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 10th June 2012, 01:51 PM   #841
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,081
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, and Harrit et al. show it is irrelevant to determining the substance is thermitic.
So why did they do a DSC study? (around we go).
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 10th June 2012, 01:51 PM   #842
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yeah, if you call Jim Millette's attempt to replicate it "no impact"!
I do. It was done by request, and he was one of the few who wanted to do it.

(And I finally see an opportunity of getting marginally back to the topic...)
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 10th June 2012, 01:52 PM   #843
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If you look at the Bentham Paper, they acknowledge several times that the DSC results exceeded the theoretical limit for thermite.

The authors of the Bentham Paper provided this hypothesis;

MM
I know. What conclusion can you draw from this fact?

MM and ergo, to guide you towards a correct answer to this question, which of the following conclusions are correct, and which are false:

a) The DSC curves and energy densities are best explained by their consisting mostly of some (unknown) organic matrix material
b) The DSC curves and energy densities are best explained by their containing some nanothermite
c) It is possible that no organic combustion takes place
d) It is possible that no thermite reaction takes place
Oystein is online now   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 10th June 2012, 01:54 PM   #844
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yeah, if you call Jim Millette's attempt to replicate it "no impact"!
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, and Harrit et al. show it is irrelevant to determining the substance is thermitic.
You expect Millette to replicate something that is irrelevant to determining the substance is thermitic, when he is tasked and payed to determine if his chips are thermitic.

Can you explain why you have such insane expectations
Oystein is online now   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 10th June 2012, 01:55 PM   #845
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So why did they do a DSC study? (around we go).
They wanted to see how the material would behave when heated, to test its reactivity.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 10th June 2012, 01:57 PM   #846
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
They wanted to see how the material would behave when heated, to test its reactivity.
What analytical results of the DSC test describe the "reactivity"? How "reactive" are the chips, according to the DSC test?

Last edited by Oystein; 10th June 2012 at 01:58 PM.
Oystein is online now   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 10th June 2012, 02:00 PM   #847
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,081
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
They wanted to see how the material would behave when heated, to test its reactivity.
How did they determine what was actually reacting?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 10th June 2012, 02:01 PM   #848
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
You can read the paper yourself, but I know you already know this. The chips ignited around 430 C and produced microspheres, suggesting temperatures hot enough to melt iron and iron oxide.

PS: must go. Will check back later.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 10th June 2012 at 02:02 PM.
ergo 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 10th June 2012, 02:03 PM   #849
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,081
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You can read the paper yourself, but I know you already know this. The chips ignited around 430 C and produced microspheres, suggesting temperatures hot enough to melt iron and iron oxide.

PS: must go. Will check back later.
Wrong. Have you actually read the paper? (not just 9/11 blogger post on it).

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 10th June 2012, 02:07 PM   #850
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
*deleted and moved to bang-and-fizzle thread to end derail here*

Last edited by Oystein; 10th June 2012 at 02:43 PM.
Oystein is online now   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 10th June 2012, 03:08 PM   #851
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,125
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
At the risk of perpetuating an already silly "discussion", I NEVER ASCRIBED THAT QUOTE TO PINK FLOYD. You did.



it is physically impossible for you to simply say "I was wrong", isn't it?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 10th June 2012, 04:32 PM   #852
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, anything I haven't quite grasped of Oystein's highly complex theory, feel free to enlighten me, DGM.

The best I can summarize from the logical carnage so far is: "There was no nanothermite.". . . "Because there was no nanothermite."
There's no thermite because there's no elemental aluminum.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
As has also already been pointed out, thermites display a range of energy yields. It's also reaction time and not energy density that determines explosive potential, so what you say here has no relevance to the discussion.
The only documented use of thermite to demolish a structure was for one tower of the Skyride at the Chicago Exposition of the 1930s. Thermite wasn't used as an explosive, but as a source of heat to melt the steel of the structure. Massive insulated cupolas were constructed about the base of the tower to hold 1,500 lbs of thermite. "Nano" thermite would be inferior for this because it produces less heat per unit of mass, and it's just "explosive" enough, if embedded in an organic gel matrix, to make it very difficult to contain in a cupola.

As an explosive, nanothermite is a bad joke: I've seen more "explosive" potential in a kielbasa heated in a microwave oven. I'd love to see Kevin Ryan pack some of his backyard-brewed nanothermite gel into a familiar copper linear shape-charge shell and demonstrate its explosiveness. I need a good laugh.
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 10th June 2012, 04:52 PM   #853
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
There's no thermite because there's no elemental aluminum.

The only documented use of thermite to demolish a structure was for one tower of the Skyride at the Chicago Exposition of the 1930s. Thermite wasn't used as an explosive, but as a source of heat to melt the steel of the structure. Massive insulated cupolas were constructed about the base of the tower to hold 1,500 lbs of thermite. "Nano" thermite would be inferior for this because it produces less heat per unit of mass, and it's just "explosive" enough, if embedded in an organic gel matrix, to make it very difficult to contain in a cupola.

As an explosive, nanothermite is a bad joke: I've seen more "explosive" potential in a kielbasa heated in a microwave oven. I'd love to see Kevin Ryan pack some of his backyard-brewed nanothermite gel into a familiar copper linear shape-charge shell and demonstrate its explosiveness. I need a good laugh.
I've seen that article as well. It's usually presented as "evidence" by truthers who haven't bothered to actually read it. 1,500 pounds of thermite x how many WTC girders?

I've said it before, in all the truther Youtube videos - I have yet to see one of thermite cutting a steel girder in half.
Robrob 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 10th June 2012, 05:15 PM   #854
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
In addition is the problem that there was no CD therefore whether or not thermXte was present AND could be used to cut structural members it wasn't used. The whole discussion is a truther initiated side track which we enjoy playing along with. Of technical interest certainly but irrelevant to "prove CD".

The basic process error is that the logic is arse about truther logic which we debunkers generously go along with.

Truther logic says:
1) "ThermXte can cut steel" - yes but...partial truth there
2) There was thermXte on ground zero" ...even if true (almost certain not) it is still only an isolated anomaly.
3)
4)
etc
12) (at least) missing steps to prove CD

So why is the logic arse about?

Because to complete the sequence the truthers have to prove 1) and 2)
PLUS define, explain and prove 3) through 12) or whatever the end point is.

Put simply they have to prove CD and thermXte doesn't help them.

Since they cannot prove CD they cannot prove CD and thermXte, mini nukes, DEW, OR Santa's custard wont help them if they cannot prove CD.
ozeco41 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 10th June 2012, 05:54 PM   #855
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Wrong. Have you actually read the paper? (not just 9/11 blogger post on it).
DGM, you've failed to make any point, any kind of coherent, definitive statement in any of these posts. When you figure out what it is you're trying to say, please post it. Until then, I'll assume you really don't know.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 10th June 2012, 06:35 PM   #856
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
DGM, you've failed to make any point, any kind of coherent, definitive statement in any of these posts. When you figure out what it is you're trying to say, please post it. Until then, I'll assume you really don't know.
Irony Overload...
__________________
I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth".

Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.
The Platypus 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 10th June 2012, 06:36 PM   #857
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
Am I the only one who has noticed absolutely no progress in this discussion? Ever since this study was released, it's been the same thermite/dsc/aluminum/why ergo is wrong/ergo denial spinning around and around again. Oystein, how have you persisted so long? I'd have given up on him weeks ago..
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 10th June 2012, 06:56 PM   #858
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Am I the only one who has noticed absolutely no progress in this discussion? Ever since this study was released, it's been the same thermite/dsc/aluminum/why ergo is wrong/ergo denial spinning around and around again....
Me too! It is both the goal of the troll and definitive proof of trolling when the same person keeps discussion circling.

I don't feed trolls. (OK thats the ideal - I falter occasionally ) Others legitimately choose to respond.
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
.... Oystein, how have you persisted so long? I'd have given up on him weeks ago..
...so I admire Oystein and others who persist in responding to this sort of "make sure we don't progress so lets go round in circles" posting.

It is not my choice but I know:
A) I am in the minority; AND
B) I would not win if I proposed tightening the "anti-trolling" rules.

..and, partly against my own "rules of engagement", I have had some fun counter attacking some nonsense on the "WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44" thread. Two trolls have departed that thread. I think I helped persuade them but they would deny that naturally
ozeco41 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 11th June 2012, 01:29 AM   #859
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Am I the only one who has noticed absolutely no progress in this discussion? Ever since this study was released, it's been the same thermite/dsc/aluminum/why ergo is wrong/ergo denial spinning around and around again. Oystein, how have you persisted so long? I'd have given up on him weeks ago..
This recent round has provided me with a couple of big smiles. Up to now I had thought that ergo, while certainly a troll, is at least educated and intelligent.

In this round, he had to admit that he doesn't understand some of the most basic physics laws of this universe. Made me feel very pleased.
Oystein is online now   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 11th June 2012, 03:24 AM   #860
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It doesn't matter since it's reaction time that is the pertinent factor in explosive potential.
Detonation velocity of sol-gel produced 70nm nanothermite is 900m/s. http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/ce...l/klapotke.pdf

Detonation velocity of TNT is 6900 m/s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...ion_velocities

So once again you are way, way off.

Now we've been here before haven't we Ergo? Do you know where we discussed this very topic? Yep it was in this very thread. 3 1/2 weeks ago.

So why are you bringing up exactly the same thing that was discussed? Are you incapable of learning? Do you have the memory of a goldfish? Why do you point blank refuse to accept documented evidence and data when it is presented to you?

You have already confessed that you have no idea what Enthalpy is.

You have already confessed that you have no idea what heat of reaction is.

You have already confessed that you have no idea why it's a theoretical limit.

You have already confessed that you have no idea how delta H is calculated.

Even though 10 minutes on Wiki reading the link provided to you would tell you everything. This information is learnt at around the age of 15 in school Chemistry classes. It's expanded on at advanced level 16-18 and you have to do the calculations.

Do you think we are lying to you when we tell you that you cannot get more than around 4KJ/g from this equation?

Fe2O3 + Al = Al2O3 + Fe

I've left it unbalanced on purpose. Ergo, please use your extensive knowledge of chemistry to balance the above equation. No cheating looking it up.

And now you have moved the goalposts again. And again that argument has been smashed. Aren't you getting tired of moving the posts? We are.

You have zero knowledge of chemistry. Zero. None. If you did, you'd get things right occasionally.

Tell us why we should discuss things with you when you have shown that you cannot learn the most basic of concepts even when they have been explained to you dozens of times?
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 11th June 2012, 04:06 AM   #861
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,605
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Detonation velocity of sol-gel produced 70nm nanothermite is 900m/s. http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/ce...l/klapotke.pdf

Detonation velocity of TNT is 6900 m/s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...ion_velocities

So once again you are way, way off.

Now we've been here before haven't we Ergo? Do you know where we discussed this very topic? Yep it was in this very thread. 3 1/2 weeks ago.

So why are you bringing up exactly the same thing that was discussed? Are you incapable of learning? Do you have the memory of a goldfish? Why do you point blank refuse to accept documented evidence and data when it is presented to you?

You have already confessed that you have no idea what Enthalpy is.

You have already confessed that you have no idea what heat of reaction is.

You have already confessed that you have no idea why it's a theoretical limit.

You have already confessed that you have no idea how delta H is calculated.

Even though 10 minutes on Wiki reading the link provided to you would tell you everything. This information is learnt at around the age of 15 in school Chemistry classes. It's expanded on at advanced level 16-18 and you have to do the calculations.

Do you think we are lying to you when we tell you that you cannot get more than around 4KJ/g from this equation?

Fe2O3 + Al = Al2O3 + Fe

I've left it unbalanced on purpose. Ergo, please use your extensive knowledge of chemistry to balance the above equation. No cheating looking it up.

And now you have moved the goalposts again. And again that argument has been smashed. Aren't you getting tired of moving the posts? We are.

You have zero knowledge of chemistry. Zero. None. If you did, you'd get things right occasionally.

Tell us why we should discuss things with you when you have shown that you cannot learn the most basic of concepts even when they have been explained to you dozens of times?
Time for a little humor.

Q: How many psychotherapists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 11th June 2012, 04:44 AM   #862
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Time for a little humor.

Q: How many psychotherapists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
This one might be closer to "on topic" here:
Q: How many carpenters does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Two, one to hold it, one to hammer it in.
ozeco41 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 11th June 2012, 04:48 AM   #863
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Fe2O3 + Al = Al2O3 + Fe

I've left it unbalanced on purpose. Ergo, please use your extensive knowledge of chemistry to balance the above equation. No cheating looking it up.
It's easy to balance that equation as applied to the chips:

0Fe2O3 + 0Al = 0Al2O3 + 0Fe

... because there was NO elemental aluminium that could react with the Fe2O3.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 11th June 2012, 05:19 AM   #864
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
It's easy to balance that equation as applied to the chips:

0Fe2O3 + 0Al = 0Al2O3 + 0Fe

... because there was NO elemental aluminium that could react with the Fe2O3.
But but ... there were many many thermites!!!

3791 Fe2O3 + 7582 Al = 3791 Al2O3 + 7582 Fe

I win!
Oystein is online now   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 11th June 2012, 05:56 AM   #865
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"...LOL

You are dodging. You made a claim - back it up: What is the range of energy yield for thernites? I know, you don't.
"
Originally Posted by Bentham Paper
"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive [6, 24]. As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"I know. What conclusion can you draw from this fact?

MM and ergo, to guide you towards a correct answer to this question, which of the following conclusions are correct, and which are false:

a) The DSC curves and energy densities are best explained by their consisting mostly of some (unknown) organic matrix material
b) The DSC curves and energy densities are best explained by their containing some nanothermite
c) It is possible that no organic combustion takes place
d) It is possible that no thermite reaction takes place
"
That is totally evasive.

Responding with multiple choice questions is totally ignoring the answer you were previously provided with.

Why are you ignoring the Bentham Paper explanation?

MM
Miragememories 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 11th June 2012, 08:21 AM   #866
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,936
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
That is totally evasive.

Responding with multiple choice questions is totally ignoring the answer you were previously provided with.

Why are you ignoring the Bentham Paper explanation?

MM
So you don't know then?
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 11th June 2012, 08:47 AM   #867
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,755
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Why are you ignoring the Bentham Paper explanation?
Nobody's ignoring it. It is, in fact, perfectly correct to say that a non-zero fraction of the energy released may be from the organic matrix; indeed, it would be more correct to say that a non-zero part of the energy released must be from the organic matrix. What it carefully avoids pointing out, however, is that there is no reason to believe that a non-zero part of the energy released comes from a thermite reaction. We know that an organic matrix is giving out at least 95% of the energy emitted by these chips; there is no reason whatsoever to conclude that the remaining 5% is not also coming from the same source.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 11th June 2012 at 09:37 AM. Reason: Omitted double negative.
Dave Rogers 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 11th June 2012, 09:33 AM   #868
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Lol. What is this, now? Seven posts about Pink Floyd by bedunkers in a thread about Jim Millette's dust study?

Why are bedunkers trashing their own thread? They don't want to admit that the WTC primer paint doesn't ignite at 430 C ?
Yes we never tire of pointing out your mistakes and fallacious reasoning. That's correct.

btw, what temperature does the nanothermite of Tillotson et al. ignite? Can you tell us Ergo? (hint: it's not 430º)
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 11th June 2012, 11:27 AM   #869
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
Why are you ignoring the Bentham Paper explanation?
...
I am not ignoring it. I am rejecting it, because it is flat out WRONG.

If you found the correct answers to my multiple choice question, ypu'd be a step closer to understanding why.

So please try it now!
Oystein is online now   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 11th June 2012, 11:59 AM   #870
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I am not ignoring it. I am rejecting it, because it is flat out WRONG.

If you found the correct answers to my multiple choice question, ypu'd be a step closer to understanding why.

So please try it now!
Since you feel low resolution 68 KB JPEG images are a valid proof for visually rejecting the existence of 20-35 nm iron-rich microspheres, you earn little credibility for your other speculations.

MM
Miragememories 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 11th June 2012, 12:13 PM   #871
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Detonation velocity of sol-gel produced 70nm nanothermite is 900m/s. http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/ce...l/klapotke.pdf

Detonation velocity of TNT is 6900 m/s.
Minor correction, not that Truthers have any interest in the distinction -- the "velocity" in the sol-gel nanothermite construction is not a detonation velocity, because there is no detonation. It's a flame-front velocity.

No gas creation == no detonation. Nanothermite is not an explosive, period. Details in this old post.

You may now resume taunting the illiterate.
R.Mackey 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 11th June 2012, 12:25 PM   #872
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Am I the only one who has noticed absolutely no progress in this discussion? Ever since this study was released, it's been the same thermite/dsc/aluminum/why ergo is wrong
Yes, I've noticed this. How many opportunities have you guys had to present your case now? What is the difficulty?

"Nanothermite in the WTC has been disproven because:

1) ____________________________

2) ____________________________

3) ____________________________ "

(Usually there are three good reasons, but it doesn't have to be.)


Now, I know that bedunkers will probably say:

1) No elemental aluminum was found.

And the answer to this is that James Millette found no elemental aluminum. Or he determined that none was present. Harrit et al did. So a definitive statement cannot be made about the presence of elemental aluminum when there are two contradictory findings. Especially considering the other evidence Harrit et al reported, and especially since Millette's study is in response to Harrit et. al.

But can someone name the other two points? Would very much appreciate. Thanks a bunch.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 11th June 2012, 12:31 PM   #873
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Uh, why does Nanothermite in the WTC need to be "disproven"? I'm no scientist, but I'd imagine it needs to be "proven".
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 11th June 2012, 12:47 PM   #874
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,081
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, I've noticed this. How many opportunities have you guys had to present your case now? What is the difficulty?

"Nanothermite in the WTC has been disproven because:
First you need to show it was proven in the first place or show reasonable cause for it to be there.


Can you do this?

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 11th June 2012 at 12:48 PM.
DGM 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 11th June 2012, 12:48 PM   #875
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Since you feel low resolution 68 KB JPEG images are a valid proof for visually rejecting the existence of 20-35 nm iron-rich microspheres, you earn little credibility for your other speculations.

MM
Two pages up,m I linked to Fig 9 which I uploaded to my Photobucket account. I just noticed that Photobucked scaled it down, from 1291x968 pixels and 247 KB to 1023x767 pixels and 64 KB. I computed pixel resolution (3.5 px/nm) from my "original", which I have copied out of the Bentham paper original.

This was meant to illustrate why Gage could not possibly have seen any "spheres" 35 nm or smaller (i.e. 100 atoms or molecules across) "in the Bentham paper". I didn't mean to imply that this is at the same time the lower limit for SEM microscopy in general. Sorry if that was your impression. I said
Quote:
The problem is, there is a technical limit to the resolution / magnification of SEM or BSE images. The iron oxide grains for example in Fig. 8, which are 100-150 nm across, are already close to that limit. If you had any particles of the size we are talking about here, 25-40 nm, they would be so small at highest resolution that you couldn't tell if they are spheres or some other shape (irregular, cube...).

The Bentham authors used a FEI XL30-SFEG scanning electron microscope (SEM). Here is a data sheet:

http://www.kstreetstudio.com/science...-XL30-SFEG.pdf

Quote:
Resolution 1.5 nm at 10 kV or higher, 2.5 nm at 1 kV
That's not very far away from the 3.5 nm pixel resolution in the original Fig 9. I would admit though that my initial estimate was slightly of - an object 35 nm across would enjoy a resolution of ca. 24x24 "pixels" (I am not sure we are actually talking about pixels), and that is probably just enough to discern spheres as such.




Now what YOU need to show evidence of is that any data exists from the Harrit team that shows spheres that small. I have shown that Gage's claim (as paraphrased by Chris Mohr) is FALSE. (There is, as I said from the beginning, a chance that either Gage or Mohr has mixed up pre- and post-ignition particles; however there really are no particles at all in the Bentham paper that are this small).
Oystein is online now   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 11th June 2012, 01:28 PM   #876
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, I've noticed this. How many opportunities have you guys had to present your case now? What is the difficulty?

"Nanothermite in the WTC has been disproven because:

1) ____________________________

2) ____________________________

3) ____________________________ "

(Usually there are three good reasons, but it doesn't have to be.)


Now, I know that bedunkers will probably say:

1) No elemental aluminum was found.

And the answer to this is that James Millette found no elemental aluminum. Or he determined that none was present. Harrit et al did. So a definitive statement cannot be made about the presence of elemental aluminum when there are two contradictory findings. Especially considering the other evidence Harrit et al reported, and especially since Millette's study is in response to Harrit et. al.

But can someone name the other two points? Would very much appreciate. Thanks a bunch.
Point 1 is sufficient.
It is already abundantly clear from all the evidence Harrit e.al. present in Fig. 2-11 that there is no elemental Al in chips a-d.

There is not the slightest bit of evidence in all of the Bentham paper from page 19 on (the DSC test) to the end that would enable anyone to make at least an informed guess about the presence or non-presence of elemental Al before ignition (or, for that matter, the presence or non-presence of
Al-oxide in post-ignition residues)



This leaves us with the only bit of data that points toward elemental Al: Fig. 17, taken from the MEK-soaked chip. In recent days, I have looked into that data quite a bit, and would admit at this point that this XEDS graph is from a region with significant elemental Al:



There is, however, a big problem if you want to jump to the conclusion that this one measurement makes the chip "thermitic". This problem is the very low overall Al-content of the chip. Fig 14:



The Al-peak is tiny compared to O, C, Ca, Fe, Si, and S. I ran a few iterations of XEDS simulations, and found that this small Al-peak represents an Al-content of about 0.6% by weight aluminium. Since pure Al would have to get mixed 1:3 with iron oxide to get a perfect thermite mix, this means that the red layer of the MEK-chip contains a theoretical maximum of 2.4% thermite. With a theoretical maximum energy density of pure and perfect thermite of 3.9 kJ/g, the MEK-chip red layer gets less than 94 J/g from thermite, IF all the Al is elemental.

Which it isn't. Fig. 17 has enough O to oxidize 40-45% of the Al-atoms. Some of the O no doubt is bound to C, but still, some of the Al will not be able for a thermite reaction. Realistically, 0.6% Al in the chip, even if it were actually part of a thermite preparation, would limit the thermitic energy density of the red layer to under 50 J/g. In the DSC-test, Harrit e.al. measured up to 7,500 J/g! That's a factor of 150 too much!


Speculating that some of the signal in Fig. 14 is "contamination" doesn't come anywhere near to solving that problem.




To summarize:

- The only data that points to elemental Al is from the single MEK chip
- This chip contains only a trace total amount of Al
- This tiny amount of Al, even if it were to react thermitically with iron oxide, would be more than 2 orders of magnitude too little to explain the DSC data
- All other chips either contain no elemental Al (chips a-d, where clearly all Al is associated with Si and O to form kaolin clay), or it is simply unknown if they contain Al and in what form
- Harrit e.al. never described finding Al2O3 in post-ignition residues, a sine qua non for the thermite reaction.
- The paper thus falls very short (by a factor of >100) of proving that the chips are thermitic

Q.E.D.
Oystein is online now   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 11th June 2012, 01:35 PM   #877
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Not only were paint chips ruled out by the DSC, but they were ruled out by the flame tests as well, lol. Had forgotten this.
Wait, are you talking about the test where Harrit actually needed higher temperatures than Tillotson and Gash to ignite his "nanothermite", although its ingition temperature should be 100°C below the ignition temperature of Tillotson and Gash?
Africanus 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 11th June 2012, 04:37 PM   #878
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Minor correction, not that Truthers have any interest in the distinction -- the "velocity" in the sol-gel nanothermite construction is not a detonation velocity, because there is no detonation. It's a flame-front velocity.

No gas creation == no detonation. Nanothermite is not an explosive, period. Details in this old post.

You may now resume taunting the illiterate.
Acknowledged. Thanks. I shall read that post at leisure and digest. It's difficult to distinguish due to mixed terminology and I've confused the two.
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 11th June 2012, 05:18 PM   #879
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
No gas creation == no detonation. Nanothermite is not an explosive, period. Details in this old post.
A fact that often gets lost in all the hand waving.
Robrob 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 11th June 2012, 05:35 PM   #880
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
That post Mackey linked is gold. Wish I'd had read that before I wasted my time starting the 'Thermite goes bang and fizzle' thread.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 11th June 2012 at 06:28 PM.
cjnewson88 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 08:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 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.