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: 53
420
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

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.


So where did you prove it was paint again? You have a DSC of the kind of paint you think this is?

And do you have a DSC for candle wax and peanut better?




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


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.


Yes, thermate is thermite with an extra ingredient called elemental sulfur which is why it isn't called thermite. Jones didn't consistently find sulfur in the paiint chips and couldn't claim thermate. Don't think for one minute that if he could have claimed thermate he wouldn't have. That is what he postulated in the 2006 article you referenced. What he did claim was nanoparticulate materials suspended in a carbonaceous matrix and likened it to the Tillotson material which was nanoparticulate iron oxide and aluminum in a carbonaceous matrix.

Thanks for the note about insulation not creating heat. That is always good to know. Underground fires burn slowly because of oxygen starvation and such fires are reducing in nature, as I explained previously. The slow combustion keeps things hot for a long period of time based on the fuel available. This is why the rubble was hot for many weeks after the collapse and not because of therm*te reacting, as some would like to believe.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I don't have to prove the red chips were paint. Jones has to prove that they are something other than paint, which he has not done. As to using the DSC data for heats of combustion, there are better ways to get those numbers.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I doubt very much you'll watch this, but it talks about the 'red paint', all the information you could need.

The red chips were tested for paint.



It was not paint, no matter what your damned fool conspiracy website is telling you, 911myths...


Edit; in fact just look at the youtube embed and read what it says.
edit on 1/18/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, thermate is thermite with an extra ingredient called elemental sulfur which is why it isn't called thermite. Jones didn't consistently find sulfur in the paiint chips and couldn't claim thermate.


He did mention sulfur as a possible reactant in the paper, and once again you have not proven paint chips. I guess your tactic now is just to keep repeating things that are wrong.


Thanks for the note about insulation not creating heat. That is always good to know. Underground fires burn slowly because of oxygen starvation and such fires are reducing in nature, as I explained previously.


Also because of their lack of oxygen they won't reach temperatures required to melt the iron in the steel, even at the lower-than-usual temperatures FEMA reported, as I explained previously.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I don't have to prove the red chips were paint. Jones has to prove that they are something other than paint


So where in the scientific method is it stated that, "if you don't prove something isn't paint, then it is paint!"



As to using the DSC data for heats of combustion, there are better ways to get those numbers.


There is more heat energy in a glacier than in a match head, too, but it would be asinine to say glaciers or a match head or peanut butter or paint brought the towers down. Thermite, with the additives Jones listed in his paper, can melt through steel however. When you ignore these differences, you are literally being ignorant.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?



You're confused about nano-thermite and regular thermite. Nano-thermite releases the same heat energy per kg. as regular thermite. Nano-thermite just does it faster. Either way, the stuff that Jones et al. found, released almost 2x's the amount of heat energy. So it wasn't thermite, or thermate, or nano-thermite. It was something else. What exactly, I don't know. Jones et al. won't release their samples.



Originally posted by bsbray11

And you realize the DoD has been researching nano-composite materials at Los Alamos for years, right?


Yes. I've researched it. Nothing suprising. They are researching an incendiary. Point?


Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


No, same energy, quicker reaction time.


Originally posted by bsbray11
The DoD has researched using nano-thermite (actually thermate, with additives) for everything from bombs


No, they have researched additing it to explosives, but not on it's own. It's an incendiary, not an explosive. The burn time is sub-sonic, whereas RDX and the like are super-sonic.


Originally posted by bsbray11
to rocket fuel.


This would make sense. However, unless it;s cheaper than the solid fuels currently in use, I personally don't see much use for therm*te as a rocket fuel. Rocket fuel typically releases more heat energy than thermite, and does it slower. Maybe as an additive......

But, I am not a rocket scientist.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
You're confused about nano-thermite and regular thermite. Nano-thermite releases the same heat energy per kg. as regular thermite. Nano-thermite just does it faster.


Not according to the DoD:



ammtiac.alionscience.com...




Originally posted by bsbray11
And you realize the DoD has been researching nano-composite materials at Los Alamos for years, right?


Yes. I've researched it. Nothing suprising. They are researching an incendiary. Point?


The military typically doesn't spend money researching things, with a point to learn nothing, or even to aimlessly tinker. They also tend not to divulge all the details of exactly what they have accomplished and how, to the general public, for obvious reasons. So when you say "thermite doesn't do this" or "thermite doesn't do that" you may want to reconsider what you are basing such a claim on, because you certainly can't base it on whatever the DoD is doing.


No, same energy, quicker reaction time.


See above. Again, not according to the DoD. Faster reaction time, yes. Also more total energy, as you see above. If you're going to keep repeating this even though the DoD is blatantly contradicting you then I'm going to have to see sources and explanations, not just your word vs. the DoD's.


No, they have researched additing it to explosives, but not on it's own. It's an incendiary, not an explosive.


The OP demonstrates it can explode. Because of its slower detonation velocity it's not a high explosive but it still can explode nonetheless, and the video in the OP shows this plainly enough.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
I don't have to prove the red chips were paint. Jones has to prove that they are something other than paint


So where in the scientific method is it stated that, "if you don't prove something isn't paint, then it is paint!"



As to using the DSC data for heats of combustion, there are better ways to get those numbers.


There is more heat energy in a glacier than in a match head, too, but it would be asinine to say glaciers or a match head or peanut butter or paint brought the towers down. Thermite, with the additives Jones listed in his paper, can melt through steel however. When you ignore these differences, you are literally being ignorant.


When you find a thin red layer with iron oxides attached to it that appears, in all respects, to be red paint much like that that covered the structural elements of the WTC, it is likely paint.

Thermite with or without the additives Jones listed will eventually melt through steel. Certainly, as a thin layer it would not do much of anything if it contained thermite. Unfortunately, Cole used thermate which contains an additive that Jones did not list. Ignorance becomes you, BS.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The differences in total energy are small and are only due to the completeness of reaction with finer particles. The theoretical energies are identical. The rate of reaction is the advantage, not the percent or two more efficiency.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
When you find a thin red layer with iron oxides attached to it that appears, in all respects, to be red paint much like that that covered the structural elements of the WTC, it is likely paint.


This tripe is not even remotely scientific. Using that to justify a default, a priori assumption of "it's paint until I'm proven wrong!" is laughable. You have not proven this these chips are paint and never will. Look at the video ANOK posted and unclog your eyes and ears for a second or two, until the pain becomes too much



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The differences in total energy are small and are only due to the completeness of reaction with finer particles.


Quantify "small." Show me some numbers and sources for them.

FDNY343 was saying nano-thermite has no more energy than conventional thermite which is obviously wrong. The difference is significant enough that the DoD apparently finds it advantageous to their purposes.


The theoretical energies are identical. The rate of reaction is the advantage, not the percent or two more efficiency.


Apparently you don't know what "theoretical" means. I'll wait on your sources because taking the word of some anonymous internet poster over the DoD's own research publication is a little below me.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
When you find a thin red layer with iron oxides attached to it that appears, in all respects, to be red paint much like that that covered the structural elements of the WTC, it is likely paint.


It was TESTED.

It wasn't paint. Why are you ignoring that?

Unless you test it yourself, and find it is in fact paint you have no argument.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Thanks for the note about insulation not creating heat. That is always good to know. Underground fires burn slowly because of oxygen starvation and such fires are reducing in nature, as I explained previously.


Also because of their lack of oxygen they won't reach temperatures required to melt the iron in the steel, even at the lower-than-usual temperatures FEMA reported, as I explained previously.


Why would the fires have to melt steel? Wouldn't the localized temperatures also depend on what was being burned?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The differences in total energy are small and are only due to the completeness of reaction with finer particles.


Quantify "small." Show me some numbers and sources for them.


You quotemined the article. THis is specifically talking about sol-gels. (page 6 of your own link)



Originally posted by bsbray11
FDNY343 was saying nano-thermite has no more energy than conventional thermite which is obviously wrong. The difference is significant enough that the DoD apparently finds it advantageous to their purposes.


Incorrect. I specifically said HEAT energy. Please go back and look at my post.


Originally posted by bsbray11

The theoretical energies are identical. The rate of reaction is the advantage, not the percent or two more efficiency.


Apparently you don't know what "theoretical" means. I'll wait on your sources because taking the word of some anonymous internet poster over the DoD's own research publication is a little below me.


You've quotemined the report from the DoD.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
When you find a thin red layer with iron oxides attached to it that appears, in all respects, to be red paint much like that that covered the structural elements of the WTC, it is likely paint.


It was TESTED.


Who tested it? Jones et al? Citation required.


Originally posted by ANOK

It wasn't paint. Why are you ignoring that?

Unless you test it yourself, and find it is in fact paint you have no argument.


I've asked for a sample of it, and Jones will not release it. He also won't submit his research to an independant journal or lab to confirm his results.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


The theoretical energies are identical. The rate of reaction is the advantage, not the percent or two more efficiency.


Apparently you don't know what "theoretical" means. I'll wait on your sources because taking the word of some anonymous internet poster over the DoD's own research publication is a little below me.


Apparently, you are completely confused again. The thermodynamic tables from the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" is a good source to calculate heats of reaction. These values are for complete reaction of starting materials. There are small inefficiencies associated with larger particle sizes because of incomplete reaction. The downside to nano particulates is that they must be protected from exposure to air before use or an oxide coat forms making them non-stoichiometric. This is why the Tillotson paper reported such low values of energy output.
Remember, black wire to the gold screw.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Why would the fires have to melt steel? Wouldn't the localized temperatures also depend on what was being burned?


It wouldn't, as WPI has shown.

www.wpi.edu...

Yes, certain items give off more heat energy. For instance, one kg of paper gives off more heat energy that 1 kg of hydrocarbons. Not much, but still more.

Reason is paper is an organic, and is easily broken down by the organic process of fire. Unlike hydrocarbons, which do not have the ability unless additional fuel is added. (think blast furnace)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


There are also other things that might burn, such as the aluminum cladding and hydrogen produced from the reaction of water with hot metal. When plastics depolymerize during pyrolysis, easily combusted hydrocarbon gases also form.
Underground fires are very complex and almost impossible to extinguish.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Absolutely agree. Muck fires, or swamp fires, are very difficult also. Also, when you cannot get the wet stuff on the hot stuff, that doesn't help.

Here is a cool tool.

firechief.com...

Uses a high-pressure waterjet to cut through rubble to get to hot spots.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join