Patents: Nanoengineered Explosive (Nano-Thermite) / Integral Low-Energy Thermite Igniter

US-Patent Nr. 5.505.799 / Nanoengineered Explosive

A complex modulated structure of reactive elements that have the capability of considerably more heat than organic explosives while generating a working fluid or gas. The explosive and method of fabricating same involves a plurality of very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, each composed of reactive components, such as aluminum, separated from a less reactive element, such as copper oxide, by a separator material, such as carbon. The separator material not only separates the reactive materials, but it reacts therewith when detonated to generate higher temperatures. The various layers of material, thickness of 10 to 10,000 angstroms, can be deposited by magnetron sputter deposition. The explosive detonates and combusts a high velocity generating a gas, such as CO, and high temperatures.

US-Patent Nr. 4.464.989 / Integral Low-Energy Thermite Igniter

In a thermite igniter/heat source comprising a container holding an internal igniter load, there is provided the improvement wherein the container consists essentially of consumable consolidated thermite having a low gas output upon combustion, whereby upon ignition, substantially all of the container and said load is consumed with low gas production.

Patent Search: patft.uspto.gov...


No cables, drilling or tons of explosives necessary. Both patents give answers to a lot of questions, regarding the possible use of Nano-Thermite on 9/11.






Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Nano-particulate explosive is not thermite. It is a very energy-dense compact explosive. You can get it in both slurry and cast blocks.

Well, if you're military you can, if you've got a project that needs it.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Nano-particulate explosive is not thermite. It is a very energy-dense compact explosive. You can get it in both slurry and cast blocks.

Well, if you're military you can, if you've got a project that needs it.

Well, if you're military you can, if you've got a project that needs it.
I think that statement answers a lot of questions
Who else but the military / CIA could get hold of it & pull off the biggest false flag op ever created ?

Originally posted by pillock
Who else but the military / CIA could get hold of it & pull off the biggest false flag op ever created ?

Sandia, of course. Or Talley. A number of others.

Maybe it's a big takeover by Sandia's nuclear division.

Which company holds those patents? Were persons of interest involved with those companies beyond holding their stock?

Originally posted by Cassius666
Which company holds those patents? Were persons of interest involved with those companies beyond holding their stock?

Lots of unanswered questions, but those patents could help solve the puzzle.

Originally posted by ALF88

Originally posted by Cassius666
Which company holds those patents? Were persons of interest involved with those companies beyond holding their stock?

Lots of unanswered questions, but those patents could help solve the puzzle.

Here's a question - why can't I find any record of these patents at the US Patent and Trademark website?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Maybe you need to change the spaces? Maybe it expierd? I dont know really. The patent holder seems to be a Daniel Makowiecki. Is he still? Who owns the patent now if anybody?

www.patentmaps.com...

www.directorypatent.com...

Took me 3 minutes, not even hooper. If you would be more interested in the truth, rather than "your camp" winning hooper, you could have looked it up yourself instead of doing some solid trolling. That goes for anybody who puts himself in a camp of course. Its the source for most of the bull$hit on this particular forum. Can you imagine Hawkins and Preskill treating each other like some people do on here? Maybe they can create an culture of mutual trolling and stalling in the scientific community in an effort to bring the advancement of mankind to a crawl.

edit on 3-7-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Sorry, that stil doesn't answer the question why I can't find any trace of these patents at the official US Patent and Trademark office website. Don't care about any other websites. We're talking about patents here.

Sure www.directorypatent.com... must be in on the truther conspiracy :p .

Also here it is, just remove the dots.

patft.uspto.gov.../55057 99&RS=PN/5505799

patft.uspto.gov...

Seems you just have to remove the dots and spaces. I guess the OP should have run a copy paste through the search engine before telling us to digit the number he provided in the search engine. Lets just say you are both a bit of a putz.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Which company holds those patents? Were persons of interest involved with those companies beyond holding their stock?

Read the link you pasted. The US government holds the patent.

reply to post by hooper


oOo do tell

The United States Government has rights in this invention pursuant to Contract No. W-7405-ENG-48 between the United States Department of Energy and the University of California for the operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

That is files under the field goverment interests. So in that field only goverments, if any, are field which have an interest in that patent, whatever that translates to?

I dont see any other fields in regards to ownership. Does that mean the US goverment is the sole patent holder at the moment?

Originally posted by Cassius666Does that mean the US goverment is the sole patent holder at the moment?

I wouldn't doubt it, considering what you use them for.

Also, the developmental effort was done at the national labs- LLNL, Sandia, LANL.

Yeah I read that bit too now. The language was kinda technical to me. "holds an interest in etc." .

reply to post by Cassius666


It's DOE. And LLNL. And Sandia. And LANL.

HInt hint hint hint. Wink wink nudge nudge.

/"For any particular thing, ask What is it in itself? What is its nature?" -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

please delete / double post

Originally posted by Cassius666
Sure www.directorypatent.com... must be in on the truther conspiracy :p .

Also here it is, just remove the dots.

patft.uspto.gov.../55057 99&RS=PN/5505799

patft.uspto.gov...

Seems you just have to remove the dots and spaces. I guess the OP should have run a copy paste through the search engine before telling us to digit the number he provided in the search engine. Lets just say you are both a bit of a putz.

edit on 3-7-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

I don't know what kind of problems some of you have finding the patents, but yes I should have removed the dots in the OP.

This information was first posted on a German forum by the way.

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by Cassius666

 

It's DOE. And LLNL. And Sandia. And LANL.

HInt hint hint hint. Wink wink nudge nudge.

/"For any particular thing, ask What is it in itself? What is its nature?" -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Are these the explosives for squishing primaries?

Thus, there is a need in the art for an explosive which has the capability of producing heat and expanding gases capable of producing work, as in explosives and propellants using organic components, while having the energy producing capability of explosives using inorganic components.

As I see it, it means "explosives which can provide large momentum transfer ("producing work") but have higher energy." Why would one need a big momentum transfer unless you're trying to squish something?

The stability of inorganic materials from which the new type explosive consists make it attractive for use in severe environments such a space applications.

"Space applications"? WTF? Colonial Marines, or is this a euphemism for ICBM warheads?


Any truth the 'red-mercury' etc or similar rumors ("ballotechnic"??) about detonating a thermonuclear seocndary (even if small size) without a regular fissile primary?

Okay and naaaaooo why should we care about these patents? I assume there is reason to believe they were used on the buildings? Is there any reason to believe that?

Sputter deposition en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks to the OP for this important information......BTW, the US Patent Office is peopled and run by the CIA and is as corrupt as any of the other government agencies we have come to know and hate - this is nothing new - that particular agency always has been corrupt to the core.

Looks like all they had to do was to "spray" it onto any appropriate surface(s) such as steel beams, aluminum pans or whatever - by means of very thin and undectable applications. It also could have been "sprayed" into/onto certain wll making and flooring materials such as plaster, paint, and/or concrete, tiles, wooden flooring etc., etc.. Very convenient. This conforms to many things I have read in the past that mentioned the possibility of explosives having been SPRAYED ON to any number of different surfaces etc..

DEFINITION - Sputter deposition is a physical vapor deposition (PVD) method of depositing thin films by sputtering, that is ejecting, material from a "target," that is source, which then deposits onto a "substrate," such as a silicon wafer. Resputtering is re-emission of the deposited material during the deposition process by ion or atom bombardment. Sputtered atoms ejected from the target have a wide energy distribution, typically up to tens of eV (100,000 K). The sputtered ions (typically only a small fraction — order 1% — of the ejected particles are ionized) can ballistically fly from the target in straight lines and impact energetically on the substrates or vacuum chamber (causing resputtering). Alternatively, at higher gas pressures, the ions collide with the gas atoms that act as a moderator and move diffusively, reaching the substrates or vacuum chamber wall and condensing after undergoing a random walk. The entire range from high-energy ballistic impact to low-energy thermalized motion is accessible by changing the background gas pressure. The sputtering gas is often an inert gas such as argon. For efficient momentum transfer, the atomic weight of the sputtering gas should be close to the atomic weight of the target, so for sputtering light elements neon is preferable, while for heavy elements krypton or xenon are used. Reactive gases can also be used to sputter compounds. The compound can be formed on the target surface, in-flight or on the substrate depending on the process parameters. The availability of many parameters that control sputter deposition make it a complex process, but also allow experts a large degree of control over the growth and microstructure of the film.

Source





Mod Note: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS - Please Review This Link.