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

[cmatrix]

Dr. Jones describes layers from roughly 10 to 100 microns in thickness, hardly "uniform." He also shows plots of two different elemental compositions. Furthermore, the only pseudo-independent to see these particles, Dr. Henry-Couannier, complained that in the sample he received, there were no such chips. His were strictly of the "Red" variety, not bi-layered at all.

Every time I cut a slice of bread it has a different thickness. I guess its not bread right? Each slice is uniform in texture, composition etc. however. See how language works?

What two elemental compositions?

Dr. Henry-Couannier? The fellow who seems to be implying Jones and Harrit may be disinfo agents and cold fusion brought the towers down? Mark Basile has also confirmed the results.

Nope. The size of the particles observed is consistent with pigments in paint. The rhomboid components are also much wider than 100 nm, which means they aren't nanotech at all.

Back to the explosive fire-resistant primer paint eh? Look up the word "either" in the dictionary.

There is abundant evidence that Bentham is a vanity publication. I confirmed that Dr. Jones's earlier paper was never properly reviewed over a year go in person, as you can read in my posts in this thread. I have personally been a target of Bentham's spam e-mail. Real academics blew the "fraud" whistle on Bentham before Dr. Jones had ever heard of them. The editor-in-chief resigned over this paper in specific.

You'll have to be more specific. I don't have time to wade through mounds of moronic hand-waving JREF tripe. It seems all your "proof" is demolished in the original post.

This is a classic example of the limiting case of inflation -- anyone who disagrees with you suddenly becomes "suspicious." You never even stop to consider that she might have a point.

Um the whole point is that she doesn't have a point. Try reading what you respond to.

If she's a tool of the establishment, and Bentham and the paper are otherwise legit, why wouldn't she stop the paper, rather than publish it and then resign? Your accusation is not only spurious, it's not self-consistent. Typical Truth Movement BS, that's what it is.

Maybe she wasn't a tool until she was threatened.

No, no, no. First of all, we don't know that these samples even came from the WTC in the first place. Second of all, see the word sometimes I highlighted for you, above? That's a huge problem for you. It shows that your sample must be contaminated.

Heavens no! How could the chips be contaminated when they are surrounded by contaminants? Did you even read the paper? They suggested the Cr and Zn were from surface contamination.

Think about it. What you're now proposing is not one, but two kinds of "nanothermite," one with chromium and zinc, and one without. Why on earth would anyone do this?

No one is proposing anything of the sort. You are simply imagining things.

The best hypothesis is that you're looking at two (or more) different kinds of paint. One of those happens to be a good fit to the Tnemec primer used in the WTC. That paint is also not particularly heat resistant. It's an anti-corrosive. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fire protection system of the structure. That is carried out by gypsum board, which lay on top of the Tnemec paint.

My God you really are onto something. Whenever I buy paint I make sure to choose the explosive kind.

Regarding ignition temperature, you have to consider the system response of the paint. NIST does not say what its ignition temperature is. You merely inferred that from the temperature NIST used in its "mud-cracking" tests. Well, guess what, if you actually read NIST, in specific NCSTAR1-3C, you will see that the paint only appears to survive long enough to "mud crack" when it is shielded from the atmosphere, i.e. hidden behind a concrete floor pan or similar structure. It is also adhering to a steel column -- that's the whole point -- which is a pretty good local heat sink. So it's more than just exposure to that temperature that matters. To withstand such high temperatures, it also has to be kept out of the open air. NIST reports that, where the steel was exposed, the paint is simply gone. So you have no evidence that the Tnemec primer, or any other paint, in fact does survive higher temperatures than Dr. Jones's samples.

I made no inference, you did. NIST heated the paint to 800 C and it didn't ignite or explode. Get it?

You are correct, however, that the paint is not explosive. But then, neither are Dr. Jones's samples.

The paper shows the chips are explosive. Stick a pot on your head and bang it as much as you want. It won't change reality.

Dead wrong. You've presented a remarkable strawman. The vast majority of our counter-arguments about Dr. Jones's conclusions are factual, and have nothing to do with the few things above you've cited. In specific:
[*]The "nanothermite" samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a "precision engineered" substance of any kind.

The uniformity and precision engineering refers to the ultra-fine size of the particles and the fact they are embedded in an organic matrix.

[*]The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its "contaminants" are, in fact, the dominant species.

No idea what your point is here. You think the organic matrix which provides the explosive gas generation is a contaminant?

[*]Regardless of what it actually is, there's no evidence it was actually in the WTC to begin with, and considerable evidence against. The sampling strategy is wholly inadequate. A more thorough methodology was applied by Lioy et al., and they found no nanothermite at all. They did, however, find that a large fraction of the dust originated as paint, of numerous types.

You can't find something if you're not looking for it.

[*]There is absolutely no coherent explanation for why nanothermite would be in the structure in the first place. It offers no advantages, either as an explosive or an igniter, over cheaper, less troublesome, actually available ordinary technologies.

The nice thing about nano-thermite is that it is quiet, can be painted on and few would believe it would ever be used for a demolition.

[*]Absolutely no one has corroborated these findings, and the one person who was given a sample of the dust couldn't even match the visual description claimed by Dr. Jones.

Mark Basile and Frédéric Henry-Couannier have supposedly independently corroborated important features of the research.

Refute those arguments, and I might listen. But you can't, obviously. Plus there are even a couple more that I'm saving to see if you have any chance of ever knowing what you're talking about.

Oh sure. I believe you.

Totally wrong. An aluminum wheel on a rusty hub has the same chemical signature of nanothermite, too... Dr. Jones has not demonstrated, indeed has not even attempted to show, that the chips contain any available oxygen at all. In his burn tests, oxygen was provided from the atmosphere, not from his chips.

Ah so those huge spikes of O in the XEDS spectra are from the air. Silly me.

Red Tnemec is more of a ceramic than a traditional paint, and it's resistant to MEK. Read NCSTAR1-3.

Does it ignite or explode? That's something I look for in a ceramic.

There is no evidence that iron microspheres are produced by burning the chips. And if it was, that's a big problem for you -- because the chips were burned in a DSC. They never reached a temperature high enough to melt steel, nor were they in an enviroment where iron would form microspheres through large-scale melting and surface tension. So either those microspheres were there from the start, or you've found a reaction that creates them at much lower temperatures. (The first choice is the correct one.)

No idea what you are talking about. The spheres result from the reaction with iron oxide. They are not coming from any steel that is melted.

Ordinary paint routinely contains, as pigments, metal in ~100 nm sizes in regular shapes. It's not as hard to make as you might think.

And if you can figure out how to make it explode chances are you've got a sol-gel nanothermite.

 

[Arus808]

Can you prove that nanothermite existed in 2001, in quantities (over 3000 tons) that would be needed to destroy one tower, let alone 3 buildings that day.

Remember, Nanothermite has only been tested in laboratories, and in 2001, only a very small amount existed.

First you prove that nanothermite existed in the amounts needed, then this thread can continue

 

[Arus808]

cmatrix, well, unless you provide proof, you're basically calling my uncle and aunt liars. They heard no explosions from the towers, were present when both planes hit the two towers, were only blocks away from WTC 2 when it collapses and were only half a mile away when WTC 1 collapsed. All that time, no successive explosions; nothing. They were witnesses to the terror on 9/11/2001 and do not buy into any of your conspiracy claims.

So put up or shut up. Provide proof of your claims.

 

[R.Mackey]

Every time I cut a slice of bread it has a different thickness. I guess its not bread right? Each slice is uniform in texture, composition etc. however. See how language works?

This is your rebuttal? Here's a hint: If you try to make sense, people might listen.

What two elemental compositions?

Aluminum and iron oxide. Simple. Both very abundant chemicals in modern society.

Dr. Henry-Couannier? The fellow who seems to be implying Jones and Harrit may be disinfo agents and cold fusion brought the towers down? Mark Basile has also confirmed the results.

It's funny to see you tearing down Dr. Couannier. Dr. Jones is the guy claiming that he'd backed up the findings. So did Dr. Jones lie when he said that?

As for Mr. Basile, what exactly did he confirm? I don't see any data from him at all, anywhere. He hardly strikes me as independent in any event.

Back to the explosive fire-resistant primer paint eh? Look up the word "either" in the dictionary.

It's not "either" which concerns us, it's "neither." There are no explosive substances under consideration here.

You'll have to be more specific. I don't have time to wade through mounds of moronic hand-waving JREF tripe. It seems all your "proof" is demolished in the original post.

You must be lazy indeed. I gave you several direct links.

Um the whole point is that she doesn't have a point. Try reading what you respond to.

She does indeed have a point. Just because it's inconvenient to your beliefs doesn't mean it disappears. Her point is that, in real journals, the editors control the review and acceptance process. At Bentham, this is not the case. Ergo, she resigned at once. This rather deflates your claim that "there is no evidence that Bentham is a vanity journal."

Maybe she wasn't a tool until she was threatened.

No evidence whatsoever that she was threatened, so this won't fly.

Heavens no! How could the chips be contaminated when they are surrounded by contaminants? Did you even read the paper? They suggested the Cr and Zn were from surface contamination.

You're missing the point. You said that it couldn't be Tnemec because Tnemec has zinc and chromium, and the samples don't. But it hasn't been established at all that the samples in fact do not contain such materials. How do you know the aluminum and iron oxide aren't the contaminants?

No one is proposing anything of the sort. You are simply imagining things.

Dr. Jones, at various times, has indeed proposed exactly this. Read his 2007 version of his delusions -- it contains examples of alternate "thermite" blends. He abandoned those, much like his "thermate" claims, to chase a slightly different shiny object. You guys follow him no matter what he says. That's not science, by the way.

My God you really are onto something. Whenever I buy paint I make sure to choose the explosive kind.

What explosives? Nothing under consideration here is explosive.

I made no inference, you did. NIST heated the paint to 800 C and it didn't ignite or explode. Get it?

NIST did not heat the paint to 800^oC, and it's hardly surprising that it didn't explode. We don't know its ignition temperature.

The paper shows the chips are explosive. Stick a pot on your head and bang it as much as you want. It won't change reality.

Telling a falsehood and then telling me that I can't change reality to suit my whims is the epitome of irony.

The uniformity and precision engineering refers to the ultra-fine size of the particles and the fact they are embedded in an organic matrix.

There's no evidence of either. There are also paints with similar or even superior levels of "precison engineering." But, again, since the stuff varies in energy content by almost a factor of 10, it's hardly precise.

No idea what your point is here. You think the organic matrix which provides the explosive gas generation is a contaminant?

There is no explosive gas generation. The "contaminant" is, in all likelihood, the paint binder.

You can't find something if you're not looking for it.

False, but uninteresting.

The nice thing about nano-thermite is that it is quiet, can be painted on and few would believe it would ever be used for a demolition.

There is no such thing as a quiet explosive, no matter what its composition is. You also cannot paint on nanothermite and expect it to do anything, even heat the column by more than a few degrees. It's a simple calculation, albeit one far beyond the likes of you.

Mark Basile and Frédéric Henry-Couannier have supposedly independently corroborated important features of the research.

"Supposedly" is right. Dr. Couannier says otherwise. I'm not sure why I should care about Mark Basile, he doesn't appear to be knowledgeable in the relevant fields, nor does he appear to have done relevant testing. Feel free to add to this if you actually have anything.

Oh sure. I believe you.

Doesn't much matter if you believe me or not. Fact is, you've brought nothing, and you can't even understand the criticism.

Ah so those huge spikes of O in the XEDS spectra are from the air. Silly me.

The presence of oxygen does not imply it's available. CO₂, for instance, would show an overwhelming amount of oxygen, but is about as inert as it gets. Take a chemistry class.

Does it ignite or explode? That's something I look for in a ceramic.

Why the fixation on explosives? Once again, there is no evidence at all
that the paint chips Dr. Jones has are explosive.

No idea what you are talking about. The spheres result from the reaction with iron oxide. They are not coming from any steel that is melted.

Didn't say it did. What I said, again, is that you cannot prove the spheres weren't there to begin with. Every known sample of actual WTC dust contains microspheres, and there are plenty of non-conspiracy idiot explanations for their presence.

And if you can figure out how to make it explode chances are you've got a sol-gel nanothermite.

This is not how you would test for that substance. Neither you nor Dr. Jones even knows how.

Your response is, to put it mildly, babble. This should concern you. Before your ideas will be accepted, before they are actually science and not pure conjecture, they will be reviewed. By real experts. Dr. Tillotsen himself, one of the inventors of the technology, will look over your work. There will be a whole room full of Ph.D.'s, academics, engineers of every stripe, from every country, going through your findings with a fine-toothed comb.

It will fail. I can destroy every one of your arguments at will, without having to even look anything up. And while I am a professional scientist, I'm not a particular expert in nanotechnology or thermitic chemistry. I'm speaking as a generalist, and I can still poke more holes in your narrative than you can even comprehend.

You will never get anywhere until you get your collective acts together. This is why the Truth Movement is dead on arrival. Of course, once you do get your acts together, you won't be Truthers anymore, so it's hardly surprising that you haven't.

 

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Dr. Jones describes layers from roughly 10 to 100 microns in thickness, hardly "uniform." He also shows plots of two different elemental compositions. Furthermore, the only pseudo-independent to see these particles, Dr. Henry-Couannier, complained that in the sample he received, there were no such chips. His were strictly of the "Red" variety, not bi-layered at all.

Every time I cut a slice of bread it has a different thickness. I guess its not bread right? Each slice is uniform in texture, composition etc. however. See how language works?

Alright, Mr. Bread. What are the two layers then? No guessing allowed - what are they?
What is the contribution of each layer in your alleged nanothermite?

Back to the explosive fire-resistant primer paint eh? Look up the word "either" in the dictionary.

Strawman. Mackey specifically describes it as corrosion-resistant, not fire -resistant.

You fail on that one. You fail to disprove that it could be paint.

The paper shows the chips are explosive

False. The chips were combusted in the presence of oxygen, invalidating that conclusion.

The test is meaningless unless done in an inert gas. Why was this not done? Incompetence or deliberate? What is the excuse given?


Quote:
[*]The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its "contaminants" are, in fact, the dominant species.

No idea what your point is here. You think the organic matrix which provides the explosive gas generation is a contaminant?

What is the energy density of sol-gel nanothermite? Please provide citations, no guessing allowed.
You cannot simply make this up as you go along. That is bogus.

You can't find something if you're not looking for it.

a superficial and meaningless response. Actually, you CAN find something you're not looking for. You CAN'T find something that isn't there.
In fact, you cannot show where the chips came from, since you cannot provide a source sample from any of the buildings. You are speculating.
For example, you cannot show specifically that the chips came from WTC7. Not possible. Ergo, you cannot prove that they were there.

Nor can you demonstrate a sample of 'control' nanothermite in action, painted on, sprayed on, or inhaled and sneezed onto anything. You have zero proof to back up the hypothesis.

The uniformity and precision engineering refers to the ultra-fine size of the particles and the fact they are embedded in an organic matrix.

This does not eliminate other sources for the chips. Paint in particular.

And if you can figure out how to make it explode chances are you've got a sol-gel nanothermite.

Chances are you've never seen, smelled or handled sol-gel nanothermite. You might as well be talking about pixie dust, because you simply don't know. You are merely speculating about all of this.

When you and your nanothermite cult get your hands on some, show that it is chemically the same as the chips, then apply it to steel beams by means of paint brushes or rollers, then melt or explode the steel beams, come back and let us know.

Until then, you've got nuttin' kid. Nuttin' but cheap talk and pseudo scientific speculation.

But thanks for coming out anyway. We'll call you real soon.

 

[alienentity]

cmatrix - Consider this simple fact. The Jones/Harrit paper came out in early 2009. So far there has been no noticeable stir created in the highest level academic institutions around the world. This would have been the story of the century, had it any merit, I'm sure we can agree. therefore, we are confronted with 3 possible reasons for the lack of international hue and cry:

1) Qualified scientists just haven't heard of the paper.

2) They've heard of it, looked at it online, and dismissed it as nonsense or irrelevant.

3) They heard of it, looked at it online, realized how profound and true it is, but have kept silent due to academic pressure, NWO henchmen threatening next-of-kin, or that kind of intimidation.

Take your pick. y'know, I wouldn't bet a whole lot of money on #3 if I were you. But then, I don't like to lose bets. Maybe you don't care.

 

[alienentity]

Come to think of it, Niels Harrit is out there spilling his guts on Danish TV, lecturing in Switzerland, etc... so there doesn't seem to be an atmosphere of intimidation stopping him.

What happened to all the other scientists who know more than he does about nanothermite? Remember he isn't a specialist in the stuff - never worked with it before doing the paper, I believe.

And why is it that the Norwegian scientists think he's full of hooey? They are experts in nano materials, apparently.

I refer to Tor Grande, Professor at the Institute of Material Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Mari-Ann Einarsrud, also a professor at the IMT; Dr. Ola Nilsen, Nano-scientist at University of Oslo.

In order, here are some quotes of their observations of the Jones/Harrit paper:

Grande:
'reminds me more of a …I’m tempted to say… post-graduate thesis like the ones Master-students write, at least with regard to the type of techniques used in the analysis that is used in this paper, so that it scientifically, is no hold in their claim from my perspective.“'

Einarsrud
'It is in particular the chemical analysis that I have considerable experience with, that is done in a way… I would in any case do it alittle more thoroughly. I do not support the conclusion they have reached. It is at any rate not a detailed enough study from them to draw the conclutions that they have drawn.“

Nilson
'The paper can at first glance seem like a serious, great, nice, scientific paper, but when you look at how they draw their conclusions it has probably been done hastily and is probably more influenced by what they want to get from the paper themselves.“'

No doubt these scientists are on NWO payroll. I think I bumped into two of them at the NWO annual convention held at the Area 51 Hyatt last year.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would have thought "we found no nanothermite" would be debunking. You possibly have a problem with logic. But I am here to help you.

They found no nanothermite. An informed reading of the paper cannot come to any other conclusion. The energy density alone indicates that what they found cannot be proven to be nanothermite. They can say that they think they found nanothermite, but without proof they cannot claim to have found it.

The energy release rate of paper is somewhat slower than the rate of thermite.

Since Harrit et al didn't measure the energy release rate, this is irrelevant. They measured the energy density, and the result refutes their conclusions.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here's a hint again. Fire-proof paints are designed to be fireproof not explosive.

You're confusing paint with spray-on fireproofing. They're different things.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Because Harrit et al. assume the real scientists reading their paper are not stupid.

180º wrong. Any real scientist reading the paper will instantly construct the following line of logic:

The aim of the experiment is to determine whether thermite was present.
The thermite reaction contains its own oxygen source.
The thermite reaction will proceed in an oxygen-free atmosphere.
Combustion will not.
Therefore, in order to distinguish between a thermite reaction and combustion, calorimetry must be carried out in an oxygen-free atmosphere.
The calorimetry carried out in the paper was in an oxygen-containing atmosphere.
Therefore, the calorimetry cannot be taken as evidence of a thermite reaction.

For Harrit et al to claim that their results are evidence of a thermite reaction, they appear to be assuming that any real scientists reading their paper are, rather than are not, stupid. Sadly for them, we aren't.

Dave

 

[NutCracker]

Correction. I am unable to absorb complete misinformaiton and gross illogic which is all your rambling innane post amounts to.

Sure! Information, and I mean real information that goes against your insane theories is "misinfotrmation." And logic, I mean real logic: P => Q if and only if not(Q) => not(P), where P="A journal has proper peer-review" and Q="A computer generated nonsense paper is not accepted by journal," is "gross illogic."

Thank you for demonstrating your crank-ness.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Probably not. NSIT says the decibel level of those explosions would have been in the 130-140db range at a half mile.

http://www.esoundproof.com/Screens/Basics/Academy/Sound Measurement/Decibels/dBChart.aspx

If there were explosions, they wouldn't have been missed by tens of thousands of people and dozens of film cameras.

There were not explosions going on when WTC 1 2 and 7 collapsed. Period.

Conceptually, I also have a problem with explosions that supposedly caused the collapse being masekd by the collapse itself . . . which would mean the collapse was already occuring when these explosion are supposed to be going off. At which point . . . why do we need the explosions at all? I mean, the building is already collapsing.

 

[willhaven]

And the sound of the building collapsing wouldn't mask the explosions. If it could, videos of controlled demolitions would reflect that. I've never seen any that do.

 

[The Big Dog]

“Fire-proof paints are designed to be fireproof not explosive.”
You think they put fire proof paint on the steel beams? Hee hee hee!!

“So why didn't they test it in an oxygen-less environment?”

“Because Harrit et al. assume the real scientists reading their paper are not stupid.”

Holy ****, now that is freaking hilarious! I can only assume that you mean that real scientists would have instantly realized that a completely uncontrolled burn in the open atmosphere showed that you moron heroes are completely useless.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[BasqueArch]

Mackey,Alien,DRogers , well done. That should end this T* delusion, right.

CTs don't mention how all this is done. Remove 2" of fireproofing plaster from the four faces of the perimeter columns, three sides which lie outside the building windows plaster falling to the ground as it is being removed columns covered in aluminum sheathing a thousand feet up in the air to paint this cp onto the steel and also invisibly attach thousands of wireless detonators then what replace the window glass, then the aluminum sheathing and plaster, don't forget to paint the fresh plaster after it dries in three coats, and the core columns all covered with sheetrock, only a few accessible from the elevators shafts and what paint miles of four sided steel columns, replacing the shaftwall gyp bd inside the operating elevator in the elevator shafts ,where atop the elevator cab bring flashlights, strap down for enormous shaft drafts, elevator guides are in the way and remove lobby sheetrock, base, paint this cp on the the steel for miles for what to warm up the steel a couple of degrees then what rewallcover the lobbies on each floor, replace base remove debris. Whistle if someone asks why you're removing the gyp bd and painting the steel columns, no one remembers this later.

Nuts.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The Jones/Harrit paper again? For the love of God... there are many paths that can be taken that refute it, but the ultimate refutation comes not from the faulty conclusions drawn that are contradicted by the evidence presented within the paper, nor from any analysis of the bonafides of the publisher, but from the fact that it attempts to make a macroscopic argument using microscopic evidence when there is a complete absence of macroscopic effects. Regardless of how unjustified the conclusions drawn in the paper are - and believe me, they are quite unjustified -the fact remains that the recovered steel shows zero - I repeat, ZERO - signs of having undergone anything other than mechanically induced stress. The severance points were established to be the spandrel plates connecting the horizontal elements to the vertical columns, and the individual box and flange columns disconnected at their connection points to each other.

I know there's much discussion to be had in debating the minituae of the Bentham paper - I participated a fair amount in that thread, as well as the ones that followed myself - but for perspective's sake, let's remember that there's no doubt that in spite of whatever Jones, Harrit, or any other "nanothermite" myth peddler claims, there is zero macroscopic evidence of thermite use in the Twin Towers. Not for direct severance of structural elements, nor for the ridiculous idea of igniting conventional explosives (those are ruled out in other ways).

The only possible salvation for the "energetic nanoparticles" claim would be a non-conspiratorial one. And that would be the natural generation of small, isolated thermite reactions from the naturally present rust and aluminum in the towers. That would by necessity mean discarding proposals about deliberate thermite installation, and therefore eliminate any notion that it had any actual role in the collapse of the towers, so I can't see any of these myth peddlers ever going in that direction. But, it would be the only direction they could even think of taking this research in and maintain any honesty.

 

[Mongrel]

Every time I cut a slice of bread it has a different thickness. I guess its not bread right? Each slice is uniform in texture, composition etc. however. See how language works?

Well if bread making and slicing required the same precision that Nano Therm*te required they'd be quote a few suppliers charging £20 a loaf. The flour would have to be milled to exacting specifications, the baking tins would be an exact size (allowing for expansion in the oven) and the bread slicer would be calibrated every morning\100 loaves and they'd probably have a chap to count the kneading machine rotated the required 136 times - because that's what's laid down in the specifications.

A quick look at a bulk supplier (Loveridge Pharmaceuticals) list many different grades of items;

• Animal food grades
• Food grade
• Food and drug grade
• Technical grade
• British standard
• British Pharmacopoeia compliant
• British Pharmaceutical codex compliant

Bread is fairly easy going in regards to consistency of ingredients but when you're playing with volatile substances your tolerances increase by a few orders of magnitude, if you're playing with 'Nano' substances you'll be reducing your tolerances even more.

 

[tsig]

“Fire-proof paints are designed to be fireproof not explosive.”
You think they put fire proof paint on the steel beams? Hee hee hee!!

“So why didn't they test it in an oxygen-less environment?”

“Because Harrit et al. assume the real scientists reading their paper are not stupid.”

Holy ****, now that is freaking hilarious! I can only assume that you mean that real scientists would have instantly realized that a completely uncontrolled burn in the open atmosphere showed that you moron heroes are completely useless.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

But not a long one.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I just posted this video in another thread, but I'm posting it here because it applies to this topic too (they're effectively the same topic, really).



That's thirty tons of explosives going off. Dr. Neils Harrit says that hundreds of tons of explosives were inside the twin towers and WTC7.

How do you explain the huge discrepancies between reality and Harrits fantasies, Cmatrix?

 

[Justin39640]

I just posted this video in another thread, but I'm posting it here because it applies to this topic too (they're effectively the same topic, really).



That's thirty tons of explosives going off. Dr. Neils Harrit says that hundreds of tons of explosives were inside the twin towers and WTC7.

How do you explain the huge discrepancies between reality and Harrits fantasies, Cmatrix?

heres 100 tons