Questions about nano-thermite

[cev08241971]

two competing scenarios...

I think it is still under basic research and not ready for any real application.

Your thoughts are noted.

The material discovered in the World Trade Center dust samples indicate that thermate was used (nano or otherwise). Thermate is thermite with a little sulfur added. Thermate formulations have been around since the forties. The addition of a bit of sulfur turns it into a much more potent incendiary. This thermate was used in four pound bombs and in grenades. The grenade version was capable of rapidly burning through 3/8 inch steel. The grenades were made at a rate of about 30,000 per day for five months in the early forties.

The "nano" part just means the materials are organized on the nano scale, for more rapid reactions. In "nano" thermite, this means the elemental aluminum is sorted into almost pure (with a tiny bit of O bound to the outside of it) elemental aluminum and iron oxide, both materials are generally suspended in a relatively inert organic matrix. The aluminum is most likely the orthogonal nodules (minimal surface area to oxidize prior to reacting) and the iron oxide comprises the hexagonal "wafers". The technology to do this is mature.

"FY01 Technology Transfer Business Plan: IHDIV is considered the Navy’s Center of Excellence for Energetics development and has extensive expertise, capabilities, and information in energetics synthesis, formulation, and processing as well as in testing of energetic systems. IHDIV will transfer their knowledge of development and manufacturing energetics with respect to the use of TECHNANOGY produced nanoaluminum and supply TECHNANOGY with test data associated with the testing of TECHNANOGY nanoaluminum. TECHNANOGY is a leader in the production of nanoaluminum for use in energetic systems utilized for DoD purposes. To our knowledge, TECHNANOGY is the sole supplier of nanoaluminum for use in pilot scale processing. TECHNANOGY will share their material and knowledge of nanoaluminum processing subject to the terms and conditions of this CRADA. (cooperative research and development agreement)."

So not only do we narrow it down to DoD sources, we can narrow it down to a specific supplier, "TECHNANOGY". This is the only source of the "nanoaluminum" necessary for these aluminothermic compounds.

"Technanogy is the world's leading producer of high-quality, highly energetic ultra-pure aluminum powder at the nanoscale, made to explicit customer specifications. Based on technology developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and 10 years of research and development work with both the United States Department of Defense and the United States Department of Energy, Technanogy has perfected proprietary technologies to produce large volumes of quality nano-aluminum powder. Historically, nano-aluminum powder has only been available in research quantities. Now, Technanogy is capable of economically producing large amounts of very high quality nano-aluminum powder." - Technanogy

So what's the explanation here?

a) This nanothermate formed spontaneously in the World Trade Center demolition, and the DoD sent in Technanogy to figure out how that happened? Ten years later they figure out how to do it without destroying two skyscrapers and start a military technology spinoff company?

b) Or is it more likely that this nanothermate found in the World Trade Center dust was made with aluminum provided by Technanogy and used to demolish the buildings?

 

[cev08241971]

Meanwhile, (OT) why is nobody talking about Dr.Judy Wood and the Hutchison effect on these threads?

Straw (wo)man, anyone?

 

[cev08241971]

only DoD had access to the sole supplier of the nanoaluminum necessary

Yes, the declarations are that it is now 'case closed' and there is no more doubt...

That's pretty much it, when you find irrefutable evidence that thermite (or more accurately nano thermate) was used, all doubt should vanish. We have that evidence. it isn't "paint chips", it's highly explosive and the list of sources is VERY short (one name on the list, really).

 

[cev08241971]

Who? The painters did it.
Why? To keep the steel from rusting.

Regardless of what you have heard, paint chips are not highly explosive, and don't contain nanoaluminum, sulfur or even iron oxide in anything other than trace amounts. We have irrefutable evidence that the World Trade Center was demolished with nano thermate, not exploding paint.

 

[R.Mackey]

What is it about the Interwebs that make totally ignorant people try to lecture everyone else?

One benefit of "nanothermite" over "ordinary" thermite is it can be explosive, instead of just deflagrating (burning). It can also be tailored to deflagrate at one temperature threshold and explode at a higher threshold.

Wrong and wrong. Nanothermite is not explosive. It generates no gas and thus no pressure rise whatsoever. If you mix it with some material that will undergo a phase change to create gas, you are reducing its energy potential to do so.

A benefit over other explosives is that it has a very high energy density, both in terms of mass and volume.

Wrong. The observed energy density of nanothermite is about 30% that of dynamite, and 40% that of ordinary black powder.

It can be used to deflagrate metal and it can be used to cut metal explosively. These benefits really can't be matched by very many explosives, and there are other benefits as well.

Ridiculous.

Some of this material could have been used as "fuse" to control the detonation sequence to a certain extent. It's suitable for a "cascading" explosion, where one explosion ignites the fuse that triggers the next explosion almost immediately and so on.

Wrong. Where this is actually done, typically one uses "det cord," or a form of plastic explosive that takes the form of "ropes" of material. You would use shock to cascade explosives. Nanothermite generates no pressure rise at all, let alone a shock wave.

This is not rocket surgery, it's a common practice to use this sort of material as an ignition source. Hobbyists do something similar when they use magnesium ribbons (or binary chemicals) to ignite their home-brewed thermite.

Wrong. Nobody uses nanothermite as a trigger. I know of no hobbyist in the world who has even seen the stuff. Furthermore, nanothermite itself would require a trigger, possibly magnesium ribbon, so the idea that it itself is a trigger is complete malarkey.

The ratio of this material in the World Trade Center dust samples examined suggest on the order of 10 tons of this stuff all throughout the buildings.

Actually the ratio "suggested" by the dust samples is zero. There are no anomalous materials found in the WTC dust that suggest the presence of nanothermite at all.

For 220 stories that's what, 90lbs per floor? Here's something most people can relate to, a 40lbs bag of concrete mix:
[qimg]http://http.cdnlayer.com/ec1images/raw/products/5/5202411.jpg[/qimg]
So a couple of bags of this stuff per floor.

90 pounds of it per floor isn't enough to melt a single column, let alone demo the entire structure.

Load up the base, spray it on, load up the thermite while it's drying and spray that on. Would two bags of this stuff be enough to "spray on" fuse up and down the length of several columns on every floor? What if you also used it to weaken steel beams at 30 foot intervals, so that subsequent explosions split the steel where you weakened it into 30 foot sections that fit perfectly on your trucks? Is two bags per floor enough?

You can't "spray on" nanothermite. Its manufacture is complicated, requiring both a drying atmosphere and high pressure. Also, as noted above, your quantites are insufficent to do any damage at all. If you applied it in this fashion it would actually create new surface welds over the structure, making it a tiny bit stronger.

I don't know if this Dr. Harrit said this or if you are just inventing it, but it's not true. The energy density of nanothermite is comparable to that of other explosives used in demolition, both in terms of weight and in particular in terms of volume.

If by "comparable to" you mean "significantly less than," you are correct. That is a form of comparison, after all.

These materials are very dense so they take up less volume than other explosives, and they are EXTREMELY energetic for their mass when well-designed.

Just plain wrong.

They are the cutting edge of demolition explosives, particularly when you consider the range of properties that can be customized, as I've mentioned in another post, they can have different temperature thresholds for deflagration (subsonic burning) and explosion, so, for example, a jet fuel fire might ignite it, but a high explosive detonating nearby might cause it to burn explosively.

Nonsense. Nobody is using it for demolition and nobody ever will. An "explosive" formulation packed with, say, clathrate hydrates packed into the xerogel, would behave as a classic low explosive -- virtually identical to black powder, except with about one fifth the energy per pound, and costing one million to one billion times as much. That's not what the stuff is for.

The World Trade Center was demolished by explosives inside it. How anyone can still be in denial about that is beyond me.

You'd understand if you actually had the faintest clue what you were talking about.

I think what the poster was getting at is these chips, when heated, burn explosively, paint chips don't.

No they don't. There's a clip of one burning in the latest in the Loose Change series. It doesn't explode at all. It burns and bubbles just like... paint.

They also don't break down in methyl ethyl ketone, which paint does.

Not all paints break down in MEK, and some formulations of nanothermite do break down in MEK. You're wrong coming and going.

They also don't have the same chemical signature as "kaolinite", despite many strenuous claims to the contrary.

Yes, they do.

These chips are not paint, they are highly energetic aluminothermic compounds with very specific properties, properties which are obscenely consistent in all the samples.

There's no evidence that they burn in a neutral atmosphere. The sizes, shapes, and compositions of particles seen in them are consistent with paint, and not consistent with nanothermite. They are not particularly energetic. They are also not consistent with each other.

Actually the whole point of "nano" thermite is to produce explosives. As I've stated previously (multiple times now), nano thermite can also be tailored so it will deflagrate (burn) at one temperature threshold and explode at a higher threshold. It can then be used as an incendiary or an explosive. These chips, when heated abruptly, explode, resulting in spherules of elemental iron. They have also been shown to deflagrate at lower temperatures, leaving behind similar spherules. Clearly it's not overstating it to say this stuff is nano thermite.

No, this is not the point of nanothermite.

The point of nanothermite is to create a substance that has a self-sustaining, supersonic chemical reaction, but does not explode. Its only useful applications, so far, are in systems where explosions are a problem.

What little is known about this experimental and totally unfielded substance is captured in roughly 15 research papers, nearly all coming from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. From your commentary, it is abundantly clear you haven't read a single one of them.

 

[cev08241971]

That's a very good question. I wonder why Jones isn't making an effort to get his work extended beyond this one single "journal".

If you're talking about publication, how many times need one publish?

 

[cev08241971]

i suspect there will be NO independent analysis...

There has already been an abundance of independent analysis of this material.

...from any reputable institution of higher learning or well known chemical or engineering company.

Your appeal to authority is unwarranted and repugnant. Science isn't performed by consensus and is not reliant on reputation. Let the science lead, don't lead the science.

 

[R.Mackey]

There has already been an abundance of independent analysis of this material.

This is a bald-faced lie. The only other person in the world to even see Dr. Jones's samples is a theoretical physicist, and someone who's already a Truther to begin with. And this individual could not even confirm the claimed physical appearance of the paint chips, let alone its physical properties. Properties which, I might add, already verify it's not nanothermite.

Dr. Jones has promised to provide samples for independent analysis, about a year and a half ago I believe, and has not followed through. To call this dishonest would be charitable.

 

[cev08241971]

so whats new with the nano-thermite story?

has Cal-Tech, MIT, Cornell, or Princeton recieved samples of the thermite yet for indepedent analysis?

and if no..then why the hell not???

Do electron microscopes operate differently at Cal-Tech or MIT or Cornell or Princeton? Do people in those places have access to novel physics the rest of us peons can't fathom? Appeals to authority are not science.

"The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). 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. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." - The Open Chemical Physics Journal: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

 

[ozeco41]

Regardless of what you have heard, paint chips are not highly explosive, and don't contain nanoaluminum, sulfur or even iron oxide in anything other than trace amounts....

irrelevant waffling

..We have irrefutable evidence that the World Trade Center was demolished...

Hogwash. The WTC was not demolished by any mechanim or material. Take that fact as your starting point.

...with nano thermate..

..still nonsense - followed by:

..., not exploding paint.

...a strawman.

That's pretty much it, when you find irrefutable evidence that thermite (or more accurately nano thermate) was used, all doubt should vanish....

...a "truism" except that there is no such evidence.

We have that evidence....

...you don't. There is no such evidence. Starting with the fact that the WTC buildings were not demolished...

it isn't "paint chips", it's highly explosive and the list of sources is VERY short (one name on the list, really).

...make your mind up. You were talking about thermXte - now by some miracle is is "highly explosive" so it aint thermXte.

PS Somebody kick me for being silly enough to waste the energy to post this response.


I'm old enough to know better.

 

[R.Mackey]

Do electron microscopes operate differently at Cal-Tech or MIT or Cornell or Princeton? Do people in those places have access to novel physics the rest of us peons can't fathom? Appeals to authority are not science.

"The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). 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. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." - The Open Chemical Physics Journal: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

1. Asking for independent confirmation is not an "Appeal to Authority." Your complaint is baseless.

2. The analysis methods stated are the wrong ones. They should have used x-ray diffraction spectrometry. The techniques they used are insufficient to determine whether elements present are pure or in their oxidized forms, which leaves open the possibility for paint.

3. While the ignition temperature is lower than that for thermite, it is consistent with paint.

4. 100 nm iron oxide spheres are commonly found in paint. Nanothermite, on the other hand, has far smaller spheres of iron oxide. This is evidence against Dr. Jones's claim.

5. Plate-like aluminum-rich structures are not found in nanothermite. But they are found in minerals, and they are common in paint. What they found is consistent with the naturally occuring aluminum oxide, an extremely common mineral used as a pigment.

6. The claim of being "highly energetic" is also proof against it being nanothermite. Some of the particles have energies as much as five times higher than is possible for real nanothermite.

7. The Bentham Open Chemical Physics journal is a scam, and this paper was never properly reviewed. Proof of this is abundant.

 

[cev08241971]

This is a bald-faced lie.

I'll ask you to refer to the conventions of this forum, it's not civil to call people liars, and that's what you're doing by implication.

The only other person in the world to even see Dr. Jones's samples is a theoretical physicist, and someone who's already a Truther to begin with.

You're (apparently willfully) misunderstanding, as well as ignoring other research. For one thing, I wasn't suggesting Jones gave away his samples after his research. Clearly many of the samples were altered or consumed in the experiments.

To suggest that Jones' research itself hasn't been reviewed by independent researchers is comical.

To suggest that it's necessary for Jones to release his samples to verify his claims is ludicrous. Many researchers have repeated this research with other samples of World Trade Center dust and arrived at identical conclusions...independently. Your whole position is laughable in the extreme, no matter which weasel words you choose to use at any given moment.

Properties which, I might add, already verify it's not nanothermite.

Oh, you mean verified properties like the following?

"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. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." - The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Dr. Jones has promised to provide samples for independent analysis...

His samples aren't necessary for independent review of the procedures and the data. Such independent replication of this research has already taken place, I've cited one example above. The results are conclusive. This material is nano thermate. You may not like it, but it is what it is. It's unfortunate you can't enforce your delusions onto reality. If you could, you would have prevented this event from every taking place, I'm sure.

To call this dishonest would be charitable.

That may or may not be the case, but to call it relevant is riotous in the extreme. We don't need Jones' samples to replicate the research. In fact, it's better if we don't use the same samples (some of which were clearly consumed in the research).

 

[ozeco41]

There has already been an abundance of independent analysis of this material.

...utter untruth as I suspect you are fully aware. But "So what?" - we are not slaves to S E Jones mendacity.

Do electron microscopes operate differently at Cal-Tech or MIT or Cornell or Princeton? Do people in those places have access to novel physics the rest of us peons can't fathom? Appeals to authority are not science....[more evasive red herring material edited]...

...you are still coming at the alleged issue arse about cev08241971.

There was no demolition so whether or not there was any variant of supermagicmultipowerednanotherXte on site is totally irrelevant.

Even if there was a 1000 tonne stockpile of the stuff on ground zero - the three towers were not demolished. The whole "thermXte debate" is a red herring evasion.

 

[R.Mackey]

I'll ask you to refer to the conventions of this forum, it's not civil to call people liars, and that's what you're doing by implication.

I've violated no rules of the Forum, as the lie is well substantiated. There has been no independent verification of Dr. Jones's claims whatsoever.

You're (apparently willfully) misunderstanding, as well as ignoring other research. For one thing, I wasn't suggesting Jones gave away his samples after his research. Clearly many of the samples were altered or consumed in the experiments.

To suggest that Jones' research itself hasn't been reviewed by independent researchers is comical.

Yes, the whole thing is quite funny, but the joke is on you -- it happens to be true. No one has replicated his findings. No one.

To suggest that it's necessary for Jones to release his samples to verify his claims is ludicrous.

Say what, now? He claims to have samples of a near-mythical material. How can one verify his claims without seeing his samples? Are you daft?

Many researchers have repeated this research with other samples of World Trade Center dust and arrived at identical conclusions...independently. Your whole position is laughable in the extreme, no matter which weasel words you choose to use at any given moment.

This is another bald-faced lie. The other competent researchers who have indeed analyzed samples include Dr. Lioy of Rutgers, the R J Lee Group, and the DELTA Group at the University of California at Davis. All of their conclusions conflict wildly with Dr. Jones's claims.

Oh, you mean verified properties like the following?

"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. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." - The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Those unverified properties prove it isn't nanothermite. See above.

His samples aren't necessary for independent review of the procedures and the data. Such independent replication of this research has already taken place, I've cited one example above.

You cited no examples of independent verification whatsoever. Do you know what the words mean?

The results are conclusive. This material is nano thermate. You may not like it, but it is what it is. It's unfortunate you can't enforce your delusions onto reality. If you could, you would have prevented this event from every taking place, I'm sure.

The results are conclusive in showing (a) it isn't nanothermite and (b) Dr. Jones wouldn't know nanothermite if he had it in the first place.

That may or may not be the case, but to call it relevant is riotous in the extreme. We don't need Jones' samples to replicate the research. In fact, it's better if we don't use the same samples (some of which were clearly consumed in the research).

Total stupidity. This is like saying to prove or disprove a video of Bigfoot, I have to go shoot my own video.

Why won't Dr. Jones release his samples, if he really has nanothermite? Hmmm?

 

[cev08241971]

woo woo

1. Asking for independent confirmation is not an "Appeal to Authority."

It's not necessarily an appeal to authority, but if you couch it in terms of "reputable" or citing specific institutions you want "confirmation" from is an appeal to authority, clearly.

Your complaint is baseless.

I think you misunderstand, I wasn't complaining, I was correcting you.

2. The analysis methods stated are the wrong ones.

This claim is baseless, despite the subsequent gyrations that I'll omit. The procedures used to identify the various elements and compounds in this material is outlined and is based on sound science, not biased appeals to "reputation" or specific institutions or schools. The methods can, of course, be criticized, but not simply shunted into the realm of "inappropriate" just because there are other methods to achieve the same result.

3. While the ignition temperature is lower than that for thermite, it is consistent with paint.

The composition is in no way similar to paint. The composition has been shown to be somewhat similar to an ingredient in some paints, that is present in trace amounts as a pigment. The material proposed is "kaolinite", which, as I suggested, is a pigment used in some paints. This "kaolinite" does not, however, contain elemental aluminum (necessary for the aluminothermic reactions), contains drastically different abundances of oxygen and carbon (which suplementally accounts for the aluminothermic potential), and is only present in trace amounts in paint. Not to mention is contains none of the sulfur found in the World Trade Center nanothermate. Where is the rest of the "paint"? Why the drastic difference in carbon and oxygen ratios? Why is this material explosive when no known paint is? Why is there sulfur in this "paint"?

4. 100 nm iron oxide spheres are commonly found in paint.

patently false

Nanothermite, on the other hand, has far smaller spheres of iron oxide.

The iron oxide in this nano thermate is in nodules that are angular, not spherical. The iron spherules form when this material oxidizes. This is a signature of thermite, not paint.

5. Plate-like aluminum-rich structures are not found in nanothermite.

Clearly this claim is erroneous. This "nanothermite" (actually nano thermate because of the sulfur) contains elemental aluminum in hexagonal "wafers", falsifying your thesis.

But they are found in minerals, and they are common in paint.

This is not the form aluminum is when we find it in nature, and this is not a material that is common (or even known) in paint.

What they found is consistent with the naturally occuring aluminum oxide, an extremely common mineral used as a pigment.

I believe you're talking about "kaolinite" that's used as a pigment, in trace amounts, in some paints. It is not chemically the same as the unreacted nanothermate found in the World Trade Center dust and it in no case comprises the majority of any paint compounds. Further, this material did not spontaneously bind itself in a red medium that was further bound to an inert binding agent. Further still, the aluminum in the World Trade Center nanothermate was elemental aluminum, the iron was an oxide.

6. The claim of being "highly energetic" is also proof against it being nanothermite.

hardly, since nanothermite (and especially nanothermate, with a bit of sulfur) is "highly energetic"

Some of the particles have energies as much as five times higher than is possible for real nanothermite.

false, and are you suggesting that paint has chemical energy in excess of five times what you can liberate from thermite???

7. The Bentham Open Chemical Physics journal is a scam, and this paper was never properly reviewed. Proof of this is abundant.

Feel free to provide this "proof" you claim is "abundant".

This is from Bentham's web site:
"A major STM journal publisher of 92 online and print journals, 200 plus open access journals, and related print/online book series, Bentham Science answers the informational needs of the pharmaceutical, biomedical and medical research community."

Wow, that's quite a sophisticated and extensive scam they have going on. I wonder if anyone knows about this scam (besides you). You sure do have the inside track on that conspiracy theory, you're way ahead of the tinfoil hat pack.

 

[leftysergeant]

I think what the poster was getting at is these chips, when heated, burn explosively, paint chips don't.

What decietful djinn whispered that into your ear? Lots of things ignite explosively when heated suddenly to a high heat. Go sprinkle ground black pepper on the burner of an electric stove after the element gets hot. POOF! I offer that up as an example because you do not appear to have any experience in the construction trades. Those of us who have experience in such workplaces as a shipyard know damned well that paint chips, when hit with a welding torch, WILL deflagtrate. That is one of the reasons one of the seafood companies in Tacoma occassionally pays me a day's wages to sit and watch a welder at work on one of their boats.

They also don't break down in methyl ethyl ketone, which paint does.

Depends on the paint you are trying to remove. I have yet to see the paint slough off a can of MEK after it is opened and partly used. Think about that for a moment, at least.

They also don't have the same chemical signature as "kaolinite", despite many strenuous claims to the contrary. These chips are not paint, they are highly energetic aluminothermic compounds with very specific properties, properties which are obscenely consistent in all the samples.

Totally wrong. They have the chemical signature of kaolin and rust in a polymer matrix. There aint no bloody kaolin in thermite. There are, as far as I can find from any google search NO forms of thermite that contain silicon. Every form of paint used in construction contains some kaolin or talc or diatomaceous earth. There are clearly identifiable kaolinite crystals in every picture that Chucklenuts and his gang of charlatans has posted of their paint chips. They are bad scientists and they are mostly outrside their areas of expertise for most of their working hours.

Nanothermite is really only useful as an "electric match" to light other chemicals with a low ignition point. I have not seen any proof that it can be used as a primary explosive, nor that any of it was used as an incendiary to effect the steel at WTC.

You are posting garbage that we have all seen before and discredit most contemptuously.

 

[cev08241971]

I've violated no rules of the Forum, as the lie is well substantiated.

I really think you should review the membership agreement. I'll quote it for you:
"Truth is not necessarily a defence against a breach of Rule 0 or Rule 12, for example a Member may well be proven to have lied, but that does not mean it is civil and polite to call them a liar in every subsequent response to them, especially in responses not directly related to their original lie."

Even if you were right, which you're not, you're still wrong. Pay more attention to the rules you've agreed to follow.

There has been no independent verification of Dr. Jones's claims whatsoever.

I understand this is your belief. Fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs can not overturn reality.

Yes, the whole thing is quite funny, but the joke is on you -- it happens to be true. No one has replicated his findings. No one.

Apparently you're now deliberately ignoring the paper by Haritt et al, choosing to characterize Bentham Science Publications as a "crank" outfit and a "scam".

How can one verify his claims without seeing his samples?

This might surprise you, but Jones didn't have exclusive access to dust from the World Trade Center demolition. There were literally hundreds of tons of it spread all over New York City.

Are you daft?

Are you deliberately trying to be insulting or is it accidental? I'll thank you to keep your opinions about me to yourself. If you can't, save it for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.

This is another bald-faced lie.

Again you're violating the rules by suggesting I'm lying. You may disagree with what I've said, but that does not give you the right to violate the membership agreement governing use of this web site. You will remain civil when you discuss this with me or there will surely be consequences. For starters you can stop saying that I (or anyone) is "lying", just because you disagree with them. Even if you could somehow prove somebody was "lying", it's still a violation of the rules to call somebody a liar (even by implication). I've asked you twice now to stop this kind of behaviour. All it does is inflame the discussion and raise the emotional temperature of the thread. Kindly knock it off. (It's worth noting this behaviour of yours is widely considered to be trolling.)

The results are conclusive in showing (a) it isn't nanothermite and (b) Dr. Jones wouldn't know nanothermite if he had it in the first place.

I realize this is your belief, but your belief isn't supported by any verifiable science. And you want it both ways. You say it's impossible to verify Jones' claims without his samples, yet you say his claims can be falsified without his samples. Make up your mind. Or better yet stay out of the way and let the scientists handle this one.

Total stupidity. This is like saying to prove or disprove a video of Bigfoot, I have to go shoot my own video.

What you do in your free time is up to you. If you want to chase "Bigfoot", go ahead. I'd say it's time relatively well spent, because you sure are wasting your time (and mine) here.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm not entirely sure what your question was, but there are of course many benefits to using nanothermite over "ordinary" thermite. There are also many formulas for thermite, not all of them use iron, but they all use some element like aluminum that's really good at scavenging electrons from other metals. You can make thermite with lead, chromium, titanium...

And every damned form of thermite known to trained arson investigators and a lot of ordinary firefighters leaves an identifiable residue detectable with the standard-issue Mark I eyeball.

One benefit of "nanothermite" over "ordinary" thermite is it can be explosive, instead of just deflagrating (burning). It can also be tailored to deflagrate at one temperature threshold and explode at a higher threshold.

Got proof?

A benefit over other explosives is that it has a very high energy density, both in terms of mass and volume. It can be used to deflagrate metal and it can be used to cut metal explosively. These benefits really can't be matched by very many explosives, and there are other benefits as well.

Got proof that it can do that, and that it will leave no visible residue?

(I hope you are not so dim-witted as to suggest that you can build a hush-a-boom with that stuff.)

 

[R.Mackey]

It's not necessarily an appeal to authority, but if you couch it in terms of "reputable" or citing specific institutions you want "confirmation" from is an appeal to authority, clearly.

I think you misunderstand, I wasn't complaining, I was correcting you.

In order to correct me, you have to be correct. He called for independent confirmation. This is a reasonable request. There's been none.

This claim is baseless, despite the subsequent gyrations that I'll omit. The procedures used to identify the various elements and compounds in this material is outlined and is based on sound science, not biased appeals to "reputation" or specific institutions or schools. The methods can, of course, be criticized, but not simply shunted into the realm of "inappropriate" just because there are other methods to achieve the same result.

No, the method I cite achieves a different result -- it's capable of discriminating aluminum from aluminum oxide. Their methods cannot. You are woefully unprepared for this discussion.

The composition is in no way similar to paint. The composition has been shown to be somewhat similar to an ingredient in some paints, that is present in trace amounts as a pigment. The material proposed is "kaolinite", which, as I suggested, is a pigment used in some paints. This "kaolinite" does not, however, contain elemental aluminum (necessary for the aluminothermic reactions), contains drastically different abundances of oxygen and carbon (which suplementally accounts for the aluminothermic potential), and is only present in trace amounts in paint. Not to mention is contains none of the sulfur found in the World Trade Center nanothermate. Where is the rest of the "paint"? Why the drastic difference in carbon and oxygen ratios? Why is this material explosive when no known paint is? Why is there sulfur in this "paint"?

There's no evidence for elemental aluminum in Dr. Jones's samples. As for your crap about "sulfur," you're mixing two totally different and contradictory claims from Dr. Jones. Don't forget that his own samples describe two different materials -- probably two different types of paint...

patently false

Translation, "I don't wish to believe you." Small iron oxide spheres are commercially available, and present in primer paints. It's easy to look up.

The iron oxide in this nano thermate is in nodules that are angular, not spherical. The iron spherules form when this material oxidizes. This is a signature of thermite, not paint.

Wrong. Real nanothermite uses very, very tiny spheres of [ETA]iron oxide[/ETA]. See Dr. Tillotson's work. And it does not form "spherules" when it oxidizes, which is irrelevant anyway since we're allegedly discussing unreacted material here.

Clearly this claim is erroneous. This "nanothermite" (actually nano thermate because of the sulfur) contains elemental aluminum in hexagonal "wafers", falsifying your thesis.

There's no evidence of this, and hexagonal wafers is the wrong shape for nanothermite. To do so would expose the elemental aluminum to oxidation as its surface-to-volume ratio would be huge, and this "nanothermite" would degrade enormously in a short period of time after manufacture.

Again, hexagonal wafers about a micron across -- what was found in Dr. Jones's samples -- is the preferred natural form of aluminum oxide in nature.

This is not the form aluminum is when we find it in nature, and this is not a material that is common (or even known) in paint.

Yes, it is. Talk to a geologist. Learn something.

I believe you're talking about "kaolinite" that's used as a pigment, in trace amounts, in some paints. It is not chemically the same as the unreacted nanothermate found in the World Trade Center dust and it in no case comprises the majority of any paint compounds. Further, this material did not spontaneously bind itself in a red medium that was further bound to an inert binding agent. Further still, the aluminum in the World Trade Center nanothermate was elemental aluminum, the iron was an oxide.

This is just babble all round. The "red medium" is the paint binder, and there is no chemical difference at all between one of Dr. Jones's samples and the ceramic paint at the WTC as described in NIST. None. As remarked above, you have no evidence the aluminum was elementally pure, and there's no reason to assume it would be.

hardly, since nanothermite (and especially nanothermate, with a bit of sulfur) is "highly energetic"

Not really. 40% of black powder. And much lower than the samples tested. It's in this very thread.

false, and are you suggesting that paint has chemical energy in excess of five times what you can liberate from thermite???

Even more than that is possible. Ordinary plastics produce about 20 times the energy per pound that nanothermite does. Gasoline, about 30 times. Nanothermite is not that energetic.

Feel free to provide this "proof" you claim is "abundant".

Well, for starters, the Journal hasn't produced a single new paper in nearly two years; the chief editor resigned because she never even heard about this paper until it was published, and the post remains vacant; and then there's this news -- Dr. Jones knows who one of two peer reviewers was, and surprise surprise, he's a Truther (and totally unqualified in analytical chemistry).

I have numerous peer-reviewed articles of my own, and not once have I ever found out who any of the reviewers were. What happened at Bentham bears no resemblance to an actual journal.

This is from Bentham's web site:
"A major STM journal publisher of 92 online and print journals, 200 plus open access journals, and related print/online book series, Bentham Science answers the informational needs of the pharmaceutical, biomedical and medical research community."

Wow, that's quite a sophisticated and extensive scam they have going on. I wonder if anyone knows about this scam (besides you). You sure do have the inside track on that conspiracy theory, you're way ahead of the tinfoil hat pack.

Funny you should mention that -- lots of people know about this scam. It's been widely publicized for about three years. Heck, they even sent me spam e-mail, begging me to become an Editor of all kinds of badly defined journals bearing their imprint.

By the way, I'm still waiting for this "independent verification" you keep claiming happened. Who replicated the results? Where were they published? Or were you lying when you claimed it had been done?

 

[R.Mackey]

I really think you should review the membership agreement. I'll quote it for you:
"Truth is not necessarily a defence against a breach of Rule 0 or Rule 12, for example a Member may well be proven to have lied, but that does not mean it is civil and polite to call them a liar in every subsequent response to them, especially in responses not directly related to their original lie."

Even if you were right, which you're not, you're still wrong. Pay more attention to the rules you've agreed to follow.

I didn't call you a liar, I merely identified the lie. It is you who isn't paying attention. However, I will remark that the shoe fits.

I understand this is your belief. Fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs can not overturn reality.

Fortunately for all of us, they don't have to.

Apparently you're now deliberately ignoring the paper by Haritt et al, choosing to characterize Bentham Science Publications as a "crank" outfit and a "scam".

If you're suggesting that Dr. Jones's own paper is "independent verification" of Dr. Jones's findings, you're even nuttier than I suspected.

This might surprise you, but Jones didn't have exclusive access to dust from the World Trade Center demolition. There were literally hundreds of tons of it spread all over New York City.

Doesn't matter. Dr. Jones's samples are the only ones claimed to contain nanothermite. Thus, we test those. If I test other dust -- as many have -- and find no nanothermite, you won't accept this as proof that Dr. Jones is wrong. I know this because such testing was done years ago, and reached that result.

Are you deliberately trying to be insulting or is it accidental? I'll thank you to keep your opinions about me to yourself. If you can't, save it for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.

And yet you lecture me about civility rules? What is wrong with you?

Again you're violating the rules by suggesting I'm lying. You may disagree with what I've said, but that does not give you the right to violate the membership agreement governing use of this web site. You will remain civil when you discuss this with me or there will surely be consequences. For starters you can stop saying that I (or anyone) is "lying", just because you disagree with them. Even if you could somehow prove somebody was "lying", it's still a violation of the rules to call somebody a liar (even by implication). I've asked you twice now to stop this kind of behaviour. All it does is inflame the discussion and raise the emotional temperature of the thread. Kindly knock it off. (It's worth noting this behaviour of yours is widely considered to be trolling.)

If you lie, I'll call you on it. Particularly when they're so obvious.

I realize this is your belief, but your belief isn't supported by any verifiable science. And you want it both ways. You say it's impossible to verify Jones' claims without his samples, yet you say his claims can be falsified without his samples. Make up your mind. Or better yet stay out of the way and let the scientists handle this one.

I am a scientist. Since the many existing analyses of the dust -- real ones, properly reviewed, in established journals -- disagree totally with Dr. Jones's findings, we either discard Dr. Jones's results as spurious, or we analyze his samples to see if he does truly have a unique specimen in his hands. There's no conflict.

What you do in your free time is up to you. If you want to chase "Bigfoot", go ahead. I'd say it's time relatively well spent, because you sure are wasting your time (and mine) here.

I'm not the one fixated on a mythical event. Projection, it's called.