Merged So there was melted steel

[tsig]

Yes digging a hole...ahh if you only knew just how funny that statement is coming from most of the "debunkers" here.

Why is it funny?

 

[Miragememories]

How is it funny? Can you explain how your "thermite" was able to produce more heat energy than is theoretically possible with the thermite reaction. Please be specific, I will understand.(no Youtubes please).

Unless you can be certain of how much, and what kind, of thermitic material was producing heat, it is impossible to state that more heat was generated than theoretically possible.

MM

 

[DGM]

Unless you can be certain of how much, and what kind, of thermitic material was producing heat, it is impossible to state that more heat was generated than theoretically possible.

MM

Yes, Unless you rely on chemistry.

 

[GlennB]

Unless you can be certain of how much, and what kind, of thermitic material was producing heat, it is impossible to state that more heat was generated than theoretically possible.

MM

Given that the experiments revolved around a presumption of elemental aluminium plus iron oxide then you are entirely wrong. The heat output is predictable within certain bounds that are comfortably exceeded by the red-grey chips. They are no form of thermite whatsoever.

This might come as a shock, MM, but science doesn't change just because you wish to believe in a 9/11 CT. Elements and compounds will go right on reacting as they always did, totally unaware of the delusions of those such as you.

While you're here - why didn't Jones, Harrit & co try to ignite their supposed thermitic red-grey chips in an inert atmosphere? After all, success in that experiment would have had the whole scientific community beating a path to their door, right? And it would have been an eminently repeatable experiment, which is a concept fundamental to the scientific method. It would have been a piece of cake, and even I (lacking a PhD) can see how this would be a blindingly obvious test to perform, given their presumptions.

Yet, they didn't. Ever wonder why?

 

[Miragememories]

While you're here - why didn't Jones, Harrit & co try to ignite their supposed thermitic red-grey chips in an inert atmosphere? After all, success in that experiment would have had the whole scientific community beating a path to their door, right? And it would have been an eminently repeatable experiment, which is a concept fundamental to the scientific method. It would have been a piece of cake, and even I (lacking a PhD) can see how this would be a blindingly obvious test to perform, given their presumptions.

Yet, they didn't. Ever wonder why?

Gee Glenn.

Are you familiar with Tillotson's DSC testing with nano-thermite?

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

Funny how Harrit et al actually quote (from the thermite paper)

3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning
Calorimetry

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C. The energy release for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with
respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. Variations in peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising, since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal,
shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.

Page 19

and

2Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), ⌂H = -853.5 kJ/mole.

Page 23

So it's quite clear what thermite they are talking about.

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g

Page 27

So, not only are they getting a higher output than the theoretical maximum, but they are getting that from only one half of the chip - the red layer. That means that the reading is even higher because the gray layer that is not reacting is included in the mass for the DSC. If you remove the mass of the gray layer then the energy per gram must go up!

Therefore no thermite.

It gets even worse. As you decrease particle size the surface area that is non-reactive Al2O3 relative to the volume of Al increases. This means that there is in effect less Al per gram to react as you decrease particle size. Tillitson et al showed this and their energy out put for their thermite was 1.5J/Kg. (IIRC)

So no nano-thermite either.

But wait for it..... it gets worse than that. Tillitson's particles were spheres, which is the most efficient shape for the ratio of surface Al2O3 to Al, but in Harrit's work they claim the hexagonal platelets are Al and that means there is a larger percentage of Al2O3 to Al!

Super-duper nano-shmano-thermite is bust I'm afraid.

If you actually want to visualise the maximum size of the chips that Harrit analysed and claims as thermite just take a piece of A4 copy paper (rough thickness is 100µm) and cut it up into 3mm x 3mm pieces. That's the maximum size we are dealing with. Thermite in those tiny, tiny quantities is not going to be able to produce liquid iron and keep it liquid for any more than a couple of seconds.

 

[NoahFence]

Unless you can be certain of how much, and what kind, of thermitic material was producing heat, it is impossible to state that more heat was generated than theoretically possible.

MM

I'll take this one.

How much = none.

What kind = nano-none.

How much heat was generated by it? = Zero

Thanks!

 

[Dog Town]

Yet, they didn't. Ever wonder why?

Careful here! MM was jazzed by hearing this question from debunkers, thousands of times! So much so, he fumbled when he had the chance to ask it of Dr.H! Sadly for him, it's a pick six for the other team!

 

[beachnut]

Unless you can be certain of how much, and what kind, of thermitic material was producing heat, it is impossible to state that more heat was generated than theoretically possible.

MM

Your delusional Jones paper has too much energy, and too little energy for their dust sample to be thermite. Did you read the fake paper you are pushing as proof of thermite? No, you are spreading nonsense. Exactly what was the thermite material Gage has? Looks like you have the problem, you failed to read the paper.

In the conclusion section, the paper makes a leap of stupid...

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

Jones and dolts say the dust is unreacted thermitic material, in the same conclusion, earlier they say... this is classic F material...

As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.

Your special morons in the paper say the samples they burned match fairly closely to a known super-thermite sample. What is the formula of the control sample and their sample. Morons say the thermite is, thermitic material, they don't say what it is, but then they compare it to, wait for it... (you failed to read and comprehend the paper you support blindly due to ignorance) Al/Fe₂O₃

The sad part is, none of their chips match the thermite they used as a control, and the samples don't match each other. Proof they found dust which has the energy of dust when burned, random dust samples, with random energy signatures.

 

[GlennB]

Gee Glenn.

Are you familiar with Tillotson's DSC testing with nano-thermite?

MM

I was asking (as you so conveniently quoted) about Jones and all. They used air. Why? Managing to ignite an allegedly thermitic material in an inert atmosphere would be significant - it would demonstrate no requirement for free oxygen for the reaction to proceed. Managing to ignite "some old stuff with an organic content" in air is not significant.

Why can't you get that that one simple condition would have proved their point, yet they failed to take it?

 

[Miragememories]

I was asking (as you so conveniently quoted) about Jones and all. They used air. Why? Managing to ignite an allegedly thermitic material in an inert atmosphere would be significant - it would demonstrate no requirement for free oxygen for the reaction to proceed. Managing to ignite "some old stuff with an organic content" in air is not significant.

Why can't you get that that one simple condition would have proved their point, yet they failed to take it?

You did not answer my question Glenn?

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

Infact the DSC experiment in the Harrit et al paper is totally invalid.

I'm now going to show you why by simple analogy and quotes from the paper.

Quotes

They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray).

Page 9.

At approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7mg.

Page 10

Proceeding from the smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. Variations in peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising,
since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal, shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.

Page 19

So this affects the calculation of energy output because energy output is measured by weight i.e per gram.

There is no data in the paper to show whether they tried to estimate the mass of the gray layer per chip. This admission completely invalidates the DSC test whether it's done in air or N2 or gently wafting perfume.

The data is worthless. Worthless.

Now for the analogy.

Lets say I want to find out the energy output of sugar. Now it doesn't matter how much sugar I heat up and burn in a DSC because the energy output is always measured by weight. KJ per gram.

So I can put 1g, 10g, 100g or 1Kg of sugar in the DSC because it will always give me a result by weight and therefore the result for all samples will be the same.

Now lets assume that I know the exact energy output for sugar from experiment and/or literature.

Imagine if I had a sample, which I thought was sugar. Now if I weigh that sample and then subject it to DSC then the result will equal the value already known. OK, with me so far.

Now lets say I have a sample which is sugar, but it's got some tea mixed in with it. I don't think the tea will react. I know the mass of the sample because I can weigh it, but I don't know the mass of either the tea or the sugar on their own.

How on earth am I going to do a comparison with sugar in a DSC? Well you can't. If I put the sample in the DSC then I'm going to get an invalid result because I do not know the mass of the sugar and tea. I know sugar is in the sample, but I can't show that by DSC due to the added weight of the tea.

Harrit et al had a red material they assumed was thermite (sugar) but they could not separate this from the gray layer (tea).

I hope that's easy to follow.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well there appears to be some evidence of thermite...red gray chips..etc, and that would melt steel. What you and others suggest does not seem possible.

It does appear that the red-gray chips are NOT thermite. They contain some of the ingredients of thermite in minute quantities and apparently will ignite.

Has anyone attemped to ignite them in a no oxygen atmosphere. For eg., either in an atmosphere conatining no oxygen such as one filled with Argon or in a vacuum chamber?

You have also been schooled on the amount of thermite required to melt steel.

Did you ever figure out why thermite can melt steel while containing less energy density than mere paper?

There is also an entire thread devoted to the red-gray chips. Having read it do you still consider them to be good candidates for thermite?

 

[tsig]

Unless you can be certain of how much, and what kind, of thermitic material was producing heat, it is impossible to state that more heat was generated than theoretically possible.

MM

If they didn't know the characteristics of the thermite then how could they tell they found thermite?

 

[jaydeehess]

You did not answer my question Glenn?

MM

Would that be the question you posed in response to the question he posed instead of answering his question?

Here's another one though. You won't adress it any more than you are willing to address why they did not attempt to ignite the chips in an inert atmosphere.
Why did Harrit et al not compare the KJ per gram of the paints commonly used in the WTC to that of their chips just to be sure that they were not igniting paint chips?

 

[jaydeehess]

I hope that's easy to follow.

I have not taken chemistry for several decades. I managed to follow it well.

 

[Miragememories]

"and"

"2Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), ⌂H = -853.5 kJ/mole."

But you conveniently left out the statement prior to that basic formula.

"The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), ⌂H = -853.5 kJ/mole."

"So it's quite clear what thermite they are talking about."

"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g"

They repeatedly state they are not talking about ordinary thermite.

"All these data suggest that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nano-thermite, not ordinary (macro-) thermite. We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains."

"So, not only are they getting a higher output than the theoretical maximum, but they are getting that from only one half of the chip - the red layer. That means that the reading is even higher because the gray layer that is not reacting is included in the mass for the DSC. If you remove the mass of the gray layer then the energy per gram must go up!

Therefore no thermite."

No ordinary thermite. Which is what the paper says!

"It gets even worse. As you decrease particle size the surface area that is non-reactive Al2O3 relative to the volume of Al increases. This means that there is in effect less Al per gram to react as you decrease particle size. Tillitson et al showed this and their energy out put for their thermite was 1.5J/Kg. (IIRC)

So no nano-thermite either."

But for the same volume of reactive Al, reducing its particle size as well, will also increase its available surface area, thus negating your point.

"Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite. "

"But wait for it..... it gets worse than that. Tillitson's particles were spheres, which is the most efficient shape for the ratio of surface Al2O3 to Al, but in Harrit's work they claim the hexagonal platelets are Al and that means there is a larger percentage of Al2O3 to Al!

Super-duper nano-shmano-thermite is bust I'm afraid."

Without knowing the specific construction (dimensions) and mix of the Tillotson configured nano-thermite compared to that tested by Dr. Harrit et al, your statement is reduced to nothing more than arguing the efficiencies implicit in spherical surfaces. You have not proven there is less reactive surface area.

MM

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Dang. If it's not ordinary thermite chemically, then what is it? Nano thermite is just the same chemical composition as ordinary thermite, no? Nano thermite is just more finely ground particles of each element in the mixture, but the mixture amounts are still the same, correct?

The amount of thermite wouldn't make a difference as the energy is measured in KJ per gram. So that's right out.

If the majick thermetic material is so different from chemically defined thermite, I can only conclude that it's not thermite or any form of thermite (i.e. thermitic material)

 

[tmd2_1]

It does appear that the red-gray chips are NOT thermite. They contain some of the ingredients of thermite in minute quantities and apparently will ignite.

Has anyone attemped to ignite them in a no oxygen atmosphere. For eg., either in an atmosphere conatining no oxygen such as one filled with Argon or in a vacuum chamber?

You have also been schooled on the amount of thermite required to melt steel.

Did you ever figure out why thermite can melt steel while containing less energy density than mere paper?

There is also an entire thread devoted to the red-gray chips. Having read it do you still consider them to be good candidates for thermite?

If you watch the Toronto hearings MM addressed this with a question to Harritt. You only have to watch the video, or read some of MM's post. In fact I would recommend that, it would be a good learning experience for you. Also if you watch his presentation you'd see why it also it almost assuredly not paint.

I'll also add, in Cole's videos you can see the damage just a small amount of thermite can do.

Yeah I'm pretty sure I know why thermite can melt steel, I was making a point that Oystein was giving meaningless facts in an attempt (at least I believe so) to minimize how powerful thermite can be.

 

[tfk]

tmd,

Amazingly, consistently inept...

Right the reality of this thread (and almost certainly the real reality) is that there was molten steel.

Wrong. 99% probability of no molten steel.

Amusingly, there is one, and only one, report of molten steel that seems even remotely credible. And I have never once seen any truthers cite it.

The gods do have a sense of humor...

The reality also is no one (given the official) story seems to have an explanation for it.

Wrong again.

There is a completely viable explanation for molten steel. I've explained it here several times in the past.

As usual, the truthers chose, at those times, to pull the same nonsense that you pull again, and again, and again: when faced with a perfectly pedestrian explanation for your "twoofer mysteries", ignore the issue & change the subject.

The simple fact is that there is no credible account of molten steel. And all of the amateur reports of molten steel have very, very fundamental, self-contradictory problems associated with the stories. Problems that essentially disprove the claim.

Here's a famous one, for example, from a fire fighter:
1. "You go down there, and you rivers of steel, molten steel, like lava, running down the rails."

Here's another, from the curator of the 9/11 artifact museum.
2. "Here's a meteorite, formed from molten steel." [standing next to the famous "meteorite".]

Let's see if you're observant enough to spot the problems with each of the above claims.

Or you can continue doing what you always do to my posts: ignore them & hope those inconvenient facts will just go away.


tk