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.

 

Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

page: 16
69
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2

P. 26


"...While the application of a thin film might have suited
specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching
effect of the steel the material was in contact with may
have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting
.
The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer
suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact
with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive."


Jones' statement makes it clear why some of the nanothermite did not burn complete. Stop trying to fight Jones with opinions that have no proof or sciences backing them. Dr. Jones shown it was not regular thermite like railroads have used for over a hundred year. The temperatures in the regular thermite ignited at, is not the same.

Another point that is different, we all know, regular thermite has to be heated in a closed container to make enough heat to melt railroad track for example not just poured in a Coke can and light with matches.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by impressme]




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridineNo Jones supporter has offered an explanation of why these demolition chips extinguish after being ignited.


I don't know why I bother debating you? You answer my questions with more
questions and you clearly cannot provide examples to support my four
criteria.

Why do some of the chips extinguish? Who knows, it could be improper
chemical ratio to complete the reaction is some of the chips.

There's a reason, and a good scientific one at that.

When you can show me an example model of a naturally made, or human
made product that burns 100% efficient, 100% of the time, we will go
futher into this particular question of yours.



No Jones supporter has explained the excess energy produced other than as a combustion. You can't either, apparently, and keep defelecting the issue.


Simple. The chips are comprised of elements and ratios far superior
to that of the control sample used.



Perhaps your technical skills aren't as good as you think they are.




Far better than yours.

Now I've answered YOUR questions, time to answer MINE.

P.S. For those that starred any of the posts made by Butcher, Pterdine,
or OKbmd, I question your scientific comprehension of this topic and
challenge you to a ONE-ON-ONE debate on the ATS debate sub-forum.

Same challenge goes to the three members just mentioned.

Hi Turbo,
Your first sentence really says it all. Trouble is in a big forum like this, there is no chairman to call a "point of order" as in a debate, we have just the mods. It should be important in a thread like this on Thermite or forms of, that all possibilities are explored rather than straightaway putdowns. Anything 9/11 here is full of the [he is right but also wrong] syndrome. I admire you awareness.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

If the thin layer of oxide quenched the reaction, wouldn't a steel beam do the same thing? Yes, it would. The highly engineered material apparently wasn't designed to react on steel beams which further questions the theory taht it was anything but paint.

Jones has disproved his theory by saying that the reaction could be quenched by a small amount of oxide.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


" #3. Grab your video camera and heat a chip of iron to its melting point
temperature. Show me the solidified (once molten) iron in the form of a SPHERE.
I'll be waiting. "

This is what you asked for . I provided what you asked for but , now it's not good enough ?

I have not been debating the 'chip' .

You asked for evidence of the formation of spheres from once molten iron . I gave you that .

But , in typical truther fashion , you ignore the evidence and move the goal-posts , now challenging me to debate the chips .

And by the way , that's about as scientific as it gets when you ask to be shown something and then it is shown to you .



[edit on 18-8-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridineNo Jones supporter has offered an explanation of why these demolition chips extinguish after being ignited.


Why do some of the chips extinguish? Who knows, it could be improper
chemical ratio to complete the reaction is some of the chips.

There's a reason, and a good scientific one at that.

When you can show me an example model of a naturally made, or human
made product that burns 100% efficient, 100% of the time, we will go
futher into this particular question of yours.



No Jones supporter has explained the excess energy produced other than as a combustion. You can't either, apparently, and keep defelecting the issue.


Simple. The chips are comprised of elements and ratios far superior
to that of the control sample used.



The reason that the chips extinguish is that they are paint.

Your knowledge of chemistry is very limited, Turbo, and that answer of "far superior" is complete obfuscation. You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? You may have technical training in avionics but you have little understanding of chemistry.
What "far superior elements and combinations" could there be, Turbo? The "far superior" elements and ratios are known from the EDAX analyses. There is nothing unusual, no nitro compounds like those shown in the table [Jones' red herring], and no way to reach the energies measured. There is no combination of explosives and thermite that can produce the energy shown without combustion in air.

We have gone around on this before, Turbo.

What experiment does the conclusion-jumping "Ol' Paint" Jones have to do to show the possibility of thermite.
Remember, Turbo? DSC under Argon. Then, if there is a reaction, he can study what it is. Until he does that, there is NO evidence of thermite.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by turbofan
 


" #3. Grab your video camera and heat a chip of iron to its melting point
temperature. Show me the solidified (once molten) iron in the form of a SPHERE.
I'll be waiting. "

This is what you asked for . I provided what you asked for but , now it's not good enough ?

I have not been debating the 'chip' .

You asked for evidence of the formation of spheres from once molten iron . I gave you that .

But , in typical truther fashion , you ignore the evidence and move the goal-posts , now challenging me to debate the chips .

Epic fail .

And by the way , that's about as scientific as it gets when you ask to be shown something and then it is shown to you .

Checkmate .


Checkmate? Epic Fail? What are you 15 years old?


Do you not understand the difference between HEATING something
and applying a flame to it?

RE-READ MY CRITERIA.

IT SAYS HEAT IRON to it's melting point!

On top of that you provided an example that produced the spheres through
a thermitic reaction!

Lighting steel wool causes a thermitic reaction.

Are you clear on this fact?

YOu just proved Jones' experiment with your example and then
said "checkmate"


I see the scientists are full force in here tonight...



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


We've gone over this before because you don't understand the science!

The spheres prove a thermitic reaction because the ignition temperature
is not enough to cause the sphere, or melt iron.

Combustion is not FAST enough, or does not create enough of a pressure
change to form the iron into spheres!

Get it? Got it?

Back up your THEORY with an example of PAINT forming an iron sphere
when HEATED to 430 degrees.

Further to that, use the XEDS analysis to pick out the elements present
which (in your mind) could have produced the heat, and quick transisition
in temperature to produce an exotherm more narrow than a known control
sample of nano-thermite.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


In your example you can't just stand back and say there's a puddle of molten iron. Let's get out the microscope and examine the puddle and let's examine all particles that emitted from the flowerpot. (By the way, why do we have a flower pot? Is it to hold the thermite together?) My point is: I can't find anywhere that says the combustion efficiency of thermite is 100%. I do find papers that say making the particles smaller increases the efficiency. But I don't find any that say it's 100% efficient.

Also what I'm finding is that for maximum efficiency the ratio should be 25.3% aluminum and 74.7% iron oxide. But what if the ratio is 25% aluminum and 75% iron? or 26% aluminum and 74% iron?

How would the ratio change? Well I'm proposing maybe two ways. The gas production emitted some particles but also the age of the chips.

I find this interesting:

www.nap.edu...

"The well-touted advantages of nanodimensional fuels and oxidizers appear against the backdrop of several disadvantages. In particular, the problem of aging of formulations containing nanoparticles is aggravated by the high surface area and the resulting higher reactivity of these particles. Oxygen and moisture cause a metal oxide to form on the particle surface, which leads to loss of energy, lower reactivity, and added dead weight."



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Well if you "bust out" the old microscope, I'm sure you will find lots of things!
But as for this case, I'm not trying to get into the micro (nano) scopic details here. Lets stick to the size we are talking about here with the chips. Chip sized!

0.2-3 mm.

I doubt though if you burn regular thermite you will get chips like this anyways.

Sorry about the flower pot as I was referring to that "Brainiacs" clip with the thermite and it looked like they placed it into a ceramic flower pot. I'm sorry I thought you saw that part.
No harm no foul.


I too have not seen the specifics as to the efficency of thermite combustion so I guess we cannot say 100% what it is. I do like your link to the disadvantages of the nano-particles. Now we could go on and wonder if this degradation happened before or after 9/11 (IF it did happen hypothetically for our arguments sake!
).

Edit to add: Oh i forgot to mention the ratios. Well again, I have heard different variations and I guess it depends on what type of oxidizer and reactant you are going to use. It was my understanding that your run of the mill homemade stuff would be 1:1, but you are correct as there is a most "efficient" mix ratio of this. But, can i say this? Jones say that the chip is made up of iron oxide, aluminum, oxygen, and I believe silica correct? Ok, now he does not go into what type of iron oxide it is (as there are many variations of which some are better and some are mediocer), or if there were any other materials that would make this thermite "special". I mean there is only so much that can be done with just iron-oxide and aluminum. There are far more powerful thermites that use other "mixes" that are far better than the traditional:


Aluminium-molybdenum(VI) oxide
Aluminium-copper(II) oxide
Aluminium-iron(II,III) oxide
Antimony-potassium permanganate
Aluminium-potassium permanganate
Aluminium-bismuth(III) oxide
Aluminium-tungsten(VI) oxide hydrate
Aluminium-fluoropolymer (typically Viton)
Titanium-boron (burns to titanium diboride)

en.wikipedia.org...
I know I know, wikipedia, ugh!


But I dont know about you, but to me this is starting to get a little rediculus at all the problems this idea of nano-thermite being used. But just for clarification, how do you think they could applied this nano-thermite to the beam in such a manner that would actually damage/destroy the beam in question. Please note I am not trying to pick a fight or redicule you, I would just like know your position and see how it can or cannot fit into this situation.

[edit on 8/18/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 


We've gone over this before because you don't understand the science!

The spheres prove a thermitic reaction because the ignition temperature
is not enough to cause the sphere, or melt iron.

Combustion is not FAST enough, or does not create enough of a pressure
change to form the iron into spheres!

Get it? Got it?

Back up your THEORY with an example of PAINT forming an iron sphere
when HEATED to 430 degrees.

Further to that, use the XEDS analysis to pick out the elements present
which (in your mind) could have produced the heat, and quick transisition
in temperature to produce an exotherm more narrow than a known control
sample of nano-thermite.


The spheres do not prove a thermitic reaction. They contain iron because the red chips contain iron. They are not IRON spheres, they are IRON CONTAINING. Some don't contain iron which brings into question the mechanism for sphere formation. No one knows their temperature of formation. Running the DSC in air could have made all the spheres. The fact that the chips self-extinguished doesn't make them look good as demolition materials.

The chips were not shown to react in the absence of air. This is the first thing that has to be done to show even the POSSIBILITY of thermite.

The difference in the exotherm curves between the known nanothermite and the red chips is telling. There is a different onset and different curve shape. To use this to claim thermite is without grounds.

The elements which could have caused the excess energy through combustion are carbon and hydrogen in the organic matrix.

Perhaps you would care to explain, in detail, the causes of excess energy output. As the burden of proof is on the Jones' team, you should postulate what combinations of elements present would do such a thing. Of course, you can't, even with your self-proclaimed knowledge and extensive education in science and chemistry.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Once more, the spheres are NOT IRON. The MP of iron has nothing to do with their temperature of formation.

Now you can use your skills to explain the energy release as shown in figure 30. Why do two of the chips produce more energy than is possible by thermite and any combination of thermite and the explosives shown.

Think combustion in air and not thermite.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
What do you mean the spheres are NOT Iron?

What do you suggest they are formed of?

Please tell me so we can do this experiment with paint and iron in a frying
pan and show all of ATS how little you know.

Stop answering my questions with more quesitons.

I ALREADY explained and answered several of your quesitons.

Grow 'some' and start backing up your theories!



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Read the paper and you will see you have just been repeating something you read on a truther site. The spheres contain iron but they are not iron. They are a complex mixture of many elements. Their melting points and temperatures of formation are not known. They are not proof of anything.

I guess that you are unable to explain the energy outputs without resorting to simple combustion. Burning in air is not proof of thermite.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Well if I were to speculate on how they were used I'm not so sure they would have been used for cutting anything. I would think it would have been for some other purpose as they may have suggested it was an igniter of some kind. I know Jones said he estimated 10 tons of this stuff. I believe I read he also estimated 10 tons when he was talking about the spheres in the dust (I'm going by memory here but I'll look for the link), before he found the red chips, so that's odd... he said the same amount before finding the chips. He's probably just blah, blah, blahing about that. I'll wait until he releases how he comes up with that to see about that.

What really got me interested in this was this paper:

e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...

In it it talks about Iron - Aluminum - Silicon reactions and it states:

"The goal of this work is to examine the influence of SiO2 on the energy release properties of the Fe2O3–Al thermite reaction."

"The presence of Si02 are more insulative than the highly conductive properties of Fe203. For example, the thermal conductivity for Fe2O3 is 20.0 W/m K and for SiO2 is 1.38 W/m K [12]. The presence of SiO2 hinders flame propagation by behaving as a thermal heat sink and resisting the transport of heat through the mixture, thereby reducing the velocity. Although SiO2 contributes to the chemical energy generated, adding SiO2 reduces the overall speed of the reaction by inhibiting thermal transport and reducing the combustion temperature."

We talk about just the Iron Oxide/Aluminum thermite but there was also silcon in the chips so it's harder to figure exactly what this is. BUt it's easier to just use the Iron Oxide/Aluminum example, as I can't find anything about Iron Oxide/Aluminum/Silicon reactions.

So the point I'm trying to make is if these were used it may have been for a more controlled purpose than just cutting through steel.

Edited because I'm sure I should be I'm

[edit on 18-8-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


" IT SAYS HEAT IRON to it's melting point! "

Are you saying that applying a flame to it is not heating it ?


You can heat the material to the point that it will drip , without having to cut it . Once it starts to drip , spheres WILL form .

[edit on 18-8-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



If the thin layer of oxide quenched the reaction, wouldn't a steel beam do the same thing?


If?


Yes, it would.


That is your opinion, how about you demonstrating this?


The highly engineered material apparently wasn't designed


Apparently??


to react on steel beams which further questions the theory taht it was anything but paint.


Your opinion, now can you prove it? No, I don’t think so.


Jones has disproved his theory by saying that the reaction could be quenched by a small amount of oxide.


Again, that is your opinion. In addition, you are wrong.

It is so sad that you have resorted to your opinions, assumptions, speculation, hunches, and wild guessing. You have proven “nothing.”

Where is any of your “science” to back up your nonsense?

Looks to me Jones has debunk you. At least, he shows his science. All you given is your opinions and they are base on What? More of your opinions.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by turbofan
 


Are you saying that applying a flame to it is not heating it ?




Do you understand the difference between setting something on fire
and using methods of convection, raditation, and conduction to warm
up a sample?

A DSC uses any of those three to heat up the sample, there is no flame
within the chamber.


You can heat the material to the point that it will drip , without having to cut it


Really? YOu are going to do that with a match?


Please post a video of this...no, not a thermitic steel wool reaction,
but heating an IRON CHIP with a match!


Once it starts to drip , spheres WILL form .


Is that right? Maybe while suspended in air, falling to the ground. Once
the molten iron hits a surface, it will splatter. It will form a blob, NOT A SPHERE.

Nice try.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




I'm ready to call your bluff Pteridine! Your excuses don't even make
sense! "The spheres are not iron", "the spheres contain iron because of the red chips contain iron"...

If that's true, why is the red chip still intact in this photo? I thought it
would have reduced itself into a sphere?




So, let's do the experiment. You are telling us that heating up paint
that is applied to iron will form spheres at 430 degrees?

We can do this a few ways. Using an oven; using a gas burner, or using a
fire pit.

I have a pan, video camera, some paint, thermo-couples and even a high
power scope which I can use in my lab at work.







I can obtain iron chips, and/or iron oxide. I can even paint the grill in my
fire pit.

I'll monitor temperature of the sample, ambient and heat source all at once in real time.

I'll video tape the entire process.

I'll repeat the experiment in the firepit, on an open burner using a pan,
and in the oven using a pan.

I will photograph and magnify images of the sample before and after
heating in each scenario.

We'll see if ANY sort of sphere forms.

Are you up for the challenge and face the errors in your understanding of
this topic?

Do you have anything to add before this experiment begins?
Methods? Criteria? Suggested observations? Suggested materials?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
[IT SAYS HEAT IRON to it's melting point!


Lighting steel wool causes a thermitic reaction.
Okay so you are admitting that you can get a thermitic reaction from a flame and steel in the presence of atmospheric oxygen, apparently.

So now I need you to tell me why you think there was thermite in the building?

This one is plenty, who needs four? Oh, truthers do.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by butcherguy]



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join