Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[triforcharity]

I know that eutectic reactions are not caused by fire but can be caused by thermitics. Care to support your pronouncements against nano-thermite or is this all just bluster?

Care to support this line of horse ****?

 

[cmatrix]

Speaking of ignoring, isn't it odd that real Thermite...
[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/real_thermite.jpg[/qimg]
looks nothing like Harrit's supposed thermite...
[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/HarritChart.jpg[/qimg]

Details 'n' sources here.

Isn't it odd that you don't seem to know the difference between thermite and nano-thermite?

 

[triforcharity]

My word! When GPE is converted to KE it's no longer _available_ to do work. You made the mistake now admit it or keep quiet.

Wait, are YOU arguing PHYSICS with a PHYSICIST???

Holy ****. That would be like me, arguing with a plastic surgeon, just because I have painted my house before......

 

[beachnut]

Isn't it odd that you don't seem to know the difference between thermite and nano-thermite?

What are the differences, and sources please? Which has more energy?

 

[cmatrix]

More meaningless bluster. Of the gravitational potential energy initially available, E2 has been converted to fracture energy, and the object is in free fall. Therefore, not all of the GPE has been converted to KE. Your statement that some of the GPE has been converted to KE is not a point in dispute.

Dave

When I'm talking about GPE available during free fall why on Earth would you assume I'm referring to initial GPE? Epic Epic fail. Get over your mistake and stop wasting my time.

 

[cmatrix]

Care to support this line of horse ****?

My mistake. I should have said "eutectic reactions have never before been observed in building fires". If you have evidence to the contrary let's here it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

When I'm talking about GPE available during free fall why on Earth would you assume I'm referring to initial GPE?

Because you're incapable of communicating what you're talking about. And even if that was what you meant, you'll see from my second example that it's still wrong; an object, while falling in freefall, still has available GPE that has not been converted to KE.

Still, it's far from the only area where you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

My mistake. I should have said "eutectic reactions have never before been observed in building fires". If you have evidence to the contrary let's here it.

And let's see your evidence of eutectic reactions being produced by thermitics.

Dave

 

[Edx]

Isn't it odd that you don't seem to know the difference between thermite and nano-thermite?

Ah yes, because as we all know truther's nano thermite is so powerfull an explosives it can fling steel around but also be quiet.

 

[carlitos]

Because you're incapable of communicating what you're talking about.

^^This^^

Context is important. A productive way to have this conversation would be to state a hypothesis that explains the events of 9/11/2001, and then to show how "the problems with the NIST report" fit into that hypothesis. Otherwise, it's a bunch of incredulous Gish-Gallop that goes nowhere.

I'd love to see an illustration of "the difference between thermite and nanothermite" and how this fits into whatever scenario, for instance. So far we have seen two mutually-exclusive positions (thermitics AND explosives) being posited; we've had "blast mats" made of magical material that is invisible for 2 weeks and muffles sound far more than ~10dB, "nanothermite" being different than thermite, and a general rape of the laws of physics. It's painful.

Truthers, just state what you think happened. This will get your ideas across so you aren't misunderstood, and you have a whole sub-forum full of peer review to improve on your ideas. What's the problem?

 

[triforcharity]

My mistake. I should have said "eutectic reactions have never before been observed in building fires". If you have evidence to the contrary let's here it.

It was not in a building fire. It was in a highly caustic rubble pile, unlike anything anyone had ever seen.

Does it suprise the scientists at WPI? No, given the circumstances.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Isn't it odd that you don't seem to know the difference between thermite and nano-thermite?

Particle size.

 

[Oystein]

Isn't it odd that you don't seem to know the difference between thermite and nano-thermite?

What is the difference?
The differences that I know include
- nanothermite (nth.) has even less energy density than thermite (th.)
- nth. reacts faster
- nth. may ignite at slightly lower temps that th.

In Harrit's paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", Figure 29 compares how nth. and the paint chips analysed by Harrit ed.al. react in DSC: nth. reaction peaks at 530°C and 5W/g, the red and grey paint chips peak at 420°C and over 10W/g. Strikingly different values that prove that the paint chips are indeed not nth. at all.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Eh...Dave said GPE is still available to do work after it has been converted to other forms. You really believe this?

Sheesh! I believed Dave when he told you that

Your statement that some of the GPE has been converted to KE is not a point in dispute.

It's really not near as difficult as you're pretending.

 

[Oystein]

Eh...Dave said GPE is still available to do work after it has been converted to other forms. You really believe this?

Yes. GPE, converted into KE, can do the same amount of work as the original GPE (minus the work already done destroying building contents).

To test this, consider the work a hammer can do after it fell from a hight of 5 feet, when landing on your foot.

 

[excaza]

It's actually you who is obscuring the facts. One of the facts in the NIST report is that WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds.

A portion of WT7, yes. So what?

 

[leftysergeant]

I think of it more as a hydraulic ram than as a hammer. Once the ram has hit your foot, it does not cease to apply energy to your foot.

 

[ergo]

For what? Ozeco wasn't wrong.

His statement suggested that temperature has some kind of active ability to do "work" on the steel. The bonds weaken at a particular temperature. This is caused by heat, not by temperature itself. It's confusing correlation with causation. Newtons Bit thinks that his graph shows causation. It doesn't. It shows correlation. Temperature with yield strength, or whatever it shows--I can't find it. Things happen at particular temperatures within something. Temperature doesn't cause it.

This confusion of terms seems to be a recurring problem with bee dunkers. If it's not merely bad communication skills then it might be simply attempts at conveying some kind of cryptic significance where there is none.

 

[carlitos]

Things happen at particular temperatures within something. Temperature doesn't cause it.

That's the second time he's done this. I can't believe he doesn't see it.

 

[excaza]

That's the second time he's done this. I can't believe he doesn't see it.

Don't bother.