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

[beachnut]

So far we've had thermite in the concrete, the ceiling, the columns, the paint and the fireproofing, I guess airborne particles are the next step that way they could introduce it thru the HVAC system.

I wonder why Hoffman has not come up with that one yet.

Is this Hoffman's next "Jones loaded gun"? (what the heck is a loaded gun? omg in trutherville we would be guilty for our thoughts; what was a "smoking gun", is now a "loaded gun" if Jones says so... Jones says his thermite paper proves a loaded gun. What made Jones snap?)
"it was canisters of vaporous super-duper-nano-vapor-thermite spread by the HVAC at the correct time to melt the building like with wicked witch of the west; or was it south. Who cares, got to get back to my meth lab now, tah tah."

I apologize but every-time I see or hear Hoffman, I think meth addict. Sorry again, I know he is most likely the kindest smartest person in the world save his moronic insane ideas on 911. Sorry again. If he was by brother I would say the same and he would be buying the beer for eternity until he stopped the insanity on 911. If he was my brother I would say worse and to his face. If I met Hoffman I wouldn't say a thing; his own statements are enough to discredit him and those who believe him. I would speak up if his lies were about to help him and Balsamo take over and come get us to fulfill Balsamo's promise to kill us all. Balsamo and Hoffman are spreaders of lies and people who exercise the skills dedicated grade school teacher gave us can see that fact.

It's like Hoffman is going out of his way to make thing way more complex than they have to be. Rube Goldberg on steroids.

or meth

 

[triforcharity]

If you're in the mood for being helpful, rather than antagonistic, does anyone want to tell me if there is any truth to this following quote?



It would also seem to be defying the laws of gravity, don't you think? Or am I wrong in believing that collapsing stuff falls downward?

Oh, and has this been taken apart and ridiculed yet? http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

Stuff will collapse downwards. But, when the stuff becomes piled up, with more stuff still piling up, it will start to go outwards.

Experiment for you.
take a shovel and dig a hole. Take all the sand and such and put it in a pile. Notice the pile gets WIDER and taller? I believe this to be the same principal, but, I am not an engineer.

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by cmatrix
I have several times now. However, crackpot true believers consistently ignore facts and logic in order to cling to their delusional belief systems

You are 100% right, but you can't make the truther drink the water, as much as you lead him to it.

TAM

You can lead a Falser to facts but you can't make him think.

 

[Ragnarok]

Stuff will collapse downwards. But, when the stuff becomes piled up, with more stuff still piling up, it will start to go outwards.

But that is the whole point. "Stuff" was never supposed to have had time to "pile up", because the weight above was crushing everything below it!

 

[Newtons Bit]

But that is the whole point. "Stuff" was never supposed to have had time to "pile up", because the weight above was crushing everything below it!

Is this Argumentum ClunkityClunk?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

But that is the whole point. "Stuff" was never supposed to have had time to "pile up", because the weight above was crushing everything below it!

Each floor stayed intact until the collapse wave hit it.

So yeah, stuff piled up.

It's called a "pancake collapse", look it up.

 

[TruthersLie]

Actually, not everyone has been at it 8 years. Some of us are fairly new to this topic, but you seem quite happy to treat every newcomer as if they are ranting nutjobs.

Jaded, much?

Not really... Annoyed that basic twoofs don't get at least BASIC information about how full of crap 95% of all of the twoof arguments are.

why dont' you police your own movement twoof? See every new twoof is an ignorant person who has piss poor reading comprehension skills and an inability to do even 5 minutes of REAL research. Their investagoogling skills are weak.

 

[Longfellow]

Barry Jennings gave powerful testimony of several loud explosions in WTC7 before the towers collapsed and dead bodies in the WTC7 lobby. That testimony support the CD hypothesis. Get it now?

Emphasis mine.

I'm confused. I thought the whole idea of using thermite for the demolition is so that it wouldn't sound like a normal demolition and then you post this? Is this one of those 'have your cake and eat it too' deals? Typical 'truther' inanity in an obscure corner of the 'net.

You should know that Barry Jennings has been discussed here before. What he went through that day in no way, shape, or form supports the 'CD hypothesis' so there is nothing for us to 'get', geddit?

It might also interest you to know that reality is that-a-way --->

 

[cmatrix]

Barry Jennins died, and was not murdered.

Kevin Ryan was stating an uneducated opinion about something that UL had nothing to do with, and was using ULs name to promote it.

Not sure whom the others are, and ehat their story is, but I am sure (if not done already) that someone will.

What about the following people?

Dylan
Jason Bermas
The other idiot that did LC
Dr. Woods
the idiot from "In Plane Site?" or whatever that failure was
Alex Jones (well, the NWO is in his head, so I will strike this)


Have any of them been threatened??? I think not.

Prove Barry Jennings wasn't murdered. What was his cause of death? His death was very suspicious. He died shortly after Dylan Avery released an interview that told his story about hearing explosions In WTC7 before the two towers collapsed and about the dead bodies in WTC7 afterwards. He allegedly didn't want the interview in Loose Change because of threats to his job. A few days after he died NIST released their fraudulent WTC7 report. There are no details on his death or why his family vanished.

Kevin Ryan is a chemist and was a lab manager at Underwriters Laboratories. His letter to NIST's Frank Gayle stated that the temperatures were too low to cause the failure of the WTC structural steel. Merely writing this letter got him fired from his job. Yeah nothing suspicious about that.

The other people you mention are not key witnesses with damaging testimony to tell. Nor do they have syndicate jobs they can be fired from. Some may even be seen as "useful idiots" (not my term).

 

[triforcharity]

I cannot find a COD for Mr. Jennings, as the first 3 pages are filled with stupid ******** about CT's. I do not have the time to look through to find something to debate you dolts on this. Maybe someone else does. Oh, and why is Dylan hiring a PI to stalk the family?? Maybe, I dunno, they wanna get away from him and his psycho friends?? Who the **** does this?? Sickos, that is who.

Secondly, Kevin Ryan used COMPANY letterhead to, and used his position at a SUBCONTRACTOR of UL to present his idea. Flawed as it was, he used it to further his agenda. This is wrong, and most likely against company policy. Hence, the dismissal was upheld in a court of law.
Not to mention that the fires in WTC 1,2&7 most certainly got hot enough. NG did a program proving just that.

Please try to argue the fire stuff with me. I will chew you up and spit you out like a ragdoll.

BTW, did it ever cross your mind that maybe the family didn't want his medical records released?? Yepo, this includes COD. They can request that the COD be withheld for privacy matters.

 

[cmatrix]

Pretty good job reaching his level.

There was only one thing in that last "brilliant" response of his that merited a second look, and that was regarding the autoignition temperature of paint. This may be of public interest, so I'll explain this in detail.

NIST did not find the autoignition point of the paint. It is true that they tested it at temperatures of up to 800^oC, but that's not what they were testing for. The relevant work is on pages 433-434 in Appendix D of NCSTAR1-3C, which reads as follows:


NIST then goes on to say that, from here to 650^oC, there is no visible change. But what then?


What's going on here, Truther? I'll tell you: The paint is oxidizing. That's why there's a physical change taking place. And it happens well below 800^oC. NIST continues:



But, wait a moment -- if the paint burned at 650^oC, what's going on at 800^oC? Surely the paint would all have burned by then, right..?

Wrong. The shape of the paint changes the game. In NIST's tests, the paint was applied to a solid piece of steel. Paint requires not just heat to burn, but also oxygen. That oxygen is only available at the surface, and the surface has already oxidized over long years of exposure to air, having its own coating. At higher temperatures, parts of the paint begin to melt, exposing more surface to the air. That's the black scale. But those newly burned products don't melt and prevent air from reaching unburned paint still in the interior. At a much higher temperature, the steel itself begins to spall, and the paint all becomes exposed.

In Dr. Jones's ham-handed experiment, the paint is already in tiny little flakes -- indeed, microscopic flakes! Guess what, it burns easier.

You guys are already going on and on about how making thermite particles smaller makes them burn faster and at lower temperature, so even you should understand that smaller flakes of paint ignite earlier and burn faster than an intact coat of paint backed by steel. I really can't make it any simpler than that.

Bottom line, we have no reason to think that Dr. Jones's samples are not paint. Again, for cmatrix, the real problems you need to address are these:


If you can solve those problems, then we have something to talk about. If you can't, you're just running your mouth. Your move.

Gee I'm really impressed with your bargain basement understanding of chemistry. You have reached so far you've fallen on your backside. Read your own words. The primer paint flakes off at 650 C but doesn't ignite. Flake = chip. At this point is should have the same source of oxygen as the red/gray chips yet it still does not ignite. In particular it doesn't ignite explosively, ejecting molten spheres of iron. That's a quality I look for in a primer paint. If the red/gray chips were just paint they too would have "already oxidized over long years of exposure to air". The primer paint doesn't ignite at 800 C. Your incredibly lame argument is completely shredded by yourself. The other "problems" have been dealt with before. You are just ignoring them hoping everyone else will too. I love the bizarre claim that because the chips contain more energy than thermite or known nanothermitics they can't be thermitic. Here's a news flash: thermite has less energy content that nanothermite but their both still thermitics. Time for you to go out to pasture.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Prove Barry Jennings wasn't murdered. What was his cause of death? His death was very suspicious. He died shortly after Dylan Avery released an interview that told his story about hearing explosions In WTC7 before the two towers collapsed and about the dead bodies in WTC7 afterwards. He allegedly didn't want the interview in Loose Change because of threats to his job. A few days after he died NIST released their fraudulent WTC7 report. There are no details on his death or why his family vanished.

Barry Jennings died a couple mon ths after giving THIS interview:



"Do I think our government would do something like that to its own people? No, I honestly don't believe that."

Barry Jennings wasn't a crackpot supporter, sorry.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Gee I'm really impressed with your bargain basement understanding of chemistry.

That man is a NASA engineer.

Who the hell are you again?

 

[triforcharity]

Some kid on the interwebs.

 

[R.Mackey]

I love the bizarre claim that because the chips contain more energy than thermite or known nanothermitics they can't be thermitic. Here's a news flash: thermite has less energy content that nanothermite but their both still thermitics. Time for you to go out to pasture.

This is a lie.

Nanothermite has about 40% of the energy of ordinary thermite, as reported by Tillotsen et al. (2002). The reason, as reported by them, is because one of the ingredients is elemental aluminum. It is very difficult to keep elemental aluminum from oxidizing in ordinary use. Aluminum rapidly develops an oxide layer, and aluminum oxide is inert in the thermite reaction.

Now, in normal thermite, the thin coating of aluminum oxide is inconsequential. But as the particle size shrinks, as in nanothermite, the coating becomes a significant fraction of the total. As a result, in nanothermite, the energy density is quite a bit lower -- in order to introduce aluminum, you must carry with you a large fraction as aluminum oxide. So, therefore, nanothermite has a lower energy density than ordinary thermite. Normal thermite carries up to about 4.0 MJ/kg, whereas nanothermite is about 1.5 MJ/ kg. This is not an estimate! This is actual observation from Dr. Tillotsen's team. You'd know this if you had even attempted to learn about the stuff.

Yet you claim nanothermite has a higher energy density than normal thermite? Do you realize that this proves you have no clue what you're talking about? This is like saying a Twinkie has 150 calories, but if you grind that Twinkie up into little bits, it'll mysteriously have more than 150 calories. Utter madness.

Now then, Truther, I asked you some questions. You didn't answer. Here they are again:

• 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 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

It's pretty obvious why you won't answer. Give it a try, or be Ignored. This is your final offer.

 

[NutCracker]

But that is the whole point. "Stuff" was never supposed to have had time to "pile up", because the weight above was crushing everything below it!

The stupidity just sunk below -NaN.

Thank you.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, so it all fell in the footprint? A bit like a controlled demolition?

Ah, the classic heads-I-win-tails-you-lose approach. If most of the mass ends up outside the footprint, it was a controlled demolition, because it couldn't have contributed to the collapse. [1] And if most of it ends up inside the footprint, that's what happens in a controlled demolition, so it was a controlled demolition. [2] And for all cases in between, it must still have been a controlled demolition. Priceless.

Nice work, Ragnarok. You started from your conclusion, and worked round in a circel back to your conclusion again. One or two logical fallacies crept in along the way, but that shouldn't get in the way of your religious faith, should it?

Dave

[1] Except that we don't know by what process the mass ended up outside the footprint; mass ejected later on in the collapse has already contributed most of its potential energy to collapse propagation, so it's simply wrong to say that anything that fell outside the footprint didn't contribute to the collapse.

[2] Which is, of course, our old friend and truther staple diet, the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No a real scientist will construct this line of logic:

The aim of the experiment is to determine whether thermite was present.
The thermite reaction contains its own oxygen source.
The material if it is thermitic will contain its own oxygen source.
Therefore in order to determine if the material is thermitic it must be analyzed to determine if it has its own oxygen source.
Since Harrit et al. clearly show a very large amount of O in the form of iron oxide intimately mixed with Al clearly the material is thermitic.

That's a classic example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. A mixture of aluminium oxide and powdered iron contains the same amount of oxygen, aluminium and iron as a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium powder. By your above line of argument, both of them are thermite. However, you won't have much luck getting the first one to react.

Thermite relies on the oxygen being bonded to the right material, and reacting in the right way. Harrit et al have failed to demonstrate that the material found in the dust had either of those properties.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

and then Dave Rogers, I guess through sheer lack of comprehension, suggests to Macky that it's better to be accused of liking Michael Bolton, then to be accused of being a disinfo agent.



Newsflash Dave, no one here ever accused him of that.

You really just haven't got a clue what's going on around you, have you?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

But that is the whole point. "Stuff" was never supposed to have had time to "pile up", because the weight above was crushing everything below it!

Cool. So, because there was a pile of stuff crushing the structure down, that proves that there wasn't a pile of stuff crushing the structure down.

Logical inconsistency detected in reality . Reboot universe (Y/N)?

Dave