Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

[Dog Town]

I dont know of any paint which is more explosive than tnt nor do i know of paint reacting at 430c .

So I guess the next question you might ask is?

Let me help:
Is there any super/duper/ther/mate/mite/etc..., that this works with?
Hmmm...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Golotomer, you need - I say again, need - to read this thread before raising points which have already been discussed.

I also suggest that you conduct searches for prior discussion of elements regarding that paper. Everything you bring up has already been addressed.

 

[R.Mackey]

I dont know of any paint which is more explosive than tnt nor do i know of paint reacting at 430c in a exothermic reaction which creates molten iron.

Just stop it, please? You have even less than a clue what you're talking about. "Explosiveness" is not measured by an exotherm. Nor is there even the slightest hint that Dr. Jones's bits of dust are the least bit explosive. Go google the word "Brisance," and don't bother posting here or anywhere until you understand what it means.

MEK solvent used on red chips seperated silicon rich regions of the red chips,while the aluminium seperated into aluminium rich regions.A solvent will not seperate aluminium and silicates because paints like kaolin are aluminosilicates and solvents do not dissolve aluminium and silicates from an aluminosilicate.
Not only that the cross section and treated red chips displayed no zinc or chemicals used in wtc primer paint.

We'll add "solvent" to the terms you don't understand, and you also should be aware that the dust chips aren't even all the same compared to each other... Again, every single thing you've said, we've heard before, and we already know it means nothing.

 

[soylent]

"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more
energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the
blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite
is 3.9 kJ/g [27].

Plain old table sugar contains 17 kJ/g. Thermite is not particularly energetic.

We suggest that the organic material in
evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most
likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure"

Sounds more like perfectly ordinary paint binder to me.

 

[golotomer]

The exotherm was sharp and narrow this indicates a fast reaction like you said before
The wattage is indicator of explosiveness.

Lets see your paint explode

 

[R.Mackey]

Here you go, champ: Paint Fume Explosion Took no time at all to find this. Additionally, there is no reason to think Dr. Jones's samples are explosive, nor is there any reason to suspect explosives in the structures in the first place. You've just double-strawmanned yourself, and managed to be smug about it at the same time. Hot diggety damn.

A sharp exotherm, again, refers to duration of reaction. But on that curve, you're talking about a reaction propagating through 20 nm of solid...

Since you're both too incompetent to know what "brisance" means and to look it up when prompted, let me explain something extremely basic to you. Whether or not something is an explosive depends on (a) whether it supports a self-sustaining reaction and (b) on the speed of that reaction. An exotherm doesn't measure this. It doesn't measure distance, so it cannot measure speed.

The difference between a low explosive and a high explosive is whether or not the reaction front exceeds the speed of sound in the explosive. This determines whether or not you can produce a sharp pressure shock by reacting the material.

The material that Dr. Jones reacted was what, 20 nm thick?? Assuming the sound speed in that material was, for round numbers lets say 400 m/s, you would need time resolution of (20 nm / 400 m/s) = 5 x 10^-11 or 50 picosecond resolution.

Do you see picoseconds listed anywhere on that plot? Didn't think so.

Again, paper would also provide a sharp exotherm, and at an even lower activation temperature. And with roughly ten times the energetic content. This mystery substance is in no way whatsoever remarkable.

Wattage, likewise, is a measurement of power. Wattage in terms of combustion energy is not a function of the material so much as available oxygen, configuration, temperature, etc. Wattage is never used as a measurement of explosiveness. You can describe a particular explosion in terms of power, but it is dependent on way too many things.

 

[golotomer]

youtube.com/watch?v=GJmgYUR-QHg&feature=channel

here dr jones has the answers

 

[Arus808]

no, its the same lies he's been tellling since 2006. can you please provide the reports where he has submitted his dust samples to MIT, or at least UCLA to have it tested?

 

[tsig]

youtube.com/watch?v=GJmgYUR-QHg&feature=channel

here dr jones has the answers

dr jones isn't posting here, you are.

 

[FineWine]

youtube.com/watch?v=GJmgYUR-QHg&feature=channel

here dr jones has the answers

Stop wasting everyone's time. You don't know anything.

 

[twinstead]

It appears that there are just enough idiots who actually think Jones has a clue to keep threads like this going on relatively obscure internet forums, and on relatively obscure internet forums ONLY, basically forever.

 

[Dog Town]

youtube.com/watch?v=GJmgYUR-QHg&feature=channel

here dr jones has the answers

But, these go to eleven!

 

[AtLiberty]

uh dude

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

Yeah Uh debunker dude: Cadweld, a trade name for a product similar to Thermate, with similar reation has been around since 1938. So you can keep thinking 2 planes took down three buildings and all the PNAC war profiteers deserve the money they stole from you if it makes you happy. If you liked Bush, torture, a million deaths in Iraq endless war on false pretense of course you'd love a pet goat too.

contractconnections.co.nz/cadweld.shtml

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
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

Yeah Uh debunker dude: Cadweld, a trade name for a product similar to Thermate, with similar reation has been around since 1938. So you can keep thinking 2 planes took down three buildings and all the PNAC war profiteers deserve the money they stole from you if it makes you happy. If you liked Bush, torture, a million deaths in Iraq endless war on false pretense of course you'd love a pet goat too.

contractconnections.co.nz/cadweld.shtml

He said "nanothermite" and he's right and you are wrong.

I've been looking for any evidence that in 2009, the world's supply of nanotherm-anything is measured in anything but grams.

 

[Klimax]

Yeah Uh debunker dude: Cadweld, a trade name for a product similar to Thermate, with similar reation has been around since 1938. So you can keep thinking 2 planes took down three buildings and all the PNAC war profiteers deserve the money they stole from you if it makes you happy. If you liked Bush, torture, a million deaths in Iraq endless war on false pretense of course you'd love a pet goat too.

contractconnections.co.nz/cadweld.shtml

Time for direct questions:
Do you have any calculation hwo much thermite would be needed?
Do you have any idea how much energy was needed to cause collapse?
Do you know how large neccessary amount of thermite is?
Do you know why reaction of thermite was not visible?
Do you know why there was NO evidence,no remaining of thermite reaction?
Do you know when,how and by whom it got into towers?
Do you know time needed for placement of thermite for wanted result?
Do you know why it wasn't affected by planes?
Do you know what role thermite was supposed to servev?
Do you know energy density of thermite?
Do you know what affects amount of released energy?
Do you knwo anything about thermite at all?
(There may be more questions,but this should be enough!)

This was never,is not and cannot be political issue.All debunkers are of various political leanings.
For war in Iraq 11/9/2001 never server as significant reason(for you pretext)
All other assertions you used,they are simply false at least in regard of 11/9/2001.

And last question:
Do you have ANY evidence for any of your assertions? No evidence,no convincing!

Answer all of those question and bring evidence or don't expect any nice response!

 

[alienentity]

Anyone have further insights into the formation of 'iron-rich' spheres in Jones' samples?

Here's my original question followed by one answer. Thanks in advance.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4710002#post4710002


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4723861#post4723861

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Anyone have further insights into the formation of 'iron-rich' spheres in Jones' samples?

Here's my original question followed by one answer. Thanks in advance.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4710002#post4710002


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4723861#post4723861

Ryan Mackey had a good observation about the potential source for the spheres:

It doesn't matter. The microspheres are a problem for you, no matter how you look at it. Either (a) this substance (actually paint) already contains the microspheres, in which case finding them later is no surprise; or (b) the substance by itself, and at low temperatures creates microspheres, in which case finding them in the dust afterwards is unremarkable.

You seem to have forgotten your own argument, once again. The argument is that the microspheres must come from structural steel, and that supposedly indicates extreme temperatures. But, what this shows is that if you burn this stuff all by itself, at a low temperature, you get microspheres in the residue without the steel ever being involved. Either way, it shows microspheres exist without any steel melting whatsoever, so it disproves the Truther axiom that microspheres == steel heating.

In short: Even if spheres were generated as opposed to being already present in the material, we need to remember that one of the reactants is iron oxide. Who's to say that the source of the iron for the iron spheres came from the structural steel instead of that? The researchers again show their bias by trying to claim that the microspheres came from the building's steel, when their own experiment - which, by the way we need to remember was conducted in the absence of the WTC steel - shows otherwise.

Furthermore, I think Sunstealer also mentioned at one point that the spheres were actually heterogenous enough to where citing the melting point of pure iron was irrelevant, since the other materials would've resulted in the mix having a much lower melting point overall. If anyone remembers the post I'm talking about, feel free to link it; I can't seem to locate it at the moment.

 

[alienentity]

Yes, thank you. I've read both posts. I think Mr. Mackey was referring to the spheres in the dust samples, not those created by combustion of the red chips.

And sunstealer did make a reference to the possible lower temps of sphere creation. That's really what I'd like to inquire further about.

For example, given the composition of the Jones spheres, does anyone know how to calculate the likely temperature necessary to create them? I haven't got a clue how to figure this out myself.

But truthers are using the spheres to justify a claim that temps of chips MUST have reached at least 1400 C. If that's not correct, I'd love to know specifically why so I can relay that argument in future.

many thanks.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, thank you. I've read both posts. I think Mr. Mackey was referring to the spheres in the dust samples, not those created by combustion of the red chips.

I don't think so. The context of his remark was a discussion about the paper. It was in fact a specific reply to an element of the paper Metamars highlighted.

And sunstealer did make a reference to the possible lower temps of sphere creation. That's really what I'd like to inquire further about.

For example, given the composition of the Jones spheres, does anyone know how to calculate the likely temperature necessary to create them? I haven't got a clue how to figure this out myself.

But truthers are using the spheres to justify a claim that temps of chips MUST have reached at least 1400 C. If that's not correct, I'd love to know specifically why so I can relay that argument in future.

many thanks.

I need to defer to others on that point. If I had the composition, I could perhaps retrain myself on how to figure that sort of property out, but it's been too long a time since my last chemistry course.

Again, I invite anyone who remembers that post to provide a link, if they'd be so kind.

 

[alienentity]

I don't think so. The context of his remark was a discussion about the paper. It was in fact a specific reply to an element of the paper Metamars highlighted.


I need to defer to others on that point. If I had the composition, I could perhaps retrain myself on how to figure that sort of property out, but it's been too long a time since my last chemistry course.

Again, I invite anyone who remembers that post to provide a link, if they'd be so kind.

Yes you're right. My apologies. Mackey does allude to the formation of spheres from chip combustion; this doesn't explain HOW they were created, nor whether the combustion involved the 1400C + temps alleged by Jones et al.
If you look at the pictures from Jones' paper it's hard to imagine they were already there prior to combustion. It seems more likely that they were in fact created during combustion of the chips. Does this imply very high combustion temps? If so it would seem to be a point in favor of Jones, Harrit et al.

As for spheres found in WTC dust, several sources have been suggested, such as Arc welding or Flyash, but neither of those sources is low temperature AFAIK.