ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags james millette , kevin ryan , Niels Harrit , paint chips , richard gage , steven jones , wtc

Reply
Old 23rd January 2013, 05:28 AM   #1561
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
So we can't find elemental aluminum in the putative thermite, but it shows up in its reaction products? Does this thermite come from an alternate universe that runs in the opposite direction of ours?
lol

That's why I've put him on ignore. It just clutters up the thread responding to him because he clearly doesn't understand a thing we are talking about and clearly doesn't realise that the thermite we are talking about is this one

Fe2O3 + 2Al --> 2Fe + Al2O3 deltaH -3.9kJ/g

Why would you expect pure Al to be in the reaction products?! One of the reasons Tillitson looked for Al2O3 was because he wanted to show that the above reaction took place. It's interesting to note how truthers say DSC was a good test to use because Tillitson did it but they never question why Harrit et al never looked for Al2O3 as Tilliston did. Double standards.

I also see some other ignorant truthers who are still claiming that the above equation can release more energy.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 06:13 AM   #1562
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
...
I also see some other ignorant truthers who are still claiming that the above equation can release more energy.
Well, you can make it very energetic - by replacing most of it with organic fuel prior to ignition!

You can also make it taste good by replacing it with raclette cheese prior to serving (and it will be more energetic, too) (I recommend sprinkling it with a dash of paprika nano-powder)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 07:45 AM   #1563
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Jtl, although I really don't like your "diction", here are another my remarks and answers to some points.

We know very well that even very extensive study could not describe/attribute all kinds of red/gray chips to some specific materials. There is anyway no chance to find details even for some more abundantly present red primers from all WTC buildings (except WTC1/WTC2 Tnemec and Laclede indeed.) We know very well that there will be always room for truthers to claim “you studied different chips” or so. But we are trying to convince at least some people that Bentham chips (a) to (d), which were closely studied and declared as nanothermite, should be Laclede red primer for WTC floor trusses because of this and this and this. This is basically our goal.

As for MEK chip, we can hardly conclude anything: can be Tnemec (despite the difference in the height of Zn peaks with authentic Tnemec), but the other possibilities are open. We know it, this is nothing new, but we should be more careful. The issue can be solved only with other XEDS measurements on authentic Tnemec chips (unwashed, washed, freshly broken).

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
There is al signature in the molten sphere residue from the ignition tests, and this is also seen in the residue spheres from known thermite. But Harrit did not specify that they made sure this al was al oxide which is a weak point.

It just seems most likely that it is pure al because that melts below 700C while al oxide and kaolin have even higher melting points than iron at over 1800C.
Hehe) Do you really think that since Al has lower melting point than some of its compounds, the “melting” (whatever) leading to spheres with a such complex composition (Fe, C, O, Al, Si stuffs, – and some minute Ti) is a sign that metallic Al was originally present? You have probably heard about mixtures called alloys, eutectics etc., behavior of which is very complex and which have or can have distinctly lower melting points than components… or not?

Please, try to bear in mind the fact, which has been already reminded by Sunstealer here, perhaps even several times:
1) We can be sure that chips heated in DSC device, from which these spheres were created, were “typical” bilayered red/gray chips. Really, it does not make sense, that Harrit et al would heat some atypical chips. Do you agree?
2) Hence, these microspheres should be formed mostly from these gray layers, since gray layers disappeared after heating. Or do you have some better idea what happened with them? And, the contamination of iron oxide spheres with Al, Si, etc. is something fully expectable, when both layers are heated together.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
why is that impossible? Your buddies say his main chips(a to d in harrit paper) are laclede which means kaolin, but jones xrd rules out kaolin. Millette and jones ruled out Tnemec for those chips so al oxide from tnemec is not there. What options does that leave besides amorphous al?
I’m not sure if I understand. Jones ruled out kaolin for WHAT kind of chips? Do you know? If his chip for XRD measurements was Tnemec (or other paint… well, material different from Laclede), no wonder that Jones did not find kaolin(ite). Options are still the same (materials with kaolinite, and another materials without kaolinite.) No room for amorphous aluminium and other rather mystical stuffs.
You wrote “al oxide from Tnemec”, what you were talking about? There was no aluminum oxide in the Tnemec. And it is just Jones’ problem so far that he was not able to find “any clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results“. He should try harder next time. Or, perhaps, this Jones' chip really did not contain any Al stuffs (or Al), who knows? Moreover, we have not seen any of those XRD data, so what? (But, perhaps I misunderstood something here).

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Oh please, if you think it will save face for you keep up the act, I will let others read the paper for themselves and see if millette offers other possibilities besides red chips with kaolin.
I attempted to analyze Millette results in this long post.
My findings were basically inconclusive, except one thing: XEDS spectra taken of freshly cut chips (Appendix D) corresponded well to Laclede paint (similarly to freshly cut Bentham chips (a) to (d)). But, namely spectra taken on unwashed chips looked pretty messy and also spectra taken of chips washed with water do not provide any clear picture what can be what. Apparently (to me), chips surface contamination is a very serious issue, and it seems to be an issue even for chips washed with water.

I could only judge that since polymer binder prevailed in these Millette's chips, they should be all red paints on some rust flakes

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 23rd January 2013 at 08:53 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 07:52 AM   #1564
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Sunstealer: Our latest truther is claiming that Jones's spectroscopy rules out kaolin. Do you understand how he's coming to that conclusion? I've looked at the paper, and I agree with you: The spectroscopy proves it, it doesn't rule it out. I'm at a loss as to why this claim is even being tried; it's like he's saying the opposite of what the data actually says. So: Do you know why Jones is claiming this? Above and beyond trying to salvage his reputation, I mean; he's got to be offering some sort of reasoning why his results supposedly exclude kaolin.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 08:26 AM   #1565
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Btw, I again inspected my Laclede paint imitation chips which were subjected to MEK solvent for another ca 30 hours (altogether they were "soaked" for ca 50 hours).

Their dimensions are the same like after first 20 hours, as well as their behavior: they are swollen and significantly softened (their volume is about doubled). After drying in vacuum, they are again hard like prior "soaking".

Conclusions: the swelling of this epoxy comes to equilibrium state during less than 20 hours. The epoxy binder in my chips is more densely cross-linked than the cross-linked binder in "MEK chips", in which the increase of volume (?) was higher (5x).

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 23rd January 2013 at 09:40 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 09:13 AM   #1566
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Sunstealer: Our latest truther is claiming that Jones's spectroscopy rules out kaolin. Do you understand how he's coming to that conclusion? I've looked at the paper, and I agree with you: The spectroscopy proves it, it doesn't rule it out. I'm at a loss as to why this claim is even being tried; it's like he's saying the opposite of what the data actually says. So: Do you know why Jones is claiming this? Above and beyond trying to salvage his reputation, I mean; he's got to be offering some sort of reasoning why his results supposedly exclude kaolin.
In his september 09, 2012 "Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses", Jones wrote:

Originally Posted by ProfJones
Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 .

The accuracy of the TEM analysis should allow you (and Millette) to determine if you are indeed looking at the same material that we reported on, beginning with the Al:Si ratio.
But he admitted later that Farrer corrected him on that point, and he appended the post the next day:
Originally Posted by ProfJones
Note added, based on comments received 9-9-12 from Dr. Jeffrey Farrer.
...
5. With regard to the 0.92 ratio, Jeff notes that he did not use standards for the TEM/XEDS analysis so this ratio could be consistent with unity. The interested scientist is encouraged to use standards for the TEM/XEDS so this ratio can be pinned down definitively.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 09:43 AM   #1567
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Sunstealer: Our latest truther is claiming that Jones's spectroscopy rules out kaolin. Do you understand how he's coming to that conclusion? I've looked at the paper, and I agree with you: The spectroscopy proves it, it doesn't rule it out. I'm at a loss as to why this claim is even being tried; it's like he's saying the opposite of what the data actually says. So: Do you know why Jones is claiming this? Above and beyond trying to salvage his reputation, I mean; he's got to be offering some sort of reasoning why his results supposedly exclude kaolin.
I'd need to look at exactly what Jones is claiming first, however, I have seen one of his talks where he puts up a SEM picture of kaolinite against the SEM picture of the red layer and says, "look! look! they are different! Not kaolin!" and then puts up the EDX for the red layer and then the EDX for kaolinite and says, "look! look! they are different! Not kaolin!" This is obviously a strawman because no-one is claiming that the red layer is just kaolin, but that particles of kaolin are present in the epoxy matrix. I don't think Jones has much grasp of SEM EDX because he makes some fundamental mistakes.

I have no idea how jtl is ruling out kaolin. There is no scientific reasoning or reference that he uses in any of his posts so I have him on ignore.

jtl agrees that a=b=c=d, but won't expand on his reasoning even though it's correct. I'll put together Millette's EDX of 4 samples that show kaolin is present soon and see if the truthers will admit those samples are identical.

When looking at characteristics in the SEM you never look at data in isolation. So looking purely at the EDX spectrum without looking at particle morphology or other information is pointless, because you cannot tell specifically what a material is just from EDX alone unless it's a really basic one. You have to fit all the pieces of the jigsaw together.

People often think that EDX gives a finger print of a material. It doesn't especially when that material is not homogeneous. So you can examine an area or a spot and get a high O peak for example, but get a much lower O peak when examining another area/spot from somewhere else on the same sample. Classic example is a steel with less than 1% carbon, it's easy to zoom into an area of pearlite (lamellae of cementite [Fe3C] and ferrite) and then do an EDX on the cementite, which is 6.67% C by weight, showing a huge Carbon peak compared to other areas.

Similarly you can take EDX from 3 identical materials and get different peak heights across all 3 samples. You can't therefore claim that one sample has more Fe in it for the same reason, the size of the beam is so tiny that in effect you are only analysing a minute area of the sample. People think the spectra are like DNA, but in reality it's far more general when looking at an inhomogeneous sample. You are looking for trends across all peaks, which is why Tnemec Red matches the MEK chip and some of Millette's chips so well.

Those that don't know consider EDX peaks in isolation, so they say look at the Al and think that there is pure Al in the sample. First thing I remember being taught about EDX was that if O was present then to expect that all elements are in their oxide form. Obviously more than one element will lead to oxide compounds.

People with zero experience of EDX will not know it's limitations either. For example light elements below Na are far more difficult to resolve due to a reduction of x-ray fluorescence yield (x-ray production) at lower atomic numbers. The age of the machine, detector, window type, amongst many others, all begin to play a part when looking at light elements.

Iirc a classic example of this lack of understanding was when Dr Greening sent an email to Jones with an EDX from McCrones particle atlas and Jones guffawed at the lack of O peak compared to his. Greening had to explain it was on an older machine which couldn't detect O even though it was there.

Yep, here it is, lol.

Quote:
2. Where is the oxygen in the spectrum? The oxygen content is significant, yet the spectrum appears to be skewed, cut off at low X-ray energies... please explain -- how much Oxygen was present? Oxygen must be present in a spectrum to provide a match with spectra I have shown -- not the case in the one example you provided!
http://911blogger.com/node/13090

The uninitiated also won't understand how the x-rays are produced and therefore why certain elements produce peaks at certain voltages or that those peaks can overlap or indeed be lost in interference.

Another mistake is to assume that peak height directly relates to amount. People will compare spectra without understanding that the graph they are looking at is not detailed compared with the original, doesn't have original labels, has been resized, don't know the count rate, number of x-ray counts, etc. People will automatically say one height is higher than the other for a given element even though both peak heights have in reality the same count value. Same way the food industry makes it look like you are getting more for your money by selling you something in a tall container. Your brain is wired that way. So it's another reason to look at the overall picture rather than focus on one specific.

That's why a semi-quantitative routine needs to be applied and even then those should only be taken as general values and not absolutes. This was shown to us when I did my materials characterisation course, SEM EDX spat out one set of percentages, but mass spectrometry gave the more accurate elemental analysis of the known sample.

Because EDX doesn't measure atomic spacing, lattice parameters, etc then it cannot tell exactly what material is present. For example if I mixed a load of kaolin powder with pure aluminium powder then the SEM EDX would not be able to tell you what powder was present or the ratio of mixed powder. You might be able to make an educated guess but unlikely. Through a semi-quantitative analysis program it might get close to giving percentages of Al, Si, and O present, but it can't tell you what material is actually present.

Now of course a knowledgeable operator would see the images of round aluminium particles and hexagonal platelet particles and conclude rightly that two materials are present that both contain Al and O and would then go one to investigate further to get the right answer.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about.

The bottom EDX is Fig 26 - Residue of red chip subjected to flame test; XEDS spectrum of left-most microsphere.



What is the top material? (Remember the bottom one is either thermite residue or paint so the top one must be?) Our resident truthers will be able to tell us straight away of course.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 09:54 AM   #1568
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
In his september 09, 2012 "Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses", Jones wrote:



But he admitted later that Farrer corrected him on that point, and he appended the post the next day:
Ahh, got it. I was wondering what his reasoning was.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I'd need to look at exactly what Jones is claiming first, however... (lots of awesome stuff snipped)
Now that's above and beyond. Thanks, Sunstealer! Informative stuff like that is exactly what I hope to get in participating in this forum.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 10:55 AM   #1569
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,068
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
.... but is it not also possible that there is a compound in non std form?
What is "a compound in non-standard form" ?? (assuming here that your std means standard)
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 11:03 AM   #1570
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
So from what I can make out, jtl with all of his knowledge on everything in this world is trying to tell us that the evil people responsible for the downing of the towers have managed to invent a new form of nano-thermite. This new form of thermite is very special just like jtl
The Al is hidden in an organic matrix and is only produced when subjected to temperature in the region of 430 c.

The question is why is the Al hidden ?

I can only the imagine the evil people had to hide the thermite just incase anyone started looking for it.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 11:25 AM   #1571
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
ergo: I'm interested in this point, which I've raised before, about the limits on the energy yield of thermite: the popular literature on nanoenergetics suggests that nanoengineering greatly increases the power (vs. energy) density of a composite. Your debate opponents here cannot seem to acknowledge that we are talking about a nanoengineered product (likely because they have little knowledge of nanoenergetics) which means that we are talking about a different power potential entirely. Do you agree?
Yes, this is so obvious that it is beyond me why anyone would stick to those arguments. The nanoscale makes energy release faster but that is only the beginning.

What is called superthermite can be a mixture that is only partially feo-al thermite, and also other stuff not normally found in thermite. The result will obviously not perform like std thermite. Straight hermite does not release gas pressure and is not explosive but superthermite can because it can be mixed with organic components. It can be rocket fuel. Saying that stuff is not a type of thermite because it releases so much pressure would be equally dumb as the 3.9 argument.

Another thing is that Harrit tested chips in air so that will obviously increase output because of the organic part. We donīt know if the chips will go over 3.9 in nitrogen.
jtl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 11:37 AM   #1572
Starving for Truth
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 194
It is pretty obvious that nanothermite was used to cut plane shapes into the WTC.
Starving for Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 11:40 AM   #1573
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
So from what I can make out, jtl with all of his knowledge on everything in this world is trying to tell us that the evil people responsible for the downing of the towers have managed to invent a new form of nano-thermite. This new form of thermite is very special just like jtl
The Al is hidden in an organic matrix and is only produced when subjected to temperature in the region of 430 c.

The question is why is the Al hidden ?

I can only the imagine the evil people had to hide the thermite just incase anyone those meddling kids,and their dog, started looking for it.
ftfy
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 12:05 PM   #1574
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Waitaminute... Sunstealer or any other chemists: Why would any allotrope of aluminum, amorphous or not, be unidentifiable on an XRD? That seems to be the claim being made, but I don't get that. I can guess as to why it would return a different result, but I'm at a loss as to how it would actually be undetectable.

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong (recall: I've only had undergraduate chemistry courses to my name, and only one isolated semester dealing with inorganic chem), but I was under the impression that metals in general only had amorphic phases on the way towards forming different allotropes which are themselves ordered. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me, but if I'm right, doesn't that preclude the possibility of an XRD being done on some sample supposedly having "amorphous aluminum" present, since that phase would only be possible while transitioning to some different allotrope?
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 12:56 PM   #1575
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
you all should give links to what truthers say about your arguments,
You mean like using the QUOTE function?
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 02:08 PM   #1576
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Waitaminute... Sunstealer or any other chemists: Why would any allotrope of aluminum, amorphous or not, be unidentifiable on an XRD? That seems to be the claim being made, but I don't get that. I can guess as to why it would return a different result, but I'm at a loss as to how it would actually be undetectable.

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong (recall: I've only had undergraduate chemistry courses to my name, and only one isolated semester dealing with inorganic chem), but I was under the impression that metals in general only had amorphic phases on the way towards forming different allotropes which are themselves ordered. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me, but if I'm right, doesn't that preclude the possibility of an XRD being done on some sample supposedly having "amorphous aluminum" present, since that phase would only be possible while transitioning to some different allotrope?
No you aren't wrong, in general metals do have an ordered structure.

However, you'll often hear about "metallic glass" or "glassy metal" (even "liquid metal"). That is simply a metal that has been cooled so quickly that the atoms do not have time to form an ordered lattice structure (BCC, FCC, HCP etc) with set distances between atoms on cooling. Instead the atoms are disordered so an amorphous "structure" results. (I think there was a bit of a hoo-haa about Apple using such a material for one of their phones)

The main problem is we have no data to look at
, simply the words from Jones or another one of the people who performed the XRD analysis. As such there really isn't anything to go on except the words that XRD was inconclusive either way.

I've been there. Sometimes it's difficult to get a result.

I was once looking into the high temperature corrosion of engineering ceramics such as SiC (silicon carbide), but mainly Si3N4 (silicon nitride) in the form of a SiAlON ceramic alloyed with Yttria (Y2O3 - Yttrium Oxide) for jet engine applications such as combustion chamber fuel nozzles. I had a burner rig set up so that we could look at the difference the alloy addition of Yttria (between 1 and 5%) made when aviation fuel was burning between 1200 and 1400°C . A furnace was used for ambient environment (air) experiment at the same temps. Si3N4 has three distinct phases; alpha, beta and silicon oxynitride. We were also looking at the effect the percentage of the alpha and beta phases had on corrosion rates too.

Iirc correctly the addition of Yttria helped reduce corrosion in air (ambient temperatures), but increased corrosion rates when aviation fuel was used.

All corrosion products whether in air or the burner rig were an aluminosilicate glass. The outside of the solid ceramic would become liquid, drip down the outside of the sample and bubbles would form in this glass which would remain upon cooling. (I always likened the aluminosilicate glass corrosion product to white dripping snot with a couple of snot bubbles in it!! - those with small children will understand)

Adding Yttria enhanced corrosion resistance in air, but decreased it in the burner rig with aviation fuel. Yttria was aiding the diffusion and transport of sulphur (and other additives from the aviation fuel) into the ceramic increasing corrosion rates.

Samples were only small, 5 x 5 x 20mm, and the cooled, glassy corrosion product had to be carefully scraped from the surface into a pestle and mortar, so that it could be ground up for XRD analysis.

The problem was that you'd get the 2 theta trace and then need to match the peaks manually to a catalogue of aluminosilicate glasses and individual phases that were held on computer as well as paper record. So you could narrow down some of the phases present in the glass, but not all of them because there was always a mish-mash of sharp (crystalline) peaks and wide, diffused (amorphous) peaks due to long range ordering and making matches to known material was difficult.

As far as I'm aware we don't have any information regarding sample preparation, equipment used, XRD trace etc, so it's impossible to perform any analysis or make any conclusion with regard to the claims made by Jones.

However, I think that a claim of an amorphous aluminium for aluminium containing nano-thermite is far fetched for the simple reason that it's simply not supported by other known factors, namely the structured hexagonal shape of the particles that Harrit et al claim contain free aluminium, nor is an amorphous aluminium required for nano-thermite. I doubt Jones or any other truther could find evidence in the literature to support the supposition.

Lastly we have no information on the sample(s) used in this particular experiment. Did these samples have an SEM EDX spectrum identical to samples a-d or the MEK chip?

I'd like to continue, but Arsenal are spanking West Ham and my attention is elsewhere. Later.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 03:54 PM   #1577
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Oystein: But he admitted later that Farrer corrected him on that point, and he appended the post the next day:
Originally Posted by ProfJones
Note added, based on comments received 9-9-12 from Dr. Jeffrey Farrer.
...
5. With regard to the 0.92 ratio, Jeff notes that he did not use standards for the TEM/XEDS analysis so this ratio could be consistent with unity. The interested scientist is encouraged to use standards for the TEM/XEDS so this ratio can be pinned down definitively.
For the last time Oystein, you know perfectly well that that pretending to forget about the other test, the XRD, is not OK.
Quote:
Jones: But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments."
No compounds, no kaolin, but also no std form of al. He proposes amorphous al which is possible, but is it not also possible that there is a compound in non std form? He says they are still doing experiments so you had an acceptable way to answer your problem, that is those results are not conclusive. But trying to ignore the current XRD result because you donīt like is unacceptable.

Quote:
Sunstealer: I have no idea how jtl is ruling out kaolin. There is no scientific reasoning or reference that he uses
Pretending not to know two words, "compound" and "no".

Quote:
Sunstealer: I don't think Jones has much grasp of SEM EDX because he makes some fundamental mistakes
Ad hominem attack on Jones.

Quote:
a classic example of this lack of understanding was when Dr Greening sent an email to Jones
by the way, you should not bring up the former contributor to the official story, and former member of JREF Dr Greening.
Quoting what he actually said about you lot is enough to get booted of this forum

Last edited by jtl; 23rd January 2013 at 04:14 PM.
jtl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 03:59 PM   #1578
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by jtl View Post

Ad hominem attack on Jones.
Wrong, again!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 04:01 PM   #1579
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Oystein: I think, personally, after having talked to him on the phone, that Basile is an honest man, and somewhat open towards admitting that the stuff really isn't thermite after all. But he has stopped communication with me, and I don't know why. So I hesitate.

jtl: I found a recent interview with Basile on a radio show that I will listen to, and check how it compares to your story. With your meltdowns in mind and some of your posts here I do wonder a bit if he did not get fed up with you, and that you are bending the truth a bit?
Oystein, I listened to a very recent long interview with Basile and also watched a couple of short videos. It is no wonder he wonīt talk to you anymore because you distort what he says so much that black becomes white.

Basile does say there are paint chips in the dust but he also seems very sure that there are also different chips and that he is studying those chips. These different chips are the ones harrit talks about and basile does agree that they are some kind of thermite. He certainly does not "admit" they are not thermite as you say.

Another very interesting thing he has to say is that he is sure the red layer produces the spheres, not the gray layer, because he can look into the chips after burning them and see the trail they leave behind in the red layer, what sounds like a kind of tunnels with a thin iron film.

Quote:
Kminek: Hence, these microspheres should be formed mostly from these gray layers, since gray layers disappeared after heating. Or do you have some better idea what happened with them?
See basile above. Like I said so many times before i want to see actual tests on paint-metal chips to confirm this gray layer hypothesis. I mentioned some time before that you all should give links to what truthers say about your arguments, and this basile comment is a very good example. He clearly says the spheres are from the red layer and you canīt just ignore stuff like that.
jtl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 04:09 PM   #1580
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm interested in this point, which I've raised before, about the limits on the energy yield of thermite: the popular literature on nanoenergetics suggests that nanoengineering greatly increases the power (vs. energy) density of a composite. Your debate opponents here cannot seem to acknowledge that we are talking about a nanoengineered product (likely because they have little knowledge of nanoenergetics) which means that we are talking about a different power potential entirely. Do you agree?
As this is off-topic to discussion of Dr. Millette's paper, perhaps this should be moved to another thread.

It's been known for centuries that reducing the size of reactants increases the rate of reaction, and makes initiation easier. Kindling ignites more easily than logs, and burns faster. At the Siege of Yorktown, the black powder in the cannons had the same chemical proportions as in the flintlock rifles, but the flintlocks had much finer-grained powder to make it burn faster and ignite easier. But the energy output was the same, no matter what the granulation.

For thermite, decreasing particle size will make it easier to ignite, and make it burn faster, too. But this seems to be of little practical value. There is little visible interest in "nanothermite" in the real world, as opposed to conspiracy world. For welding purposes, or for purposes of pyrotechnic displays, plain old 1890s thermite reacts plenty fast, and is easy enough to initiate. This is what thermite is mostly used for. Possibly it could be of use in improved solid-rocket fuels as a booster.

In thermite, reducing the size of the aluminum particles has the side effect of losing more and more aluminum to the aluminum oxide which forms on the surface. As long as you are at micron size, which is very small, this is insignificant. At nanometer size, it's severe. A 50 nanometer sphere of aluminum will lose about 50% to oxidation, and a 10 nanometer sphere will be completely gone for all practical purposes!

So, at micron size, 25 micron thermite will have essentially the same energy density as 50 micron, but greater power density. But most users of thermite don't care about either the power or energy density of thermite! They're only interested in the very pure molten iron it produces! At nanometer size, you will get to the point where even power density drops as the energy density drops even faster.

Here's the problem for nanothermite demolition conspiracists: They've never been able to decide if nanothermite is to be used as an explosive, or to be used to generate heat to melt structural components. Thermite itself, in whatever granulation, is not an explosive. Unlike explosives, it does not generate any hot gases, which do the work. It can't possibly be used to heat anything to an expanding hot gas with the velocity that explosives do. Additionally, explosives generate their gas from the reaction itself, while for thermite, gas generation from any epoxy or alkyd resin is parasitic on the reaction.

Nanothermite, used to generate heat for demolition purposes, is even less useful than standard thermite. The only time that thermite has even been used for a demolition, AFAIK, was the Chicago Exposition skyride tower in the 1930s. There, at least 700 kg. of thermite was placed in large cupolas to generate enough heat to melt the steel of two legs of the tower. Massively inefficient, compared to high explosives, and it's easy to see the problems you'd have in applying it to a building demolition. A gel nanothermite would have the problem of confining the thermite due to vaporization of the gel, and the energy siphoned off in vaporizing the gel would leave even less energy to to be applied to the steel, nevermind the lower energy density. Any greater power density would be useless, as the limiting factor would not be the rate of heat generation, but the rate of heat conductance through the steel. That's why thermite isn't used for demolitions.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 04:17 PM   #1581
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Yes, this is so obvious that it is beyond me why anyone would stick to those arguments. The nanoscale makes energy release faster but that is only the beginning.

What is called superthermite can be a mixture that is only partially feo-al thermite, and also other stuff not normally found in thermite. The result will obviously not perform like std thermite. Straight hermite does not release gas pressure and is not explosive but superthermite can because it can be mixed with organic components. It can be rocket fuel. Saying that stuff is not a type of thermite because it releases so much pressure would be equally dumb as the 3.9 argument.

Another thing is that Harrit tested chips in air so that will obviously increase output because of the organic part. We donīt know if the chips will go over 3.9 in nitrogen.
Thermite releases pressure? Bless your heart, but you seem to be confused about fundamental concepts of physics and chemistry. You really should take my suggestion and enroll in courses in basic physics and chemistry at your local community college before commenting here. You're out of your league.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 06:54 PM   #1582
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Redwood: You're out of your league.
Wow you guys like to pose as big shots. So impressive.
jtl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 07:01 PM   #1583
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,791
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
...
Ad hominem attack on Jones.

by the way, you should not bring up the former contributor to the official story, and former member of JREF Dr Greening.
Quoting what he actually said about you lot is enough to get booted of this forum
Jones is self-debunking.

Greening would clean up the thread with your lack of understanding in chemistry.

What does you nonsense have to do with Millette's paper not finding thermite? No thermite, means your crazy friend is debunked by Millette.

Do you understand no thermite was used to destroy the WTC on 911? Why can't you answer a simple question?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 09:03 PM   #1584
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Like I said so many times before i want to see actual tests on paint-metal chips to confirm this gray layer hypothesis.
Talk to Dr.Jones!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2013, 11:19 PM   #1585
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Lol jtl keeps asking for links for truther responses to Milletes work.

I bumped a thread for him and with all his knowledge of everything he has no idea that there are none, apart from, he didn't do DSC and he had the wrong chips

Yep jtl that's as good as it gets. It's sad isn't it ! Oh yeah someone on 911 blogger tried to insinuated that Millette was bought off for 1000 bucks LMFAO

Last edited by Spanx; 24th January 2013 at 12:03 AM.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 12:18 AM   #1586
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
... Straight hermite does not release gas pressure ...
Trying to visualize this, I LOLed
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 12:27 AM   #1587
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
and also other stuff not normally found in thermite
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Yes, this is so obvious that it is beyond me why anyone would stick to those arguments. The nanoscale makes energy release faster but that is only the beginning.

What is called superthermite can be a mixture that is only partially feo-al thermite, and also other stuff not normally found in thermite. The result will obviously not perform like std thermite. Straight hermite does not release gas pressure and is not explosive but superthermite can because it can be mixed with organic components. It can be rocket fuel. Saying that stuff is not a type of thermite because it releases so much pressure would be equally dumb as the 3.9 argument.

Another thing is that Harrit tested chips in air so that will obviously increase output because of the organic part. We donīt know if the chips will go over 3.9 in nitrogen.
Very technical post this one.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 01:30 AM   #1588
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Deleted... double post

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 24th January 2013 at 03:06 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 01:32 AM   #1589
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Another very interesting thing he has to say is that he is sure the red layer produces the spheres, not the gray layer, because he can look into the chips after burning them and see the trail they leave behind in the red layer, what sounds like a kind of tunnels with a thin iron film.

See basile above. Like I said so many times before i want to see actual tests on paint-metal chips to confirm this gray layer hypothesis. I mentioned some time before that you all should give links to what truthers say about your arguments, and this basile comment is a very good example. He clearly says the spheres are from the red layer and you canīt just ignore stuff like that.

Jtl, I fully agree with you that some real experiments would be great. Are you (hypothetically) willing to contribute to their financing?

And now, let's see what Basile actually shows us in his lecture (since radio interview cannot prove anything). This stuff has been indeed already discussed here, jtl, but I have one (perhaps) new image from the lecture. And sorry for perhaps too many images.

Here is a shot of red/gray chip „Lucky 13“ before heating. Just a typical bi-layered chip:



Here is a sequence of shots from filming this chip when heated on a heating element:



Because of a high heating current (ca 6 A), the element of this size/thickness should be heated pretty quickly. We see some flame/burning lasting for some second or so. We also see that after burning, the gray layer is somehow changed, but remains there.
Basile is correct in this, but since the burning was short and we have no idea what was the temperature of heating element during burning of the chip (and the temperature of burning chip), no comparison with DSC experiments in Bentham paper is possible.
And here is the chip after burning:



It is very apparent that the burning of polymer binder was incomplete, perhaps because of too short burning (see my posts about thermal behavior of polymers) and a lot of black soot/char remained.

Here is some micrograph (unknown method) after burning:



This image is pretty messy, but Basile shows us blueish objects, which are “iron droplets” according to him. Rounded shapes of these droplets are probably connected not only with their real shapes, but also with the fact, that they are surrounded/”immersed” in black char/soot.


And, here is one such droplet with corresponding XDES analysis:



Elements content is almost not readable, but here are per cents for more abundant elements: C 8.2, O 21.3, Al 5.2, Si 7.9, Fe 53.

According to these data, it is questionable to consider this object as “iron droplet” (iron oxide is perhaps a better guess), but anyway, these droplets still can still originate from the gray layer, more specifically from the “contact area” between red and gray layer, where some reduction of iron oxide by graphitic soot/char can occur. Who knows. But, this set of data itself does not exclude droplet formation from red layers.

What is really important, I repeat, is that we do not know the temperatures and other parameters, so no direct comparison with the thermal behavior of Bentham chips is possible.

Jtl: Try bear in mind that we are "scanning" all truthers' web and other truthers' stuff regularly, so we probably know (almost) everything they published/they think about red/gray chips. By no means we are avoiding to look at these sources!

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 24th January 2013 at 02:31 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 03:04 AM   #1590
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Deleted... (because of double post)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 24th January 2013 at 03:08 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 03:07 AM   #1591
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,791
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Yes, this is so obvious that it is beyond me why anyone would stick to those arguments. The nanoscale makes energy release faster but that is only the beginning.

What is called superthermite can be a mixture that is only partially feo-al thermite, and also other stuff not normally found in thermite. The result will obviously not perform like std thermite. Straight hermite does not release gas pressure and is not explosive but superthermite can because it can be mixed with organic components. It can be rocket fuel. Saying that stuff is not a type of thermite because it releases so much pressure would be equally dumb as the 3.9 argument.

Another thing is that Harrit tested chips in air so that will obviously increase output because of the organic part. We donīt know if the chips will go over 3.9 in nitrogen.
With the super fast nano-scale thermite reacting so fast, why did some escape the super fast reaction? Oh, right, the use of super-nano-thermite on 911 only exists in the delusional minds of 911 truth believers.

The best part of the fake paper. Is how super-nano-thermite has less energy than standard thermite.


Good old super-nano-thermite claims. Why do they have less energy? Why does paper have more energy than thermite? Poor chip 1 and 2, must be not-so-super-nano-thermite.

When I did experiments in chemistry in college, things turned out a lot better than the Jones paper. Jones had a conclusion before he did the study.

Millette found no thermite. USGS found no thermite. RJ Lee found no thermite. 911 truth has the fantasy of thermite. 11 years, 911 truth can push this delusion on the fresh, gullible patsies, unable to think for themselves, googling their way to ultimate knowledge.

How will your super thermite stuff help Millette's paper? Millette found no thermite, and no thermite was used on 911. It is normal procedure for those who can't think for themselves, 911 truth followers, to ignore reality, new studies, and anything that will vaporize their fantasy.

Who was the first nut to make up the thermite claim?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 04:28 AM   #1592
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Oystein:

There are actually two detailed images of "iron droplets" in Basile's lecture:



and



Looking at the scales, both droplets are larger than 100 micrometers, so they are considerably larger than thicknesses of both layers together (should be around 50 microns).

What they actually are? Probably some objects separated from the chip itself after burning?

Main object on the second, color image looks basically as a piece of gray layer partially melted (?) together with the red piece, difficult to say...

All these images from Mark Basile are rather messy/unexplained...
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 04:38 AM   #1593
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,249
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
And, here is one such droplet with corresponding XDES analysis:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=7290

Elements content is almost not readable, but here are per cents for more abundant elements: C 8.2, O 21.3, Al 5.2, Si 7.9, Fe 53.
Just in case it helps:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...n_analysis.png
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 24th January 2013 at 04:42 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 08:10 AM   #1594
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
A few pages on, page 189-192, they show red-gray chips that already have spheres attached, and call those "partially reacted".

Haha! So much for the claim "there are no microspheres prior to igniting them"
Well, such microspheres in unheated WTC chips (I mean unheated in some scientific apparatus) could be quite rare in fact and we can reasonably expect that they are really "partially reacted chips", as declared by truthers; more specifically, burned perhaps in the fire zones of WTC1/2. But who knows... Millette did not show us anything like this in his set of chips.

Anyway, here are two images available:





Jtl: Isn't the second image a kind of some evidence that those microspheres should be created from the gray layers? Inconclusive, but...

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 24th January 2013 at 08:23 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 08:19 AM   #1595
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Starving for Truth View Post
Looks like nanothermite.
Smells like teen spirit

Fitz
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 08:28 AM   #1596
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Well, such microspheres in unheated WTC chips (I mean unheated in some scientific apparatus) could be quite rare in fact and we can reasonably expect that they are really "partially reacted chips", as declared by truthers; more specifically, burned perhaps in the fire zones of WTC1/2. But who knows... Millette did not show us anything like this in his set of chips.

Anyway, here are two images available:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=7293

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=7292

Jtl: Isn't the second image a kind of some evidence that those microspheres should be created from the gray layers? Inconclusive, but...
True, all true...

But if chips react only partially, what good is this "superthermite" then? What stopped the chips from burning up completely - and do so extremely rapdily, at the speed of explosives? Isn't that how they are designed?

It seems you need to heat them continually on a crucible or hot steel strip to make them burn completely, not?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 08:43 AM   #1597
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
True, all true...

But if chips react only partially, what good is this "superthermite" then? What stopped the chips from burning up completely - and do so extremely rapdily, at the speed of explosives? Isn't that how they are designed?

It seems you need to heat them continually on a crucible or hot steel strip to make them burn completely, not?
Would you not also expect to see a bright flash and some form of spheres exploding ? Not to mention melting the strip it is sitting on ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 09:08 AM   #1598
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Spanx: If the Basile's heating strip was substantially thicker than heated chip "Lucky 13", even superthermite should not substantially damage it. Perhaps, we could observe some "hot corrosion" on the strip. But, this is just my guess. Otherwise, you are of course right, when a real superthermite is ignited, it should show some bright and very short flash

Oystein: Hehe But, do not forget that also in the video of Kevin Ryan, who ignited his home-made superthermite, not all red material completely burned, they are still some red areas visible in the thermitic residue. When superthermite is ignited in sol-gel form like in Ryan's video, some material is probably just blown away by hot air without complete burning.

Anyway, this image of partially burned chip above looks strange. We can reasonably expect that the whole this tiny paint chip was exposed to the same high temperature, therefore why the sphere was formed only in some area close to the chip edge? Perhaps the microsphere formation requires some "seed", in which it starts, and then it is/can be spread further (?).
Supposed that some experiments on heating of other red/gray chips are really arranged anywhere, it would be great to record the whole heating process with some microcamera (with a substantially better resolution than that of Basile's microscope)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 24th January 2013 at 09:39 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 09:16 AM   #1599
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Perhaps we could expect to see something like this ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dShGY...eature=youtube

I assume this clip is not fake and as Jtl would say it has other stuff in it.

Read the description with the clip
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2013, 09:25 AM   #1600
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Perhaps we could expect to see something like this ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dShGY...eature=youtube

I assume this clip is not fake and as Jtl would say it has other stuff in it.

Read the description with the clip
Exactly, a good example how the superthermite should burn Months ago I calculated what should be the "burning time" of such a chip measuring ca 1 mm. Since the burning velocities (? I'm not sure with the terminology) should be roughly 1000 m/s, the chip should be burned in 1/1 000 000 s, which is one microsecond.
Quite a difference from the Basile's chip which burned about one second, not speaking to Bentham chips, which released heat during several minutes

(But, this comparison is not really correct, since typical extremely rapid thermitic reaction must be triggered by some thermal/energetic shock, like in the linked video, which is not the case of slow DSC heating indeed)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 24th January 2013 at 10:28 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Đ 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.