5. High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions

Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.

5

High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions

This chapter provides an overview of evidence showing the occurrence of hightemperature thermitic reactions in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. The evidence that will be examined includes molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, molten metal in the debris of all three buildings, sulfidated steel in WTC 7, and iron spherules and nano-thermite in the World Trade Center dust.

In the last two chapters, we examined the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 during their destruction. We will now turn to evidence showing the occurrence of high-temperature chemical reactions before and during the destruction of the buildings. As in previous chapters, we will evaluate whether this evidence is more consistent with the hypothesis of fire-induced failure or the hypothesis of controlled demolition.

To guide our evaluation of the competing hypotheses, we will apply the third principle discussed earlier — “None of the relevant evidence should be ignored” — to the investigation of high-temperature chemical reactions. “Chapter 23: Explosions” of NFPA 921, which is the national guideline for fire and explosion investigations, states: “All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all the physical damage criteria as well as any other significant data.” On the potential use of exotic accelerants, including thermite, NFPA 921 advises: “Indicators of exotic accelerants include…melted steel or concrete.”

As we will see below, NIST did not follow NFPA 921. Instead, it handled the evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions in much the same way it handled the evidence regarding the structural behavior of the buildings: either denying it, ignoring it, or providing speculative explanations not based upon scientific analysis. This is because there is no plausible, logical