Questions about nano-thermite

[cev08241971]

What decietful djinn whispered that into your ear?

???

Lots of things ignite explosively when heated suddenly to a high heat.

Nanothermite is one of those things. Nanothermite is also chemically identical to the material found in the World Trade Center dust. Slam dunk. Nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings.

Go sprinkle ground black pepper on the burner of an electric stove after the element gets hot.

Yes, this is a fascinating experiment. Relevance?

I offer that up as an example because you do not appear to have any experience in the construction trades.

hmm...so you offer me this pepper experiment because you've concluded (based on nothing but your imagination) that I have no experience in the "construction trades", as you put it. I'm just going to leave this one alone. There's no reason for me to boast about my skill sets.

Those of us who have experience in such workplaces as a shipyard know damned well that paint chips, when hit with a welding torch, WILL deflagtrate.

Of course paint chips will burn if you put a blowtorch to them. Again...relevance? Paint certainly doesn't explode with energy comparable to high-tech nanothermates.

That is one of the reasons one of the seafood companies in Tacoma occassionally pays me a day's wages to sit and watch a welder at work on one of their boats.

Okay, good job watching paint burn, we all owe you a great debt.

Totally wrong. They have the chemical signature of kaolin and rust in a polymer matrix.

No, that's not what was found. "Kaolinite" has drastically different ratios of carbon and oxygen. Look at the spectrum of it next to thermite and you'll quickly see the difference. Also not present in "kaolinnite" (or paint) is sulfur, and elemental aluminum. These products exist in thermate.

There aint no bloody kaolin in thermite.

correct

There are, as far as I can find from any google search NO forms of thermite that contain silicon.

There's no shame in expressing your ignorance. I'll help you. Go to Amazing Rust. There you'll find many aluminothermic compounds that exploit a variety of oxidized elements, one of which is silicon. Silicon dioxide can be used to make "thermite" just as readily as iron oxide.

Every form of paint used in construction contains some kaolin or talc or diatomaceous earth.

This may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant. The material found in the World Trade Center dust is not "kaolinite", it is thermite. It doesn't have the chemical signature of "kaolinite" (or paint for that matter), it has the chemical signature of thermite.

There are clearly identifiable kaolinite crystals...

What you're calling "kaolinite crystals" are in fact elemental aluminum. Elemental means it is not oxidized. The silicon and the iron were oxidized in the World Trade Center nanothermate, not the aluminum. Aluminothermic compounds require elemental aluminum. Both silicon oxides and iron oxides are suitable for making "thermite".

...has posted of their paint chips.

That's just it, it's not paint chips, it's nanothermate, as evidenced by its chemical signature AND its morphology. The cosmetic resemblance of parts of this material to "kaolinite" is outweighed by the fact that the material has the chemical signature of THERMITE, it burns like THERMITE, its products are identical to the products of THERMITE, not pain.

...they are mostly outrside their areas of expertise for most of their working hours.

Not that this comment of yours is even relevant, but it's worth noting that "interdisciplinary" approaches to problem solving are always more fruitful than narrow, specialized approaches.

Nanothermite is really only useful as an "electric match" to light other chemicals with a low ignition point.

false

I have not seen any proof that it can be used as a primary explosive, nor that any of it was used as an incendiary to effect the steel at WTC.

Again, there's no shame in admitting your ignorance. That's the first step to learning something new, admitting you didn't know it.

You are posting garbage that we have all seen before and discredit most contemptuously.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you can't "discredit" reality, no matter how contemptuous you are of it.

 

[332nd]

Actually the whole point of "nano" thermite is to produce explosives. As I've stated previously (multiple times now), nano thermite can also be tailored so it will deflagrate (burn) at one temperature threshold and explode at a higher threshold. It can then be used as an incendiary or an explosive. These chips, when heated abruptly, explode, resulting in spherules of elemental iron. They have also been shown to deflagrate at lower temperatures, leaving behind similar spherules. Clearly it's not overstating it to say this stuff is nano thermite.

Stating something does not make it so.

 

[leftysergeant]

Even if you were right, which you're not, you're still wrong. Pay more attention to the rules you've agreed to follow.

It is not adviseable to act in a beligerent manner when you are not familiar with the standards of proof that a particular sub-culture requires before considering a matter proven. It is a breach of ettiquette nearly everywhere to insist that your own peculiar superstitions must be taken seriousl;y while offering no proof that they are not superstitions. Calling people out in order to get them to abandon reasoned responses to childish behavior is, itself a childish behavior.

Everything you have posted in re nanothermite is counter-intuitive, and thus demands serious evidence in support before we are to be expected to take it seriously.

You're a couple kilos short of a pound of evidence, so don't get testy when we laugh at you.

I understand this is your belief. Fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs can not overturn reality.

Excuse me, but your undefined "us" has no standing here. Define your "us" so that it does not include those of us who have a freaking clue about thermite or sabotage or minerology or fire fighting. As it stands, you appear to those of us with applicable education, training and job experience that you are an untrained observer of ...erm...something or other, telling a rocket scientist how stuff that he actually uses works. If you want to question the judgement of a rocket scientist, do bring some evidence that he is wrong.

The word of some doofus who thinks he has proven that Jesus took a side trip to Yucatan before ascending to heaven doesn't count.

 

[cev08241971]

If you're suggesting that Dr. Jones's own paper is "independent verification" of Dr. Jones's findings, you're even nuttier than I suspected.

I didn't suggest anything remotely like that.

Doesn't matter. Dr. Jones's samples are the only ones claimed to contain nanothermite.

false

If I test other dust -- as many have -- and find no nanothermite, you won't accept this as proof that Dr. Jones is wrong.

I don't find claims that this material is not thermite to be convincing. It has an identical chemical signature, it's energy-dense and explosive. it's not paint chips.

I know this because such testing was done years ago, and reached that result.

This seems to me to be about as credible as your claims that Bentham Science Publishing is a "scam".

And yet you lecture me about civility rules? What is wrong with you?

Apparently the "lectures" didn't take, since even in this post you're still bending the rules, still suggesting obliquely that I'm a liar. Think what you will, say it as well, if you like.

If you lie, I'll call you on it.

I guess this is your way of saying "if you disagree with me, I'll call you a liar". Sigh. I'm just going to ignore you from now on, I don't have the inclination to endure this kind of provocative behaviour.

I am a scientist.

I don't find this claim credible in the slightest. I practice the scientific method, so I am a scientist, and I just don't see the same in you. I'm not convinced you even understand the scientific method. If you do, please explain it to me so I know we're using the same operational definition.

I'm not the one fixated on a mythical event. Projection, it's called.

You do seem pretty fixated on the myth that this nanothermate is paint chips...

 

[cev08241971]

We have all seen videos of plane crashes of varies types...has any of them not ended in fireball?

Are you talking about planes crashing in Hollywood movies?

 

[cev08241971]

If Google Image was to be believed, this stuff doesn't exist. You'd think it'd be easier to find information on something like this.

It takes more than consensus of Google hits to make a fact. It is very easy to find information about this material, peruse my other comments in this thread, particularly the ones where I outline how this material can be traced to (and only to) the US Department of Defense and a company called "Technanogy" (an exclusive DoD contractor that now has a spinoff technology company producing...nanoaluminum! woot).

 

[dtugg]

It takes more than a NASA hall pass to make a scientist. Do I even need to mention this is an appeal to authority? His job offers him no special place in the realm of science. BS is still BS.

I didn't make any appeal to authority. You said Mackey isn't a scientist. He in fact is a scientist who works for NASA.

I object to your characterization. I've backed up every claim I've made with abundant source material and plenty of advice for how you can educate yourself on these issues. How you can call that "nonsense" is beyond me, especially when "Mackey" comes up with gems like calling the Bentham Science Publishers a "known scam".

You haven't backed up any claims with any evidence whatsoever.

And Bentham is definitely a scam. They'll publish any old nonsense so long as the $600 or whatever is paid.

And apparently properly attributing quotes is something that is too complicated for you. You attributed it to Mackey when I said it.

 

[ozeco41]

...Nanothermite is also chemically identical to the material found in the World Trade Center dust. Slam dunk. Nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings....

Utter nonsense. See my previous post.

Even if the first leg of your claim is correct - i.e. "Nanothermite is also chemically identical to the material found in the World Trade Center dust" there is a massive gap of logic to your claimed consequence "...Nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings...." So whatever "slam dunk" may translate into there is no certainty about your conclusion.

You are still thinking from the arse end of the problem you claim to identify.

The WTC buildings were not demolished. Repeat that several times till it sinks in. Ask for "proof" if you really need it.

Then it follows that whether or not themXte in any of its variants was found on site it was not used in demolition. No demolition so thermXte was not used in demolition. Simple logic.

I also lean to the view that the Jones initiated claims of thermXte in the dust is nonsense. But whether it is nonsense or not it is totally irrelevant. No demolition == no use of thermXte to cause said demolition.

 

[GlennB]

I've backed up every claim I've made with abundant source material and plenty of advice for how you can educate yourself on these issues.

You claimed many verifications of Jones' tests. Please back this up with source material.

You claimed therm?te to be highly energy-dense. Please back this up with source material.

p.s. my researches show elemental aluminium to have a "face-centred cubic" crystal structure. Not at all like the platelets Jones found.

 

[cev08241971]

I have speculated that this is what would make a platelet nanothermite have a lower ignition temperature than spherical nanopowder 'equivalents'.

This "speculation" of yours is in fact confirmed by Haritt et al. This aluminothermic pyrotechnic found in the World Trade Center dust does indeed have a lower ignition temperature than conventional "thermite".

This seems to me to be the most plausible use of a nano-thermite.

The addition of a bit of sulfur into this material causes the reaction to liberate energy much more rapidly, with the ensuing possibility of achieving otherwise inaccessible reactions. Thermite with a bit of sulfur in it is known as "thermate". Thermate formulations have existed since the forties. Typical use is in incendiary devices where instantaneous high heat is desired (capable of melting and vaporizing steel). The "nano" formulations of thermate would have similar properties, but would also be capable of supersonic oxidation (explosion).

 

[cev08241971]

You claimed many verifications of Jones' tests. Please back this up with source material.

I've already cited the research by Haritt et al.

You claimed therm?te to be highly energy-dense. Please back this up with source material.

Aluminothermic compounds are known to be energy-dense. I didn't realize this was up for debate.

p.s. my researches show elemental aluminium to have a "face-centred cubic" crystal structure. Not at all like the platelets Jones found.

The Research from Harrit et al indicates the hexagonal "wafers" in the nanothermate are elemental aluminum. Exactly like the "platelets" described by Jones (and others). The details of their origin is not known, suffice it to say that it is not the "natural" structure of elemental aluminum. If this type of elemental aluminum were easy to manufacture, most likely there would be more than one company ("Technanogy") in the world doing it. They describe their processes as "proprietary" (which means secret), which almost certainly explains why nobody can explain how this elemental aluminum was produced.

 

[leftysergeant]

Please lose the attitude so that we can continue this conversation in an adult manner. There are people here with valid experience across many fields, from chemistry to psychology to fire fighting to mathematics to philosophy to military science to history to art to literature to the construction trades to God knows what obscure intelectual field of endeavor, all presenting evidence from their particular field or fields of endeavor that may contribute to our over-all understandiong of any event that leaves the general public scratching their heads and muttering "Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!!???

My areas of expertise are rather widely-varied, and you have addressed some of them in a way that is, to say the least, amusing, and often reveals serious gaps in your education and experience. In some cases, your narrow view of reality leads you to make some statements that lead readers of these post to question your level of education. As an example, when questioning the source of some of your "knowledge" of how such substances as paint react to intense heat, I made referrence to "djinn" in a way to suggest that some evil spirit was feeding you the "evidence" for your positions. You missed the referrence. This suggests either a gap in your education or a lack of a sense of humor. Your responce:

???

imdicates that you haver little, if any, knowledge of Islam, thus of the possible motives for someone to go Kamikaze on the towers.

Nanothermite is one of those things. Nanothermite is also chemically identical to the material found in the World Trade Center dust. Slam dunk. Nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings.

I believe the nerds call this a "bare assertion falacy." It appears to be a fancy way of saying that you pulled it out of your butt. Please show us that this is so, by posting all the chemical signatures you can find for a KNOWN specimen of nanothermite. As far as I, or any competant person on this forum can see, the chemnical signature also matches perfectly what we would expect of paint, and the one chip that Chucklenuts couldn't dissolve in MEK precisely matches what we would expect from the proprietory formula of paintr known to be used in the WTC.

Yes, this is a fascinating experiment. Relevance?

Just because something goes "POOF!" when heated beyond the temprature of red-hot steel don't mean it's thermite. This aint rocket science.

hmm...so you offer me this pepper experiment because you've concluded (based on nothing but your imagination) that I have no experience in the "construction trades", as you put it. I'm just going to leave this one alone. There's no reason for me to boast about my skill sets.

We have no evidence that you posess any.

Of course paint chips will burn if you put a blowtorch to them. Again...relevance? Paint certainly doesn't explode with energy comparable to high-tech nanothermates.

We have no proof that the stuff Chucklenuts has does either.

No, that's not what was found. "Kaolinite" has drastically different ratios of carbon and oxygen. Look at the spectrum of it next to thermite and you'll quickly see the difference. Also not present in "kaolinnite" (or paint) is sulfur...

Read what is in the proprietory pigment used on the steel. TALC. DERRRR!

...and elemental aluminum. These products exist in thermate.

And you can be sure that they have separated it out so that it is uncontaminated ? WTF? I have not seen the merry morons show us how they separated pure aluminum powder from the silicon-rich plates (which anybody with an IQ over 70 can figure out are kaolinite crystals.)

As I read the Harrit joke, most of the aluminum was found associated with these crystals. This aint rocket science.

I need a break from breaking down so much woo. I shall return to this if it is ever convenient to do so.

 

[cev08241971]

Even if the first leg of your claim is correct - i.e. "Nanothermite is also chemically identical to the material found in the World Trade Center dust" there is a massive gap of logic to your claimed consequence "...Nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings...."

Okay, if this is your position, please inform everyone as to some "innocent" reasons for ten tons of nanothermate in the World Trade Center.

The WTC buildings were not demolished.

This claim is astonishing. Do you think the buildings are still standing? The buildings were demolished.

Then it follows that whether or not themXte in any of its variants was found on site it was not used in demolition.

How does that in any way follow? What other uses could they have put ten tons of thermite in the buildings except for demolition?

I also lean to the view that the Jones initiated claims of thermXte in the dust is nonsense.

Your "lean" (bias?) is noted.

But whether it is nonsense or not it is totally irrelevant.

Whether or not there is unreacted nanothermate in World Trade Center dust is irrelevant? Wait a second, what is it we're discussing here, I might be in the wrong thread...your repeated claims that the World Trade Center was not demolished make me think this is maybe a help thread for paranoid schizophrenics...

 

[GlennB]

. Many researchers have repeated this research with other samples of World Trade Center dust and arrived at identical conclusions...independently.

I've already cited the research by Haritt et al.

You said this:

. Many researchers have repeated this research with other samples of World Trade Center dust and arrived at identical conclusions...independently.

My bolding. Apart from Haritt (a truther) please provide some more sources to justify the bolded claim.

Aluminothermic compounds are known to be energy-dense. I didn't realize this was up for debate.

It's less energy-dense than paper, as I recall. Your claim is not just 'up for debate', it's plain wrong according to any sensible scientific meaning of the phrase 'energy-dense'.

The Research from Harrit et al indicates the hexagonal "wafers" in the nanothermate are elemental aluminum.

Where does it indicate this?

Exactly like the "platelets" described by Jones (and others). The details of their origin is not known, suffice it to say that it is not the "natural" structure of elemental aluminum. If this type of elemental aluminum were easy to manufacture, most likely there would be more than one company ("Technanogy") in the world doing it. They describe their processes as "proprietary" (which means secret), which almost certainly explains why nobody can explain how this elemental aluminum was produced.

Ah! It's a secret aluminium crystal. How nice for you.

 

[ozeco41]

Okay, if this is your position, please inform everyone as to some "innocent" reasons for ten tons of nanothermate in the World Trade Center...

...totally irrelevant. It wasn't used.

...This claim is astonishing. Do you think the buildings are still standing? The buildings were demolished...

...come back when you understand the difference between "collapsed" and "demolished". Hint "demolished" is one method - a sub set - of the methods causing collapse.

...How does that in any way follow? What other uses could they have put ten tons of thermite in the buildings except for demolition?...

...there is no point debating unless you are prepared to write with some semblance of logic. First no one so far has claimed the "thermXte" was in the buildings - merely present on the site. Who cares what other uses it could be put to (if it existed). The relevant issue is that it was not used for demolition. Because there was no demolition - multiple threads of logic to establish the fact of "no demolition" so it is up to you to show not merely that it was present - a big enough challenge in itself, BUT that it was actually used. Come back when you can demonstrate that actual use.

Your "lean" (bias?) is noted....

...I am not very much interested in the "Was there thermXte in the dust?" discussion because of reasons clearly stated. No demolition so no use of thermXte whether or not it was present.

HOWEVER you are losing hands down your attempt to prove the thermXte was in the dust.

So I lean that way - no thermXte present. Ball still in your court and you have a long way to go.

...Whether or not there is unreacted nanothermate in World Trade Center dust is irrelevant? Wait a second, what is it we're discussing here, I might be in the wrong thread...your repeated claims that the World Trade Center was not demolished make me think this is maybe a help thread for paranoid schizophrenics...

...You are continually evading the central point I make. No demolition so the presence of thernXte OR TNT OR RDX etc etc is irrelevant - unless and until you can show demolition AND the use of any of those agents.

The presence of any explosive or incendiary agent is meaningless without a coherent claim as to how it could have been used.

 

[cev08241971]

There are people here with valid experience...

I'm one of them.

My areas of expertise are rather widely-varied, and you have addressed some of them in a way that is, to say the least, amusing, and often reveals serious gaps in your education and experience.

Yes, of course, I'm sure your many hours of burning paint chips with a blowtorch makes you uniquely qualified to critique me. I haven't in any way discussed my education or put forth any novel ideas that sprung from my head, I've simply recited the facts as they stand.

Unreacted nanothermite was found in such abundance in the World Trade Center dust as to suggest ten tons or more of it was in the buildings when they were demolished. That's a fact. It's not up for debate. It's not subject to my whims. I didn't invent this notion. It's a fact. We all have to deal with it, or ignore it at our own peril.

Your repeated and unwarranted assumptions and speculations about my education and experience are annoying and puerile. Let's stick to the subject at hand, if you don't mind.

In some cases, your narrow view of reality leads you to make some statements that lead readers of these post to question your level of education.

What you choose to describe as a "narrow view of reality" is more accurately characterized as an "accurate view of reality". I haven't inserted my speculations (with possible rare exceptions), I've tried to stick to the facts. It's not a theory that unreacted nanothermate was found in the World Trade Center dust. It's a fact. None of your experience burning paint chips with a blowtorch has any meaning in that context. You can't overrule reality by virtue of being a paint-chip-blowtorcher.

As an example, when questioning the source of some of your "knowledge" of how such substances as paint react to intense heat, I made referrence to "djinn" in a way to suggest that some evil spirit was feeding you the "evidence" for your positions.

Yes, an utterly bizarre choice on your part, frankly.

You missed the referrence.

I got the reference to a "djinn", I just found it banal and pointless and really not worthy of any considered response. Was I wrong not to take you seriously? Were you honestly suggesting some kind of "djinn" gave me this information?

This suggests either a gap in your education or a lack of a sense of humor.

So because I don't find your jokes funny, that exposes "gaps" in my education. I see. I guess it's true, people base the intelligence of others on how well they get each other's jokes. Maybe we should base IQ tests on this. If you don't laugh at Simpsons your IQ is 17. If you don't laugh at Futurama you have no IQ.

imdicates that you haver little, if any, knowledge of Islam, thus of the possible motives for someone to go Kamikaze on the towers.

This comment seems to presuppose "Kamikaze muslims". I think that's quite a stretch. I understand you likely have a hatred of muslims, but that does not mean they all hate you and want to crash your airplanes into your buildings.

I believe the nerds call this a "bare assertion falacy." It appears to be a fancy way of saying that you pulled it out of your butt.

You're the one making assertions here. You just asserted that I have little if any knowledge of islam (as if that's somehow relevant to this discussion, can muslims suspend the laws of physics?), and that "Kamikaze muslims" demolished the World Trade Center with box cutters. Now you want me to defend that assertion? Seriously? Take a nap, sleepy head, you're not making any sense.

Please show us that thuis is so, by posting all the chemical signatures you can find for a KNOWN specimen of nanothermite.

known "thermate" spectrum (note the sulfur):

As you can see, little carbon, lots of oxygen. This is "slag residue", so very little aluminum is present, it's solidified iron slag with a "crust", essentially.

unreacted thermate from World Trade Center dust (note sulfur):

As you can see, little carbon, lots of oxygen. This is unreacted so the aluminum is still present.

"kaolinite with gypsum" spectrum (note: sulfur comes from the sulfates in the gypsum)

As you can see, lots of carbon, little oxygen, drastically different than thermite, thermite is not in paint chips. It's a near miss, but it's still a miss. Kaolinite is not the material in these red chips from the World Trade Center dust. Kaolinite doesn't explode and has a different chemical signature.

As far as I, or any competant person on this forum can see, the chemnical signature also matches perfectly what we would expect of paint

All I can say is you must be redefining the word "paint" so that it includes high tech pyrotechnics like nanothermate.

and the one chip that Chucklenuts couldn't dissolve in MEK precisely matches what we would expect from the proprietory formula of paintr known to be used in the WTC.

Sure, produce the spectrum for this paint and we'll compare them. Was this paint also highly explosive and composed of materials only the US Department of Defense has access to? Why would they use aluminothermic compounds as paint? it makes no sense.

Just because something goes "POOF!" when heated beyond the temprature of red-hot steel don't mean it's thermite? This aint rocket science.

Oh, was there red-hot steel in the World Trade Center? How did it get red hot? Was it ten tons of this "paint" that was exposed to this red hot metal? Are you aware that this material would explode when exposed to much lower temperatures than red hot anything? Where was this red hot metal in the World Trade Center? What fuel heated the metal red hot? How much of it was red hot?

Read what is in the proprietory pigment used on the steel.

So it's proprietary, but you know what's in it. Make up your mind. Why would a "talc pigment" be used on steel? I don't follow this at all. You're saying that the steel in the World Trade Center was colored with some kind of "talc pigment"? I'm lost.

(which anybody with an IQ over 70 can figure out are kaol;inite crystals.)

Your claim that this material is "kaolinite" is unsupported by the elemental abundances. "Kaolinite" has little oxygen and lots of carbon, thermate has the reverse. It couldn't be any simpler, this is not rocket surgery, no matter what Mackey tells you.

Asd I read the Harrit joke, most of the aluminum was found associated with these crystals.

Yes, elemental aluminum. The oxygen in the samples was bound with iron and silicon, yet more proof that this was an aluminothermic compound. Oxidized metals + elemental aluminum = thermite, basically. Look it up.

This aint rocket science.

I'll say, which is why I can't understand why you're struggling so much with it. It's all very simple to understand.

I need a break from breaking down so much woo. I shall return to this if it is ever convenient to do so.

I can hardly wait.

 

[GlennB]

"Kaolinite" has little oxygen and lots of carbon, thermate has the reverse.

Kaolinite has zero carbon, being Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄

 

[cev08241971]

...come back when you understand the difference between "collapsed" and "demolished".

I conclude your contention here is that the buildings weren't demolished. Did they just spontaneously collapse or did they collapse due to deliberate damage? Collapse due to deliberate damage is also known as demolition. I can't imagine why you are objecting to the notion that the World Trade Center was demolished. Clearly it was.

...there is no point debating unless you are prepared to write with some semblance of logic.

I don't see that there's any point in debating at all. Facts are fact. You don't debate facts. I didn't come here to debate, just to correct errors of fact. I try to keep my speculations out of it, and so should everyone.

First no one so far has claimed the "thermXte" was in the buildings - merely present on the site.

I'm claiming it. The unreacted nanothermate has no business being in the World Trade Center dust. There is no conceivable scenario that would account for ten tons of nanothermate "innocently" occupying space in the World Trade Center.

The relevant issue is that it was not used for demolition.

I see this less as a "relevant issue" and more like your own personal belief. It's a belief many may share, but it is just a belief, a belief that is flatly refuted by evidence and roundly rejected by any informed and rational person.

Because there was no demolition...

Again this outlandish claim that the World Trade Center was not demolished. I'm utterly at a loss for how to deal with this. Perhaps consult a psychologist. Or better yet a psychologist who can prescribe some psychotropics to patch whatever is broken or missing.

Come back when you can demonstrate that actual use.

The presence of tiny bits of unreacted thermate, coupled with the obvious controlled nature of the demolition, the pulverization of thousands of tons of concrete, the rate of the collapse, the high energy with which we saw debris leaving the scene, suggests quite strongly that this explosive was used in the demolition. I'm afraid without a confession from the perpetrators we aren't going to get any better than that. As Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth. Over the last nine years people have systematically dismantled the mountain of BS and lies and propaganda and endured the paranoiac fears of our fellow citizens and pathological hatred and hostility of brown people in Asia, and now here we are. We've eliminated the impossible. What remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.

HOWEVER you are losing hands down your attempt to prove the thermXte was in the dust.

Thankfully I don't have to prove anything, just point you to the evidence. I can lead a horse's ass to water but I can not make him drink. You'll have to do your own research. I sincerely wish I could wave a magic wand and banish ignorance and prejudice, but I can not. it's up to every individual to pursue their own education. I can show the way but I won't drag you kicking and screaming all the way. If you want to stay on the path you're taking, I won't stop you.

Your continued repetition of "there as no demolition" is starting to sound like a mantra. I wouldn't be surprised if it calmed you down like mantras are supposed to do. But seriously, keep it to yourself. It's not a tenable position to claim the World Trade Center was not demolished.

The presence of any explosive or incendiary agent is meaningless without a coherent claim as to how it could have been used.

I disagree. The presence of very tiny pieces of unreacted high tech military-grade explosives in the World Trade Center dust is as damning as four quarts of blood and a pint of brains on your wall after you've killed somebody. You can get rid of the body but no body could live with that much blood and brains removed from it. We know you've murdered somebody. Try repeating "nobody was murdered, people die all the time it doesn't prove they were murdered!" when the cops show up.

 

[leftysergeant]

Kaolinite has zero carbon, being Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄

Ouch! Bloody good shot!

 

[cev08241971]

Kaolinite has zero carbon, being Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄

It may or may not be the case that "kaolinite" used as a pigment in paint has no carbon in it, I don't know. The fact remains the elemental abundances of "kaolinite" are not the same as in thermate. To put it another way, they have different chemical "signatures" or "fingerprints". We also know that the aluminum in the World Trade Center dust "chips" was elemental aluminum, not oxidized aluminum. Both of these facts disqualify this material from being "kaolinite", regardless of the carbon content of "kaolinite".

I realize this is an uncomfortable conclusion, that the World Trade Center was deliberately demolished by explosives inside it, but it is an inescapable conclusion nonetheless. These "chips" are not paint. Paint is not highly explosive. When "kaolinite" is used in paint as a pigment it is used in trace amounts.