An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

Originally posted by Cassius666
Well whatever it was way esplosive, if it burned at an fast enough rate, or is something wrong with that conclusion?

reply to post by -PLB-

 

Originally posted by Alfie1

I know this is not directly related to the DSC data, but I have not been convinced by the debate on that, and there are wider issues that bother me.

(a) I thought it was a characteristic of a thermitic reaction that it could not be stopped. It would go on until everything was consumed. If that is so I wonder about all the unignited " nano-engineered thermitic material " as Turbofan describes it.

Well that could have been charges of the material that did not ignite to begin with. How should the speroids have made it into the sample if not as the result of a thermitic reaction?

edit on 29-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

What I find difficult to understand is how " thermitic " charges could remain un-ignited in a scenario where skyscrapers burning on multiple floors collapse to a site which remains hot for days.

And, if there were un-ignited " thermitic " charges why is there no evidence of what was supposedly in place to ignite them ?

The spheroids don't do anything for me because I have seen no proof they weren't in the sample to start with.

Originally posted by Alfie1

I know this is not directly related to the DSC data, but I have not been convinced by the debate on that, and there are wider issues that bother me.

(a) I thought it was a characteristic of a thermitic reaction that it could not be stopped. It would go on until everything was consumed. If that is so I wonder about all the unignited " nano-engineered thermitic material " as Turbofan describes it.

Just to be proper, it's not "me" that describes the material, it's the authors of the paper.

I really have no idea why there was so much unignited material in the dust. Perhaps if I knew where it was
placed, and what role it played it would be easier for me to offer a theory.

The only theory I can give you at this time, is that the unreacted material was blown away from any ignition
source by explosive force from other reactions.

Expanding gasses and pressure may have pushed the unreacted material away fast enough that it did not
receive any of the required temperatures to ignite.

Other possibilty is that the material itself has failure modes. As Tillotson describes in his paper, the sol-gel
process can tailor the reaction modes of the mixture. If the criteria is not met, then the mixture will not ignite.

For example, in Tillotson's paper there is a chart that shows the pass-fail ignition using different modes:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5435df944f41.jpg[/atsimg]

(b) If the thermitic material was used to demolish the Towers; how was it ignited in the first place ?

BY using remote RF triggering devices with microcircuits

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/806533f936d1.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a82a8457e20.jpg[/atsimg]

This may not be what was used, but it's a plausible explanation and existing technology.

This also leaves behind no evidence (like detcord).

reply to post by turbofan


Thank you for the response. I can just about imagine that, if there was any thermitic material, some could have become, in the chaos, so separated that it did not ignite.

However, I find it very difficult to imagine that radio receivers and associated detonators would have gone totally unnoticed in the rubble. Also, I have always been very sceptical of this method because of the heavy radio traffic in New York and the obvious fatal risk of premature ignition.

Originally posted by turbofan
The Aluminothermic reaction will take place no matter what.

But not in a DSC as the required temperature is not reached.

No, not exactly.

Part of the proof (among other tests) of an aluminothermic reaction are the iron-rich spheres. This does not
prove "thermite", it proves an aluminothermic reaction took place.

See definition of Aluminothermic reaction (a redox reaction between two metals where aluminum is the reducing
agent).

Jones calls it a thermite reaction. I will go with Jones' terminology.

No, not at all.

The shape of the traces doesn't prove "thermite". Wrong.

The shape of the trace proves the material is more explosive than a known explosive tested at the same
heating rate of 10'C/min.

Where are your sources stating that an exotherm that rises 2 minutes and then drops 2 minutes proves an explosive?

Nope completely wrong.

Try:

The combustion of the organic material reached the activation temperature of the aluminothermic mixture.

The organic mixture burned rapidly because it's in UFG format (ultra fine grain format).

It does not, that is a conclusion you draw from it. The shape of the DSC depends on many factors, I already posted them many pages back.

The DSC measures heat flow. Not sure why you continue talking about "burning itself in two minutes"?

For the billionth time, it's not about peak. It never was. I said, ignition slope, narrow exotherm (more narrow
when comprared to a known explosive), and a rapid drop in heat after peak.

All three are characteristics of explosives. All three were observed.

Yes ignition slope, peak, whatever you call it, we have gone over this already. A peak has a slope, no? The slope took ~2 minutes to reach its maximal value. A lot of reactions can take place in 2 minutes. So no proof of thermite or explosives.

No, and no.

Combustion of some sort occured. Who cares how much. It is not required to show/produce the aluminothermic reaction.

But it is required to prove it. As it is now combustion could be the only reaction that took place.

No, no, no!

They simply do not related to Pt.'s argument, nor his approach. Heat density when compared to a known
explosive shows that Jones' chip is more powerful than any of those listed in his paper.

Heat density when proving an aluminothermic reaction is meaningless.

Got it?

It does prove that at least one reaction took place that was not a thermite reaction. Got it?

No. Wrong. See clarifications and corrections to your interpretations above.

Ditto

Already done in the paper by comparing pre-DSC chip with post-DSC chip analysis. Several tests were performed.

But not specifically to exclude iron spheres. No mentioning of it.

Wow, something we all agree on!

This is the only part of this post I didn't have to correct. This is the only part of what you understood about
my position as being correct.

We agree that since Jones' paper was not set out to prove thermite, that he did not prove thermite.

Agree. Wooo hooo!

What Jones' did prove: an energetic thermitic material that incorprates nano technology.

Right, your semantics game. Part of this energetic thermitic material is thermite. Jones was not out to prove the energetic combustion of some material, he was out to prove a thermite reaction.

Originally posted by turbofan
They simply do not related to Pt.'s argument, nor his approach. Heat density when compared to a known
explosive shows that Jones' chip is more powerful than any of those listed in his paper.

Actually, it shows combustion. That is all is shows. The self-extinguishing, more-powerful paint chips just burned a little. We have gone over this many times. Candle wax has a much higher exotherm in kJ/g than any of the explosives listed and the most energetic of Jones chips. Don't worry, it is safe to light candles for the death of this theory.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by -PLB-
Turbofans theory is that the combustion was required to start the thermite reaction.

No, not really my theory. That's the conclusion based on the LLNL study of sol-gel.

The material can be tailor made to react at desired parameters.

The sample will do nothing in an inert environment, as it requires combustion.

No, not quite. The organic part of the mix will do nothing in an inert environment. The Aluminothermic
reaction will take place no matter what.

The proof of thermite are the iron-rich spheres and he doesn't care about the heat.

No, not exactly.

Part of the proof (among other tests) of an aluminothermic reaction are the iron-rich spheres. This does not
prove "thermite", it proves an aluminothermic reaction took place.

See definition of Aluminothermic reaction (a redox reaction between two metals where aluminum is the reducing
agent).

The heat doesn't prove thermite, yet the shape of the heat traces do.

No, not at all.

The shape of the traces doesn't prove "thermite". Wrong.

The shape of the trace proves the material is more explosive than a known explosive tested at the same
heating rate of 10'C/min.

A short summary, he thinks the combustion of organic material reached a temperature of over 1000 C, ignited the thermite, which in turn made the organic material burn much faster than possible in regular combustion.

Nope completely wrong.

Try:

The combustion of the organic material reached the activation temperature of the aluminothermic mixture.

The organic mixture burned rapidly because it's in UFG format (ultra fine grain format).

Although if the organic material reached such high temperatures it seems to me it could easily burn itself in 2 minutes.

The DSC measures heat flow. Not sure why you continue talking about "burning itself in two minutes"?

Still he insists an exotherm that peaks in a period of 2 minutes is proof of an explosive reaction.

For the billionth time, it's not about peak. It never was. I said, ignition slope, narrow exotherm (more narrow
when comprared to a known explosive), and a rapid drop in heat after peak.

All three are characteristics of explosives. All three were observed.

So, he does not only agree that combustion occurred, he claims it is required.

No, and no.

Combustion of some sort occured. Who cares how much. It is not required to show/produce the aluminothermic reaction.

He also agrees that the heat denisity figures are meaningless.

No, no, no!

They simply do not related to Pt.'s argument, nor his approach. Heat density when compared to a known
explosive shows that Jones' chip is more powerful than any of those listed in his paper.

Heat density when proving an aluminothermic reaction is meaningless.

Got it?

What we have left is the shape of the DSC trace and the iron-rich spheres.

Umm no!

You are forgetting the other tests in the paper. Can you name at least three more? I sure can.

For the DSC trace he needs to find a source that proves combustion can not take place in 2 minutes.

No. Wrong. See clarifications and corrections to your interpretations above.

For the iron spheres Jones need to prove they were not already there.

Already done in the paper by comparing pre-DSC chip with post-DSC chip analysis. Several tests were performed.

I think the bottom line is that we all agree on the topic of this thread, which is that the energy readings do not prove thermite.

Wow, something we all agree on!

This is the only part of this post I didn't have to correct. This is the only part of what you understood about
my position as being correct.

We agree that since Jones' paper was not set out to prove thermite, that he did not prove thermite.

Agree. Wooo hooo!

What Jones' did prove: an energetic thermitic material that incorprates nano technology.

In summary PLB, I hope you now understand my position and more about the science.

I'm glad you took the time to try to understand what you thought I was thinking all of this time so I could
set the record straight.

Maybe now, you can move forward with a better understanding.

That helped clarify it. That the paper is adevertised with "jones found thermite" surely adds to the confusion for the non professional trying to understand the paper. However it does not change the picture, an highly reactive material was found whose only purpose can only have been what highly reactive materials are used for.

Originally posted by pteridineActually, it shows combustion. That is all is shows. The self-extinguishing, more-powerful paint chips just burned a little. We have gone over this many times. Candle wax has a much higher exotherm in kJ/g than any of the explosives listed and the most energetic of Jones chips. Don't worry, it is safe to light candles for the death of this theory.

Yet another that doesn't understand how to read the exotherm!

Does anyone debating this topic understand that PEAK has NOTHING to do with rate of energy release?!

Do you understand that the WIDTH of the exotherm indicates duration of heat flow?

Yes, or no?

I can't even begin to state the amount of errors in this post and you have the nerve to ask if I "Got it" like you know
what you're talking about?

Let's start slow so you can focus on one point at a time.

Just like I asked Pteridine, do you understand the the PEAK of the exotherm has NOTHING to do with rate of
release of energy?

Do you understand that you must observe the width of the exotherm to compare "time"/duration of heat flow?

Yes, or no?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by turbofan
The Aluminothermic reaction will take place no matter what.

But not in a DSC as the required temperature is not reached.

No, not exactly.

Part of the proof (among other tests) of an aluminothermic reaction are the iron-rich spheres. This does not
prove "thermite", it proves an aluminothermic reaction took place.

See definition of Aluminothermic reaction (a redox reaction between two metals where aluminum is the reducing
agent).

Jones calls it a thermite reaction. I will go with Jones' terminology.

No, not at all.

The shape of the traces doesn't prove "thermite". Wrong.

The shape of the trace proves the material is more explosive than a known explosive tested at the same
heating rate of 10'C/min.

Where are your sources stating that an exotherm that rises 2 minutes and then drops 2 minutes proves an explosive?

Nope completely wrong.

Try:

The combustion of the organic material reached the activation temperature of the aluminothermic mixture.

The organic mixture burned rapidly because it's in UFG format (ultra fine grain format).

It does not, that is a conclusion you draw from it. The shape of the DSC depends on many factors, I already posted them many pages back.

The DSC measures heat flow. Not sure why you continue talking about "burning itself in two minutes"?

For the billionth time, it's not about peak. It never was. I said, ignition slope, narrow exotherm (more narrow
when comprared to a known explosive), and a rapid drop in heat after peak.

All three are characteristics of explosives. All three were observed.

Yes ignition slope, peak, whatever you call it, we have gone over this already. A peak has a slope, no? The slope took ~2 minutes to reach its maximal value. A lot of reactions can take place in 2 minutes. So no proof of thermite or explosives.

No, and no.

Combustion of some sort occured. Who cares how much. It is not required to show/produce the aluminothermic reaction.

But it is required to prove it. As it is now combustion could be the only reaction that took place.

No, no, no!

They simply do not related to Pt.'s argument, nor his approach. Heat density when compared to a known
explosive shows that Jones' chip is more powerful than any of those listed in his paper.

Heat density when proving an aluminothermic reaction is meaningless.

Got it?

It does prove that at least one reaction took place that was not a thermite reaction. Got it?

No. Wrong. See clarifications and corrections to your interpretations above.

Ditto

Already done in the paper by comparing pre-DSC chip with post-DSC chip analysis. Several tests were performed.

But not specifically to exclude iron spheres. No mentioning of it.

Wow, something we all agree on!

This is the only part of this post I didn't have to correct. This is the only part of what you understood about
my position as being correct.

We agree that since Jones' paper was not set out to prove thermite, that he did not prove thermite.

Agree. Wooo hooo!

What Jones' did prove: an energetic thermitic material that incorprates nano technology.

Right, your semantics game. Part of this energetic thermitic material is thermite. Jones was not out to prove the energetic combustion of some material, he was out to prove a thermite reaction.

edit on 29-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Cassius666


I have never seen it "advertised" as being "thermite", however I have read and heard people say it to be "thermite"

The authors of the paper including Jones have never stated the chips were indeed thermite. Even a sweep through
the paper searching for the word "thermite" reveals comaprisons to conventional thermite and lab grade super-thermite.

There is no instance in the paper where the scientists claim the chips are "thermite". Here are a few examples
and the title and conclusion at the end:

The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide leads to the obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite

These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere

The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide

there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study. Meanwhile,
we compare with products of commercially available (macro-) thermite. During ignition of thermite, we have observed
that many spheres and spheroids are formed as part of the molten product of the reaction is vigorously scattered.

possess a strikingly similar chemical signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated
by commercial thermite (Fig. 24). This similarity supports our hypothesis that the red chips are indeed a form of
thermite.

We have noted that ordinary thermite acts like an incendiary when ignited. However when the ingredients
are ultra-fine-grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very rapidly and explosively [20]

Title

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

Conclusion

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the
WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic
or explosive material.

This is likely the reason people like "PLB" and "Pteridine" have such a difficult time debating the science ... because
they come into the debate thinking Jones claimed "thermite" and all of the data is somehow supposed to support
this false idea.

reply to post by turbofan


You are really trying to avoid the issue here, aren't you. The time it takes for the slope to reach its maximal value is about 2 minutes. So we can tell that within these 2 minutes some reaction took place. You claim this can't possibly be combustion, because the time frame is too small. Prove it. Show sources that support this claim.

reply to post by turbofan


Do you seriously think that by giving it another name the arguments go away? Jones claims a thermite reaction in several places in his paper. An aluminothermic reaction is a thermite reaction. It just specifies that aluminum is the reducing agent. You can call it an "energetic thermitic material" all you like, but the bottom line is that Jones wants to prove a thermite reaction.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by turbofan

 

You are really trying to avoid the issue here, aren't you. The time it takes for the slope to reach its maximal value is about 2 minutes. So we can tell that within these 2 minutes some reaction took place. You claim this can't possibly be combustion, because the time frame is too small. Prove it. Show sources that support this claim.

You are so far gone, you don't even know what you're talking about!

What more can I prove?

You think the DSC machine is measuring the "combustion time" of the material for crying out loud!

DSC measures HEAT FLOW.

HEAT FLOW

Not reaction time of the material.

Do you honestly think that a DSC trace of explosives is measuring the time it takes for the explosive to react?

"some reaction took place in two minutes"



I wish this was "teach PLB how stuff works", but it's not. YOu are clearly out of your league and making
points that are out of this world.

They don't even relate to how a DSC machine works, or what the DSC curve represents.

It's no wonder you can't grasp the duration concept and that a KNOWN EXPLOSIVE AT 10'C/MINUTE
heating rate produces a WIDER EXOTHERM than Jones' sample.

reply to post by turbofan


So you are unable to provide sources that back up your claim that an exotherm that has a rising slope for a duration of 2 minutes and after that declining slope for 2 minutes, can not be combustion. In other words, it could very well be just combustion and we have only your opinion saying otherwise. I hope you understand that your opinion is not that valuable to me.

reply to post by turbofan


Based on what you have said, I think that your argument is that you need UFG material to ignite to provide the heat to start the reaction. Is this correct?

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridineActually, it shows combustion. That is all is shows. The self-extinguishing, more-powerful paint chips just burned a little. We have gone over this many times. Candle wax has a much higher exotherm in kJ/g than any of the explosives listed and the most energetic of Jones chips. Don't worry, it is safe to light candles for the death of this theory.

Yet another that doesn't understand how to read the exotherm!

Does anyone debating this topic understand that PEAK has NOTHING to do with rate of energy release?!

Do you understand that the WIDTH of the exotherm indicates duration of heat flow?

Yes, or no?

The integrated curve has everything to do with heat evolved. Peak height and width determine peak area. Peak area gives energy in kJ or kCal and when the mass is known, kJ/g can be calculated. Maybe it is you who don't understand.

reply to post by pteridine



Ummm no... you said candle wax has a higher peak than explosives. Do you see the underlined portion
of the quote?

Please tell me what the peak of candle wax has to do with the exotherm being more explosive than RDX, or PETN, or nano-thermite for instance.

Please...go ... ahead, I'd love to read this response.

I see you dodged the question, and replied with the same ol' response.

That tells me you're no closer to understanding my posted and sourced facts than you were yesterday, hence
your repetition in posting.

So here is the question again:

Originally posted by turbofanJust like I asked Pteridine, do you understand the the PEAK of the exotherm has NOTHING to do with rate of
release of energy?

Do you understand that you must observe the width of the exotherm to compare "time"/duration of heat flow?

Yes, or no?

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

Ummm no... you said candle wax has a higher peak than explosives. Do you see the underlined portion
of the quote?

Please tell me what the peak of candle wax has to do with the exotherm being more explosive than RDX, or PETN, or nano-thermite for instance.

Please...go ... ahead, I'd love to read this response.

Before you faddishly "umm" yourself into a corner, reread what I wrote. In air, candle wax has a much higher exotherm in kJ/g than explosives. That is because the oxidant, oxygen in air, is not weighed and the oxdidants in explosives are weighed. Do you understand this point?
The exotherm in kJ/g is proportional to the integrated area under the curve. Both the height and width are important and calibration compounds must be run under the same conditions as the sample so that the calculations can be made. This is because the shape, height, and width depend more on the conditions of the analysis and not as much on the properties of the sample.
The reason that this is noted is that the only way the exotherms can be as high as Jones measured is for there to be combustion. Using Jones' DSC data, there is no way to determine anything but that combustion occurred because Jones forgot to do the experiment that eliminated combustion.

reply to post by turbofan


The only person dodging questions is you. The question you ask is ambiguous anyway and irrelevant for the issue at hand. You are just creating smoke screens in order to avoid admitting those sources that support your opinion, don't exist.

So again, show sources that support your claim that the exotherm can't be combustion, or admit its just your opinion.

Originally posted by turbofan
BY using remote RF triggering devices with microcircuits

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/806533f936d1.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a82a8457e20.jpg[/atsimg]

This may not be what was used, but it's a plausible explanation and existing technology.

Are the triggering devices fire and explosion proof?

I'm just wondering how they themselves were able to withstand the plane impact and subsequent fires, we know the collapses started at the impact point. So if what you were saying is true these devices must be outstanding.