The Great Thermate Debate

[sheeplesnshills]

Tank barrels tend to be more or less horizontal tubes. How would you use thermite to cut e vertical column?

How much thermite would you need to cut through a columns as used in the WTC buildings?

And wouldn't there be hundreds of cut columns in the debris pile.....yet there were none other than those cut during the cleanup.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Then why stop with thermite, the military uses nukes, why not nukes like some of the smarter 911 truthers claim!?

exactly, why bother with planes,sooper nanny thermite, flyovers, DEW etc etc when you could just set a small nuke off and blame terrorists of choice?

Why do CTers insist on such ludicrously complex plots? the real 911 Terrorists had to use planes as they had no Nukes but the gov has and thats a plot that could be hatched by a very few people and have exactly the same outcome.......now why would they choose the ludicrously complex one?

 

[grandmastershek]

Tank barrels tend to be more or less horizontal tubes. How would you use thermite to cut e vertical column?

How much thermite would you need to cut through a columns as used in the WTC buildings?

This also ignores the fact that most weapon barrels since at least the advent of rifling are designed within very specific limits based on the ordinance they are delivering. So if you damage or deform the barrel in almost any capacity the weapon is rendered either useless or extremely unreliable. All you need to do is make it unusable; not melt through the entire thing. If you melt through even a small amount of the barrel you reduce the pressure to project the shell and if you don't you will deform the interior making it at a minimum risky to operate.

now why would they choose the ludicrously complex one?

Truthers tend to treat action movies and cartoons as reality.

 

[beachnut]

A thermitic compound is any combination of metal and metal oxide that that produces an exothermic reaction, which is exactly what the chips found in the dust are. As for the chips energy by weight, that is higher than thermite because the chips are more than just thermite, they also contain organic material which identifies the reaction. This is explained in the paper itself, you might consider reading it some time.


Rate of energy output is cardinal to why all the wood has more energy by weight than thermite arguments are irrelevant.


There's plenty of evidence of molten steel beyond what Robertson was reported as having said, but I'm guessing you'd continue to reject all the evidence even of video of Robertson talking about it turned up, eh?

No melted steel, Robertson never saw any. Oops.
No thermite, thermite does not have carbon in it. Sorry.
The heat energy is important, the office fires beat themite.

 

[leftysergeant]

There's plenty of evidence of molten steel beyond what Robertson was reported as having said, but I'm guessing you'd continue to reject all the evidence even of video of Robertson talking about it turned up, eh?

Bull flops. We have shown repeatedly here how some of those reports are based on poor language skills or outright lies told by a Nazi who does not dare hold a public event because he will be immediately arrested and sent to jail without the bother of a trial to determine whether he belongs there because he already skipped bail for one sentencing hearing.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

A thermitic compound is any combination of metal and metal oxide that that produces an exothermic reaction,

Yes, that's how Wikipedia defines thermite^WP.

We seldom hear that more general definition in connection with the paper by Harrit et al, because they are arguing for the aluminum and iron(III) oxide variety of thermite. From their abstract:

....The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material....Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips....

which is exactly what the chips found in the dust are.

Why then did you contradict yourself in your very next sentence?

As for the chips energy by weight, that is higher than thermite because the chips are more than just thermite,

Yes, we know the chips can't possibly be the aluminum/iron(III) oxide thermite as claimed by Harrit et al in their abstract and as argued in their paper, because their calorimetry demonstrated that two of the chips released more energy than the theoretical maximum for thermite. Inescapable conclusion: thermite is exactly what the chips cannot be.

they also contain organic material which identifies the reaction.

Yes, it is highly probable that the chips contain organic material, and that the calorimetry is measuring the heat released by combustion of that organic material in air.

Had Harrit et al wished to provide calorimetric evidence of thermite, they'd have measured the heat of the reaction in an inert atmosphere. They didn't.

Because the calorimetry provided no evidence for thermite, while providing definitive proof that the chips were not the particular kind of thermite mentioned in the abstract and discussed throughout the paper, the obvious conclusion is that the chips weren't thermite.

Harrit et al sought to escape that obvious conclusion by engaging in wildly unsupported speculation. Here's their argument in a nutshell:

1. The chips don't look like any thermite we or anyone else has ever seen before.
2. So they must be double top secret nano-thermite.

More sober scientists would have stated point 1 and left it at that.

This is explained in the paper itself, you might consider reading it some time.

If I hadn't read the paper, I probably wouldn't have laughed at the folly of your arguments.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

exactly, why bother with planes,sooper nanny thermite, flyovers, DEW etc etc when you could just set a small nuke off and blame terrorists of choice?

And it would have fit nicely with the occasional, subtle reminders we were given that terrorist groups were constantly attempting to acquire nuclear material to building their own bomb.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A thermitic compound is any combination of metal and metal oxide that that produces an exothermic reaction, which is exactly what the chips found in the dust are.

How was that established? Was it tested in an inert atmosphere?

 

[dvictr]

bravo

 

[kylebisme]

Yes, we know the chips can't possibly be the aluminum/iron(III) oxide thermite as claimed by Harrit et al in their abstract and as argued in their paper, because their calorimetry demonstrated that two of the chips released more energy than the theoretical maximum for thermite.

Rather, a combination of aluminum and iron oxide which produces an exothermic reaction is exactly what the chips are, along with organic material which intensifies the reaction; hence the total more energy output being more than the theoretical maximum for thermite. If you don't want to call that thermite, what terminology would you prefer? Super-thermite? Sol-gel explosives? Such semantic nitpicking aside; such highly energetic nanocomposites don't simply form by happenstance, not even close.

 

[Dog Town]

Rather, a combination of aluminum and iron oxide which produces an exothermic reaction is exactly what the chips are, along with organic material which intensifies the reaction; hence the total more energy output being more than the theoretical maximum for thermite. If you don't want to call that thermite, what terminology would you prefer? Super-thermite? Sol-gel explosives? Such semantic nitpicking aside; such highly energetic nanocomposites don't simply form by happenstance, not even close.

So why not test it in a inert atmosphere? Removing speculation!

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah, why not? Whoever believes testing in inert atmosphere would prove something new really should should get some samples of the dust and put their speculations to the test. Until then, you aren't really making a scientific argument against Harrit et al.'s conclusions, just feigning one.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Rather, a combination of aluminum and iron oxide which produces an exothermic reaction is exactly what the chips are, along with organic material which intensifies the reaction; hence the total more energy output being more than the theoretical maximum for thermite. If you don't want to call that thermite, what terminology would you prefer? Super-thermite? Sol-gel explosives?

Flakes. If you want more specificity, I'd call them flakes of rust adhering to other material(s) of uncertain origin and evidently varying composition.

Speculating about unknown forms or thermite or explosive just feeds fantasies best left undernourished.

Such semantic nitpicking aside; such highly energetic nanocomposites don't simply form by happenstance, not even close.

Wood doesn't form by happenstance?

Wood and paper are about twice as energetic as the most energetic of the chips, which are themselves about twice as energetic as the thermite you (and Harrit et al) claim them to be. For you (and Harrit et al) to describe those chips as "highly energetic" just feeds fantasies best left undernourished.

 

[carlitos]

LOL @ "highly energetic"

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yeah, why not? Whoever believes testing in inert atmosphere would prove something new really should should get some samples of the dust and put their speculations to the test. Until then, you aren't really making a scientific argument against Harrit et al.'s conclusions, just feigning one.

How do they know there was a thermitic reaction if there was oxygen present?

 

[twinstead]

So how's the "Great Thermate Debate" going?

 

[kylebisme]

Flakes. If you want more specificity, I'd call them flakes of rust adhering to other material(s) of uncertain origin and evidently varying composition.

Well rust is iron oxide, and the MEK treatment reveals the elemental aluminum, the BSE image and XEDS maps expose the nanoscale composition, and the highly exothermic reaction produces iron rich micro-spheres. So, regardless of what you choose to call it, surely you can't demonstrate even one plausible origin for any such a material other than a laboratory, eh?

Speculating about unknown forms or thermite or explosive just feeds fantasies best left undernourished.

Such materials are far from unknown, as Harrit et al.'s paper demonstrated by citing similar compounds discussed in other papers.

 

[The Almond]

Well rust is iron oxide, and the MEK treatment reveals the elemental aluminum, the BSE image and XEDS maps expose the nanoscale composition, and the highly exothermic reaction produces iron rich micro-spheres. So, regardless of what you choose to call it, surely you can't demonstrate even one plausible origin for any such a material other than a laboratory, eh?

I did, on page 8 of this thread by referencing the McCrone Particle Atlas. Here you are:

Interestingly enough, paint chips are actually a part of the McCrone Particle Atlas (MPA), which would be the technical glossary for particle and dust analysis. RJ Lee has made extremely good use of the MPA over the last 25 years or so. Such material would have been reported, if it were found.

FYI:
Dual layered (one gray, one colored) chips are identified in the MPA in sections 12:001100 and 28:011100. Interestingly, MPA notes, "Throughout the sample, individually dispersed and attached to the primer layer, is rust (see iron oxide). The sample came from a newly painted steel bridge from which the paint was flaking off." It goes on further to state, "[...] the paint particles are seen to be composed of tiny (less than 1 um) [...] rounded pigment particles." McCrone Particle Atlas, volume 2 (1973), page 529.

So, let's see:
Nano-scale material: Yep
Organic binder: Yep
Dual layered structure: Yep
Iron oxide present in the material (pigment): Yep

So, what, exactly is so special about a material that it's included in a 1973 hardcover encyclopedia on particles found in dust, dirt and ash?

Such materials are far from unknown, as Harrit et al.'s paper demonstrated by citing similar compounds discussed in other papers.

On this, we agree. Had Harrit et al spent 5 minutes in the library looking up potential contaminants in their sample of dust, they would have correctly identified the material, and we could have skipped all of this discussion.

 

[Dog Town]

Yeah, why not?

That's what WE would like to know! They're the ones claiming something, about their samples! Ask your buddies, or better yet yourself, why they didn't?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yeah, why not? Whoever believes testing in inert atmosphere would prove something new really should should get some samples of the dust and put their speculations to the test. Until then, you aren't really making a scientific argument against Harrit et al.'s conclusions, just feigning one.

really? the ONE characteristic of thermite that would show that it was thermite (or at least something interesting) is the one thing they didn't test? Now one could reasonably put this down to incompetence but wait! Jones et al are respected scientists (snigger) so that can't be it so that leaves deliberate fraud.........

So which do you prefer? Incompetence or fraud? Both?