The Great Thermate Debate

[Miragememories]

"Have red/gray chips been found in every WTC dust sample to date? Yes."

"Hmm. Henryco found only one in his samples. The rest were Red/Red and didn't produce the results of Jones' tests.

So the Jones paper results have not been duplicated by peers."

Dr. Jones and his associates can prove a trail of custody.

Apparently Henryco feels he cannot make such a claim.

"Jones attempts at "Independent" verification is Henry, who admits he believes the government was in on it. Henry has even gone so far as to declare that the absence of red/grey chips in his samples was proof that SOMEONE HAD SPOILED?SUBSTITUTED his samples prior to their arrival via post..."

MM

 

[beachnut]

Dr. Jones and his associates can prove a trail of custody.

Apparently Henryco feels he cannot make such a claim.



MM

The Jones chips don't match thermite, and they fail to be great heat producers. Wood beats thermite! Jones made up the thermite scam, he is a liar. He has lied about 911 many times.

The funniest one was where Jones endorsed the thermite chips in the ceiling tiles.

Terrorists did 911, Jones make up lies about 911. Jones got fired for making up lies, for making up thermite 4 years after 911. Jones burns dust which fails to match thermite and fools you.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Dr. Jones and his associates can prove a trail of custody.

MM

Dr. Jones (hey, this isn't Raiders of the Lost Ark, ya know ) can't prove **** & you know it. He doesn't have any evidence to validate what he claims & niether do you!

 

[Dog Town]

Dr. Jones and his associates can prove a trail of custody.

Evidence?

 

[Oystein]

...Thermite and nanothermite release approximately 4 MJ/kg.
...

Not even that. The theoretical maximum is just below 4 MJ/kg, but in practice, the value is somewhat lower, due to the unavoidable oxide layers of Al surfaces. A problem that's often worse for nanothermite, where smaller particles mean more surface per mass. Ordinary thermite typically releases around 3.5 MJ/kg, nanothermite may go as low as 1.5 MJ/kg, with 2.8-3.2 being more typical values for true high tech nano materials (where a more uniform spherical shape helps to reduce surfaces).

 

[The Big Dog]

Dr. Jones and his associates can prove a trail of custody.

MM

Ha! No. Not hardly. Not remotely. they even forgot to mention that they got their control sample from a god damn football stadium in Utah.

/Say, you know who else has a sample of WTC Dust? WTC Dust! Ask her for an uncontaminated sample!

 

[Dog Town]

Not even that. The theoretical maximum is just below 4 MJ/kg, but in practice, the value is somewhat lower, due to the unavoidable oxide layers of Al surfaces. A problem that's often worse for nanothermite, where smaller particles mean more surface per mass. Ordinary thermite typically releases around 3.5 MJ/kg, nanothermite may go as low as 1.5 MJ/kg, with 2.8-3.2 being more typical values for true high tech nano materials (where a more uniform spherical shape helps to reduce surfaces).

Sadly our resident Twoofers might know this, if they weren't blindly following leaders of their Cult!

 

[Oystein]

Dr. Jones and his associates can prove a trail of custody.

Apparently Henryco feels he cannot make such a claim.



MM

Henryco received his sample by mail, apparently.

Jones received his samples 2 (Delessio/Breidenbach), 3 (White) and 4 (Intermont) by mail. Definitely, es per the Harrit/Jones/Farrer paper.
Henryco and Jones can make claims of the same quality.

(For the record: I have no reason to assume that anything was faked here - I assume good faith: All five samples in question here were, as best as we can tell, indeed collected on 9/11 near GZ, and not intentionally tampered with. I accept that the red-grey chips could indeed be found here and there in WTC dust. I am only saying that you should not regard Jones' samples any higher than any other samples. They were collected, stored, documented and sent by amateurs).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Not even that. The theoretical maximum is just below 4 MJ/kg, but in practice, the value is somewhat lower, due to the unavoidable oxide layers of Al surfaces. A problem that's often worse for nanothermite, where smaller particles mean more surface per mass. Ordinary thermite typically releases around 3.5 MJ/kg, nanothermite may go as low as 1.5 MJ/kg, with 2.8-3.2 being more typical values for true high tech nano materials (where a more uniform spherical shape helps to reduce surfaces).

Yes, I oversimplified. Thank you for the correction.

Using round numbers, Miragememories seems to be having trouble with the fact that 15 and 17 are greater than 4. As you pointed out, 4 is also greater than 3.5 and 2.8-3.2. To repeat the numbers for his benefit:

• 17 MJ/kg (paper)
• 15 MJ/kg (wood)
• 4 MJ/kg (theoretical maximum for the thermite reaction argued by Harrit et al.)
• 3.5 MJ/kg (ordinary thermite in practice)
• 3 MJ/kg (super-sophisticated nanothermite)
• 2 MJ/kg (typical nanothermite)

 

[kylebisme]

show us where he goes wrong...

Bazant goes wrong by relying on bare assertions to defend his claim of crush-down before crush-up, apparently oblivious to the utter lack of any real world example or even a simulation to substantiate such notions.

Is this your bizarre way of trying to evade the reality that NIST modeled the WTC 7 collapse entirely?

Here in reality, NIST hasn't shown more of their WTC 7 simulation starting to come down somewhat like WTC 7 did, as I've exemplified with this video:

Failed, Skilling did not do the white paper. Skilling agrees with Robertson, 180 mph impact...

The structural analysis mentioned in the whitepaper was done by Skilling's firm, and it sways 600 mph impact, as the source I cited explains. and your delusions to the contrary do nothing to change that fact.

 

[beachnut]

...
The structural analysis mentioned in the whitepaper was done by Skilling's firm, and it sways 600 mph impact, as the source I cited explains. and your delusions to the contrary do nothing to change that fact.

Where is your first hand, first person proof of 600 mph, the white paper is hearsay from a third party? I have Robertson, you have nonsense, like a news article with an error. Do you understand the normal speed for an airliner at 700 feet is below 250 KIAS? Guess not.

The impact study considered an accident, not a terrorist event flying jets above their Vmo of 350 KCAS, and over the FAA mandated 250 KIAS limit. The accident most probable for an impact with the WTC towers would be a plane trying to land, lost, low on fuel, and that is why 180 mph makes sense, and is plausible.


Skilling and Robertson speed for impact, 180 mph. You will never produce Skilling saying 600 mph, you are now telling lies because you think hearsay, and a white paper by a third party are evidence. You take hearsay and make up lies.

The impact speed for the anaylis was 180 mph, it is covered by the structual engineer responsible for the structure of the WTC towers.

http://www.members.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Energy911.jpg

As you spread lies, it becomes clear you don't understand E=1/2mv²
The white paper is a sales tool, a marketing paper, not science, it is public relations which failed to get the speed right.

What is the speed limit below 10,000 feet for airliners? 250 KIAS, not 600 mph,

Where does a 707 do 600 mph? Above 27,000 feet, NOT 700 feet.

What speed does a 707 do at 700 feet lost in the fog? 180 mph

You have the delusion on this topic and can't get past using hearsay as evidence.

The OP, this video, proves thermate was not used to destroy the WTC towers.
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-1...comment-241377

Thermate was not used on 911, and 911 truth proves it. Why has 911 truth failed for 9 plus years? They try harder!

Some idiots at 911blogger can't figure out 911 after 9 years. The comments at 911blogger are delusional and stupid. One dolt wants congress to see the idiotic video. How stupid do you have to be to sign up for 911blogger? They think they have evidence to support their delusions.

The video done by the idiot, shows thermate fused to the steel. No iron was fused to WTC steel. Case closed, and we learn 911blogger is a web site of stupid on 911.

 

[A W Smith]

Bazant goes wrong by relying on bare assertions to defend his claim of crush-down before crush-up, apparently oblivious to the utter lack of any real world example or even a simulation to substantiate such notions.

not a bare assertion, the debris front and top portion are both accelerating towards earth due to gravity. The collision between the stationary lower floors and accelerating debris front is more severe than the collision between the top portion interface and the debris front. which are both moving but not rigidly connected. The debris mass builds from the bottom as it gathers floors and sheds debris off the top and sides as the perimeter column trees fall away being unable to contain the debris mass as the floor truss seats are sheared off.

 

[Edx]

Peer review can be a helpful too, but it doesn't rightly prove anything in itself.

But you guys care about peer review about as much as Creationists do, right? ie, You dont care. How do you feel conducting yourself like Creationists, creating fake journals just like they do?

Bazant's claims of crush-down before crush-up are stand in flagrant violation of Newton's third law, and no amount of appealing to authority can change that.

So again are all the other scientists and engineers are stupid, incompetent, delusional, or lying?

Please do pick one, because according to you this is something so easily understandable any unqualified keyboard jockey can get it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Skilling's comment "There would be a horrendous fire... The building structure would still be there" suggests they did account for that in their study, but unfortunatly the actual documentation of that study has gone missing.

You use Skillings' words as his "evidence." If people were arguing for a situation where the impact damage alone was the only factor you might have a point, but nobody's arguing that. A fleeting reference tells us nothing about any studies done to account for secondary problems. There's plenty of indication that this wasn't accounted for. I doubt you've ever read into that excerpt you posted, sorry.

Since you're also posting in a thermite thread you might also want to produce a single example where thermite was used in a large scale building demolition. Let's see if I understand how this first time in history argument works. You'd have it that the lack of precedent is the weakness in the "official story". So logically it follows if you're going to accept that line of logic then you've shot yourself in the foot by arguing that thermite is a viable alternative.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

waiting four years now for truthers to show any example whatsoever of a building undergoing controlled demolition using thermite or nanothermite.

Got anything?

I've got a "911 was an outside job" teeshirt

 

[kylebisme]

Where is your first hand, first person proof of 600 mph, the white paper is hearsay from a third party?

I'm not the one who lost the the structural analysis, but what Robertson said doesn't rightly contradict the white paper, as Robertson referred to the original design considerations while the white paper refers to an analysis done after the design was completed.

not a bare assertion, the debris front and top portion are both accelerating towards earth due to gravity.

Sure, which applies more force to the bottom portion, but it doesn't result in crush up before crush down that Bazant claims.

So again are all the other scientists and engineers are stupid, incompetent, delusional, or lying?

Please do pick one...

Why do you insist I only pick one, is a combination of all four too much for you to grasp?

You use Skillings' words as his "evidence." If people were arguing for a situation where the impact damage alone was the only factor you might have a point, but nobody's arguing that.

Nonsense, Skilling said "the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire."

 

[beachnut]

I'm not the one who lost the the structural analysis, but what Robertson said doesn't rightly contradict the white paper, as Robertson referred to the original design considerations while the white paper refers to an analysis done after the design was completed.

The white paper can only refer to Robertson's 180 mph study, and they got the speed wrong. Robertson's 180 mph study was confirmed by another study, you have failed to research. You have the 600 mph delusion, I first flew heavy jet for the USAF in 1976, a Boeing jet, at 700 feet, unless we were doing a fly by at 250 to 300 KIAS, our speed was close to 200 mph. Gee, maybe if you were a pilot and an engineer you would understand the design stuff.

Answer why a jet low on fuel would be going 600 mph at 700 feet, or stop spreading the lie, the hearsay of 600 mph. Good luck. The design point was 180 mph, it was for an aircraft hitting the WTC, an accident, not terrorist flying an airliner faster than Vmo. Wake up and use some engineering skills, many laypeople here have skill and knowledge as good as engineers.

You are calling Robertson a liar, why? He is the structural engineer, he is the only expert on the WTC, and he thinks 911 truth claims are delusional claptrap. Prove him wrong, try using your hearsay claptrap to prove him wrong. Do it.

You are posting nonsense, it does not make sense. Better stick with the delusional thermate claims.

Sure, which applies more force to the bottom portion, but it doesn't result in crush up before crush down that Bazant claims.

Are you an engineer? Why do fail to understand models? Attacking Bazant's work only exposes your ignorance, your lack of engineer skills.

Why do you insist I only pick one, is a combination of all four too much for you to grasp?

Millions of engineers and scientist do not support the lies of 911 truth. 911 truth is a movement of lies. You can't prove otherwise.

Nonsense, Skilling said "the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire."

The impacts disabled the fire systems in the WTC, the fuel in the two jets was the equal in heat energy to 315 TONS of TNT, no wonder there was no evidence of thermate; it was never in the WTC.

The OP, the video, prove thermate was not used. The proof is in the video.

 

[alienentity]

Sure, which applies more force to the bottom portion, but it doesn't result in crush up before crush down that Bazant claims.

That's not what Bazant shows with his math.

You're the one making baseless claims, using no math. Gee, and you're also not an internationally recognized engineering expert.

Go figure.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Even if I was to accept what you say as true, would not the existence of a single exotherm recording a release more than the theoretical maximum possible energy available from any thermite reaction, including a nanothermite reaction, be of even greater scientific interest?

No, not in the least. Thermite actually has a very low energy density. Wood releases a lot more energy when it burns than thermite, and science is aware of the existence of wood.

Well Physicist, Dr. Jeff Farrer disagrees with you;

Yes, he does. But his statement is factually incorrect, and trivially so; many common office substances, including paper or paint, have a much higher energy density than the red chips.

They're really not that interesting. Only a small group of truthers assign any significance at all to them.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Rather, in science; if want to claim your hypothetical sources for the iron rich spheres have any merit, you've got to provide some semblance of experimental confirmation to demonstrate as much. Again, otherwise you might as well be arguing the possibility that the dust was planted by the devil, and science ignores such unfounded speculation.

Kyle.
Kyle
Kyle.

It is rather amusing watching you flail around. Here is a simple check for you. Call up your local university and ask to speak to whoever teaches experimental design and methodology (which is what I teach).

now then, ask them for the basics of experimental design. Ask them about how you set up an alternative hypothesis, and how you test it. Ask them about the ability to eliminate any confounding variables. They will tell you what I have told you.

Before you can claim that something caused something else, you need to remove any and all confounding variables which could cause it.

You point to microspheres. Goody. Now you need to eliminate any and all other causes for microspheres.

can you eliminate ANY of the other plausible explanations for microspheres? yes or no?

No you can't.

Do the microspheres have a unique chemical signature, or a unique method of being created? no they do not.

as such, you cannot claim that they are caused from anything. Microspheres by themselves do not say THERM*TE in any form, as there are at least a dozen ways for microspheres to be created.

Try again... maybe after you have taken an experimental design course.