Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Response in pm.




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
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?


The poster after you has answered that question.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
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.
edit on 4-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit


I get all that. Seems like a nifty way to get an even surface if you apply something. What has that to do with the patent about the explosive?

Are you referring to this?


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.


What kind of explosive is that exactly? Can somebody describe that explosive device for me? I was picturing kind of a charge where the different layers are packed toegether in the correct order. How thick is 10 or 10,000 angstroms?
edit on 4-7-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
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.


Sometimes you actually have to read for understanding instead of looking for keywords.

The patent is for an explosive, not thermite, which if you actually understood what either was would be apparent.

Next, the patent describes something that's obviously very technically structured - extremely thin layers of various components assembled in a very specific way.

Sputter deposition, not withstanding the fact you have to do it in a vacuum chamber under very low pressures and with a carefully controlled moderator gas, not a spray gun (geez) requires vaporizing the material to be sputtered, which ought to be obvious from the "vapor deposition" part of what you posted. If you vaporize an explosive with heat, you generally get at least deflagration, but at any rate it's certainly not going to be thin layers of various components at that point.

Finally, the whole "paint" issue fails on energy per unit volume. A layer of paint is quite thin, and the total volume one could apply to a large mass of metal would be quite low. I leave it for the interested CTer to calculate just how much energy per volume it would require for a typical paint coat to heat a structural I-beam to softening. Sputtering is also known for its exceptionally thin depositions, so you'll have orders of magnitude less volume of reactant than, say, vinyl paint.

The patent in question is for a solid explosive. A slurry version similar to it in that it includes nanoparticulate metals but not the bound oxidizer is used in SMAW-NE warheads.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
What kind of explosive is that exactly?


A very nice one. It's got a lot of upsides, the problem being it costs an outrageous amount per kg. Who knows, maybe cost will come down once Sandia goes into mass production.



Can somebody describe that explosive device for me?


Well, it depends on what they used - depending on the metal and oxidizer, it can have nice colors other than sort of grayish silver. About this big (holds out hands), nice sort of prismatic shape. Metallic, cool, the more common ones black/dark gray or silvery. Heavy.



I was picturing kind of a charge where the different layers are packed toegether in the correct order. How thick is 10 or 10,000 angstroms?


10k angstroms is about two wavelengths of blue light. Or, eight layers of this would be about as thick as a red blood cell is round.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
The characteristics and consistency of thermite.


Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. Some "fuels" that can be used include aluminium, magnesium, titanium, zinc, silicon, boron and others. One commonly-used fuel in thermite mixtures is aluminium, because of its high boiling point. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,III,IV) oxide and others.[1]


en.wikipedia.org...

Compare it to the characteristics and consistency of the explosive described in the Patent.


Moreover the patents states,


Also, the multilayer structure can be engineered to provide desired ignition temperatures and detonation characteristics. For example, the multilayer explosive can be engineered to be ignited by a mechanical scratch at room temperature,...


Therefore there was no need for cabling the explosives, which would have taken a long time. All they had to do was to plant the explosives in the desired spots.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88
Therefore there was no need for cabling the explosives, which would have taken a long time. All they had to do was to plant the explosives in the desired spots.


I'm not an engineer of any kind, but does this mean all it would take is something striking the explosive which would cause it to ignite?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by ALF88
Therefore there was no need for cabling the explosives, which would have taken a long time. All they had to do was to plant the explosives in the desired spots.


I'm not an engineer of any kind, but does this mean all it would take is something striking the explosive which would cause it to ignite?


This explosive is very flexible. I hope that is the right word. It can be manipulated to a degree that it only explodes, if a certain temperature is reached or by igniting it like you said.

By the way the reaction between Al and Fe2O3, that causes Al2O3 and Fe is called a thermite reaction.

Therefore it explains what people saw running down the side of the buildings, the findings of Prof. Harrit and others in the WTC dust and the "pools of molten steel" some of those lasted till December 2001, if I remember correctly.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ALF88
 


How does it explain any of these things? The explosive would have detonated upon impact, the towers would have fallen when the planes impacted. This did not happen.

Furthermore, thermite does not crease a fire that lasts months. Show me any example of it doing so please.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
How does it explain any of these things? The explosive would have detonated upon impact, the towers would have fallen when the planes impacted. This did not happen.


It is one way to ignite it, not the only one! As I said the explosive is very flexible and can be manipulated so that it only creates the damage that is intended in the area where it is placed. It can also be ignited when a certain temperature is reached for example.

P.S.: What if the no plane theories are true?


Originally posted by exponentFurthermore, thermite does not crease a fire that lasts months. Show me any example of it doing so please.


How do you explain the "pools of molten steel"?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88
It is one way to ignite it, not the only one! As I said the explosive is very flexible and can be manipulated so that it only creates the damage that is intended in the area where it is placed. It can also be ignited when a certain temperature is reached for example.

So deus ex machina, got it.


P.S.: What if the no plane theories are true?

They're not, we might as well speculate what if the jesus came back but accidentally caused both aircraft to hit the towers theory was true.


How do you explain the "pools of molten steel"?

They weren't pools of steel, many metals (and even glass) melt in fires. That's the only cogent explanation for liquid metal a week or so after 911. (metal pools didn't last months, that's another truther myth)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88
As I said the explosive is very flexible and can be manipulated so that it only creates the damage that is intended in the area where it is placed. It can also be ignited when a certain temperature is reached for example.


How convenient. It can be anything to anyone, so that any CT theory can be proven by simply appealing to hush-a-boom or whatever. Nice.



P.S.: What if the no plane theories are true?


PPS: What if flying monkeys did it with little kerosene lamps?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
You are both totally entitled to your beliefs. That is perfectly fine.

I think it is better, if you now move your "Jesus crashing airplanes" and "flying monkey" talk somewhere else.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ALF88
 


The problem is that they have as much evidence and backing as your theories do. So how about you support your theories of these magical explosives that can be configured precisely how you want them in hindsight?

They literally are deus ex machinas for you, they aren't ignited by impact except if they are supposed to be, they aren't visible unless they're supposed to be, they don't make any noise unless they're supposed to.

That's not a theory, that's a religion.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by ALF88
 


The problem is that they have as much evidence and backing as your theories do. So how about you support your theories of these magical explosives that can be configured precisely how you want them in hindsight?

They literally are deus ex machinas for you, they aren't ignited by impact except if they are supposed to be, they aren't visible unless they're supposed to be, they don't make any noise unless they're supposed to.

That's not a theory, that's a religion.


1. I assume you read and even more important understand the contents of the patents, something you clearly didn't do yet.

2. I won't repeat the things, I already said in this thread.

3. What you are trying to do is make fun of the facts I presented, because you don't know how to attack / debunk it.




edit on 5-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88
1. I assume you read and even more important understand the contents of the patents, something you clearly didn't do yet.


It's an explosive, not an incendiary.



2. I won't repeat the things, I already said in this thread.


If you want to try to demonstrate that the "molten steel" is thermite, you have to have sufficient volume to explain it. How much volume is in a paint layer? There's your answer.



3. What you are trying to do is make fun of the facts I presented, because you don't know how to attack / debunk it.


Your "no planes conjecture" isn't a fact. It's a delusion. I much prefer the flying monkey theory, which has all the hallmarks of your 'no planes' theory, only it's more entertaining.




edit on 5-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
It's an explosive, not an incendiary.


You still didn't read or understand the patents and my posts.


Originally posted by Bedlam
If you want to try to demonstrate that the "molten steel" is thermite,...


I didn't say that. Stop twisting my words. You very well know that the "molten steel" could be the result of a thermite reaction.


Originally posted by Bedlam
Your "no planes conjecture" isn't a fact. It's a delusion. I much prefer the flying monkey theory, which has all the hallmarks of your 'no planes' theory, only it's more entertaining.


As I said you are completely entitled to your beliefs. I disagree with you.

Now please take your flying monkeys somewhere else. Thank you.

edit on 5-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ALF88
 


There is no need to debunk your conjecture, and the comparison to religion is apt. There's no distinguishing criteria you are using here other than 'does it produce no evidence'. You then twist whatever you find into a scenario that would potentially leave no evidence and are satisfied with that.

The fact is though that we have no prime facie reason to even look at your theory, as it purports to match no evidence and no criteria. This is why I call it a deus ex machina. Instead of trying to explain individual facts, it simply drops from the sky and is proclaimed to answer everything.

That is not scientific, and is endemic in the truth movement. Any alternative explanation is praised, even without the slightest logical backing.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88
You still didn't read or understand the patents and my posts.


Sure I did. I knew about those patents when they were issued. It's not as big a mystery as you think, except the patent doesn't quite explicitly describe what they're used for. You'll note that it's never described as an incendiary in the patent, always as an explosive, and quite a good one at that, and you will have ignored it for the purposes of your theory.


Originally posted by Bedlam

I didn't say that. Stop twisting my words. You very well know that the "molten steel" could be the result of a thermite reaction.


The "thermite reaction" produces molten steel and aluminum slag...from the thermite itself. That's where it comes from. The thermite *becomes* the molten steel. So if you're proposing that it was painted on (or sputtered - worse!) then you've only got the volume of the thermite to make your molten metal from. That paint layer's not much volume. And of course, it leaves out all the other issues with thermite and energetics per volume which you don't know and haven't mentioned, your experience with it being limited to CT theory websites and a really bad Jesse Ventura show.


Originally posted by Bedlam
As I said you are completely entitled to your beliefs. I disagree with you.


Yes, I am. Your disagreement is based on ignorance, I fear. Let's deny it together.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.






top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join