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.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 12
172
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I always wondered how they got into the safes that survived the fire. Maybe they used thermite on the site. I bet a few really big safes survived and the contents were top secret.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by iSunTzu
 


You obviously do not understand chemistry yourself.

The idea that nanoparticles create a more energetic reaction is NOT something Prof. Jones just made up, it's a basic and obvious fact for anyone who understands chemistry. It's not related to a chemical equation, either, but because of the fact that decreasing the particle size increases the amount of actual surface area that makes contact between the particles.


From a DoD-sponsored magazine:



ammtiac.alionscience.com...


Learn chemistry yourself before you accuse Ph.D. physicists of not knowing it.


The energy per pound does not change; I know chemistry your PhD physicist is the one who misleads you in chemistry and he did not say there was more energy per pound or he has made another error.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
The energy per pound does not change


Study the image I posted and you will realize this is false. The image representing the coarser particles easily has just as much mass, if not MORE mass than all the discrete particles. There is no reason they can't be samples of the same weight. And it says very clearly that the nanoenergetics give off more energy, simply because more surface area is exposed between the reacting elements.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by iSunTzu
 


On the graph at the bottom of page 19 in the pdf, they compare the energy in Watts per Gram, along with duration of reaction, between the samples of a known energetic nanocomposite to the dust/material recovered.

Link to the pdf download page -
www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


I found this part quite informative, they quote directly from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory sources;
On Page 19, and Page 20 of the linked pdf:


“Nanostructured composites are multicomponent materials in which at least one of the component phases has one or more dimensions (length, width, or thickness) in the nanometer size range, defined as 1 to 100 nm. Energetic nanocomposites are a class of material that have both a fuel and oxidizer component intimately mixed and where at least one of the component phases meets the size definition. A sol-gel derived pyrotechnic is an example of an energetic nanocomposite, in which metal-oxide nanoparticles react with metals or other fuels in very exothermic reactions. The fuel resides within the pores of the solid matrix while the oxidizer comprises at least a portion of the skeletal matrix.” “As an example, energetic nanocomposites of Fex0y and metallic aluminum are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be readily ignited”[ [19]



“This sol-gel method allows for the addition of insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous sol, just before gelation, to producea uniformly distributed and energetic nanocompositeupon gelation. Al metal (as a fine powder,~6μm diameter) was added to some FexOygel syntheses just before gelation to produceFexOy /Al(s) pyrotechnic nanocomposites….These nanocomposites were subsequently processed to make both a xerogel and aerogel of the material…. The pyrotechnic nanocomposite can be ignited using a propane torch” [19].


Footnote:

[19]Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM, Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: www.osti.gov...


Freedom, Peace.



























[edit on 5-6-2009 by FewWorldOrder]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

posted by SPreston

But allegedly fine particle nano-thermite creates far more energy than ordinary thermite, ...


posted by iSunTzu
Please show us the chemistry equation showing more energy for a chemical reaction because you say it has more energy. You can't change chemistry with nano-thermite mubo jumbo talk. It is thermite or it is not thermite and you can't change chemistry because you say there is more heat per pound because you wish it to be so because you think a failed paper of Jones says so.
I will wait for you to post the formula and how you got more energy from a reaction. How do you and Jones change reality to get more energy out of a pound of thermite? This will be good.


I thought Danish Chemist Professor Niels Harrit explained it quite well in the video above. You did not bother? bsbray11 also explained it quite well using a DOD Nanotechnology document. You do not think the Department of Defense knows what they are talking about concerning their own weaponry?


posted by bsbray11
reply to post by iSunTzu
 


You obviously do not understand chemistry yourself.

The idea that nanoparticles create a more energetic reaction is NOT something Prof. Jones just made up, it's a basic and obvious fact for anyone who understands chemistry. It's not related to a chemical equation, either, but because of the fact that decreasing the particle size increases the amount of actual surface area that makes contact between the particles.

From a DoD-sponsored magazine:



ammtiac.alionscience.com...

Learn chemistry yourself before you accuse Ph.D. physicists of not knowing it.


The conventional particle size produces less energy partly because there is an incomplete reaction. The nano particles have a faster reaction and a higher total energy. Seems simple to understand to me.

A larger version in case your eyes could not see the small print




[edit on 6/5/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


While it is true that the reaction is more complete, the total energy output is not much greater because the non-nano reaction isn't that incomplete. The difference is in the rate of energy output because of the increased surface area of the particles. To melt a given mass of metal, the amounts of iron oxide and aluminum would be about the same regardless of whether they were nano-sized, micro-sized, or about 200 mesh sized. This means that nano-stuff has some useful properties but that there is no magic and the laws of thermodynamics still apply.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Oh? So you are guaranteeing that the US Military Weaponry Division is full of it and knows nothing while you know everything?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by pteridine
 


Oh? So you are guaranteeing that the US Military Weaponry Division is full of it and knows nothing while you know everything?



Actually, I was clarifying what was written in the posted link for people who are not technically minded.
Are you still confused about all the science stuff?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Actually, I was clarifying what was written in the posted link for people who are not technically minded.
Are you still confused about all the science stuff?


I am. Pretty sure the second law of thermodynamics says that energy will be transferred from one body to another in a system where equilibrium is not achieved. And something, somewhere, tells me that a more energetic body will transfer more energy to the same body?

Doesn't more reactions lead to more energy transferred? I mean, the colder body is getting hit with more heat/energy (greater total amount of reactions) faster (less time to conduct heat out of the specified area). More energy transferred and higher chance of disintegration of certain bodies.

In other words, individual reactions are the same, yet more individual reactions are going off in nano-thermite reactions. The higher frequency of reations means the body won't be able to conduct as much heat out of the specific location at the same rate as a less frequent energy transferring reaction. Higher disintegration potential? I think so.

In other words, just what the professional weapon makers say.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by shanerz]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by shanerz

Originally posted by pteridine
Actually, I was clarifying what was written in the posted link for people who are not technically minded.
Are you still confused about all the science stuff?


I am. Pretty sure the second law of thermodynamics says that energy will be transferred from one body to another in a system where equilibrium is not achieved. And something, somewhere, tells me that a more energetic body will transfer more energy to the same body?

Doesn't more reactions lead to more energy transferred? I mean, the colder body is getting hit with more heat/energy (greater total amount of reactions) faster (less time to conduct heat out of the specified area). More energy transferred and higher chance of disintegration of certain bodies.

In other words, individual reactions are the same, yet more individual reactions are going off in nano-thermite reactions. The higher frequency of reations means the body won't be able to conduct as much heat out of the specific location at the same rate as a less frequent energy transferring reaction. Higher disintegration potential? I think so.

In other words, just what the professional weapon makers say.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by shanerz]


Yes, but the total heat released is about the same for nano and non-nano. The only difference is the inefficiency in the reactions with larger particles. There is no magic to the thermodynamics. If you would like to melt beams, a thin coating of paint won't do it. You still need the joules produced by the reaction.
In any case, there is no physical evidence of thermite.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
When you say " there is no physical evidence of thermite"

Explain to me how the large steel beams hit and wedged into other buildings, and were hurled 500 ft in most directions from a building collapse without using any type of explosives? How about the Pulverised concrete?

Have you ruled out any other known types of Military explosive?

From what I have seen and read in the last 7+ years, Fire, and the amount of damage caused by the planes can not cause free fall speed collapses in any buildings like these.

Do you think The WTC 7 OS has more holes in it than most people remember?

I am still leaning towards thermite, if in FACT it turns out not to be thermite, there is still sufficient evidence to support a controlled demolition.

I will be emailing Prof. Jones soon, and will post my questions and his answers about the thermite.

Cheers.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyline666
 


I'm no scientist and really as much of a laymen as anybody else, but as I believe in government involvement in 9/11, I don't think that claim holds water and now is something I'll have to question myself. Thermite doesn't create a major explosion, but a very minor one that happens because of the chemical reaction. Not so much "blowing it up" or out but, more or less severes the material, correct? So if the beams were severed with thermite, the pressure from the tonnage of the weight above would probably be enough to shoot those more minor support columns like squeezing a paperclip in your fingers. That much energy going downward would be more than enough to launch any matter that didn't become fluid with that mass to high heaven.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
thats what i was thinkin when i heard the thermite thing

like it just cut it out and the # fell down



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666
When you say " there is no physical evidence of thermite"

Explain to me how the large steel beams hit and wedged into other buildings, and were hurled 500 ft in most directions from a building collapse without using any type of explosives? How about the Pulverised concrete?

Have you ruled out any other known types of Military explosive?

From what I have seen and read in the last 7+ years, Fire, and the amount of damage caused by the planes can not cause free fall speed collapses in any buildings like these.

Do you think The WTC 7 OS has more holes in it than most people remember?

I am still leaning towards thermite, if in FACT it turns out not to be thermite, there is still sufficient evidence to support a controlled demolition.

I will be emailing Prof. Jones soon, and will post my questions and his answers about the thermite.

Cheers.


You know, the one major problem with this whole idea is that you people keep jumping between or interchanging explosives and thermite. Why? Thermite is NOT an explosive. Thermite cannot "hurl" tons of steel around. Thermite is not a military explosive either. Its an incendiary device that is used to immobilize vehicles, destroy artillery guns by fusing the inner workings of the cannon, destroy sensitive equipment and such. It is not used as an explosive. Thermite can "explode" if you fire it up and dump it into a tub of liquid nitrogen, but it is nothing like C4, TNT, or any of the explosives out there. It is not an explosive. Thermite is also not used in demolition. Unless you can direct me to an instance when a demo company used thermite to bring down a large building.

I'm sorry but this CT has more holes than a sponge. Its about time people started learning actual facts than pseudo-facts spewed by pseudo-scientists.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, but the total heat released is about the same for nano and non-nano. The only difference is the inefficiency in the reactions with larger particles. There is no magic to the thermodynamics. If you would like to melt beams, a thin coating of paint won't do it. You still need the joules produced by the reaction.
In any case, there is no physical evidence of thermite.



The difference is mostly in the speed of the reaction. A faster reaction would equal higher peak temperature, and enhanced "cutting" properties.

In gunpowders the same rule applies, the size of grains is inversely related to the speed of ignition.

And I believe the evidence of thermite use is compelling.

Please see my prior posts in this thread LINK


[edit on 6-6-2009 by seataka]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by seataka
 

Yes, the speed of reaction is faster. Yes, more energy is released per unit time. My point in all of this is to explain that there is no magic and a thin layer of nano sized thermite particles may react faster but still will not melt beams. Jones, in a note to Greening, says that maybe the material was fuse for demolition charges. This is a real stretch; paint on fusing that remains mostly unreacted made of nano-thermite that was just being developed, may not work, and has properties that are not well characterized was to be used in a super-secret plot where split second timing of silenced cutter charges was an absolute necessity.
Further, Jones estimates the amount of red-chips to be 0.1% of the total weight of the dust [paper p. 23.] Look at some of the estimates of the amount of dust and do the math. This is just the unreacted part. What fraction do you think was unreacted if the super stuff was used to knock down buildings?

There is no physical evidence of demolition of any of the WTC buildings.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I love it; it's like shooting yourself in the foot:

So we agree there is a non conventional grade of thermite in the dust.

We also agree that massive sections of steel just don't get flung out
naturally.

No red flag huh?


In addition, anyone questioning the idea that nano-particles and big chunks
of "whatever" have the same energy release have never tried lighting a fire.

What is it that we do when igniting our warm toasty camp fire? We use small
pieces of wood shavings, or strips in a loose formation to allow oxygen flow.

Take a one pound block of wood vs. one pound of strips and light them off.
Observe which pile is consumed faster and releases more energy over time.

P.S. If thermite is not explosive, and we have sections of steel thrown
hundreds of feet laterally, what do you suppose the audio of explosions
might be? How about the jets of debris seen popping out all around the
tower during the collapse.

Do you think there may have been an additional form of destructive matter
in the towers besides military grade thermite? Just kinda maybe?


[edit on 6-6-2009 by turbofan]




top topics



 
172
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join