A Thermite/Thermate Question
- Thread starter Alareth
- Start date
You don't know if thermite would be set off?
Better yet, do the fuse systems survive impact?
Remote controlled aircraft? (Stupid idea; too many people required)
There is no remote control on 767s to hit buildings? (Dumb idea)
How does your fantasy remote control work, please start a remote control aircraft thread and explain why the passengers were needed, why the pilots missed the remote control system (pilots have complete access to the plane and will not take a modified plane), who modified the plane? etc?
The core did not melt away! Fantasy idea.
You don't know the self-life of thermite but propose it was used on 9/11.
You need to know all this stuff before you thermite things.
What is the thermite formula used by the evil doers on 9/11?
You and Jones do have something, right?
Your fantasy is exposed the more you explain, fail to explain, and fail to understand the very ideas you push.
GodisEnergy
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 383
Combinations and or seperate mixtures of
AL/CUO ,S
FE203/AL ,S
AL/KMN04,S
SI02/AL ,S
and possible Mo03/Al because Mo spheres were found
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR6qaadPmyY&feature=related
This video explains why there is some core left.
Remote controlled aircraft should only require one person to program the autopilot hacking of the 4 planes.Which would then turn off the manual buttons on the aircraft rendering them useless including communications etc which would not allow the pilots to call for help or retake control of the aircraft.Heres a good video which explains it thanks fox pre 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6EWF3vulc
Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control. In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:
"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."
Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:
"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."
The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.
1,3 diphenylpropane is the stuff Sol-Gel is made from nanothermite is placed into this sol gel.
Eric swartz said 'we have never observed levels like this before'
AL/CUO ,S
FE203/AL ,S
AL/KMN04,S
SI02/AL ,S
and possible Mo03/Al because Mo spheres were found
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR6qaadPmyY&feature=related
This video explains why there is some core left.
Remote controlled aircraft should only require one person to program the autopilot hacking of the 4 planes.Which would then turn off the manual buttons on the aircraft rendering them useless including communications etc which would not allow the pilots to call for help or retake control of the aircraft.Heres a good video which explains it thanks fox pre 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6EWF3vulc
Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control. In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:
"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."
Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:
"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."
The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.
1,3 diphenylpropane is the stuff Sol-Gel is made from nanothermite is placed into this sol gel.
Eric swartz said 'we have never observed levels like this before'
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
Wait a minute. According to Ross. The strongest columns, the ones adjacent to the elevators, were the ones where thermite demolition charges allegedly were planted. Yet the remaining columns, Allegedly the weakest columns survived even though they were directly attached with I beams and a 6 inch thick non lightweight floor slab connecting those columns in a grid floor by floor to the stonger columns? Ross (and you) has his head up his ***.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Didn't we already tell you why this was so? Why yes, we did! Back on October 26th! In this very thread!
This has descended past parody into pathetic. You were told why Swartz said what he said, and you're still trying to use his statement to support the thermite argument. Endless repetition of debunked facts do not make them correct!
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Firstly I'd like to say I've concentrated on fly ash in concrete simply because that to me is the most obvious source of microspheres. It's a well known use of power generation by product(s). Dry wall appears to be another good one although I know little about it, but I'm sure it's simply another use for a byproduct that is widely formed. It doesn't surprise me. There are so many different processes that can contribute to the microspheres in the WTC dust signature, many of which, on closer examination, look like everyday activities. Iirc Jones "calculates/extrapolates" 10,000 tonnes of iron-rich microspheres from his sample(s). Lets assume that percentage over the background level was produced from thermite. If 0,04% is the background figure and we are now seeing 5.87% then,
a) what tonnage of iron rich microspheres are from the background and what tonnage is from thermite?
b) what tonnage of thermite would be needed to produce this figure?
GiE - this should be extremely easy for you to work out.
Secondly, any good analysis will hold up to scrutiny and any material gathered should be available to a third party to confirm the original analysis. Jones' work is patchy and anyone who knows anything about analysis of materials can see it's been done on the cheap i.e. cheap SEM time and not alot of it. I'd expect someone who is making such claims to back them up with a larger degree and array of testing, analytical and statistical. I'd like to see an image analysis particle-size-distribution performed on not only his dust sample, but also the iron-rich microspheres he extracted. Why is there no data available on the larger particle sizes such as 1.5mm?
My overall impression is that Jones has either cherry picked data or been "sucked in" by analysing samples on a SEM. Again I reiterate it is very easy to be side tracked.
For example, when components fail many do so by fatigue (cracking). This leaves a tell tale sign and can be interpreted. The best way is to look at the two fracture surfaces usually with an eye glass or optical microscope - this will indicate what type of failure occurred. We can determine the (fatigue) crack propagation rate by measuring the length over which a number of crack propagation fronts appear. http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/anal/kelly/fatigue.html Look at a fracture surface and there are many of these marks orientated in different directions and with different spacings indicating a difference in crack propagation rate on a nanometre level (not to be confused with "beach marks"). It is very, very easy to get sucked into looking at a tiny, tiny area and use it's measurements to make calculations. It takes a good deal of experience to know what to use and even then that is subjective and I always ask for a second opinion before committing because these measurements are not absolute, but an educated calculation.
If you are not familiar with SEM work then it's easy to simply tell the operator to look here and then there and then concentrate on that bit and then an, "oh-wow-that-looks-good, get-a-print-of-that!" mentality takes over.
Last edited:
GodisEnergy
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 383
4 The unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane
Cahill did not have an explanation for the third part of the
problem that his team saw. That is, what effect at the WTC
would cause organic compounds in very fine aerosols that
would not survive high temperatures? Although Cahill did
not specifically identify these organic species, EPA did
mention one. This analyte detected by EPA may be the
most interesting in the environmental data from the WTC:
1,3-diphenylpropane [abbreviated 1,3-DPP with IUPAC
name 10,10-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene].
EPA’s Erik Swartz stated that 1,3-DPP was present at
levels ‘‘that dwarfed all others.’’ Swartz went on to say—
‘‘We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever
done’’ (Garrett 2003). An EPA publication on the findings
stated:
Cahill did not have an explanation for the third part of the
problem that his team saw. That is, what effect at the WTC
would cause organic compounds in very fine aerosols that
would not survive high temperatures? Although Cahill did
not specifically identify these organic species, EPA did
mention one. This analyte detected by EPA may be the
most interesting in the environmental data from the WTC:
1,3-diphenylpropane [abbreviated 1,3-DPP with IUPAC
name 10,10-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene].
EPA’s Erik Swartz stated that 1,3-DPP was present at
levels ‘‘that dwarfed all others.’’ Swartz went on to say—
‘‘We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever
done’’ (Garrett 2003). An EPA publication on the findings
stated:
Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Last edited by a moderator:
You have listed the dumbest ideas on 9/11 found on the Internet. Just half-baked nut case ideas on 9/11. This is your evidence pure hearsay nut case junk.
Remote control planes that don’t exist with passengers and commercial pilots, and thermite, which fails to have enough heat to do what massive office fires did on 9/11.
Jones made it up, just like the junk you found on the Internet and posted. Pure junk.
Your stuff, the stuff you posted is pure hokum. http://www.911myths.com/html/home_run.html
1,3-diphenylpropane has zero to do with your fantasy theories made up by Internet idiots. Please explain why you are talking about C15H16? Can’t can you?
Last edited:
GodisEnergy
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 383
i didnt post it in entirety cmon
Ok so 911myths knows more than andreas von buelow i suggest you read his book ,Cia and 911. Hes an Avid supporter of the remote control theory .
Only a software upgrade would be required on a 767,after which all you would need to do is install sleeping gas into the aircrafts air conditioning system .
1,3 "" has everything to do with nanothermite, Its sol gel.
Ok so 911myths knows more than andreas von buelow i suggest you read his book ,Cia and 911. Hes an Avid supporter of the remote control theory .
Only a software upgrade would be required on a 767,after which all you would need to do is install sleeping gas into the aircrafts air conditioning system .
1,3 "" has everything to do with nanothermite, Its sol gel.
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
This one sentence demonstrates your cluelessness completely. Sol-Gel is not a material, it is a technique of materials processing. I do it myself in the lab to produce amorphous silicas.
Typically, one would start with a silicon source, such as TetraethylorthosilicateWP. This material is initially immiscible in water but acid hydrolysis removes the ethoxy ligands from the metal centre, converting it into a water soluble silicate species. This is the sol.
Given time these monomeric silica species will link up, first into short oligomeric chains and then into longer polymer chains, by condensation reactions. This process can be accelerated by raising the pH of the sol to increase the rate of the condensation reactions. At some point the network of polymer chains becomes effectively infinite and your sol will gel. That's all a sol-gel is.
Unless you can provide peer reviewed citations of 1,3-diphenylpropane being used to create sol-gels of metal oxides please shut up about sol-gel. It doesn't help your case, it just makes you look like a truther parrot and casts significant doubt on your claim to "understand chemistry".
Last edited:
GodisEnergy
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 383
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Oh, Lord, not the infamous "Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center" abomination that Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones paid to have published.
First of all, what GIE quoted out of that paper doesn't rebut what I said. For starters, let me remind everyone that Swartz's comment was about the 1,3-DPP level increase over background. The Ryan, Jones, Gourley paper lies about it. It states the truth, but then turns around and lies about it. Read the relevant section:
... Again, the EPA work they quote says:
"Ambient". I.e. "background". The significance of 1,3-DPP levels is it's presence compared to situations where large towers do not collapse and burn. Yet, right after they quote the relevant EPA piece directly, they turn around and say:
They clearly indicated that the significance of the 1,3-DPP presence was in comparison to background levels, not in comparison to other structure fires. The phrase "... EPA has monitored extreme structure fires before" has nothing to do with "The fact that this species had never been found before". There is no - repeat, zero - substantiation of any claim that chemical surveys of previous fires showed little to no 1,3-DPP. Rather, they're taking the Swartz statement and twisting it. The dishonesty in the Ryan/Jones/Gourley paper is rank and offensive. It's an attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes, and it's insulting to see it attempted. Which is why it's sad to see people fall for it, like GIE here.
But is it true that, as the paper asserts:
Yes. It is true. In fact, I discuss a specific instance of that specific issue here. But where in either the info I posted, or the original source for the above quote does it say that any VOC levels, let alone 1,3-DPP ones, were openly measured in previous fires? Where is the quantitative data that buttresses the claim that 1,3-DPP is missing in other fires? That's not found in the source for that quote, you know. Follow the link; it's not to a report, nor a press release from the EPA, nor any sort of scientific journal; it's from Alternet, and is an activist article criticizing the government response to pollution issues associated with 9/11. The charge about "EPA officials and fire-fighting experts" knowing what substances come out of a fire is actually a qualitative statement that they're aware of VOC's and other toxic compounds; it is far, far from being a quantitative statement saying that "X" levels of a certain VOC exists in standard structure fires, therefore the level in situation "Y" is significant. It certainly cannot be used to buttress the baldface lie that 1,3-DPP does not exist or exists in far smaller concentrations in other office fires.
Man, I'm tired of this. The Ryan/Jones/Gourley paper was already discussed and refuted here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120293
And because the beginning of the thread has a distracting level of argumentation and personality oriented responses, let me point out a pair of very on-point posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3922547#post3922547
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3924247#post3924247
And let's re-bury the idiocy that is the Ryan/Jones/Gourley paper. It tries to resurrect a dead thesis with some novel applications of quote-mining, and keeps people on their toes by it's approach with discussions of volatile organic compounds, but ultimately it doesn't overcome the problems inherent in the thermite fantasy. We can all go on and on about how irrelevant the fantasy movement's deathgrip on 1,3-DPP is, but the overall point has always been that thermite is grossly contradicted, and any argument of minituae such as 1,3-DPP is irrelevant in the looming face of no overt signs of thermite use. Just read the thread above, and try your best to get past the bickering posts, because there's real substance there in between the personality conflicts.
First of all, what GIE quoted out of that paper doesn't rebut what I said. For starters, let me remind everyone that Swartz's comment was about the 1,3-DPP level increase over background. The Ryan, Jones, Gourley paper lies about it. It states the truth, but then turns around and lies about it. Read the relevant section:
Ryan said:
... Again, the EPA work they quote says:
"Ambient". I.e. "background". The significance of 1,3-DPP levels is it's presence compared to situations where large towers do not collapse and burn. Yet, right after they quote the relevant EPA piece directly, they turn around and say:
They clearly indicated that the significance of the 1,3-DPP presence was in comparison to background levels, not in comparison to other structure fires. The phrase "... EPA has monitored extreme structure fires before" has nothing to do with "The fact that this species had never been found before". There is no - repeat, zero - substantiation of any claim that chemical surveys of previous fires showed little to no 1,3-DPP. Rather, they're taking the Swartz statement and twisting it. The dishonesty in the Ryan/Jones/Gourley paper is rank and offensive. It's an attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes, and it's insulting to see it attempted. Which is why it's sad to see people fall for it, like GIE here.
But is it true that, as the paper asserts:
Yes. It is true. In fact, I discuss a specific instance of that specific issue here. But where in either the info I posted, or the original source for the above quote does it say that any VOC levels, let alone 1,3-DPP ones, were openly measured in previous fires? Where is the quantitative data that buttresses the claim that 1,3-DPP is missing in other fires? That's not found in the source for that quote, you know. Follow the link; it's not to a report, nor a press release from the EPA, nor any sort of scientific journal; it's from Alternet, and is an activist article criticizing the government response to pollution issues associated with 9/11. The charge about "EPA officials and fire-fighting experts" knowing what substances come out of a fire is actually a qualitative statement that they're aware of VOC's and other toxic compounds; it is far, far from being a quantitative statement saying that "X" levels of a certain VOC exists in standard structure fires, therefore the level in situation "Y" is significant. It certainly cannot be used to buttress the baldface lie that 1,3-DPP does not exist or exists in far smaller concentrations in other office fires.
Man, I'm tired of this. The Ryan/Jones/Gourley paper was already discussed and refuted here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120293
And because the beginning of the thread has a distracting level of argumentation and personality oriented responses, let me point out a pair of very on-point posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3922547#post3922547
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3924247#post3924247
And let's re-bury the idiocy that is the Ryan/Jones/Gourley paper. It tries to resurrect a dead thesis with some novel applications of quote-mining, and keeps people on their toes by it's approach with discussions of volatile organic compounds, but ultimately it doesn't overcome the problems inherent in the thermite fantasy. We can all go on and on about how irrelevant the fantasy movement's deathgrip on 1,3-DPP is, but the overall point has always been that thermite is grossly contradicted, and any argument of minituae such as 1,3-DPP is irrelevant in the looming face of no overt signs of thermite use. Just read the thread above, and try your best to get past the bickering posts, because there's real substance there in between the personality conflicts.
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
No, no, thrice no. You clearly haven't read this paper.
Kidder et al said:
If we follow the † symbol to find out how the mesoporous silica was made we find...
Kidder et al said:
There is no mention here of 1,3-DPP being used to make mesoporous silica. In fact what is actually done is remarkably similar to the scheme I outlined in my previous post, with the addition of a large tetraalkylammonium bromide molecule to template the mesopores (The CnH2n+1N(CH3)3Br [n = 16, 14, 12] beastie). It is interesting (to me at least) to note that simply changing the length of one of the alkyl chains of the alkylammonium bromide give a nice change in the size of the mesopore formed.
If we read the paper a little more carefully we find that 1,3-DPP is anchored to the the internal surface of the mesoporous silica and then heated to pyrolyse the 1,3-DPP into more useful aromatic products, like styrene and toluene. These are important feedstocks for the chemical industry and new catalytic methods for their production are always good news.
That is what this paper is about, it reports the use of mesoporous silicas for the catalytic conversion of 1,3-DPP into styrene. Nice try though...
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Amazing isn't it and this from someone who claims they found chemistry so easy they got an A at degree level without going to any classes and switched their degree to something more profitable.
GodisEnergy
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 383
Chemical Used for Used in Health effects Derived from Links Where banned
"1,3-diphenylpropane" ? sol-gel
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/chemicals.html
"1,3-diphenylpropane" ? sol-gel
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/chemicals.html
GodisEnergy
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 383
woops
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
From the same link.
Zack Smith said:
So that's a single mention on a completely anonymous website. Even the link given by Zack to back up his assertion doesn't work. Not very impressive GiE.
Seriously, give up with the 1,3-DPP sol-gel connection. There's nothing there, you've been duped.
GodisEnergy
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 383
http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=b310405b&JournalCode=CC
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/2005/127/i17/abs/ja050389w.html
"Mesoporous silicas such as SBA-15 and MCM-41 are being actively investigated for potential applications in catalysis, separations, and synthesis of nanostructured materials. A new method for functionalizing these mesoporous silicas with aromatic phenols is described. The resulting novel hybrid materials possess silyl aryl ether linkages to the silica surface that are thermally stable to ca. 550 °C, but can be easily cleaved at room temperature with aqueous base for quantitative recovery of the organic moieties. The materials have been characterized by nitrogen physisorption, FTIR, NMR, and quantitative analysis of surface coverages. The maximum densities of 1,3-diphenylpropane (DPP) molecules that could be grafted to the surface were less than those measured on a nonporous, fumed silica (Cabosil) and were also found to decrease as a function of decreasing pore size (5.6−1.7 nm). This is a consequence of steric congestion in the pores that is magnified at the smaller pore sizes, consistent with parallel studies conducted using a conventional silylating reagent, 1,1,3,3-tetramethyldisilazane. Pyrolysis of the silica-immobilized DPP revealed that pore confinement leads to enhanced rates and altered product selectivity for this free-radical reaction compared with the nonporous silica, and the rates and selectivities also depended on pore size. The influence of confinement is discussed in terms of enhanced encounter frequencies for bimolecular reaction steps and pore surface curvature that alters the accessibility and resultant selectivity for hydrogen transfer steps. "
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/2005/127/i17/abs/ja050389w.html
"Mesoporous silicas such as SBA-15 and MCM-41 are being actively investigated for potential applications in catalysis, separations, and synthesis of nanostructured materials. A new method for functionalizing these mesoporous silicas with aromatic phenols is described. The resulting novel hybrid materials possess silyl aryl ether linkages to the silica surface that are thermally stable to ca. 550 °C, but can be easily cleaved at room temperature with aqueous base for quantitative recovery of the organic moieties. The materials have been characterized by nitrogen physisorption, FTIR, NMR, and quantitative analysis of surface coverages. The maximum densities of 1,3-diphenylpropane (DPP) molecules that could be grafted to the surface were less than those measured on a nonporous, fumed silica (Cabosil) and were also found to decrease as a function of decreasing pore size (5.6−1.7 nm). This is a consequence of steric congestion in the pores that is magnified at the smaller pore sizes, consistent with parallel studies conducted using a conventional silylating reagent, 1,1,3,3-tetramethyldisilazane. Pyrolysis of the silica-immobilized DPP revealed that pore confinement leads to enhanced rates and altered product selectivity for this free-radical reaction compared with the nonporous silica, and the rates and selectivities also depended on pore size. The influence of confinement is discussed in terms of enhanced encounter frequencies for bimolecular reaction steps and pore surface curvature that alters the accessibility and resultant selectivity for hydrogen transfer steps. "
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf