Questions about nano-thermite

[cev08241971]

Ouch! Bloody good shot!

It's perhaps true that "kaolinite" when used as a paint pigment has no carbon in it, I can't say, but it's also irrelevant. See my previous post where I explain the chemical "signatures" of "kaolinite" and thermite are different, and that what we find in the World Trade Center dust is demonstrably thermate, not paint chips.

 

[cev08241971]

It's less energy-dense than paper, as I recall.

Are you addressing the energy density in terms of mass or of volume? The energy density of thermite is comparable to that of TNT in terms of mass, and triple the energy density of TNT in terms of volume. Is paper more energy dense than TNT as well? In which manner, by mass or by volume?

Your claim is not just 'up for debate', it's plain wrong according to any sensible scientific meaning of the phrase 'energy-dense'.

That you can even suggest aluminothermic compounds are anything other than "energy dense" is laughable. A thermate grenade developed in the forties and weighing about a pound could burn through 3/8 inch plate steel in about one (1) second. How much paper would it take to burn through 3/8 inch plate steel in under one (1) second? More than a pound or less? If you think less, maybe you can win the nobel peace prize when you figure out how to fuel a battleship with post-it notes. Scrape off the glue and you can make fun toys for the kids!

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

Your rapier wit floors me. And I mean that. Sincerely. I don't see how it's nice for me, but it certainly is nice for "Technanogy", the one (DOD contractor) company in the world that can exploit this proprietary technology to produce nanoaluminum in bulk.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm one of them.

Nobody here with training or experience in the fileds of military explosives, arson investigations, welding, paint, mineral collecting, construction, building materials, rules of evidence admissible in a court of law or pottery has seen any indication that you have any such skill set.

But that's just me. Some of the nerds who passed their college-level chenistry and math classes may have additional skills.

Yes, of course, I'm sure your many hours of burning paint chips with a blowtorch makes you uniquely qualified to critique me.

You left out the part about my having spent a few hours looking at slag from welding torches and about five kinds of thermite.

I haven't in any way discussed my education..

We wish you would, because we would like to know whence some of these novel ideas our yours came.

..put forth any novel ideas that sprung from my head, I've simply recited the facts as they stand.

All of what you have posted so far is novel, to the extent that only Harrit and old Chucklenuts over at BYU support that hogwash.

ed 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.

Actually, it is the ranting of a dimbulb who thinks he proved that Jesus visited Yucatan on His way to heaven.

peated 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.

Sorry, but you need to bring some actual valid arguments to the discussion before you are taken seriously by people who have more knowledge across a wider variety of disciplines than you have had time to master.

You might start by posting a chemical analysis of Tenemec primer and showing us how it differs from the crap that Cucklenuts Jones and that doofus Harrit examined.

...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?

The maunderings of fools like Chucklenuts Jones are of little more scientific value than the blandishments of a djinn.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's perhaps true that "kaolinite" when used as a paint pigment has no carbon in it, I can't say, but it's also irrelevant. See my previous post where I explain the chemical "signatures" of "kaolinite" and thermite are different, and that what we find in the World Trade Center dust is demonstrably thermate, not paint chips.

So, like, what component of nanothermite adds the carbon? What component contains the silicon?

Backing up a bit, what residues would thermnite or nanothermite, in your uninformed opinion, leave on the steel?

 

[Cuddles]

A few posts have been removed to AAH. Remain civil and on topic.

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

 

[Baylor]

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".

It is.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

 

[leftysergeant]

It is.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

What else can be said in re Bentham?

 

[GlennB]

Are you addressing the energy density in terms of mass or of volume? The energy density of thermite is comparable to that of TNT in terms of mass, and triple the energy density of TNT in terms of volume. Is paper more energy dense than TNT as well? In which manner, by mass or by volume?


That you can even suggest aluminothermic compounds are anything other than "energy dense" is laughable. A thermate grenade developed in the forties and weighing about a pound could burn through 3/8 inch plate steel in about one (1) second. How much paper would it take to burn through 3/8 inch plate steel in under one (1) second? More than a pound or less? If you think less, maybe you can win the nobel peace prize when you figure out how to fuel a battleship with post-it notes. Scrape off the glue and you can make fun toys for the kids!


Your rapier wit floors me. And I mean that. Sincerely. I don't see how it's nice for me, but it certainly is nice for "Technanogy", the one (DOD contractor) company in the world that can exploit this proprietary technology to produce nanoaluminum in bulk.

Total energy released per gramme and rate of energy release per gramme are the critical issues here. Therm?te burns extremely quickly and at a very high temperature and is thus able to melt steel. An equivalent weight of paper would give out more heat, but very slowly.

If Jones' analysis had been the slightest bit rigorous he would have ignited these chips in an inert atmosphere, proving they were thermitic. He didn't. He would have analysed the compounds therein (easily and cheaply done) instead of analysing the distribution of elements. He didn't. The poor old guy is just trying to retain some semblance of dignity by clinging onto any shred of pausibility for his original thermite claims.

But what's abundantly clear in these exchanges is that you are trotting out many-times-debunked claims without displaying a grain of critical sense. And every time you're shown to be flat-out wrong you attempt to shift the goalposts or throw up a smokescreen.

Your error-and-obfuscation-density is right up with the very highest.

 

[leftysergeant]

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 have yet to see evidence of this bare assertion. You need to compare the chips that old Chucklenuts provided with Tenemec red oxide primer.

When "kaolinite" is used in paint as a pigment it is used in trace amounts.

Utter bull flops. It is a "filler" that keeps the paint from just dribbling off the steel before the vehicle starts to set.

(I do hope that you can grasp the meanings of these high-falutin' words.)

 

[leftysergeant]

Are you talking about planes crashing in Hollywood movies?

Okay, this is within my particular area of experience, having served four years in AFSC 57150 in the Air Force and aobut 11 years in SMOS 51M in the Army.

In the real world, just about every plane crash in which fuel cells are ruptured, yes, ya gets fireballs. Move along to something relevant.

 

[cev08241971]

Okay, this is within my particular area of experience...

Your particular area of experience is speaking for other people when questions are asked directly of them regarding their own personal motivations? Fascinating...

 

[TheBigKahuna]

irrelevant waffling
Hogwash. The WTC was not demolished by any mechanim or material. Take that fact as your starting point.
..still nonsense - followed by: ...a strawman. ...a "truism" except that there is no such evidence. ...you don't. There is no such evidence. Starting with the fact that the WTC buildings were not demolished......make your mind up. You were talking about thermXte - now by some miracle is is "highly explosive" so it aint thermXte.

PS Somebody kick me for being silly enough to waste the energy to post this response.


I'm old enough to know better.

I enjoyed reading your post very much, so, it wasn't a waste!

 

[cev08241971]

I have yet to see evidence of this bare assertion.

You mean my assertion that I don't know if the pigment used in paint has carbon in it or not? I don't need to provide "evidence" of what my beliefs are, I can just state them. Since I'm the only one in a position to know what I believe, you have no choice but to take my word for it.

You need to compare the chips that old Chucklenuts provided with Tenemec red oxide primer.

Many sorts of investigations would be fruitful, but of course not all are possible. For example, we can't go back in time and examine the unreacted nanothermate all throughout the World Trade Center as it was actually being applied to the steel. We don't need to, however, to prove that it most certainly was there, and was used as a pyrotechnic (explosive). The universe of all possible tests of this hypothesis need not form an eclipsing shadow on the actual tests that have been done and do verify that yes, indeed, nanothermate was used in the demolition of the World Trade Center. We're not talking about my opinions here, these are objective conclusions based on objective data, no interpretation is needed, only acknowledgement.

Utter bull flops. It is a "filler" that keeps the paint from just dribbling off the steel before the vehicle starts to set.

The material you're describing is a mixture of clay, it's the clay that acts as the "extender" in paint. What it's used for in paint is irrelevant, as that's not what was found in the red "chips" found in the World Trade Center dust. The material in those red chips is undeniably unreacted nanothermate, not paint chips. "Kaolinite" does not have the same chemical fingerprint as thermate, hence our ability to distinguish between the two and, in this case, exclude "kaolinite" from the list of (two) possibilities. When you consider these chips are also energy-dense and highly explosive, that list turns into a single element.

(I do hope that you can grasp the meanings of these high-falutin' words.)

Huh?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And here's someone else trying to recycle the thermite myth. Fact of the matter is, the Jones/Harrit team conducted shoddy research. Here are refutations of their findings:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658

As many here have noted before, Harrit and Jones own data undermines their conclusion that thermite was present. It's getting a bit tiresome to continue to repeat that over and over again, so I direct any claimants advocating thermite to read the above posts plus previous threads for the reasons why this is so. In summary: Their claim is invalid, as well as falsified by their own data, anyone trying to argue positively for the claim must produce arguments why this is so. Merely citing their research is already a failure due to their fundamental and egregious errors and faulty reasoning.

 

[D'rok]

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

You're citing Jones' own paper as independent verification of Jones' research?

This has got to be a joke.

Please provide an actual example of the independent verification that you claim exists in such abundance.

 

[leftysergeant]

Many sorts of investigations would be fruitful, but of course not all are possible. For example, we can't go back in time and examine the unreacted nanothermate all throughout the World Trade Center as it was actually being applied to the steel. We don't need to, however, to prove that it most certainly was there, and was used as a pyrotechnic (explosive). The universe of all possible tests of this hypothesis need not form an eclipsing shadow on the actual tests that have been done and do verify that yes, indeed, nanothermate was used in the demolition of the World Trade Center. We're not talking about my opinions here, these are objective conclusions based on objective data, no interpretation is needed, only acknowledgement.

No, you are not getting away with that here. There are only three tests needed here.

1. Spectographic analysis of the chips that Chucklenuts thinks are thermite, thermate, nanothermite of supernanpbannano thermites or whatever the hell they are now.

2. Spectographic analysis of Tenemc red oxide primer from a chip taken from a recovered column

3. Burning in inert atmosphere.

The material you're describing is a mixture of clay, it's the clay that acts as the "extender" in paint. What it's used for in paint is irrelevant, as that's not what was found in the red "chips" found in the World Trade Center dust.

Unsupportable assersions.

The material in those red chips is undeniably unreacted nanothermate, not paint chips.

Unprovren claim.

"Kaolinite" does not have the same chemical fingerprint as thermate, hence our ability to distinguish between the two and, in this case, exclude "kaolinite" from the list of (two) possibilities. When you consider these chips are also energy-dense and highly explosive, that list turns into a single element.

None of these things have neen demonstrated.

Idot boy Jones has never shown that his crap will not burn out if heated in a nitrogen atmosphere.

 

[cev08241971]

debunking pseudoskeptic "debunkers"

And here's someone else trying to recycle the thermite myth.

I don't know how you can suggest it's a "myth" when all the dust from the World Trade Center that's been analyzed contains these "chips" of material that have the identical chemical signature of thermiate and are explosive. That's some myth, it's so hypnotically powerful it can apparently remake reality in its own image. Either that or you are wrong and it never was a myth.

Fact of the matter is, the Jones/Harrit team conducted shoddy research. Here are refutations of their findings:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658

I've read through those threads you just posted. I don't find the "refutations" convincing. In fact I don't find them to be refutations at all, but mere contradictions. I see a lot of comments that contradict the findings of the research, but no plausible reason for why the contradictory statements are valid, no plausible reason to reject the conclusion of the findings.

In one case the author tries to claim an oxygen-aluminum-silicon correlation in the data. No such correlation is present, but what is visible is a clear correlation between oxygen and iron, as well as a clear and strong correlation between oxygen and silicon, but no strong correlation between aluminum and oxygen. The aluminum in these samples was only minimually oxidized, as one might expect from elemental aluminum suitable for pyrotechnics. The author is seeing faces in clouds when imagining the correlation (not observed in the images) between oxygen and aluminum. And this is just one of the major flaws in this "refutation".

The second thread you reference trots out the contention that the material is "kaolinite", and shows a picture of "kaolinite" wafers stacked up neatly, presumably before they are mixed with clay or gypsum or some other material and then mixed (in trace amounts) into paint compounds. Never mind that the chemical signatures (elemental abundances) of "kaolinite" are not the same as the chemical signatures of the nanothermate from the World Trade Center dust. Never mind that the nanothermate sample shown alongside the "kaolinite" chips had been treated with MEK to get that appearance of "stacked" wafers as the hexagonal bits of aluminum migrated in their softening matrix. The "dry" nanothermate from the World Trade Center dust exhibited a much more homogeneous mixture of material (ironically shown in the first thread you referenced). So not only do these "refutations" merely contradict (in defiance of obvious evidence), they also serve to help refute each other.

As many here have noted before, Harrit and Jones own data undermines their conclusion that thermite was present.

I have no doubt that's been stated many times here. Repetition doesn't make it factual.

It's getting a bit tiresome to continue to repeat that over and over again, so I direct any claimants advocating thermite to read the above posts plus previous threads for the reasons why this is so.

I've just addressed the two threads you mention. One ignores the data and simply invents conclusions about oxidized aluminum, the other ignores the chemical signature of "kaolinite" and announces it identical to thermate (and presumably just as explosive). Both serve to help refute each other, owing both to the pictures they used and the text they contained.

In summary: Their claim is invalid, as well as falsified by their own data...

How peculiar, I was just about to say the same thing, to you, about your sources...

anyone trying to argue positively for the claim must produce arguments why this is so.

Luckily for me I'm not trying to argue. I'm just stating facts and correcting errors.

Merely citing their research is already a failure due to their fundamental and egregious errors and faulty reasoning.

Again, how strange, but I was just about to say the same thing...to you...about your "refutations"...

 

[cev08241971]

No, you are not getting away with that here.

I'm not trying to "get away with" anything. I'm simply stating the fact that we needn't exhaust every single possible experiment in order to draw reasonable conclusions from the available data. That's a fact, despite your contrarian attitude.

There are only three tests needed here.

If you insist...

1. Spectographic analysis of the chips

We have spectrographic analysis of the unreacted nanothermate from the World Trade Center dust. This analysis shows, strangely enough, that this material is thermate. Electron microscopy shows us that it is indeed NANO thermate. it's a slam dunk. Tests over.

2. Spectographic analysis of...

irrelevant, see above where we proved the material is nanothermate, no further tests are necessary to exclude improbable hypothetical solutions when we have the solution on the first rip, take a nap now, you're done

Insupportsbler assersions.

You mean you're going to make more "Insupportsbler assersions"? What exactly is "Insupportsbler assersions". You really should take a nap, sleepy head, seriously.

Unprovren claim.

Come back when you're better rested.

None of these things have neen demonstrated.

Wow. You are consistently failing at typing, it's impressive.

Idot boy Jones has never shown that his crap will not vurn out if heated in a nitrogen atmosphere.

I'm not sure who "Idiot boy" is, or why his crap will not "vurn" out. I really don't see what any of this gibberish has to do with the unreacted nanothermate that was discovered in all the World Trade Center dust.

 

[triforcharity]

If you're talking about publication, how many times need one publish?

Well, I would say more than none, given the fact that Bentham is a sham journal.

I wonder why he won't submit his "findings" to any REAL journal, with an actual peer-review?

 

[cev08241971]

fraud of participants doesn't prove Bentham is a "scam", operate like all journals do

What else can be said in re Bentham?

And how is this in any way different than any other published journals? it isn't. Fortunately peer review is not part of the scientific method, and therefore not part of science, otherwise we might have to take all of it seriously. Deliberate fraud like that described in this "experiment" is extremely difficult to combat. Deliberate fraud carried out against Bentham also in no way casts Bentham in a poor light.

Also important to note:

The reviewer that accepted the fraudulent paper apparently didn't have complete command of English, making the ruse (FRAUD) that much easier to perpetrate. Also worth mentioning:

"To be fair to Bentham, however, an earlier bogus paper submitted by Davis to another of its publications, The Open Software Engineering Journal, was rejected after peer review."

and:

"The program was devised by Jeremy Stribling, Daniel Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who first used it to generate a spoof paper that was accepted for presentation at the 2005 World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI), which charged speakers $390 to attend."

So what are we to conclude, that Bentham is somehow unusual, or that it acts just like every other publication outfit? Do we conclude that it's 50% genuine and 50% scam/spam because one FRAUDULENT paper was rejected while another was accepted? This trope is a perfect example of the flaws of "peer review" and the inability of peer review to be a safeguard against fraud and error.

I submit that this "experiment" was carefully designed to exploit the "weakest link" they could find in Bentham for a sensationalist stunt like getting a "nonsense" paper published.