Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

[lapman]

The fire was underground and people saw the smoke. Others saw the molten steel flowing underground.

Which means absolutely nothing.

 

[zooterkin]

nano-thermite research has been done by the U.S. Military, they have released papers on that. Nano-thermite is merely very small pieces of thermite. Very small pieces of thermite exist.

I'm sure they do. What does this have to do with the paint on the metal found at ground zero?

 

[lapman]

nano-thermite research has been done by the U.S. Military, they have released papers on that. Nano-thermite is merely very small pieces of thermite. Very small pieces of thermite exist.

What year was that?

 

[boloboffin]

Just wondering -- has someone done a calculation based on the percentage of WTC dust these red/gray chips constitute to figure out how much "active thermitic material" was physically scattered all over Manhattan?

 

[nicepants]

wrong. The nano-thermite was placed inside the WTC, on the core columns next to the elevator shafts, every other floor, in column rose 5, 6, 9, and 10. Thermite was also placed in the corners of the WTC every 25 to 20 floors.

I'm not finding that in Jones' paper (or hoffmans). Do you have a few pages the rest of us don't?

The fire was underground and people saw the smoke. Others saw the molten steel flowing underground.

A thermite reaction produces molten iron, not steel.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

nano-thermite research has been done by the U.S. Military, they have released papers on that. Nano-thermite is merely very small pieces of thermite. Very small pieces of thermite exist.

so how does that make it an explosive?

i understand the concept of a finely powdered thermite to increase reaction speed, but it doesnt make it an explosive, or worthy of any name of the than thermite

"nano-thermite" is just a buzzword invented by the truth movement

 

[Galileo]

What year was that?

Gregory Urich posted links to the military research on another thread.

 

[Galileo]

Just wondering -- has someone done a calculation based on the percentage of WTC dust these red/gray chips constitute to figure out how much "active thermitic material" was physically scattered all over Manhattan?

The scientists measured the thermite to be 0.05% of the dust.

 

[Galileo]

I'm not finding that in Jones' paper (or hoffmans). Do you have a few pages the rest of us don't?



A thermite reaction produces molten iron, not steel.

That is in Gordon Ross's speach, found here:

Gordon Ross' WTC demolition presentation - June 8, 2007
http://www.911blogger.com/node/

Steel is mostly iron with some carbon. Molten steel is mostly molten iron as well.

Super-hot thermite melts steel.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you now admitting that there was thermite, but that even 100 tons of it would not be enough to maintain an underground fire for three months?

No. No sane person could read my post and construe it as an admission that there was thermite present. Please, however, explain how 100 tons of thermite could continue to react for three months. As a starting point, assume that the flame velocity in meters/second is 602exp(-2.5d) in nanoparticle thermite and 0.1exp(2.0d) in micron particle-sized thermite, where d is the density in g/cm^3 (http://pdf.aiaa.org/jaPreview/JPP/2009/PVJA36436.pdf). We'd all like to see your working.

Dave

 

[Galileo]

so how does that make it an explosive?

i understand the concept of a finely powdered thermite to increase reaction speed, but it doesnt make it an explosive, or worthy of any name of the than thermite

"nano-thermite" is just a buzzword invented by the truth movement

Greg Urich (not sure of spelling) posted links to nano-thermite reseacrh by the U.S. military in another thread.

Your statement that nano-thermite is a buzzword invented by the truth movement is false.

 

[SteveAustin]

To the lurkers out there

To all you lurkers out there...

Can you find all the tactics used on this thread against Galileo's?

38 ways to win an argument

Or from ...

How to debunk just about anything

See how many of those you can find in all the responses on this thread. Once you have gotten all that chaf out of the way then you can get down to really seeing this discussion.

*Note: I am not supposed to point out these tactics, as it angers them to not be able to use them with impunity.

As for the paper that Galileo linked to, it is a nicely written summary of some of the key facts from the Harrit Thermitic materials paper. Take the time to read it.

 

[Galileo]

No. No sane person could read my post and construe it as an admission that there was thermite present. Please, however, explain how 100 tons of thermite could continue to react for three months. As a starting point, assume that the flame velocity in meters/second is 602exp(-2.5d) in nanoparticle thermite and 0.1exp(2.0d) in micron particle-sized thermite, where d is the density in g/cm^3 (http://pdf.aiaa.org/jaPreview/JPP/2009/PVJA36436.pdf). We'd all like to see your working.

Dave

I said that the thermite explains why the fires burned for 14 weeks. I have not ruled out other explosives or chemicals that might have been used along with the thermite to destroy the WTC and create the underground fires.

 

[Dave Rogers]

so how does that make it an explosive?

Actually, it makes it an explosive by definition. An explosive is simply a rapid-burning substance containing its own oxidation source, and thermite composed of nanoscale particles reacts rapidly enough to fit that definition.

Dave

 

[Galileo]

To all you lurkers out there...

Can you find all the tactics used on this thread against Galileo's?

38 ways to win an argument

Or from ...

How to debunk just about anything

See how many of those you can find in all the responses on this thread. Once you have gotten all that chaf out of the way then you can get down to really seeing this discussion.

*Note: I am not supposed to point out these tactics, as it angers them to not be able to use them with impunity.

As for the paper that Galileo linked to, it is a nicely written summary of some of the key facts from the Harrit Thermitic materials paper. Take the time to read it.

Thank you for the kudos, Steve! I appreciate your comments.

 

[johnny karate]

To all you lurkers out there...

Can you find all the tactics used on this thread against Galileo's?

38 ways to win an argument

Or from ...

How to debunk just about anything

See how many of those you can find in all the responses on this thread. Once you have gotten all that chaf out of the way then you can get down to really seeing this discussion.

*Note: I am not supposed to point out these tactics, as it angers them to not be able to use them with impunity.

...and therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I said that the thermite explains why the fires burned for 14 weeks.

And I have said that this claim is unfounded. Please provide some evidence that a thermite reaction can persist for 14 weeks.

Dave

 

[boloboffin]

The scientists measured the thermite to be 0.05% of the dust.

By volume? By weight? What's the total amount of dust estimated to be?

 

[Dave Rogers]

To all you lurkers out there...

Can you find all the tactics used on this thread against Galileo's?

38 ways to win an argument

29 If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion--that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute.

Perhaps you should explore the remaining 37 options for a change.

ETA: By the way, no. 34 is an interesting addition to the list. It's suggesting that there's something invalid about pointing out fatal flaws in your opponent's argument. 34 is actually a valid way to win an argument. How many more of those are in the list?
ETA2: This is interesting. Numbers 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 20, 25, 26 and 27 are all valid ways of showing one's opponent's position to be fallacious, yet are included as invalid ways to win an argument. SteveAustin, it looks like your appeal to authority isn't too impressive here. Apparently, getting your opponent to agree to all your premises, then demonstrating that these premises lead inevitably to your conclusion, is somehow an invalid way to win an argument. I can see why truthers would object to it.

Concerning Hoffman's summary of the paper, (a) the paper has been discussed, criticised and shown to be fatally flawed in other threads, in particular the posts by Sunstealer, which I suggest all lurkers serach for and read; (b) Hoffman himself has inserted his own interpretation into the summary, going beyond the conclusions of the original paper; and (c) Galileo has himself further interpreted Hoffman, making further unsupported claims which he declines to justify. In particular, Galileo is claiming that a thermite reaction can persist for 14 weeks, an extraordinary claim, and advancing no evidence in support of that claim.

Dave

 

[Galileo]

...and therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

I do not follow your logic. SteveAustin did not assert that his post was a logical proof that 9/11 was an inside job.