• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Great Thermate Debate

kylebisme said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on this?

It looks like they found an Etch-A-Sketch that landed in some rust and got crushed with some burnt papers and national geographic magazines. You failed to take physics and you must of been asleep or skipped chemistry. It is cool seeing how much you support idiots who made up the fake study. You would be a great friend to have, you have no clue they are wrong but you would back them with talk all day long.

Better read the Jones paper again, and look at the diagrams closely; there is no carbon in thermite. There is no copper in their dust, so it was not what attacked the steel in the WTC, the few samples burnt up in the fires after 911.

This is funny, we are talking about steel burnt in fires after 911 which corroded and never go hotter, never exposed to temperatures past 950 to 1100 degrees, and you claim thermite did it which burns much hotter and would have been next to the steel. In addition the thermite product of liquid iron would fuse to the steel leaving an evidence trail so big we would have known about thermite on 911. No body found thermite products. Looks like Jones can't do chemistry.

No body takes Jones' paper serious in the real world, why do you? IF you were in reality you would be calling 60 minutes, the police, the FBI, but you post here, you post nonsense like this post, and you post talk, you never present rational arguments for your buddies the idiots who faked a paper to fool you. They are fooling you and you support them. The joke is on you.

If Jones' paper was real, the implied conclusions would be Pulitzer Prize material, instead they are crazy lunatic ravings of a failed physicists who thinks the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti, he is nuts on that and 911; Crazy, cue Gnarls Barkley

Jones lunatic ravings are done in a very personable polite manner, he has fooled you. When he says the United States caused the Haiti earthquake it is time to cut him from your trusted friends list; he is as nuts on 911 as he is on the earthquake in Haiti; he is a paranoid conspiracy theorists.
 
kylebisme said:
Yeah, why not?
Click to expand...


I can probably guess...

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.
Click to expand...


That's a shifting of the burden of proof.

Until then, you aren't really making a scientific argument against Harrit et al.'s conclusions, just feigning one.
Click to expand...


Pointing out flaws or, at the very least, shortcomings in their research is entirely valid.
 
kylebisme said:
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.
Click to expand...

Simple question.

Let's look at the one chip which released 7.5 kJ/g energy in the DSC.

Kyle, give it you best shot: Which chemical reaction or reactions do you think took place when that chip burned, releasing 7.5 kJ/g of energy?

We know that it can't just have been Fe3O2 + 2Al, as that reaction only releases 3.9kJ/g. You agree with that, don't you?
 
kylebisme said:
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.
Click to expand...

You don't understand why testing the sample in an inert atmosphere would prove or disprove therm*te, do you?
 
I wonder why Nat Geo weren't aware of it ...

... or some posters here when discussing it ...
 
Last edited:
Wow, something invented in 2006, and we're supposed to believe that:

A-Used in 2001
B-Leaves no traces
C-Self-destruct mechanism not included, sold seperately.

Yeah, keep going.
 
Did you not read the site that you linked?

Care to address the rest of the post? Or are you drving that new Dodge Ram pickup that I have been seeing....
 
well, I can see filing date, i can see parent data registration date ... maybe I am blind, but I can not see the date related with the very invention moment ...

I will not hesitate to admit it if there is something to the contrary
 
Michal said:
well, I can see filing date, i can see parent data registration date ... maybe I am blind, but I can not see the date related with the very invention moment ...

I will not hesitate to admit it if there is something to the contrary
Click to expand...

Do you think that they waited a few years after inventing the thing before they filed for a patent?
 
Michal said:
I wonder why Nat Geo weren't aware of it ...

... or some posters here when discussing it ...
Click to expand...
Quite simple. It did not exist in 2001. You have still not addressed the question of how one prevents the discovery of residues such as the refactory shell of the charge. An amazing number of objects of the size required were found in tact or crumpled in a way that still left them identifiable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom