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

[MileHighMadness]

On this I have to disagree. We know that thermite was used to bring down a structure once in the 1930s I believe (I'm too lazy to get the link but I've seen it). I also vaguely remember Chris Sarns linking me to an article that shows that thermite can be made into an explosive.

Chris…on this item, we will agree to disagree.

Has thermite been used to demo structures in the past? Yes, but on a very limited basis, and has been clearly shown to be very ineffective in the precision cutting of steel members.

When you demo a high rise steel frame building you have to have an instantaneous cutting of the steel members to control the collapse sequence. I’m not aware of any present day demolition firm that has used thermite to implode a steel building (or bridge), it burns much too slowly to effective. That why specially firms like CDI, use shape charges.

With all due respect to Chris Sarns, he has no idea what he is talking about. Yeah, thermite can be made into an explosive, but (at best) a very poor one.
If this was truly black (red flag) operation, why would they use an ineffective (and unpredictable) material like thermite, when shape charges are available.

Ask Richard Gage what happed to all the physical evidence of controlled demolition? Nothing has been found at any of the WTC building sites. No explosive residue, no wiring, no explosive casings, no detonators, no nothing; including any specialized containers required to hold the thermite up against the steel beams/columns. And if says this physical evidence was removed by the government in order to cover up their involvement; then he is avoiding the question.

MHM

 

[DGM]

Chris…on this item, we will agree to disagree.

Has thermite been used to demo structures in the past? Yes, but on a very limited basis, and has been clearly shown to be very ineffective in the precision cutting of steel members.

When you demo a high rise steel frame building you have to have an instantaneous cutting of the steel members to control the collapse sequence. I’m not aware of any present day demolition firm that has used thermite to implode a steel building (or bridge), it burns much too slowly to effective. That why specially firms like CDI, use shape charges.

With all due respect to Chris Sarns, he has no idea what he is talking about. Yeah, thermite can be made into an explosive, but (at best) a very poor one.
If this was truly black (red flag) operation, why would they use an ineffective (and unpredictable) material like thermite, when shape charges are available.

Ask Richard Gage what happed to all the physical evidence of controlled demolition? Nothing has been found at any of the WTC building sites. No explosive residue, no wiring, no explosive casings, no detonators, no nothing; including any specialized containers required to hold the thermite up against the steel beams/columns. And if says this physical evidence was removed by the government in order to cover up their involvement; then he is avoiding the question.

MHM

This whole thing is a wild goose chase. What part of the collapse was actually controlled? "Truthers" love to talk about "controlled demolition" but have you ever seen one that leveled a couple city blocks (un-intentionally)?

This whole thing is set-up to keep their fantasy alive. Strange they don't question why this paper has gained no traction in the years it's been out. Millette helped by showing it at a forensic conference, still nothing.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by chrismohr
On this I have to disagree. We know that thermite was used to bring down a structure once in the 1930s I believe (I'm too lazy to get the link but I've seen it). I also vaguely remember Chris Sarns linking me to an article that shows that thermite can be made into an explosive.

Chris…on this item, we will agree to disagree.

Has thermite been used to demo structures in the past? Yes, but on a very limited basis, and has been clearly shown to be very ineffective in the precision cutting of steel members.

When you demo a high rise steel frame building you have to have an instantaneous cutting of the steel members to control the collapse sequence. I’m not aware of any present day demolition firm that has used thermite to implode a steel building (or bridge), it burns much too slowly to effective. That why specially firms like CDI, use shape charges.

With all due respect to Chris Sarns, he has no idea what he is talking about. Yeah, thermite can be made into an explosive, but (at best) a very poor one.
If this was truly black (red flag) operation, why would they use an ineffective (and unpredictable) material like thermite, when shape charges are available.

Ask Richard Gage what happed to all the physical evidence of controlled demolition? Nothing has been found at any of the WTC building sites. No explosive residue, no wiring, no explosive casings, no detonators, no nothing; including any specialized containers required to hold the thermite up against the steel beams/columns. And if says this physical evidence was removed by the government in order to cover up their involvement; then he is avoiding the question.

MHM

Thermite was used to bring down one tower of the Skyride at the "Century of Progress" Exposition in Chicago in the 1930s, after it had closed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_Progress) Two of the four steel legs of the tower were enclosed by firebrick-and-steel cupolas and filled with 1500 lb. of thermite, which was sufficient to melt the steel of the legs, causing it to topple. I don't know how much "control" was needed - there were no adjoining structures, and the Expo was on landfill on the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Thermite cannot be made into an explosive, but it can heat water quickly enough to cause a steam explosion, here demonstrated by the Mythbusters Boys: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6cMmk8LZgQ). I doubt this would be practical for demolition purposes , but it raises a question as to why Truthers don't try to get the Mythbusters to work on a building demolition by means of thermite. What have they got to lose, after almost 12 years of failure? There's bound to be some small, run-down building in a desert location that the owner would love to have demolished.

 

[jtl]

Thermite cannot be made into an explosive

How dare those Los Alomos/LLNL scientists, making up such big lies!

Chris Mohr, I think you better call them up and tell them your JREF buddies have seen through their lies!

WOW, this forum is so amazing

 

[thedopefishlives]

How dare those Los Alomos/LLNL scientists, making up such big lies!

Chris Mohr, I think you better call them up and tell them your JREF buddies have seen through their lies!

WOW, this forum is so amazing

If you're going to deride us, the least you could do is to provide a link to this research that debunks us so thoroughly.

 

[ergo]

WOW, this forum is so amazing

The contradictions in the "debunker" arguments on this page alone (yes, that's only three posts) are stupefying. I do think this is part of their strategy. It is literally too much bunk to wade through.

 

[The Big Dog]

The contradictions in the "debunker" arguments on this page alone (yes, that's only three posts) are stupefying. I do think this is part of their strategy. It is literally too much bunk to wade through.

Ergo, why am I not surprised that you find intelligent conversation stupefying?

I understand that it is a lot to wade through.

You know what is probably more your speed, champ?

Magnetic foam, no planes, space weapons and pot.

"Very interesting OP, and good to have you back!" Hee hee!

I love you ergo.

 

[Oystein]

How dare those Los Alomos/LLNL scientists, making up such big lies!
...

jtl,

since you are so familiar with the LLNL research, can you tell me one or two things real quick about these thermitic explosives, please?

1. What's the typical particle size and shape of the Al and Fe2O3 in those superthermites?
2. What is, ca., the mass ratio between Al/Fe2O3 on one hand and the organics on the other hand?

See, I want to see of the red-gray chips resemble those explosives



Ah, and also, can you point me to an instance where Harrit et al. show that the red layer is explosive? Is it explosive?


Many thanks fpr your anticipated constructive input

 

[Spanx]

How dare those Los Alomos/LLNL scientists, making up such big lies!

Chris Mohr, I think you better call them up and tell them your JREF buddies have seen through their lies!

WOW, this forum is so amazing

Lol, if you look at jtl's posts, in almost all of them he is telling Chris to contact somebody or do something ?

Chris, I think you had better check your wife's computer and see if she is having a joke on you

 

[chrismohr]

Chris…on this item, we will agree to disagree.

Has thermite been used to demo structures in the past? Yes, but on a very limited basis, and has been clearly shown to be very ineffective in the precision cutting of steel members.

When you demo a high rise steel frame building you have to have an instantaneous cutting of the steel members to control the collapse sequence. I’m not aware of any present day demolition firm that has used thermite to implode a steel building (or bridge), it burns much too slowly to effective. That why specially firms like CDI, use shape charges.

With all due respect to Chris Sarns, he has no idea what he is talking about. Yeah, thermite can be made into an explosive, but (at best) a very poor one.
If this was truly black (red flag) operation, why would they use an ineffective (and unpredictable) material like thermite, when shape charges are available.

Ask Richard Gage what happed to all the physical evidence of controlled demolition? Nothing has been found at any of the WTC building sites. No explosive residue, no wiring, no explosive casings, no detonators, no nothing; including any specialized containers required to hold the thermite up against the steel beams/columns. And if says this physical evidence was removed by the government in order to cover up their involvement; then he is avoiding the question.

MHM

Hi Mile High,
Our disagreement is with two very specific claims you made: 1) that thermite can't be made into an explosive and 2) that it can't be used to bring down a structure. I have been caught many times making misstatements and have repeatedly corrected them (just watch some of my YouTubes and the edits and changes and corrections I've made). Those two specific claims are simply not true. The LLNL thermite/explosives info (which I have no time today to research) is on one of my YouTube videos about thermite. And Redwood's post 2323 shows that thermite was actually used to bring down a structure. So the assertions you made need correction in light of these facts. A more defensible pair of statements might be 1) even if thermite can be made into an explosive somehow, there is zero evidence it was actually used on 9/11 and 2) even though thermite was used once to bring down a structure, there is zero evidence it was actually used on 9/11. Evidence trumps conjecture. Obviously the 9/11 truth crowd will disagree and say the 2009 Active Thermitic Materials paper is evidence, but at least then we will be arguing on a more solid footing and cleaning up our inaccuracies as we go along. And I have used the argument of "no physical evidence of thermite or any kind of CD in the rubble" against Gage in our debates and he has not been able to produce such physical evidence.

 

[Miragememories]

Why is there so much evasion?

You know, avoiding the truth.

--
A finding from a peer-reviewed report:
At approximately 430°C, the 'red/gray chips of interest' produce an exothermic reaction that briefly reaches a temperature sufficient to produce high purity molten iron.

Evasive Response:
No no, they did testing as high as 700°C so that must have been the residue they examined, not 430°C.
--

High-purity iron microspheres require a melting temperature of 1538°C.

And if high-purity iron microspheres can be so easily produced at 430°C from commercial office building demolition dust, where is the proof?

Thermitic materials should never have existed at the WTC and evidence of such existence should not pervade every WTC dust sample.

In spite of how easy it would be to perform duplicate testing in the many private and academic labs throughout the world, no one is daring enough to publicly announce such intentions.

With almost 4 years having passed since the paper by Dr. Harrit et al was released, many people with access to the necessary tools, have had the opportunity to whet their curiosity.

People like Dr. Millette, who is CEO of his own lab, is the possessor of WTC dust, and has the furnace and electron microscope tools for duplicating or disputing the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

Grab some dust.
Isolate a bunch of red/gray chips with magnet.
Select red/gray chips similar looking to those shown in the 2009 Bentham Paper.
Test for low resistivity (does not have to be a precise, very low is good, very high is bad).
Prepare chips and heat to ~430°C.
Examine debris.
Explain findings.

How curious do you have to be?

How curious have others been?

It does seem odd, that if the Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible, no one is taking this easy testing route to claim debunking rights.

Because we all know the problem if the 2009 Bentham Paper is vindicated.

Incredulity about how it was pulled off, is not going to stop the questions any more.

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

Why is there so much evasion?

You know, avoiding the truth.

--
A finding from a peer-reviewed report:
At approximately 430°C, the 'red/gray chips of interest' produce an exothermic reaction that briefly reaches a temperature sufficient to produce high purity molten iron.

Evasive Response:
No no, they did testing as high as 700°C so that must have been the residue they examined, not 430°C.
--

High-purity iron microspheres require a melting temperature of 1538°C.

And if high-purity iron microspheres can be so easily produced at 430°C from commercial office building demolition dust, where is the proof?

Thermitic materials should never have existed at the WTC and evidence of such existence should not pervade every WTC dust sample.

In spite of how easy it would be to perform duplicate testing in the many private and academic labs throughout the world, no one is daring enough to publicly announce such intentions.

With almost 4 years having passed since the paper by Dr. Harrit et al was released, many people with access to the necessary tools, have had the opportunity to whet their curiosity.

People like Dr. Millette, who is CEO of his own lab, is the possessor of WTC dust, and has the furnace and electron microscope tools for duplicating or disputing the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

Grab some dust.
Isolate a bunch of red/gray chips with magnet.
Select red/gray chips similar looking to those shown in the 2009 Bentham Paper.
Test for low resistivity (does not have to be a precise, very low is good, very high is bad).
Prepare chips and heat to ~430°C.
Examine debris.
Explain findings.

How curious do you have to be?

How curious have others been?

It does seem odd, that if the Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible, no one is taking this easy testing route to claim debunking rights.

Because we all know the problem if the 2009 Bentham Paper is vindicated.

Incredulity about how it was pulled off, is not going to stop the questions any more.

MM

The Bentham paper is non-existent to the scientific community. In reality it doesn't register. It's not used as a reference in any legitimate thermite work.

Dr Millette has done the perfect analysis. He's isolated the chips in exactly the same way that Harrit et al did using the information in their paper. He has examined the chips using optical and SEM microscopy and specifically matched the SEM data from some of his isolated chips to Harrit at al's chips labelled a-d. He has then performed definitive testing on those chips to determine exactly what they consist of which is exactly the same as chips a-d.

You and every other truther refuse to analyse Millette's data. You steadfastly refuse to admit that Millette has paint adhered to rusted steel. You completely deny and refuse to acknowledge Millette's criteria for determining that he has the same chips even though that criteria is in black and white.

Criticise the criteria I dare you. You won't because if you do you'll be shown wrong. Show how the characteristics of chips a-d in Harrit et al don't match Millette's. Start with the hexagonal platelets and the corresponding EDX from both. You will never do that because you know they are the same.

Making up nonsense such as using the resistivity of the sample as a method of isolation which is not in the paper to suit your own delusion is typical for truthers. You'd rather live in la la fantasy land than face the truth.

Millette has exactly the same chips as Harrit et al had in samples a-d. They have exactly the same macro and micro characteristics. The SEM and TEM- SAED prove it. Exactly the same hexagonal platelets.

You and every other truther simply ignore this and hand wave it away. You are petrified of admitting you are wrong. DSC is pointless, it tells you nothing, nowt, nada, zilch about what the material is, which is red paint adhered to rusted steel.

What you should be doing is hammering Harrit/Basile/Jones/Farrer to do exactly what Millette did, namely use a proper definitive technique that tells you exactly what the chips are made of. Ask Harrit why he isn't performing a proper materials characterisation. Harrit did FTIR which would tell us exactly what the carbon based matrix is (it's epoxy, but I told you that days after the paper was released - this was confirmed by Millette. I know what I'm looking at, you don't and nor does Harrit), but he refuses to release the data. Why was such definitive data left out of the paper? Why have they not released the full FTIR data as promised in the same paper? I'll tell you why. They know it didn't support the made up nanothermite nonsense so they left it out on purpose. Harrit is a fraud and a charlatan who has fooled the gullible and unscientific.

Jones and his merry band won't even supply red/gray chips so they can be analysed independently - the true mark of a disingenuous fraudster. They are cowards to a man.

Again if Millette heats his red paint chips and microspheres which contain iron are produced you will say that is proof of thermite even thought the definitive analytical methods show the material is paint adhered to oxidised steel.

If Millette doesn't get microspheres you will claim he has the wrong chips.

You will never admit you are wrong. Never. But you are.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM: Why are you talking about our "evasive response"?

Even Jtl would very probably agree, that any additional heating experiment with WTC red/gray chips simply must be performed at the same conditions like in Bentham paper, i.e., with the same/similar heating rate (10 degrees/min) and up to the same final temperature, which was 700 degrees C.
Otherwise, any such test (performed e.g. only up to 430 degrees C) could not be regarded as a "replication" of original tests. Why you do not comprehend this very obvious Truth?
Indeed, DSC device can be replaced by some simpler device, like precisely controlled oven, if the researcher is interested only in some analysis of resulting ash and not in the specific thermal effects during heating.

You basically think that microspheres were formed already at the external temperatures around 430 degrees C (because of thermitic reaction). (Note: external temperature means temp. of sample holder.)

We basically think that microspheres were created at considerably higher external temperatures, probably close to final 700 degrees. (We also claim that slow exothermic effects observed at ca 430 degrees were caused by burning of the polymer binder.)

And, since nobody knows at which external temperatures microspheres were formed, the heating up to 700 degrees in any replication is simply a must Why you refuse to accept this plain fact? What personal problem do you have with the heating up to 700 degrees?

 

[plague311]

Why is there so much evasion?

You know, avoiding the truth.

--
A finding from a peer-reviewed report:
At approximately 430°C, the 'red/gray chips of interest' produce an exothermic reaction that briefly reaches a temperature sufficient to produce high purity molten iron.

Evasive Response:
No no, they did testing as high as 700°C so that must have been the residue they examined, not 430°C.
--

High-purity iron microspheres require a melting temperature of 1538°C.

And if high-purity iron microspheres can be so easily produced at 430°C from commercial office building demolition dust, where is the proof?

Thermitic materials should never have existed at the WTC and evidence of such existence should not pervade every WTC dust sample.

In spite of how easy it would be to perform duplicate testing in the many private and academic labs throughout the world, no one is daring enough to publicly announce such intentions.

With almost 4 years having passed since the paper by Dr. Harrit et al was released, many people with access to the necessary tools, have had the opportunity to whet their curiosity.

People like Dr. Millette, who is CEO of his own lab, is the possessor of WTC dust, and has the furnace and electron microscope tools for duplicating or disputing the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

Grab some dust.
Isolate a bunch of red/gray chips with magnet.
Select red/gray chips similar looking to those shown in the 2009 Bentham Paper.
Test for low resistivity (does not have to be a precise, very low is good, very high is bad).
Prepare chips and heat to ~430°C.
Examine debris.
Explain findings.

How curious do you have to be?
How curious have others been?
It does seem odd, that if the Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible, no one is taking this easy testing route to claim debunking rights.

Because we all know the problem if the 2009 Bentham Paper is vindicated.

Incredulity about how it was pulled off, is not going to stop the questions any more.

MM

I am assuming because those tests cost money, and debunking the bentham paper is not worth the fiscal investment by most scientists. If I understand the view on the paper correctly, it's a non factor. No one in the science community really cares

ETA: Sunstealer beat me to it

 

[Oystein]

Why is there so much evasion?

You know, avoiding the truth.

Avoiding the truth? Who is avoiding the truth?

A finding from a peer-reviewed report:
At approximately 430°C, the 'red/gray chips of interest' produce an exothermic reaction that briefly reaches a temperature sufficient to produce high purity molten iron.

Evasive Response:
No no, they did testing as high as 700°C so that must have been the residue they examined, not 430°C.
--

Evasive Response? Says the fasctotum who evades every single question anyone ever asks of it

Ok, for Truth, MM - which of the following is true:

1. Harrit et al heated their chips only to 430 °C
2. Harrit et al heated their chips to 700 °C

And now let's see who will evade that question!

High-purity iron microspheres require a melting temperature of 1538°C.

And if high-purity iron microspheres can be so easily produced at 430°C from commercial office building demolition dust, where is the proof?

Indeed: where is the proof - that "high-purity iron microspheres" were produced in Harrit et al's experiments? There is none! An inconvenient truth that MM surely will evade!

Thermitic materials should never have existed at the WTC and evidence of such existence should not pervade every WTC dust sample.

The good thing is: There is no such proof

In spite of how easy it would be to perform duplicate testing in the many private and academic labs throughout the world, no one is daring enough to publicly announce such intentions.

You are the one asking to NOT duplicate the test and evade the 700 °C

With almost 4 years having passed since the paper by Dr. Harrit et al was released, many people with access to the necessary tools, have had the opportunity to whet their curiosity.

The only necessary tools are your eyes and a functioning brain. Sunstealer put both to good use just days after the publication, in April 2009, when he pointed out that the platelets are kaolin, the grains are red pigment, and the whole stuff is paint.

People like Dr. Millette, who is CEO of his own lab, is the possessor of WTC dust, and has the furnace and electron microscope tools for duplicating or disputing the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

Grab some dust.
Isolate a bunch of red/gray chips with magnet.
Select red/gray chips similar looking to those shown in the 2009 Bentham Paper.

Done.

Test for low resistivity (does not have to be a precise, very low is good, very high is bad).

That's not what Harrit et al did.
You know it, and hence you evade the truth here.

Prepare chips and heat to ~430°C.

That's not what Harrit et al did.
You know it, and hence you evade the truth here.

Examine debris.
Explain findings.

That's not what Harrit et al did.
They did not explain to you that at 430 °C, a plain old polymer, such as epoxy, was slowly burning on air.

How curious do you have to be?

How curious have others been?

We hired Millette because we were curious if the platelets are really kaolin, if he could find epoxy, and if there really is no elemental Al.

Millette did all the truthful things you listed, left away the things you lie about, substituted with competent methods, and showed that we were right all along.

It does seem odd, that if the Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible, no one is taking this easy testing route to claim debunking rights.

There is no need to reproduce them: They debunk their own conclusions, and they are incompetent to properly ID the material. Why waste money on stupid, incompetent, amateurish things?

Because we all know the problem if the 2009 Bentham Paper is vindicated.

It isn't. It won't be.

Incredulity about how it was pulled off, is not going to stop the questions any more.

Says the factotum who evades each and every question

 

[MileHighMadness]

Wow…jtl, you are a blight ray of sunshine on this first full day of Spring…

Prove to me; how thermite can be used to effectively implode a high rise steel building. You can’t, because thermite burns too slowly to be used in CD. You have to an instantaneous cutting of the steel members to control the collapse sequence, which you get with specialized shape charges, not thermite.

Again, no physical evidence of CD has been found at any of the WTC sites. No explosive residue, no wiring, no explosive casings, no detonators, no nothing…

 

[jaydeehess]

I read the paper that Chris Sarns linked to and it stated that thermite can be added to some explosives to increase heat output and gass expansion rates. That is a far cry from 'thermite can be made explosive'. Besides in order for something to be "explosive" it would have certain properties such as a very fast pressure front and gas expansion rate, which in air would cause a very large BANG sound. The gas expansion rate required to sever large steel columns would have to produce such sounds but those sounds are not in evidence.
Therefore there were no explosives capable of cutting columns , with or without the addtion of the relatively small amounts of thermite referred to in the Los Alamos article!
IOW there is no such thing as Hush-a-Boom

 

[jtl]

I read the paper that Chris Sarns linked to and it stated that thermite can be added to some explosives to increase heat output and gass expansion rates. That is a far cry from 'thermite can be made explosive'. Besides in order for something to be "explosive" it would have certain properties such as a very fast pressure front and gas expansion rate, which in air would cause a very large BANG sound. The gas expansion rate required to sever large steel columns would have to produce such sounds but those sounds are not in evidence.
Therefore there were no explosives capable of cutting columns , with or without the addtion of the relatively small amounts of thermite referred to in the Los Alamos article!
IOW there is no such thing as Hush-a-Boom

There are plenty of resources out there that tell you about explosive versions of thermite, and explain how it is done. Even the article that is the source for the arguments here about the FTIR leads you to explanations, including the cited interview with Harrit where he explains how the Viton is one way to turn nanothermite into an explosive.

The so-called "hush-a-boom" is a misunderstanding, because thermitic materials do not use explosive pressure, per se, to cut beams like normal shaped-charges. Instead they use the molten iron to cut through the steel, but explosive pressure is used to help push it through the steel, to cut it. This is why thermitic cutter-charges do not need extremely loud high-explosive type pressures, it is the molten iron that really does the cutting, and that is why they can be much quieter, or "hush-a-boom".

Normal thermite will cut the steel without any loud explosive pressure, but to make a proper cutter-charge that can cut horizontally it needs additional chemical added to provide directed pressure. This has been done for years or even decades, you can even search google scholar for thermite and thermate versions of cutters. This superthermite stuff could probably make even better cutters.

It would really be a lot more helpful if you would stop fooling around with hogwash statements that thermite explosives don´t exist or that they could not do the job, etc.

You want to debunk Harrit? Then focus on the data, do research and get papers published. Millette would be a good start, if you still think he will publish.

I´ll watch this forum for news, but I have had enough of the low-level discussions. Get serious or find something else to do, remember what Dr. Greening said about this forum. Nothing has changed since then, but I guess since you did not listen to G, one of authors of papers used to support NIST, you won´t listen to me either. Take a hint, really.

I did not mention at the start of my venture here that a few friends were watching closely because of a bet my truther cousin made with them, and 2 of them have signed up with ae911 as a result. Not what I expected.

Good luck.

 

[beachnut]

There are plenty of resources out there that tell you about explosive versions of thermite, and explain how it is done.

List them. You talk big, but present failed indirect attacks on JREF, I can smell a Dr. Greening attacking coming up. Dr Greening does not believe thermite did 911, why do you?

Even the article that is the source for the arguments here about the FTIR leads you to explanations, including the cited interview with Harrit where he explains how the Viton is one way to turn nanothermite into an explosive.

FTIR you presented in someones failed youtube (Get serious youtube? Really?, that is your best support, youtube) did not match what they said it matched. Is that a lie, or a mistake?

The so-called "hush-a-boom" is a misunderstanding, because thermitic materials do not use explosive pressure, per se, to cut beams like normal shaped-charges.

It sure looked like pressure when I have seen thermite cut stuff. If you don't have some sort of special device, the thermite fails to work. You have to put the thermite inside the steel, or some other failed way, which is cost prohibited, and stupid. No one put thermite in the WTC. But your fantasy buddies, Jones and Harrit say there were tons. Jones says they might be in the ceiling tiles where the thermite would do nothing. Harrit says hundreds of tons, and there were no products of thermite found on 911. Why does Harrit lie about 911? Any clue? No.

Instead they use the molten iron to cut through the steel, but explosive pressure is used to help push it through the steel, to cut it.

Who uses thermite to melt through steel? Who, make a list of all buildings destoryed using thermite. High rises. Hurry.

This is why thermitic cutter-charges do not need extremely loud high-explosive type pressures, it is the molten iron that really does the cutting, and that is why they can be much quieter, or "hush-a-boom".

Wait, 911 truth says there were sounds of explosives. Now you say the sounds were not loud, not explosives but thermite pressure bombs made to cut steel, yet there were zero cuts made on 911 by thermite. What happened? No cuts in steel on 911 by thermite.

Can't believe you do the gish gallop on sound. It proves you are making this up as you go. Why was this not in the paper? lol... Much quieter, throwing ordinary truthers under the bus. Quiet explosives, which did not cut the steel? Where are the cuts made by thermite on 911? Harrit? Jones?

Normal thermite will cut the steel without any loud explosive pressure, but to make a proper cutter-charge that can cut horizontally it needs additional chemical added to provide directed pressure.

Show an example. Source, show me.
Normal thermite will cut the steel without any loud sound. Show us.
Show us cuts from WTC steel made by thermite.

This has been done for years or even decades, you can even search google scholar for thermite and thermate versions of cutters. This superthermite stuff could probably make even better cutters.

Thermite is a fantasy method of 911 truth to bring down the WTC towers, and it was invented by nuts, no evidence. Who was the first 911 nut to say it was thermite? Why did 60 Minutes miss it? Right, silly claims don't make it.

It would really be a lot more helpful if you would stop fooling around with hogwash statements that thermite explosives don´t exist or that they could not do the job, etc.

Please list thermite explosives.
No big deal, I already know there are patents for thermite cutters, and other devices. Which is more proof they were not used on 911. No thermite cutting devices were found on 911. No thermite was found inside the steel, outside the steel. No blast marks from thermite, no thermite product fused to steel like the silly youtube nuts who did thermite cutters.

911 truth debunks their own thermite claims with Jones' failed paper.

You want to debunk Harrit? Then focus on the data, do research and get papers published. Millette would be a good start, if you still think he will publish.

Millette already published his findings, you missed it. It is funny your papers on thermite, the 911 truth fake papers were paid to publish. Funny stuff - they had to pay to publish their lies about thermite used on 911. Failed 911 truthers, Jones and Harrit, paid to fool you.
Harrit debunked himself when he claims hundreds of tons of thermite were used on 911, and you can't help him becuase you don't understand FTIR and DSC which don't match thermite.

I´ll watch this forum for news, but I have had enough of the low-level discussions.

News? News is, no thermite was used on 911. I will be waiting forever to see you try to get thermite did 911 on 60 Minutes or something equal. When will that be? Never. You have eternal failure with Jones and Harrit's fantasy thermite did 911 lie.

Get serious or find something else to do, remember what

Seriously, you have a fantasy thermite did 911. The DSC does not match, the spectrum looks like clay, and the FTIR you presented in a dumbed down youtube video did not match. Better luck on your next delusion. Have you tried Bigfoot, you can use the same evidence.

Dr. Greening said about this forum.

Weak attack on JREF; Dr. Greening is teasing you. Does he support your failed thermite claims?

Nothing has changed since then, but I guess since you did not listen to G, one of authors of papers used to support NIST, you won´t listen to me either. Take a hint, really.

It will never change; thermite was not used on 911 to bring down the WTC complex. It was fire. After seeing the steel, no thermite damage was found.

Present some thermite damage to the steel. What? You have no evidence? Why?

I did not mention at the start of my venture here that a few friends were watching closely because of a bet my truther cousin made with them, and 2 of them have signed up with ae911 as a result. Not what I expected. ...

Wow, your friends can't do chemistry, so they join a group based on lies. At least your fantasy has local support.

911 debunks Harrit. Harrit late to 911, lies about tons of thermite used on 911.
Millette did not find thermite, and 911 truth can't debunk it. Never will.

 

[jaydeehess]

There are plenty of resources out there that tell you about explosive versions of thermite, and explain how it is done. Even the article that is the source for the arguments here about the FTIR leads you to explanations, including the cited interview with Harrit where he explains how the Viton is one way to turn nanothermite into an explosive.

The so-called "hush-a-boom" is a misunderstanding, because thermitic materials do not use explosive pressure, per se, to cut beams like normal shaped-charges. Instead they use the molten iron to cut through the steel, but explosive pressure is used to help push it through the steel, to cut it. This is why thermitic cutter-charges do not need extremely loud high-explosive type pressures, it is the molten iron that really does the cutting, and that is why they can be much quieter, or "hush-a-boom".
.

That is NOT what was in the link posted by CS, that I read.

To melt anything requires heating it and that takes time. Sure you can blow hot gass at metal and cut through it, thats what oxyacetelyne torches do. This moves already molten material away and exposes fresh solid metal to the hot gas. But even a small cut takes a lot of time (realtively) and simply blowing the gases faster will do little to speed the process. You can heat anobject in air but to speed it up you can keep recirculating hot air, this is the way a convection oven works, but there is a limit as to how fast you can heat an object.


However, perhaps I am misinformed. Do you perhaps have a link to a video of said explosive thermite cutting through a steel column as fast as a conventional explosive but relatively much quieter?

If it does exist and is in use then I imagine Mr. Gage has a video of it in action that he shows at his speaking engagements around the world, right?