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.

 

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

page: 22
35
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by starchildtesla
 


"3. Did you read that on jref forum or can you back it up by a source or experiment"

....in case you hadn't noticed, my replies to you should tip you off that I am an experienced chemist and Jones team has a dearth of anyone who understands chemistry, which is why I take exception to the paper and its many errors. Jones gives science a bad name. I do post on the JREF forum but the material is my own.

I am not like many who repeat without understanding.

I do not search the web for confirmation of my conclusions that are based on my expertise. I will answer your paint solvent question once again since you seem to have trouble with the concept. I will not provide you any references other than "pteridine." If you are clever, you can search on the web and discover what I say is true.
MEK is a solvent used in paint. It will not necessarily dissolve cured paint. If you think about water based emulsions, water can dilute the raw paint. After the paint is cured, you can wash it with water without dissolving it.
The polymeric matrix that the MEK barely touched is probably a cured coating. I think it's paint but others think it's super thermite. While there is a lack of logic for thermite being painted on in a thin coat, Jones could have shown what it was if he hadn't botched the DSC, the solvent selection, the use of conductivity [really inconclusive] to show paint/no paint, and the faulty conclusions based on all his faulty analytical work. I find it annoying that Jones is snookering the faithful, trading on his reputation as a professor with the non-technical folks who don't know many professors. I would have accepted the results of good science but this is bad science that borders on incompetence or fraud.




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


it is not a necessarily a thin coat. it could be many layers thick.
according to some calculations floating around the web, a 37 layer thick coating would be adequate to cut columns.

now, if it IS nanothermite, then a 37 layer thick foil would blow the heck out of itself, as well as the building, and there would be no evidence of the fact that the chips were in layered foil. however, some tiny chips remain unreacted, due to some factor in the chaotic event.

what is nanofoil?


NanoFoil® Material
RNT’s patented NanoFoil® is a new class of nano-engineered material, fabricated by vapor-depositing thousands of alternating nanoscale layers of aluminum (Al) and nickel (Ni). When activated by a small pulse of local energy from electrical, optical or thermal sources, the foil reacts to precisely deliver localized heat up to temperatures of 1500°C in fractions (thousandths) of a second.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


The foils are alternating layers of metal and have no organic matrix. The red chips had an organic matrix. If there were many layers, there would be some evidence of multiple layers, such as a few bits of the gray layer sandwiching the red. It appears that there is only one layer.

The foil is a new development but I don't see evidence of it in any 911 related event.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


but then , you will naysay anything that points to MIHOP.

what you're saying about the layers being overlapped is not true.
if the foil was manufactured as a single sheet, and then cut into like sizes and layered in sheets which were only attached at the edges, then when it all blew up, the remaining chips WOULD consist of a single red and a single gray layer.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by billybob]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Foil implies no organic binder. This was not a foil, it was a polymeric coating containing iron oxides, an aluminosilicate, and other ingredients. Had Jones not botched the analysis, you would have found out what it contained. He did and you now have no way of knowing.
Bad science = bad results



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by billybob
 


Foil implies no organic binder. This was not a foil, it was a polymeric coating containing iron oxides, an aluminosilicate, and other ingredients. Had Jones not botched the analysis, you would have found out what it contained. He did and you now have no way of knowing.
Bad science = bad results


If you are so smart, then why don't you run the sample testing? Oh I forgot, you only support the guilt of the alleged 19 hijackers, and will not lift one finger to prove differently; to hell with the truth. Correct?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
perhaps 'foil' is not the most accurate word to describe sheets of nanothermite, then.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by billybob]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Why do I not analyze the chips?
1. I do not have any samples
2. The premise is too far fetched to expend unbudgeted manpower and instrument time.

Why don't all the somegroups-for-911truth get together, collect some money, and have competent testing laboratories look at the samples? Actually, Jones could rerun the chips in a DSC over argon. He could use a better solvent to extract them. He could run an IR of the matrix. He could do all the things he should have done to begin with but didn't.
Of course, with proper analysis, you run the risk of it turning out to be paint and disappointing all concerned.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


'Paint' or 'coating' would be a better way of describing the chips because of the organic binder, filler, and pigment.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
pigment? what pigment? the iron oxide?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
pteridine can talk crap about the tested material all day, and the fact of a eutectic reaction eating through WTC steel is still going to be in appendix C of FEMA's report, just waiting for someone to figure out what exactly that stuff was on the surface of the column, how it got there, and why it was so able to eat holes through the steel.

For pteridine we just have to wait, until enough authorities realize what this stuff is, so that he may feel comfortable changing his opinion to fit everyone else's.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
pteridine can talk crap about the tested material all day, and the fact of a eutectic reaction eating through WTC steel is still going to be in appendix C of FEMA's report, just waiting for someone to figure out what exactly that stuff was on the surface of the column, how it got there, and why it was so able to eat holes through the steel.

For pteridine we just have to wait, until enough authorities realize what this stuff is, so that he may feel comfortable changing his opinion to fit everyone else's.

BS,
In case your attention is wandering again, this thread is about thermitic material that Jones claims to have found. Perhaps you are busy studying for finals.
As to the purported thermitic material in Jones paper, my technical comments are valid. You assume I am "talking crap" because you don't understand the chemistry in spite of taking "chemistry for poets and electronics majors." When the 911"truth" websites change their opinions, I expect you will follow suit. Don't pass up your chance to get ahead of the curve and reject Jones faulty paper now. There is always room for you and others who tire of bad science.
In response to your comment, the sulfur-iron eutectic is one of the explanations for the eroded beam but you seem to assume it is the only explanation.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
the simple fact is the mek seperated aluminium and silicon ,something which is impossible to do with kaolin.

Kaolin cannot form molten iron spheres at 450c
Kaolin cannot produce the same wattage as nanothermite.Being energy released per second, kaolin is not explosive at all



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
You really do sound like a chemist, not knowing the difference in energy release between butter and explosives.

What paint do you know with nanosized consituents?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by starchildtesla
You really do sound like a chemist, not knowing the difference in energy release between butter and explosives.


I know that you don't understand anything technical and just repeat what you've read on the truther sites, so I'll explain again. The total energy release per gram is always higher for combustibles that don't include the oxidizer.
The way this works is that we weigh everything and then look at the energy output per unit weight as we vary temperature.
When we have things like thermite, the oxidizer is iron oxide which is what you might call "heavy." When we weigh thermite, the iron oxide is included in the weight so we have more weight per unit energy out. When we burn a hydrocarbon in air, we aren't weighing the air, just the hydrocarbon. This is why the energy per gram is higher when burn a hydrocarbon where we don't weigh the air we are using to combust it.
Explosives release energy all at once which is why we call them explosives. Fuels burn slower and release more energy per gram than explosives but not all at once which is why we call them fuels. The comparison is energy release per unit time.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Yes. Finely divided iron oxide is a common pigment.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Im not repeating anything from truther sites, im just reading the paper active thermitic material.It sounds like your repeating from jref debunkers site.Comparing chocalate biscuits to explosives is a joke .

You were the one who comapred total energy output of butter to nanothermite.Known nanothermite have maximum 3.9 kJ/g .This is the energy release of thermite and nanothermite per gram.
Variation of energy release from the various chips is due to percentage of the chip being unexplosive grey side .Some of the red chips actually exceed 3.9kj/g .This is possibly from the combustion of grey side.

What we compare for explosives is watts of energy kj/sec .The red chip samples were higher in wattage than known nanothermite sample
(red chip 10watt/gramm) vs (sample-6 watt/gram)
.This means the energy is released so fast it creates a shockwave of heat and pressure.
An explosive by definition.

Paints do not explode they combust slowly.

So when you find something more explosive than



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


iron oxide is also half of thermite, the other half being elemental aluminum, which is also in the "paint"/"nanothermite". so, are you saying there is a paint out there that is 'accidentally' thermitic in nature?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


I am saying that the iron oxide is more likely to be a pigment in paint than a thermitic material.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by starchildtesla
 


I believe you don't understand how a DSC works.

As to energy, Polyethylene has over 10 times the energy per gram as thermite; hydrogen has 35 times as much energy per gram as thermite. This is just thermodynamics.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join