It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 85
16
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
We can see the molten iron on the chip.. It was unignited chip that Harrit found.


Doesn't that sound like a logical inconsistency?
Molten iron on a chip that ignites at 400C yet the chip is unignited. A more logical explanation would be that the iron was at closer to room temperature when it became adhered to the supposed nano material.


Harrit and his party of scientists claim the particles were not burned.
Only when they ignited the chip up did it discharge a white hot flame above 1500c or higher. Gas was also discharged.
You can see the white-hot flame shooting out of the chip in the calorimeter. 

They they saw the Iron Microspheres on the chip. So then they perceived a thermatic reaction had taken place.




posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Let’s see. I asked you to quote what’s size Harrit / Jones said their aluminum particles were? So they actually did not write an actual statement.

And I stated and asked:

What do you not get what was burnt by Harrit was not thermite.

The chips did not burn in an inert atmosphere. The chips had inconsistent kilojoules per gram. To quote pteridine, “ note that two of the chips, #3 and #4 have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. “

Exactly what properties of thermite did Harrit’s/ Jones chips have?


Yes they did


The rest of it already explained, but still, don't get it.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

That brings us back to the pics you posted showing what appears to be iron attached to the red chips prior to ignition.
This whole 'nanothermite' issue seems to be another of those faith things.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again. Please quote what size Harrit / Jones said the aluminum particles were. I am going with one micrometer unless you can quote a different size for the aluminum particles as stated in the paper.
edit on 2-12-2019 by neutronflux because: Added as stated in the paper.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Hulseyreport

That brings us back to the pics you posted showing what appears to be iron attached to the red chips prior to ignition.
This whole 'nanothermite' issue seems to be another of those faith things.


I post the caption with the images. It was after ignition.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again. Please quote what size Harrit / Jones said the aluminum particles were. I am going with one micrometer unless you can quote a different size for the aluminum particles as stated in the paper.


You may have bad eyes.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

And you ignored

And I stated and asked:

What do you not get what was burnt by Harrit was not thermite.

The chips did not burn in an inert atmosphere. The chips had inconsistent kilojoules per gram. To quote pteridine, “ note that two of the chips, #3 and #4 have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. “

Exactly what properties of thermite did Harrit’s/ Jones chips have?

I guess the better question would be, “ Exactly what properties exclusive to thermite did Harrit’s/ Jones chips exhibit? “

Lots of processes can make micro iron spheres. Making iron spheres is not exclusive to burning thermite.

Lots of reactions are exothermic. An exothermic reaction is not exclusive to thermite.

Only if Harrit / Jones showed the paint chips could burn in an inert atmosphere. Makes you wonder why the results of such a test that would prove beyond a doubt the paint chips could sustain a thermite reaction were never published. Strange.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Chip itself size.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I am still going with the aluminum particles were 1 micrometer in size unless you can quote otherwise from the paper. Does the paper actually state a given size for the aluminum particles?


edit on 2-12-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I am still going with the aluminum particles were 1 micrometer in size unless you can quote otherwise from the paper. Does the paper actually state a given size for the aluminum particles?



nm is a symbol for a nanometer ( read bad eyes posts!). μm is the symbol for a micrometer. Of course this beyond you. You keep repeating the same dumb questions about inert atmosphere and not thermite that Harrit burned. Denying the evidence he has released.
Processes that require tools. How come Mick had to use a butane torch and welding tools to create them? There you have your answer. They can't be made without a helping hand. 
You don't create Iron Microspheres in office fire end of the story. 


edit on 2-12-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I am stating the aluminum particles were one micrometer. This where you quote from the paper a size other than one micrometer.

So the paper doesn’t actual explicitly give a value on the particle size of the aluminum? You have to guess that yourself? That seems like the paper is written so people can infer what they want. That doesn’t seem very scientific? More like junk science?

Quote from the paper where it’s explicitly stated the aluminum particle size is something other than one micrometer?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Denying what evidence?

Again...

What do you not get what was burnt by Harrit was not thermite.

The chips did not burn in an inert atmosphere. The chips had inconsistent kilojoules per gram. To quote pteridine, “ note that two of the chips, #3 and #4 have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. “

Exactly what properties of thermite did Harrit’s/ Jones chips have?

I guess the better question would be, “ Exactly what properties exclusive to thermite did Harrit’s/ Jones chips exhibit? “

Lots of processes can make micro iron spheres. Making iron spheres is not exclusive to burning thermite.

Lots of reactions are exothermic. An exothermic reaction is not exclusive to thermite.

Only if Harrit / Jones showed the paint chips could burn in an inert atmosphere. Makes you wonder why the results of such a test that would prove beyond a doubt the paint chips could sustain a thermite reaction were never published. Strange.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

And I really want my nano aluminum particle permit. A NAPP?

I was hoping you could answer the below so I could get my NAPP. Nano aluminum particle permit.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I don’t think you’ll do well going head to head with Pilgrum. Your going to be outclassed and find your intellect wanting...

Any way.

Back to this



You need permits to buy it


You have any proof?

What government agency do I apply to for a permit to buy nano particles of aluminum? What’s the law governing the permitting process? Is there a quantity minimum? What’s the form number of the application? What is the form number of the permit? Where can I find permits on record?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Since I been looking at online sources for nano particles of aluminum, am I on the nano aluminum particle watchlist? The NAPW? Is the NAPW kept by homeland security? Or the ATF?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Since I been looking at online sources for nano particles of aluminum, am I on the nano aluminum particle watchlist? The NAPW? Is the NAPW kept by homeland security? Or the ATF?


Try to buy in bulk on the website and bet you any money they ask you what you want it for. You can't walk into a store and ask for 1000 grams of nano aluminum. They watch all these companies I know doubt about that. It's clear all these companies are making this stuff for customers. You can purchase low amounts with a license agreement, but when you look for bigger amounts, they will ask questions. In 2019 nanoparticles are more readily available. In 2001 I doubt that was the case.
edit on 2-12-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Denying what evidence?

Again...

What do you not get what was burnt by Harrit was not thermite.

The chips did not burn in an inert atmosphere. The chips had inconsistent kilojoules per gram. To quote pteridine, “ note that two of the chips, #3 and #4 have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. “

Exactly what properties of thermite did Harrit’s/ Jones chips have?

I guess the better question would be, “ Exactly what properties exclusive to thermite did Harrit’s/ Jones chips exhibit? “

Lots of processes can make micro iron spheres. Making iron spheres is not exclusive to burning thermite.

Lots of reactions are exothermic. An exothermic reaction is not exclusive to thermite.

Only if Harrit / Jones showed the paint chips could burn in an inert atmosphere. Makes you wonder why the results of such a test that would prove beyond a doubt the paint chips could sustain a thermite reaction were never published. Strange.


Why is not nanothermite?
When we can clearly see the images of chip burned and iron spheres on the chip. You denying evidence like I told you.
Inert atmpsphere is not needed. Thermite possesses its own oxygen supply. What do you think will adjust by burning in open air?> 
Inconsistent energy is meaningless since we don't fully understand the organic matrix of the chip. We just know there Carbon in the mix- that can be aggressively energtic. after ignition. 
Adding something to a thermite mix increases potential release., this well known. 
Yes but all the processes involve heating of Iron and Steel. There was no fire in range hot enough to melt steel and Iron. It fantasy that debunkers think fires got that intense. 
The fact they found evidence of Iron Microspheres in the dust ( R.J Lee) you have more evidence Harrit is not delivering fake info.  There no real explanation of what caused this other than a reaction of thermite. Fires were not hot enough, scrapping of steel would not cause it. 



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

The fact they found evidence of Iron Microspheres in the dust ( R.J Lee)  


They also found a large amount Mineral Wool in the dust. That came from the fireproofing, so did the iron spheres. The iron spheres were made back in the seventies and were trapped inside the fireproofing just like the mineral wool. The iron spheres and the mineral wool were released when the building collapsed.

That is a rational explanation. Your nanopaintchip theory is not.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

Inert atmpsphere is not needed. Thermite possesses its own oxygen supply. What do you think will adjust by burning in open air?> 


If it doesn't burn in an inert atmosphere then it's not thermite by your own reasoning.
External oxygen also gives a false calorimeter reading.

It's almost as if the analysis is deliberately misleading to fit a pre-conceived agenda?



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


Try to buy in bulk on the website and bet you any money they ask you what you want it for.


So you don’t know. So your making up stuff again? Or the provider is wanting to ensure they provide a product that fits the buyer’s needs. Which has nothing to do with asking for proof of a permit.

You


You can't walk into a store and ask for 1000 grams of nano aluminum

Probably due to low average consumer demand.
I haven’t been to a store that sales normal aluminum powder, iron powder, aluminum oxide, alumina....
Why would a grocery store carry powdered aluminum. Why would a paint shop carry powder aluminum when it’s cheaper to buy already made paint.

You


They watch all these companies I know doubt about that.

So, you cannot cite any source this is the case. This website and your emails are probably in a government data base somewhere.

You


It's clear all these companies are making this stuff for customers

It’s more economic to make it for bulk sale to companies that make products in bulk. Like batches of industrial coatings that are in return cheaper to make in bulk.

You


You can purchase low amounts with a license agreement, but when you look for bigger amounts, they will ask questions.

What does that have to do with your unproven claims needing a government permit. A “ license agreement” is simply an agreement in good faith you will have access to a company’s technology and you will not release trade secrets. That is a huge difference from needing a government permit. Example. I have access to drawings that I can only share with my on company and the company that owns the technology. I cannot for example share the drawings with a delivery guy. That is dictated by a license argument.

I asked, and you have not answered

What government agency do I apply to for a permit to buy nano particles of aluminum? What’s the law governing the permitting process? Is there a quantity minimum? What’s the form number of the application? What is the form number of the permit? Where can I find permits on record?


Seems the only thing you are proving is your willingness to post whatever to make a point even if you have to turn a blind eye that you cannot provide proof / facts / evidence to show your point is credible.
edit on 3-12-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Not sure about other countries but here in Oz finely powdered Al is classed as a hazardous substance due to its pyrophoric nature. When I say powdered I mean fine enough particles to float in air which creates an extreme risk of dust explosions due to a simple static spark or wetting it can lead to a release of hydrogen so special handling is required for safety. Kids used to love the stuff for making flash powder. Zinc dust is also classed as hazardous for similar reasons.

Much of the legitimate use of those materials is in the paint industry.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join