wollclark
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 412
I was debating someone. I'm kind of, sort of a former 9/11 truther. A lot of the debunks made sense but then this guy claim the lack of barium nitrate and aluminum oxide does not disprove the idea of thermite. Debunk this guys debunking (if you can).
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
Therm*te has none of the properties truthers claim it does. It is not an explosive. It is not a rocket fuel. It does not stay "Molten" for weeks at a time. It is difficult to ignite on its own. Pound for pound, plain old printer paper has more energy available when it burns.
It is an incendiary that anyone can legally purchase online with nothing more than a valid credit card and can be shipped via the USPS. Two things that you will never see happen with anything remotely close to an explosive such as basic black gunpowder. There is nothing magical about it and adding a "Nano" in front of it does nothing to change these very basic facts.
It is an incendiary that anyone can legally purchase online with nothing more than a valid credit card and can be shipped via the USPS. Two things that you will never see happen with anything remotely close to an explosive such as basic black gunpowder. There is nothing magical about it and adding a "Nano" in front of it does nothing to change these very basic facts.
ozeco41
Philosopher
There are two broad paths which thermXte debate can take:
1) the first is arguing over whether it or its residues were in the Ground Zero dust.
Bottom line on that one is that there was none in said dust. The idea that thermXte was in the dust was raised by one of the earlier heroes of the truth movement. Steven E Jones. He used it as a "marketing ploy" when his image was flagging - temporarily brought himself back into notice of the 9/11 Internet discussion crowd. Published a paper in conjunction with other including Neils Harrit - who also was suffering from ego problems and lack of recognition. Sunstealer's posts probably the best debunking on this forum. Someone will provide links - I have no bookmarks readily available.)
2) The second path is via the fact that thermXte was not nor could not be used in demolition. All the usual facts apply here:
a) There was no demolition therefore thermXte could not have been used in demolition. (Take care - "they" will try to reverse the logic on you with that.)
b) No one has ever given a coherent explanation of how thermXte could be used in demolition. (Really a subset of the broader fact - no one has ever given a coherent explanation of how any demolition could have taken place.),
c) All the "micro detail" stuff (i) No bright light from thermXte (ii) no discovered cuts of steel characteristic of thermXte (iii) several dozen more.
That should point you in an appropriate direction.
He is arguing down the track of "there was thermXte".
So call his bluff "Who cares? It wouldn't matter if there was a 100 tonne stockpile of super duper thermXte at ground zero. It wasn't used so why waste time arguing whether or not residues or samples were found?"
Needless to say he will resist any attempt you make to argue logically --- you're on your own to counter that one.
Cheers
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
ozeco41
Philosopher
Thanks.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Those who argue about thermite nano or otherwise simply mistake different debris having individual ingredients of the compound in. Add up all the ingredients and you get thermite right?
Wrong.
The ingredients for thermite are also used in other suff. Like surface prep paint. Mix them differently, andmore importantly bond them to other non-thernitey stuff, and they will never ever ever be of use as thermite.
Wrong.
The ingredients for thermite are also used in other suff. Like surface prep paint. Mix them differently, andmore importantly bond them to other non-thernitey stuff, and they will never ever ever be of use as thermite.
ozeco41
Philosopher
The claims were originally about "thermite" then they became "thermate".
I got tired of writing "either thermite or thermate or any other variant" So it's been "thermXte" for me for the last couple of years.
I expect those who prefer "therm?te" have similar reasons.
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
Therm*te = thermite or thermate. Truthers can never really nail it down as to which one they are talking about (not that they have a clue about it anyway, they simply regurgitate bad information that they got from other truthers).
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
First of all, let me say that those who think that there woulld be no residue of aluminum oxide or barium sulfate have no freaking clue what they are talking about.
Further, it is impossible to use thermite without leaving a visible mark on the structures cut with it. Not one of the hundreds of fire fighters, cops or iron workers who were on the pile saw any such marks on a single piece of steel. NOT ONE.
Of course, the minute you raise that argument, somebody will schlep out the famous photgraph of a fire fighter standing in front of a cloumn that was cut on a slant with iron slag dripping down the side.
It was cut with a sort of torch called a "thermal lance." There is vidseo on YouTube of iron workers using such a device. There may still be viable links in some threads here where that was discussed. The column was cut during recovery operations.
Hope that is helpful.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Lack of barium nitrate is indeed no problem for any thermite theory.
Lack of aluminum oxide would be a major problem, but aluminum oxide is a pretty ubiquous material in the mineral portion of any building debris, so this problem would not arise.
Here is why lack of aluminum oxide would be a problem:
Thermite is any mix of a metal oxide (MmOn) with elemental aluminium. The metal oxide could be an oxide of iron (the most usual case), or copper, or molybdaneum, or conceivably a number of other metals, but the elemental reaction partner of that oxide is (for all practical purposes) always aluminium.
During the thermite reaction, the metal oxide gets reduced, and the aluminium oxidized:
aMmOn + bAl -> (a*m)M + (b/2)Al2O3
So whenever someone claims that a thermite reaction has taken place, you can predict the presence of Al2O3 - aluminium oxide - in suitable amounts. If it's not there, then there wasn't a thermite reaction.
Of course your debate partner has reversed the burden of proof: You don't have to disprove thermite, rather he has to prove positively it was there.
Last edited:
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Firstly you are arguing with a truther and he is bound to be wrong somewhere. Lets see.
Yep he thinks that Aluminium oxide is used in thermite. Lets look at the classical thermite reaction
2Fe2O3 + 2Al --> 2Fe + Al2O3
Ooops - Aluminium oxide is a product of the reaction, NOT a reactant, so Al2O3 (Aluminium oxide) is NOT used in thermite.
So you now know that this truther, like most other truthers, knows nothing about thermite or chemistry. I'd just give up now, he'll be impossible to educate.....or
Play with him and ask him to write the classic thermite chemical equation. He won't be able to. Then supply the equation and ask him which strange scribles are the ingredients for thermite. He'll probably go into convulsions. Point that out to him and then ask him where Al2O3 comes in.
However, a themite reaction, is simply one where a reaction occurs between a metal oxide and a more reactive metal. See reactivity series of metals (which is taught around the age of 13 in the UK) -
http://www.tutorvista.com/content/science/science-ii/metals-non-metals/reconcept-series-metals.php
http://sbhschemistry.wikispaces.com/2.7+Redox+Chemistry
The addition of Barium Nitrite and Sulphur to thermite reduces the ignition temperature required to get the reaction started and secondly aids in producing flames because thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive. When these additions are used then the thermite becomes thermate and you'll often see debunkers write therm*te to cover both because truthers will switch between the two without understanding the subtle difference.
So yes he managed to read part of wiki correctly. Thermite by definition doesn't contain Barium Nitrate or Sulphur.
If a truther believes the thermite nonsense they are invariably talking about the classical thermite reaction and not one using other metals and oxides.
http://amazingrust.com/experiments/how_to/thermite.html
Truthers believe that thermite can be multiple things all at once - they often wrongly refer to it as an explosive. They'll put the word "nano" infront without understanding what nano means in the context of thermite. Nano to truthers means super-duper can do anything in the world because they think nano-tech(nology) is some sort of magic. If they put the word super in front of that to make "super nano-thermite" then your screwed. Super nano-thermite is the worlds most fantastic material according to truthers and can be an explosive, an incendiary, a rocket propellant, it will make "teh molten steelz!!!111!!" even if there are only tiny chips a maximum of 3mm across and 40 microns thick scattered randomly in the WTC dust, needing only 20µm (microns) thickness [human hair thickness is 100µm] to melt an inch thick beam, will burn for 100 days (even though the youtube vid they just posted proves otherwise) etc, etc, ad youtubium.
There are plenty of threads on JREF about the thermite nonsense.
Last edited:
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,474
The claims were originally about "thermite" then they became "thermate".
I got tired of writing "either thermite or thermate or any other variant" So it's been "thermXte" for me for the last couple of years.
I expect those who prefer "therm?te" have similar reasons.
Thanks, I often wonder why that was. I figured it was one of two things:
1.) Thermite became a sort of taboo word amongst more rational people on the boards.
2.) You use Therm*te, Therm!te, Therm?te, ThermXte, etc in hopes that it'll make truthers realize just how stupid it sounds.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
And President Bush thus spake'd...
"The mighty Lords of Ther Mite, bestoy upon me your wisdom..."
And there it was that the Lords of Ther Mite did upon that day verily imparted unto President Bush the knowledge of the Nano. An ancient magic no mere mortal would ever truly understand, but would President Bush use this magic for good, or evil? In the dead of nights, the enchantments began and soon all that were present where in awe... Nano Thermite was born into this world...
"The mighty Lords of Ther Mite, bestoy upon me your wisdom..."
And there it was that the Lords of Ther Mite did upon that day verily imparted unto President Bush the knowledge of the Nano. An ancient magic no mere mortal would ever truly understand, but would President Bush use this magic for good, or evil? In the dead of nights, the enchantments began and soon all that were present where in awe... Nano Thermite was born into this world...
Last edited:
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
How much paper do you think it would it take to weld railway tracks like they do with thermite Sam ?
Last edited: