Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

[lapman]

The nine scientists found thermite, and they published the findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Your claims are not relevant nor are they supported by evidence.

False. They publish their speculation in a vanity rag of very dubious credibility. Not exactly something to brag about. Their "evidence" points to other things and not just thermite. Add to the fact that all 9 are not qualified to perform the analysis, that is also a strike against them. Highly biased research is never considered good science.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The nine scientists found thermite, and they published the findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Your claims are not relevant nor are they supported by evidence.

they found a substance that burns in air

lots of things burn in air, they proved nothing

 

[WildCat]

What happens if we don't?

Hilarity ensues!

 

[Dave Rogers]

You think that 100 tonnes of thermite wouldn't cause the 14-week fires, but you also think that the office fires from the tops of the WTC burrowed underground and stayed on fire for 14 weeks.

You're very good at building strawmen. Nobody's suggesting that fires burrowed anywhere.

Explain how fires at the top burrowed underground and stayed lit for 14 weeks.

A huge pile of debris contained a mixture of unburnt fuel, burning fuel and non-combustible materials. The heat from the burning fuel ignited the unburnt fuel in the rubble pile, the oxygen supply was limited because of the non-combustible materials around it, but the heat couldn't escape for the same reason. The fires continued to burn at a rate limited by the oxygen supply, which resulted in combustion continuing slowly for a very long time.

Now, explain how a thermite reaction continued for 14 weeks. Note that thermite contains its own oxidiser, so the reaction can't be slowed by limiting the oxygen supply.

Dave

 

[Galileo]

False. They publish their speculation in a vanity rag of very dubious credibility. Not exactly something to brag about. Their "evidence" points to other things and not just thermite. Add to the fact that all 9 are not qualified to perform the analysis, that is also a strike against them. Highly biased research is never considered good science.

moderators - please look at this post. This thread is suppose to be about the scientific findings of the thermite paper and Hoffman's analysis of it, or related science issues.

Is is not supposed to be a debate about the Bentham journal. If someone wants to debate the Bentham journal, they can start a new thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The nine scientists found thermite, and they published the findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

You can't have it both ways, Galileo. Either you stop claiming the peer review in support of the paper, or you accept that the validity of the peer review process is a suitable topic for discussion.

Besides, I suspect that there are more scientists, better qualified, posting in this forum, than the total of those who wrote and reviewed the paper.

Dave

 

[Galileo]

they found a substance that burns in air

lots of things burn in air, they proved nothing

from Hoffman's paper:

"When the chips are heated to about 430ºC, they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC -- the melting point of iron."

 

[lapman]

moderators - please look at this post. This thread is suppose to be about the scientific findings of the thermite paper and Hoffman's analysis of it, or related science issues.

Is is not supposed to be a debate about the Bentham journal. If someone wants to debate the Bentham journal, they can start a new thread.

Then stop bringing up the fact that they are supposed to be peer-reviewed. That leaves it open to be responded to.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

from Hoffman's paper:

"When the chips are heated to about 430ºC, they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC -- the melting point of iron."

and? its a substance that burns in air

BTW thermite ignites a higher temperature and burns hotter as well

 

[Dave Rogers]

from Hoffman's paper:

"When the chips are heated to about 430ºC, they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC -- the melting point of iron."

As I pointed out earlier, this is Hoffman's spin on the paper. The authors of the original paper only claim high temperatures, and advance in evidence of this iron-rich microspheres indistinguishable from those already known to be formed by burning coal. In short, the paper doesn't support its own conclusion, and Hoffman has gone beyond even what the paper claims.

I wish you'd pay attention to your own thread. I've already said all this.

Dave

 

[lapman]

from Hoffman's paper:

"When the chips are heated to about 430ºC, they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC -- the melting point of iron."

Still meaningless. It has to burn at that temperature long enough to heat the steel to that temperature. It's not instantaneous. Their own experiment proves that wouldn't happen.

 

[Galileo]

You can't have it both ways, Galileo. Either you stop claiming the peer review in support of the paper, or you accept that the validity of the peer review process is a suitable topic for discussion.

Besides, I suspect that there are more scientists, better qualified, posting in this forum, than the total of those who wrote and reviewed the paper.

Dave

Wrong - Bentham is a peer reviewed scientific journal. They publish thousands of papers by thousands of scientists. There is nothing to debate on the subject.

http://www.bentham.org/

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong - Bentham is a peer reviewed scientific journal. They publish thousands of papers by thousands of scientists. There is nothing to debate on the subject.

Since you've raised the point, can I remind you of Ryan Mackey's evidence that the peer review process as practiced by Bentham is shockingly poor? And if there's nothing to debate on the subject, why are you so interested in preventing it being debated?

Dave

 

[Galileo]

Still meaningless. It has to burn at that temperature long enough to heat the steel to that temperature. It's not instantaneous. Their own experiment proves that wouldn't happen.

That proves it isn't red paint.

 

[lapman]

Wrong - Bentham is a peer reviewed scientific journal. They publish thousands of papers by thousands of scientists. There is nothing to debate on the subject.

http://www.bentham.org/

What a bunch of crap. That particular "journal" only has 12 articles. That's a far cry from "thousands."

 

[lapman]

That proves it isn't red paint.

Since they didn't test the exact type of paint that was used on the WTC for comparison, you can't say that.

 

[Galileo]

Since you've raised the point, can I remind you of Ryan Mackey's evidence that the peer review process as practiced by Bentham is shockingly poor? And if there's nothing to debate on the subject, why are you so interested in preventing it being debated?

Dave

Start your own thread. This thread is about science. Mackey has provided no evidence regarding the peer review of the paper in question.

 

[Sunstealer]

OMG 3 pages in 3 hours...accomplishing nothing, over the same ridiculous point.

Oh well, so what else is new.

TAM

Ouch my eyes! I've seen better looking train wrecks than this thread. This is why I don't bother much anymore. It's utterly pointless apart from providing information to lurkers and the sane. I don't know why people waste their time unless they are looking for a stundie generating machine.

 

[Lupie]

How can one argue that there is a "thermitic reaction" when no such term exists in any of the known languages on Earth? Especially when considering that all legitimate uses of the word "thermite" refer to an INCENDIARY compound, not an EXPLOSIVE compound?

Thermite is not now, nor will it ever be, an explosive. It is an incendiary device that burns strictly downward at extremely high temperatures very very VERY quickly. Any military member who's ever had to handle AA&E could tell you that.

Sabrina,

I've mentioned to Galileo twice in as many days, that I demonstrated the safe and proper deployment of Thermite Grenades on more than two dozen separate occasions during my time as a training NCO in US Army, and not a single one ever exploded.

As you already know, Thermite is indeed an incendiary, not an explosive. I was rebuffed the first time with some drivel about nano-blah blah blah. The second time I was simply ignored. The fact that I have firsthand experience with Thermite means nothing. The truthers are so predictable. You just have to sit back and laugh. This so-called "movement" is a joke.

 

[Shalamar]

moderators - please look at this post. This thread is suppose to be about the scientific findings of the thermite paper and Hoffman's analysis of it, or related science issues.

Is is not supposed to be a debate about the Bentham journal. If someone wants to debate the Bentham journal, they can start a new thread.

A discussion regarding the science of the paper, must include everything regarding the paper. Including the validity of the Journal, AND regarding chain of custody of the 'chips'.

The science they did was.. very poor. There is very little they would have to do to prove their findings.

They need to show that these chips can burn without the presence of oxygen. A nice vacuum chamber, devoid of atmosphere would do nicely.

They need to show proper and substantiated chain of custody of the chips. They tested the chips, they also need to show that they indeed came from ground 0. Otherwise, it is very poor investigating and science since the chips could have come from anywhere.

They need to show the source of the paint that they tested the chips against.

They also need to test the chips against paint actually used in the towers. This would go a long way towards solidifying their hypothesis regarding the use of Thermite in the collapse of the towers.

They also need to publish their findings in a proper and reputable journal. One that does its own peer review. Not a 'pay to publish' journal.

The above are fairly simple things used to validate their claims. Until they clean up, and actually use science, all they have are claims. They have proved nothing, other than they have red chips of something that contains some elements, and burns nicely in air.