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.
Originally posted by pteridine
Even bulk thermite cannot be timed in a demolition that would allow anything like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The theory that thermite did the deed is technically bankrupt.
forums.randi.org...
In Dr. Jones's paper at Bentham, he references work by a few scientists -- principal among them, Dr. Tillotson at LLNL -- who are legitimately researching nanothermite. So the answer is Yes, it does exist. The first papers on it came out in 2001, I believe.
However, it exists in extremely small quantities, and as far as I can tell has never been applied outside the laboratory.
It certainly has not been demonstrated cutting structural steel. Its properties are also such that it doesn't seem even remotely suitable for the task. As an explosive, it is difficult to ignite and low-powered. As an incendiary, it is of low heat content even compared to ordinary thermite, which also has not been demonstrated in such a context. Cast into a "sol-gel," it is also of low density -- the "gel" is related to aerogel, which is only a bit denser than smoke. It appears to be expensive (at best) to manufacture in large quantities. Dr. Jones and his co-authors speculate that tens or hundreds of tons would be required, and presumably applied in layers a few microns thick...
Dr. Jones's paper, referring to the existence of laboratory nanothermite and speculating that it's ready to topple skyscrapers, is rather like inferring from the existence of laser pointers that orbiting deathsats could have destroyed the buildings with beam weapons. It's perhaps physically possible, but so impractical as to beggar belief.
[...]
nanothermite can actually react with a supersonic flame front. However, as far as I can determine, this is caused strictly by thermal effects, such as radiation, and not through compression. There is no applicable Rankine-Hugoniot curve since compressing the nanothermite itself could lead to a temperature rise, but through different mechanisms, such as abrasion between the tiny little particles.
The upshot is that nanothermite can be a high explosive, but this is solely a function of grain size which drives the speed of the flame front. Because it is not a pressure-driven effect, while it can still produce a shockwave, it will be a particularly weak one. Unless packed with some medium that produces a large volumetric change when heated, it is unlikely to create much of an explosion. If so packed, it will be in all likelihood the least energetic explosive known to science.
I think the melting angle is less ludicrous than treating it like an explosive, personally. Thermite does, nonetheless, retain the ability to create high temperatures. But if used in this fashion I just don't see what making it "nano" would buy you.
Nor have I ever seen a plausible explanation for how it was controlled after it reacted. Again, see the Mythbusters exercise, using 1000 pounds of thermite, which didn't even come close to totally melting a light truck chassis. This demonstrates just how meager its effect can be on steel until the issue of controlling it is solved. It just isn't an efficient approach.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
"Concede defeat"?
What are you two years old? If you can read, I said I'm awaiting a reply
from my source to find out the details of the DSC tests performed by
the nine scientists.
This is called, "good research" which is something you should learn.
As for the paint...you better read the link because Harrit strongly disagrees
with your anonymous, unfounded, GUESS.
Originally posted by ukman2009
ok so it "might" be paint but how do you explain all 3 towers falling in such a manner that they all closley resemble controlled demolitions.
Originally posted by pteridine
If you were to demolish the buidings why bother with thermite?
Originally posted by pteridine
They all closely resemble controlled demolitions in the minds of a few.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael
Yes, it has been answered several times. Science will be the ref. and
therefore there will be no bias.
Right now nobody is able to put up a fight for the thermite study.
Some of the lesser theories put forth here thought it was paint, but
now we find that Harrit has addressed that guess with some additional
literature.
If anyone cares to step up with a new theory, you know where to find
me. Once we get an interested party to debate Jones we will define
the details for the funds.
For sake of moving forward, if putting the funds in trust works best,
then that's what we will do.
I'm surprised that all of these big talkers haven't stepped up for the
easy $1000.00 prize and world recognition of killing off nine Ph.D.'s,
while shutting down one the strongest truth movement bodies to date.
Act now, and I'll even throw in a soup can!
Oh wait, you can't act now... the paint theor....guess has been squashed
for good! See here:
Harrit addresses, the "paint theory" June 20, 2009
www.abovetopsecret.com...
[edit on 6-7-2009 by turbofan]
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones doesn't want to give up any sample because then there could be opposing analyses. By controlling the sample he keeps control of the issue he has made.
Any progress on the DSC explanation, turbo? I hope that your sources haven't abandoned you and forced you to rely on your internet education.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by exponent
Yawn
You're getting pretty old "exponent". I'm getting tired of playing circles
with you.
Here are a few stop images. Study them well, and please don't try to
deny the solid visual proof that the top section destroys itself before
the support structure (red line) begins to descend:
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
Go ahead 'exponent', try to talk your way around the linked photos.
Please explain how gravity smashes the section above the impact
hole, without crushing the 1000 foot of tower.
P.S. If you have been following my logic and watched some of the
video evidence, you would know that I believe there were multiple
sources of energy destroying the towers. Therefore, the explosions
you hear / see in the independent footage would indicate something
more than thermiate was used.