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

ergo said:
Yeah, if you call Jim Millette's attempt to replicate it "no impact"!
Click to expand...
I do. It was done by request, and he was one of the few who wanted to do it.

(And I finally see an opportunity of getting marginally back to the topic...)
 
Miragememories said:
If you look at the Bentham Paper, they acknowledge several times that the DSC results exceeded the theoretical limit for thermite.

The authors of the Bentham Paper provided this hypothesis;

MM
Click to expand...

I know. What conclusion can you draw from this fact?

MM and ergo, to guide you towards a correct answer to this question, which of the following conclusions are correct, and which are false:

a) The DSC curves and energy densities are best explained by their consisting mostly of some (unknown) organic matrix material
b) The DSC curves and energy densities are best explained by their containing some nanothermite
c) It is possible that no organic combustion takes place
d) It is possible that no thermite reaction takes place
 
ergo said:
Yeah, if you call Jim Millette's attempt to replicate it "no impact"!
Click to expand...

ergo said:
Yes, and Harrit et al. show it is irrelevant to determining the substance is thermitic.
Click to expand...

You expect Millette to replicate something that is irrelevant to determining the substance is thermitic, when he is tasked and payed to determine if his chips are thermitic.

Can you explain why you have such insane expectations
 
ergo said:
They wanted to see how the material would behave when heated, to test its reactivity.
Click to expand...

What analytical results of the DSC test describe the "reactivity"? How "reactive" are the chips, according to the DSC test?
 
Last edited:
You can read the paper yourself, but I know you already know this. The chips ignited around 430 C and produced microspheres, suggesting temperatures hot enough to melt iron and iron oxide.

PS: must go. Will check back later.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
You can read the paper yourself, but I know you already know this. The chips ignited around 430 C and produced microspheres, suggesting temperatures hot enough to melt iron and iron oxide.

PS: must go. Will check back later.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Have you actually read the paper? (not just 9/11 blogger post on it).

:rolleyes:
 
*deleted and moved to bang-and-fizzle thread to end derail here*
 
Last edited:
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...

There's no thermite because there's no elemental aluminum.

ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only documented use of thermite to demolish a structure was for one tower of the Skyride at the Chicago Exposition of the 1930s. Thermite wasn't used as an explosive, but as a source of heat to melt the steel of the structure. Massive insulated cupolas were constructed about the base of the tower to hold 1,500 lbs of thermite. "Nano" thermite would be inferior for this because it produces less heat per unit of mass, and it's just "explosive" enough, if embedded in an organic gel matrix, to make it very difficult to contain in a cupola.

As an explosive, nanothermite is a bad joke: I've seen more "explosive" potential in a kielbasa heated in a microwave oven. I'd love to see Kevin Ryan pack some of his backyard-brewed nanothermite gel into a familiar copper linear shape-charge shell and demonstrate its explosiveness. I need a good laugh.
 
Redwood said:
There's no thermite because there's no elemental aluminum.

The only documented use of thermite to demolish a structure was for one tower of the Skyride at the Chicago Exposition of the 1930s. Thermite wasn't used as an explosive, but as a source of heat to melt the steel of the structure. Massive insulated cupolas were constructed about the base of the tower to hold 1,500 lbs of thermite. "Nano" thermite would be inferior for this because it produces less heat per unit of mass, and it's just "explosive" enough, if embedded in an organic gel matrix, to make it very difficult to contain in a cupola.

As an explosive, nanothermite is a bad joke: I've seen more "explosive" potential in a kielbasa heated in a microwave oven. I'd love to see Kevin Ryan pack some of his backyard-brewed nanothermite gel into a familiar copper linear shape-charge shell and demonstrate its explosiveness. I need a good laugh.
Click to expand...

I've seen that article as well. It's usually presented as "evidence" by truthers who haven't bothered to actually read it. 1,500 pounds of thermite x how many WTC girders?

I've said it before, in all the truther Youtube videos - I have yet to see one of thermite cutting a steel girder in half.
 
In addition is the problem that there was no CD therefore whether or not thermXte was present AND could be used to cut structural members it wasn't used. The whole discussion is a truther initiated side track which we enjoy playing along with. Of technical interest certainly but irrelevant to "prove CD".

The basic process error is that the logic is arse about truther logic which we debunkers generously go along with.

Truther logic says:
1) "ThermXte can cut steel" - yes but...partial truth there
2) There was thermXte on ground zero" ...even if true (almost certain not) it is still only an isolated anomaly.
3)
4)
etc
12) (at least) missing steps to prove CD

So why is the logic arse about?

Because to complete the sequence the truthers have to prove 1) and 2)
PLUS define, explain and prove 3) through 12) or whatever the end point is.

Put simply they have to prove CD and thermXte doesn't help them.

Since they cannot prove CD they cannot prove CD and thermXte, mini nukes, DEW, OR Santa's custard wont help them if they cannot prove CD.
 
DGM said:
Wrong. Have you actually read the paper? (not just 9/11 blogger post on it).
Click to expand...

DGM, you've failed to make any point, any kind of coherent, definitive statement in any of these posts. When you figure out what it is you're trying to say, please post it. Until then, I'll assume you really don't know.
 
ergo said:
DGM, you've failed to make any point, any kind of coherent, definitive statement in any of these posts. When you figure out what it is you're trying to say, please post it. Until then, I'll assume you really don't know.
Click to expand...

Irony Overload...:id:
 
Am I the only one who has noticed absolutely no progress in this discussion? Ever since this study was released, it's been the same thermite/dsc/aluminum/why ergo is wrong/ergo denial spinning around and around again. Oystein, how have you persisted so long? I'd have given up on him weeks ago..
 
cjnewson88 said:
Am I the only one who has noticed absolutely no progress in this discussion? Ever since this study was released, it's been the same thermite/dsc/aluminum/why ergo is wrong/ergo denial spinning around and around again....
Click to expand...
Me too! It is both the goal of the troll and definitive proof of trolling when the same person keeps discussion circling.

I don't feed trolls. (OK thats the ideal - I falter occasionally :o ) Others legitimately choose to respond.
cjnewson88 said:
.... Oystein, how have you persisted so long? I'd have given up on him weeks ago..
Click to expand...
...so I admire Oystein and others who persist in responding to this sort of "make sure we don't progress so lets go round in circles" posting.

It is not my choice but I know:
A) I am in the minority; AND
B) I would not win if I proposed tightening the "anti-trolling" rules.

..and, partly against my own "rules of engagement", I have had some fun counter attacking some nonsense on the "WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44" thread. Two trolls have departed that thread. I think I helped persuade them but they would deny that naturally :)
 
cjnewson88 said:
Am I the only one who has noticed absolutely no progress in this discussion? Ever since this study was released, it's been the same thermite/dsc/aluminum/why ergo is wrong/ergo denial spinning around and around again. Oystein, how have you persisted so long? I'd have given up on him weeks ago..
Click to expand...

This recent round has provided me with a couple of big smiles. Up to now I had thought that ergo, while certainly a troll, is at least educated and intelligent.

In this round, he had to admit that he doesn't understand some of the most basic physics laws of this universe. Made me feel very pleased.
 
ergo said:
It doesn't matter since it's reaction time that is the pertinent factor in explosive potential.
Click to expand...
Detonation velocity of sol-gel produced 70nm nanothermite is 900m/s. http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/cejem/2-2010/full/klapotke.pdf

Detonation velocity of TNT is 6900 m/s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_explosive_detonation_velocities

So once again you are way, way off.

Now we've been here before haven't we Ergo? Do you know where we discussed this very topic? Yep it was in this very thread. 3 1/2 weeks ago.

So why are you bringing up exactly the same thing that was discussed? Are you incapable of learning? Do you have the memory of a goldfish? Why do you point blank refuse to accept documented evidence and data when it is presented to you?

You have already confessed that you have no idea what Enthalpy is.

You have already confessed that you have no idea what heat of reaction is.

You have already confessed that you have no idea why it's a theoretical limit.

You have already confessed that you have no idea how delta H is calculated.

Even though 10 minutes on Wiki reading the link provided to you would tell you everything. This information is learnt at around the age of 15 in school Chemistry classes. It's expanded on at advanced level 16-18 and you have to do the calculations.

Do you think we are lying to you when we tell you that you cannot get more than around 4KJ/g from this equation?

Fe2O3 + Al = Al2O3 + Fe

I've left it unbalanced on purpose. Ergo, please use your extensive knowledge of chemistry to balance the above equation. No cheating looking it up.

And now you have moved the goalposts again. And again that argument has been smashed. Aren't you getting tired of moving the posts? We are.

You have zero knowledge of chemistry. Zero. None. If you did, you'd get things right occasionally.

Tell us why we should discuss things with you when you have shown that you cannot learn the most basic of concepts even when they have been explained to you dozens of times?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom