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.

 

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 52
420
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
1. Jones claims thermite.


He said he found thermite with sulfur which is thermate, mate.


2. Cole used thermate,.


And your point is?


3. Thermate is a variation of thermite with additives to specifically cut metal.


Thermite can also cut metal, thermate is just more efficient.


4. It is different than thermite which is not made to specifically cut metal but is often used to weld or repair metal.


Wrong...


Thermite can be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment.


www.absoluteastronomy.com...


5. Cole used something that behaves differently than what Jones claims and, consequently, proved only that thermate does what it is designed to do.


Wrong.


6. Many want to link the Jones claim with the Cole demo but that is not correct.


Wrong again.




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
1. Jones claims thermite.


You're already wrong. Jones said it was thermite with additives, the very definition of thermate.

This was already posted once but you ignored it.


EPHRAIM — A Brigham Young University physicist said he now believes an incendiary substance called thermite, bolstered by sulfur, was used to generate exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center on 9/11, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.

"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea," Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.


www.deseretnews.com...


I still can't believe you're arguing pure semantics about what happened on 9/11. One letter difference between two kinds of the same thing and you're throwing a fit about it.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
If you don't accept the official version of 9/11, you are an antiSemite.

Why? Because you will bring up the number of zionist Jews amongst the Neocons that ruled America during 9/11. Mentioning the Dancing Israelis is antiSemitic and so is bringing up Larry "Bring it Down" Silverstein. Please avoid mentioning Urban Moving System, this is antiSemitic too. By the way step away from discussing the +500 mossad agents rounded up by the FBI after 9/11, antiSemitic ground here too.

Please refrain from antiSemitic comments please.

edit on 17-1-2011 by Ilovecatbinlady because: typo



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
1. Jones claims thermite.


You're already wrong. Jones said it was thermite with additives, the very definition of thermate.


EPHRAIM — A Brigham Young University physicist said he now believes an incendiary substance called thermite, bolstered by sulfur, was used to generate exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center on 9/11, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.

"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea," Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.


www.deseretnews.com...


I still can't believe you're arguing pure semantics about what happened on 9/11. One letter difference between two kinds of the same thing and you're throwing a fit about it.


First, the publication date of your reference was in 2006 when Jones was still looking for "evidence" of his predetermined conclusion and before he found paint chips to analyze. The "one letter difference" is not semantics and is a really idiotic argument. As a recent college boy, you might know the difference betwen methanol and ethanol...or maybe not, which would explain a few things.
From wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...
"The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN)." What Jones found doesn't match this composition. He found no nitrogen and said that the sulfur he found was likely contamination by gypsum. Thermate is significantly different from thermite, regardless of the one letter difference in spelling.

edit on 1/17/2011 by pteridine because: Added material.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Where did he say he found thermite with sulfur, Anok? If he found it, wouldn't he have said he found thermate? When he analyzes it properly, he will have to say he found cured red paint.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The "one letter difference" is not semantics and is a really idiotic argument.


Considering Jones himself even says it's thermite with sulfur added, which is thermate, yes, you are bickering semantics. Even his most recent paper doesn't say anything about aluminum and iron oxide alone, and nothing else, which is what basic thermite is.



As a recent college boy, you might know the difference betwen [sic] methanol and ethanol...or maybe not, which would explain a few things.


This coming from someone who has always shied away from giving details of their own education, because it must just make you so much superior to me that I guess you're afraid to post it.
Not like I don't post anything that can't be verified elsewhere anyway.


From wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...
"The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN)." What Jones found doesn't match this composition.


What the engineer in the OP shows doesn't match that composition either, and it still works just fine. Once again, you get so hung up on semantics and trivial differences, you won't let yourself see the forest for the trees. As long as it melts through steel columns you could call it horse dung and it would still do the same thing. For some reason you apparently think what you call something determines what it does, rather than the other way around.


He found no nitrogen and said that the sulfur he found was likely contamination by gypsum.


He never said it was "likely." Jon Cole tested that too and proved that the internet "debunkers" who came up with that theory had no idea what they were talking about, because it resulted in nothing.
edit on 17-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The "one letter difference" is not semantics and is a really idiotic argument.


Considering Jones himself even says it's thermite with sulfur added, which is thermate, yes, you are bickering semantics. Even his most recent paper doesn't say anything about aluminum and iron oxide alone, and nothing else, which is what basic thermite is.



As a recent college boy, you might know the difference betwen [sic] methanol and ethanol...or maybe not, which would explain a few things.


This coming from someone who has always shied away from giving details of their own education, because it must just make you so much superior to me that I guess you're afraid to post it.
Not like I don't post anything that can't be verified elsewhere anyway.


From wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...
"The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN)." What Jones found doesn't match this composition.


What the engineer in the OP shows doesn't match that composition either, and it still works just fine. Once again, you get so hung up on semantics and trivial differences, you won't let yourself see the forest for the trees. As long as it melts through steel columns you could call it horse dung and it would still do the same thing. For some reason you apparently think what you call something determines what it does, rather than the other way around.


He found no nitrogen and said that the sulfur he found was likely contamination by gypsum.


He never said it was "likely." Jon Cole tested that too and proved that the internet "debunkers" who came up with that theory had no idea what they were talking about, because it resulted in nothing.


He said "The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings." He had to come up with some reasons when he found things he couldn't explain. Since he didn't have any other reasonable explanation, this is likely the source. He also avoids explaining a few things like the presence of Zn and Cr, found in metal primer, by saying "surface contamination" and then saying that they are sometimes found in the red layer. That is an interesting contamination that says there must be sources of Zn and Cr, only, floating around and sticking to his samples. Maybe it is zinc chromate primer dust.

Your statement "Jon Cole tested that too and proved that the internet "debunkers" who came up with that theory had no idea what they were talking about, because it resulted in nothing" doesn't really make sense. How would he test that? If there was one compound that would be expected as a common contaminant at the WTC, it would be gypsum.

Jones may have said thermate originally, but his paper didn't. Your reference was to Jones being mentioned in a local newspaper in 2006, while he was still hoping to contrive evidence to pin his theory to. He found no free sulfur in the red chips, so he did not find thermate. Cole can burn steel all he wants and show all sorts of things designed to cut steel do exactly that, but he has not shown any link between his demonstrations and anything that occurred at the WTC.

No sulfur, no thermate, no link between Cole's experiments and the Jones paper. It is not semantics as much as you wish it was.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
He said "The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings."


Exactly. He never said it was "likely."


Your statement "Jon Cole tested that too and proved that the internet "debunkers" who came up with that theory had no idea what they were talking about, because it resulted in nothing" doesn't really make sense. How would he test that?


You have an awful memory. He tested it by burning gypsum and all the other common WTC debris ingredients in a huge bonfire and seeing if the gypsum could somehow magically infiltrate the steel and initiate the steel-melting reaction you people believe it somehow did. Remember FEMA appendix C? Remember how you think gypsum wallboard caused that? Jon Cole tested that hypothesis, and debunked it, not surprising since all it had going for it in the first place was a lot of desperate finger-flapping on the JREF forums.


Jones may have said thermate originally, but his paper didn't.


It doesn't specific iron oxide and aluminum only, either. In fact the term he uses in the title and abstract is "thermitic material."


Cole can burn steel all he wants and show all sorts of things designed to cut steel do exactly that, but he has not shown any link between his demonstrations and anything that occurred at the WTC.


Once again, FEMA appendix C. Cole reproduced that "corrosion" exactly. Do you want to compare the words of the FEMA report to what he actually did to the steel himself? High-temperature liquid eutectic consisting primarily of iron, etc., that leaves the steel extremely thin, and FEMA couldn't explain?


No sulfur, no thermate, no link between Cole's experiments and the Jones paper. It is not semantics as much as you wish it was.


First it was "sulfur came from the gypsum," now it's "no sulfur." Forcing conclusions much? What were you trained in again?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Jones may have said thermate originally, but his paper didn't.


It doesn't specific [sic] iron oxide and aluminum only, either. In fact the term he uses in the title and abstract is "thermitic material."


Cole can burn steel all he wants and show all sorts of things designed to cut steel do exactly that, but he has not shown any link between his demonstrations and anything that occurred at the WTC.


Once again, FEMA appendix C. Cole reproduced that "corrosion" exactly. Do you want to compare the words of the FEMA report to what he actually did to the steel himself? High-temperature liquid eutectic consisting primarily of iron, etc., that leaves the steel extremely thin, and FEMA couldn't explain?


No sulfur, no thermate, no link between Cole's experiments and the Jones paper. It is not semantics as much as you wish it was.


First it was "sulfur came from the gypsum," now it's "no sulfur." Forcing conclusions much? What were you trained in again?


You are still confused. The question was about thermate and thermite. There was no free sulfur in the chips, so no thermate for sure. Cole didn't test the contamination of Jones paint chips. Jones said thermitic material because he had to explain a lot of other components like a carbonaceous binder. When Jones found higher levels of calcium and sulfur he attributed it to gypsum, as he should have. Jones is attuned to thermate and if there was any way he could have claimed it, he surely would have.

Cole is missing a few things in his burn test. First, it didn't last long. Second, it was not in the reducing atmosphere of underground fires. Calcium and Barium sulfates reduce to sulfides in the presence of CO at about 500C. When water is added, H2S is formed. When water contacts hot steel, hydrogen is formed. When salt water is used as an extinguisher, many other reactions occur. Many acids and acidic gases are formed that can corrode steel over the time the structures were buried. Cole's conditions were burning brush around a steel beam. Fodder for the true believers but not applicable.

In a review, Cole only proved that thermate does what it was designed to do, cut steel.
edit on 1/17/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You are still confused. The question was about thermate and thermite. There was no free sulfur in the chips, so no thermate for sure.


You are saying that sulfur from gypsum could help eat through the steel that FEMA looked at, but at the same time, the same gypsum couldn't do the same thing in the samples Jones is looking at. Have you realized this contradiction yet?


Even if you think the sulfur came from gypsum wallboard, guess what? It still ate into the steel. So that would mean the same sulfur in the material Jones is looking at, should also be able to help eat through the steel. So much for "it can't be thermate because the sulfur isn't free" argument. If you think that argument actually has merit, then you must also agree that the same sulfur couldn't have helped corrode the steel at all, which is blatantly contradicting FEMA's analysis in appendix C.

You can't have it both ways.




When Jones found higher levels of calcium and sulfur he attributed it to gypsum, as he should have.


He offered it as one possibility. He didn't say "this is where it definitely came from." There is a difference. Read the paper again.


Cole is missing a few things in his burn test. First, it didn't last long.


It lasted for days. How long is your imaginary reaction supposed to take before the gypsum board finally eats through the steel by itself?


Second, it was not in the reducing atmosphere of underground fires. Calcium and Barium sulfates reduce to sulfides in the presence of CO at about 500C. When water is added, H2S is formed. When water contacts hot steel, hydrogen is formed. When salt water is used as an extinguisher, many other reactions occur. Many acids and acidic gases are formed that can corrode steel over the time the structures were buried. Cole's conditions were burning brush around a steel beam. Fodder for the true believers but not applicable.


None of the vague tripe you just described is consistent with FEMA's analysis of the "corroded" debris samples. Underground fires would be oxygen starved and would not be able to reach the temperatures required to turn the iron in the steel to a liquid state, even going by the reduced melting point FEMA gives due to the nature of the eutectic reaction itself. All the rest is reaching for some saving miracle reaction while having no idea how the sulfur could actually melt through steel. Short of thermate, of course, which would just be too obvious of an explanation.


In a review, Cole only proved that thermate does what it was designed to do, cut steel.


And that gypsum doesn't just eat through steel in the presence of heat. You don't even have a well-defined theory for how it's even possible and yet you're throwing around wild speculation as if it's some kind of proven explanation.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK
 


Where did he say he found thermite with sulfur, Anok? If he found it, wouldn't he have said he found thermate? When he analyzes it properly, he will have to say he found cured red paint.




"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea," Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.

www.deseretnews.com...

Did you miss this? Both I and bsbray have already posted this.

No he would not necessarily say thermAte, when thermIte is a sufficient term to use, it's the most commonly used term. He might not have even known that thermite is called thermate when it has sulfur added.

Why are you continuing with this stupid argument? Oh I know, you debunkers can never ever admit to being wrong can you? Because then you would have to admit that maybe the OS is wrong.

The arguments from you guys get more and more bizarre, and we're the ones who are supposed to have 'out there' theories and believe any nonsense from 'damned fool conspiracy sites.'



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You are saying that sulfur from gypsum could help eat through the steel that FEMA looked at, but at the same time, the same gypsum couldn't do the same thing in the samples Jones is looking at. Have you realized this contradiction yet?


Even if you think the sulfur came from gypsum wallboard, guess what? It still ate into the steel. So that would mean the same sulfur in the material Jones is looking at, should also be able to help eat through the steel. So much for "it can't be thermate because the sulfur isn't free" argument. If you think that argument actually has merit, then you must also agree that the same sulfur couldn't have helped corrode the steel at all, which is blatantly contradicting FEMA's analysis in appendix C.

You can't have it both ways.


Ok, lets review. In Jones chips there was no free sulfur. Calcium sulfate on the surface was, according to Jones, contamination. It came after the collapse. Got it so far? That means that it wasn't part of the composition of the claimed nano thermitic material , which means that the material didn't have the crucial ingredient of thermate. All the paint that reacted is long gone and all the unreacted paint falls down and is abraded off and then is mixed with the gypsum dust. Since it wasn't thermate, Cole used the wrong material and proved only that thermate cuts steel, as expected. Does this surprise you?
Now, after the collapse, there are underground fires. These get really hot because the debris acts as an insulator. There are all sorts of high temperature reactions going on in there. Gypsum, water, steam, salt water, iron, aluminum, CO, CO2, SO2, SO3, HCl, etc. all make things difficult to model. To determine molecular components, you'd have to guess at temperatures and solve a large number of simultaneous equations just to get an equilibrium position after guessing at probable amounts of precursor materials. This would also assume some temperature, so gradients that might act to transport species through vaporization/condensation would have to be added in later and the results perturbed to allow for it. Temperatures underground could vary from the temperature of the air in the subway tunnels feeding the fires to the temperature of burning aluminum cladding. Acidic gases would dissolve in condensed water. Things would corrode. This is a witches brew that Cole can't begin to model with a fire in the barbecue pit and would probably take some serious work on a computer just to show possibilities.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Check the date on your reference. Maybe BS did but he forgot to mention that it was in 2006, years before Jones actually measured anything. Now check Jones' paper and see if he claims thermate.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
The hypothesis is how the explosives could cut steel...but yet again did you choose to listen....nope.


So he took a material specifically designed to cut steel, then created a hypothesis that it really does cut steel. And he found that it did after experiments. So what new information did learn exactly?


And your statemnet of Cole proving Nat Geo wrong....hmmmm what is the title of the thread....so why are you here then...only to derail it it.


And I am not allowed to question why this is relevant? A TV station having their facts wrong? Do you otherwise believe everything on TV?


You see i need not use the typical tactics of breakking down posts into little disjointed bits and argue single line statements.


I try to take out the bits that are relevant and make sense. Most of your posts consist of pointless drivel.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Ok, lets review. In Jones chips there was no free sulfur. Calcium sulfate on the surface was, according to Jones, contamination. It came after the collapse. Got it so far? That means that it wasn't part of the composition of the claimed nano thermitic material , which means that the material didn't have the crucial ingredient of thermate. All the paint that reacted is long gone and all the unreacted paint falls down and is abraded off and then is mixed with the gypsum dust.


So when did you start parading around the assumption that paints ignites with more energy than control samples of conventional thermite, as fact? And when did your argument that he needed to do further tests suddenly turn into it's just paint, as if you're talking facts? Can you show me a known form of paint that ignites and gives off more energy than thermite per gram?


And you're not addressing the way you're stepping over your own arguments. The sulfur you say came from the drywall (something Jones does not conclude despite you trying to twist his words in every post) is supposed to be inactive in Jones' samples and useless, but then you turn around and say it can melt right through the iron in steel when talking about FEMA appendix C. You can't have it both ways.


Since it wasn't thermate, Cole used the wrong material and proved only that thermate cuts steel, as expected. Does this surprise you?


Thermate is thermite with extra ingredients. I don't know when that's going to sink in, but Jones doesn't say anywhere that what he was looking at was iron oxide and aluminum alone. Got that?


Now, after the collapse, there are underground fires. These get really hot because the debris acts as an insulator.


Insulation only keeps in what heat already exists. Insulation doesn't create heat. And there is still oxygen starvation.


There are all sorts of high temperature reactions going on in there. Gypsum, water, steam, salt water, iron, aluminum, CO, CO2, SO2, SO3, HCl, etc. all make things difficult to model.


This is just the same old "throw all the ingredients of a cake together and you'll magically get a cake" crap. You have no idea how the drywall could cause steel to melt in the pile so you just make up all kinds of crap and hope that somewhere in there, something makes sense. You have much, much less of an explanation than Cole or Jones do.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Check the date on your reference. Maybe BS did but he forgot to mention that it was in 2006, years before Jones actually measured anything. Now check Jones' paper and see if he claims thermate.


And then check it to see if he says it was iron oxide and aluminum reacting only. (No.)

And then see if he concludes that all the sulfur came from drywall, or only says it's a possibility that some came from the drywall.





The resulting
spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks
for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur,
zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these
elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to
the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected
surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be
due
to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard
material in the buildings.


He also doesn't distinguish that all of the sulfur would have to come from the same source, but only that the large spikes may be due to contamination.

He also says:


1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and
carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive
elements are sometimes present, such as potassium,
sulfur, lead, barium and copper.

2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically
all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds
of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows
intimate mixing.


So he doesn't even rule out that the sulfur was involved in the reaction, and he notes ingredients besides iron oxide and aluminum involved in an "intimate mixing." That is not basic thermite, that is thermite with additives.

And it's NOT any known form of paint. It's not a known characteristic of paint to ignite and produce more energy than a control sample of conventional thermite. It would be expected that a more powerful version of thermite would release more energy than a control sample of conventional thermite, but not paint.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Just to show something of the Evidence of Explosions....but of course this will be denied as evidence by people because it does not fit in with the NIST report...and of course everyone in here are Looney...and none of them have any experience or knowledge.
Of course,also if your a truther all your past expertise does not count for anything...because only engineers for the OS know what they are talking about.


Google Video Link


Don't worry i am doing my own analysis but i thought this might be something to chew on while i do my work...remember even truthers must eat...and in order to do so must still keep doing their jobs.

Now also people have said that Neils Harrit is all wrong...a man with 37yrs experience.....Dr Steven E Jones....28yrs as a physicist...but hey no credibility there,definately a man not to listen too....now we also have David Ray griffin ....being bashed...but heck why not....he is a well noted theologian ....but no need to worry...
the more that people try to slander people whom only look for answers that the NIST,Bazant ,and FEMA reports have not answered.It is good to know there are people who actually do want to know what really happened.

We know what did not happen....The buildings did not suffer from fires that led to a false progressive collapse.

since people like to use the word Debunked so much...those reports have been debunked...and they have been rewritten...and then debunked again.....when they start to actually look down different avenues then people might actually start to have faith in them.

also just one thing that is all wrong....forgetting the explosions...the collapses....the fires...the planes.

You have four planes...they all crashed...where are the black boxes....come on....use your brains here....think think think....i know it hurts...and i am being a bit cynical....but heck....that alone is just unbelievable...and pls don't tell me how they found them but nothing was retrievable.....how dense do people have to be.

but that is off topic....so lets just get to work on finding the truth....because the OS is sooooo full of holes. It saddens to see at least three people in here that are completely fooled ....and they say they are intelligent. I can understand them not just believing some of the rubbish that truthers come out with...but to just believe papers full of holes is just so beyond comprehension.

An intelligent person Questions everything....Learns from their mistakes....then questions all the results....so why in this case does it make a person a nutter to question the results of the OS is beyond me.

so please go ahead and slag off these men and others that want answers....as it will not dampen spirits it will just invigorate the debate.....just a note though...The USGS found higher than normal quatities of Thorium and Barium in the WTC dust....strange that is.Do i know why it was there...No,but it would certainly bring up flags to me as to where it came from.

So one should ask themselves why that would be be and not just dismiss it....so much was dismissed...and just brushed aside...So more fool those who just accept what they are told...good thing i don't drink the water.

Yes i am being a little bit sarcastic here...but after reading many of the replies...and the points that get argued which are just semantics...it is a bit rediculous....Physics is a science...it has helped us make nuclear bombs...put satelites into space...build fantastic structures...yet it has been tossed out the window by Bazant and NIST.....and people still think it is ok.

I also know that people will not even bother to look at the vid...and learn from it....they will pick one point out here or there and not look at the whole picture...is there enough doubt to think for yourself that something is not quite right with the road the OS has taken...you bet there is.

Is there not enough things that would be considered anomalies to make you want to find answers...to me there is. .... Do i know exaxtly what brought the buildings down...Nope...but did it happen the way the Reports suggest from the OS....not a chance in hell.




edit on 103131p://f23Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Here is the BIGGEST problem for therm*te.

The stuff that Jones et al. found and analyzed, produced MORE heat energy than any flavor of therm*te.

Conclusion: Not therm*te of any kind. Too much heat energy.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Conclusion: Not therm*te of any kind. Too much heat energy.


So producing more heat than conventional thermite is supposed to limit its function in compromising steel?


And you realize the DoD has been researching nano-composite materials at Los Alamos for years, right? And that the authors of the paper, including Dr. Niels Harrit, believe it's actually a more advance form of thermite, which is why it has such tiny component elements packs more energy. The DoD has researched using nano-thermite (actually thermate, with additives) for everything from bombs to rocket fuel.
edit on 18-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So when did you start parading around the assumption that paints ignites with more energy than control samples of conventional thermite, as fact? Can you show me a known form of paint that ignites and gives off more energy than thermite per gram?


Let's start with this comment.
Jones paint chips burn with more energy than thermite than any combination of thermite and high explosives that he shows in his paper. So does candle wax and peanut butter. Any paint with more than about 10% carbon in it has more energy than thermite when burned in air.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join