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: 60
172
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
What will be your excuse if Basile publishes in a "non-vanity" journal?


GL excuses...gotta love'm


Who says anyone has to make excuses?

Getting published somewhere credible means it will come to the attention professionals in related fields. When a lot of them come out and say "there's something to this" then you have something.

So far only some claims that haven't exactly sent resounding shockwaves through the scientific or journalistic world.

And then of course the next questions will be: how was the material placed, the demolition executed, why no typical sequenced explosions, etc. Answers will be needed for why there's only red chips of questionable charateristics. But nothing much else in the way of material evidence to support the story.


Mike

[edit on 22-8-2009 by mmiichael]




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

What will be your excuse if Basile publishes in a "non-vanity" journal?


GL excuses...gotta love'm


What excuse are you speaking of? You do not understand the how and why of scientific publication. Each journal has standards for publication. Bentham standards are a check for $800. Other journals have scientific standards. Nature and Science are probably the most difficult to publish in, but even publication in those journals does not confirm that the conclusions are correct and papers published in those journals are often challenged. Jones, et al.,will publish where they can meet the standards for publication and survive the review process. I am disinterested in their publication but will criticize it if it is at fault.

As to my earlier question:
Jones said that combustion was occurring and a DSC under inert is the only way to show thermite. Are you ready to concede that DSC in air was in error and that Jones has not proved thermite? Yes or no, Turbo?



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineAs to my earlier question:
Jones said that combustion was occurring and a DSC under inert is the only way to show thermite. Are you ready to concede that DSC in air was in error and that Jones has not proved thermite? Yes or no, Turbo?


I have said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO three times already!

WHen the hell are you going to answer my response to that:

QUESTION 1
How did the iron sphere from at a temperature of 430' C if the melting
point of iron is 1500'C?

QUESTION 2
How did the iron sphere attach themselves to partially reacted chips?

Check your logic and understanding of the DSC test. You may need to
reference the Harrit video which explains the thermic reaction regardless
of AIR presense!



[edit on 22-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I have said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO three times already!

WHen the hell are you going to answer my response to that:

QUESTION 1
How did the iron sphere from at a temperature of 430' C if the melting
point of iron is 1500'C?

QUESTION 2
How did the iron sphere attach themselves to partially reacted chips?

Check your logic and understanding of the DSC test. You may need to
reference the Harrit video which explains the thermic reaction regardless
of AIR presense!


How do you know that they are all iron and not "iron containing?"

How do you know that they were not in the coating to begin with?

How do you explain more energy than possible from thermite?
The Harrit video does not explain the thermodynamic inconsistency that negates all the posturing and BS of the paper and its proponents.

My understanding of the DSC is that running it in air was a serious error and they must run the reaction in the absence of air to eliminate the combustion component and see the thermitic reaction, if any.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
The report is comprehensive and a bit impressive. All that remains now is to answer the question: How did it get there! I think we may never find out that answer but it proves something beyond a doubt. Something jiggery pokery has been going on in WTC 1, 2 and 7.


Pretty obvious on how it could've gotten there.As Scott Forbes has said in an interview here.Although,it's pretty well known by now it's still one of the many mysteries that have yet to be answered.I apologize if someone already mentioned it as i haven't read through everything yet.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


Can any one find the following old post? - it is on Google, but won't show up when clicked: Do NIST's computer models meet the International Building Codes



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Grendel39
 


At Chanute AFB, Rantoul, IL, there still is a fire-fighting school. Out near the old silos used for jet engine testing, ther is a large, steel, mock-up of an aircraft airframe, complete with solid wings. This sucker has been burned over and over and over with aviation fuel for many years. It is still there. Never melted. Hmmmm, wonder why?

Anyone?????



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Sky,

While it might not be what you're looking for this provided a good read.Basically saying the NIST tampered with the computer models and inputed false information.

NIST=Lies?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by Grendel39
 


At Chanute AFB, Rantoul, IL, there still is a fire-fighting school. Out near the old silos used for jet engine testing, ther is a large, steel, mock-up of an aircraft airframe, complete with solid wings. This sucker has been burned over and over and over with aviation fuel for many years. It is still there. Never melted. Hmmmm, wonder why?

Anyone?????


The fires in air are not hot enough to melt steel, they can only weaken it. The steel in the mockup is mainly to have something to aim at to foam and does not support any load so no one could see the effects of weakening.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
How do you know that they are all iron and not "iron containing?"


Because the BEFORE and AFTER results prove this. See the paper.


How do you know that they were not in the coating to begin with?


Because of the chemical reaction which took place, and also because
of the formation of the spheres after ignition. See the paper for these
points, or view the Jones video for further explanaion.


How do you explain more energy than possible from thermite?


Because this is obviously a higher grade of nano-thermite. It is not
conventional stuff as has been explained time and time again.


The Harrit video does not explain the thermodynamic inconsistency that negates all the posturing and BS of the paper and its proponents.


Be more specific.


My understanding of the DSC is that running it in air was a serious error and they must run the reaction in the absence of air to eliminate the combustion component and see the thermitic reaction, if any.


Your understanding is lacking. YOu need to learn the difference between
ignition temperatures and reaction temperatures.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
of the chemical reaction which took place, and also because
of the formation of the spheres after ignition. See the paper for these
points, or view the Jones video for further explanaion.

Because this is obviously a higher grade of nano-thermite. It is not
conventional stuff as has been explained time and time again.


The Harrit video does not explain the thermodynamic inconsistency that negates all the posturing and BS of the paper and its proponents.



turbo,

Watched the Harrit vide. He says the dust samples came from diffeerent sources accumulated at different times. So there is contamination and/or inconsistency. He goes on to say they are running out of samples which means one has to acccept their word an analysis.

Importantly he says the largest the chips are at the outside a millimeter, but most are 1/10th of a millimeter. He uses the owr "microscpoic." So how big are these supposed iron spherules? And it is no mystery paints will have irin in them - like red oxide primers.

The impication is supposed to be the iron is from the steel melting.. Well that would mean visible globules not microsopic one's it wolud be supposed.

Are the irin spheres all this fuss is about supposed to be from melted steel.
YES or NO?

And as to super nanothermite, well what are the characterisitics of it exactly supposed to be that make them into a high energy yield explosive?

No solid answers and just questions and speculations from what Harrit said. And of course a ready made excuse why no one else could ever reproduce the results.

All sounds like double talk.


Mike



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
No offense Mike, but you should sip some coffee and comb over your
last reply. It's tough to follow with all of the errors...it's not like you.


Originally posted by mmiichael He says the dust samples came from diffeerent sources accumulated at different times. So there is contamination and/or inconsistency.


No, there is not. Jones/Harrit have proven in their paper that all dust samples
contain and exhibit the same phenomenon.


He goes on to say they are running out of samples which means one has to acccept their word an analysis.


Not at all. It means those that have already obtained some samples have
duplicated and agree with their results (IE: Basile). Harrit is asking for
others who may have kept the dust to come forward so that they may
perform further experiments. Are you sure you're paying attention to the
video?


So how big are these supposed iron spherules?


The sizes of the sphere are referenced by the scale in the photos. They
are measured in microns. Reference the paper for these sizes.


And it is no mystery paints will have irin in them - like red oxide primers.


Please stop the paint bull already! NIST performed tests on the paint and
it was stable. Jones/Harrit performed chemical analysis and it did not have
the same chemical composition. Two sources show that these chips cannot
be paint, so give it up.


The impication is supposed to be the iron is from the steel melting.. Well that would mean visible globules not microsopic one's it wolud be supposed.


Sorry, I can't follow this...too many errors. The spheres are formed from
the surface tension after cooling from the exploding, high temp. reaction.


Are the irin spheres all this fuss is about supposed to be from melted steel.
YES or NO?


no, not MELTED...but rather, high temp. reaction. See above response.


And as to super nanothermite, well what are the characterisitics of it exactly supposed to be that make them into a high energy yield explosive?


Just a few off the top:
- chemical composition
- fine particulate size
- ratio of elements


[edit on 24-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

When I asked about the inconsistencies in thermal output, you said,
"Because this is obviously a higher grade of nano-thermite. It is not
conventional stuff as has been explained time and time again."

Now, because you lack an understanding of basic thermodynamics, I will explain your error to you once again.
1. Conventional or unconventional, nano-sized or not, the reaction between elemental aluminum and iron oxide has a limit on how much energy per unit mass it can produce. This means that no matter what the size of the particles only so much energy can come out. Size can change the rate of the output but not the total output.
2. Two of Jones samples show more energy than possible for the thermite reaction, by about 1.5 and 2 times theoretical. This means that it either isn't thermite and is burning paint or two things are happening at once -- reaction and combustion of the binder.
3. Jones does not want to admit that it could be paint so he said, in the paper, that it could be a combination of combustion and thermitic reaction.
4. The only way to show what was combustion and what was reaction is to run the DSC under an inert atmosphere.
5. My criticism of Jones DSC in air was valid. The "oxygen excuse" was not an excuse, it was Jones inappropriate analytical technique. Jones was wrong and so were you.

6. Are you now ready to admit that the "oxygen excuse" was not an excuse because DSC in air was incorrect and that Jones must run the DSC under an inert atmosphere to show reaction?

Yes or no?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You are obviously TOO THICK to read my reply and answer basic questions!

NO for the fourth time. NO. NO. NO!

You NEED to explain the origin of the iron spheres.

You NEED to explain how the iron spheres attach themselves to the chips

You NEED to explain the difference between DSC ignition temperature and the
reaction temperature.

You NEED to explain how iron spheres formed at only 430 'C (according
to your interpretation of the DSC test).

YOU have not been able to do this in 60 pages and keep sticking to this
B.S. AIR claim! Get over it! You don't understand what's happening as you
cannot put into words an answer that satisfies the three lines above.

Your comprehension of this paper is within the answer to the above q's.

Once again , here they are in case you forgot just a few lines earlier.

respond to these, or don't respond at all. I will block you and so will
the entire community here:


You NEED to explain the origin of the iron spheres.

You NEED to explain how the iron spheres attach themselves to the chips

You NEED to explain the difference between DSC ignition temperature and the
reaction temperature.

You NEED to explain how iron spheres formed at only 430 'C (according
to your interpretation of the DSC test).



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
First off, let me add my own take on the WTC 1/2/7 failures and then, secondly, a philosophical or post-911-realist view on the state of human society that allows grand scale apathy and unwillingness to acknowledge that fuzzy blob of reality that sits at the edge of our collective consciousness.

Failure(s) 1 were obvious... the buildings. WT1&2 were designed to take multiple aircraft strikes "like be-bees through a screen door" said the lead architect however down they went in a 10 second cascading collapse, basically into their own footprints, within an hour or two of impacts (from single aircraft). The exterior tempered steel skin was dimensionally flexible over wide spans and very hard locally. It was unaffected by corrosion or fatigue because each span and vertical transient were short. Bolted together with chromium steel bolts. In addition to its steel web exterior it had a solid steel core with hardened pans and webbed steel joists. There have been 1000 hi-rise fires in lesser steel framed buildings. So the probability of the the first failure, wt2, was 1/1000 approx .0001 One in a thousand. Not Vegas odds I know, but after a beer or two you could see it, maybe. Kinda like the exotic dancer with the ping-pong balls, bar-room legend.

The Probability of WT 1 was 2/1000X1/1000 or .000002 or one in 2 million. That's pretty low and I would need a lot of beer to believe those two. But, not content with those two, down comes # 7, again into its footprint at free fall speed. Probability is .000002X(3/1000)=.000000006. There is no way I could accept this figure as being possible. That is 6 chances in a billion, assuming I counted all the zeros correctly. That is one chance in in 156,000,000. Impossible, Insurmountable and Unbelievable. So something else must have happened.

Failure(s) No 2

FAA did not call BANDIT on any aircraft. NORAD fighters never eyeballed any heavies. FDNY heroes and Building Engineers left transcripts that people failed to listen to. Yet No NYPD yellow tape. No FBI forensics teams. No ATF analysis, No FAA investigation. No NTSB Investigation.

From a country that gave the world such classics as Marcus Welby MD, CSI , The Hill Street Blues (Hey Pizza Man), Kojack(who loves ya baby?), Hawaii 50(Bookem Dano), and The X-Files, this was to say the least, a disappointment. WTF happened. Its not what they are saying happened.

In closing, who are they? The media concentration in America leaves most print and electronic media in the control of a handful of executives and editors who will never let this be broadstreet fodder for the masses. The internet will boom and they will silently suffocate and the masses of people who yearn for truth will make them irrelevant. The Revolution Will not Be Televised by Gil Scott Heron. Have a listen.

www.dailymotion.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Thanks for asking. I will answer these questions if you answer one of mine, below.

"You NEED to explain the origin of the iron spheres."

They are "iron containing" so their actual formation temperature is not known. They could have already been in the paint or formed when the paint burned.

"You NEED to explain how the iron spheres attach themselves to the chips"

When the matrix burned, they could have been released from the paint or formed during combustion. The ignition temperature could have reached 1000*C.

"You NEED to explain the difference between DSC ignition temperature and the reaction temperature."

The temperature of ignition is the temperature that reaction begins. The reaction temperature is the temperature of the reaction which may be higher than the ignition temperature. For burning paint, it could be 1000*C.

"You NEED to explain how iron spheres formed at only 430 'C (according
to your interpretation of the DSC test)."

When the matrix burned, they could have been released from the paint or formed during combustion. For burning paint, it could be 1000*C.

Now, Turbo, I again challenge you and your supporters to read the paper and explain the apparent violation of thermodynamics by the thermitic paint. You can get anyone you need to help you.

[edit on 8/24/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
No offense Mike, but you should sip some coffee and comb over your
last reply. It's tough to follow with all of the errors...it's not like you.



Sorry there. New computer, no spellchecker installed.

A moment's pause on the battlefield.

This is all becoming heated, repetitive, and going nowhere.

I doubt anyone typing anything would convince you and others that there is no magic explosive thermitic compound in those dust samples. And if there was, there's still miles to go to prove those buildings were demolished with explosive charges.

This area of investigation is new for us. Few have any knowledge and experience with planned or unplanned destruction of major edifices. No one in the world has expertise in this particular type of event involving fuel loaded planes used as virtual bombs on huge buildings with unique structural designs. So we have had to rely on those who can provide educated opinions.

Whatever anyone's political beliefs, trust or mistrust of the US govt, we have a substantiated detailed explanation of what happened and why in those NIST, FEMA, and other studies.

There are alternative theories and speculations. Many circulating factoids and anecdotes that point to something different. But nearly 8 years on, nothing has coalesced into a coherent documented substantiated scenario.

I've not been involved in this kind of discussion before, but have been privy to a lot of conflicting scientific debates. Both sides are always totally convinced their view is valid and the other side is stubbornly blind in not seeing it.

There are often quite brilliant people in total disagreement. But in the end some of them have to be wrong while others are right.

I don't know if you've ever taken a moment to think about the possibility that this thermite claim may not have the merits you think it does. The study may be will intentioned, but the conclusions are forced to conform to an expectation.

That’s what some of the people disagreeing with you are trying to say. It’s not a battle of wills or egos to see whose scientific knowledge is better.


Mike



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
They are "iron containing" so their actual formation temperature is not known. They could have already been in the paint or formed when the paint burned.


As per NIST, the paint tested and sampled is not a chemical match.
Furthermore, the stabilty of paint goes far beyond the DSC ignition
temps as tested by NIST and Jones/Harrit.

The spheres are not a product of chemical reaction of paint burning.

The spheres are predominantly iron (nearly pure as per Fig. 26 and Fig. 27) when the electron probe is > 6 KeV spectrum range.


"You NEED to explain how the iron spheres attach themselves to the chips"
When the matrix burned, they could have been released from the paint or formed during combustion. The ignition temperature could have reached 1000*C.


No. See above. read the NIST sample tests. Research the Jones/Harrit
paint tests. There is absolutely no proof that these spheres came from
paint.

If you want to fly that theory, you need to find a paint with similar
chemical elements and DSC trace at a minimum.


"You NEED to explain the difference between DSC ignition temperature and the reaction temperature."

The temperature of ignition is the temperature that reaction begins. The reaction temperature is the temperature of the reaction which may be higher than the ignition temperature. For burning paint, it could be 1000*C.


See above. The paint as test by NIST was stable beyond 600 degrees C,
and over. At higher temps,. the paint began to flake and crack but did
not exhibit any of the phenomenon that Jones/Harrit produce.

YOu are correct about the ignition vs. reaction temperature however.


"You NEED to explain how iron spheres formed at only 430 'C (according
to your interpretation of the DSC test)."

When the matrix burned, they could have been released from the paint or formed during combustion. For burning paint, it could be 1000*C.


Again, No. If you are still stuck on the paint as a suspect item, then you
need to find one that matches the chemical composition and begins some
sort of reaction at 430'C in a DSC test.


Now, Turbo, I again challenge you and your supporters to read the paper and explain the apparent violation of thermodynamics by the thermitic paint. You can get anyone you need to help you.


Gladly. Let me copy the exact paragraph here and break it down for you:


6. What is the energy release of Super-Thermite compared to
Conventional Explosives?

A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials
[21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3
composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB
explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).


This is a reference to an article outlining the energy yield of the
aforementioned items. Fig. 30 can be found on page 21 of the
Jones/Harrit paper.



It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more
energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the
blue bar graphs above.


Self explanitory. It simply says the chips found in the dust release
more energy per unit mass than ordinary thermite.


The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27].


Stating a reference from foot note #27 here:

Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Prentice D, et al. Formulation and performance of novel energetic nanocomposites and gas generators prepared by sol–gel
methods. LLNL UCRL-PROC–210871, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; March 2005;
[Accessed February 7, 2009].

Available from: e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...


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.


Stating that the function of the red/gray chips produces gas which
expands to provide 'pressure - volume' work (< my wording).

IE: www.springerlink.com...


Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary
whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for
rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive
[6, 24].


Making reference to footnotes #6 and #24.


As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the ehancement
of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic
component.


Jones/Harrit already take into account what you are suggesting,
however as explained above has nothing to do with their discovery.

As you can see, there is no mention, or implication that these chips
exceed their own potential energy content.

What it does say is that these Super nano-thermite chips exceed the
theoretical maximum energy output of ORDINARY THERMITE.

Big Difference.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
these Super nano-thermite chips exceed the theoretical maximum energy output of ORDINARY THERMITE.



So that's it, in a nutshell? A controlled demolition initiated by a hypothetical substance.


Mike



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

The spheres are predominantly iron (nearly pure as per Fig. 26 and Fig. 27) when the electron probe is > 6 KeV spectrum range.




6. What is the energy release of Super-Thermite compared to
Conventional Explosives?

A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials
[21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3
composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB
explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).



It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more
energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the
blue bar graphs above.


Self explanitory. It simply says the chips found in the dust release
more energy per unit mass than ordinary thermite.


The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27].



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.



As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the ehancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component.


Jones/Harrit already take into account what you are suggesting,
however as explained above has nothing to do with their discovery.

What it does say is that these Super nano-thermite chips exceed the
theoretical maximum energy output of ORDINARY THERMITE.

Big Difference.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by turbofan]

The spheres consist of iron, oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, and other elements as may be seen in figures 24, 25, and 26. They are not iron bb's as you would claim. No one knows their melting point or how they formed. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. Perhaps they are one of the eutectic mixtures that are so popular on this thread.

All of your statements back my position. You speak of energy per unit volume. Alas, DSC is done on weight and energy per unit weight is what we must consider.
As you quoted, the chips exceed thermite energy per unit weight so some energy must be coming from combustion of the carbonaceous binder. How much? How can the amount of energy from a thermitic reaction be uncoupled from combustion energy?
Amazingly, all that needs be done is to run the DSC under inert to rule out simple combustion. If there is any thermitic reaction, it will occur under inert. The combustion, which must be occurring because the theoretical maximum for thermite is exceeded, will be negated and the energy of the thermitic reaction will be able to be measured. If there is no thermitic reaction, no energy will be released.

Now are you ready to concede that the DSC in air was an error and that a DSC under inert will be diagnostic for reaction while eliminating the combustion component? So much for the "oxygen excuse" excuse.



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join