Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your not coming to terms with reality, and you are not directly answering questions because it will burst your delusions.

Is it false “super” thermite is nothing more than regular thermite with nano particles. Answer true or false.

All the smaller particles do is allow more surface area to create a faster reaction. Is that false.

It’s doesn’t mater what the particle size the Fe2O3 + 2 Al comes in. One gram of Fe2O3 + 2 Al will always have “ 3.98 KJ is standard energy for one gram”. Is that false.


So, can you cite from the Harrit / Jones paper the thermite invoked was something other than “ Fe2O3 + 2 Al “?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

If Paint chip can do that- i need and love to see the experiment!!!!

This has been repeatedly posted for you

www.metabunk.org/making-iron-microspheres-grinding-impacts-welding-burning.t9533/

www.metabunk.org...

Iron rich microspheres can be made in various ways. In this thread I investigate some of them, and try to make some microspheres of my own.

Burning Methods (external ignition)

Burning Paint Chips #1. www.metabunk.org...

www.911facts.dk...

Thomas has even demonstrated, in a different experiment, that iron-rich microspheres also form when burning steel beams covered with anti-rust paint at temperatures well below the melting point of iron5.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Steel was melted to some degree or another for the better part of 90 days. In the first several weeks it was boiling sufficiently to have iron microparticles released into the air to be recovered by an air sampling machine nearby.

Yes, iron was boiling and there were hot spots visible from space. That's because nuclear events had transpired that day. They didn't call it ground zero for nothing.

That be more in line with vaporization. 
I think the steel just melted- 
I don't believe the temps got that intense personally. I have not seen evidence of steel boiling.

If you have not seen evidence of steel boiling, then you have not been looking or paying attention. It's old news indeed.

Have you considered the energy required to make iron molten? The energy required to keep it molten for 90 days?

You may not believe the temps were that high, but they were.

The DELTA Group placed air sampling machine close to the area for 10 days or so. Mr. Cahill of DELTA described the samples collected as essentially the same as one would collect out of an industrial smokestack. Iron microspheres were recovered. Extremely high temps are required to get iron to boil, but that's what happened.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Do you know what temperature steel boils at, and there was no source to cause such heat. Your post is total BS.

You are simply in denial. I think it's over 2000 degrees, but you could find the answer to it online or in text books.

Steel was hot enough to boil, but you are unable to face that fact, for whatever reason. Even the local mainstream media had stories about it. Pyrocool was applied, and it had never failed to work before, but then it had never been applied to boiling iron caused by nuclear events.

a reply to: Salander

As usually, noting for you to actually quote, cite, or link too. Like to quote the NASA data, and cite what temperature thermite burns?

If steel was boiling, WTC pile workers would had painful skin and respiratory burns. With condensing steel present.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Another blast from the ATS past...

An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

By pteridine

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Based on this figure, we may approximate the following theoretical and measured energies:

Not measured in this experiment:
HMX = 5.5 kJ/g
TNT = 4.5 kJ/g
TATB = 4.1kJ/g
Thermite = 3.9 kJ/g
Measured in this experiment:
Chip #1 = 1.5 kJ/g
Chip #2 = 2.5 kJ/g
Chip #3 = 7.5 kJ/g
Chip #4 = 5.9 kJ/g

The first thing we notice is the wide disparity of values for the “highly engineered” material. This should raise doubts as to sample collection and preparation and even if the materials are the same thing. By other analyses, they appear similar.
Now we note that two of the chips, #3 and #4 have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. They also have more energy than any of the high explosives or any combination of thermite and any high explosive as a composite. Arithmetically, if we have a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX we should have an energy of about 4.7 kJ/g -- below that of chips #3 and #4. How can this be?
To explain this, we must understand what is being measured and how. The explosives and thermite have, internal to them, their own oxidants. We include their oxygen in the weight we measured. If we measure heat from a burning hydrocarbon, for example, we DON’T include the weight of the oxygen in the air we use to burn it. Candle wax burning in air has about 10 times the energy/gram of thermite using this convention. What does this mean? It means that some, if not all, of the energy from the red chips is due to burning of the carbonaceous paint matrix in air.
Jones is vague about this problem and says on p27. “We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.” What might that energetic material be? Jones has no clue. His team lacks the chemical knowledge to postulate a reasonable composition. It has no nitrogen, so it is not one of the explosives shown. It is energetic when burning in air. So is candle wax. Volatilized, it will produce gas but it does not seem to be otherwise energetic. How can this problem be resolved? What experiment must be done to show the possibility of thermite or some composite?
As I have stated above, thermite and explosives have their own oxidants built in. burning hydrocarbons do not. How can Jones discriminate between explosives, thermite and plain old burning paint?
He can re-run the DSC under an argon atmosphere. What a simple and elegant solution. Under argon, all the energy coming out will be from the thermite and its energetic additives. If there is no energy coming out, there is no thermite and all those contortions and obfuscations are for naught. Why wouldn’t Jones do this obvious experiment? Maybe he did and didn’t like the results.

originally posted by: jprophet420

He can re-run the DSC under an argon atmosphere. What a simple and elegant solution.

originally posted by: [post=10055247]jprophet420[/post

What an elegant idea for *anybody* who is interested in the truth.

Maybe debunkers ran the experiment as you suggested and they just didn't like the results *they* got.

.

The issues being debated, like temperatures reached in the debris, or prior to collapse, or whether or not chips of thermite, or super/nano-thermite were found in the debris, and tests proved it was thermite....

All these issues are worth discussion, and debate, that's great to see..I've debated many such issues, as well.


But in the end, they avoid the main issue, the real problem with their official story....

The problem is that a structure, no matter what type of structure, no matter what materials the structure is made of, no matter how large, how tall, how heavy, or how 'unique', they are all worthless excuses.


You've suggested a specific process, or a series of events, where the upper section of a structure, which was supported by the lower structure, which remained completely intact, loses all support at once, or nearly so, which would only happen in cartoons, where 'cartoon physics' are goofy, and funny....

In actual physics, no structures can fall like a house of cards, and never will. It is a pure fantasy.



How could you ever build a structure, which supports itself entirely intact, and then, separate the top third of the structure from the lower two-thirds of it, and magically have the upper third section plummet right down, all the way through the entire lower section?

That is what you are really suggesting here, is it not?

A structure that collapses when a top section is dropped on the lower section, is what you're claimed, and that's simply ridiculous, and you know it is.

Don't fear reality.

originally posted by: turbonium1



In actual physics, no structures can fall like a house of cards, and never will. It is a pure fantasy.

Yes it can. This is the reason why.



Some people are smart enough to understand this, some are not.


ETA In actual Physics a house of cards can fall like a house of cards. You proved yourself wrong with your own example.

a reply to: waypastvne

About that picture you posted and to people not smart enough...
What am i looking at here? Is it actually from one of the towers?
Can you expand a smidge?

a reply to: democracydemo


That is a Truss Seat.



They are located here.



This is the weak point that allowed the collapse to progress all the way to the ground. Like every thing else in the world they have a failure point, for the truss seat it's ultimate strength is 94,000 pounds, anything above that and it fails.

After the collapse started, one floor would fall on to the next and shear the truss seats,



off of the columns, all the way to the ground.



The physical evidence that this is the weak point is there for everyone to see. Just look at the columns in the photos from ground zero to see the truss seats missing, bent downward, holes ripped out, and/or bolts sheared to know this is the failure point.

a reply to: waypastvne

Things like that should have seen the investigation pay a lot more attention to the quality of welding done during construction but it seems to have been generally ignored for some reason. The core column welds also appear inadequate going by aftermath pictures showing how the joints snapped with no deformation of the column sections.

Maybe that's the price of financial pressure to build quickly.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Nope. Not to the truth movement. It has to be government planted pyrotechnics

It cannot be a building built on the cheap, fast as possible, with maybe mob influence, which utilized little as possible load bearing concrete members. With the planing of the twin towers started under 1938 building codes? With the port authority having the ability to decide what it would follow from a draft of the updated 1968 codes that had very little knowledge to draw upon for mostly steel buildings with a height of 110 floors.

And NIST would never gloss over details to protect the port authority, rich construction contractors, or may lead to costly lawsuits?

9/11 did result in improved building code.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your not coming to terms with reality, and you are not directly answering questions because it will burst your delusions.

Is it false “super” thermite is nothing more than regular thermite with nano particles. Answer true or false.

All the smaller particles do is allow more surface area to create a faster reaction. Is that false.

It’s doesn’t mater what the particle size the Fe2O3 + 2 Al comes in. One gram of Fe2O3 + 2 Al will always have “ 3.98 KJ is standard energy for one gram”. Is that false.


So, can you cite from the Harrit / Jones paper the thermite invoked was something other than “ Fe2O3 + 2 Al “?

You can't purchase Nano-sized AI in a hardware store.  You need permits to buy it. It is not an ordinary thermite.
I have never heard of anybody getting thermite to flare up at 430c heat. That rules out red/gray chip -   just thermite.
While the red/gray chip has the same chemicals to make thermite- it behaves differently to standard thermite. 
You can't measure Nano-sized thermite to standard power thermite powders.
Thermite- is measured in gram proportions based on powder quantities of weight.. 
The scale of the AI in red/gray chip is just nano-sized ( it was not weighted) 
Particle size does matter.  You comparing thermite to nanothermite that stupid. 
Faster reaction- standard thermite requires lot of heat.  Nanothermite ( does not)
Demonstrating the kilojoules is questionable for nanothermite, as there not enough produced work about it. Plus the red/gray chips contain materials that expected to strengthen the intensity of energy discharged. 

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

If Paint chip can do that- i need and love to see the experiment!!!!

This has been repeatedly posted for you

www.metabunk.org/making-iron-microspheres-grinding-impacts-welding-burning.t9533/

www.metabunk.org...

Iron rich microspheres can be made in various ways. In this thread I investigate some of them, and try to make some microspheres of my own.

Burning Methods (external ignition)

Burning Paint Chips #1. www.metabunk.org...

www.911facts.dk...

Thomas has even demonstrated, in a different experiment, that iron-rich microspheres also form when burning steel beams covered with anti-rust paint at temperatures well below the melting point of iron5.

Again I know you don't get it. This obviously not paint that Mick heating up it looks like coated steel.


I have yet to find an experiment on his site that shows after heating paint- Iron molten spheres are produced.

Burning steel at what temp?/ Provide the video?
"Thomas has even demonstrated, in a different experiment, that iron-rich microspheres also form when burning steel beams covered with anti-rust paint at temperatures well below the melting point of iron5.

I located some of Milette's research photographs and his looking at different chips.

Even I can see these are paint chips. He also got his samples from different areas. He lists the locations.





Harrit chips.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

You can't purchase Nano-sized AI in a hardware store.  

You can get it on Amazon.

www.amazon.com...=pd_sim_201_3/156-4421252-7447423?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01MU8O8Y 0&pd_rd_r=7ab626de-2428-473f-9e30-4242e28eb9be&pd_rd_w=K3ws4&pd_rd_wg=yvVCc&pf_rd_p=04d27813-a1f2-4e7b-a32b-b5ab374ce3f9&pf_rd_r=7SDCMMVN95EE5BMVFH9B& psc=1&refRID=7SDCMMVN95EE5BMVFH9B

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You can't purchase Nano-sized AI in a hardware store. You need permits to buy it

Cite what law dictates that.

www.ssnano.com...

Aluminum Nanoparticles/ Nanopowder (Al, 99.9% 40-60 nm)

Product #: 0220XH
Aluminum Nanoparticles/ Nanopowder (Al, 99.9%, 40-60 nm)

$121/25g
$338/100g

Please contact us for quotes on larger quantities.


Product Properties
Aluminum Nanopowder/ Nanoparticles (Al, 99.9%, 40~60nm)
Al Nanopowder Purity: 99.9% trace metals basis
Al Nanopowder Appearance: Black nanopowder
Al Nanopowder APS: 40-60 nm
Al Nanopowder SSA: 20-48 m2/g
Al Nanopowder Morphology: spherical
Al Nanopowder Bulk density: 0.08-0.2 g/cm3
Al Nanopowder True density: 2.7 g/cm3
0220XH Aluminum Nanoparticles/ Nanopowder Specification for Download

220XH Aluminum Nanoparticles/ Nanopowder MSDS for Download
Aluminum （Al) Nanopowder General Descriptions
Aluminum nanopowder has seen a flurry of research interest in recent years, as potential applications across a host of fields become apparent. Appearing as spherical grey or black particles individually and a grey or black powder in aggregate, aluminum nanopowder particles typically ranging in size from 10nm to 5um.You can obtain aluminum nanopowders in a variety of specifications at SSNano, meeting your needs for various sizes, shapes, and purities. With so many potential applications already found and more under research, aluminum or another nanopowder may be the solution for the issues plaguing your project.

Aluminum （Al) Nanopowder Applications
Combustive catalyst: When combined with other substances, aluminum powder serves as an excellent catalyst for combustion, greatly improving the speed, heat, and stability of combustion in rocket fuel and other fuels. Burn rates can be increased by as much as 20 times with the application of the right nanopowder.
Drug delivery:As with many nanoparticles, aluminum nanopowder plays a role in a variety of new drug delivery systems, including dry aerosol and transdermal delivery.
Wear and corrosion resistance:Aluminum powders can be added to a number of coatings or included in compounds to increase resistence to general wear and corrosion. In particular, it can be used to produce transparent wear-resistant coatings.
Chemical applications:Aluminum nanopowder is widely used for its chemical properties to produce controlled reaction rates for manufacturing aluminum-based chemicals, alcohols, and other substances. Metallic pigments:Aluminum powder can be added to any number of coatings, paints, textiles, inks, plastics, and other materials to add a silver metallic sheen, making it a popular aesthetic addition in automotives, electronics, and other industries Deodorants and antiperspirants are one key product group utilizing this application..
3D printing:Building upon the base usage of aluminum in metalworking to produce useful alloys, some industrial 3D printing solutions can utilize aluminum nanopowders to fabricate alloy components directly.

Incase you missed usesof nano aluminum powder....
“
Metallic pigments:Aluminum powder can be added to any number of coatings, paints, textiles, inks, plastics, and other materials to add a silver metallic sheen, making it a popular aesthetic addition in automotives, electronics, and other industries
”
www.ssnano.com...

Did you read?

An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your changing the subject...

Again


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Another blast from the ATS past...

An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

By pteridine

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Based on this figure, we may approximate the following theoretical and measured energies:

Not measured in this experiment:
HMX = 5.5 kJ/g
TNT = 4.5 kJ/g
TATB = 4.1kJ/g
Thermite = 3.9 kJ/g
Measured in this experiment:
Chip #1 = 1.5 kJ/g
Chip #2 = 2.5 kJ/g
Chip #3 = 7.5 kJ/g
Chip #4 = 5.9 kJ/g

The first thing we notice is the wide disparity of values for the “highly engineered” material. This should raise doubts as to sample collection and preparation and even if the materials are the same thing. By other analyses, they appear similar.
Now we note that two of the chips, #3 and #4 have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. They also have more energy than any of the high explosives or any combination of thermite and any high explosive as a composite. Arithmetically, if we have a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX we should have an energy of about 4.7 kJ/g -- below that of chips #3 and #4. How can this be?
To explain this, we must understand what is being measured and how. The explosives and thermite have, internal to them, their own oxidants. We include their oxygen in the weight we measured. If we measure heat from a burning hydrocarbon, for example, we DON’T include the weight of the oxygen in the air we use to burn it. Candle wax burning in air has about 10 times the energy/gram of thermite using this convention. What does this mean? It means that some, if not all, of the energy from the red chips is due to burning of the carbonaceous paint matrix in air.
Jones is vague about this problem and says on p27. “We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.” What might that energetic material be? Jones has no clue. His team lacks the chemical knowledge to postulate a reasonable composition. It has no nitrogen, so it is not one of the explosives shown. It is energetic when burning in air. So is candle wax. Volatilized, it will produce gas but it does not seem to be otherwise energetic. How can this problem be resolved? What experiment must be done to show the possibility of thermite or some composite?
As I have stated above, thermite and explosives have their own oxidants built in. burning hydrocarbons do not. How can Jones discriminate between explosives, thermite and plain old burning paint?
He can re-run the DSC under an argon atmosphere. What a simple and elegant solution. Under argon, all the energy coming out will be from the thermite and its energetic additives. If there is no energy coming out, there is no thermite and all those contortions and obfuscations are for naught. Why wouldn’t Jones do this obvious experiment? Maybe he did and didn’t like the results.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

You can't purchase Nano-sized AI in a hardware store.  

You can get it on Amazon.

www.amazon.com...=pd_sim_201_3/156-4421252-7447423?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01MU8O8Y 0&pd_rd_r=7ab626de-2428-473f-9e30-4242e28eb9be&pd_rd_w=K3ws4&pd_rd_wg=yvVCc&pf_rd_p=04d27813-a1f2-4e7b-a32b-b5ab374ce3f9&pf_rd_r=7SDCMMVN95EE5BMVFH9B& psc=1&refRID=7SDCMMVN95EE5BMVFH9B

Any normal person would apologize for posting a blatant falsehood, or fade away out of shame. But not HulseyReport.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

You can't purchase Nano-sized AI in a hardware store.  

You can get it on Amazon.

www.amazon.com...=pd_sim_201_3/156-4421252-7447423?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01MU8O8Y 0&pd_rd_r=7ab626de-2428-473f-9e30-4242e28eb9be&pd_rd_w=K3ws4&pd_rd_wg=yvVCc&pf_rd_p=04d27813-a1f2-4e7b-a32b-b5ab374ce3f9&pf_rd_r=7SDCMMVN95EE5BMVFH9B& psc=1&refRID=7SDCMMVN95EE5BMVFH9B

What a Micron? When you figure that out, come back to me.

You present me with a site that sells nanomaterials to businesses. Are you that bewildered that you post a website that supports what i said! You can't acquire it in a hardware shop. It specfically engineered for businesses to acquire for specalised needs and there likely going to be checks by the party selling it.  
The fact the nano- AI was found embedded in the chip is confirmation that was deposited in the chip by team of experts.  Plus it likely was more complex to purchase Nano AI before 2001, when the internet was merely just getting off the ground.

This was explained by me previously. Harrit unsure what the carbon matrix around the AI for. He guessed it there to strengthen the energy release after ignition. If you don't absolutely understand the layout of the red/layer chip is very hard to form a true conclusion what  causing the jumps in the energy output.  From the video  posted you can see a gas is discharged when the white flame appears after burning. A gas discharge can be energtic and give you different readings. If the chips were just  ordinary Iron oxide and AI poweder then you suppose the output of energy to be around the same rate.  With it being a Nano AI+ Nano Si Iron Oxide with Carbon mixture- I suppose the energy release to vary based on mass. 

Air test, is irrelevent because thermite has its own oxygen transfer. We already can determine its nanothermite when it produces Iron Microspheres as an aftereffect. There no paint pigment when heated creates Iron molten spheres. Do you understand that they would not paint steel with a pigment that has the ingredients of thermite?