Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
ETA: The semi-solid glob is definitely not aluminum.
According to this blacksmith color chart the steel dripping of the bottom of the semi-solid glob is about 1500oC

[qimg]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/2183/colorheatchartcrabclawe.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Hey I guess you found one of the missing filing cabinets... And you are right, they are made of steel... maybe the fire had just spread to a group of 30 of them. The proportions look much more like some thin sheet than any steel of substance.

Or maybe it was a duct. Or the cover of a desk, or a metal door or a bookshelf, or maybe its the first picture of thermite painted steel sheet that was not detonated in the explosion. I think a new investigation is needed to discuss all these options, don't you.

I can just imagine a group of experts, sitting round debating this issue. Calling in experts and looking for options. It will be awesome and will make a fascinating report.
 
Christopher7 said:
They were for your benefit.

Aluminum would be a liquid at the temperatures of the glob in the crab claw.
The molten metal in the crab claw is not aluminum.

The glass in the Trade Towers was blown outward and mixed with a million tons of outer debris.

Can you acknowledge that what Tully, Loizeaux, Dr. Geyh, O'Toole. Fuchek and all the other witnesses described as molten steel, could have been molten steel?
Click to expand...

The debris piles were huge furnaces burning for months. We know melted/molten/hot materials could not have been heated months later by thermwhatever.
What’s your point?

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv
 
Christopher7 said:
They were for your benefit.

Aluminum would be a liquid at the temperatures of the glob in the crab claw.
The molten metal in the crab claw is not aluminum.
Click to expand...

Repeating a lie over and over will not make it true. It was not molten metal in the claw....not even close. I grew up near a steel mill, you would see shaped members that color all the time stacked, sitting out cooling. At night they were very obvious.
 
Christopher7 said:
We have been thru this before. Do you think Peter Tully and Mark Loizeaux are idiots?

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.
Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris.
"I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy."
Mark Liozeaux

A steel crab claw or bucket will not melt when picking up molten steel. It takes a while for steel to heat up to 2750oF. The buckets/crab claws would be damaged and perhaps ruined by molten steel hardening and sticking to them but the molten steel had to be removed and that is just part of the cost of removal.

ETA: The semi-solid glob is definitely not aluminum.
According to this blacksmith color chart the steel dripping of the bottom of the semi-solid glob is about 1500oC

[qimg]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/2183/colorheatchartcrabclawe.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I think this came out of the same photoshop that did the 'firemen gazing into the molten steel". Looks like a light touch of color was put on the smoke.
 
walkyrie said:
Prof Niels Harrit Canada Tour to Expose the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center on 9/11

http://ae911truth.org/de/neuigkeiten/41-articles/489-harrit.html


http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/91...tures-in-canada-by-mike-bondi/204073516298851
Click to expand...

Hmm the first link is interesting: de-language version... :D

Here's a quote. I highlight the most obvious lies:

Dr. Harrit is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and lead author of a peer-reviewed study on thermitic residue found in the World Trade Center dust. Dr. Harrit presented irrefutable evidence from nine researchers and scientists, proving the presence of thermite incendiary explosive in the dust samples collected from the collapse of World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

1. Harrit never was a full professor at KU, only associate professor
2. His paper wasn't peer-reviewed
3. There was no thermitic residue in the sample
4. The evidence has been refuted
5. It actually proved the opposite: The chips cannot possibly be thermite of any kind
6. Nano-thermite is not an explosive

Why do you link to articles that manage to pack at least 6 lies into only 2 sentences?
 
Java Man said:
Actually it is. Do you have a link to claim otherwise?
Click to expand...

Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material

An explosive material, also called an explosive, is a substance that contains a great amount of stored energy that can produce an explosion, a sudden expansion of the material after initiation, usually accompanied by the production of light, heat, sound, and pressure. An explosive charge is a measured quantity of explosive material.

The energy stored in an explosive material may be

* chemical energy, such as nitroglycerine or grain dust
* pressurized compressed gas, such as a gas cylinder or aerosol can
* nuclear, such as fissile isotopes of uranium-235 and plutonium-239

Explosive materials may be categorized by the speed at which they expand.
Click to expand...

Explosives, by definition, expand rapidly as they react. That means that the reaction products have a much lower density than the ingredients.

The defining ingedients of Harrit's supposed "thermitic material" are
...Al (density at room temperature: 2,7g/cm3)
...Fe2O3 (density at room temperature: 5.2g/cm3)

The products are (molten)...
...Fe (liquid density: 6.9g/cm3 at melting point)
...A2O3 (liquid density: <4g/cm3 at melting point)

So we see that the ingredient iron oxide is less dense than the product iron, and the ingredient aluminium is less dense than the product aluminium oxide.
From this follows: thermite contracts as it reacts, it does not expand.
From this follows: thermite is not an explosive

The same holds true for nano-thermite: The density of both ingredients and products does not change just because you reduce them to nano-sized particles. This is basic chemical physics.
 
Oystein said:
The same holds true for nano-thermite: The density of both ingredients and products does not change just because you reduce them to nano-sized particles. This is basic chemical physics.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the DOD seems to contradict you. Maybe you should contact them and have them correct their publications:

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf

"Figure 4 shows an example of the typical UFG aluminum that is produced ... these and new types of MIC formulations. Issues of MIC ignition and safety characteristics (such as impact, friction, and electrostatic initiation) are promising, ... certain key MIC characteristics are very attractive and quite promising for practical applications. These include energy output that is 2x that of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power (10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of 0.1-1500 meters/sec, and reaction zone temperature exceeding 3000K. "
 
Java Man said:
I'm afraid the DOD seems to contradict you. Maybe you should contact them and have them correct their publications:

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf

"Figure 4 shows an example of the typical UFG aluminum that is produced ... these and new types of MIC formulations. Issues of MIC ignition and safety characteristics (such as impact, friction, and electrostatic initiation) are promising, ... certain key MIC characteristics are very attractive and quite promising for practical applications. These include energy output that is 2x that of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power (10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of 0.1-1500 meters/sec, and reaction zone temperature exceeding 3000K. "
Click to expand...

They do NOT say that the resulting material is an explosive, and the suggested applications do NOT include bombs or explosive demolition. Furthermore, that article never talks about Fe2O3, but about thermites with oxides of Cu and Mo. Have any unusual amounts of Cu or Mo been found at Ground Zero that would be in line with any conceivable method of demolition by Al/MoO3 or Al/CuO? No.

Would nano-Al/Fe2O3 release more energy than conventional high explosives? Answer: NO. The theoretical maximum energy release is still just under 4kJ/g, which is about the same as TNT or RDX; however, as figure 4 of your linked paper - the very figure 4 that you think supports your stance - shows, Al develops a passivation layer of A2O3, that gets more tedious (will be a higher fraction of totalk mass) as particle size decreases down the nano-scale. The presence of passive oxides in the formulation means that the energy density decreases - I have read figures as low as 1.5kJ/g, or only about one-third the energy release of high explosives. Therefore, the article states correctly "Figure 4 shows an example of the typical UFG aluminum that is produced by the Indian Head process. A transmission electron microscope (TEM) image of the Al nanoparticles is
shown on the left while an EFTEM (energy filtered TEM) is shown on the right, clearly indicating a thin passivation layer of A l2O3. These images we re taken at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). In summary, much more research and development needs to be done in the production and characterization of these and new types of MIC formulations." (my Bolding) Why did you cut that important information out? It tells us that, as of spring 2002, this technology had not yet reached the maturity for actual production and use.
 
Oystein said:
They do NOT say that the resulting material is an explosive, and the suggested applications do NOT include bombs or explosive demolition.
Click to expand...

It doesn't? Oh yea, it just says "These include energy output that is 2x that
of typical high explosives". So yea it's not an explosive it just has twice the energy of high explosives. :confused:


Oystein said:
Furthermore, that article never talks about Fe2O3,
Click to expand...

It doesn't? Wow, I swear I read this on the same page I quoted the other text from:

"One current promising nanocomposite being pursued by the
researchers at LLNL involves the use of Fe2O3 which is gener -
ated using the sol-gel method. The reason that Fe2O3 is chosen
is because its thermite reaction with UFG aluminum is very
exothermic"

So I guess you meant to say that "paragraph" never talks about Fe2O3, but the article certainly does. More so if you read along you'll find applications as:


"
As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a
number of possible application areas that are envisioned. These
include: (1) high temperature stable, non-detonable gas generators, (2) adaptable flares, (3) primers, and (4) high-power,
high-energy composite explosive"

So I guess you think a high-power high-energy composite explosive isn't an explosive? Are you challenging the DOD's definition of an explosive?
 
chrismohr said:
Christopher 7: Can you acknowledge that what Tully, Loizeaux, Dr. Geyh, O'Toole. Fuchek and all the other witnesses described as molten steel, could have been molten steel?

Yes, it could have been molten steel.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your honesty.

It could have also been other things (see posts above).
Click to expand...
I have read the posts above. There were no other metals in concentrations that could account for "molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators" or the semi-solid glob in the crab claw which was far above the melting point of aluminum.

So now let's set all these competing hypotheses on the table. It seems unlikely that it was molten steel because the other alternatives are consistent with the thermal image temperatures NASA et al produced
Click to expand...
What other alternatives?

Because even a metallurgist can't identify a molten metal by sight alone, I would assume that a firefighter or controlled demolition expert wouldn't be any better at it
Click to expand...
Correct.

so in this case eyewitness testimony is trumped by the level of expertise it would take to eyeball the molten metal in question. While molten steel is possible, the hypothesis that best explains the known facts is that it was something else.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. What "known fact" supports the molten metal being something else and what is that "something else" ?

The hypothesis that best explains the known facts is the obvious one - it was molten steel.

There are no other possibilities. You and others have suggested aluminum but molten aluminum is silvery in daylight and all these people would not make that mistake. The glass was blown outward and mixed with a million tons of other debris dust.
 
Java Man said:
It doesn't? Oh yea, it just says "These include energy output that is 2x that
of typical high explosives". So yea it's not an explosive it just has twice the energy of high explosives. :confused:
Click to expand...

That is correct. It is a comparison, not an equation.


Java Man said:
It doesn't? Wow, I swear I read this on the same page I quoted the other text from:

"One current promising nanocomposite being pursued by the
researchers at LLNL involves the use of Fe2O3 which is gener -
ated using the sol-gel method. The reason that Fe2O3 is chosen
is because its thermite reaction with UFG aluminum is very
exothermic"

So I guess you meant to say that "paragraph" never talks about Fe2O3, but the article certainly does.
Click to expand...

Ok, insignificant score for you.
The CONTEXT of what you quoted ("twice the energy of high explosives") didn't have Fe2O3 in it, only CuO and MoO3.

Java Man said:
More so if you read along you'll find applications as:


"As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a
number of possible application areas that are envisioned. These
include: (1) high temperature stable, non-detonable gas generators, (2) adaptable flares, (3) primers, and (4) high-power,
high-energy composite explosive"

So I guess you think a high-power high-energy composite explosive isn't an explosive? Are you challenging the DOD's definition of an explosive?
Click to expand...

What IS the DOD's definition of an explosive? And what is "high-energy" in their book? Do you realize that the DOD puts out pamphlets like this to impress decision makers and open their wallets?

You did not address the other, more important FACTS, please do sou now:
- The technology talked about in the article was still in the research phase
- Nano-sizing Al/Fe2O3 results in the accumulation of passive oxides that decrease the energy release well below that of conventional high explosives
- Nano-thermite is still not an explosive. It can be formulated with other ingredients, but that increases the number of problems you have with any conceivable theory of demolition by nano-thermite.
 
Java Man said:
It doesn't? Oh yea, it just says "These include energy output that is 2x that
of typical high explosives". So yea it's not an explosive it just has twice the energy of high explosives. :confused:
...
Click to expand...
A lie, you did not read this, you made it up.
I suggested you get a chemical engineering course before you posted moronic claptrap, but you picked moronic claptrap.

The energy can't be twice as much, and jet fuel has 10 times the energy of your high explosives. You have no clue what you are reading or how to explain it. You prove this each time you post, soon the silly questions will flow since you can't comprehend chemistry.

To help you along, in Adobe hyou have a search function, you will not find the word twice in the paper, you will find, "
rapid release of energy", which you mistake for changing the properties of a chemical reaction, which is not going to happen. I suggest again you take the time off to get a chemical engineering course, it could take a semester or years depending on your grade level. If you are still in high school, take physics, chemistry, and calculus after your geometry classes. Your posts expose your lack of knowledge on this subject, and your ability to google it up, is hampered by your inability to comprehend the subject.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
It doesn't? Oh yea, it just says "These include energy output that is 2x that
of typical high explosives". So yea it's not an explosive it just has twice the energy of high explosives. :confused:
Click to expand...
Although olive oil has more energy than high explosives, it is not an explosive.

Burning a pound of olive oil releases almost 10x the energy released by setting off a pound of thermite.

From the current Wikipedia article on explosive material:
Wikipedia said:
For a chemical to be an explosive, it must exhibit all of the following:
  • Rapid expansion (i.e., rapid production of gases or rapid heating of surroundings)
  • Evolution of heat
  • Rapidity of reaction
  • Initiation of reaction
Click to expand...
Both olive oil and thermite react too slowly to qualify as explosives.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Although olive oil has more energy than high explosives, it is not an explosive.

Burning a pound of olive oil releases almost 10x the energy released by setting off a pound of thermite.

From the current Wikipedia article on explosive material:

Both olive oil and thermite react too slowly to qualify as explosives.
Click to expand...

But it is true that nano-thermite can react fast enough (super-sonic reaction front possible). What disqualifies it as an explosive is the lack of rapid expansion. It produces no gasses. In fact, I'd expect thermite (the Al/Fe2O3 variety at least) to contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom