Second of 2 Questions from foreign country (Original thread heavily moderated)

[NagP]

And here's my second question.

Recently I hear a lot about nano-thirmite or super-thirmite because of a new paper by Jones et al.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

I noticed that there is a rebuttal against this article.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html
"'Active Thermitic Material' claimed in Ground Zero dust may not be thermitic at all"

I personally think that such a material as "nano-thirmite" does not even exist.

So I woulk like to know whether there is any article that describes about nano- or super- thirmite other than the ones related to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

If there is any information, I will be grateful.

[Arus808]

I personally think that such a material as "nano-thirmite" does not even exist.



Yes its basically a "made" up term by Jones, to give a little "scare" to something that is supposed to seem "all powerful" but really is not even close to being what he describes

Nano-thermite, there is no definition, or even a description of exactly what it is, and JONES has ignored for the last 3 years to exactly define what it is. HE was first spousing that it was SUPER thermite/thermate, then moved on to nano thermite, because he knows that he can't describe it and figures the gullible masses that buy into the lies he has published in his vanity papers, will be eaten up by the uneducated.

Nano thermite, is fake, made up, and is only a red herring in the 911 liar movement

[UNLoVedRebel]

Recently I hear a lot about nano-thirmite or super-thirmite because of a new paper by Jones et al.We've gone over that paper in-depth and found it to have no merit. As for the "nano-thermite", I think it might exist. But the technology to cut a steel box column with "nano-thermite" does not. The fantasy ends right there.

[Klimax]

And here's my second question.

Recently I hear a lot about nano-thirmite or super-thirmite because of a new paper by Jones et al.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

I noticed that there is a rebuttal against this article.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html
"'Active Thermitic Material' claimed in Ground Zero dust may not be thermitic at all"

I personally think that such a material as "nano-thirmite" does not even exist.

So I woulk like to know whether there is any article that describes about nano- or super- thirmite other than the ones related to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

If there is any information, I will be grateful.

Here are some threads about paper and/or thermite:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140317
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139960
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140363
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140115
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140426

[bofors]

I personally think that such a material as "nano-thirmite" does not even exist.


The US government has been making nano-thermites for years.

Read the US government documents:
https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf

Or Kevin Ryan's summary:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

[GregoryUrich]

Edited to remove AAH content.

In this case he's relying on a paper published by the Lawrence Livermore lab. Nano-thermite is real.

[A W Smith]

In this case he's relying on a paper published by the Lawrence Livermore lab. Nano-thermite is real.


Well thats encouraging. Now they have a control sample source of the nanothermite to compare with the paint chip samples. Or failing to acquire such a control sample they can forward the paint chip sample to the Lawrence Livermore lab for comparison

For more information contact Randy Simpson (925) 423-0379 (simpson5@llnl.gov).

[fuelair]

http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mrz/pdf_papers/2004_CM_FeO.pdf

nano-thermite was still much in the development process in 2004. Needed additions to make it function properly were jus being looked at/beginning to succeed.

Good reading!!

[bofors]

http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mrz/pdf_papers/2004_CM_FeO.pdf

nano-thermite was still much in the development process in 2004. Needed additions to make it function properly were jus being looked at/beginning to succeed.

Good reading!!

So your story is that nano-thermite exists but it was not developed until after 9/11? Does that about sum it up?

Tell me, what exactly where these "need additions"? In what ways did nano-thermite not "function properly" before 2004? Please be specific.

[Sabrina]

The US government has been making nano-thermites for years.

Read the US government documents:
https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf

Or Kevin Ryan's summary:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

A) I see no mention of the term "nano-thermite" in the first two papers (Kevin Ryan lost his credibility some time ago, so I left that one alone). "thermite" yes; "nano-thermite" no. And from what I can tell, they're using it more in describing the type of reaction rather than actually calling it "thermite"; as in a chemical reaction which produces copious amounts of heat. But, granted, I'm no chemist; anyone else on here click on the links that has more of a background in chemistry than me?

B) Nano-thermiteS? Seriously, you're making it sound like they're tiny robots or something, which, last I checked, we still aren't capable of creating with any degree of success. If you're going to be positing wild technologies, kindly do us a favor and at least use the correct term. It's NANO-THERMITE, no "s".

[A W Smith]

Edited to remove AAH content.

Prove they exist outside of a lab and are in production. Im sure you can produce a one-off light bulb with a silk filament. And then claim that light bulbs with silk filaments exist. That does not make them feasible, practical nor reproducible more than a novelty outside of a laboratory environment. Will you be contacting Randy Simpson to ask him what he thinks of the jones paint chip paper?


For more information contact Randy Simpson (925) 423-0379 (simpson5@llnl.gov).

Edited to remove AAH content.

[bofors]

Prove they exist outside of a lab...


Harret et al. 2009.
Edited to remove AAH content.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by A W Smith http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4632653#post4632653)
Prove they exist outside of a lab.Harret et al. 2009.

2009? a little late to the big show aren't you? Can you complete this date for us bofors? 9/11/__ ??

Edited to remove AAH content.

[chillzero]

Original thread sent to AAH - it was easier than dredging through the entire thing. I feel that the two separate questions raised deserve threads apart, so have made that split also. There may be some relevant posts that have been missed and left in AAH. My apologies if that is the case, but if they are relevant, civil, and completely on topic to this thread you can reproduce your post here.
Warning: Some posts edited for partial content. Any posts containing name-calling and bickering over lying or not, or threats of lawsuits will result in further mod action that may include thread closure, and suspensions.

If further moderation is required on these two new threads that have arisen from the original, they will most likely be closed.

Please respond on topic in this thread, without any bickering or re-raising arguing over a topic that has already been sent to AAH (twice now). Do not personalise the discussion, and if you make a claim that is challenged, don't get agressive instead of defending your claim (this goes to both sides of that set of bickering).

[NagP]

Read the US government documents:
https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf

http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mrz/pdf_papers/2004_CM_FeO.pdf

Thanks.
These are the informations I was looking for.
It seems that such a technology is under developement but not currently applied to any real world products.
Certainly not at 2001.

These articles are interesting.
However, they do not provide any evidence that such a technology was employed at WTC in 2001.

[Dave Rogers]

Even if there were evidence that nano-thermite could have been available at the time of the 9/11 collapses, the truth movement has never formulated anything approaching a coherent theory as to how or, more importantly, why it would have been used.

The whole thermite argument seems to stem from the absence of loud explosive sounds immediately before collapse initiation, which is an insurmountable problem for proponents of controlled demolition using explosives. However, the controlled demolition argument requires that the severing of columns be precisely timed so as to synchronise with the collapse wave, which is clearly impossible with thermite, and also requires that vertical columns be severed by melting, requiring the thermite to be held in contact with them for significant lengths of time. Nano-thermite appears to address the former problem due to its far more rapid combustion rate and lower ignition temperature, which places it into the category of explosives rather than incendiaries; however, as a result of that very property it will also produce an explosive report, so the problem with explaining away the lack of sufficiently loud explosions resurfaces. Also, the problem with holding the thermite in contact with the columns sufficiently long for them to melt becomes even more severe, because anything placed so as to confine the nanothermite in contact with the columns will have to resist the explsive force as well as not melt at the temperature reached by the thermite reaction. If the conspiracy theorist then decides to claim that the nanothermite severed the columns using the Munroe effect, the problem reduces to exactly that with the explosive demolition hypothesis, because exactly the same explosive power and hence exactly as loud a sound would be required.

I would like to see any conspiracy theorist advance a plausible argument as to why, in advance of the attack, the conspirators would specifically have chosen nano-thermite, a novel and unproven technology, as a reliable and undetectable means of accomplishing the collapse of the tower. That's not to say that I'm claiming that there were other superior means; rather that I suspect there were no means of accomplishing this outcome without obvious physical evidence, very much more convincing than the flawed analysis of some dubiously acquired dust samples, being left behind.

Dave