• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

Sunstealer said:
What tfk has been even more generous and done a calculation using 100µm thickness, when Jones' chips (red layer - the gray layer doesn't form part of the reaction) only have a thickness of no more than 15µm as shown by their own paper!
Click to expand...
Hey Sun,

You are right that, in all of the images that Jones shows, the thicknesses seem to be on the order of 10 - 15µ.

I was going by the text in his paper, which stated (pg 9): "Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray)", and using the upper bound. So to get a "nominal", divide all the temp rises by about a factor of 5 to get "best guesses". Unimpressive before. Unimpressive now.

Clearly, it just doesn't matter.

I've been agog at the fact that Jones et al, never thought to ask the question, "what would a 50µ layer DO to a typical steel column?"

I get the feeling that Jones has been working with subatomic particle so long that he doesn't have much of a feel for how massive a 4' x 3' x 5" thick x 37' long box beam really is.

It's also a continuing wonder that they have not taken the (IMHO) relatively easy step of buying and/or fabricating a bunch of 8' lengths of the core & peripheral columns. And then having something to experiment on. To try to cut with thermite. To see what a thin layer of superthermite would do, etc.

If they had a reasonable attitude, they might get the folks in NYC holding the remnant pieces to give them some. Although they might have burned that good will long since.

This really is a bunch of silliness. How much time, effort, good will, & healing up in smoke. Their own time & effort is theirs to spend. But there comes a time when it is not their own wound that they are keeping open.

[Ahh, hell. I gotta take that back. I don't want anyone having the power to say "no more investigation into that!" We all just gotta endure (perhaps ignore) the process. Just like the NEXT 10 JFK / Pearl Harbor / Holocaust, etc. investigations that numbskulls put us thru.]

tom
 
alienentity said:
'Galileo' wrote 'The scientists found the thermite. It says right in their report' Too late, dude. Other scientists already investigated, for FEMA and NIST and concluded that the buildings fell due to plane impacts and fires. It says right in their reports.

btw, I did a quick check on the 'scientists' who contributed to the paper. I can't find Kevin Ryan's bio, but he was 'a lab director at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc'. He was apparently fired for unprofessional conduct. You can read about it if you wish.

Next on the list:
Farnsworth, physics student at BYU
Jeffrey Farrer - lab manager
Gregg Roberts - journalist - bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work
James Gourley - attorney with science background, not a professional scientist

If this little hodgepodge impresses you so much, why is it that you ignore the impressive list of professional scientists who came to different conclusions long ago? Ah yes, you don't like what they concluded, therefore they must be wrong.

btw, you went off topic as much as anyone else on this thread, so you can't complain about it. You were even talking about burning debris piles and thermite......hypocrite!

Here's a sample of qualified persons who contributed to just the NIST WTC7 report released in 2008:

S. Shyam Sunder, Sc.D. (NIST) Lead Investigator
Richard G. Gann, Ph.D. (NIST) Final Report Editor; Project Leader, Project 5:
Reconstruction of Thermal and Tenability Environment
William L. Grosshandler, Ph.D. (NIST) Associate Lead Investigator; Project Leader, Project 4:
Investigation of Active Fire Protection Systems
H.S. Lew, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire
Codes and Practices
Richard W. Bukowski, P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire
Codes and Practices
Fahim Sadek, Ph.D. (NIST) Project Leader, Project 2: Baseline Structural Performance
and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis
Frank W. Gayle, Ph.D. (NIST) Project Leader, Project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical
Analysis of Structural Steel
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and
Collapse Analysis
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and
Collapse Analysis
Jason D. Averill (NIST) Project Leader, Project 7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and
Emergency Communications
J. Randall Lawson (NIST) Project Leader, Project 8: Fire Service Technologies and
Guidelines
Harold E. Nelson, P.E.
Click to expand...

You "forgot" this regarding Jeff Farrer's background:

"Background
Managing the electron microscopy facility for the Department of Physics and Astronomy since Oct 2003. Formerly with TexSEM Laboratories Inc. (TSL/EDAX) as Senior Applications Scientist. Received a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Minnesota. Studied solid-state reactions and migration of interfaces in oxide and nitride materials systems. Received a B.S. in Physics from Brigham Young University. Current research includes nanoparticle characterization, solid-state reactions, characterization of thermitic reactions, grain-boundary migration, transmission electron microscopy, orientation imaging microscopy."

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...ID=23+Jeffrey+Farrer&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 
Toke said:
tfk,
Thanks, :)
I can´t see if you include the energy to heat the thermite too, but glad to see my guess of 2-3 orders is not too far off.
Wonder if galileo will conclude anything from the quick and dirty paintjob calculations.:D
Click to expand...

My ship have been offline for a week.
I am disapointed that you have not had time to consider the energy content in a paintjob.
 
tfk said:
Hey Sun,

You are right that, in all of the images that Jones shows, the thicknesses seem to be on the order of 10 - 15µ.

I was going by the text in his paper, which stated (pg 9): "Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray)", and using the upper bound. So to get a "nominal", divide all the temp rises by about a factor of 5 to get "best guesses". Unimpressive before. Unimpressive now.

Clearly, it just doesn't matter.

I've been agog at the fact that Jones et al, never thought to ask the question, "what would a 50µ layer DO to a typical steel column?"

I get the feeling that Jones has been working with subatomic particle so long that he doesn't have much of a feel for how massive a 4' x 3' x 5" thick x 37' long box beam really is.

It's also a continuing wonder that they have not taken the (IMHO) relatively easy step of buying and/or fabricating a bunch of 8' lengths of the core & peripheral columns. And then having something to experiment on. To try to cut with thermite. To see what a thin layer of superthermite would do, etc.
Click to expand...
It is really quite hilarious. It shows how far confirmation bias can affect one's judgement. After all the nonsense about thermite cutting columns and molten metal they now back down and talk of fuses for other explosive charges - so the whole thing is back to square one.

I don't think Jones and his mob could ever admit that their thermite theories are not correct - they had no option, but to claim thermite in their silly paper, because to do otherwise would leave a huge amount of egg on their faces and reduced revenue from people who are too stupid to know better.

I wholeheartedly agree that it's gilding the lily with regard to examining their paper, it's merely a professional exercise for me. Truthers always seem to hone in on one fact without looking at the bigger picture eg:

Heiwa - part C cannot crush part A.
Christopher7 - molten metal - dude only thermite can melt steel!
psikeyhackr - How much steel and concrete were in the towers.

Then there are the myopic nitpickers who think they have cut the grass of an entire football field by plucking one blade of grass. Then there are the real crazies.

None of them ever see the bigger picture so we end up playing the game and having to refute claims that overall don't really matter.
 
Sunstealer said:
I don't think Jones and his mob could ever admit that their thermite theories are not correct - they had no option, but to claim thermite in their silly paper, because to do otherwise would leave a huge amount of egg on their faces and reduced revenue from people who are too stupid to know better.

I wholeheartedly agree that it's gilding the lily with regard to examining their paper, it's merely a professional exercise for me. Truthers always seem to hone in on one fact without looking at the bigger picture eg:

Heiwa - part C cannot crush part A.
Christopher7 - molten metal - dude only thermite can melt steel!
psikeyhackr - How much steel and concrete were in the towers.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. This is why Dr. Jones and this thermite nonsense form a section in my whitepaper on Irreducible Delusion. His nonsense since I wrote this is completely in keeping with my hypothesis.
 
The smaller the nanoparticles in nanothermite the faster the reaction....
and the lower the temperature required to ignite it....

This is why All thermites/thermates are variable,you add elements you change particle size to get the desired effect.
1.The explosion rate is tunable
2.Can act as a incendary
3.Can react underwater.
4.The speed of the 'explosion' can be altered.
5. Adding different elements give different effects like sulphur causing a eutetic mixture in steel.

Thats why its considered 'the explosive of the future' DOD.
 
yes they have had nanothermites for very long now.

To say its kaolin paint is funny. How can kaolin paint have elemental aluminium 1/600th the size of a human hair interlinked with nanorust.
Then it explodes,it doesnt combust but rather it explodes it has more energy/sec than known nanothermite samples.

The total energy released is not important for explosives.A Chocalate biscuit doesnt explode!
An explosion is a sudden release of energy which creates a shockwave of heat and pressure.
The quicker the energy released per second is the more explosive it is.
This is why the material is proven explosives.
The red chips also created iron spheres after dsc.Iron melts at 1400c .This is impossible from combustion of organic materials.A thermitic reaction took place.
 
uh, dude, nanothermite in its concept has only been around for the last 4 years (at most).

nanothermite, has nothing to do with power of the incendiary (you missed this completely). its just "smaller" thermite. it has the same power and reaction as normal thermite.



stop being hooked on the "nano" part. that doesnt make the substance "uber" powerful
 
golotomer said:
yes they have had nanothermites for very long now.

To say its kaolin paint is funny. How can kaolin paint have elemental aluminium 1/600th the size of a human hair interlinked with nanorust.
Then it explodes,it doesnt combust but rather it explodes it has more energy/sec than known nanothermite samples.

The total energy released is not important for explosives.A Chocalate biscuit doesnt explode!
An explosion is a sudden release of energy which creates a shockwave of heat and pressure.
The quicker the energy released per second is the more explosive it is.
This is why the material is proven explosives.
The red chips also created iron spheres after dsc.Iron melts at 1400c .This is impossible from combustion of organic materials.A thermitic reaction took place.
Click to expand...

Here's some info:
http://www.answers.com/topic/super-...ish/articles/article4_howbigisananometer.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermite

http://www.answers.com/topic/super-thermites

Besides your hero is now saying that it was just a trigger for the jet fuel.
 
Last edited:
golotomer said:
The smaller the nanoparticles in nanothermite the faster the reaction....
and the lower the temperature required to ignite it....



Thats why its considered 'the explosive of the future' DOD.
Click to expand...

Nope. Lower ignition temperature is a bug, not a feature. And the more "nano" it gets, the lower energy density it has, which is also a bug.

The only worthwhile applications for nanothermite -- real ones, not made-up guff about painting it onto steel so that you could heat it by about five degrees -- are in extreme precision environments. Think tiny, tiny explosives to cut traces on circuit boards or sever microscopic cables. Talk to the inventors if you don't believe me.

But thanks for trying. We've already buried this particular bit of pseudoscience.
 
R.Mackey said:
Nope. Lower ignition temperature is a bug, not a feature. And the more "nano" it gets, the lower energy density it has, which is also a bug.

The only worthwhile applications for nanothermite -- real ones, not made-up guff about painting it onto steel so that you could heat it by about five degrees -- are in extreme precision environments. Think tiny, tiny explosives to cut traces on circuit boards or sever microscopic cables. Talk to the inventors if you don't believe me.

But thanks for trying. We've already buried this particular bit of pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


It seems that the only debunking weapons needed now are a hammer and a wooden stake. Well sunlight works too.
 
yea you burried it with your peer reviewed article in bentham :rolleyes:

“Reaction rates between nanosize aluminum
and metal oxides can be significantly greater
than those observed with traditional micron-size
thermite powders. Reactions occurring between
metal and metal oxide powders are accompanied
by the generation of high temperatures
(>3000 K). Super-thermites, formed by mixing
of aluminum and metal oxide nanopowders result
in energy release rate by two orders of
magnitude higher than similar mixtures consisting
of micron size reactants” [22
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom