• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

If I ever said that the two mismatched DSC curves show that the red-grey chips are NOT thermite, then I was wrong. What I should have said is that the mismatch tells us nothing about this material one way or another. It CAN be caused by it being a different size or type of thermite, or it CAN be caused by being an entirely different material. Thus it tells us nothing. Steep curves are common in DSC readings for all kinds of materials (I looked it up) so that too tells us NOTHING. MM is right insofar as nano-sized particles can put out different DSC readings than larger particles. So if I misspoke on that, my retraction is here, along with a big giant shrug of the shoulders as I continue to assert that a grossly mismatched DSC reading with nothing but a steep curve in it tells us nothing about the materials being measured.
 
DGM said:
Miragememories said:
What is your difficulty in understanding that particle size effects ignition-temperature and energy density?



MM
Click to expand...

What is yours? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He's right.

The smaller the particles, the more oxidized the aluminium particles become in the surface, and since the oxidation penetrates the particle, that means less aluminium available to react. Someone (Sunstealer? Oystein? Ivan?) added numbers there; my recollection is that maybe about 70% of the aluminium would still be unoxidized and thus available to react.

The result is a reduction of the energy density.

Thus MM is right: particle size does affect energy density.

Except, not the way he expects.
 
pgimeno said:
He's right.

The smaller the particles, the more oxidized the aluminium particles become in the surface, and since the oxidation penetrates the particle, that means less aluminium available to react. Someone (Sunstealer? Oystein? Ivan?) added numbers there; my recollection is that maybe about 70% of the aluminium would still be unoxidized and thus available to react.

The result is a reduction of the energy density.

Thus MM is right: particle size does affect energy density.

Except, not the way he expects.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines of theoretical maximums. You are correct though. ;)
 
chrismohr said:
If I ever said that the two mismatched DSC curves show that the red-grey chips are NOT thermite, then I was wrong. What I should have said is that the mismatch tells us nothing about this material one way or another. It CAN be caused by it being a different size or type of thermite, or it CAN be caused by being an entirely different material. Thus it tells us nothing. Steep curves are common in DSC readings for all kinds of materials (I looked it up) so that too tells us NOTHING. MM is right insofar as nano-sized particles can put out different DSC readings than larger particles. So if I misspoke on that, my retraction is here, along with a big giant shrug of the shoulders as I continue to assert that a grossly mismatched DSC reading with nothing but a steep curve in it tells us nothing about the materials being measured.
Click to expand...
Chris, I've enjoyed many of your videos and respect that you've chosen to give 911 "truth" the latitude you have to ensure a respectful dialogue but all this debate over the composition of dust is nothing but a giant red herring when one takes off the blinders and stands back to review the whole picture.

The debate over dust supposes it's possible a layer of coating 3-5mils thick could cause the destruction of 110 story office buildings yet we've never had that proven as fact to begin with.

Semenut proposed the alleged nanothermite was hundreds or even thousands of layers thick to allow for the required amount of energy to exist in the coatings of the structural steel.

Being realistic, the time it takes for a coating of industrial paint to dry/cure would be about 8 hours minimum. Now apply thousands of coats and figure out the surface area required to facilitate such a collapse. Given that it would take literally thousands of hours over a large surface area and this was a populated building the entire argument begins to sound totally absurd even if it is possible.

There's no possible way this could have been done without many people knowing about it.

The big picture of this argument is just silly and absurd to begin with and arguing the minutia just avoids that reality.
 
Porkpie Hat said:
Chris, I've enjoyed many of your videos and respect that you've chosen to give 911 "truth" the latitude you have to ensure a respectful dialogue but all this debate over the composition of dust is nothing but a giant red herring when one takes off the blinders and stands back to review the whole picture.

The debate over dust supposes it's possible a layer of coating 3-5mils thick could cause the destruction of 110 story office buildings yet we've never had that proven as fact to begin with.

Semenut proposed the alleged nanothermite was hundreds or even thousands of layers thick to allow for the required amount of energy to exist in the coatings of the structural steel.

Being realistic, the time it takes for a coating of industrial paint to dry/cure would be about 8 hours minimum. Now apply thousands of coats and figure out the surface area required to facilitate such a collapse. Given that it would take literally thousands of hours over a large surface area and this was a populated building the entire argument begins to sound totally absurd even if it is possible.

There's no possible way this could have been done without many people knowing about it.

The big picture of this argument is just silly and absurd to begin with and arguing the minutia just avoids that reality.
Click to expand...


What was all that unreacted thermite doing in the dust? Since it took tons to bring down the buildings and there seems to be tons of the stuff left over after melting all the steel and keeping it melted for three months the building must have been stuffed full of thermite. You'd think someone would notice that their office was full of explosives. Probably camouflaged it as office supplies.
 
tsig said:
What was all that unreacted thermite doing in the dust? Since it took tons to bring down the buildings and there seems to be tons of the stuff left over after melting all the steel and keeping it melted for three months the building must have been stuffed full of thermite. You'd think someone would notice that their office was full of explosives. Probably camouflaged it as office supplies.
Click to expand...

That would be kind of an inefficient setup to bring down a high-rise, eh? (I'm not Canadian, BTW)
 
tsig said:
What was all that unreacted thermite doing in the dust? Since it took tons to bring down the buildings and there seems to be tons of the stuff left over after melting all the steel and keeping it melted for three months the building must have been stuffed full of thermite. You'd think someone would notice that their office was full of explosives. Probably camouflaged it as office supplies.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

This whole debate is the equivalent of arguing about who would win a leg wrestling match between Superman and Batman without taking into consideration that both are fictional characters....well maybe not Batman but you get my point.
 
Porkpie Hat said:
The debate over dust supposes it's possible a layer of coating 3-5mils thick could cause the destruction of 110 story office buildings yet we've never had that proven as fact to begin with.

Semenut proposed the alleged nanothermite was hundreds or even thousands of layers thick to allow for the required amount of energy to exist in the coatings of the structural steel.
Click to expand...

not the coating of the steel but as a device say 2 ft by 2 ft or whatever size would be needed to cut through the connection one is trying to sever. im sure with the right math, one could make different size devices for different size steel. aim that device at the connection point. heck, I even have seen a patent that is regular thermite molded with heat and pressure into shapes. you could make a shape (conical) and fill it with layer upon layer of the thermitic material jones and crew found. that way as the nanothermite burns, so does the container it is in. no evidence.

severing the connections is key, not melting the whole beam.

 
Senenmut said:
not the coating of the steel but as a device say 2 ft by 2 ft or whatever size would be needed to cut through the connection one is trying to sever. im sure with the right math, one could make different size devices for different size steel. aim that device at the connection point. heck, I even have seen a patent that is regular thermite molded with heat and pressure into shapes. you could make a shape (conical) and fill it with layer upon layer of the thermitic material jones and crew found. that way as the nanothermite burns, so does the container it is in. no evidence.

severing the connections is key, not melting the whole beam.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=23739http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_285444e1fba70a18a2.jpg
Click to expand...
So you want to pretend that is what happened?

Go for it, meanwhile I'll stick with the evidence that says it didn't.

Oh and that pic seems to show an I beam which has had a portion of its web crushed and elongated which also resulted in thinning of the material.

How does that fit into your fantasy?
 
And Semenut, you did suggest the coating was hundreds or even thousands of layers thick.

Did you actually apply some logic to the time that would require and realise how utterly ridiculous it sounds?
 
Porkpie Hat said:
So you want to pretend that is what happened?

Go for it, meanwhile I'll stick with the evidence that says it didn't.

Oh and that pic seems to show an I beam which has had a portion of its web crushed and elongated which also resulted in thinning of the material.

How does that fit into your fantasy?
Click to expand...

sure it does....

looks awfully similar to:
 
Senenmut said:
sure it does....

looks awfully similar to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=27691http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450f1b21e84975.jpg[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450fd8c715f054.jpg[/URL]
Click to expand...
And the sharp edges tells me that whatever did that was a low temperature reaction.

You're just grasping at any straw and hoping someone will be deluded enough to believe you.

How's that working btw?
 
DGM said:
pgimeno said:
He's right.

The smaller the particles, the more oxidized the aluminium particles become in the surface, and since the oxidation penetrates the particle, that means less aluminium available to react. Someone (Sunstealer? Oystein? Ivan?) added numbers there; my recollection is that maybe about 70% of the aluminium would still be unoxidized and thus available to react.

The result is a reduction of the energy density.

Thus MM is right: particle size does affect energy density.

Except, not the way he expects.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines of theoretical maximums. You are correct though. ;)
Click to expand...
Sprry, my wording was wrong.

The smaller the particles the bigger the proportion of oxidized vs. non-oxidized aluminium. That's what I meant. There isn't more absolute amount of oxidized aluminium as this wording suggested: "The smaller the particles, the more oxidized the aluminium particles become..." but the proportion of oxidized vs non-oxidized aluminium is bigger. Sorry about that.
 
Porkpie Hat said:
And the sharp edges tells me that whatever did that was a low temperature reaction.

You're just grasping at any straw and hoping someone will be deluded enough to believe you.

How's that working btw?
Click to expand...

:D

yeah, this was also caused by low temp reaction that was thermitic in nature. notice the razor sharpness. low temp is relative in your mind I guess.

 
Senenmut said:
:D

yeah, this was also caused by low temp reaction that was thermitic in nature. notice the razor sharpness. low temp is relative in your mind I guess.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=29458http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_285445324adac1f4e0.jpg
Click to expand...
What I notice is it looks nothing like your previous examples.

Your previous examples have thinning of the cross sectional thickness. That pic shows the parent metal of the web still intact but melted through.

The carrot (or whatever is being sliced and diced) is being shaved by the edge of the material rather than cut through straight down (perpendicular to) the web.

Hey it's your fantasy though, you choose who wins between Superman and Batman by giving them whatever magical powers you want!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom