Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Viewing Single Post From: Proof of thermite?
Member Avatar

Posted Image

Posted Image

YouTube Links;


Please note that the following transcript is for the most part complete, but does exclude unnecessary duplication, as well
as the many occurrences of natural pauses and re-phrasings.

It is a painstaking process so please forgive any errors or omissions.

Physicist Jeff Farrer: "My name is Jeff Farrer, I have a Ph.D in Material Science in Engineering from the University of Minnesota, I have a B.A. in Physics from Brigham Young University. I've worked with solid state reactions, I've worked characterizing materials, semi-conductor materials, thin films...I currently do a lot of work with nano-particles as well as solid state reactions.

The way I got involved in 9/11 research was about in 2005, I had read Steve Jones's paper, his initial paper on why the buildings collapsed that day.

To give you a little background, on September 11th, I was actually in Alberquergue. I had an appointment at Sandia National Lab which is part of Kirtland Air Force Base. On that morning, as I was getting ready, a colleague knocked on the door and said that a plane just flew into one of the Trade Center towers. I thought, that's strange, and continued to get ready for our appointment. A little while later he came back and said that a second plane flew into the Towers and then I thought, this not your ordinary news day, something is going on. So I went out to the lobby of the hotel and people were watching the news. We all watched what happened. Obviously, the base--Sandia is part of Kirtland Air Force Base, ah, so we knew we weren't going to be getting on the base that day and sure enough, the base had 'locked-down' and no civilians were going in. So we got a car and drove back to Salt Lake City. So the remainder of that day is a little hazy for me because I wasn't sitting in front of the TV watching the News and I wasn't aware of Building 7 until I read Steve Jones's paper in 2005, which talks about Building 7, talks about the strange details and evidences surround Building 7. That is what really grabbed my attention and made want to look more into this.

So I actually looked for Steve Jones. I sought him out and we talked for a little bit. I wanted to get a feel for his sincerity and his motivation for doing this so we talked for a little bit. And then I watched one of his talks that he gave in September of 2005 at Brigham Young University. And we talked some more. At that time I was working as an electron microscopist. I was characterizing materials and I thought I might have something to offer, if, he was eventually to come across some evidence, or evidence was sent to him. So I offered what I could do to study that and get some data on any of the evidence that he might collect.

Eventually he was able to get some metal samples that were from of the steel beams from one of the Towers. We studied those. I cut up some of those steel samples and polished them to see what we would find in the steel. Some of the pieces that he acquired at the time had some corrosion. They had obviously gone through some melting and we thought those might be significant. So we were looking--and I was going in that direction, that's sort of my expertise, solid state reactions..and that's not quite solid state necessarily, but that is certainly in the realm of my expertise. So that's the direction that I wanted to go. To look at these materials, study the phases and maybe see what temperatures the steel would have to be to create these phases.

And then around 2006, I believe it was, Steve started receiving dust samples and started looking at these dust samples. So, the study of the metal samples turned up different phases. I did obviously see the steel phase and iron oxide phases. We did find an iron sulphide phase as well as an iron silicate phase. Looking at all the phases I came to the conclusion that in order to create these phases, we would have to reach a minimum of around 1100 C. So that was some preliminary work
that we did with the steel evidence that Steve was able to get from various people. In fact, one of the samples came from Clarkson College.

Some of the steel beams had been sent out to Clarkson College and they were going to build a monument with these and there was a lot of debris that was sent with the beams. Some of that evidence came from that debris as well as coming directly off of the steel columns. That's where these initial samples came from.

Obviously it required polishing these pieces of steel and then putting them in the electron microscope using x-ray analysis to find the chemistry.

I used diffraction to determine the phase, or the structure of the phases along with the chemistry. In that way we were able to determine the phases that were in the steel, or in these pieces of steel that had been corroded, or melted. Whatever the process that they had gone through. That is what we were trying to determine by looking at the phases.

We found that the phases that were there probably would require about 1100 C. That did not entirely wrap up that part of the study but that was pretty significant findings.

The question became; how do you get to those temperatures? Obviously the question of how do you get to 1100 C is significant because you don't get to those temperatures with scattered office fires or even jet fuel fed office fires. You get to maybe half that temperature.

So that question of how do you get to 1100 C? That became fairly important to me and one of the things that made me more motivated to look further into this. I don't know that I could really speculate, I mean there are any number of sources of heat that could create that temperature but certainly not jet fuel burning in open air in an office. I guess what makes these findings significant, is sort of in the manner in which we found them. The morphology of the grains of these phases. You do not get these phases with an oxyacetylene torch or whatever torch you used to cut the steel. You do not get these phases existing together the way that we found them. People might say; they cut the steel, couldn't you create phases with a torch? Yeah, you probably could. I'm not going to deny that. If that ends that investigation, than what has to happen, is you have to be able to take a torch and show that you can create these phases and so far nobody has done that.

We did find small amounts of aluminum in some of the specimens. More significantly probably, was the sulphur content that we found. In fact in one piece, I found a pore in the steel that had pure sulphur embedded in the pore, which I thought was very strange. That is when I really began looking for sulphur and finding it in great abundance in some of these phases.

So then the next question is how do you get the sulphur in these pieces of steel or in the debris? And that question is unanswered.

There are possibilities for sulphur. Any number of possibilities. There is a version of thermite called thermate which has sulphur. And what the sulphur does, is sort of like salt on ice, it creates a eutectic temperature, so it lowers the melting point of steel and in that way the thermate can melt the steel more quickly than regular thermite. The finding of aluminum in these steel samples, or what used to be steel samples, also supports the theory that thermite was used to melt the steel. I would certainly love to get an official sample of the steel that we know came from a large piece of the steel.

This was actually done by Jonathan Barnett. He was contracted by FEMA to do this and he actually took some of the steel members and cut them up. He selected some very significant pieces of steel. He found ones that had oxidation, or sulphidisation of the steel members. Some of them looked like they had been vaporized, certainly melted, and he cut up portions of that steel at the locations where he saw the sulphidisation.

He found similar things. He found iron sulphide in one phase. He found the phases rich in sulphur were attacking the grain boundaries of the steel which is exactly what thermate would do. It would go into the grain boundaries first, attack the steel, and then melt the steel. As it did that, create that eutectic temperature.

His findings were significant in that..he originally started with steel from Building 7 and his question was; Do we find the same things happening in steel from Towers 1 and 2?

And the answer to that was yes. They found very similar things to what they found in the steel of Building 7.

And then the next question was; How much sulphur do you need to create these sulphur phases? He did some preliminary tests and I think those were significant. And those are some tests that if I had the means, if I had the steel, and the time, I would like to do these tests. How much sulphur do you really need to create these sulphide phases or these sulphur-rich phases?

Some people have speculated that the sulphur could have been supplied by the wall board or the gypsum
board that was present in the buildings, and I believe that is calcium sulphate.

So it is a sulphate-rich phase, however in order for that to happen, in order for you to get sulphur out of the wall board you've got to heat up the gypsum board to high enough temperatures to dissociate the calcium from the sulphur. And then you would have free sulphur and then the sulphur could attack the steel and create these sulphide phases which go into the grain boundaries. You have got to get extremely high temperatures to dissociate those two things. And then certainly if you've got those temperatures, you've got the temperature to melt the steel. So this would require high temperatures. Certainly higher temperatures than you would get in normal office fires. This is impossible to achieve in a normal office fire. Even a jet-fuel fed office fire. This is probably one of the reasons they use wall board because it is not going to dissociate in normal office fires and attack steel members that are part of steel-framed structures. Historically this has never been a problem, that wall board dissociates and you have a lot of sulphur in fires attacking steel members. The wall board is actually there to protect the steel.

So Jonathan Barnett's Study which I thought was very well done and quite extensive is all documented by FEMA in their Appendix C in their BPAT Report, that was May of 2002. Unfortunately, it was never used in the NIST Report and it wasn't really used in the explanation for how the buildings fell in the FEMA Report either. So it seems that although the Report was done and it was very well done, the Report never used Barnett's Study to explain; or should I say that the questions that they brought up in that Report which are; Where did the sulphur come from? How much sulphur do you need to create these phases? And how do you get the temperatures required to create the phases? I believe in the Report they put in a minimum temperature of 940 C to create the phases and that is at the eutectic. So those questions were never addressed either by Jonathan Barnett's Study or the FEMA Report itself, or by the NIST Report. These questions were never addressed. I think they are significant because you've got this evidence here. How do you get those temperatures? Where do you get the sulphur? These are things that we should be asking and people should be investigating.

So around in 2006, Steve Jones was working on some other evidence that he had acquired which was dust evidence. One of the things that he was doing was going through that dust with a magnet and finding spheres, micro-spheres, whatever you want to call them, and looking at those spheres and trying to get the composition of those spheres. It is a difficult task at best to try and determine the composition of these spheres because in order to get the internal composition so you have to somehow break these open and fortunately he was able to find some that were actually broken open. At this time Steven was working with a student at Brigham Young University, a physics student, Daniel Farnsworth is his name, and together they were working on the electron microscope and using x-ray analysis to try and determine the chemistry of these micro-spheres. To be honest, when Steve told me it was looking through these dust samples, I thought this was a fool's errand. I thought this is a 'needle in a haystack'. I didn't think they would find anything really significant, to be honest, I really didn't. So I stuck working on these steel samples which I thought were significant, and I still do.

Eventually Steve came to me and said; "we're finding these red/gray chips", and I didn't really think anything of it. They could have been anything.. The significant thing about the red/gray chips was not just the frequency that they were finding them, but also, they were attracted by a magnet which was his method for pulling out these spheres. So he was pulling out the spheres as well as the red/gray chips. And so he came to me and said; "were getting some interesting compositional analysis from the red layer of these red/gray chips, we're actually seeing peaks of aluminum", as well as other things, but the aluminum peak was significant. He would find those aluminum peaks as well as iron peaks and oxygen peaks and various other peaks. But the aluminum, the iron, and the oxygen together were very significant because this is your composition for thermite. So that is when I started to get a little bit more interested and more interested in these red/gray chips. But I didn't really start working on these red/gray chips and Steve and Daniel were continuing to find things about the chips and they would bring that information to me and eventually I said, "okay."

I remember we were sitting in office and he [Dr. Steven Jones] was talking about the red.gray chips and I thought,
okay, if you really want to see if these red/gray chips are significant, what we could do is take one of these chips and put it in a calorimeter and see if they are energetic.

I found a lab that had a calorimeter that we could use, it is a DSC, Differential Scanning Calorimeter and learned quickly how to use the calorimeter, and how to calibrate it and make sure we doing everything properly. I actually had somebody that really uses it a lot there with me as I conducted these experiments. So we put one of the larger chips that we had into the calorimeter and let it run to see what would happen and that was really a turning point for the red/gray chips for me because we got a peak on the calorimeter which shows that these red/gray chips were energetic. They were very exothermic and the width of the peak was also significant, it showed the power that the chips had. The significance of the calorimeter cannot be understated here. The calorimeter can't lie to you. If you get a sharp peak in the calorimeter, that material is energetic. The degree of its energy is determined by the height of the peak and the power at which it goes off is the width of the peak. We were finding that this very small chip had a lot of energy packed into it, more than you would find in everyday materials at the office. And certainly the number of chips they were finding in these random dust samples made the fact that they were present in such quantity, also made them significant. It certainly wasn't an anomaly because we were getting multiple dust samples from multiple individuals who had no connection with each other. Had no connection to Steve or myself. And they are sending us these dust samples and every one of the dust samples was showing red/gray chips. It was striking in their similarity. The paper that we wrote about the red/gray chips, you can actually see, we've taken photographs of these red/gray chips to show these things were so similar, we could not ignore these red/gray chips any longer and that is where the data for the paper really took off.

Some have speculated that the red/gray chips are just paint. I have not seen any studies of paint by those who are speculating this. We did our own study of paint in the DSC and found that the paint will eventually burn up and turn to ash but
it certainly doesn't give you an energetic spike in the DSC. So we actually did some experiments to compare the elemental composition of primer paint from the World Trade Center steel that was taken off one of the Clarkson College beams. But it was taken from one of the beams used in the World Trade Center. The chemical composition did not match that of the red/gray chips so we know that it is not the primer paint that is on the steel. Once the chips are ignited in the DSC we then looked at the residue of those chips in the microscope again and we did find very small spheres that were similar to the micro-spheres that Steve was finding in the dust samples. Smaller on average but still very similar in composition and look to the micro-spheres that Steve was finding."

One of the things about the paper that compiled all this data from the red/gray chips. The first thing we wanted to do was establish that all of the chips were similar. When I say all of the chips. Chips collected from the different dust samples that were collected from different areas in Manhattan, from different individuals who are not associated.

Once we collected different chips from the different samples we then took photo micrographs as well as looking at them in the scanning electron microscope and then compositional analysis of both the red layer and the gray layer. All these things showed that these red/gray chips are the same. The compositional analysis of the red layer was the same. The compositional analysis of the gray layer was the same. Their appearance, cleavage habit and micro structure appeared the same. Then we ran multiple samples through the DSC and found that they behaved almost identical. Once we were able to establish that all these things were the same, that is when we tried with more confidence to find out what these things really were.

So now what we have is from the composition of the red layer, we have an aluminum peak, we have a silicon peak, we have the iron and the oxygen as well as other peaks.

One of the things that we did to insure that we weren't getting surface contamination, we took some of these chips, which are very very small by the way. And under a microscope we were able to cleave these chips or break them in half and then study the fresh or the broken surface so that we weren't getting surface contamination. These things were coming in in bags of dust so who knows what kinds of contamination you get on the surface.

So we were looking at clean edges in order to get the composition and that is where we found the silicon, as well as the aluminum peaks and the iron and oxygen peaks in abundance and throughout all of the red layers in all of these chips.

The gray layer was also interesting. We found that that was mostly iron and oxygen and again, each gray layer was identical in its compositional analysis as well as its appearance. What we found with the DSC, their was actually some significant findings in the residue.

After igniting these chips in the DSC, we found micro-spheres that were very shiny in appearance. Some of them were almost glassy, a little translucent and we found that these micro-spheres had the identical or very similar composition as the spheres that Steve was finding in the dust samples. They were also very similar to spheres found in commercial thermite. Once you ignite commercial thermite you also get micro-spheres and the composition was very very similar. And that lead to the conclusion of the paper which was, we've got some form of thermite in these red/gray chips. And I think it is a very strong conclusion.

There have been some who have argued that these red/gray chips could be paint of some form. We did a study on some epoxy paint. We put that in the DSC. We found that that paint would just burn up and turn to ash. You may get a minor exothermic peak but it is not energetic. It is a very smooth wide peak and it is certainly not an energetic material. As part of the actual paint [WTC] that we ignited in the DSC, it was basically ash. There were no micro-spheres found. We also took paint that came off of the WTC steel and looked at that in the scanning electron microscope and did compositional analysis of that and found that it was not similar to the red layer of the red/gray chips. The red/gray chips are not the primer paint that was used on the WTC steel.

There are a lot of questions that came up during the paper that have been left unanswered, or unanswered, but need to be answered. Just an example; what is the gray layer? What is the purpose of the gray layer? We know it has a lot of iron, we know it has a lot of oxygen. We found that there is a hematite phase but there are other phases present in that gray layer and we don't quite what that gray layer is and how it is adhered to the red layer. Certainly further study needs to be done.

Occasionally we would find an intermediate layer between the red layer and the gray layer which was rich in carbon. Perhaps a polymer type layer. But, again, we need to further with that study to determine what those things are.

There are some characteristics of the red layer that are rather significant. One is that it is not homogeneous. There are different particles or grains within the red layer that we studied. One appeared very bright under a back-scattered electron microscopy which indicates a heavier phase. And we looked into those small particles and they were rhombohedral in shape and very consistent throughout the layer. They were roughly about 100 nanometers in size. They were very consistent in both their size, the shape of them and as well as the composition we could get from the SEM.

Additional studies in the TEM (transmission electron microscope) found these were iron oxide phases. There were other particles present in the red layer. There were some plate-like particles and those again, were consistent throughout the red layer, throughout all of the samples that we found. Those appeared to have higher aluminum and silicon peaks in their compositional analysis and one of the significant things that we find in the red layer is the fact that these particles that we find in the red layer are..the fact that they are consistent. The fact that they are consistent in shape, in composition, and in size, leads me to believe that these are not naturally occurring materials. The red layer is not a naturally occurring material. Sure you have iron oxide everywhere that you have iron you get an iron oxide. But you don't get them in nice little 100 nanometer rhombohedral shaped particles inside of a very small red layer. By the way, just to give you a reference on the size, these particles that are in the red layer are thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. So these are very sophisticated particles of very sophisticated materials. Not materials that we would expect to find in the demolition debris of a building. In order to get that kind of consistency with shape and size and to be that small, these really are sophisticated materials. And probably only developed in a laboratory. They maybe processed outside a laboratory but they are developed in a laboratory.

There were several other things that were found that we put into the paper that I think are very significant and the conclusion of the paper really does fit well with the data that we collected. Our conclusions were that the red/gray chips are some form of thermite or nano-thermite or an energetic material which is very similar to thermite. It is a very strong conclusion given the data.

Now others may say; could it be something else? Certainly. It certainly could be something else.

I am not about to say that we've completely ruled out everything. But, those conclusions we made in the paper are very strong given the data.

If there is another possibility, that is something someone can come forward with using the same very stringent scientific method that we used in this paper, and publish that, and I can guarantee they will find that our work is completely reproducible. If you find other red/gray chips, they will look and have the same composition and the same behavior in the calorimeter as the red/gray chips that we found. Now if they come up with different conclusions than we do, that is their prerogative of course, and I would like to see that. I like to see other people looking at these things because that reproduces our results and it also brings us to a discussion which needs to happen.

We need to be talking about this.

There needs to be another investigation of the events of that day and that is why I signed the petition at the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website."


Please feel free to quote from this transcript.

Edited by Miragememories, Nov 9 2010, 04:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post
Proof of thermite? · World Trade Center