10%. Other sources such as primer paint would account for some iron oxide, but the contributions from these sources would be low compared to the concrete.

So, the big discrepancy between the 0.04% iron sphere composition of "normal" office interior dust and the 1.74% found in the WTC dust might be explained by the fact that the WTC collapsed and the concrete was crushed, in contrast to the "normal" office buildings. But the "fly ash" theory is stretching it, and lacks supporting evidence. Iron-rich spheres with low oxygen content are indicative of previously molten steel or elemental iron; therefore thermite. And spheres in which the primary metal is iron, that form after heating to 700 °C, are similarly indicative of a thermite reaction, and inconsistent with the fire-induced collapse scenario.

Debunkers love to claim that the Active Thermitic Materials paper was not peer-reviewed. In fact, it was, but debunkers never let pesky facts get in the way of their delusions or deceptions. They kept quiet about how Bentham's peer-review process rejected another spoof by Philip Davis, and about how another SCIgen hoax by graduate students at Sharif University in Iran passed peer-review and was accepted by a journal published by Elsevier. Deriving a conclusion from induction when you have a sample size of one is silly enough; when contradictory evidence exists it is foolish in the extreme. Another disinformation broker kept repeating a claim that all thermite used in demolitions contained calcium; the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust and studied by Harrit et al contained no calcium; ergo, Harrit's red/gray chips were not thermite. And another critic suggested that the energetic reaction seen when the chips were ignited was from the solvent methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), even though the chips were "dried in air over several days" after being soaked in MEK.

The evidence for Laclede primer paint

The Harrit study included a number of tests that were supposed to rule out paint chips. After a chip was "soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days", there was significant swelling of the red layer but no evidence of dissolution. Paint chips softened and partly dissolved when subjected to the same treatment. And the electrical resistivity of Harrit's chips was found to be ten orders of magnitude lower than that of "typical" paint coatings. Tnemec primer, used on the perimeter columns, was ruled out because the red/gray chips shown in the Figure 7 spectra contained no zinc.

However, although Harrit et al ruled out some "typical" paints, and they ruled out the Tnemec primer used on the perimeter columns (because of no zinc) for their four samples (a) to (d) in their Figures (6) and (7), they actually provided evidence of a match with the paint supplied by Laclede for the WTC floor trusses. The blogger Oystein showed how the chips in Harrit's Figures (6) and (7) are likely to be Laclede primer.

NIST provided the specifications for the Laclede primer that was used on the trusses:

Harrit et al measured the electrical resistivity of their red layer material and found it to be approximately 10 ohm-m. They say they found tabulated values for "typical" paint coatings to be over 10¹⁰ ohm-m, and cite a reference for a zinc-ferrite pigment. However, Laclede primer paint contains kaolin clay. 10 ohm-m lies well with the range for clays, which extends from around 3 to 100 ohm-m. These values are very similar to those of fresh water, which tends to be trapped within clay.

One source gives a value of <= 0.100 ohm-cm for an "air floated Hydrated Aluminum Silicate" classed in the category of kaolin clay. Since 0.1 ohm-cm equals 0.001 ohm-m, this looks suspiciously too low, down past the range of sulfides in the diagram above. Even if this value is correct for a kaolin clay, it would show that paint resistivity could vary from the range of Harrit's "typical" paint at 10¹⁰ ohm-m down to a value even lower than the 10 ohm-m measurement for the red layer.

The Fe₂O₃ used as a pigment in both Laclede and Tnemec primer has an electrical resistivity that is six orders of magnitude higher than the Fe₃O₄ (magnetite, or iron(II,III) oxide) contained in the gray layers. The latter exhibits a significantly higher electrical conductivity because of electron exchange between the Fe^II and Fe^III centers. The kaolin in Laclede primer contributes to its electrical conductivity, with the Fe₂O₃ having a relatively high resistivity. If the other Tnemec primer ingredients are considerably poorer electrical conductors than clay, then Laclede's kaolin could be responsible for a difference of several orders of magnitude compared to Tnemec. In any case, the electrical resistivity would be expected to vary widely between various paint formulations, so if one paint has a high resistivity and another substance has low resistivity, all it can prove is that it is not the same paint formulation. It does not prove that the second substance cannot be paint.

Millette should measure the resistivity of his chips for his subsequent reports. It would also be useful to compare the resistivity of any chips that appear to have the characteristics of Tnemec primer rather than Laclede.

Harrit et al found that the "paint solvent" methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) failed to dissolve any of the red layer of their chips even after 55 hours of soaking with frequent agitation. In comparison, (normal) "paint chips" partly dissolved when subjected to the same treatment. But a cured (crosslinked) epoxy resin does not dissolve in MEK or paint solvents / strippers; it merely softens. There are many different paints, and it is only to be expected that they have different properties.

The gray layers of the Harrit / Jones bi-layered chips are mill scale, most likely formed as Laclede hot rolled the shapes for the trusses. Mill scale consists of FeO (ferrous oxide) on the inside closest to the bulk steel, Fe₃O₄ (magnetite) in the middle and Fe₂O₃ (ferric oxide or hematite) on the outside (thus increasingly oxidized going from the steel to the adjacent air). The principal constituent of this is the central magnetite layer, which has a "blue-gray steely color", whilst the outer hematite layer is extremely thin and invisible to the naked eye. The total thickness of all three layers "is typically about 50 microns", consistent with the chips' gray layers. Moreover, since mill scale is mostly magnetite, that is consistent with the red/gray chips being attracted strongly by a magnet and with the gray layer appearing gray rather than the typical "red-brown-orange" of rust.

Structural steel has an ultimate strength of at least 400 MPa, compared to only 12 to 30 MPa for epoxy adhesive, which is claimed to achieve a lap shear strength to aluminum of up to 2,600 psi or 17.9 MPa. However, mill scale's adhesion strength ranges from 1 to 18 MPa (Source: Spangenberg, 1972, St 42 steel is 100-1,800 N/cm²). Thus, slivers of this could fracture away whilst epoxy remained attached.

Moreover, for readers who did not see the section above on why red/gray chips would tend to originate from the fire-affected floors, and in particular, the WTC1 impact zone, it is worth reiterating the point that heating (as in "office fires" or attack from accelerants) will lead to differential thermal expansion, and consequently mill scale will crack and spall away from the steel, with any paint remaining attached to the scale. Hence, "red/gray chips". Mill scale is mostly comprised of magnetite, and an alloy mostly comprised of magnetite has a coefficient of linear expansion of 6.4x10^-6 per °C. This compares with 13x10^-6 per °C for steel.

Czech polymer chemist Ivan Kminek was arguing as early as 2011 that the red layers in Harrit Figure 7 were Laclede primer paint rather than thermite. His hypothesis, that the exothermic reaction observed when Harrit et al heated their chips was a burning of epoxy binder used in the Laclede primer paint, makes sense.

Kminek believes the exotherm peaks at a higher temperature in Harrit chips compared to typical epoxy because of additional oxidation, since the chips were nearly 40 years old. The derivative thermogravimetric curves shown below for epoxy resin and hybrid materials heated in an oxidative atmosphere of air show that, although the curve for epoxy resin peaks below 400 °C and is no match for the "415-435 °C" ignition range found in Harrit's DSC tests of red/gray chips, the peak for the hybrids is generally higher than for unmodified epoxy, and the peaks can be up to nearly 500 °C. However, the hybrid materials were prepared using the sol-gel process, which was invented in the mid-80s - after the construction of the WTC. And all of these curves show a secondary peak at 550 to 600 °C, which was not observed with any of Harrit's chips. And two of Harrit's curves do show an endotherm consistent with melting of elemental aluminum.

The heat of combustion of epoxy is 25 kJ/g according to Quintiere, Fundamentals of Fire Phenomena, Appendix, Table 9. Thus, if aging, cured epoxy has lost some of that due to additional oxidation, there would still appear to be enough to account for the yield of up to 7.5 kJ/g observed in Harrit's DSC tests. (Those tests were conducted in air, whereas an inert atmosphere would have been more suitable for testing for a thermitic reaction!)

Who are the "racists"?

The leaders and some of the elite of a certain Middle Eastern country that played a central role in 9/11 are a bunch of psychopathic war criminals, terrorists, scoundrels, fraudsters, thugs and bigots who should be rounded up and placed in secure institutions where they can no longer harm others or threaten world peace - and possibly even begin to repay their debts to the rest of us, which they could not do were they to be summarily tortured and killed. But that does not mean that all of their nationals or co-religionists are a part of this criminality. One of the particular country's public-spirited citizens bravely sacrificed his freedom and risked his life to expose the fact that this bandit state had already managed by 1986 to attain an arsenal of 100 to 200 advanced fission bombs and possibly some thermonuclear devices. In the early 1990s, this pariah state's intelligence agency predicted that Iran would be capable of targeting it with a nuclear missile by 2000, and exploited the claim in order to obtain three diesel-electric Dolphin-class submarines from Germany. The submarines are capable of firing cruise missiles with a 900 to 1,200-mile range, a test launch successfully hit a target 900 miles away, and the missiles can be equipped with nuclear warheads. Given that the scoundrels control the mainstream media and have the so-called "leaders" of other "democratic" nations in their pocket, their acquisition of these subs in 2000 provided them with enough political clout to perpetrate false-flag terror with impunity.

Their other predicted dates for Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon include the mid-90s, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2010, 2012 and 2015; i.e., nearly as many as doom-mongers' predictions of the end of the world. Problem is, the world will carry on regardless whatever the doom-mongers might say or do, whereas these fanatics who keep trying to stir up hysteria and hatred over Iran really do have the power to bring about Armageddon. Indeed, some of their most twisted misfits and crackpots actually welcome it!

Another citizen opposed to the regime was sentenced to four-and-a-half years for the selfless act of leaking documents that exposed the army's policy of "assassinating" - i.e., premeditated murder of - the indigenes and then pretending they'd been killed in an exchange of fire. Academics risk their careers by calling on their students to refuse to serve in the military in protest at the occupation and oppression of another people. And others want to embrace "all people" - including the oppressed minority - "as equals". You can't get fairer than that.

Even when we consider those involved in 9/11, most would have had a relatively minor role, and would not have been told more than they needed to know. For example, the three young nationals of a certain Middle Eastern country who were observed before the local news radio station had even broken the news of the first plane impact into WTC1, kneeling atop a van in a jovial mood with their cameras trained on the burning WTC1, smiling, joking, hugging each other, high-fiving, telling macabre jokes whilst emitting cries of joy and mockery, flicking a lighter in celebratory style like they were at a rock concert, etc., would not have been told that the buildings were wired for demolition. Their job was to "document the event", and they obviously knew both Towers were going to be hit since they'd specifically driven to an excellent vantage point (the parking lot of the Doric apartment block) that provided "a view of the entire length of both towers" (by their own admission), and one of them was spotted in the building the previous day posing as a "construction worker". They were well aware that the event was a false-flag terror attack designed to launch a "war on terror" by the U.S. and others, fighting their country's enemies whilst their co-religionists wouldn't have to lift a finger and their country would continue to receive billions of dollars annually in "aid" and interest payments. However, they would have expected the incidents to be on a similar scale to the B-25 bomber crash into the Empire State Building of 1945, with the plane's "high-octane fuel" exploding and "hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor", resulting in 14 dead and 26 injured, whilst the building remained standing with no loss of "integrity".

The racial supremacists, who exploit their fraudulent acquisition of 8,355 square miles of prime Middle Eastern real estate as a means of achieving their dream of a supra-national dictatorship, in which they are the supreme rulers and most of the population are too dumbed-down to understand that they have lost their precious freedoms, employ many tricks to maintain their grip on the land. One of these is to scare the citizens into imagining that everyone hates them, and that if it weren't for the "benevolent", "peace-loving", "morality-conscious" men who serve as leaders of this country, their people would be "exterminated".

Let's make it clear. A group of Jewish fanatics orchestrated 9/11. It wasn't Muslims / Arabs / Islamists / Saudis / Afghans / Pakistanis, or even "Nazis". And yes, the Bush admin played a part - particularly in the Pentagon attack, and then their own complicity left them with no choice but to assist in the cover-up. Osama bin Laden was chosen as the "Emmanuel Goldstein" character because he was dying of kidney disease, and his family were business partners of the Bush family. For example, George H. W. Bush met bin Laden family members in Jeddah ("Jidda") in November 1998. But it was elite Jewish criminals who conceived the plan in the 1990s to demolish the WTC as a false-flag terror operation in which Israel's "allies" could be pressed into service, sacrificing their own blood and treasure for the goal of fighting Israel's enemies. The opportunity to hit the Pentagon's accounting section came up early in 2000, along with a willing, conniving U.S. regime whose leaders thought that being part of the action was better than being blackmailed and exposed over an affair with an intern. And at the same time the Israeli leadership gained additional leverage from their acquisition of submarines with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, and were also emboldened by their US spy-ring and phone-tapping capability. Afghanistan, rather than Iraq or Iran, become the priority in 2001 after the Taliban banned opium production, slashing narcotics trafficking profits of the Mossad and the CIA.

Just because a global Jewish crime syndicate bent on world domination orchestrated 9/11, it doesn't mean that Jews in general should be hated, despised, or even disliked or discriminated against. To hate someone for who they are is the product of a sick, twisted mind. If any people are to be hated, they should be hated for what they do, not who they are. But the Jewish people need to make a choice: They can continue aligning themselves with the crime syndicate who ostensibly are their "protectors" - and risk a terrible conflict in this nuclear age. Or they can recognize that it is better for decent, honorable people of all races and religions to band together in the fight against terrorists, criminals, liars, and corrupt "leaders".

The Zionist program to "create world government" and turn the planet into a giant prison can only work so long as ordinary, well-meaning folk are blinded from the reality of what is happening and conditioned into going along with it. Ordinary people do not "hate" Jews. Even those of us who strongly criticize Israel and Zionism do not hate or even dislike Jews in general. But decades of disinformation and propaganda from outlets such as the ADL of B'nai B'rith, which was founded in 1913 to protect murderers, rapists and other criminals by screaming about "anti-Semites", have caused people to become sadly misinformed.

Prior to the beginning of the First Aliyah around 1881-82 when the first Zionist settlers purchased land from absentee Arab owners, dispossessing the peasants who had cultivated it, there was little conflict between the Jewish minority and the Arab population in Palestine. After the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War which resulted in around 750,000 Palestinians fleeing or being expelled from their homes, with the Zionists then blaming the Arab victims for resisting their dispossession, Israeli Jews are subjected to random acts of terror because the Zionist regime refuses to compensate for Arab losses and to accept Palestinian demands for a viable, independent state. So today, even Zionist Jews regard Israel as a "country that experiences terror daily". However, Jewish people of good conscience recognize that Zionism is wrong.

Of course, the crooked Israeli leadership will never change course voluntarily. Zionists need peace like they need a hole in the head. Today, Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists and anyone else live together peacefully in the Diaspora. The Zionist Mafia (the Mishpucka) are not concerned with the welfare of Jews in general; they are only interested in their pursuit of power and profit. Yitzhak (Izaak) Greenbaum said, "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland".

The Zionist Mafia benefits from encouraging Jewish paranoia, since they can then offer themselves as the "solution" - as "protectors" of Jews. In Israel, the Zionist regime guarantees terror attacks against Jews with its anti-peace policies. Elsewhere, the Zionists have to try to perpetuate the myth that everyone hates Jews, in case people notice that Jews are less safe in Israel and start to suspect that Zionism might be the problem. So the Zionists have sayanim fake phony "hate crimes" against themselves, such as vandalising their own cars or graves, or poisoning their dogs and defacing their houses with swastikas, or cutting their clothes and drawing swastikas on their stomachs. "Come to Israel, where we can protect you from those nasty anti-Semites!"

Apart from being sick in the head, anyone professing to be anti-Zionist or anti-Judaic who was bent on harming people because they were Jews would also be exhibiting gross stupidity. They would be playing into the hands of the psychopathic Zionist megalomaniacs who need to prop up the legend of "evil anti-Semites" in order to continue their pursuit of power and profit. Zionist leaders cynically do all they can to foment hatred and dislike of the very people they purport to represent, and blame it on everybody but themselves.

The Jewish people of Israel can make the choice to abandon their psychopathic leaders and rejoin the human community. Their best move would be a mass exodus from Israel. (Mossad agents should simply resign and stay away from Israel.) After all, why would anyone want to live in a "country that experiences terror daily", when there are much better alternatives? No one should have to "experience terror daily". And anyone who wants to embrace "all people" - "as equals" should be welcome anywhere in the Diaspora. As Israel's population declined, its leaders and the Zionist movement would be seen as an increasing irrelevance - an anachronism unsuited to the information age of the internet, and a relic of the era when people were only too ready to believe the latest propaganda dished out by the Zionist mainstream media monopoly. As the Zionists' power declined, political leaders of other nations could go back to doing what was best for their citizens rather than their power-crazed, money-grubbing Zionist masters who'd appointed them and then demanded their quid pro quo.

So-called political "leaders" (puppets and puppets' poodles, e.g. "Yo, Blair") are much too afraid to lift a finger against this international crime syndicate of racial supremacists bent on world domination - it's the choice between profiting handsomely or being otherwise dealt with. However, the crime syndicate are well aware that these "leaders" - the crime syndicate's protégés - can be thrown out by popular uprising, which is why they desperately need to keep a lid on the truth. The frequency of false-flag operations has decreased since 2006, as millions of people have learned via the internet that 9/11 was an "inside job" - or an "inside/outside job". Truth seekers who pass on information such as this about 9/11 are helping to dissuade the crooks from staging future false-flags, as an increasing number of people learn about the deception.

Anyone still trying to figure out who did 9/11, eleven years on, should ask themselves:

Analysis of the "High Fivers"

(For links to Parts 1 to 5 of the FBI's report from which the following information is sourced, along with transcripts of much of the report and further information, refer to this page.)

The Israelis reveal their guilt by their own words on multiple occasions. They were caught in several lies, such as Yaron Shmuel's assertion that they were "on the West Side Highway" in New York City at the time of the "incident" (see page 4 of the police report). The FBI's review of EZ-Pass records showed that the Urban Moving Systems van used by the Israelis to travel from Brooklyn, NY (location of their residences) to Weehawken, NJ on the morning of September 11, 2001 passed through the Brooklyn, NY entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel at 7:48 a.m.. That was approximately 58 minutes before the alleged Flight 11 slammed into the North Tower.

In another lie (Section 5 page 45), Sivan Kurzberg claimed they were "caught in heavy traffic" and did not arrive at the parking lot of the apartment complex until 10:00 a.m. or later, which is more than an hour after they were seen there. In his version of events, the three Israelis seen celebrating at the parking lot went up onto the roof of Urban Moving Systems after browsing internet news sites. Oded Ellner also lied with a claim that they stopped to get gas after the first plane crash on their way to the parking lot, which again renders the Israeli timeline even more impossible. The FBI found they had bought gas at about 2:14 p.m. and there is evidence that Ellner may have stopped at the gas station prior to the first impact.

Of particular interest is the decision of Sivan Kurzberg, Oded Ellner and Yaron Shmuel to travel to the parking lot in the apartment complex, prior to the second plane impact, even if we make no assumptions as to whether or not it was before the first crash. Ellner inadvertently reveals too much in his admission to the FBI that "only one side of one tower is visible from the roof of Urban Moving", whereas the parking lot provided a view of "the entire length of both towers". Here is another version of events provided by Ellner, as shown on pages 85 to 86 of the Section 5 of the FBI report:

As may be seen on the map, the Urban Moving Systems office at 3 W. 18th Street was north and slightly west of the WTC.

The north side of the North Tower, which was hit by the alleged Flight 11 at approximately 8:46:30 a.m. on 9/11, faces somewhat east of north. Given that Urban Moving Systems was north and slightly west of the WTC site, the South Tower would have been obscured by the North Tower, but the north and west faces of the North Tower would have been visible from the roof of UMS. The following photo is probably taken from slightly east of north of the North Tower; its north and west faces are visible, and the South Tower is in the background to the left.

Thus, a vantage point such as the roof of Urban Moving Systems, if we imagine the perspective from a little to the west, would have been ideal for viewing the north and west faces of the North Tower and suitable for "documenting" the plane crash into the north face of the North Tower. However, it would have been a lousy choice for anyone intending to "document" the approach and impact of an aircraft into the south face of the South Tower.

So our "innocent" Israelis, engaged in "honest toil" as "movers" on a "working holiday" in a foreign country, learn that an aircraft has crashed into the World Trade Center. As Christopher Ketcham pointed out, during the 17 minutes prior to the second impact, innocent bystanders would have believed the incident was merely a terrible accident.

And then there is the physical impossibility of all of the various versions of events provided by the Israelis, so that any attempt to find them innocent ironically requires that all of their statements regarding their movements between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. on 9/11/01 are assumed to be lies, and the real version of events was something like this:

Oded Ellner, Yaron Shmuel and Sivan Kurzberg are driving along Manhattan Avenue, Union City in the Urban Moving Systems van, having left their workplace minutes previously for a delivery / collection, when one of them receives a telephone call informing them of a plane crash into the World Trade Center from a friend who saw it happen. [This would require evidence of an incoming cell phone call at about 8:47 to 8:48, evidence which doesn't exist. It would also require that they hadn't given so many alternative accounts of events.] One of them notices the Doric apartment block coming up on their left, and remarks that it would be a good place to see the event. They drive into the apartment block, around to the rear parking lot, park facing the WTC, get out and climb on top of the van with their cameras, which by a lucky coincidence they just happen to have with them, just before a couple of witnesses look out of their windows and see the Israelis kneeling atop the van.

The evidence on Section 3 page 67 (FBI report) shows that the lady who telephoned the main eyewitness to inform her of the disaster was actually prompted to look out of the window by the sound of the impact or explosion as the first plane slammed into the North Tower at approximately 8:46:30 a.m. Thus, assuming it took her two minutes to scan the area before observing the smoking WTC, she then "immediately" went to telephone her friend. Assuming that took a minute, and it took her friend another minute to grab her binoculars, look out the window, and see the van parked with the celebrating Israelis kneeling on its roof, this occurred at approximately 8:50 to 8:51.

This estimate of a four-minute delay for the eyewitness is likely to be on the high side. The eyewitness testified that she was listening to 1010 WINS, the local AM news radio station, before receiving her telephone call and going to look out of her window, and she did not hear any news about the WTC. James Faherty broke the news on WINS, and this is how he describes it:

Audio of the WINS live report is available from the above link. The clip is nearly eight minutes in duration, and there is no mention of the second impact by the end of the clip. Since the second impact occurred at approximately 9:03, that would set an absolute latest time of 8:55 for WINS to have broken the news of the first impact. However, how long does it take a news radio station to go live on important breaking news when they have a trusted witness at the scene and have to call her back from another line and inform the anchorman? Probably about as long as it takes for someone to hear a plane crash, look out the window, scan the area, see the smoking WTC, call a friend and tell her the WTC is on fire and to look out of the window. Or about as long as it takes for a painter in an apartment block to see or hear a plane crash, and to walk to his colleague in an adjacent apartment and tell him to look out of a window, "less than 5 minutes" after the first impact. From Section 5, page 25:

So, in the scenario of the Israelis just happening to drive past the apartment block just after the first impact, it's just feasible that they might have received a telephone call, driven into the apartment block, around to the rear parking lot, got out with their cameras, and climbed atop the van, in time for the witnesses to observe them. That still wouldn't explain why the Israelis regarded a plane crash to be such an amusing, joyous event. It's also highly credible that an apartment block resident would, after learning the WTC was on fire, "immediately" telephone her friend and neighbor whom she knew would be able to get a good view from her apartment. It's not so likely that an Israeli, after quickly learning of a plane crash, say, because he just happened to be at the scene at the time, would be motivated to "immediately" call an Israeli friend who worked as a "mover", when the mover could by definition be almost anywhere and quite probably at a location that did not provide a view of the WTC. And local residents would be expected to take a greater interest in a plane crashing into a local building just across the river, compared to someone who was on a "working holiday" in a foreign land and had no ties to the area. However, it didn't happen like that. The Israelis claim to have been at their 3 West 18th Street, Weehawken workplace when receiving the news of the first plane crash. Almost certainly, they were already atop the van at the Doric apartment block's rear parking lot with their cameras, in time to videotape the initial impact, but they perceived various alibis of being anywhere but Doric at the time of the "incident" as less incriminating.

Assuming Ellner's friend is inexplicably remarkably quick in telephoning him with the news; it took a minute for one Israeli to read about the first plane crash on CNN.com as another Israeli read about it on the Israeli news site YNET.co.il; a minute for the three of them to make the collective decision that a plane crash was worth "documenting" for "history" and to gather up their cameras and run out to the van; four minutes for the journey in the rush hour as they select their vantage point on the fly (and Sivan Kurzberg said they were "caught in heavy traffic", so Google Maps' minimum time of four minutes is probably optimistic given the time of around 08:50 a.m.); and a minute to drive into the apartment complex and around to the rear parking lot, park facing the WTC, get out and climb on top the van with their cameras; then the news would have to have been posted at the CNN and Israeli news websites seven minutes before the 1010 WINS local news radio station announced it on air. So both websites have it up as early as 8:48, even seconds before CNN TV footage cuts into an advert with breaking news, and WINS is as late as 8:55, the latest possible time given that the second impact hadn't occurred at almost eight minutes into the WINS live commentary on the first impact. It's a preposterous scenario. WINS even had one of their account executives on scene who was already speaking on her cell phone to the WINS newsroom as the first plane crashed. Moreover, even in the least improbable of the many conflicting versions of events claimed by the Israelis, they spend a "few minutes", not one minute, reading about the event on the internet before going outside. Thus, even the least improbable Israeli version of events requires a suspension of the laws of causality and General Relativity. But that is at least consistent with the government conspiracy theory's requirement for a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics, thermochemistry, probability, etc.

If you encounter anyone spouting the tired old canard about "anti-Semitism", refer them to this page. And show them the reports in Appendix J. If they continue to insist that "the Arabs" did 9/11, then they will have demonstrated one of four things:

Conclusion

As the blogger Oystein showed, the Harrit chips (a) to (d) are consistent with Laclede primer (which has no elemental Al) attached to oxidized steel (mill scale).

It would have been ridiculous for the demolitionists to have used a 0.001 inch (25 micron) layer of accelerant attached to rusty steel. Such a scheme, even if 100% thermite, would have negligible effect on the steel. With 3/8 inch steel as in the truss bottom chord, the volume ratio of thermite to steel is 1/375, and the mass ratio is 1/375 * 2,541/7850 = 1/1158. If the thermite yield is 3.5 MJ/kg and the steel heat capacity (at low temperatures) is 450 J/kg.K, then the maximum temperature increase in the steel is 3,500,000 / 450 / 1158 = 6.7 °C. As Oystein showed, the red layer of Mark Basile's chips could not have been more than 5% thermite, and probably considerably less than that. It wouldn't make sense for demolitionists to use such a puny accelerant, and the SFRM would remain intact and continue to insulate the steel from the office fires. And the demolitionists would need to get the old primer off (to be consistent with any red/gray chips that were found having the sinister red layer adjacent to the steel), when they only needed to replace the SFRM.

If some chips were thermitic and some were merely paint, then it would be highly unlikely that Harrit et al would end up with thermitic chips with elemental Al and keep getting Fe spheres after heating, whilst Millette consistently got Laclede paint. That would indicate fraud on the part of either Harrit et al or Millette. And the "debunkers" are always telling everyone that conspiracies don't work when too many people are included.

The best fit to the data is that all chips were paint chips (and some were different primers) but some elemental Al from the accelerant remained after the MEK soak. And some contamination from accelerant material, embedded within the 3 inches of SFRM directly in contact with the primer, remained on other unwashed chips and was responsible for the post-ignition iron-rich spheres. The iron oxide pigment remained largely intact because the molar proportion of available elemental aluminum to iron oxide pigment was very low. If the elemental Al from accelerant reacting with Fe₂O₃ in the paint - or possibly from the accelerant - generates ten iron-rich spheres of 5 microns in diameter (a high estimate; the largest spheres in Harrit Figures 20 / 21 / 25 are barely over 5 microns), assuming density of 7,000 kg/m³ a little closer to iron than iron oxide, each sphere is 6.54x10^-17 m³ and the mass of ten spheres is 4.58x10^-12 kg. If about half is iron oxide and half is iron, then that's cancelled out by the Fe product being about half the mass of thermite reactants. So 4.58x10^-12 kg x 3.9 MJ/kg leaves 1.8x10^-5 J as the yield from thermitic reactions. The largest chip studied by Harrit et al was 0.7 mg, so if we take the minimum red/gray layer yield of 1.5 kJ/g, then the epoxy releases 1.05 J and the epoxy : thermite yield ratio is more than 58,000:1. Even if the difference is just 3 orders of magnitude, the yield from thermite reactions would be too low to show up as a secondary peak on the DSC curve (presumably at ~520 °C in line with Tillotson).

The red/gray chips proved to be very much of a "red herring", which is understandable since they were easily found and isolated: distinctive red/gray chips that are attracted by a magnet. Smoking gun evidence of controlled demolitions - e.g. evidence of extremely high temperatures - was documented relatively early in the various independent investigations of 9/11. But "loaded gun" evidence - unreacted accelerants, whether thermitic or otherwise - is not quite so easy to obtain as finding direct evidence in the form of distinctive chips that are all the same and strongly magnetic. Not all red/gray chips are the same, and not all of them should be expected to show evidence of accelerants. Millette is correct in stating that the red/gray chips are consistent with kaolin clay plates, iron oxide pigment and epoxy resin binder on a carbon steel, whilst Harrit et al did manage to identify some "loaded gun" evidence of accelerants from some of their chips in the form of iron-rich spherules and elemental aluminum.

The best explanation for Millette's conflicting results of no elemental aluminum or thermitic reactions is the fact that Millette washed his chips.

The orchestrators of 9/11 employed controlled demolitions following aircraft impacts, knowing that people would make the logical error of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) that confuses correlation with causation.

They came a cropper with WTC7, which was not hit by a plane. However, even without Building Seven, there are enough clues for any reasonably competent researcher to see that the official story is a pack of lies.

Even debunkers will occasionally get things right, just as a broken clock is correct every twelve hours. And the most preposterous nonsense such as "hologram planes" is propagated by intelligence assets, who typically claim to be 'ex'-MI5, 'ex'-CIA, or 'ex'-Bush Admin. For political purposes, they misrepresent truth advocates. Debunkers, with their minor success regarding paint chips, may have won a battle, but they have lost the war.

Future studies

Although debunkers make themselves look foolish or complicit by ignoring or dismissing the voluminous evidence against the "Arabs did 9/11" lunacy, the truth movement will lose much credibility if it continues to insist that paint chips on rusty steel are "nano-thermite".

XEDS analysis of clean chips help to identify the primer, but will not show the accelerant. DSC tests of clean chips would only show burning of organic material. It would be better to:

Appendix A

For those interested in how an increase in incident angle decreases the ratio between the Al and O peaks in XEDS spectra, here is some data from further simulations. Note the original comparison with zero and 75 degrees incident angle was for a hypothetical material composed of Al and O at a 1:1 (atomic) ratio.

With 1 carbon atom added, to 1 of Al and 1 of O. At 0 incident angle, C 820 O 4,600 Al 13,000 Al/O 2.83 C/O 0.18. At 75, C 1,625 O 5,300 Al 9,800 Al/O 1.85 C/O 0.31.

Next with Al 3 atoms, O 1 atom, C 1 atom. At 0 incident angle, C 335 O 2,500 Al 21,250 Al/O 8.5 C/O 0.13. At 75, C 730 O 2,770 Al 15,200 Al/O 5.49 C/O 0.26.

Next with Al 3 atoms, O 1 atom, C 5 atoms. At 0 incident angle, C 1,450 O 1,400 Al 14,300 Al/O 10.21 C/O 1.04. At 75, C 2,800 O 1,850 Al 10,800 Al/O 5.84 C/O 1.51.

So when going from 0 to 75 degrees, for 1 atom each of O and Al, the Al/O ratio goes from 2.25 to 1.73, a change by a factor of 0.769.

For 1 atom each of C, O and Al, the Al/O ratio goes from 2.83 to 1.85, a change by a factor of 0.654.

For 3 Al atoms and 1 each of C and O, the Al/O ratio goes from 8.5 to 5.49, a change by a factor of 0.645.

For 5 C atoms, 3 Al atoms and 1 O atom, the Al/O ratio goes from 10.21 to 5.84, a change by a factor of 0.572.

Appendix B

The amount of "dislodged" fireproofing would have been far too minimal to have any impact on the fact that the fires could not have raised the temperature of more than a tiny fraction, if any, of the steel to greater than the critical temperature at around 550 °C. Not enough of the Cafco Blaze-Shield on the trusses would have been compromised - over a sufficient number of floors, and a sufficient area on each of these floors - for the effect of the fires to have been enough to tip the balance from survival to catastrophic collapse. The Boeing 767-200 series has a fuselage diameter of about 16.5 feet, i.e. less than one-tenth the width of each Tower, and less than one and a half floors in height. The floor trusses originally had 3/4 inch of FRC; by September 2001 the entire impact zone of WTC 1 (floors 92 to 99) had been upgraded to 1.5 inches with Blaze-Shield II. The tested performance of Blaze-Shield II's cohesion / adhesion strength ranges from 360 to 399 psf compared with a standard performance of 150 psf; its compressive strength has been found to be from 1,700 to 2,380 psf.

"Preliminary calculations suggest that the resulting overpressures [from the fireballs] were less than 1 lb per square inch (PSI)...It is likely that the force of the impact and the speed with which debris travelled through the structures compromised the sprayed-on fire protection of some of the steel members in the immediate areas of the impact."

"The force of the impact and the resulting debris field and fireballs probably compromised spray-applied fire protection of some of the steel members in the immediate area of impact. The exact extent of this damage will probably never be known..."

It is fair to say that some of the FRC on some trusses in the immediate impact area was compromised by debris. The deflagration overpressure was far too low to damage fireproofing. The main damage area in WTC 1 would have been a rectangular section of some 17 feet in width and 60 feet in length from the north face to the core, and much of this tiny proportion of two or three floors would have been already destroyed by the impact. ("AA 11" had a descent angle of about 10 degrees, so 68 feet horizontally - taking it into the core - would correspond to a 12 feet height drop which makes for an extra floor albeit at reduced length of damage zone.) The west, south and east sides would have undergone relatively little damage in the inter ceiling-floor zone; floors above and below likewise. The truss-initiated collapse theory requires total collapse and removal of at least five floors, which would not have happened in 102 minutes of release of some 10^12 joules per floor with almost all of the truss FRC remaining even on the worst floors. Each WTC floor had about 56 tons of fireproofing, so the FRC over three floors at 168 tons was more massive than the plane and its fuel. The Blaze-Shield would not have been "blown" off the trusses.

In the case of WTC1, the impacting debris from the alleged Flight 11 was approaching at a descent angle of about ten degrees, and most of the trusses were shielded from this by four inches of solid concrete. Where the debris did not smash its way through the concrete, most of the FRC on the trusses would have remained intact. The height of the trusses was 29 inches, so after adding three inches to allow for the depth of the fireproofing and dividing the total height of 32 inches by tan [10 degrees] there is 181 inches, say 15 feet, as the length of the strip where the truss bottom chord might have had its FRC compromised in places, beyond the extent of the smashed length of 4-inch concrete slab.

The width of the strip is 16.5 feet (from the width of the plane fuselage), so if we say 15 x 17 feet, that's 255 square feet. At 208 feet by 208 feet, each floor was 43,264 square feet, so the area of possibly partially compromised bottom chord FRC is less than 0.6% of the total floor area. Wing debris (from part of a single wing for a given floor due to the aircraft roll of about 25 degrees), and debris bouncing off a floor and smashing through ceiling tiles (which were 2 psf), could have added a little, but not enough to prefer the fire collapse theory over the controlled demolition theory. This refutes the theory that the aircraft impact could have "dislodged" significant proportions of SFRM, which in any case would need to have occurred over at least five consecutive floors in order to effect Euler buckling of core columns resulting from a loss of lateral support.

Appendix C

At floor 98, the box columns had all been replaced by WF columns. NIST (Appendix E, Fig. E-6) shows the specifications of typical rolled WF shapes between floors 83 to 86. The larger 14WF730 or W14x730 was used for columns 1001, 1008, 501 and 508; the medium sized 14WF219 was used for columns 607 and 906; and the small 14WF61 was used for column 705. To select the most likely member for each column on floor 98, the demand on each core column was calculated by multiplying the total gravity load of 34,573 tons by the member's load area as a proportion of the total floor area. This was then divided by NIST's published pre-impact demand / capacity ratio for 1WTC columns on floors 93 to 98 (which ranged from about 0.4 to just over 0.5 with a mean of 0.48), to find the required capacity.

NIST Appendix E (Table E-3) lists the yield strength of core columns within the aircraft penetration zone of WTC1 floors 94 to 98. Most were 36 or 42 ksi; there were very few box columns or higher strength wide flanges. Almost two-thirds of core columns had a yield strength of 36 ksi; almost all the remainder were 42 ksi. With no box columns at floor 98, it was decided to assume 16 WF shapes at 42 ksi and 31 at 36 ksi. This allowed 42 ksi to be used along the 24 columns at the perimeter of the core area, excluding the two centremost columns on each of the four sides. The nominal depth - the first number shown in ddWFnnn or more typically Wddxnnn where dd is the nominal depth in inches and nnn is the weight in pounds per linear foot - was taken to be a constant 14 inches. With the capacity having been determined and the yield strength selected, the remaining specification nnn was selected for the purposes of this study by taking the closest from a list of preferred sizes. For simplicity in selection, columns were treated as short columns in which the axial capacity is equal to the yield strength times the cross-section.

Under normal pre-impact conditions, the core columns achieved a sufficiently low slenderness ratio that this short column approximation introduced errors of only 1 to 5%, marginally favouring fire collapse theories by underestimating member specification. In reality, some columns - particularly the lightest - would have been the next preferred size. On average, the demand / capacity ratio would have been as assumed. But underestimated mass to heated perimeter ratios would generate a small error, leading to overstating of the predicted temperature rises.

The Euler buckling limit only applies to long columns. In the intermediate (and short) range, formulae such as Johnson's apply. The axial load capacity is given by the cross-section times the yield strength times a factor dependent on the effective length, the radius of gyration, and the Young's modulus and yield strength for the material. This factor is very close to unity for short columns. The crossover point from intermediate to long columns occurs at the critical slenderness ratio scr, and is dependent only on Young's modulus E and the yield strength sigma_y:

Taking Young's modulus for steel at 2.9 * 10⁷ psi, 36 and 42 ksi steel have critical slenderness ratios respectively of 126 and 117. In the WTC the interfloor length was 12 feet. But with the floors securely fixing the columns at both ends, an effective length constant of 0.5 applies, placing the effective length at 6 feet. The slenderness ratio s is the effective length Le divided by the radius of gyration k. The latter is given by:

where Iyy is the minimum moment of inertia and A is the cross-section. At the intermediate-long or Johnson-Euler crossover point where the slenderness ratio equals the critical slenderness ratio, the actual capacity is 0.5 times the yield strength times the cross-section. Over the Johnson range of intermediate (and short) columns, where the actual capacity Pcr divided by the compressive capacity of yield strength times cross-section is 0.5 or greater, this multiplying factor or ratio is given by:

As would be expected, it was found that members around floor 98 were less substantial than those used for lower floors. W14x730 would have provided far too much redundancy on floor 98. Here, W14x257 was selected as the most likely size of the largest members (e.g. at the corners of the core area). The smallest columns (704 and 705) were taken as W14x53.

For a 36 ksi W14x53, Iyy is only 57.7 ins⁴, A is 15.55 ins², and the radius of gyration is 1.926 inches. Even if we assume 12 feet for the effective length, the slenderness ratio is 74.77, which is well below the critical 126. This would make the multiplying factor 0.824. If Le is taken as 6 feet, the slenderness ratio is 37.38 (under 60 is regarded as within the short column range) and the factor increases to 0.956.

For a 42 ksi W14x257, Iyy is 1290 ins⁴, A is 75.41 ins², and the radius of gyration k is 4.136 inches. Taking the effective length at 6 feet, the slenderness ratio is 17.41, well below the critical 116.7, and the multiplying factor is 0.989. Doubling Le would double s and reduce the actual capacity to 0.955 of the compressive capacity. Removing floors in sufficient numbers would dramatically lower capacity. At this point it is worth calculating how many floors could be removed before producing global instability.

WTC core column demand / capacity ratios averaged 0.48. Let's evaluate the required effective length to raise the slenderness ratio up to the critical slenderness ratio, where the capacity becomes half that of the (almost)infinitely short column. For the 36 ksi W14x53, the radius of gyration was 1.926 inches. In order for the slenderness ratio to equal the critical slenderness ratio of 126, we require 126 = Le / k = Le / 1.926, so Le = 126 * 1.926 = 242.7 inches. The boundary conditions, unless the floors are free to move as the column buckles, are fixed - fixed. So the effective length is half the actual length, which is 485.4 inches = 40.45 feet. Hence, for this column, at pre-impact cold conditions, a length of three floors or 36 feet would be suitably low. Removal of three floors, raising the length to 48 feet, should result in column buckling, with load redistributed through the hat truss and remaining floor systems to neighbouring columns. If the W14x53 column had been heated close to a critical temperature, say 500 - 600 °C, or demand had already been significantly increased due to redistribution from severed columns, then the column might not withstand the loss of one or two floors.

Now for the 42 ksi W14x257. The radius of gyration k was 4.136 inches, and the critical slenderness ratio was 117. We require 117 = Le / k = Le / 4.136, so Le = 117 * 4.136 = 483.9 inches. The length is 2 * Le = 967.8 inches = 80.65 feet. Hence, for this column, at pre-impact cold conditions, a length of six floors or 72 feet would be suitably low. Removal of six floors, raising the length to 84 feet, should result in column buckling. The other columns are weaker, and by this point global instability should result.

Let's take the case of a neighbouring column to the W14x53 (704 and 705), which would probably be a 36 ksi W14x82 or similar. For this member, Iyy is 148 ins⁴, A is 24.06 ins², so from k = SQR(Iyy / A) we find the radius of gyration is 2.48 inches. Since the critical slenderness ratio is 126, the half capacity of a perfectly short column occurs at 126 = Le / k = Le / 2.48 which places Le at 312.5 inches. The actual length is twice this at 625 inches = 52.08 feet. Hence, for this column, at pre-impact cold conditions, a length of four floors or 48 feet would be suitably low. Removal of four floors, raising the length to 60 feet, should result in column buckling. At this stage the number of collapsed columns would probably be too low to initiate global collapse, and loads would be redistributed to the more massive columns. However, if a number of perimeter and core columns had already been taken out and the remainder had been heated so as to seriously lower capacity, there would be serious risk of global instability and collapse.

So under pre-impact cold conditions, removal of two floors should not cause buckling of any columns. With three floors taken out, columns 704 and 705 would collapse, redistributing load to neighbouring columns through the hat truss and remaining floor systems. After removing four floors, some more of the smaller columns would fail, but the Tower would remain stable. Removal of five or more floors would risk instability and global collapse, since the largest columns would not be able to handle the redistributed load after most of the other columns had buckled. At higher temperatures, the first column(s) would probably start to fail after removal of two floors, with global instability and collapse a serious risk after four floors had been taken out. This is in line with the NIST analysis (NIST Interim Report, Appendix D, D-12).

Appendix D

This was for a bulk, homogeneous material, a 20 keV beam, with the elemental mass composition at C 38.39%, O 36.21%, Fe 13.2%, Ca 6.56%, Zn 1.78%, Si 1.37%, S 1.04%, Al 0.61%, Cr 0.45%, Mg 0.21%, K 0.18%. The atomic proportions, rounded to total 1,000, are C 531.6 atoms, O 376.4, Fe 39.3, Ca 27.2, Si 8.1, S 5.4, Zn 4.5, Al 3.8, Mg 1.4, Cr 1.4, K 0.8. The simulation gave an average count (or peak height) for each element of C 1900, O 3050, Fe l-alpha 300, Zn l-alpha 255, Mg 225, Al 430, Si 820, S 650, K 195, Ca 1975, Cr 140, Fe k-alpha 1275, Zn k-alpha 112. (That was averaged over ten instances.) The ratio of the other elements compared to O are, with Harrit's in parentheses, C 0.62 (0.62), Fe l-alpha 0.10 (0.18), Zn l-alpha 0.08 (0.09), Mg 0.07 (0.07), Al 0.14 (0.14), Si 0.27 (0.27), S 0.21 (0.20), K 0.06 (0.05), Ca 0.65 (0.64), Cr 0.05 (0.04), Fe k-alpha 0.42 (0.39), Zn k-alpha 0.04 (0.02).

If we suppose the iron is all in the form of Fe₂O₃, then 39.3 Fe atoms accounts for 58.9 oxygen, leaving 317.5. The remaining elements so far, in atomic proportions, are C 531.6, O 317.5, Ca 27.2, Si 8.1, S 5.4, Zn 4.5, Al 3.8, Mg 1.4, Cr 1.4, K 0.8. Now let's assume the sulfur is in the form of gypsum or calcium sulfate dihydrate, as CaSO₄.2H₂O. So the 5.4 S is used up, and accounts for 5.4 Ca leaving 21.8, and for 32.4 O, leaving 285.1. So the remainder at this point is C 531.6, O 285.1, Ca 21.8, Si 8.1, Zn 4.5, Al 3.8, Mg 1.4, Cr 1.4, K 0.8. Let's suppose the remaining Ca is in the form of calcium carbonate (CaCO₃). After deducting 21.8 C, 21.8 Ca and 65.4 O, we are left with C 509.8, O 219.7, Si 8.1, Zn 4.5, Al 3.8, Mg 1.4, Cr 1.4, K 0.8. Next we suppose that the Al is in the form of kaolin, aluminum silicate, which is Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄. (If some Al was elemental, then this overstates the allocation of O and Si.) So we take off all 3.8 Al atoms, 3.8 Si leaving 4.3, and 17.1 O leaving 202.6. Now the total stands at C 509.8, O 202.6, Si 4.3, Zn 4.5, Mg 1.4, Cr 1.4, K 0.8. We assume that the remaining Si is in the form of SiO₂, taking out the remaining 4.3 Si along with 8.6 O, leaving 194. The total is now C 509.8, O 194, Zn 4.5, Mg 1.4, Cr 1.4, K 0.8. We suppose that the Cr is in the form of zinc yellow or zinc chromate (ZnCrO₄) and so deduct 1.4 Zn, leaving 3.1, all 1.4 Cr, and 5.6 O leaving 188.4. The total is now C 509.8, O 188.4, Zn 3.1, Mg 1.4, K 0.8. Assume the potassium is in the form of K₂CO₃, so this accounts for all K, 0.4 C and 1.2 O, leaving a total of C 509.4, O 187.2, Zn 3.1, Mg 1.4. Assume the remaining Zn is as zinc oxide ZnO and the remaining Mg is in the form of magnesium oxide MgO. So the remaining O is 187.2 - (3.1 + 1.4), which leaves 182.7 atoms. So the ratio of the remaining 509.4 C atoms to the remaining 182.7 O atoms is 2.788:1.

Appendix E

The fireproofing is known to have amounted to ~56 tons per floor. As a rough estimate, if half of that was on the floor trusses, and floors 94-98 of WTC1 had "upgraded" SFRM in which accelerant comprised some 14.22% by weight, then that would total 28 * 0.1422 = ~4 tons of accelerant per floor, or ~20 tons over five floors in WTC1. If 2.72% of the SFRM + accelerants composite is polyethylene and 11.5% is ammonium perchlorate / aluminum / iron(III) oxide in the ratio 66.3% AP, 23.7% Al and 10% Fe₂O₃, then 7.6245% is AP, 2.7255% is Al, and 1.15% is Fe₂O₃. The molten iron product is 7% of the products or reactants of the AP/Al/iron oxide composition, which is 7% * 11.5 / 14.22 = 5.66% of the accelerants = 453 pounds per floor.

Appendix F

The Port Authority letter below, dated March 24, 1999 (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A p. 191), stated that "refireproofing" required "removal of existing material to ensure adequate bonding"; it could be "performed" by the tenant or by the Port Authority (although Turner Construction was the contractor), and the budget allowed for was typically $5/square foot, which is in the order of $200,000 per floor. Upgrading the trusses' SFRM for a full floor would take about two weeks.

Appendix G

669.591       + 431.712
3Mg(ClO₄)₂ + 16Al    → 3MgCl₂ + 8Al₂O₃ + 13622.8 kJ
3(-568.9)                           3(-641.3) 8(-1675.7)
13622.8 / 1101.303 = 12.369 kJ/g

The first line shows the mass of the reactants: three moles of magnesium perchlorate (MP) is 669.591 g, and 16 moles of aluminum is 431.712 g. The third line shows how the heat of reaction, 13,622.8 kJ, is derived from the difference between the heats (or enthalpies) of formation of the reactants and products in kJ/mol (the elements in their most stable form have zero heat of formation). A good reference source for heats of formation is (was!) here; note the molecular formulae have atoms in alphabetical order so can look strange, for example ammonium perchlorate shows up as ClH₄NO₄. And for atomic weights, see this link. The heat of reaction 13,622.8 kJ divided by the mass of reactants 1,101.303 g gives the yield of 12.369 kJ/g, as shown in the fourth line.

993.861       +          431.712
3Mg(ClO₄)₂.6H₂O + 16Al   →   3MgCl₂ + 8Al₂O₃ + 6H₂O + 13622.8 kJ
3(-568.9)                                     3(-641.3) 8(-1675.7)
13622.8 / 1425.573 = 9.556 kJ/g

In the above case, the MP is assumed to be in hexahydrate form. So if we don't count the energy required (supplied by the office fires) to vaporize the water as the accelerant composition is heated up towards its ignition temperature, but count the additional mass prior to heating, then 13,622.8 kJ / 1,425.573 g is 9.556 kJ/g. The theoretically better energy density has been wiped out by accumulated moisture. Oxidizers that deliver the higher yields such as magnesium- or sodium-based are less stable - e.g., hydroscopic - and so potassium or ammonium would be a better choice. The perchlorates provide a higher energy density than chlorates, which in turn beat the nitrates (when used with sulfur). So potassium or ammonium perchlorate (AP) is the better choice of oxidizer. Iron(III) oxide could have been used as a catalyst with AP.

367.308 + 215.856
3NaClO₄ + 8Al → 3NaCl + 4Al₂O₃ + 6786.5 kJ
3(-383.3) 3(-411.2) 4(-1675.7)
6786.5 / 583.164 = 11.637 kJ/g

106.437 + 53.964
NaClO₃ + 2Al → NaCl + Al₂O₃ + 1721.1 kJ
-365.8 -411.2 -1675.7
1721.1 / 160.401 = 10.73 kJ/g

169.988 + 107.928 + 32.06
2NaNO₃ + 4Al + S → Na₂S + N₂ + 2Al₂O₃ + 2780.4 kJ
2(-467.9) -364.8 2(-1675.7)
2780.4 / 309.976 = 8.97 kJ/g

704.91       + 269.82
6NH₄ClO₄ + 10 Al    → 2AlCl₃ + 4Al₂O₃ + 12H₂O + 3N₂ + 8999 kJ
6(-295.3)                         2(-583.2) 4(-1675.7) 12(-241.8)
8999 / 974.73 = 9.232 kJ/g

1409.82      + 159.687 + 593.604
12NH₄ClO₄ + Fe₂O₃ + 22Al   → 4AlCl₃ + 2Fe + 9Al₂O₃ + 24H₂O + 6N₂ + 18849.5 kJ
12(-295.3)     -824.2                       4(-583.2)       9(-1675.7) 24(-241.8)
18849.5 / 2163.111 = 8.714 kJ/g

415.632 + 215.856
3KClO₄ + 8Al → 3KCl + 4Al₂O₃ + 6048.2 kJ
3(-432.8) 3(-214.6) 4(-1675.7)
6048.2 / 631.488 = 9.577 kJ/g

122.545 + 53.964
KClO₃ + 2Al → KCl + Al₂O₃ + 1492.6 kJ
-397.7 -214.6 -1675.7
1492.6 / 176.509 = 8.456 kJ/g

202.204 + 107.928 + 32.06
2KNO₃ + 4Al + S → K₂S + N₂ + 2Al₂O₃ + 2726.2 kJ
2(-494.6) -364 2(-1675.7)
2726.2 / 342.192 = 7.967 kJ/g

159.687 + 53.964
Fe₂O₃ + 2Al → 2Fe + Al₂O₃ + 851.5 kJ
-824.2 -1675.7
851.5 / 213.651 = 3.985 kJ/g

Some thermites have a higher yield; for example, Al/MoO₃ is 18% up on Al/Fe₂O₃ at 4.702 kJ/g, and Al/MnO₂ is 22% up at 4.858 kJ/g. On the other hand, 80 nm Al has an Al₂O₃ shell of about 30%, which takes the 3.985 kJ/g of classic thermite down to 3.596 kJ/g maximum. Moreover, energy is also required for the Al to break out of the Al₂O₃ shell, and the perpetrators would need to have accurate knowledge of the proportion of oxide shell on their nano-Al and adjust the proportion of Fe₂O₃ accordingly. If they didn't know how much oxide was on their nano-Al, or didn't correctly compensate, the nano-thermite yield is further reduced since they would not have a stoichiometric mixture.

So as can be seen, the mixture potassium perchlorate and aluminum, which has a good stability, yields 9.577 kJ/g, which is nearly two-and-a-half times that of classic thermite. And the AP/Al, another mix that is suitable for long-term storage prior to use, releases 9.232 kJ/g, decreasing to 8.714 kJ/g when one mole of iron(III) oxide is added, in which case molten iron comprises about 5% of the products. To make this as "jet fuel friendly" as possible, wherever possible the product's heat of formation assumes it to be in the gaseous phase, e.g., gaseous potassium chloride's heat of formation is -214.6 kJ/mol, compared to -436.5 kJ/mol as a solid. The boiling point of KCl is 1,420 °C, and the melting point 770 °C. As it condenses, additional heat is released, and even if it escapes the SFRM it is still within a foot or two of the SFRM and steel. Thermodynamics tables do not list enthalpy values for gaseous Al₂O₃, since it is never observed experimentally. When aluminum burns, the gaseous Al₂O₃ has such a short life time that it does not even escape the reaction zone, and in fact is closer to the particle than the flame center. Almost immediately after the liquid Al vaporizes, there is a dissociation reaction Al₂O₃(g) → 2AlO + ½O₂, and then that condenses to form Al₂O₃(l). By this time it's done its job; the heat of formation of Al₂O₃ is so far into the -ve at -1675.7 kJ/mol and -16.43 kJ/g (even more than water in liquid phase) that many highly exothermic reactions can be based on combustion of Al.

Appendix H

A patent by Givens et al for the Battelle Memorial Institute filed March 8, 2006, issued July 7, 2009, is for a "thermite charge" that is "useful for cutting materials including metals, masonry, reinforced concrete, rock, and the like." It states that "Boosting the rate of the thermite reaction by flowing a stream of oxygen through the materials can raise the reaction temperature from the normal 4,000 F to the range of 10,000 F to 16,000 F. Boosting the temperature to this level greatly reduces the time associated with cutting through a material. [...] This thermite-based method will allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive shape charges without the safety concerns and security risks associated with explosives. [...] The anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds. Broadly, the invention provides for thermite charges to make linear or curvilinear cuts in materials such as building structures..." It suggests two oxidizers for boosting the cutting power. "In some embodiments extra cutting power is obtained by potassium/ permanganate (KMnO₄) and/or potassium ferrate (K₂FeO₄) disposed within the volume." And the following would be important for deceptive demolitions supposed to appear as fire-induced collapsed: "The apparatus and method typically provide for a reaction that provides cutting action in a non-explosive manner. [...] By proceeding below the speed of sound in the reacting material, a shockwave as experienced in explosives is avoided." And as for cutting time, it reiterates: "This high- temperature / high-velocity flow will allow metal structures to be defeated in a matter of milliseconds. [...] It is anticipated that the jet will penetrate a 1/2 inch thick steel target in less than 1 second."

The temperature claims appear to be very optimistic. But it's interesting that "a shockwave as experienced in explosives" can be "avoided" whilst achieving cutting times that are "similar to explosive shape charges". So much for "debunker" claims that thermite cannot be used for building demolitions...

Appendix I

According to the blogger Oystein's calculated values for the compositions of Laclede and Tnemec primers, the main differences are that Tnemec has 2.4% zinc as opposed to Laclede which has none, Tnemec has 1.9% Cr compared to 0.3% in Laclede, and Tnemec has only 0.14% Al compared to 2.4% in Laclede. The Al/Si fraction in Tnemec is only ~0.04, whereas in Laclede it is around 0.96. The ratio of the Al peak to Si peak in Harrit Figure 7 (a) to (d) is approximately unity, whereas in Figure 14 it is 0.5. However, the ratio in Millette spectra is occasionally as low as 0.43 or even 0.21, e.g., 9119-5230M3451B-red-gray(9), but generally extends throughout the range 0.5 to 1. Here are the mass compositions used for each primer in the simulations below:

Simulations of Oystein's compositions using DTSA-II at 20 keV suggest that the XEDS for Tnemec should look like: C/O = 0.92; Fe l-alpha/O = 0.08; Fe k-alpha/O = 0.33; Mg/O = 0.17. Al/O = 0.09; Si/O = 0.71; Ca/O = 0.11; Cr/O = 0.12; and Zn k-alpha/O = 0.05. Laclede should look like: C/O = 1.73; Fe l-alpha/O = 0.19; Fe k-alpha/O = 0.64; Al/O = 0.80; Si/O = 0.87; Sr/O = observed as widening of right shoulder of Si; Cr/O = 0.07. The Laclede Al/Si peak ratio should be around 0.92, whereas in Tnemec it should be about 0.13. These figures are obtained by taking an average of ten instances, so the examples shown below will differ slightly, but provide rough illustrations of how spectra from Laclede and Tnemec primer should look.

There is a little nitrogen peak in the Laclede simulation with the N mass proportion inputted at 6.7%, although this would not necessarily appear in an actual XEDS. H was set to 6.8%, and of course is much too light to detect. Values of H and N are not estimated for Tnemec, but would make little difference to the spectra unless the ratios of the other elements are changed, e.g. O reduced to ~19% so that it's the "balance" after allowing for 6-7% each of H and N, say. Or with O at 19% and H making up the balance. Here's what this revised Tnemec simulation looks like:

O is reduced considerably. Al is still much too low and C too high for the spectrum below, which has some resemblance to Tnemec.

Of the various Millette spectra, 9119-5230M3451B-red-gray(9) looks nearer to Tnemec than Laclede, since it has Zn, Cr, and a very low Al to Si peak ratio. But C looks too low even for Tnemec, and Al looks too high, so maybe Tnemec has C < 49% and Al > 0.14%. Oystein's figure of 0.14% for Al in Tnemec, then, seems to be too low, and Harrit's calculation is more accurate. If the "calcium silicates or aluminates" composition in dry paint is about 4.4%, and calcium aluminates is half of that, and the molar ratio of calcium oxide to aluminum oxide is 1:1, then Al is around 2.2% * 0.34 ~0.75%. That's not far off the simulation for Harrit Figure 14, in which Al is 0.61% - see Appendix D.

The peak at just over 1 keV looks like Na is present (k-alpha 1.041), and the l-alpha from Zn (1.009) forms its left shoulder.

Most of the spectra, however, appear to be Laclede (from floor trusses) rather than Tnemec (perimeter columns).

Appendix J

Source: Declassified, albeit redacted, FBI report on the "High Fivers" aka the "Dancing Israelis", Part 5; Full analysis

WTC Tower	Floor No.	Location	Date of Report	Average SFRM thickness (in.)	Adhesion/cohesion (psf)	Density (pcf)
1	79	Multiple tenant floor	11/24/99	2.4	333	16.6
1	81	Multiple tenant floor	10/24/96	2.7	270	19.0
1	81	Multiple tenant floor	7/16/99	2.6	377	17.5
1	83	Suite 8331	12/15/99	2.2	259	16.0
1	85	Multiple tenant floor	12/24/97	3.1	210	23.7
1	85	Multiple tenant floor	6/12/99	2.9	278	15.8
1	85	Suite 8563	8/16/99	2.8	259	16.4
1	92	Full floor	4/2/97	2.9	348	17.9
1	93	Full floor	8/28/98	2.1	186	17.0
1	94	Full floor	12/27/96	4.1	426	20.6
1	95	Full floor	8/24/98	2.6	258	19.5
1	96	Full floor	10/22/98	3.1	366	20.0
1	97	Full floor	10/22/98	2.3	432	23.5
1	98	Full floor	11/19/98	2.7	425	22.6
1	99	Full floor	11/20/98	2.4	210	17.9
1	100	Full floor	11/20/98	3.1	296	17.9
1	102	Full floor	9/28/99	2.8	327	16.4
2	77	Full floor	6/9/98	2.5	282	18.7
2	78	Full floor	4/3/98	2.7	279	17.6
2	88	Full floor	7/5/00	2.1	219	16.3
2	89	Full floor	5/5/99	2.8	324	17.8
2	92	Full floor	2/26/98	2.8	333	20.2
2	99	Half floor	7/28/97	2.6	284	21.1
2	99	Half floor	4/3/98	1.8	288	20.7

Temperature (°C)	Specific heat (J/kg.K)
25	801.6
50	868.4
100	708.4
200	925.4
300	1084.7
400	1147.5
500	1255.3
600	1299.1
800	1369.6
1000	1411.3
1200	1461.3