Questions about nano-thermite

[dudalb]

Has any Truther ever presented solid evidence that such a thing as Nano Thermite even exists?
Somehow I doubt it.......

 

[carlitos]

Has any Truther ever presented solid evidence that such a thing as Nano Thermite even exists?
Somehow I doubt it.......

No, but Mackey and Sunstealer refer to papers that indicate that it does.

Could anyone confirm / deny the existence of "nanothermate." Our most recent short-lived troll was on and on about it, but that's the only place I have ever seen the word. Google scholar can't find it.

 

[dudalb]

I should have said nanothermite in a usable as opposed to a theoritical or experimental form.

 

[Oystein]

My bold...

I am surprised that no Truther has picked up on this to say that whatever exotic variety of thermite was used in the supposed CD is unknown to the public and therefore has no comparable; or that this is proof that it is not 'normal therm*te'...

Uhm. What a strangely uninformed statement.

The paper itself already, in its conclusions n page 29, engages in such speculation:

7. ... The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
...
10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

So these authors did note how their experiment results are in disagreement with the thermite theory and then procede to speculate on thermitic reaction anyway whilst at the same time speculating on the properties of something that they consider significant themselves but failed entirely to analyse.



Also, in various discussion about the issue, I have again and again seen truthers make the claim that nano-technology changed the thermite in some mysterious and unknown way such that it releases more energy that is theoretically possible.

 

[R.Mackey]

No, but Mackey and Sunstealer refer to papers that indicate that it does.

Could anyone confirm / deny the existence of "nanothermate." Our most recent short-lived troll was on and on about it, but that's the only place I have ever seen the word. Google scholar can't find it.

I've seen no reference to "nanothermate" in any papers on the subject.

I guess you could but it seems unlikely. The purpose of regular thermate is, again, that real thermite is a finicky thing -- difficult to ignite, to the point that it may even sputter and go out if a small enough amount of it catches. Thermate adds a more reactive ingredient (barium nitrate is typical) and just a tiny amount of sulfur, which reacts preferentially to form sulfur nitrate which can also react further. The action is similar to the amount of sulfur added to gunpowder, which has a similar effect with vaguely similar chemistry. The whole idea of sulfur being added to "cause a eutectic reaction in steel" floated by Truthers trying to force-fit other facts is rank stupidity.

There is no real need for this function in nanothermite. The ignition temperature is already reduced by virtue of the much smaller particles. There is some talk in the papers of other custom formulations of nanothermite, but I don't think sulfur adds anything they want -- the sulfur will create more toxic or corrosive products, even in trace amounts, and the real purpose of nanothermite in the first place is in sensitive applications where this is likely to be a significant disadvantage.

It's still a very young field -- too young to be credible as a WTC conspiracy mechanism even if the evidence didn't conclusively rule it out -- and this may change with future experiments, of course.

 

[carlitos]

Thanks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am surprised that no Truther has picked up on this to say that whatever exotic variety of thermite was used in the supposed CD is unknown to the public and therefore has no comparable; or that this is proof that it is not 'normal therm*te'...

As has been pointed out, several truthers have made this exact claim. Unfortunately for them, the claim renders their entire position self-contradictory. Chemical energy densities are well known and understood, and the energy density available to a thermite reaction is known, so it's a scientific impossibility for a thermite formulation to contain more than that maximum possible amount of energy. They claim that scientific analysis indicates the presence of thermite, yet at the same time claim that this thermite has scientifically impossible properties, so their argument requires both an adherence to, and simultaneously an outright rejection of, scientific analysis. Quite simply, it's an appeal to magic; thermite is claimed by truthers to have whatever powers are required for their theory of the moment, even though those powers are physically impossible and often self-contradictory.

Dave

 

[USEagle13]

I have been smelling rats with alot of these CT ideas. The only conspiracy I see in most of these theories are the theories themselves.

The conspiracy could actually be that there is some outside force; or some inside force with outside beliefs intentionally trying to manipulate our populace through our own free media.

Thus using our own weapon of freedom and liberty (free speech) against us.

I am glad our leaders are smarter than the general population so they don't fall privy to these ludacris ideas.

Scary thing is though is that some leaders of foreign countries are pushing these theories.

I remember seeing Chavez blabbing on one time bout crack pot theory on CNN or sumin....

 

[The Almond]

I have been smelling rats with alot of these CT ideas. The only conspiracy I see in most of these theories are the theories themselves.

The conspiracy could actually be that there is some outside force; or some inside force with outside beliefs intentionally trying to manipulate our populace through our own free media.

Thus using our own weapon of freedom and liberty (free speech) against us.

I am glad our leaders are smarter than the general population so they don't fall privy to these ludacris ideas.

Scary thing is though is that some leaders of foreign countries are pushing these theories.

I remember seeing Chavez blabbing on one time bout crack pot theory on CNN or sumin....

Chavez and Ahmadinejad have both espoused conspiracy theories, but more likely for political reasons. They're both shrewd politicians, and I would guess that both of them are fully aware that gaps and failures in US intelligence were to blame for 9/11. However, stoking anti-American sentiment has been a cornerstone of both of these men's policies, and anything that sounds vaguely plausible and leads to further hatred is politically useful.

 

[USEagle13]

Chavez and Ahmadinejad have both espoused conspiracy theories, but more likely for political reasons. They're both shrewd politicians, and I would guess that both of them are fully aware that gaps and failures in US intelligence were to blame for 9/11. However, stoking anti-American sentiment has been a cornerstone of both of these men's policies, and anything that sounds vaguely plausible and leads to further hatred is politically useful.

The reason behind letting Ahmadinejad make his visits to NY/UN to spoute off lies is beyond me. Honestly though, why don't they just detain him or something when he shows up and let it be the end of it (him). I seriously doubt the reprecussions would not be as serious as they claim.

Even though he has no credability they are giving him credability by letting the evil man speak.

We (USA) have not fought an all out war since WWII. Even though some unsavory tactics may have been used in Vietnam we still fought a limited war.

We could take out Iran or any country in one airstrike if we so wished. The only thing that stops us from doing this I think, is our countries LOVE for human life. Which makes me proud to be American.

 

[Oystein]

The reason behind letting Ahmadinejad make his visits to NY/UN to spoute off lies is beyond me. Honestly though, why don't they just detain him or something when he shows up and let it be the end of it (him). I seriously doubt the reprecussions would not be as serious as they claim.

Since Ahmadinejad isn't ultimately the strong man in Iran, you wouldn't change a thing, except creaty solidarity for Iran. Maybe you are too young to remember the kinds of repercussions countries like Iran can direct at the USA, like they did in 1979/80.

BVe glad that nbo-one arrested the war criminal G.W. Bush while he was still in office. Starting aggressifve war is an international crime recently committed by the USA, but not by Iran. On what legal grounds would you wish to arrest Ahmadinejad?

Even though he has no credability they are giving him credability by letting the evil man speak.

Freedom of speech is more American than apple pie. What signal would that be to all US citizens, and the world, if anyone would commit such a foolish atrocity as to arrest a state leader merely because he talks crazy?

We (USA) have not fought an all out war since WWII. Even though some unsavory tactics may have been used in Vietnam we still fought a limited war.

You (USA) have fought all out wars that stretched your resources to the limits. World wars aren't the only kinds of all out war. I'll give you another example shortly

We could take out Iran or any country in one airstrike if we so wished. The only thing that stops us from doing this I think, is our countries LOVE for human life. Which makes me proud to be American.

Remember the first US war against Iraq? It was a great massacre: US troops killed human life at a staggering rate of 100 deaths per hour on average. Remember the Powell doctrine? Go into battle with the fullest of force you can muster and pound through. That was an all-out war, and it was fought with little regard for human life.

 

[George 152]

Remember the first US war against Iraq? It was a great massacre: US troops killed human life at a staggering rate of 100 deaths per hour on average. Remember the Powell doctrine? Go into battle with the fullest of force you can muster and pound through. That was an all-out war, and it was fought with little regard for human life.

One of the wars started by Germany had half a million dead in one morning..
No way the Americans have ever been able to reach those numbers..

 

[USEagle13]

Since Ahmadinejad isn't ultimately the strong man in Iran, you wouldn't change a thing, except creaty solidarity for Iran. Maybe you are too young to remember the kinds of repercussions countries like Iran can direct at the USA, like they did in 1979/80.

I am too young to remember that particular event (born in 82) but my elders in the family told me of the horrors. As a matter of fact while other people waited in gas lines my family got their fuel from a lot of the local farmers whom love my family so in hard times we help each other out like that.

I do remember all the govt cheese n stuff from the Reagan years.....it came in boxes.

is not that one of the reasons we should "neutralize" the situation? Do you really want to live your whole life w/rogue "terror states" holding the "blood of the saints" over your head like some kind of god of oil?

Your idea sux because all that will happen is when "Iran" is ready they will close the "oil" tap and let nukes fly. We don't need that! Not for our children!

BVe glad that nbo-one arrested the war criminal G.W. Bush while he was still in office. Starting aggressifve war is an international crime recently committed by the USA, but not by Iran. On what legal grounds would you wish to arrest Ahmadinejad?

War criminal? You crapping me? I know he isn't no Saint but if you are against what he did then go move to Iraq and Afghanistan in the contested areas "where Anarchy and Sharia rules" then come back and tell me those people in control were Saints themselves.



Freedom of speech is more American than apple pie. What signal would that be to all US citizens, and the world, if anyone would commit such a foolish atrocity as to arrest a state leader merely because he talks crazy?

As far as I am concerned they are arresting citizens of many western countries right now as we speak because of things they say. A lot of the stuff is no where along the lines of the craziness that comes from his mouth.

And as a matter of fact I think he is one of the major reasons all this CT crap is going around. Him and Chavez are 2 of the many perps trying to win a propaganda war within our own borders. Along with the hard-line socialists.



You (USA) have fought all out wars that stretched your resources to the limits. World wars aren't the only kinds of all out war. I'll give you another example shortly



What super power hasn't? Show me a docile super power and I'll show you a fantasy land.



Remember the first US war against Iraq? It was a great massacre: US troops killed human life at a staggering rate of 100 deaths per hour on average. Remember the Powell doctrine? Go into battle with the fullest of force you can muster and pound through. That was an all-out war, and it was fought with little regard for human life.

No it was not all-out. You also did not point out why it started. Iraq had just reached a stalemate in a previous war and they were hungry still. They invaded Kuwait and caused one of the biggest environmental disasters in human existence.

Also it was not really an all out war in terms of the "big picture." Bush wanted to go straight to Baghdad but the liberals tied his hands saying, "not so fast you just said you would only "liberate" Kuwait."

So they had the manpower for all out war but used it in a limited setting because of "POLITICS."

We have not fought an all out war since WWII people. All out war is scorched earth! Carpet bomb the whole area with the best of the best etc.

Even in Vietnam they had all these "rules" of engagement and these same "rules" are getting young men and women killed everyday because the other side "EVIL" has no rules. Is it really that hard to understand?

Don't get me wrong we do need some rules but over the years we made our sandwich (yes rules and regulations make a mental picture of a sandwich in my mind because they stack on each other) so darn big that before long we will no longer be able to eat the darn thing.

Where do people get this notion that war can be "nice" and "pleasant." Honestly are that many people on drugs? Pharma or Illegal?

If MS13, Al-queda, or any other terrorist group break into your house one night and drag you out of your sleep to cut off your head are you gonna start preaching the Geneva conventions to them?

Cuz I dunno about where you live but here in the Southern US a lot of citizens are being murdered right now by these evil groups. More so than what the media is showing.

That is one reason were able to kick the British out of our country. If but for a short time. They had "rules" that we exploited. Sound familiar to whats going on today?

 

[Oystein]

We are hundreds of miles off topic. Maybe an admin could move this to politics.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I want to know the difference between nano therm*te, super therm*te, and robot term*tes.

 

[jaydeehess]

Bolds mine

7. ... The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
...
10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

So these authors did note how their experiment results are in disagreement with the thermite theory and then procede to speculate on thermitic reaction anyway whilst at the same time speculating on the properties of something that they consider significant themselves but failed entirely to analyse.



Also, in various discussion about the issue, I have again and again seen truthers make the claim that nano-technology changed the thermite in some mysterious and unknown way such that it releases more energy that is theoretically possible.

I have been argueing that IF thermite was made into an explosive for the purpose of severing large steel columns that the gas expansion would still cause the same volume of 'boom' as would an amount of RDX required to do the same severing.

The Ctists seem to want thermite because it is relatively silent compared tro explosives and once it is pointed out that instant severing and precise timing requiring actual explosives they invoke an explosive version of thermite that mysteriously retains the relative silence of incindiary thermite.
Thus, as I often point out, they are invoking magic, or entertaining a fiction, in claiming a material that was used that simply conforms to the properties they decide it would have without regard to the reality of the situation.