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

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.

I'm not dodging anything. My question is not ambiguous, it's very straight forward. Do you agree that peak has
nothing to do with the explosive nature of a material?

Pteridine keeps talking about peaks and candle wax as though peak has some significance...which it doesn't
and therefore why should we talk about excess heat?

Candle wax and peak and all that stuff that you and Pteridine incorrectly associate with this debate does not belong.

So here's a picture to help you guys understand. Tell me which line is most explosive. For sake of argument,
the dark blue line is a known nano-thermite.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/04f8c807c81d.jpg[/atsimg]

PLB, and Pteridine, which line is more explosive than the dark blue line?

Originally posted by turbofan
Tell me which line is most explosive.

The whole point is, you can't tell from your image. It depends on all kind of external factors, I posted those many pages back. To repeat: "Furnace atmosphere, size and shape, Sample-holder material and geometry, Nature and location of the thermocouple, The heating rate, The sample mass, particle size, and packing density, The thermal characteristics (conductivity, heat capacity) of the sample." Those are quoted from an email exchange between Jones and Greening.

So you can't tell the "energy release rate" of the sample from the DSC. All we know is that some exothermic event took place over a temperature span of ~40 degrees, which equals 4 minutes with 10C/min. You claim it can not be combustion. Now come with a source that confirms it, or agree its only your opinion.

reply to post by -PLB-


Come on PLB, you know the answer you just don't want to admit your mistake.

The samples were taken in the same environment; in air; at 10'C/min heating rate.

Which line is more explosive than the known sample of nano-thermite.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/04f8c807c81d.jpg[/atsimg]

Hint: Only one line is more explosive.

Can you tell me which one?

reply to post by turbofan


The line with the steepest increase?

Originally posted by turbofan
Can you tell me which one?

Lets change the question. Can you tell from those lines if there is an explosive reaction at all? If so, how can you determine this, and give me some sources that back this up. And if you can't tell if there is an explosive reaction at all, what is the point in asking which one is more explosive? Its just a nonsense question.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by turbofan
Can you tell me which one?

Lets change the question. Can you tell from those lines if there is an explosive reaction at all? If so, how can you determine this, and give me some sources that back this up. And if you can't tell if there is an explosive reaction at all, what is the point in asking which one is more explosive? Its just a nonsense question.

edit on 31-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

PLB, you are overthinking this HYPOTHETICAL question.

We know by known sample that the blue represents the exotherm of nano-thermite. We know that nano-thermite
is explosive in nature.

The dark blue line is therefore our benchmark.

Now, please tell me which line is more explosive than the dark blue line.

Do you think it's the red line? The green line? The purple line?

Originally posted by turbofan
PLB, you are overthinking this HYPOTHETICAL question.

You on the other hand are dealing with a very concrete and to the point question. Why can't the DSC trace show regular combustion and back it up with sources. Well, you are not really dealing with it, but rather ignoring it and respond with irrelevant issues.

We know by known sample that the blue represents the exotherm of nano-thermite. We know that nano-thermite
is explosive in nature.

The dark blue line is therefore our benchmark.

Now, please tell me which line is more explosive than the dark blue line.

Do you think it's the red line? The green line? The purple line?

edit on 31-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

I already answered. My stance is that you can not tell which sample is "more explosive" (lines are not explosive by the way), as the shape of the DSC is dependent on many factors. If you assume that all curves are from an explosive reaction, then we can also assume, by definition, that all these reactions took place within 1 second. It is impossible to determine which was "more explosive", as the curves show the energy release in the order of minutes, not seconds.

But you seem to disagree, so which curve represents is the "more explosive" sample according to you, and why?

Originally posted by -PLB- Why can't the DSC trace show regular combustion and back it up with sources. Well, you are not really dealing with it, but rather ignoring it and respond with irrelevant issues.

I don't know why I bother wasting my time debating anonymous people on the internet. I really don't.

Even with diagrams and basic questions, you are still not able to follow along.

It CANNOT be REGULAR combustion becuase the material is consumed at a faster rate than a KNOWN EXPLOSIVE.

How simple and easy is that ?

It's black and white, yet you are not able to answer this basic question. It's unreal.

THis was only to show and prove that peak has absolutely NOTHING to do with showing that a material is
more explosive than a known bench mark.

explosive reaction, then we can also assume, by definition, that all these reactions took place within 1 second. It is impossible to determine which was "more explosive", as the curves show the energy release in the order of minutes, not seconds.

More to the point , this quote yet again highlights you are debating a topic you have no idea about.

YOu continue to relate reaction time of the explosion with the DSC trace!

I have shown known traces of explosives. Explosives which react within MILLISECONDS, yet you cannot
grasp that the reaction time of an explosion is not the same as heat flow measured in "minutes".

I'm done trying to teach you how stuff works. YOu need to do some reading and research and acknowledge
your errors before you dig yourself deeper into the 'ignorance hole'.

You need to understand what you are talking about before debating the subject!

I am seriously DONE debating this topic with you as having you understand the most basic drawings isn't
helping.

Maybe someone else will have the patience and better approach to explaining these simple concepts because
it appears my method isn't getting through to you!

Originally posted by turbofan
I don't know why I bother wasting my time debating anonymous people on the internet. I really don't.

Even with diagrams and basic questions, you are still not able to follow along.

It CANNOT be REGULAR combustion becuase the material is consumed at a faster rate than a KNOWN EXPLOSIVE.

How simple and easy is that ?

It's black and white, yet you are not able to answer this basic question. It's unreal.

THis was only to show and prove that peak has absolutely NOTHING to do with showing that a material is
more explosive than a known bench mark.

So you keep repeating. With no sources, or anything to back it up. Can you explain precisely how you determine how fast the material was consumed, and can you give an exact time? And can you show sources that back up your claims?

More to the point , this quote yet again highlights you are debating a topic you have no idea about.

YOu continue to relate reaction time of the explosion with the DSC trace!

I have shown known traces of explosives. Explosives which react within MILLISECONDS, yet you cannot
grasp that the reaction time of an explosion is not the same as heat flow measured in "minutes".

In fact, I very well grasp this concept, and therefor I conclude I cannot determine if a sample is (more) explosive from the DSC curve. You on the other hand claim you can, so explain how. Which of the curves you drew represents a more explosive sample according to you, and why?

Prediction: I will get no answers to any of the questions, and you will continue making personal attacks on how ignorant and stupid I am. If you refuse to answer the questions, I will regard your reply as your acknowledgement that you are more or less clueless.

Ohhh the threats!

So you keep repeating. With no sources, or anything to back it up.

I have linked several sources and DSC curves, you just fail to see the connection.

Can you explain precisely how you determine how fast the material was consumed, and can you give an exact time?

No, you cannot relate reaction time of an explosive with a DSC curve. I don't know why you continue
to ask for these answers. DSC does not measure reaction time of an explosive.

You would know this if you studied. If you read a few simple reports on the performance of black powder
or thermite, or nano-thermite, or RDX, etc. etc.

These all react within milliseconds, NOT minutes.

Perhaps measuring pressure waves, or using high speed video can reveal exactly how long something takes
to react.

In fact, I very well grasp this concept, and therefor I conclude I cannot determine if a sample is (more) explosive from the DSC curve.

If that was true, you would see that the heat generated and removed happens faster with the purple line
over the known nano-thermite trace. If the heat is generated and removed faster than a known explosive,
the material undertest MUST be more explosive.

Natural combustion doesn't happen as fast as an explosive! Period!

If something is generating heat faster than a known explosive, it too MUST be more explosive by definition.

It is therefore NOT in "regular" form. It has been modified to release all of its heat quickly and near instantly.

This is done by making the material as small as possible. NANO sized. In ULTRA FINE GRAIN format.

The smaller the material, the faster it will react.

That makes it explosive.

If the heat is generated faster, and removed quicker than something you know is an explosive

IE: RDX, PETN, Thermite

Then the sample you are testing is explosive.

Time is what you measure; not peak.

The ignition slope: Explosives generate heat rapidly. They react quickly and release all of their energy
quickly. In milliseconds. Explosives generate a steep slope because of this.

If your test material is generating a steep slope, it too is generating heat rapidly.

The width of the curve: The time/duration of the heat above the referenece point (exo) indicates heat
flow.

If your test material is producing all of its energy within a more narrow exotherm than a known explosive,
it too must be more explosive.

The decay of heat: due to the fact that explosives use up all of their energy instantly, you will observe
a quick drop in heat after peak. This rapid decent in the slope, and quick decay in heat indicates nothing
is left to "burn". Heat is removed.

If the test material has a sharp drop after peak, it too has used up all of its energy and nothing is left to 'burn'.
Heat is removed quickly.

Known explosives whether thermitic, or having some sort of 'combustible' organic exhibit ALL of these
characteristics.

Jones' test sample exibited ALL of these characteristics.

Therefore, Jones' sample is MORE EXPLOSIVE than a known nano-thermite.

Paint cannot do this! If you still believe that, please post a link to known study of paint in a DSC machine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Otherwise leave me alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 !!!111

So the attempt of the uneducated to debunk a paper composed by experts over an 18 month period with half a page on conspiracy board turned out the way I expected it to turn out.

Originally posted by turbofan
If the heat is generated faster, and removed quicker than something you know is an explosive

IE: RDX, PETN, Thermite

Then the sample you are testing is explosive.

Time is what you measure; not peak.

The ignition slope: Explosives generate heat rapidly. They react quickly and release all of their energy
quickly. In milliseconds. Explosives generate a steep slope because of this.

If your test material is generating a steep slope, it too is generating heat rapidly.

The width of the curve: The time/duration of the heat above the referenece point (exo) indicates heat
flow.

If your test material is producing all of its energy within a more narrow exotherm than a known explosive,
it too must be more explosive.

The decay of heat: due to the fact that explosives use up all of their energy instantly, you will observe
a quick drop in heat after peak. This rapid decent in the slope, and quick decay in heat indicates nothing
is left to "burn". Heat is removed.

If the test material has a sharp drop after peak, it too has used up all of its energy and nothing is left to 'burn'.
Heat is removed quickly.

Known explosives whether thermitic, or having some sort of 'combustible' organic exhibit ALL of these
characteristics.

Jones' test sample exibited ALL of these characteristics.

Therefore, Jones' sample is MORE EXPLOSIVE than a known nano-thermite.

Paint cannot do this! If you still believe that, please post a link to known study of paint in a DSC machine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Otherwise leave me alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 !!!111

I can see that you are frustrated at your inability to coherently explain away the faults with Jones' paper. It is apparent that you have little knowledge of chemistry and are so infatuated with the idea of a conspiracy that you do not see how ridiculous the entire theory is. Ten to 100 tons of unignited paint-on thermite that, if it was as claimed, would barely warm the material it was coating. If 100 tons was in the dust, how much was present to begin with? If it won't stay lit in the furnace, how would it work at all? You made claims of UFG carbonaceous binder with no evidence. Jones' sample shows no explosive properties at all and Jones has completely failed to show any thermite reaction. You, in turn, have failed to respond to the thread topic and have failed to defend the work of Jones, et al.
Until someone can show otherwise, the chips are only the red paint that covered the steel superstructure of the WTC.

reply to post by turbofan


So you are claiming you can discriminate between a reaction that takes say 10ms and a reaction that takes 20ms from a DSC? How? Do you really think it will make any difference on the DSC curve? Both will behave like instantaneous power burst. Yet you claim one will result in a shallower exotherm? Is that what your are saying?

If so, do you also agree that sample 1 (MacKinlay 1) in Jones paper is totally different from sample 4 (Intermont), and sample 1 is a lot more explosive than sample 3 according to your line of reasoning? So these are two completely different materials? Is that the conclusion we can draw?

I will repeat it again, although I don't really think you are listening: the shape of the curve is dependent on a whole list of factors. Mass, shape and properties of the sample, shape and material of the sample holder and many other properties of the DSC device. Characteristics such as linearity, time constant and sensitivity of the DSC all play a role in the shape of the curve. You haven't even mentioned any of those factors. Your line of reasoning is as simplistic as "X is explosive" -> "Y looks a bit like X" -> "Y is explosive".

reply to post by -PLB-


Well what behaviour would that protective paint exhibit if the same tests were performed on it. If a sample of the protective paint is run through the same tests and we have a match, case closed, if not....

Originally posted by pteridineIt is apparent that you have little knowledge of chemistry

Need I remind you , that I corrected at least five of your errors with scientific links.

You are the one trying to disprove an entire science paper by limiting the discussion to one particular
test...and even then you are incorrectly using 'excess heat' as your crutch.

When you're ready to debate the entire paper as a whole, come and find me.

Until then I'll wait for you to find a paint sample that was tested in a DSC machine that can release all of
its energy in less time than nano-thermite at an ignition temperature of 430'C!



PLB, forget it dude. Do some research on DSC machines and what you are looking at before you
enter a debate. Jones' duplicated Tillotson's environment and all of your other concerns are covered
in the data.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Well what behaviour would that protective paint exhibit if the same tests were performed on it. If a sample of the protective paint is run through the same tests and we have a match, case closed, if not....

Don't waste your time. Like I said in my previous post, they don't want to talk about the other tests which
prove a thermitic, energetic material.

They can't provide links to back up their opinions. They claim paint, but have never produced a DSC to
back up their talk.

When either of them are ready to discuss the entire paper, and/or provide a DSC sample of paint that can
outperform nano-thermite, I'll be here with an apology.

Jones has back to back tests of conventional thermite vs. the chip and the composition after ignition is
near identical. Iron spheres were formed with both materials. The magnified photos; the chemical analysis;
the resistance tests; the backscatter images; the DSC all prove a thermitic, and energetic material. The
DSC is yet another test that supports all of the other observations and data.

Here is my question to anyone who can answer this, if possible.

What is the chance of taking one of these dust samples to an FBI forensics lab and them telling you exactly what's in the dust? I would think that they have a data base for just about every known material.

Is this idea even conceivable, and if so, what would it take to arrange this?

reply to post by curious_soul

Here is my question to anyone who can answer this, if possible.

What is the chance of taking one of these dust samples to an FBI forensics lab and them telling you exactly what's in the dust? I would think that they have a data base for just about every known material.

Is this idea even conceivable, and if so, what would it take to arrange this?

Just as conceivable as the FBI found the hijackers DNA from the airplanes that vaporized on impact in the WTC and millions of tons of ash and concrete was buried on top of what little micro pieces of airplanes that were left buried under the WTC debris. FBI must have a super duper dust sifting DNA machine.

The fact is the government cannot be trusted to test anything at this point, the OS is nothing but proven lies many were invented by the FBI.

reply to post by impressme


I understand what you're saying, that's why i asked what would it take to arrange this if possible. Meanning, having independent public people like Jones or whoever best suitable working with the FBI. I know it's a fantasy, but i'm sure the FBI has all the resources avaliable to get to the bottom of this or atleast i think they may have.

Seriously, i was just wondering if independent scientist could get access to their resources(equipment, data bases etc..) by filling some type of paper work.

Originally posted by turbofan
PLB, forget it dude. Do some research on DSC machines and what you are looking at before you
enter a debate. Jones' duplicated Tillotson's environment and all of your other concerns are covered
in the data.

I did some research, I read through some books. Maybe thats why you are now getting the hell out of here and refuse to reply: your nonsense it being exposed. Your reply is that of a bad loser, not of someone interested in an an open debate.