International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Closed]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

R.Mackey · 5th April 2009, 11:13 AM

What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle.

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.

Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list.

Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it.

If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm³.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm² per unit length, or 28.48 cm³ per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm² per unit length, or 9042 cm³ per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm³ this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24^oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.

There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.

5th April 2009, 11:13 AM	#281
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854	What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle. I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite. Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list. Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it. If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption. Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm³. The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm² per unit length, or 28.48 cm³ per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column. The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm² per unit length, or 9042 cm³ per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm³ this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter. Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24^oC. Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning. There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854	Last edited by R.Mackey; 5th April 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason: pesky factor of 10