Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked

paulheinze said:
The energy release rate of paper is somewhat slower than the rate of thermite. Try it out, light a fire with paper on the motor block of your car. Maybe the paper wll melt through it and you prove me wrong. Or do it like the history channel, put a steel beam on one point and a pile of paper, wood or anything 10 meters away and let the vast amount of heat energy do the rest.;)

Explosives have smaller energy densities because they contain the oxidizer, whereas paper needs air. This is also the reason why they react faster and can be more destructive.
Click to expand...
What? You are saying office fires whith more heat energy than thermite can't destroy the streaght of steel?
Oops fire did this not thermite you better take some physics courses before you fall for all the nut case ideas out there.
woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg


Jet fuel has more energy, paper has more energy this means the amount of heat delivered to the steel was enough due to fires and thermite is a nut case ideas invented by a failed physicist.

Thermite reaction is over in seconds, and the WTC fell after many minutes. Thus we have office fires on multiple floors doing the damage. And those fires had much more energy than anything you have posted.
You have not posted any numbers yet, you have no clue on the amount of energy from the office fires and you have no clue how much heat energy is in jet fuel. It thermite was so great we would use it to power our cars but there is nothing like the density of energy in jet fuel and gasoline so your thermite is a nut case idea only entertained by people who lack knowledge and love crazy conspiracy theories they can't support with facts and evidence.

Please tell us exactly how and how much thermite was used to bring down the WTC. Please tell us how they made the thermite not leave the piles of iron found after thermite reacts.

You have no clue what temperate it takes to start a thermite reaction, or how to light it. You have no clue on the energy in thermite or how much was used on 911 (none). You are repeating the failed moronic lies of other people without doing the research.

The WTC were 95 percent air so the office fires don't need their own special thermite with it's own oxidizer. The oxidizer statement is extra stupid to support what? The fact the fires alone in the WTC were greater than any standard CD charge for the largest CD event ever done? Do you know the primary source of energy for CD? gravity
 
Last edited:
paulheinze said:
If you consider the energy lost to the gaseous products which have not the tendency to stick to a steel beam it is rather a disadvantage. You will need some thermal isolation like in a foundry.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Thermite's over-quick burning means that it has released its energy well before the steel had a chance to heat up. Wheras the paper products may have wasted some energy heating other things (such as the air, etc) but their steady energy release allowed the beams time to heat up.
 
paulheinze said:
Unfortunately this energy was not present anymore 10 minutes after impact.
Click to expand...

No instead you have an acre sized wildfire burning unfought for an hour reaching temperatures of over 1,000C (which nat geo showed caused a steel beam to deform and lose strength after 4 minutes).

massive twoof fail.
swing and a miss.
 
paulheinze said:
The energy release rate of paper is somewhat slower than the rate of thermite. Try it out, light a fire with paper on the motor block of your car. Maybe the paper wll melt through it and you prove me wrong. Or do it like the history channel, put a steel beam on one point and a pile of paper, wood or anything 10 meters away and let the vast amount of heat energy do the rest.;)

Explosives have smaller energy densities because they contain the oxidizer, whereas paper needs air. This is also the reason why they react faster and can be more destructive.
Click to expand...

so you have just pointed out one of the biggest problems with harrits paper...

his paint chips needed air to react... nanothermite wouldn't.

thank you for playing.
 
kookbreaker said:
Not at all. Thermite's over-quick burning means that it has released its energy well before the steel had a chance to heat up. Wheras the paper products may have wasted some energy heating other things (such as the air, etc) but their steady energy release allowed the beams time to heat up.
Click to expand...

Now I know, why steel-framed building collapse all the time due to office fires.:D
 
paulheinze said:
I admit that. But my problem is the loudness of the collapses of the WTC. They might have been loud enough to conceal BOOMs after initiation. But you are right before collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

I know you won't watch it. I know you won't even pay attention but this is for those people lurking out there
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

Now if you do watch it, pay particular attention to what CD charges sound like. Pay attention to what 60 lbs of HE going off sounds like. Then go and look at the videos of the collapses from ground level, or nearby.

notice what you DON'T HEAR.
 
paulheinze said:
Now I know, why steel-framed building collapse all the time due to office fires.:D
Click to expand...

Are you really going to try the shift to the "first time in history" bs? Really? (ps it isn't the first time for steel framed building collapses... Big Al has a HUGE list of others. It is the first time for a steel framed skyscraper. AT least get your twoof talking points correct)

try again.
 
TruthersLie said:
so you have just pointed out one of the biggest problems with harrits paper...

his paint chips needed air to react... nanothermite wouldn't.

thank you for playing.
Click to expand...

Explain to me, why iron spheres were produced after ignition. Maybe elemental aluminium is an ingredient of primer paint?
I would not use this brand of paint. But they might have used it when building the WTC.
 
TruthersLie said:
Are you really going to try the shift to the "first time in history" bs? Really? (ps it isn't the first time for steel framed building collapses... Big Al has a HUGE list of others. It is the first time for a steel framed skyscraper. AT least get your twoof talking points correct)

try again.
Click to expand...

You are right. Steel framed skyscraper. You should admit this is strong evidence against natural collapse. It is experimental data.
 
paulheinze said:
Explain to me, why iron spheres were produced after ignition. Maybe elemental aluminium is an ingredient of primer paint?
I would not use this brand of paint. But they might have used it when building the WTC.
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of possible ways that 'iron spheres' could have been produced in the towers without needing to invoke any thermite.
 
TruthersLie said:
No instead you have an acre sized wildfire burning unfought for an hour reaching temperatures of over 1,000C (which nat geo showed caused a steel beam to deform and lose strength after 4 minutes).

massive twoof fail.
swing and a miss.
Click to expand...

I remember they used jet fuel. Or did they use paper. The floor models did not collapse after two hours. I forgot the plane removed the fire proofing. Therefore the strongest inward bowing occured at a place where no fireproofing was removed according to NIST, after 20 minutes of burning.
 
paulheinze said:
You are right. Steel framed skyscraper. You should admit this is strong evidence against natural collapse. It is experimental data.
Click to expand...

There was nothing 'natural' about the collapse. You might have noticed the fires, or the planes slamming into them? Not exactly 'natural'.
 
paulheinze said:
Explain to me, why iron spheres were produced after ignition. Maybe elemental aluminium is an ingredient of primer paint?
I would not use this brand of paint. But they might have used it when building the WTC.
Click to expand...

1. There is a full debunking of this craptacular "paper" (snicker) by sunstealer. Just use the search thread and actually try to read it.
2. Lets talk about the 20 major methodological errors in this "paper" (snicker) which invalidate ANY of their findings.
3. Lets look at the spectographs they tried to pass off as "thermite" which show very interesting results which MATCH the composition of the primer paint listed by the manufacturer.

again and again, it only takes about 10 minutes of investigoogling to find. If reading isn't your thing, look up youtube Hardfire Mark Roberts 911 debates, and you will find the whole iron rich microspheres has already been covered.

10 minutes of research... is that too much to ask?
 
classic truther dodge. Fires can't destroy a building (but did you forget about the plane?). A plane cant destroy the building (but did you forget about the resulting fires).

Its either or with them; not a combination of factors
 
care to back that up? You do know that during construction, with all the welding that had to be done, those spheres could have been there from the beginning.
 
paulheinze said:
You are right. Steel framed skyscraper. You should admit this is strong evidence against natural collapse. It is experimental data.
Click to expand...

Not at all twoof. A "first time in history" claim is for the intelletually inferior. There is always a "first time in history" moment.

pre august 1945, if you would tell anyone that a city would be destroyed with just one bomb they would tell you that you are crazy. it happened 2x in 4 days. And the MAD was born.

Pre 1959 no human had ever been sent into space. First time in history.

Pre X1- no human had ever gone faster than the speed of sound in a controlled manner.

we have lots and lots of first time in history events.

Nat geo showed what happens to unprotected steel in an office fire.. it heats and sags.. how long did that take? oh 4 minutes. How long were the fires in the towers burning unfought?

Lots of examples of steel framed buildings/structures collapsing due to fire. again 10 minutes of research.
 
paulheinze said:
I remember they used jet fuel. Or did they use paper. The floor models did not collapse after two hours. I forgot the plane removed the fire proofing. Therefore the strongest inward bowing occured at a place where no fireproofing was removed according to NIST, after 20 minutes of burning.
Click to expand...

so it matters what is burning, not the temperature it reaches?

so a 2000F degree jet fuel fire is different than a 2000F degree office fire on what it will do to the unprotected steel inside the building?

how so?
 
paulheinze said:
I remember they used jet fuel. Or did they use paper. The floor models did not collapse after two hours. I forgot the plane removed the fire proofing. Therefore the strongest inward bowing occured at a place where no fireproofing was removed according to NIST, after 20 minutes of burning.
Click to expand...

Ah yes... again lack of research and understanding.

what were the statements about the scaling of that fire test? do you know? I do.

I'll let others OWN you on them.

still waiting for those citations you keep dodging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom