Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

Kenn

New Member
You made claim, I asked you rather specifically for evidence that backs up your claim.
Your attempt to reverse the burden of evidence, and your falling back on personal attacks, both shed a negative light on your confidence in the veracity of your claims.

I must thus reject your claims ("The iron spheres produced by the non-thermitic reactions you're talking about is iron oxide, which is quite different from the iron spheres found in the WTC dust and produced by the thermitic reactions of the red/gray chips by Harrit et al.") out of hand - what you asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

I stand ready to have an adult discussion with you about the Harrit paper, and how it refutes itself (the data presented actually contradicts its conclusions), once you resolve to drop the insults, and to present evidence for your assertions, or to retract your assertion when you find you can't support them with evidence.
I think you already found you can't support them with evidence. So please retract your claims now.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Harrit paper fails to confirm the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust.

All I find anywhere are discussion boards and YouTube videos that claim to do this. A prime example are your assertions above. I'm sorry, but individuals don't get to just say it ain't so, absent a published study, and expect someone to take his word for it.

When you supply me with a published study that refutes the findings of the Harrit et al. paper, I will be happy to have a discussion with you.

Good day, Mr. Oystein
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
When you supply me with a published study that refutes the findings of the Harrit et al. paper, I will be happy to have a discussion with you.

Perhaps you could also supply a published study that confirms the findings?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The burden of proof is on those who claim ...
You had made a claim, I had quoted it and asked you to support it with evidence.
You have since responded twice, and twice failed to support your claim - it was something about microsphere, the thread topic.
I conclude tentatively that you cannot support your claim with evidence, that instead you made it up out of the blue. I await your response that does include evidence. Your burden of proof still. Don't evade it, don't believe you can lure me away from your no-show of evidence!

...that the Harrit paper fails to confirm the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust.
Yes, I claimed this, but that would be off-topic - a derail that YOU introduced on September 27!
I still stand ready to back up that claim to anyone seriously and honestly interested - but that would have to go in a different thread.
I do not trust that you are debating seriously and honestly, since you keep trying to deflect the debate from the claim that YOU made without evidence on Sept 23.
Please back up your claim with evidence OR retract it now without further ado, when you admit that you cannot support your claim with evidence. That will show that you debate seriously and honestly.

When you supply me with a published study that refutes the findings of the Harrit et al. paper, I will be happy to have a discussion with you.
What dishonest silliness!
Why are you even debating here if the only standard that you accept is "published" papers? You made a claim above - can we reject it because YOU, Kenn, haven't published it in a journal?

And besides, a true statement, and a valid argument, are true and valid no matter who made it where <-- AGREED OR NOT?
Published articles can make false claims and invalid arguments.
Youtubes and debate forums can host true claims and valid arguments.

Don't dance around your burden of proof. You made an assertive claim on September 23, and I asked you to back it up with supporting evidence on September 24. That's where this bit of debate is still at: You haven't supported ypur claim yet!
 

Kenn

New Member
Perhaps you could also supply a published study that confirms the findings?

I do acknowledge that I cannot find another study that confirms the findings of the Harrit paper. I am waiting for the publication of a second study, whether it confirms or refutes the Harrit findings. So far, there is just one, to which I imagine there would be great interest by a number of individuals and organizations in either confirming or refuting. Perhaps if NIST had tested what should have been among the very first of hypotheses of the buildings' collapses, particularly in the case of WTC 7, this issue would have been resolved long ago. Instead, NIST took seven years to complete a computer model purporting to show initiation of collapse by failure of a single support column, but would not release it in its entirety.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Harrit paper fails to confirm the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust. ... Good day, Mr. Oystein
Please read the paper, it makes claims not supported by the experimental data. DSC not match thermite, and the energy for four samples does not match. How do you explain the energy and DSC? Harrit and Jones waved their hands and declared thermite, yet not a single piece of WTC steel was damaged by thermite. Why don't the samples match thermite? The paper did not prove the presence of elemental aluminum, how do you explain this? Why has the paper never made it past speculation?

The paper peer review was by fellow 9/11 truth believers with various plots they can't define or support with evidence, including no planes, and other unsupported claims.
The paper has never made the news because the findings are not supported by the speculations made.

For this thread we find iron micro-spheres are found in fires where iron bearing substances are present; thus the iron micro-spheres are not evidence for thermite, but are evidence of iron bearing substances being present in the WTC. The big problem with claiming thermite was used on 9/11 to cause the collapse is the total lack of damage to WTC steel due to thermite, and the total lack of thermite products found after 9/11.
There is no burden of proof required for a paper which failed to prove the presence of thermite used on 9/11. You need to produce damage to WTC steel due to thermite, something Jones and Harrit failed to find.

Jones made up the thermite claim with no evidence, only speculation and false claims four years after 9/11.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/7drxn

WTC collapses due to controlled demolition
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the links above to see the actual collapse for yourself, please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE: http://tinyurl.com/7drxn ) Yet the floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as observed is prima facie evidence for the use of pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features. Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverizations, and I can provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking errors/omissions?)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)

8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

This article was posted on 9.16.05
Content from External Source
The paper did not prove thermite. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim for thermite, the paper failed.
 

Kenn

New Member
You had made a claim, I had quoted it and asked you to support it with evidence.
You have since responded twice, and twice failed to support your claim - it was something about microsphere, the thread topic.
I conclude tentatively that you cannot support your claim with evidence, that instead you made it up out of the blue. I await your response that does include evidence. Your burden of proof still. Don't evade it, don't believe you can lure me away from your no-show of evidence!


Yes, I claimed this, but that would be off-topic - a derail that YOU introduced on September 27!
I still stand ready to back up that claim to anyone seriously and honestly interested - but that would have to go in a different thread.
I do not trust that you are debating seriously and honestly, since you keep trying to deflect the debate from the claim that YOU made without evidence on Sept 23.
Please back up your claim with evidence OR retract it now without further ado, when you admit that you cannot support your claim with evidence. That will show that you debate seriously and honestly.


What dishonest silliness!
Why are you even debating here if the only standard that you accept is "published" papers? You made a claim above - can we reject it because YOU, Kenn, haven't published it in a journal?

And besides, a true statement, and a valid argument, are true and valid no matter who made it where <-- AGREED OR NOT?
Published articles can make false claims and invalid arguments.
Youtubes and debate forums can host true claims and valid arguments.

Don't dance around your burden of proof. You made an assertive claim on September 23, and I asked you to back it up with supporting evidence on September 24. That's where this bit of debate is still at: You haven't supported ypur claim yet!

Laypersons such as myself and, I'm sure, the majority of the public in regard to chemistry must rely on published studies by experts in the field to assist them in forming their own opinions and conclusions.

I eagerly await the publication of another study that will either confirm of refute the findings of the Harrit paper. It seems to me there should be numerous individuals and organizations eager follow up with their own scientific studies.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...to which I imagine there would be great interest by a number of individuals and organizations in either confirming or refuting...
Perhaps you imagined that claim about microspheres that you made on Sept 23, too?

Perhaps if NIST had tested what should have been among the very first of hypotheses of the buildings' collapses, particularly in the case of WTC 7, this issue would have been resolved long ago. Instead, NIST took seven years to complete a computer model purporting to show initiation of collapse by failure of a single support column, but would not release it in its entirety.
Off-topic.
You run further and further from the thread-topic, to which you provided a claim, but failed to support it with evidence.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I eagerly await the publication of another study that will either confirm of refute the findings of the Harrit paper. It seems to me there should be numerous individuals and organizations eager follow up with their own scientific studies.

I think this perception is wrong. Personally I think it would be great if conspiracy theories that are believed by a large number of people were addressed by mainstream science. I was involved in just such an effort regarding "chemtrails". However there really isn't much motivation when the vast majority of relevant scientists consider the controlled demolition hypothesis to be preposterous.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Laypersons such as myself and, I'm sure, the majority of the public in regard to chemistry must rely on published studies by experts in the field to assist them in forming their own opinions and conclusions.
If that's your honest standard, fine.
Then please cite the published studies by experts that support the claim you made on September 23. If you cannot do that, then retract the claim, as, by your standards, it is not supported by evidence and can thus be dismissed without evidence.

I eagerly await the publication of another study that will either confirm of refute the findings of the Harrit paper. It seems to me there should be numerous individuals and organizations eager follow up with their own scientific studies.
This is still beyond the topic of this thread. STOP that line of discussion at once!!

You made an assertive claim on Sept. 23.
Please back it up with evidence or refute it!
I should be saying "1-2-3 - you're out", but I am nice, I give you a fourth chance to provide the evidence I asked for. If you fail a fourth to address your own claim of Sept 23, and its lack of evidence, by either
- retracting the claim
- supporting it with evidence
I shall come to the final conclusion that you are not interested in reasoned and honest debate.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I do acknowledge that I cannot find another study that confirms the findings of the Harrit paper. I am waiting for the publication of a second study, whether it confirms or refutes the Harrit findings.
That desire would be furthered better if this one paper had been published in a true peer review journal rather than in a pay-to-publish or a review-by like-minded-fellow journal.
So far, there is just one, to which I imagine there would be great interest by a number of individuals and organizations in either confirming or refuting.
Actually another was commissioned... Millette? Concluded that the chips were primer paint
Perhaps if NIST had tested what should have been among the very first of hypotheses of the buildings' collapses,
You mean completely ignore the large, fast aircraft as causes of two, and the hours long unchecked fires for the third.
particularly in the case of WTC 7, this issue would have been resolved long ago. Instead, NIST took seven years to complete a computer model purporting to show initiation of collapse by failure of a single support column, but would not release it in its entirety.
ONE building, in which no one died. You do understand why this report was delayed until after the other reports were completed
 

Chainsaw

New Member
The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Harrit paper fails to confirm the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust.

All I find anywhere are discussion boards and YouTube videos that claim to do this. A prime example are your assertions above. I'm sorry, but individuals don't get to just say it ain't so, absent a published study, and expect someone to take his word for it.

When you supply me with a published study that refutes the findings of the Harrit et al. paper, I will be happy to have a discussion with you.

Good day, Mr. Oystein

Then why did Jones insist the spheres were first Iron oxide spheres from thermate not thermite?

Why are the spheres Identical in spectra to fly ash?

I wouldn't be surprised if reduced Microspheres are found, as Thermal Lances produce them, or they can be produced though dirrect reduction with H2. The burden of proof is on Harrit and Jones it can not be removed until the findings are conclusive which now they defiantly are not.

Why did Jones and Harrit reference the fly ash microspheres in RJ Lee's paper?
 

Chainsaw

New Member
Laypersons such as myself and, I'm sure, the majority of the public in regard to chemistry must rely on published studies by experts in the field to assist them in forming their own opinions and conclusions.

I eagerly await the publication of another study that will either confirm of refute the findings of the Harrit paper. It seems to me there should be numerous individuals and organizations eager follow up with their own scientific studies.

Only if and when the studies are valid accurate and make no false claims that should have been rejected in peer review.

A paper saying the sky is green with orange pokadots, would not be a valid study.

The Harrit and Jones study makes a false claim there fore it can not be taken as an accurate, and valid scientific study.

That claim is in relation to the percentage of Microspheres and there creation as addressed in the RJ Lee study.
A study of one building for a law firm that can not be referenced to give an average concentration of all microspheres in the dust,
and calls the Microspheres Fly ash not reduced Iron.

There fore Jones and Harrit are contradicted by the RJ Lee study, and are in fact in conflict with it.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Seems to me the sample space and collection conditions were uncontrolled as far as the truther *studies* go. And then they never explain how the iron micro sphere producing thermite they claim was placed, where it was placed, how much was used, how it was placed, how it was ignited, how the placement went undiscovered, and so on... what it did to the steel and how it produced the collapse observations on record.

Jones was caught pushing the false interpretation of the diagonal cut column claiming it was done with thermate. And we know that there were torches used in the clean up process and perhaps before in the recovery period which would contaminate the site and could produce by products unrelated to the collapse. We don't know when the samples were taken either. Iron micro-spheres do not seem to be something unexpected in fires and collapses of office towers. But one would have to have data / samples from other similar steel framed buildings which burned and collapsed in part or in whole.
 

Chainsaw

New Member
Jeffrey the Microspheres are meaningless, Jones knew that when he published the Bethlehem paper, he was confronted with the truth and ran from it, pyrite is the major sources of Iron Microspheres in coal, as well as reduced Iron.
The extra large sphere Fe 3O4 in my own finger tips was created similar to Microspheres used in xerography, from rust Fe 2O3 at around 1400 C, In a chimney event, there are problems with all Jones samples and his data no firm or accurate conclusion can be drawn from any of Jones and Harrit work, and all attempts at duplication or conclusive finding have failed.
Jones work must for all intended purposes be considered Junk science of no relevancy to understanding the events of 9/11/2001.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Does anybody know specific what type of epoxy resin Millett is doing his FTIR on?
Are you talking about Dr. James Millette's study for Chris Mohr on red-gray chips from WTC dust?

Then the question is posed weirdly. Millette did not do FTIR "on epoxy resin". He did it on the red layer of selected chips, not knowing what the material is - the whole purpose of the study was to identify the previously unknown material.

FTIR revealed that the red layer of some chips contains a major proportion of epoxide functional groups - in layman's speak, that would be specific and typical types of branches or twigs on the tree of a larger molecule. This proves that the organic matrix, or a significant portion thereof, is cured (read: former) epoxy resin - not epoxy resin itself.

You are probably meant to ask if Millette was able to identify the specific type of resin and/or curing agent(s). The answer is: No. Just that it's epoxy. All epoxy resins have epoxy functional groups, by definition.
 

Thomas Green

New Member
Thanks a lot for that answer. Do you know if DSC-measurments have been conducted on epoxy resins, so it can be compared to Harrit et als DSC-measurement on the red/grey chips?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Thanks a lot for that answer. Do you know if DSC-measurments have been conducted on epoxy resins, so it can be compared to Harrit et als DSC-measurement on the red/grey chips?
DSC is rarely done to measure the heat flow of chemical reactions - it is therefore in most cases a less-than-competent method for material characterisation, and quite a folly as a forensic tool for material identification, especially when you know that your unknown material is a mix of several unknown substances.

However, I do have this paper (a PhD thesis), that interestingly studied preparations of thermite with epoxy:

Ferranti, Louis, Jr.: Mechanochemical Reactions and Strengthening in Epoxy-Cast Aluminum Iron-Oxide Mixtures. Georgia Tech Theses and Dissertations, 2007.

The Chapter "Characterization of Thermochemical Reaction Energetics" begins on page 185. Ferranti did DTA, not DSC - it's a similar method, but not the same, so you can't compare output plots 1:1.

First, make sure to read and understand Section 4.2.1 on page 185f. Take note of the following to statements:
a) "...it is challenging to extract quantitative measurements of the thermal properties of the sample using DTA, tough the temperatures at which transitions occur can be identified fairly accurately."
b) "...all runs were made in an inert argon atmosphere."

Now go to Figure 4.19 on page 192! It has several DTA plots - the black curve denoted with the letter "e" is for pure epoxy.
Follow that curve slowly from left (20 °C) to right.
Under 100 °C, there is some up and down, which the author does not comment on. I think this could be an indication that the material has been freshly prepared - epoxy not fully cured, perhaps some left-over solvent, whatever.
Beyond 160 °C, the epoxy curve slowly rises above 0 -indicating some weak exothermal reaction. After about 340 °C, the curve rises to a first peak, which occurs at ~380 °C. The author explains:
Each composition shows an initial exothermic peak at 383.1 ± 6.1 °C due to crystallization. This is known as cold crystallization and occurs upon heating polymers that are amorphous or have very low crystallinity [171].
Content from External Source
Ok, so we learn: Epoxy typically shows an exotherm around 380 °C due to crystallization.

Next, we see a trough in the epoxy plot, with a local minimum at ~400 °C (although still above 0, i.e. exotherm). the author explains:
The crystallization peaks were followed immediately by an endoderm that ranged between 397 and 410 °C, corresponding to the decomposition of epoxy. Pure epoxy has a decomposition temperature of 410.2 ± 0.7 °C, which is in fairly good agreement with many studies conducted for epoxy resin cured with numerous hardeners [172-174]. The thermal stability in cured-epoxy resin systems will depend, in part, on the chemical structure and bonds, as well as on the functionality and crosslinking density of the resin [171]. The volatile products evolving from the decomposition of epoxy typically include water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide [172], however, the specific makeup is primarily dictated by the resin and hardener composition. The addition of solid particles appears to slightly influence the decomposition temperature.
Content from External Source
Please take note that both processes now identified - exotherm crystallization, endotherm decomposition - do not involve any reaction with any other substance.

The epoxy curve goes on to a large hump, but the author no longer comments on the properties of epoxy.
We won't need to either, as will become apparent shortly.

Let's now look at Harrit et al's DSC curves:



I retouched Fig. 19 - added the x-axis, so it is easier to see where 0 is; and also added some vertical lines to aide reading the temperatures at which things "happen".

Check out the red and the blue curve!

Notice:
  • They start rising abobe zero near 180-200 °C
  • They have first small peaks slightly under 400 °C
  • These peaks are immediately followed by troughs
Do you see how the behaviour of these two curves nicely matches the behaviour of Ferranti's DTA curves? The temperatures are slightly higher than Ferranti's, but as Ferranti explained, mixing epoxy with stuff tends to alter event temperatures somewhat, so no surprise there.

Of course, Harrit's curves then run to a sudden and seemingly steep peak at ~425 °C - a departure from the slower development of Ferranti's sample.
What happened here? -> The epoxy ignited - burned on ambient air!
Look here: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf - Table A-1 lists the ignition temperature of epoxy as 427 °C!
It's clear now why we need not look any further on Ferranti's graph - Harrit's sample burns and no longer is epoxy.



I think you will now agree with me that the red and blue curve in Harrit's Figure 19 are quite consistent with epoxy - while the green and black curve are not! Harrit et al tested two different materials in the DSC, and never understood this! This goes to show their flabbergasting incompetence. In fact, they show DSC data, but don't in fact use it to make their case - there is no intelligent comparison, no explanation of DSC data!
I just gave you an explanation for two of the four plots. They are consistent with an epoxy-based paint.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Millette did not do FTIR "on epoxy resin"

So how did he obtain the red graf? http://www.nmsr.org/millette.jpg
Most probably pulled it out of a reference database. The software that processes and analyses the FTIR hardware's raw data would typically come with a reference database - provided by the manufacturer, or the result of some cumulative effort. You don't look at FTIR (or XEDS, or SAED, or...) graphs by naked eye and compare them to dozens or hundreds of samples of reference materials you scanned yourself. The computer does the identifying for you. In the XEDS graphs, all the symbols of chemical elements are inserted by the software.

(Interestingly, the XEDS graphs in Harrit et al are NOT labeled by software, but by the authors manually, as you can tell for example by the failure to label the clear magnesium peak in Fig. 14; several element labels missing in Fig. 7, too. I can't tell if this was incompetent handling of the XEDS output, or a deliberate decision to hide the presence of elements deemed inconvenient to the authors).
 

Me2

New Member
Not to reopen a months dead thread, but were the mix designs for the concrete in WTC published or provided somewhere? Fly ash is common in concrete now, but I would only be guessing regarding when the towers were built.

Regarding the molybdenum microsphere, thermite isn't quite hot enough to melt molybdenum, 4500 F vs 4753 F to melt elemental Mo.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Not to reopen a months dead thread, but were the mix designs for the concrete in WTC published or provided somewhere? Fly ash is common in concrete now, but I would only be guessing regarding when the towers were built.

Regarding the molybdenum microsphere, thermite isn't quite hot enough to melt molybdenum, 4500 F vs 4753 F to melt elemental Mo.

light weight no stone aggregate...
 
Top