Nanothermites

[Sizzler]

http://www.physorg.com/news119702507.html
“Nanoengineered thermites can produce shock waves, and their properties are similar to some primary lead-based explosives,” Shubhra Gangopadhyay, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at UMC, told PhysOrg.com. “Hence these materials may be able to replace lead-based primary explosives. We are also able to integrate this material with micro-chip technology and produce shock waves using these compact micro-chip systems. This micro system has many applications in defense, as well as in life sciences, such as targeted drug and gene delivery.”
...

The team tested the combustion in a shock tube studded with optical fibers and pressure sensors to measure the combustion wave speed. They found that the nano composites could generate combustion waves with velocities ranging from 1500 to 2300 meters per second, which is in the Mach 3 range.

http://www.navysbir.com/n08_1/N081-020.htm
"Super-thermite" is a metal fuel/metal oxide energetic mixture where at least one of the materials has a sub 100 nanometer dimension. Super-thermites with high energy content greater than TNT (4.5 kJ/g) are of interest. Thermite type compositions can have higher densities and energy content by volume than conventional organic explosives.

I've been told that therm?te is not an explosive, which is true.

However, nano-therm?te seems to be very explosive.

Could this not tie a few of the loose ends up for Jones' theory?

[CHF]

Could this not tie a few of the loose ends up for Jones' theory?

Sure, why not?

First it was thermite. Then it was thermate.

Now it's nano-thermite.

You guys just make it up as you go along.

[Drudgewire]

Sure, why not?

First it was thermite. Then it was thermate.

Now it's nano-thermite.

You guys just make it up as you go along.
Let's just combine all the woo into one huge conspiracy and admit quantum thermite brought down the towers. :D

[Loss Leader]

Could this not tie a few of the loose ends up for Jones' theory?


A new technology ... that didn't exist in 2001 ... that sends a shockwave so small it can target a single cell ... and so weak it doesn't destroy the cell but just delivers drugs to it.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure we just cracked the conspiracy wide open.

[DGM]

http://www.physorg.com/news119702507.html


http://www.navysbir.com/n08_1/N081-020.htm


I've been told that therm?te is not an explosive, which is true.

However, nano-therm?te seems to be very explosive.

Could this not tie a few of the loose ends up for Jones' theory?
Are they very quiet? Would their shock waves not effect the visible smoke? Would they leave no residue or blast effects on the steel?
If they solve these issues they would be a help.

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.physorg.com/news119702507.html


http://www.navysbir.com/n08_1/N081-020.htm


I've been told that therm?te is not an explosive, which is true.

However, nano-therm?te seems to be very explosive.

Could this not tie a few of the loose ends up for Jones' theory?

No. [tm]



Hans

[DavidJames]

http://www.physorg.com/news119702507.html


http://www.navysbir.com/n08_1/N081-020.htm


I've been told that therm?te is not an explosive, which is true.

However, nano-therm?te seems to be very explosive.

Could this not tie a few of the loose ends up for Jones' theory?Yup that's it congratulations. You've tied up the loose ends in the 9/11 CT. You did it Siz, you alone. Now please, run, don't walk to your nearest police station and have the perps arrested.

Well done Sizzler, well done.

[Sizzler]

Sure, why not?

First it was thermite. Then it was thermate.

Now it's nano-thermite.

You guys just make it up as you go along.

Incorrect.

From Jones' first paper.

"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

[Apollo20]

Sizzler:

Don't forget the thermite chips laced with uranium - we call them fission chips!

[Drudgewire]

Sizzler:

Don't forget the thermite chips laced with uranium - we call them fission chips!
They're awesome with onion dip. ;)

[Sizzler]

Are they very quiet?

“In conventional explosives, shock waves are generated during detonation,” she says. “In nanothermites, fast propagating chemical reactions can create shock waves without detonation.” Generating shock waves without detonation is the key to this technology, she says.

Would their shock waves not effect the visible smoke?

Visible smoke of WTC1 was effected just before collapse.

Would they leave no residue or blast effects on the steel?

Residue has been identified.

If they solve these issues they would be a help.

Are they issues?

[Sizzler]

Sizzler:

Don't forget the thermite chips laced with uranium - we call them fission chips!

:boggled:

[rwguinn]

They're awesome with onion dip. ;)

Or malt vinegar and and a coctail sauce...

[Dave Rogers]

I've been told that therm?te is not an explosive, which is true.

However, nano-therm?te seems to be very explosive.

Could this not tie a few of the loose ends up for Jones' theory?

No, quite the reverse. Jones's thermite theory has the sole advantage over explosive-based theories that it is consistent with the absence of a sufficiently loud explosion a few seconds before collapse initiation to deafen half of Manhattan, whereas its main disadvantage is that there is no prior example of thermite being used in buildings demolition. Nano-therm*te, being an explosive that has never been used for buildings demolition, combines the greatest drawbacks of both theories; it would make a big bang (which wasn't heard), and it's doubtful whether it's capable of producing the localised heating effects required on a vertical structural member. That won't stop Jones from claiming that it does tie up the loose ends, but he'll be wrong.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Residue has been identified.

Residue of what, exactly?

Dave

[Sizzler]

A new technology ... that didn't exist in 2001 ... that sends a shockwave so small it can target a single cell ... and so weak it doesn't destroy the cell but just delivers drugs to it.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure we just cracked the conspiracy wide open.

"Nanoengineered thermites can produce shock waves, and their properties are similar to some primary lead-based explosives,” Shubhra Gangopadhyay, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at UMC, told PhysOrg.com. “Hence these materials may be able to replace lead-based primary explosives. We are also able to integrate this material with micro-chip technology and produce shock waves using these compact micro-chip systems. This micro system has many applications in defense, as well as in life sciences, such as targeted drug and gene delivery.”

......

[DGM]

Visible smoke of WTC1 was effected just before collapse.

Not in the order of more then 100fps. This wouldn't be enough to blow out windows let alone do anything to structural steel.



Residue has been identified.

No blast effects and the residue can be explained by hundreds of other sources.


Are they issues?

Inconvenient ones, yes

Don't forget the noise (lack of).

[Sizzler]

it would make a big bang (which wasn't heard),


“In nanothermites, fast propagating chemical reactions can create shock waves without detonation"


and it's doubtful whether it's capable of producing the localised heating effects required on a vertical structural member. Dave


http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

[DGM]

They found that the nano composites could generate combustion waves with velocities ranging from 1500 to 2300 meters per second, which is in the Mach 3 range.


BOOM!!!!!!

[Sizzler]

Not in the order of more then 100fps. This wouldn't be enough to blow out windows let alone do anything to structural steel.


Did the "puffs" not blow the windows out?

The shock waves wouldn't cut the steel, but the high temperatures would rapidly melt it. The shock would do a good job of moving material out of the way so that building could collapse.

No blast effects and the residue can be explained by hundreds of other sources.

Where have the residues been explained in a scientific journel? Source please.



Don't forget the noise (lack of).

Lack of huge detonation events prior to collapse are explained with use of nanothermite.

[Sizzler]

BOOM!!!!!!

“In conventional explosives, shock waves are generated during detonation,” she says. “In nanothermites, fast propagating chemical reactions can create shock waves without detonation.” Generating shock waves without detonation is the key to this technology, she says.

[rwguinn]

“In nanothermites, fast propagating chemical reactions can create shock waves without detonation"





http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
Stundied!
A shock wave with no sound.
Priceless!

[DGM]

Did the "puffs" not blow the windows out?

What was the expansion rate of your puffs?

The shock waves wouldn't cut the steel, but the high temperatures would rapidly melt it. The shock would do a good job of moving material out of the way so that building could collapse.

Shock wave = BOOM

Where have the residues been explained in a scientific journel? Source please.

Where was "thermate" explained?


Lack of huge detonation events prior to collapse are explained with use of nanothermite.

Large shock wave = BOOM

[Sizzler]

Stundied!
A shock wave with no sound.
Priceless!

Did I say no sound? I think not.

But a huge detonation event, like traditional CD, nanothermite would not.

[Redtail]

If everything goes well, the researchers hope to have the device ready to use in two to five years. Besides biomedical applications, the nano explosives could be useful in other areas, such as geology and seismology. Originally, the technology was used in the Army for IED (improvised explosive device) detection, where shock waves sent into the ground could give an image of what lies beneath.

This helps Jones how again?

[CHF]

Did I say no sound? I think not.

But a huge detonation event, like traditional CD, nanothermite would not.

Oh so I guess it was loud enough to have been heard by some people ("explosion!") but quiet enough to have not been recorded in any video/audio of the collapse. :rolleyes:

[Dave Rogers]

“In nanothermites, fast propagating chemical reactions can create shock waves without detonation.”

Sizzler, it's not the detonation as such that produces the bang, it's the shock wave. Please try to keep up.

Dave

[Sizzler]

What was the expantion rate of you puffs?

Enough to break the windows.

Shockwave = BOOM

Booms are reported by several eyewitnesses.

Where was "thermate" explained?


You claimed residue is explained. Now support it please.

[Dave Rogers]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M[/COLOR] (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M)

OK, you've got a system for cutting through a small steel rod that involves a device larger in cross-section than the rod it's cutting through, and which produces large visible amounts of flame. It's quite impossible that any such thing could have been placed in the Twin Towers, or that anything like this could have been used to induce perimeter column failure. It's still not viable as a demolition means.

Dave

[Sizzler]

Oh so I guess it was loud enough to have been heard by some people ("explosion!") but quiet enough to have not been recorded in any video/audio of the collapse. :rolleyes:

People reported explosions or "explosions like sounds".

Are they lying?

[Dave Rogers]

People reported explosions or "explosions like sounds".

Are they lying?

People reported sounds that weren't loud enough to be demolition charges, and at times that weren't sufficiently correlated to the collapses to be the cause of them. Since they didn't register on recording equipment, they were most likely nearby and less loud rather than distant and very loud. This is all old stuff.

Dave

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, it's not the detonation as such that produces the bang, it's the shock wave. Please try to keep up.

Dave

Yes I understand. But not all shockwaves sound the same.

I'm not suggesting nanothermites are quite, but I am suggesting they are quieter than TNT or other traditional explosives.

[beachnut]

Incorrect.

From Jones' first paper.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf
From his etch a-sketch?


6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)

8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU on 9.16.05
Sorry, Jones' first paper did not mention the stuff you did.

[Sizzler]

OK, you've got a system for cutting through a small steel rod that involves a device larger in cross-section than the rod it's cutting through, and which produces large visible amounts of flame. It's quite impossible that any such thing could have been placed in the Twin Towers, or that anything like this could have been used to induce perimeter column failure. It's still not viable as a demolition means.

Dave

Obvioulsy that exact device wasn't used. But it does demonstrate that vertical structures can be cut with thermite.

[twinstead]

People reported explosions or "explosions like sounds".

Are they lying?

About hearing 'explosions like sounds"? Nope. Not lying. Not any more than witnesses who report sounds like a freight train during a tornado are, I suppose.

[Sizzler]

People reported sounds that weren't loud enough to be demolition charges, and at times that weren't sufficiently correlated to the collapses to be the cause of them. Since they didn't register on recording equipment, they were most likely nearby and less loud rather than distant and very loud. This is all old stuff.

Dave

This is old stuff, but certainly not conclusive.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not suggesting nanothermites are quite, but I am suggesting they are quieter than TNT or other traditional explosives.

And your basis for that suggestion is?

Dave

[Drudgewire]

About hearing 'explosions like sounds"? Nope. Not lying. Not any more than witnesses who report sounds like a freight train during a tornado are, I suppose.
Lightning hit a tree right in front of my apartment last night. It sounded like an explosion.

I'm blaming Cheney. :p

[rwguinn]

Yes I understand. But not all shockwaves sound the same.

I'm not suggesting nanothermites are quite, but I am suggesting they are quieter than TNT or other traditional explosives.

:deadhorse:hb::mgbanghead

[Dave Rogers]

This is old stuff, but certainly not conclusive.

If it's not conclusive, it doesn't support your hypothesis, and neither does a load of speculation about devices that weren't even known to exist in 2001.

Sizzler, would you please stop nitpicking and finish off your plausible 9-11 inside job hypothesis? Given that you've so far admitted that you can't formulate one, surely you must realise that until you have, you have no position to argue from?

Dave

[CHF]

People reported explosions or "explosions like sounds".

Are they lying?

No, they aren't lying.

But twoofers are when they imply that those witnesses heard demoliton charges or "thermite."

[Sizzler]

From his etch a-sketch?

Sorry, Jones' first paper did not mention the stuff you did.


Quote:
"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...lyCollapse.pdf

superthermite=nanothermite

[HyJinX]

Yes I understand. But not all shockwaves sound the same.

I'm not suggesting nanothermites are quite, but I am suggesting they are quieter than TNT or other traditional explosives.

Nanothermite...A quieter, gentler boom.

*Sold at all Wallgreen Drugstore Outlets.

[Sizzler]

No, they aren't lying.

But twoofers are when they imply that those witnesses heard demoliton charges or "thermite."

Likewise, debunkers are lying when they claim no explosions were heard.

[rwguinn]

Likewise, debunkers are lying when they claim no explosions were heard.

We seldom say that.
WE do say "No evidence of EXPLOSIVE DEVICES", or "No Bombs" was/were heard.
Please learn the differences.

[HyJinX]

Who said that no explosions were heard?

[Sizzler]

If it's not conclusive, it doesn't support your hypothesis, and neither does a load of speculation about devices that weren't even known to exist in 2001.

Sizzler, would you please stop nitpicking and finish off your plausible 9-11 inside job hypothesis? Given that you've so far admitted that you can't formulate one, surely you must realise that until you have, you have no position to argue from?

Dave

My claim for this particulare thread is that nanothermite is rather explosive.

The explosiveness of a nanothermite would assist in bringing the building down, if it were used.

[beachnut]

This is old stuff, but certainly not conclusive.
The first time Jones made this up, it was conclusively wrong.

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the links above to see the actual collapse for yourself, please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

… Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

….
Look at all the debunked stuff out of the box wrong Jones said in September 2005.


He leaves out the Penthouse falling seconds, many seconds earlier. He makes up a false relation between Chertoff and Chertoff. Why does he make up lies based on his political bias towards the government?

Jones was debunked when he waited 4 years to start the false information flowing.

[HyJinX]

The explosiveness of a nanothermite would assist in bringing the building down, if it were used.

How, exactly?

[CHF]

Likewise, debunkers are lying when they claim no explosions were heard.

No such claims have been made.

Like I said, you make it up as you go along.

[Drudgewire]

Who said that no explosions were heard?
All of us, because we're a groupthink set of debunkers and on pro-CT boards it's an absolute we all believe nobody heard anything that sounded like an explosion.

It's why they can win all their arguments against us... at least as long as they make our side's argument for us and don't actually come here with their lies. :p

[Sizzler]

We seldom say that.
WE do say "No evidence of EXPLOSIVE DEVICES", or "No Bombs" was/were heard.
Please learn the differences.

oh really?

Are they very quiet? Would their shock waves not effect the visible smoke? Would they leave no residue or blast effects on the steel?
If they solve these issues they would be a help.


it would make a big bang (which wasn't heard),

theres two quick examples.:)

from this thread

[twinstead]

A megaton nuclear device would also assist in bringing the building down, IF it were used.

[Sizzler]

A megaton nuclear device would also assist in bringing the building down, IF it were used.

Yes it would.

[Sizzler]

No such claims have been made.

Like I said, you make it up as you go along.

Oh really.

Here is one more example (see two more above)

Don't forget the noise (lack of).

[CHF]

theres two quick examples.:)

from this thread

Example #1 states that the explosives would have to have been "very quiet" unlike an actual CD charge.

Example #2 states "a big bang."

Neither quotes denies that people heard explosions, but rather try to convey to you that a real CD charge would be a lot louder than what was heard that day.

You really need to spend some time watching a few CD videos, Sizzler - with the sound on.

[Sizzler]

Like I said, you make it up as you go along.

you've stated this twice, and your claim has been proven false both times.

at least you are consistent.:)

[Sizzler]

Example #1 states that the explosives would have to have been "very quiet" unlike an actual CD charge.

Example #2 states "a big bang."

Neither quotes denies that people heard explosions, but rather try to convey to you that a real CD charge would be a lot louder than what was heard that day.

You really need to spend some time watching a few CD videos, Sizzler - with the sound on.

and the third example?

[beachnut]

Likewise, debunkers are lying when they claim no explosions were heard.Jones would like you. He said in his first paper.
8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.
No evidence, he just makes it up. See, there were zero explosives causing sounds on 9/11, but there were noises of floors pounding into floors at a high rate of speed. Time between floors smashing in second for the top floors.
0.869 0.397
0.314 0.272
0.245 0.226
0.212 0.201
0.192 0.184
0.177 0.171
0.166 0.162
0.157 0.154
0.150 0.147
0.144 0.141
0.138 0.136
0.134 0.131
0.129 0.127
0.125 0.124
0.122 0.120
0.119 0.117
0.116 0.114
0.113 0.112
0.110 0.109
0.108 0.107
0.106 0.105
Here are the times between floors smashing into each other. Wow, if you watch the video of the side falling, you can see this modulation of floors making noise; loud noises. But no bombs yet found. Been 6 years, no explosives found. I guess if there had been explosives and thermite, we would have found them starting September 12th. Because that is what the FBI, and the clean up crews would find! Evidence.

As Jones points out, the people hearing the explosives barely escaped with their lives. But with explosives they would be DEAD. Sorry, Jones has been wrong for 6 years, and he only started in September 2005; I love the irony of it.

The real point here is, Jones does not waste time researching stuff, he just makes it up and then backs in what ever looks good as fake evidence and changes his stuff as he needs to, to keep you from looking up stuff or thinking. Jones has not done much work on this fake stuff, and he does not examine the real event because he would then know he is making up lies. The thermite would have been found, piles of themite would be found! Sorry, thermite have been proven wrong for 6 years, even though Jones only started this crap less than 3 years ago. Thermite is on the nut case list of dolt ideas on 9/11. Need a copy?

[Drudgewire]

Neither quotes denies that people heard explosions, but rather try to convey to you that a real CD charge would be a lot louder than what was heard that day.
A twoofer taking a quote out of context to prove an imaginary point?

Well now I've seen it all. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[CHF]

and the third example?

Same thing.

"Don't forget the noise (lack of)."

In other words, a real CD would have been louder.

This, my lad, is what a demolition sounds like.

79sJ1bMR6VQ

[Sizzler]

Same thing.

"Don't forget the noise (lack of)."

In other words, a real CD would have been louder.

This, my lad, is what a demolition sounds like.

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Thanks for the straw-man. Is that all you have?

[Dave Rogers]

Likewise, debunkers are lying when they claim no explosions were heard.

Likewise, orange pigs are gliding when they cease their rectal emissions and continue to fly on momentum alone.

Sizzler, a demolition using explosives is characterised by very loud explosions, usually significantly louder than the sound of the ensuing collapse, originating a few seconds before the visible onset of collapse. Quieter explosions, such as the backdraft deflagrations that are common in any building fire, are not evidence of demolition explosives. Sounds similar to explosions, such as the sound of bodies striking the ground - reported as sounding like an explosion by several accounts - are not evidence of demolition explosives. Very loud explosions an hour before the collapse, such as the deflagrations and fireballs accompanying the impact of the airliners and the combustion of the jet fuel, are not evidence of demolition explosives. The only sounds that would be considered evidence of demolition explosives would be very loud and close to the moment of collapse initiation, and would inevitably be captured on the sound track of videos of the collapse. These sounds are absent, therefore there were no demolition explosives. The fact that nanothermite is an explosive therefore means that there was no nanothermite.

Now, either post some examples of debunkers lying by saying there were no explosions or explosion-like sounds heard, or go away and work on your hypothesis.

Dave

[Sizzler]

Same thing.

"Don't forget the noise (lack of)."

In other words, a real CD would have been louder.

This, my lad, is what a demolition sounds like.

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Thanks for the straw-man. Is that all you have?

[CHF]

double post

[CHF]

Thanks for the straw-man. Is that all you have?

I'm showing you what a real CD sounds like so that maybe you might contrast it with the 9/11 "explosions" that were heard but not recorded.

Get it?

[Sizzler]

Likewise, orange pigs are gliding when they cease their rectal emissions and continue to fly on momentum alone.

Sizzler, a demolition using explosives is characterised by very loud explosions, usually significantly louder than the sound of the ensuing collapse, originating a few seconds before the visible onset of collapse. Quieter explosions, such as the backdraft deflagrations that are common in any building fire, are not evidence of demolition explosives. Sounds similar to explosions, such as the sound of bodies striking the ground - reported as sounding like an explosion by several accounts - are not evidence of demolition explosives. Very loud explosions an hour before the collapse, such as the deflagrations and fireballs accompanying the impact of the airliners and the combustion of the jet fuel, are not evidence of demolition explosives. The only sounds that would be considered evidence of demolition explosives would be very loud and close to the moment of collapse initiation, and would inevitably be captured on the sound track of videos of the collapse. These sounds are absent, therefore there were no demolition explosives. The fact that nanothermite is an explosive therefore means that there was no nanothermite.

Now, either post some examples of debunkers lying by saying there were no explosions or explosion-like sounds heard, or go away and work on your hypothesis.

Dave

Assuming traditional explosives and/or CD techniques were used, your point has merit.

Assuming traditional explosives and/or CD techniques were not used, your point has zero merit.

Nanothermite qualifies as not tradtional.

Are you done with your strawman?

[Sizzler]

I'm showing you what a real CD sounds like so that maybe you might contrast it with the 9/11 "explosions" that were heard but not recorded.

Get it?

I get it.

But what is your point.

I'm not suggesting tradational explosives/techniques were used.

GET IT?

[Dave Rogers]

Assuming traditional explosives and/or CD techniques were used, your point has merit.

Assuming traditional explosives and/or CD techniques were not used, your point has zero merit.

Nanothermite qualifies as not tradtional.

Are you done with your strawman?

I see you've given up on trying to find out what really happened on 9-11 and gone back to trying to look like you've won arguments by scoring irrelevant points based on stupid semantic arguments. Congratulations, because you've scored a big win here; you made me think you had a shred of honesty about you. I told Gregory Urich yesterday that I knew of three sensible truthers, and they were all here. I was wrong; I only know of two.

Dave

[CHF]

I get it.

But what is your point.

I'm not suggesting tradational explosives/techniques were used.

GET IT?

In other words my previous claim was correct then.

You're claiming that this "nanothermite" created explosions which some people heard but no audio recorded.

Correct? Or are you just JAQing off?

[stateofgrace]

Assuming traditional explosives and/or CD techniques were used, your point has merit.

Assuming traditional explosives and/or CD techniques were not used, your point has zero merit.

Nanothermite qualifies as not tradtional.

Are you done with your strawman?

Ok Lets take this to it's logical conclusion.

Lets say I agree that nanothermite was used to bring the towers down in a non traditional manner and everybody who heard explosions actually heard it going off. I say this just for the sake of argument.

So,if this critiria is forefilled,why oh why did they go to all the bother of using nanothermite when it was blatandly obvious that it would be heard and not disguise the fact it was a controlled demolition?

Why,did they not just use standard explosives? Surely the idea of using nanaothermite was to actually disguise it all wasn't it ?

[Pardalis]

It's nano thermite now?

You got to be kidding me. :rolleyes:

[Drudgewire]

Ok Lets take this to it's logical conclusion.
To make a point to Sizzler? Wow are you ever barking up the wrong tree. ;)

[DavidJames]

Hey Siz - how's that hypothesis coming? Are you planning on including any evidence or just make **** up like you are here?

[Sizzler]

In other words my previous claim was correct then.

You're claiming that this "nanothermite" created explosions which some people heard but no audio recorded.

Correct? Or are you just JAQing off?

I'll be clearer;

Regular therm?te alone would not be enough to bring the towers down in the manner observed.

An explosive force is needed.

Nanothermite may provide that force.

As for sounds of explosions. Once the towers were collapsing, any sound can be attributed to banging of floors or alternatively, explosions of the floors coming a part.

However there are no traditional CD bangs before the collapse begins. Untraditional techniques/materials (use of nanothermite) would eliminate the traditional pre-collapse bangs yet accomplish what is needed (ie, severing steel and moving material out of the way).

Nanothermite is not completely quiet, so certain witness testimony of 'explosions' may serve as evidence that the pre-collapse conditions were not completely quiet either.

I'm not claiming witness testimony supports tradition CD pre-collapse bangs.

[ElMondoHummus]

Everyone, I think we're really missing the obvious problem here: Note that both linked articles discuss the implementation of nanothermite in very small scale applications. The first link discussses its use at the cellular level; the second is more macro, but still only rises to the level of primers for various devices, such as bullets and fireworks. Nanothermite really is only thermite with individual components of the mixture only allowed to be very small particles, microscopic in scale; part of the reason it exists is to work at microscopic levels. As an example: One reason it exists is to allow for maximium surface contact ratios between it as a primer and some sort of fuel (example link: Applied Physics letter (http://link.aip.org/link/?APPLAB/91/243109/1)). The characteristics of nanothermite that distinguish it from macroscale thermite are strictly due to the fact that it's "nano" (http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=6226&DID=173013&action=detail (http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=6226&DID=173013&action=detail)). At larger scales, nanothermite is thermite, just with much finer ingredients, and therefore different reaction kinetics. Anyway, besides being a faster, more "complete" reaction, how is nanothermite any different than thermite? And what characteristics does it possess that get around the criticisms leveled at proposals of conventional thermite use at the WTC?

[CHF]

It's nano thermite now?

You got to be kidding me. :rolleyes:

They're still working on the Super-duper nano-thermiteTM :D

[Sizzler]

I see you've given up on trying to find out what really happened on 9-11 and gone back to trying to look like you've won arguments by scoring irrelevant points based on stupid semantic arguments. Congratulations, because you've scored a big win here; you made me think you had a shred of honesty about you. I told Gregory Urich yesterday that I knew of three sensible truthers, and they were all here. I was wrong; I only know of two.

Dave

Don't let this thread throw you off.

Hypothesis to come.:)

[Pardalis]

What about space beam weapons Siz? If you really want to go all out science-fiction, might as well go all the way.

[DGM]

Enough to break the windows.



Booms are reported by several eyewitnesses.




You claimed residue is explained. Now support it please.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3481812#post3481812

Apollo20 on microsheres:

I have been given copies of many X-ray spectra of WTC microspheres by Dr. Jones himself. And I did with them what I used to do when I analysed mystery samples of dirt, dust and deposits from coal, oil, gas and nuclear powered generating stations. I compared Jones' spectra to the spectra in Walter McCrone's PARTICLE ATLAS.

McCrone's excellent book has hundreds of Scanning Electron Micrographs and accompanying X-ray spectra of a wide range of materials. And Swing, it did not take me too long to find many examples of samples containing microspheres with X-ray spectra closly matching Jones' WTC microspheres. And guess what Swing? The best matches to Jones' microspheres were examples 576 and 577 from Volume III of McCrone's book. And what were these examples:

576: Municipal Incinerator Ash, with X-ray peaks from Fe, S, Si, Al, Cl, Ti and Zn

577: Large Domestic Incinerator Ash, with X-ray peaks from Fe, S, Si, Al, K, Ca and Ti

[Sizzler]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3481812#post3481812

Scientific journal please.

[beachnut]

Don't let this thread throw you off.
Hypothesis to come.:)
Like Jones, you have nothing. The sounds of Thermite exploding? Explosion would have killed people on 9/11, we would have blown up people; things that explosions do to people would be in evidence. But we have none.

Thermite leaves iron behind. We have no piles of Thermite made iron in the 9/11 pile of junk. Most disrespectful considering all the dead to make up stuff without evidence like you and Jones. I expect your problem is basic knowledge and logic. To ignore the lack of evidence is your logical problem. To understand there would be signs of thermite after 9/11 is your lack of knowledge problem.

[DGM]

Scientific journal please.
Walter McCrone's PARTICLE ATLAS

Compare like Jones should have. Why didn't he? Isn't that what scientist do?

[Undesired Walrus]

It's nano thermite now?

You got to be kidding me. :rolleyes:

Did the Borg bring down the World Trade Centre?

[CHF]

I'll be clearer;

Regular therm?te alone would not be enough to bring the towers down in the manner observed.

An explosive force is needed.

Nanothermite may provide that force.

So....it was thermite and nanothermite, huh? :eye-poppi

However there are no traditional CD bangs before the collapse begins.

Which, to a rational person, would suggest no demolition.

To a twoofer it can only mean that a non-traditional CD took place!

:dl:

Untraditional techniques/materials (use of nanothermite) would eliminate the traditional pre-collapse bangs yet accomplish what is needed (ie, severing steel and moving material out of the way).

Nanothermite is not completely quiet, so certain witness testimony of 'explosions' may serve as evidence that the pre-collapse conditions were not completely quiet either.

I'm not claiming witness testimony supports tradition CD pre-collapse bangs.

So what we have here is a non-traditional CD using nano-thermite, which caused people to hear "explosions" over the course of an hour or so before the building finally collapsed.

Is that correct?

[beachnut]

Scientific journal please.
There are no journals to debunk the nut case ideas of 9/11 truth and Jones. They are self debunking. There are zero piles, as in no piles, of thermite made iron at the WTC. Do you understand? Zip. Jones use to lie outright and say this was a thermite cut, and he still implies it was if you can read and comprehend. Jones is a fraud and he never had anything about 9/11 right.
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/joneslie1.jpg
Knowledge.

[Sizzler]

Walter McCrone's PARTICLE ATLAS

Compare like Jones should have. Why didn't he? Isn't that what scientist do?

Link please?

What are the respective quantities of elements? Why didn't Greening post those?

[beachnut]

Link please?

What are the respective quantities of elements? Why didn't Greening post those?
Go get the book, it is 80 bucks or so. Buy some knowledge.

[Sizzler]

So....it was thermite and nanothermite, huh? :eye-poppi



Which, to a rational person, would suggest no demolition.

To a twoofer it can only mean that a non-traditional CD took place!

:dl:



So what we have here is a non-traditional CD using nano-thermite, which caused people to hear "explosions" over the course of an hour or so before the building finally collapsed.

Is that correct?

What we have here (this thread) is a material (nanothermite) that melts steel and is also explosive.

Debunkers often claim therm?te is not explosive (so it wouldn't work well in a CD), which is true, but nanothermite is explosive and may work well.

If nanothermite were used, did anyone hear it? Well, we could debate that issue forever.

[Pardalis]

Siz, has nanothermite ever been used before, especially in controlled demolitions?

[Sizzler]

Go get the book, it is 80 bucks or so. Buy some knowledge.

No need, you guys claim to be knowledgable.

So what are the respective quantities of elements? And why didn't Greening include them in his post?

[DGM]

Link please?

What are the respective quantities of elements? Why didn't Greening post those?
It's a book (actually 6).

Ask Jones

Ask Frank.

[Sizzler]

Siz, has nanothermite ever been used before, especially in controlled demolitions?

Isn't there a thread around here debunking the "never happened before" claim?

[Sizzler]

It's a book (actually 6).

Ask Jones

Ask Frank.

Although it isn't my claim to support, I've been meaning to do that actually (mental note).

[Pardalis]

Isn't there a thread around here debunking the "never happened before" claim?

Answer my question.

[Sizzler]

Answer my question.

Nanothermite has been used to cut through steel.

I don't know if it has been used to cut through steel of a building before.

[DGM]

Although it isn't my claim to support, I've been meaning to do that actually (mental note).
It's interesting you subscribe to Jone's theory without him offering any of this data. His word is good enough?

[mortimer]

When are we going to discuss what REALLY took down the WTC buildings?

yoctothermite!

[Pardalis]

Nanothermite has been used to cut through steel.

I don't know if it has been used to cut through steel of a building before.

Has it ever been used since (9/11)?

[beachnut]

Isn't there a thread around here debunking the "never happened before" claim?
Why not present the evidence instead of the other way around. Work for your knowledge, it will do you good.

[CurtC]

Regular therm?te alone would not be enough to bring the towers down in the manner observed.

An explosive force is needed.

Nanothermite may provide that force.You're missing the point - if nanothermite were used because it's explosive, then there would be no effective difference between it and regular, conventional explosives. With C4, it's the shock wave that rips through structural supports, and it's the shock wave that makes the loud BOOM. You're wanting to have the destructive force of explosives, but the quietness of macro thermite - you can't do that, they go together. If nanothermite is explosive enough to rip through structural members, it is thus going to be just as loud as conventional explosives.

Positing that maybe nanothermite was used doesn't solve the central problem that Jones was trying to avoid by proposing thermite instead of conventional explosives - and that problem is the obvious lack of loud CD booms. Why even bother with some exotic explanation if it doesn't buy you anything?

As for sounds of explosions. Once the towers were collapsing, any sound can be attributed to banging of floors or alternatively, explosions of the floors coming a part.Once the towers were collapsing - the key phrase. What started them collapsing?

However there are no traditional CD bangs before the collapse begins.There are no loud bangs, therefore nanothermite couldn't have been responsible.

[X]

nevermind.
I somehow overlooked 2 pages worth of posts.

[CHF]

What we have here (this thread) is a material (nanothermite) that melts steel and is also explosive.

Now see if that matches up with what happened on 9/11.

Can nanothermite cut sideways on its own?

Can it leave steel in a melted state for weeks on end (which is what the TM claims happened)?

Can it survive a jet impact?

Does its chemical signature match what Steven Jones found in the WTC dust?

If nanothermite were used, did anyone hear it? Well, we could debate that issue forever.

Tell you what....

Get some nanothermite and "detonate" it. See how loud it is. That would be a good start.

[Apollo20]

Sizzler:

I didn't post quantitative analytical data from McCrone's Particle Atlas because the book, excellent as it is, does not include such information. But the book does allow relative heights of the X-ray spectrum peaks to be estimated AND COMPARED TO JONES' DATA, which is useful.

Jones' data are certainly of interest to me but the data I have seen from him show a wide variety of particles, some with high Fe, but some with low Fe, some with high Si, some with low Si, and so on and so on. As I have said before, this variability in the composition of the WTC magnetic spheres is not good for Jones' thermite hypothesis.

[Sizzler]

Sizzler:

I didn't post quantitative analytical data from McCrone's Particle Atlas because the book, excellent as it is, does not include such information. But the book does allow relative heights of the X-ray spectrum peaks to be estimated AND COMPARED TO JONES' DATA, which is useful.

Jones' data are certainly of interest to me but the data I have seen from him show a wide variety of particles, some with high Fe, but some with low Fe, some with high Si, some with low Si, and so on and so on. As I have said before, this variability in the composition of the WTC magnetic spheres is not good for Jones' thermite hypothesis.

Wouldn't one expect variability of composition from such a "violent" reaction.

Also the high aluminum content (~10%) is very interesting.

I've only seen your posts on fly ash (without discussion of elemental quantities) and CC's maco donuts.

In my opinion, the microspheres are very interesting evidence that haven't been sufficiently challenged yet. Jones' work is far from conclusive but is still very interesting.

I hope Jones' lurked here and will soon post dust content % of microspheres. In a recent interview he says the samples contain thousands of them. I wish he'd be more scientific in this respect.

[DavidJames]

I wish he'd be more scientific in this respect.
You're on the wrong team sparky if that's what you're expecting.

If you had 1000 things that you found "were interesting" relative to 9/11 being a CT, would you wait until all 1000 we're refuted before you stepped back and reevaluated your thought process?

You want my opinion (to bad, you're going to get it), ever after the hypothetical 1000 things were refuted, you will still be looking for more.

Such is the way of the CTists.

[Sizzler]

Can nanothermite cut sideways on its own?.

It would need some linear device. There are examples of these devices.

Can it leave steel in a melted state for weeks on end (which is what the TM claims happened)?.

Assuming a lot of nanothermite was used for the large basement columns, and then the collapse insulated the molten by-products keeping heat from sufficiently escaping while aslo burning building contents, I don't see why not.

Can it survive a jet impact?.

Good question. This is why I'm stuck on my hypothesis.

Does its chemical signature match what Steven Jones found in the WTC dust?

chemical signiture of nanotherm?te would be the same for therm?te. jones claims the signatures exist.

.



Tell you what....

Get some nanothermite and "detonate" it. See how loud it is. That would be a good start.

Unfortunetely I'd go to jail if I did that in the country I live in.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This is old stuff, but certainly not conclusive.

Sizzler have you ever witnessed aluminum flash powder? nano thermites not only make a bang a gun powder like bang and gun powder like explosive shock wave but a very bright flash of white light.
Also nano thermites can be ignited at as little as 250c, so I do not think they would survive the fires.

They are not a lose end they are a dead end theory I am afraid.

[TheRedWorm]

Assuming a lot of nanothermite was used for the large basement columns, and then the collapse insulated the molten by-products keeping heat from sufficiently escaping while aslo burning building contents, I don't see why not.




How much, ballpark estimate? Also, why use this stuff in the basement if the collapse initiated at the point of impact?

[jhunter1163]

Hey, nano-thermite has been around for a while. It's mentioned in the famous "9/11: The Musical" thread, as in "who put the nan in the nano-nano-thermite". :boxedin:

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It would need some linear device. There are examples of these devices.

Basically those devices thermally degrade an oxidant into oxygen in a quick thermal reaction actuarially consuming the steel in Micro seconds, leaving vaporized Fe 3O4 residue, There is none of that in the towers or on the steel that came from them.


Assuming a lot of nanothermite was used for the large basement columns, and then the collapse insulated the molten by-products keeping heat from sufficiently escaping while aslo burning building contents, I don't see why not.

Still would not be enough, such a quick reaction that would have to be accomplished would leave a large amount of iron oxide, Fe 3O4 and that would cool rapidly.


Good question. This is why I'm stuck on my hypothesis.







Unfortunetely I'd go to jail if I did that in the country I live in.

Nano thermite was first proposed by Dr. Jones before all the studies were done on it, it is not the explosive he claims it is. It actually just tranforms heat energy into shock waves in a gas, the energy in nano thermite is not powerful enough to cut though the World trade center columns, and it does not leave the evidence you think it does.

[Sizzler]

Nano thermite was first proposed by Dr. Jones before all the studies were done on it, it is not the explosive he claims it is. It actually just tranforms heat energy into shock waves in a gas, the energy in nano thermite is not powerful enough to cut though the World trade center columns, and it does not leave the evidence you think it does.

No one is claiming the shock waves cut the steel. The molten byproducts would.

[R.Mackey]

“In nanothermites, fast propagating chemical reactions can create shock waves without detonation"

This is false, for the record. I know you're quoting some nut on YouTube and these aren't your original words, but since you quoted them I assume you believe them. A fast-propagating chemical reaction that creates shock waves is the definition of a detonation.

We already had this discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105423) with poster metamars, who like you tried in vain to come up with an explosive that was both destructive and quiet. Can't be done. Sound is pressure waves, pressure waves are sound. Explosives make loud sounds, or else they are incapable of destroying anything. This is true regardless of whether the explosive is chemical, nuclear, nitroaromatic, metallic, gaseous, hyperbaric, or whatever.

If you ever get around to formulating a hypothesis, you should next examine it for defects and come up with a list of issues that need to be solved. "Nanothermite" will solve none of them. I therefore fail to understand why you brought this up in the first place.

[Sizzler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JZr5FuWytc&eurl=http://911blogger.com/

Jones in action. glimpses of the 4 dust samples, microspheres and red (thermite?) chips.

[Sizzler]

This is false, for the record. I know you're quoting some nut on YouTube and these aren't your original words, but since you quoted them I assume you believe them. A fast-propagating chemical reaction that creates shock waves is the definition of a detonation.

This is not quoting a nut. It is one of the researchers.

The researchers have tested the method on animal tissue, and have demonstrated a 99% success rate – almost all of the cells have properly accepted the drugs. Healthy cells, on the other hand, demonstrate much fewer side effects than with conventional treatments such as chemotherapy. As Gangopadhyay explains, the nano explosives have some different characteristics than conventional explosives.

“In conventional explosives, shock waves are generated during detonation,” she says. “In nanothermites, fast propagating chemical reactions can create shock waves without detonation.” Generating shock waves without detonation is the key to this technology, she says.
http://www.physorg.com/news119702507.html


We already had this discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105423) with poster metamars, who like you tried in vain to come up with an explosive that was both destructive and quiet. Can't be done. Sound is pressure waves, pressure waves are sound. Explosives make loud sounds, or else they are incapable of destroying anything. This is true regardless of whether the explosive is chemical, nuclear, nitroaromatic, metallic, gaseous, hyperbaric, or whatever.

I never claimed they were completely quiet. That is the strawman that was imposed on me in this thread.

Would a nanothermite reaction be quieter than a TNT detonation? Not all shock waves sound the same, right?

If you ever get around to formulating a hypothesis, you should next examine it for defects and come up with a list of issues that need to be solved. "Nanothermite" will solve none of them. I therefore fail to understand why you brought this up in the first place.

Nanothermite solves one problem.

Therm?te alone would not be a good choice in demolition. Something would be needed to push the building materials out of the way to allow collapse to ensue.

However nanothermite could have the potential to do both.

[WildCat]

Would a nanothermite reaction be quieter than a TNT detonation? Not all shock waves sound the same, right?
A shock wave is sound and sound is a shock wave. Any substance that produces a shock wave as powerful as a shock wave produced by TNT will be every bit as loud.

[R.Mackey]

This is not quoting a nut. It is one of the researchers.

http://www.physorg.com/news119702507.html

Then the researcher misspoke. Explosives either detonate or deflagrate. If the reaction rate is supersonic, it is a detonation. Shock waves are defined as sharp discontinuities in pressure, and these travel supersonically. This is simple terminology, and cannot be disputed...


I never claimed they were completely quiet. That is the strawman that was imposed on me in this thread.

Would a nanothermite reaction be quieter than a TNT detonation? Not all shock waves sound the same, right?

Yes, they do. All shock waves are discontinuities in pressure, and differ only in magnitude. The loudness is a function of strength and absolutely nothing else.


Nanothermite solves one problem.

Therm?te alone would not be a good choice in demolition. Something would be needed to push the building materials out of the way to allow collapse to ensue.

However nanothermite could have the potential to do both.

But you could do that with any explosive. Or even springs, for that matter. Or set off explosives at an angle and let the good ol' inclined plane do your work. I see this as a solution to a very, very small problem, while other enormous problems remain unanswered -- like the fact that there were no explosives.

[Sizzler]

Then the researcher misspoke. Explosives either detonate or deflagrate. If the reaction rate is supersonic, it is a detonation. Shock waves are defined as sharp discontinuities in pressure, and these travel supersonically. This is simple terminology, and cannot be disputed...

So she misspoke in her use of the word detonation. What word should she have replaced it with?


Yes, they do. All shock waves are discontinuities in pressure, and differ only in magnitude. The loudness is a function of strength and absolutely nothing else.

Right, so all shockwaves don't sound the same.


But you could do that with any explosive. Or even springs, for that matter. Or set off explosives at an angle and let the good ol' inclined plane do your work. I see this as a solution to a very, very small problem, while other enormous problems remain unanswered -- like the fact that there were no explosives.

This is my point. No evidence of traditional explosives have been found. Yet, therm?te, or possibly nanotherm?te have been and would act not only to cut the steel but also be explosive. Hence, traditional explosives would not be needed.

This could account for ejections of building materials (squibs/puffs), pulverization of building contents, massive dust clouds, etc.

Nanothermite offers a two in one.

[R.Mackey]

So she misspoke in her use of the word detonation. What word should she have replaced it with?

I have no idea. I'm reading the article, and the following quote:

“In conventional explosives, shock waves are generated during detonation,” she says. “In nanothermites, fast propagating chemical reactions can create shock waves without detonation.” Generating shock waves without detonation is the key to this technology, she says. Source (http://www.physorg.com/news119702507.html)

... makes no sense at all. I have no idea what she is trying to say.

It is possible that the researchers are just being sloppy, using two different speeds of sound (one in the nanothermite itself, and one in the environment) and an incorrect definition of a shock wave. But from such a marketeering-style soundbite I honestly can't tell. Nor can I tell why this would be important or even useful in this application.


Right, so all shockwaves don't sound the same.


Contrariness will only get you ignored. All shockwaves sound the same. There is a characteristic CRACK! associated with them, whether created by bombs or supersonic aircraft.


This is my point. No evidence of traditional explosives have been found. Yet, therm?te, or possibly nanotherm?te have been and would act not only to cut the steel but also be explosive. Hence, traditional explosives would not be needed.

This could account for ejections of building materials (squibs/puffs), pulverization of building contents, massive dust clouds, etc.

Nanothermite offers a two in one.

No. I did not say "no evidence of traditional explosives." I said there were no explosives. There were no shock waves, either heard, seen, or sensed by seismometry. Nanothermites answer a question that nobody asked.

Seriously, go read metamars's thread. He was hung up on the same illogic you are, and like you, was woefully uneducated in gas dynamics.

[cloudshipsrule]

This is my point. No evidence of traditional explosives have been found. Yet, therm?te, or possibly nanotherm?te have been and would act not only to cut the steel but also be explosive. Hence, traditional explosives would not be needed.

The NWO didn't need nanothermite. Two fully-laden jumbo jets slammed in to the towers at hundreds of miles an hour and you think extra 'muscle' was needed to bring the towers down?

[ElMondoHummus]

Once again, the properties of nanothermite being pushed here are ones that take place at the microscopic scale. It is unreasonable to presume that the effects seen when taking a minute amount at the cellular level - which is what the Physorg story discusses - translate to the scale of the towers.

The researcher behnd the Physorg story notes that the scale is necessary for the properties under discussion:


On the nanoscale, the low density and large contact area of the nanothermite composite can lead to a fast-propagating combustion.

(My bolding for emphasis)

It is one thing to note characteristics of nanoscale reactions; it is a whole other beast to assume those characteristics will translate to the macro scale. And even if you do that, what do you have? You have a fast thermite reaction. That is all. You still have the problems associated with thermite. And you still have a lack of characteristic results from such use.

[CurtC]

Right, so all shockwaves don't sound the same.
When he said it's a function of strength, you realize that it's just dependent on the quantity used? If you think amount x of nanothermite is only a tenth as loud as amount y of TNT, then amount y/10 of TNT would sound the same as amouint x of nanothermite.

This whole nanothermite gambit gets you nowhere. It's pointless - just give it up already.

[NobbyNobbs]

It would need some linear device. There are examples of these devices.


Assuming a lot of nanothermite was used for the large basement columns, and then the collapse insulated the molten by-products keeping heat from sufficiently escaping while aslo burning building contents, I don't see why not.




I never claimed they were completely quiet. That is the strawman that was imposed on me in this thread.

Would a nanothermite reaction be quieter than a TNT detonation? Not all shock waves sound the same, right?

A couple questions, Sizzler.
--How much nanothermite would be needed?
--How many linear devices would be needed, where would they be placed, how, when, and by whom?
--how loud would the nanothermite reaction be?

These are the minimum questions you would need to answer before entertaining this theory as a semi-plausible one. If you can't answer them, it's not a theory...it's just a plot for a thriller novel.



Therm?te alone would not be a good choice in demolition. Something would be needed to push the building materials out of the way to allow collapse to ensue.


How about...now, mind you, I'm just thinking off the top of my head, here...could it possibly be...perhaps the something needed....maybe, say, a jetliner would do the trick?

[metamars]

Would a nanothermite reaction be quieter than a TNT detonation? Not all shock waves sound the same, right?



Why don't you ask Kyle Watson? He graduated Texas Tech, but if you put the question to the Mechanical Engineering Dept., they will at least relay it to him. Whether or not he will answer, I have no idea. I never got around to making up a list of questions for him.... You could also try his thesis advisors.

I think you should ask separate questions if you're just trying to figure out how much noise will come from nanopowder and micron-powder explosions/deflagrations for:
1) severing X columns, of Y plate thickness, within Z 100'ths of a second and
2) pulverizing concrete

Those are surely not the same question, and if explosives of any kind were to be used to pulverize concrete, subsonically, I'm pretty sure that they would have to work like some kind of DIME. As Mr. Mackey has informed me, a 100 mph wind will only exert about .17 psi overpressure, which is not going to pulverize anything.

Kyle Watson's thesis is http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-06012007-132204/unrestricted/Watson_Kyle_Thesis.pdf. You can google the ME department.

Hopefully, you are already aware that micron-sized powders with thicker Al oxide shells will have higher ignition temperatures and react less rapidly than Al nano-powders.



Crazy Chainsaw:

I asked my solid state prof about air-tight (not water tight) materials that would not melt or crack if heated to 1,000 C. He first mentioned silicon.

He immediately asked me "how quickly?". I wasn't sure what to say to that, but I replied "not quickly".

Then he told me that refractory metals are a class that will meet this requirement. (We were mostly focussing on the temperature, so I'm not sure he was still keeping gas impermeability in mind.)

He then mentioned tungsten, in particular.

Of course, if there's things you can put around steel beams to retard them heating up, I should think you could certainly put the same substance around a tungsten collar containing nano or micron Al powders.

[metamars]

Why don't you ask Kyle Watson?

Another Texas Tech-ie you might be able to ask is John Granier. His thesis is at

http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-05032005-162438/unrestricted/JGranier_dissertation_FINAL.pdf

and my notes on this are:

p. 93 (114) Note that the nm-Al oxidation is very exothermic with a peak magnitude of nearly 800mW/mg as compared to the micron Al sample (peak exothermic magnitude of approximately 4.5 mW/mg ) in Figure 6.2.

p. (146) 3. Activation energy values based on thermite DSC experiments, suggest an optimum sensitivity (based on a mi Ea magnitude) for composites containing Al particles between 120 nm and 1 micron diameter.

p. (149) Reaction Duration vs. DSC Heating Rate


p. (153) describes volent reaction which blew open crucible

p. (158) many studies show that nano-Al reactions are self propagating

p. (178) mixing High Explosives and nanos - reference 52

[portlandatheist]

Sizzler,
It sounds like you should present this evidence to a district attorney ASAP. First we had thermite shape charges, now we have thermite that causes shock waves! This is truly revolutionary. What are you going to do with this information?

[Sparky]

You're on the wrong team sparky if that's what you're expecting.



Leave me out of this!

[MRC_Hans]

I'll be clearer;

Regular therm?te alone would not be enough to bring the towers down in the manner observed.

Wrong. No kind of explosives or thermite is needed to bring down the towers in the manner observed, due to the impact and fire damages. Thus, regular thermite would be more than enough. However, the sparks, smoke, and residue that would be the result of large amounts of thermite going off is absent. Thus, no thermite existed.


An explosive force is needed.


No, there was also no need for any explosive force. And no explosions from large amounts of explosives were observed.

Nanothermite may provide that force.

Since there is no reason the believe that nanothermite will react significantly differently from conventional explosives or thermite, the above observations rule that out as well.


As for sounds of explosions. Once the towers were collapsing, any sound can be attributed to banging of floors or alternatively, explosions of the floors coming a part.


No, the sound of even a large building collapsing is different from that of powerful explosions.

However there are no traditional CD bangs before the collapse begins.

Consession noted, thank you.


Untraditional techniques/materials (use of nanothermite) would eliminate the traditional pre-collapse bangs yet accomplish what is needed (ie, severing steel and moving material out of the way).


No. It makes no difference what the name of the explosive is, or how it is composed. The sever a steel member, you need to:

1) Either produce a shockwave that can disintegrate part of the steel.

2) Produce enough concentrated heat to melt or burn part of the steel away.

#1 will produce a loud explosion, bright flashes, and flying scrapnel.

#2 will take a relatively long time and produce bright flames, sparks, smoke, and lots of residue.


Nanothermite is not completely quiet, so certain witness testimony of 'explosions' may serve as evidence that the pre-collapse conditions were not completely quiet either.


Pure speculation. You have no idea what macro quantities of nanothermite will sound like, or how it will behave. The fact remains that for demolition of such a large building, a very considerable amount of energy must be released.

We are talking about tons of explosives of any kind.

Hans

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Why don't you ask Kyle Watson? He graduated Texas Tech, but if you put the question to the Mechanical Engineering Dept., they will at least relay it to him. Whether or not he will answer, I have no idea. I never got around to making up a list of questions for him.... You could also try his thesis advisors.

I think you should ask separate questions if you're just trying to figure out how much noise will come from nanopowder and micron-powder explosions/deflagrations for:
1) severing X columns, of Y plate thickness, within Z 100'ths of a second and
2) pulverizing concrete

Those are surely not the same question, and if explosives of any kind were to be used to pulverize concrete, subsonically, I'm pretty sure that they would have to work like some kind of DIME. As Mr. Mackey has informed me, a 100 mph wind will only exert about .17 psi overpressure, which is not going to pulverize anything.

Kyle Watson's thesis is http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-06012007-132204/unrestricted/Watson_Kyle_Thesis.pdf. You can google the ME department.

Hopefully, you are already aware that micron-sized powders with thicker Al oxide shells will have higher ignition temperatures and react less rapidly than Al nano-powders.



Crazy Chainsaw:

I asked my solid state prof about air-tight (not water tight) materials that would not melt or crack if heated to 1,000 C. He first mentioned silicon.

He immediately asked me "how quickly?". I wasn't sure what to say to that, but I replied "not quickly".

Then he told me that refractory metals are a class that will meet this requirement. (We were mostly focussing on the temperature, so I'm not sure he was still keeping gas impermeability in mind.)

He then mentioned tungsten, in particular.

Of course, if there's things you can put around steel beams to retard them heating up, I should think you could certainly put the same substance around a tungsten collar containing nano or micron Al powders.



Two problems metamars silicon dioxide is the compound you are actually referring to, and it melts at thermite temperatures. They actually use silicon dioxide to mold cat iron and cast steel parts it is called sand. Silicon carbide can also be used as a refectory metal, to mold cast steel.
However thermites will melt it too, you have to have a way to cool the device to where it will not melt, you also have to have a way to have the thermite next to the column or beam being cut.
The best way to do that is to thermally degrade a compound into hot gaseous oxygen that will actually burn the steel into Fe 3O4-2O3.

Such devices would actually work if they could be shielded from the flames, only thing is steel burning at well over 3000c produces very bright light and a lot of vaporized steel that looks nothing like the oxide slag on the Columns Dr. Jones suggest was cut because heat and hot vaporized steel rises, and coats the upper section in a fine Iron oxide mist it looks like shiny gray paint.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No one is claiming the shock waves cut the steel. The molten byproducts would.

Jones proposed Nano thermites when it was pointed out to him that RDX degrades when heated, He believed nano thermites could have provided the explosive force that RDX could not do to heat degradation.

Yes a device can be built, no the molten byproducts will not cut the steel, that requires a high pressure gas jet not the molten iron itself as that would only weld to the columns, or worse just melt the device.
You have to have a rocket engine type jet that would cut the steel in seconds, I plan on patenting an improved version of such a device as soon as I can make it safer for usage.


Right now it is just to dangerous for usage.

[Jonnyclueless]

I thought thermites liked wood, not steel.

[Drs_Res]

I thought thermites liked wood, not steel.

It's funny, 'cause it's true. :D