Split Thread NIST did not utilize the scientific method?

[Spanx]

Spanx: You referenced a link. I thought it was a very good article and made sense. What did you think? Anyone who cares to read it use this (original) link -- same article but easier to read:
http://www.hirhome.com/conspiracy.htm

it's no suprise to me that you missed the other contents of the link

 

[Robrob]

Thermite is the powdered metal plus an oxidizer that when ignited releases heat very quickly.
Thermate, iirc, refers to the addition of a stabilizer that allows for more complete burn, but which also slows the burn and results in lower temperatures.

Nano thermite refers to more finely ground constituents which decreases burn time while allowing for more optimal burn. It would result in less unburned residue.

So, slower and less hot, or hotter but faster burn.
How does any of that fit with timed collapse followed by long term high heat output?

Thermate releases approx 800 kilojoules of energy per gram. Anyone know what the energy release from burning paper is?

I also see my characterization of thermate was off. It burns hotter than thermite. In fact a thermate grenade can burn a small diameter hole in a one inch plate steel in approx eight seconds. A little slow for controlled demolitions.

Thank you for the explanation. Every time CT throw out the term "nana banana thermite" it was obvious they used it as if it were all things to all people. My past experience with thermite is limited to thermite grenades used by the military to disable equipment. I never understood how burning a ragged hole into an engine block translated into an explosives demolitions capable of dropping a skyscraper. Thermite (in my experience) was more akin to a Molotov cocktail (effective but unpredictable in degree) than C4 or other precision demo.

 

[beachnut]

Thermate releases approx 800 kilojoules of energy per gram. Anyone know what the energy release from burning paper is?

I also see my characterization of thermate was off. It burns hotter than thermite. In fact a thermate grenade can burn a small diameter hole in a one inch plate steel in approx eight seconds. A little slow for controlled demolitions.

3.985 kJ/g for thermite, the 800 is for like 200 grams of stuff

Paper is up to 16 kJ/g


Never seen 911 truth define the chemical formula for thermate - who has the numbers? David has woo, no numbers, Jones waves his hand and say thermite in a fake paper.
The poor nuts in 911 truth think nano thermite has more energy, but never show their work, the formula with the more energy.

Normal thermite has 3.9 kJ/g, is super nano thermite 4.1 kJ/g, and how did they change the chemical reaction to give more energy?

With nearly 8 times the heat energy of thermite, nuts for 911 truth should use nuts for doing their fantasy melt down of the WTC complex.
Almonds 28 kJ/g
Brazil Nuts 30 kJ/g
Pecans 31 kJ/g
Pistachios 27 kJ/g
Peanuts 23 kJ/g, the prefered method for the Carter Evil Empire to do in the free world...

 

[jaydeehess]

Oops my bad. Thermite releases 750 kilocalories per gram whereas thermate increases that to 795 kilocalories per gram.

http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744

 

[jaydeehess]

I forget what beach had for kerosense and gasoline but this fire fighting reference
http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html
Has kerosene at 11 kcal/g (46 kj/g) and gasoline 11.5kcal/g (48 kj/g)

 

[beachnut]

I forget what beach had for kerosense and gasoline but this fire fighting reference
http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html
Has kerosene at 11 kcal/g (46 kj/g) and gasoline 11.5kcal/g (48 kj/g)

Wait till they find out thermate has less energy than thermite. Why is research prohibited by 911 truth...

 

[jaydeehess]

Wait till they find out thermate has less energy than thermite. Why is research prohibited by 911 truth...

My post in " collapse from single column failure

Thread: Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure View Single Post
Old Today, 03:40 PM #393
jaydeehess


Ahhh there is a confusion in the listing of energy output as illustrated by this passage.
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/.../msg00210.html

In a general way, the thermite reaction is the reduction of
a metal oxide by a reactive metal leading to the oxide of
the reductant and to the metal from the reduced oxide. The
prototype reaction, also the commercially and technically
most important, is the following:


8AI + 3Fe3O -> 4AI2O3 + 9Fe + 795 kcal (exothermic)


The heat output of this reaction per gram of reactants is
0.87 kcal/g or 3.7 kcal/cm3 (theoretical) and must be called
moderate, both on a weight or actual volume basis (the
density of the unconsolidated mixture, the form in which the
material is used, is about 2 g/cm3). The heat output is a
little higher for the reaction


2AI + Fe203 -> Al2O3 + 2Fe + 203 kcalI (exothermic)


which yields 0.95 kcal/g.
Note the difference between the chemical equation caloric output and the same thing given as per gram.( its been quite a while since I took chemistry but I gather that the larger number, 795 kcal, is the energy released if each quantity in the equation refetrs to the number of mol of each substance)

For reference 0.95 kcal/g = 3.97 kj/g which agrees with beachnut's reference's numbers.

So, according to the info I found gasoline has greater than ten times the heat output by mass, than does thermite. So for those who find beachnut's style ,, difficult do not have to take his word for it. IOW his numbers have been confirmed by a little more research that could have been accomplished by those not predisposed to accept his research.

I admit it took me a while but eventually, voila, effort gave results.

It should be obvious then, that to utilize therm?te to keep a rubble pile hot one must employ a very large quantity of that material. Even to heat a large quantity of office structural material, then insulate it very well to reduce heat loss requires a very large quantity of therm?te. However one notes how we arrive at the temperature of the hot spots illustrated in the USG's survey. Those are not underground temps, those are temps at the surface and are small in area. In other words these are the temperatures of the gasses escaping through venting. Thus the represent a loss of heat from the rubble pile. We certainly cannot have the near perfect insulation that would be required in the scenario David suggests, that of a quantity of molten metal staying hot for weeks, or that quantity of material has to be enormous. The later is simply not supported by any evidence at all.
However, the continued combustion of hydrocarbon fuels would supply continuous heat, allowing for a heat loss through convective gasses at the vents. In the WTC towers we have a parking garage containing a ready source of oils, alcohols, and gasoline, as well as solid materials that will breakdown into volatile materials(rubber, foam, plastic), and WTC7 contained a crushed electric substation with it attendant transformer oils.

Furthermore, had therm?te been used to sever columns its attendant molten metals somehow managed to reside solely deep within the rubble. This is quite odd and at no time does any proponent of this theory describe how it was arranged for the molten steel to be undetected on the surface. Of course it was apparently undetectable as resolidified blobs when dug up later as well.

The claim that continued high temps in the rubble indicates therm?te use to bring the standing structures down is ridiculous.
Last edited by jaydeehess; Today at 03:54 PM.
jaydeehess is online now Report Post Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for this month's language awardEdit/Delete Message Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top

 

[LashL]

I've split more than 200 posts to this thread from the other thread. Please stick to the respective topics of the respective threads from here on out. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[jaydeehess]

Ok, beachnut established that the heat output of mundane fuels are much greater than that of therm?te , which I confirmed via separate sources. One notes that those choosing to not believe beachnut could as easily done the same.

The difference being the rapid rate at which the heat is released from a thermitic reaction allowing local temperatures, specifically the temperature of the reaction's final constituents, and that of the materials in close proximity to the reacting thermitic substance, to be very high.

Thus it can be established that a high temperature in the covered, relatively well insulated, rubble hot spots is much more likely to be the result of heat released via hydrocarbon oxidation, of the large amount if such fuels in the rubble, occurring at a rate faster than the dissipation of that heat to the surrounding enviroment.

Thermite is neither demonstrated as being in the rubble, let alone in quantity large enough to keep temperatures of a large volume at high temps for weeks, nor is it needed to explain how large volumes of the rubble stayed at high temperature for weeks.

 

[Africanus]

I understand that if there were no explosions that rules out CD. But, were there really no explosions? What about Barry Jennings and Michael Hess? Both reported an explosion. Jennings and Hess were there. “Debunkers” were not there. The “debunkers explanation: it was not an explosion, it was falling debris from the North Tower hitting building 7. It can easily be shown that Jennings and Hess were down to the 6th floor at least an hour before WTC1 collapsed. And therefore, the explosion Jennings and Hess heard when they got to the 6th floor would have been long before WTC1 collapsed. And would colliding/crashing debris sound like an explosion anyway? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it. Imagine being there when the debris crashed into 7. What do you imagine it would sound like? I imagine it would sound a lot like stuff crashing into other stuff over whatever period it occurred. You know what explosions sound like. Just about anybody knows what explosions sound like. It is a very loud ‘BANG!’ or ‘ba BOOM!’ taking just a moment. Debris from the N. Tower hitting 7 would take longer than that with a completely different “crashing” sound. Besides, the debris impacted WTC7 long after Jennings and Hess said they heard the explosion. So falling debris from WTC1 cannot be used to explain what Jennings and Hess heard.

I just want to focus on this point. It is wrong that Jennings and Hess were at the 6th floor an hour before the collapse. In fact the timeline established in the Loose Change interview is wrong, all available sources corroborate NIST's timeline.

ETA:

Jennings said that he saw the towers from the window he was at but it was not possible for him to do so because of WHERE he was when he was at the window.

Jennings actually stated in the Loose Change interview that he had not seen the collapse of the towers, in fact he derived the tower's collapse from the behaviour of the firemen.

ETA2:

What convinced me, it was the long lost "path of least resistance law", used by 911 truth to prove they use the scientific method... because they say NIST didn't.

It is quite funny that Steven Jones, who claimed that he wanted to introduce the scientific method into the investigation of the events of 9/11, actually fabricated data. His understanding of the term "scientific method" seems to differ from my understanding.

 

[Africanus]

Of course it would go down. But since the center of mass of the top block of the building has shifted laterally due to the tilt, will the center of mass of the top block of the building not be going down "off center"?

If you want the upper block to topple over, you have to move the centre of gravity out of the footprint of the building. This would require a tilting of more than 45° and it would require the lifting of the centre of gravity.

 

[ozeco41]

If you want the upper block to topple over, you have to move the centre of gravity out of the footprint of the building. This would require a tilting of more than 45° and it would require the lifting of the centre of gravity.

Not quite true.

The CoG has to move outboard of wherever the line of the "virtual pivot" was located.

The explanation is medium level complex - I can explain in more detail or provide links if you need either.

 

[Skibum]

Not quite true.

The CoG has to move outboard of wherever the line of the "virtual pivot" was located.

The explanation is medium level complex - I can explain in more detail or provide links if you need either.

Exactly. Try to tip a fridge over. Not easy. Big difference is that with a building as it tips it loses structural integrity and collapses before it topples over.

 

[ozeco41]

Exactly. Try to tip a fridge over. Not easy. Big difference is that with a building as it tips it loses structural integrity and collapses before it topples over.

it made me stop and think when I first needed to respond to a related query. "Would the top bit have toppled if the plane hit lower down?"

The underlying issue is that "tilt" results from columns failing with more columns failing on the "low" side of the tilt than on the "high" side.

As the cascading failure progresses it reaches the critical point where the available resistance from unfailed columns is just less than the weight of the top block. The top block then starts to descend and the remaining columns fail as a result.

At that point there is no virtual pivot for the tilt to progress further - possibly some remnant rotational momentum of the top block.

The vertical vectors of fall overwhelm the tilt/rotational/horizontal vectors and the speed of fall means that falling wins the race against any remnant tilt or topple motion.

And this scenario is the same one where T Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" plus most of the "Tilt v axial contact of column ends" debates are nonsense. Carry overs of people trying to fit 1D - possibly Bazantian - explanations onto an event which was essentially 3D and CANNOT be explained in 1D - but I'm drifting so I'll stop there.

 

[tsig]

By the way, I had been meaning to ask this question: How do you at JREF explain the very high temperatures at ground zero, including beneath WTC7, that lasted for a very long time? Can it be reasonably explained?

Fire is hot.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]