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: 54
420
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:07 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?


FEMA appendix C, iron in the steel was melted at temperatures higher than open-atmosphere fires could accomplish, so oxygen-starved fires would not be able to do it either. It would have to be something burning that didn't require oxygen, and that's just the temperature requirements, not even considering trying to match the rest of the evidence in FEMA app. C.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
You quotemined the article. THis is specifically talking about sol-gels. (page 6 of your own link)


I'm not quote-mining. The graphic doesn't even specify sol-gels, it just says "nanocomposite" and "Composite Energetic Materials: Conventional vs Nanosized." The same principle applies to nanothermites, as you would understand if you read the scope of the entire article.



And if this was a trivial difference then the DoD would not be putting so much emphasis on its importance when noting the differences between conventional and nano-sized particles.



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


Heat energy is included when they say "higher total energy." It has to do with the over-all greater efficiency of the reaction. If you think they are specifically neglected heat energy when they say "higher total energy" then show me where they specify this.


You've quotemined the report from the DoD.


Quote mining insinuates I'm taking the information out of context. I'm not. The graphic from the article is stand-alone and illustrates exactly what they are talking about. I'm not surprised you won't admit a simple mistake.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Apparently, you are completely confused again.


I asked for sources that nano-composite thermites only produce a trivial increase in energy release compared to conventional thermite. What is confusing about that? So confusing that you have to go off on an irrelevant rant?

Sources...that show nano-composite thermites...only produce a little more energy than conventional thermite.

Do I expect to ever see you post them?

No.

So do I believe you?

Not on your life.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
...So does candle wax and peanut butter.


Damn. Let's email all the demolition experts and tell them to screw C4 and just use Jiff and Skippy.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What proof do you have of the temperatures in the underground fires? Why would fire under reducing conditions not be hot enough?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually, BS, your figure 5, unreferenced, is where I have seen the claim but there seems to be no evidence for it. I checked the original reference and it doesn't provide any information other than the sales pitch and I can't seem to find the paper that says a few percent. Other nanoenergetic papers all say that because of an oxide coat forming on the aluminum particles, they have a hard time reaching 50% of theoretical. This was in the 2004 2005 time period when these material were primitive and difficult to synthesize. Maybe teh few percent is newer work.
The only reason for nano sized materials is rate of reaction.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
What proof do you have of the temperatures in the underground fires? Why would fire under reducing conditions not be hot enough?


What proof do you have of fires at 1000 C + that FEMA appendix C would require for melting the iron in the steel? My issue with your "argument" is that you have no proof and are just making stuff up, baseless excuses in the place of the actual explanations we all deserve. Something more than what anonymous internet posters can dream up in their elaborate imaginations, with no evidence at all, is the result I would expect from a real investigation.





Originally posted by pteridine
Actually, BS, your figure 5, unreferenced


Reference is on the previous thread page, Waldo.


is where I have seen the claim but there seems to be no evidence for it.


It's called chemistry, and the DoD explains it in the pdf linked on the previous thread page.


I checked the original reference and it doesn't provide any information other than the sales pitch


Funny because the military-grade nano-composites they're talking about actually aren't for sale.


and I can't seem to find the paper that says a few percent.


Well keep looking, because I still don't believe you.


The only reason for nano sized materials is rate of reaction.


Not according to the DoD. Apparently you're incapable of reading anything that disagrees with you.
edit on 18-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Here are some interesting excerpts from the DoD publication. This poster "pteridine" who says nano-composites are only useful for faster reaction rates will find them particularly interesting I guess.


Overall though, certain key MIC
characteristics are very attractive and quite promising for practical
applications. These include energy output that is 2x that
of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power
(10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of
0.1-1500 meters/sec, and reaction zone temperature exceeding
3000K.



Metastable Intermolecular Composites (MICs) are one of the
first examples of a category of nanoscale energetic materials
which have been studied and evaluated to a considerable
degree. MIC formulations are mixtures of nanoscale powders of
reactants that exhibit thermite (high exothermicity) behavior.
As such, they differ fundamentally from more traditional energetics
where the reactivity is based on intramolecular (not intermolecular)
properties. The MIC formulations are based on
intimate mixing of the reactants on the nanometer length scale,
with typical particle sizes in the tens of nanometers range (e.g.
30 nm)
. One important characteristic of MICs is the fact that
the rate of energy release can be tailored by varying the size of
the components. T h ree specific MIC formulations have
received considerable attention to date; Al/MoO3, Al/Teflon,
and Al/CuO.



The advantages of making energetics on the nanoscale are
shown in Figure 5
which provides a comparison between conventional
energetic compounds (micron scale) and those which
are composed of nanoscale ingredients.


"advantages of making energetics on the nanoscale are shown in Figure 5"... And here is figure 5 again:



- Mass transport minimized
- Higher power (faster reaction rate)
- Higher total energy

ammtiac.alionscience.com...

"intimate mixing"... Where have we seen that phrase before? Oh yeah, the Harrit et al paper.

"typical particle sizes in the tens of nanometers range".... Where have seen those particle sizes? Harrit, et. al.


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.


www.bentham.org...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Thermite with or without the additives Jones listed will eventually melt through steel.


So you disagree with NatGeo also then?

I love it when the debunkers get caught up and start debunking themselves.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
FEMA appendix C, iron in the steel was melted at temperatures higher than open-atmosphere fires could accomplish,


Incorrect. Open atmosphere fires can and will burn very very hot. Many over 1800 deg. F. I can do this in my back yard with a small pile of wood. You should read my link from WPI from the previous page.


Originally posted by bsbray11

so oxygen-starved fires would not be able to do it either.


Strawman. None of the fires were "oxygen-starved". I don't know where you get this idea.


Originally posted by bsbray11
It would have to be something burning that didn't require oxygen, and that's just the temperature requirements, not even considering trying to match the rest of the evidence in FEMA app. C.


EVERYTHING that burns requires oxygen to burn. EVERYTHING. Without oxygen, it will NOT burn.

You really need to read the paper from WPI professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr.

Here is a simple link.
www.wpi.edu...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
You quotemined the article. THis is specifically talking about sol-gels. (page 6 of your own link)


I'm not quote-mining. The graphic doesn't even specify sol-gels, it just says "nanocomposite" and "Composite Energetic Materials: Conventional vs Nanosized." The same principle applies to nanothermites, as you would understand if you read the scope of the entire article.



And if this was a trivial difference then the DoD would not be putting so much emphasis on its importance when noting the differences between conventional and nano-sized particles.



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


Heat energy is included when they say "higher total energy." It has to do with the over-all greater efficiency of the reaction. If you think they are specifically neglected heat energy when they say "higher total energy" then show me where they specify this.


You've quotemined the report from the DoD.


Quote mining insinuates I'm taking the information out of context. I'm not. The graphic from the article is stand-alone and illustrates exactly what they are talking about. I'm not surprised you won't admit a simple mistake.


No, no, no. It's under the heading talking about Sol-Gels. It is specifically speaking of Sol-Gels in that section. Go read your own link.

Secondly, total energy includes heat energy, correct. HOWEVER, nano-thermite and thermite are the same thing, just with a quicker reaction time. The HEAT ENERGY is the same, but the TOTAL energy is different. Because of the faster reaction time.

Im sorry, I have no problem admitting a mistake. You will see me eat crow any time I am wrong. I have no problem with that. But, untill I am wrong, I won't admit a mistake.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Originally posted by pteridine
...So does candle wax and peanut butter.


Damn. Let's email all the demolition experts and tell them to screw C4 and just use Jiff and Skippy.


If you come up with a way to make it as precise and predictable as C4, feel free. But, untill then, they will continue to use high-explosives.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


How is that "debunking?" If I have 20 tons of thermite per beam, it will eventually melt through, won't it? The question of how much it takes and how fast it works has always been the stumbling block for those who want CD no matter what.
In many posts, I have said that the timing is a problem. That means you may start the thermite when you want, although it is tough to ignite, but you can't predict how fast it will work. If you can't predict how fast it will work, you can't use it in a controlled demolition using more than one charge. Thermite can't keep up with gravity so it can't be used to demolish floors in front of the collapse zone. The timing problem is only one reason why quiet thermite is not used by CD companies.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Nutter
 


How is that "debunking?"



EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.


channel.nationalgeographic.com...


Originally posted by pteridine
Thermite with or without the additives Jones listed will eventually melt through steel.



Which is it pteridine? Can thermite melt through steel or not?

If you claim it can, then you are disagreeing with NatGeo. Debunking a debunker.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I see that once again, ol' BS is misssing the boat. He again posts the sorry advertising slide from a national lab that is being funded to make these materials. While it is claimed to wring out the last few percent of theoretical energy available, several papers report much less energy than granular thermite because of nano-aluminum oxidation during production and storage. The total energy claim is unsupported.
What does happen is that things react faster; sometimes so fast that these materials now can be made to approach the velocity of high explosives. The only problem with claiming this is the material used to CD the towers is that anything that aproaches the velocity of high explosives sounds like high explosives. There is no quiet way of doing CD.That should take care of the thermite claim.
Further, the MIC's shown in the reference don't seem to be iron oxide and aluminum, do they BS? Jonesy claims to have found iron oxide, aluminum, and carbonaceous binder, as per your quote, and not sulfur, MO3 or teflon. Jones' super thermite self extinguished in the DSC. It is so powerful, it stops burning even when in an oven above its purported ignition point. Couple that with a paint-thin layer and one can only conclude paint.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Read my post. Do you think if 20 tons of thermite went off on a beam that the beam would melt? What is a reasonable charge size, nutter? Are you one of the suckers buying into Jones' dream? Then a reasonable charge size for you would be a thin layer of red paint thermite. What would that do if you could ignite it? Nothing much.

Cole's demonstration showing thermate cuts steel is pointless. Hacksaws cut steel. Torches cut steel. Linear shaped charges cut steel. There is no evidence for any of them at the WTC.

Maybe you and someguys-for-truth should demand a new investigation because no one looked specifically for hacksaw blades.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Nutter
 

Cole's demonstration showing thermate cuts steel is pointless. Hacksaws cut steel. Torches cut steel. Linear shaped charges cut steel. There is no evidence for any of them at the WTC.


The only reason there is no evidence is because it wasn't looked for. And no, I'm not one of those suckers. Nice ad hom by the way.


Maybe you and someguys-for-truth should demand a new investigation because no one looked specifically for hacksaw blades.


At least it would be a thorough investigation then. Unlike the CGI investigation that NIST performed.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 

When would you stop looking for specifics? No matter what any reinvestigation specifically looked for, there would always be something that they didn't seek which would require yet another investigation. This is a dead end position. There is simply not enough evidence to start another investigation and all that will happen is that some people will make money for a few more years fleecing the true believers for books and DVD's purporting to show "what really happened."
You and many others are playing directly into the hands of those who want everyone looking for CD when you should be looking at incompetence and bureaucratic infighting that prevented actions from being taken to thwart the attacks.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Nutter
 

When would you stop looking for specifics?


All there needed to be done was one investigation to see if any residue was present. Was it done?



You and many others are playing directly into the hands of those who want everyone looking for CD when you should be looking at incompetence and bureaucratic infighting that prevented actions from being taken to thwart the attacks.


Yes, all the incompetence and bureaucratic infighting that got everyone promoted. You mean that incompetence?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Shouldn't we be concerned about the incompetence and bureaucratic infighting of the investigation, too?




top topics



 
420
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join