WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

ergo said:
Lol. But two bedunkers googling a Pink Floyd lyric to "verify" twoofer accuracy is not lame at all....

You won't google nanothermite, but boy howdy, watch out for those 1980s concept album rock lyrics! ;)
Click to expand...

Googling? Sorry kiddo, that one is memorized, and probably not even on any lyric sheet.

Its just another in a long line of mistakes...I mean lies... You make.
 
Figured out that the WTC primer doesn't ignite at 430 C yet?

Or is that the missing brick for you? ;)
 
ergo said:
Lol. But two bedunkers googling a Pink Floyd lyric to "verify" twoofer accuracy is not lame at all....

You won't google nanothermite, but boy howdy, watch out for those 1980s concept album rock lyrics! ;)
Click to expand...

Ergo, you reveal yourself to be fractally wrong again, at every level of detail! Hilarious! It's not a lyric for starters. Second, you wouldn't know this because you're apparently living on another planet, but Roger Waters is currently on tour in N.A. (need to google his name?). A couple of weeks ago my neighbor organized a big party and then went to the concert here. We enjoyed playing a bunch of Floyd tunes that day.

Besides we listened to The Wall endlessly in high school.

So as a matter of fact, you're wrong again. How does that feel?

You! Yes you, behind the false accusations! Stand still Truther!
If you don't have enough Aluminum you can't have any Nanothermite!
How can you have any Nanothermite if you don't have enough Aluminum?
 
Last edited:
Lol. What is this, now? Seven posts about Pink Floyd by bedunkers in a thread about Jim Millette's dust study? :D

Why are bedunkers trashing their own thread? They don't want to admit that the WTC primer paint doesn't ignite at 430 C ?
 
ergo said:
Well, anything I haven't quite grasped of Oystein's highly complex theory, feel free to enlighten me, DGM. ;)

The best I can summarize from the logical carnage so far is: "There was no nanothermite.". . . "Because there was no nanothermite."
Click to expand...

I liked this comment.

ergo said:
Because I thought that nanothermites are typically embedded in a binder or matrix of some kind, typically organic. Isn't it commonly accepted that the presence of these organic compounds will alter the energy output in the reaction?
Click to expand...

Where exactly did you come up with this idea?


ergo said:
For example,what was the energy release measured in the Tillotson test? Anyone?
Click to expand...

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 kJ/g.

ergo said:
So how can it be concluded that "there is no nanothermite" when the energy output will not confirm this either way?
Click to expand...

Think about this. Why did Harrit et al do a test that wouldn't confirm either way? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 kJ/g.
Click to expand...

No. Tillotson and Gash measured 1.5 kJ/g - and propose explanations for why it is lower than that of regular thermite. What we have been saying all along: When the size of the AL-particles drops into the tens-of-nm scale, the relative mass of inert Al-oxide at their surface increases signifcantly, which immediately lowers the energy density (mass appears in the denominator of the equation to compute energy density).
 
Oystein said:
No. Tillotson and Gash measured 1.5 kJ/g - and propose explanations for why it is lower than that of regular thermite. What we have been saying all along: When the size of the AL-particles drops into the tens-of-nm scale, the relative mass of inert Al-oxide at their surface increases signifcantly, which immediately lowers the energy density (mass appears in the denominator of the equation to compute energy density).
Click to expand...
I sit corrected. (and freely admit I was going solely from memory, flawed as it is.) Thanks.

:D
 
Oystein said:
No. Tillotson and Gash measured 1.5 kJ/g - and propose explanations for why it is lower than that of regular thermite. What we have been saying all along: When the size of the AL-particles drops into the tens-of-nm scale, the relative mass of inert Al-oxide at their surface increases signifcantly, which immediately lowers the energy density (mass appears in the denominator of the equation to compute energy density).
Click to expand...

As has also already been pointed out, thermites display a range of energy yields. It's also reaction time and not energy density that determines explosive potential, so what you say here has no relevance to the discussion.

For DGM: the DSC test on the chips showed that the chips were not primer paint.
 
ergo said:
As has also already been pointed out, thermites display a range of energy yields.
Click to expand...
What is that range? I expect numbers for a and z: "From a kJ/g to z kJ/g

(Hint: I know a lower limit for a and an upper limit for z. Just checking if you know them, too)

ergo said:
It's also reaction time and not energy density that determines explosive potential, so what you say here has no relevance to the discussion.
Click to expand...
The opposite is true: In this discussion, ONLY energy density is relevant, and reaction time / explosive potential / power is not.

ergo said:
For DGM: the DSC test on the chips showed that the chips were not primer paint.
Click to expand...
We'll come back to this after you have shown you know and understand the correct answer to my question above.
 
Oystein said:
What is that range? I expect numbers for a and z: "From a kJ/g to z kJ/g
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter since it's reaction time that is the pertinent factor in explosive potential.

The opposite is true: In this discussion, ONLY energy density is relevant, and reaction time / explosive potential / power is not.
Click to expand...

In what discussion? What are you discussing here that no one else is?


We'll come back to this after you have shown you know and understand the correct answer to my question above.
Click to expand...

No need. You don't have an answer to this.
 
ergo said:
It doesn't matter since it's reaction time that is the pertinent factor in explosive potential.
Click to expand...
We are not discussiong "explosive potential". Neither Harrit e.al. nor Millette measured, quantiefied or discussed "explosive potential".

What Harrit e.al. measured is energy density.

YOU said "thermites display a range of energy yields"

And empty, hollow, meaningless statement, because:
ergo said:
It doesn't matter
Click to expand...
Why did you say this about "energy density" if "It doesn't matter"?

ergo said:
In what discussion? What are you discussing here that no one else is?
Click to expand...
We are discussing DSC tests. Right?

I could quote you easily to show where you discussed energy density / energy yield. Shall I?

ergo said:
No need. You don't have an answer to this.
Click to expand...
LOL

You are dodging. You made a claim - back it up: What is the range of energy yield for thernites? I know, you don't.
 
Oystein, what is the relevance of energy density to the chips that were DSC-tested?

The DSC tests showed that the ignition point of the chips was ~ 430 C. This rules out primer paint.
 
ergo said:
Lol. What is this, now? Seven posts about Pink Floyd by bedunkers in a thread about Jim Millette's dust study? :D

Why are bedunkers trashing their own thread? They don't want to admit that the WTC primer paint doesn't ignite at 430 C ?
Click to expand...

The point is, even when you're trying to use an analogy you can't even get that right.

You REALLY, really really really - REALLY need to drop any and all interest in 9/11. You're simply not good at it. This is why I'm begging you to find a new hobby. Perhaps at minimum peruse and enjoy any one of the many sub-forums that exist on JREF.

I came here due to seeing AE911twoof's facebook page and found my way here. I've since come to find out JREF is an amazing place where litterally every question can be answered, conspiracy or not. You need to start doing the same.

Totally off-topic material enclosed:

Behind home plate at Fenway Park is a sign that says "Roger Waters The Wall" for the upcoming show. Someone called into sports talk radio on my way home from work asking who Roger was and why we cared if he watered the Wall. I kid you not.
(In the event someone doesn't know what the wall is, it's a major feature of Fenway Park)
 
DGM said:
DSC only measures energy density. You are the one that's confused.
Click to expand...
He's not confused. He's trolling. And to a large extent the sillier the claim the more effective it is likely to be in trolling. People cannot resist the temptation to show the error on the trolling claim. So the more obvious the error the more likely it will succeed in getting "bites".

And ergo is attempting to mimic C7's favourite technique of "throw in enough pseudo science to make it look as if it is a genuine discussion".

The test is simple - follow the discussion and see if it progresses OR merely goes round in circles.

Then, if it is circling, confirm the analysis by looking at who caused the circling.

That should get it "beyond reasonable doubt" BUT it's not a criminal offence so....;)
 
Not only were paint chips ruled out by the DSC, but they were ruled out by the flame tests as well, lol. Had forgotten this.
 
NoahFence said:
The point is, even when you're trying to use an analogy you can't even get that right.
Click to expand...

At the risk of perpetuating an already silly "discussion", I NEVER ASCRIBED THAT QUOTE TO PINK FLOYD. You did. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom