Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

[superlogicalthinker]

Ivan, thanks for doing superlogical's legwork, but you may have robbed him of an opportunity to learn a bit.

The point is that not even Harrit e.al. describe the reaction in this experiment as an "explosion". They explicitlyy write that the burn rate needs to be determined before the reaction can be classified in terms of reaction kinetics.

It is extremely obvious that whatever happens in this video is powered by the application of external heat. Even if the chip did not react chemically at all, it could break up "violently", giving off sparks, because of the production of gas through evaporation, or because of tensions within the chip caused by heat.


@ superlogicalthinker: Do you understand that your assertion "Harrit's chips explode" is not suppoerted by data, nor even by Harrit e.al. themselves?

The quote is from Dr. Steven Jones's DVD "Nanothermite" which was an overview PPT presentation in Sacramento California which many figures and diagrams from the paper were shown and explained. The paper had just been published.

At the end of the presentation Dr. Jones holds a Q and A. The first question is " What is the significants of Nanothermite?"

In Jones's reply he says:

"in the words of Dr. Farerr 'it blows up' when you heat it in a differential scanning calorimeter, as you saw from the narrowness of the exotherm, the rate is high..... we compared it with known nanothermite and it's very energetic and very rapid in it's reaction........with this discovery of high tech nanothermite we insist that NIST look for these materials.......we not only have the smoking gun but a loaded gun, it still goes off today, coming up on 8 years it still goes off"

I consider this meaning it still explodes 8 years later. Allot of other people agree with me. I'm positive already that nobody at JREF will concur.

Los Alamos Lab report:

http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-Thermite_Electric_Matches_2003.pdf

"application includes triggering explosives for demolition"

"The Super-Hermite electric matches are safer to use because they resist friction impact, heat....therby minimizing accidental ignition."

 

[DGM]

......we not only have the smoking gun but a loaded gun, it still goes off today, coming up on 8 years it still goes off"

Does it make it more "truthie" if it's bigger and in color?

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Ivan surely does not agree with you, but let him tell you that himself.
What was your reference then?


Ivan knows what an Oxyacetylene torch is and that "Acetylene when combined with oxygen burns at a temperature of 3200 °C to 3500 °C (5800 °F to 6300 °F), highest among commonly used gaseous fuels" (Wikipedia).


When you ignite a fire in your fireplace, you don't have an explosion.
I recommend that you pick up a good thesaurus and look up the meaning of the words ignition ("the starting of a fire") and explosion ("a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth").



"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens, from the Latin "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.")


Yes, I think we can all agree that paint usually does not explode.
Neither do Harrit's chips.

You have been asked to provide evidence for your assertion that Harrit's chips explode. You failed to bring such evidence. Assertion hence dismissed. I would be thankful if you would try to not waste our time here any further with this nonsense. Thank you.

"This opinion rests on faulty logic. A (chemical) explosion requires/implies ignition, but ignition does not imply an explosion."

You cannot have an explosion without the explosion having an ignition. Period.

"Opinion duly noted and dismissed. "

By who? You? Someone who is arguing that you can have an explosion without a spark? LOL

"You have been asked to provide evidence for your assertion that Harrit's chips explode. You failed to bring such evidence. Assertion hence dismissed. I would be thankful if you would try to not waste our time here any further with this nonsense. Thank you"

I provided it. Am I getting to the poor little JREFer? Awwwwwwww, just go have a bottle and a burp.

 

[DGM]

You cannot have an explosion without the explosion having an ignition. Period. Stop trying to say you can have an explosion without the explosion having some sort of spark, hence ignition.

Define "spark". While you're at it, "ignition" could use a little clarification. I'm guessing you never took chemistry.

 

[Oystein]

The quote is from Dr. Steven Jones's DVD "Nanothermite" which was an overview PPT presentation in Sacramento California which many figures and diagrams from the paper were shown and explained. The paper had just been published.

Got a link?

At the end of the presentation Dr. Jones holds a Q and A. The first question is " What is the significants of Nanothermite?"

In Jones's reply he says:

"in the words of Dr. Farerr 'it blows up' when you heat it in a differential scanning calorimeter, as you saw from the narrowness of the exotherm, the rate is high.....

High - but how high? The reaction rate of an explosion is something on the scale of 1000m/s and up - this means, for an about average sample of 1mm, that the reaction would be expected to occur in at at most 1µs (0.000,001 seconds). The DSC profiles shown in Harrit e.al. have peaks that span 20°C and more on the x-axis. Since heating rate was 10°C/min, the peak width corresponds to 120 seconds or more. This is 120,000,000 times longer than what you would expect if the chips exploded. So no, the DSC tests did not give us evidence of explosions. In fact, the authors do not believe the DSC is evidence for explosions, because they write in Harrit e.al.:

The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection of the energetic reaction.

and

The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination
of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this

So Harrit e.al. concluded that they cannot determine the burn rate from the DSC trace.

You need to awake to the possibility that S. Jones's interpretation of their data is less than competent or even less than honest.

we compared it with known nanothermite and it's very energetic and very rapid in it's reaction...

But the nanothermite they compared it to, the preparation by Tillotson e.al. (2001), was also NOT described by its makers as explosive!

...it still goes off today, coming up on 8 years it still goes off"

I consider this meaning it still explodes 8 years later.

Your opinion is again noted, and dismissed. "goes of" is not a scientific term. It aptly describes what happend to a sealed plastic bag with mozzarella inside when you allow it to go bad, or what happens if you light gas (automotive fuel) in a bucket. These are not explosions in the chemical sense of the word.

I asked you before to school yourself on the differences between "ignition" anbd "explosion". Please refrain from writing a reply until you have thoroughly understood the difference!

Allot of other people agree with me. I'm positive already that nobody at JREF will concur.

Appeal to ignorant masses duly noted, and dismissed.
Let the published facts speak for themselves, okay?

Los Alamos Lab report:

http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-Thermite_Electric_Matches_2003.pdf

"application includes triggering explosives for demolition"

"The Super-Hermite electric matches are safer to use because they resist friction impact, heat....therby minimizing accidental ignition."

This is unconnected to the red-gray chips and a derail.
But even this article does not describe the thermite as "explosive", but merely as "triggering explosives". They are meant to substitute electrical trigger, which also do not themselves explode, but trigger (other, non-thermitic) explosives.

Please try to read for comprehension before posting the next irrelevant link that does not support your case.

Better yet, stop posting, you are wasting our time and not showing any intention to learn.

 

[Oystein]

"This opinion rests on faulty logic. A (chemical) explosion requires/implies ignition, but ignition does not imply an explosion."

You cannot have an explosion without the explosion having an ignition. Period.

superlogicalthinker, this is Logic 101, the very first lesson.
You are making yourself the laughing stock of this thread, because your nickname so drastically belies your abilities.


Have you seen this before when you took your first lessons in formal Propositional Logic? If you ever took a class in formal logic that is?

(P -> Q) <=> (not-Q -> not-P)​

The first term can be read as "If P, then Q", or "P implies Q".
We can substitute this with

• P: There is an explosion
• Q: There was ignition

and write:

"If there is an explosion, then there was ignition"​

Or

Explosion implies ignition​

Now we do know that there was ignition. Can we determine from the above rule "Explosion implies ignition" AND "there was ignition" that "There is an explosion"?
No, because the following is an INvalid deduction:

(P -> Q) <=> (Q -> P)​

Are you following me?


Short version (it's been written before today:

You can have ignition without explosion. We have ignition. We can't conclude that we have explosion.


That was my (ETA: urrr third-to-) last reply to you.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Got a link?


High - but how high? The reaction rate of an explosion is something on the scale of 1000m/s and up - this means, for an about average sample of 1mm, that the reaction would be expected to occur in at at most 1µs (0.000,001 seconds). The DSC profiles shown in Harrit e.al. have peaks that span 20°C and more on the x-axis. Since heating rate was 10°C/min, the peak width corresponds to 120 seconds or more. This is 120,000,000 times longer than what you would expect if the chips exploded. So no, the DSC tests did not give us evidence of explosions. In fact, the authors do not believe the DSC is evidence for explosions, because they write in Harrit e.al.:

and

So Harrit e.al. concluded that they cannot determine the burn rate from the DSC trace.

You need to awake to the possibility that S. Jones's interpretation of their data is less than competent or even less than honest.


But the nanothermite they compared it to, the preparation by Tillotson e.al. (2001), was also NOT described by its makers as explosive!


Your opinion is again noted, and dismissed. "goes of" is not a scientific term. It aptly describes what happend to a sealed plastic bag with mozzarella inside when you allow it to go bad, or what happens if you light gas (automotive fuel) in a bucket. These are not explosions in the chemical sense of the word.

I asked you before to school yourself on the differences between "ignition" anbd "explosion". Please refrain from writing a reply until you have thoroughly understood the difference!


Appeal to ignorant masses duly noted, and dismissed.
Let the published facts speak for themselves, okay?


This is unconnected to the red-gray chips and a derail.
But even this article does not describe the thermite as "explosive", but merely as "triggering explosives". They are meant to substitute electrical trigger, which also do not themselves explode, but trigger (other, non-thermitic) explosives.

Please try to read for comprehension before posting the next irrelevant link that does not support your case.

Better yet, stop posting, you are wasting our time and not showing any intention to learn.

Thermite is an incendiary but ultra fine grain form is an explosive called nanothermite. What is your problem Oystien? It's a known fact. LLNL has been practicing with nanothermite since 1999. There are many documented pictures of them "blowing it up".

When professionals requested pictures of nanothermite exploding from LLNL they refused to show them for comparison. I wonder why?

http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/sol-gel.html

Left transmission electron
Micro graph of a sol gel incorporating Fe203/Al (thermite) nanocomposites illustrate the extremely fine mixing of ultra fine aluminum and iron oxide.

And then add some carbon.....BOOM!!!!

 

[superlogicalthinker]

superlogicalthinker, this is Logic 101, the very first lesson.
You are making yourself the laughing stock of this thread, because your nickname so drastically belies your abilities.


Have you seen this before when you took your first lessons in formal Propositional Logic? If you ever took a class in formal logic that is?

(P -> Q) <=> (not-Q -> not-P)​

The first term can be read as "If P, then Q", or "P implies Q".
We can substitute this with

• P: There is an explosion
• Q: There was ignition

and write:

"If there is an explosion, then there was ignition"​

Or

Explosion implies ignition​

Now we do know that there was ignition. Can we determine from the above rule "Explosion implies ignition" AND "there was ignition" that "There is an explosion"?
No, because the following is an INvalid deduction:

(P -> Q) <=> (Q -> P)​

Are you following me?


Short version (it's been written before today:

You can have ignition without explosion. We have ignition. We can't conclude that we have explosion.


That was my last reply to you.

It seems to me it's a matter of opinion. I think that what ther paper is implying is that when the chip ignited an explosion followed. You don't because it's not there in black and white for you to read.

Do you consider a thermitic reation to be an explosion? I know you said you were done with posting to me, but humor me one last time "O" wise one.

 

[Oystein]

Thermite is an incendiary but ultra fine grain form is an explosive called nanothermite. What is your problem Oystien? It's a known fact. LLNL has been practicing with nanothermite since 1999. There are many documented pictures of them "blowing it up".

When professionals requested pictures of nanothermite exploding from LLNL they refused to show them for comparison. I wonder why?

http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/sol-gel.html

Left transmission electron
Micro graph of a sol gel incorporating Fe203/Al (thermite) nanocomposites illustrate the extremely fine mixing of ultra fine aluminum and iron oxide.

And then add some carbon.....BOOM!!!!

And this has nothing at all to do with Harrit's chips which you claimed to have exploded.
They did not.
Tillotsons nanothermite (2001) didn't explode.
Why are you talking about things that explode when the red-gray chips (remember the topic of this thread? It's red-gray chips!) didn't explode? It is wishful thinking on the part of Jones, Farrer etc. that these chips exploded, but even they shy away from stating as much in their crappy paper, because the understand fully well that the chips did not explode!

 

[Oystein]

It seems to me it's a matter of opinion. I think that what ther paper is implying is that when the chip ignited an explosion followed. You don't because it's not there in black and white for you to read.

Do you consider a thermitic reation to be an explosion? I know you said you were done with posting to me, but humor me one last time "O" wise one.

An opinion not supported by fact and refuted by fact is crap and must be discarded immediately in a rational, scientific debate.

It becomes an article of groundless faith instead. There is no room for baseless faith in this thread.
That was finally my last reply to you. Please stay away.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Got a link?


High - but how high? The reaction rate of an explosion is something on the scale of 1000m/s and up - this means, for an about average sample of 1mm, that the reaction would be expected to occur in at at most 1µs (0.000,001 seconds). The DSC profiles shown in Harrit e.al. have peaks that span 20°C and more on the x-axis. Since heating rate was 10°C/min, the peak width corresponds to 120 seconds or more. This is 120,000,000 times longer than what you would expect if the chips exploded. So no, the DSC tests did not give us evidence of explosions. In fact, the authors do not believe the DSC is evidence for explosions, because they write in Harrit e.al.:

and

So Harrit e.al. concluded that they cannot determine the burn rate from the DSC trace.

You need to awake to the possibility that S. Jones's interpretation of their data is less than competent or even less than honest.


But the nanothermite they compared it to, the preparation by Tillotson e.al. (2001), was also NOT described by its makers as explosive!


Your opinion is again noted, and dismissed. "goes of" is not a scientific term. It aptly describes what happend to a sealed plastic bag with mozzarella inside when you allow it to go bad, or what happens if you light gas (automotive fuel) in a bucket. These are not explosions in the chemical sense of the word.

I asked you before to school yourself on the differences between "ignition" anbd "explosion". Please refrain from writing a reply until you have thoroughly understood the difference!


Appeal to ignorant masses duly noted, and dismissed.
Let the published facts speak for themselves, okay?


This is unconnected to the red-gray chips and a derail.
But even this article does not describe the thermite as "explosive", but merely as "triggering explosives". They are meant to substitute electrical trigger, which also do not themselves explode, but trigger (other, non-thermitic) explosives.

Please try to read for comprehension before posting the next irrelevant link that does not support your case.

Better yet, stop posting, you are wasting our time and not showing any intention to learn.

No "goes off" is not a scientific term. He was answering a question. Are you always so uptight dude? I don't believe there is a link for the DVD. But you can order it from the AE911Truth website

I love how you think you have the sway to just "dismiss" the "match" theory even though LLNL describes it doing the exact same thing. It dosen't matter what theory comes to light here at JREF. If it is in support of CD, no matter how logical, it would be considered dismissive.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

An opinion not supported by fact and refuted by fact is crap and must be discarded immediately in a rational, scientific debate.

It becomes an article of groundless faith instead. There is no room for baseless faith in this thread.
That was finally my last reply to you. Please stay away.

I will NOT stay away and continue to post my replies. Who do you think you are exactly? I have provided a source for every assertion I have made.

Your the one saying it doesent explode. I have shown a link that says it does from LLNL. Chris Sarns posted a reference a while back that shows nanothermite explodes.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rules 0/12

 

[superlogicalthinker]

And this has nothing at all to do with Harrit's chips which you claimed to have exploded.
They did not.
Tillotsons nanothermite (2001) didn't explode.
Why are you talking about things that explode when the red-gray chips (remember the topic of this thread? It's red-gray chips!) didn't explode? It is wishful thinking on the part of Jones, Farrer etc. that these chips exploded, but even they shy away from stating as much in their crappy paper, because the understand fully well that the chips did not explode!

It has everything to do with Harrits chip. This is what would have happened before the nanothermite exploded.
I guess you could tecnicly say that the red gray chips did not explode..... explode yet you mean right?! They are still ACTIVE! They explode when you heat them to 430C....as they explain on pg.22 of the paper....they are "active thermitic material". active means they can still explode in case your confused.

 

[twinstead]

This could all be solved with independent testing and a REAL peer review. I wonder when that will be coming.

 

[chrismohr]

Another $130 today

Hi all,

With another $130 arriving today we have just a couple hundred to go, which I am sure is already in the mail. If you haven't sent in your money yet, don't, I'll just have to refund it. I am pretty confident that by the end of this week I will be calling Jim Millette and saying "Go." I too wonder when it will be done so I will ask him if he has any idea how long this may take. I'll also see if he can write up a protocol and other info so his customers can see what they are getting!

 

[beachnut]

The quote is from Dr. Steven Jones's DVD "Nanothermite" which was an overview PPT presentation ...

" What is the significants of Nanothermite?"

...
"in the words of Dr. Farerr 'it blows up' when you heat it in a differential scanning calorimeter, as you saw from the narrowness of the exotherm, the rate is high..... we compared it with known nanothermite and it's very energetic and very rapid in it's reaction........with this discovery of high tech nanothermite we insist that NIST look for these materials.......we not only have the smoking gun but a loaded gun, it still goes off today, coming up on 8 years it still goes off"

I consider this meaning it still explodes 8 years later. Allot of other people agree with me. I'm positive already that nobody at JREF will concur.

Los Alamos Lab report:

http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-Thermite_Electric_Matches_2003.pdf

"application includes triggering explosives for demolition"

"The Super-Hermite electric matches are safer to use because they resist friction impact, heat....therby minimizing accidental ignition."

Big red letters, are going off...

The super thermite match, goes...

The Super-Thermite electric matches produce no toxic lead smoke and are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge
through the composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition. They can be designed to create various thermal-initiating outputs—simple sparks, hot slag, droplets, or flames— depending on the needs of different applications.​

The super thermite match, goes boom? No, it goes simple sparks.
The super thermite match, goes bang? No, it goes hot slag.
The super thermite match, goes kaboom? No, it goes droplets.
The super thermite match, goes pop? No, it goes flames.

What are those super themite matches good for again?

Applications
The principal application is in the entertainment industry, which uses fireworks displays for a variety of venues, such as sporting events, holiday celebrations, and musical and theatrical gatherings. Secondary applications include​

●

​

​

​

​

​

​

triggering explosives for the mining, demolition, and defense industries,​

● ​

setting off vehicle air bags, and
● igniting rocket motors​

The super thermite match does not make things blow up, it starts things that can blow up.​

Jones has crazy claims.​

It has everything to do with Harrits chip. This is what would have happened before the nanothermite exploded.
I guess you could tecnicly say that the red gray chips did not explode..... explode yet you mean right?! They are still ACTIVE! They explode when you heat them to 430C....as they explain on pg.22 of the paper....they are "active thermitic material". active means they can still explode in case your confused.

There is a video of the chip. It looked like vermiculite, expanding as it burned. Paper burns with more heat output. Thermite does not spontaneously burn at 430 C, but paper can. Looks like some dust does burn at 430 C, but where is the science data on thermite burning at 430 C? Source for real thermite burning at 430 C? Did they get vermiculite in their dust sample? What temperature did their thermite burst into the flaming explosion with an inert atmosphere?

I don't think you know what an explosion looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As&feature=related
the nano-super-thermite-paint looks like sparklers, but bigger. They are sparklers. gee, I have thermite in my house...

Now I have to find a explosive video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhDxpvyZeO8 Blow up. Thermite not blow up, more like fizzle, slow blow up.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Big red letters, are going off...

The super thermite match, goes...


The super thermite match, goes boom? No, it goes simple sparks.
The super thermite match, goes bang? No, it goes hot slag.
The super thermite match, goes kaboom? No, it goes droplets.
The super thermite match, goes pop? No, it goes flames.

What are those super themite matches good for again?

The super thermite match does not make things blow up, it starts things that can blow up.​

Jones has crazy claims.​

There is a video of the chip. It looked like vermiculite, expanding as it burned. Paper burns with more heat output. Thermite does not spontaneously burn at 430 C, but paper can. Looks like some dust does burn at 430 C, but where is the science data on thermite burning at 430 C? Source for real thermite burning at 430 C? Did they get vermiculite in their dust sample? What temperature did their thermite burst into the flaming explosion with an inert atmosphere?

I don't think you know what an explosion looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As&feature=related
the nano-super-thermite-paint looks like sparklers, but bigger. They are sparklers. gee, I have thermite in my house...

Now I have to find a explosive video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhDxpvyZeO8 Blow up. Thermite not blow up, more like fizzle, slow blow up.

Your just wrong. The red gray chip reacted (blew up) at 430C. If you are disputing this you need to do some research first.

Yup....nanothermite did blew up! It blew up at Los Livermore National Labratorty in the late 90's when they were testing it for the WTC.

LOL!!

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Big red letters, are going off...

The super thermite match, goes...


The super thermite match, goes boom? No, it goes simple sparks.
The super thermite match, goes bang? No, it goes hot slag.
The super thermite match, goes kaboom? No, it goes droplets.
The super thermite match, goes pop? No, it goes flames.

What are those super themite matches good for again?

The super thermite match does not make things blow up, it starts things that can blow up.​

Jones has crazy claims.​

There is a video of the chip. It looked like vermiculite, expanding as it burned. Paper burns with more heat output. Thermite does not spontaneously burn at 430 C, but paper can. Looks like some dust does burn at 430 C, but where is the science data on thermite burning at 430 C? Source for real thermite burning at 430 C? Did they get vermiculite in their dust sample? What temperature did their thermite burst into the flaming explosion with an inert atmosphere?

I don't think you know what an explosion looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As&feature=related
the nano-super-thermite-paint looks like sparklers, but bigger. They are sparklers. gee, I have thermite in my house...

Now I have to find a explosive video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhDxpvyZeO8 Blow up. Thermite not blow up, more like fizzle, slow blow up.

LOL....the Ventrura video. Nice one buddy.

And your other video was a good look a a conventional explosion. really loud and stuff.....too bad that has zero to do with the explosive material forund at the WTC site.

 

[triforcharity]

I will NOT stay away and continue to post my replies. Who do you think you are exactly? I have provided a source for every assertion I have made.

Your the one saying it doesent explode. I have shown a link that says it does from LLNL. Chris Sarns posted a reference a while back that shows nanothermite explodes.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rules 0/12

Thermite was ADDED to something that was ALREADY an explosive! It was NOT an explosive as a stand alone object.

Stop lying.

 

[triforcharity]

Hi all,

With another $130 arriving today we have just a couple hundred to go, which I am sure is already in the mail. If you haven't sent in your money yet, don't, I'll just have to refund it. I am pretty confident that by the end of this week I will be calling Jim Millette and saying "Go." I too wonder when it will be done so I will ask him if he has any idea how long this may take. I'll also see if he can write up a protocol and other info so his customers can see what they are getting!

My opinion is that you should give him whatever you collect. Make it a tip, or whatever. If he refuses, give it to the JREF, or some other respectable NPO. Maybe a nice 9/11 childrens charity.