PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by pteridine
Figure 30 in Jones paper shows the experimental integrated energy outputs of the four tested chips and compares them to the theoretical values for thermite and some common explosives.

Let's use those values, eh?

That's fine with me. Since it's not my claim and not my burden I hope you're not expecting me to go extract the actual link from the pdf. Come on man. I don't ask you to find my sources for me, or should I start now?

When you finally post the original source and the technical basis of this information you will see what assumptions it is based on.

Originally posted by bsbray11

When you finally post the original source and the technical basis of this information you will see what assumptions it is based on.

So then Jones isn't to be trusted with his sources and must be checked?

I agree.

You're catching on.....

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Come on man, load up the pdf, find the source, post it.

Until either you or pteridine provide evidence that it is impossible to produce more energy with a eutectic/thermite reaction than this vague "theoretical maximum" pteridine keeps saying, I'm calling bull and neither of you are chemists or have any idea what you are talking about. Pteridine just said particle size has no relation to total energy for crying out loud. Enough said.

You're just keeping me going with your inability to provide a single simple source, even when you say you know where it's at. I can tell you're really not in the habit of verifying anything you post.

reply to post by bsbray11

Certainly, the information that you seek is worth the wait.

1) The theoretical values for the energy released from the thermite reaction is easily calculated using the thermo tables in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. If you don't know how to do simple thermo, you can just search the numbers on the web; they are readily available and the values Jones uses are correct for our purposes. If you need a theoretical explanation of this, any freshman General Chemistry text can help you with the Gibbs Free Energy, Enthalpy, and Entropy concepts.

2) If you bother to read what I wrote, you will see that the "small effect" was in total energy output. The rate of reaction, energy per unit time, is important and has a large effect on what the materials will do. If you need a theoretical explanation of this, any freshman General Chemistry text will explain rates of reaction to you in detail. Look up Kinetics.



[edit on 3/29/2010 by pteridine]

All I have to say is pteridine has done more than enough to disprove the thermite nonsense.

There is no thermite. Get over it.

BS you really need to do some homework before you involve yourself in a debate you clearly know nothing about.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Until either you or pteridine provide evidence that it is impossible to produce more energy with a eutectic/thermite reaction than this vague "theoretical maximum" pteridine keeps saying, I'm calling bull

Your lack of science training is showing.

A theoretical max is an unattainable goal in the real world.

So here's where reading comprehension comes into play. I never even claimed what you are "debunking" in the first place.

If you don't already know this, may I suggest you get a refund on your college tuition?

You have to understand what I am posting first, before you can criticize it. (Oh wait, no, you just proved that you don't have to understand it first.. )


I doubt you realize how much faith I lose in humanity every time I ask someone for a simple source for their information and they insult my intelligence instead. Some real armchair degrees at work here.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by pteridine
Certainly, the information that you seek is worth the wait.

You mean the sources I keep asking for?

Well I'll keep waiting then, while you keep making stuff up.


You know as well as I do that this "theoretical maximum" is based on certain assumptions and that's why you can't produce a source to verify what you are claiming. It is arbitrary and not a maximum for thermites/nano-energetics at all.

Btw the actual science you sprinkle into your post to make it sound like you know what you're talking about, didn't settle anything I asked you, not like you wouldn't already know that. In fact it made absolutely no sense. You can't verify a theoretical maximum for nano-energetics like thermites and you still haven't verified your claim that particle size has only a "small effect" on the energy output (you basically just repeated the question as a statement and then brought up something totally irrelevant; Bill O'Reilly would be proud). You outright contradicted yourself earlier by claiming it had NO effect on energy.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
All I have to say is pteridine has done more than enough to disprove the thermite nonsense.

There is no thermite. Get over it.

BS you really need to do some homework before you involve yourself in a debate you clearly know nothing about.

Sorry, who are you again?

[edit on 29-3-2010 by bsbray11]

I'd like to point out to the moderators that I'm asking for sources for what these guys are posting, and in return I am receiving insults to my education and intelligence, with "Joey Canoli" telling me I need a college refund and "macaronicaesar" simply telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, no further comment. And the record above will show STILL no one has posted sources for what I asked.


If I am complaining about this, it's because when someone, anyone asks for a source to verify a claim, the appropriate response, is not an insult to my intelligence or education, or telling me to wait for it (which has to be either the laziest or most ignorant response possible). The appropriate response is to provide that verification, immediately in the next response! There is no excuse for not being able to back up your own claims in a debate.


If we are going to keep this civil you have to do better than responding with insults when I ask you to post a source. That kind of posting behavior is completely immature. And though I would rather avoid bringing educational background into this at all, if that's going to be the norm once again, then both of you know that I have had more engineering and science education than either of you. So you really have no room for that kind of talk in the first place, just as no high schooler really has any room to trash talk a PhD like Steven Jones or Niels Harrit either. And don't even pretend you are being objective and professional in your analysis of their work when you can't even post a single source to back up even one of your own claims here.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Certainly, the information that you seek is worth the wait.

You mean the sources I keep asking for?

Well I'll keep waiting then, while you keep making stuff up.

You know as well as I do that this "theoretical maximum" is based on certain assumptions and that's why you can't produce a source to verify what you are claiming. It is arbitrary and not a maximum for thermites/nano-energetics at all.

Btw the actual science you sprinkle into your post to make it sound like you know what you're talking about, didn't settle anything I asked you, not like you wouldn't already know that.

It is unfortunate that your questions remain unanswered in spite of the information provided. The calculations for the energy of the reaction are based on chemical thermodynamics and are not arbitrary. Jones' numbers in Fig. 30 are the theoretical numbers calculated as I described. The thermo tables used for these calculations are based on experiment and the laws of thermodynamics and are widely available in reference books and on the web. The calculations are simple arithmetic. Nano materials do not defy the laws of thermodynamics just because you misunderstand a DOD reference. These same laws are used for gases reacting at the atomic level. Nano has advantages but it is not magic.
I suggest that you review your Gen Chem book if you still have it.

Originally posted by pteridine
The calculations for the energy of the reaction are based on chemical thermodynamics and are not arbitrary. Jones' numbers in Fig. 30 are the theoretical numbers calculated as I described.

You don't even understand what those calculations represent.

I know exactly what those figures are based on, and they are NOT "theoretical maximums" like you keep claiming. I have the source for the thermite energy figures used in that paper pulled up on my computer right now, but I'm not doing YOUR homework for you. And you seem absolutely hellbent on being stubborn until the very end and never verifying a damned thing you post. So I will ask again, in vain, for you to post a source that demonstrates this is a "theoretical maximum."

You won't, because one does not exist.

If it's simple arithmetic, then do it here right now and we'll see what assumptions you have to make in order to complete this.


You do know how to post links, right? Or even the simple chemistry you keep talking about? Let's see it, one or the other.

Nano materials do not defy the laws of thermodynamics just because you misunderstand a DOD reference.

Stop projecting your own misunderstanding of chemistry back onto me. You are the one who just claimed particle size didn't make any difference in energy output. Not me.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The calculations for the energy of the reaction are based on chemical thermodynamics and are not arbitrary. Jones' numbers in Fig. 30 are the theoretical numbers calculated as I described.

You don't even understand what those calculations represent.

I know exactly what those figures are based on, and they are NOT "theoretical maximums" like you keep claiming. I have the source for the thermite energy figures used in that paper pulled up on my computer right now, but I'm not doing YOUR homework for you. And you seem absolutely hellbent on being stubborn until the very end and never verifying a damned thing you post. So I will ask again, in vain, for you to post a source that demonstrates this is a "theoretical maximum."

You won't, because one does not exist.


You do know how to post links, right?

Nano materials do not defy the laws of thermodynamics just because you misunderstand a DOD reference.

Stop projecting your own misunderstanding of chemistry back onto me. You are the one who just claimed particle size didn't make any difference in energy output. Not me.

You are in over your head again, BS. The energies of Jones' chips were measured by integrating the DSC traces. The other values were calculated.
Particle size does not make any difference in the thermodynamic calculations. The difference in particle size between commercial thermite and the nano material makes small differences in total energy because of incomplete reaction and large differences in rate of reaction. None of this matters because the total energy is calculated and the rate is not addressed by the calculations.

reply to post by pteridine


Do you even know how to answer a question posed to you?

I find it extremely hard to believe you have missed my repeated requests for either a source for this "theoretical maximum" or else to provide the calculations yourself.



Earlier you claimed particle size does not effect the energy of the reaction. Which is it?

[edit on 29-3-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Please read carefully so I don't have to keep explaining this.
1. When we calculate heats of reaction based on thermodynamic tables, they do not take into account rates of reaction and they assume complete reaction occurs. The numbers for the explosives and thermite in Jones' paper were done this way. You can look them up on the web or calculate them yourself if you don't believe Jones' own numbers. The heat of reaction for the chips was determined by integration of the exotherm in the DSC trace.

2. In the real world, particle size affects total energy only to the extent that the reaction is incomplete. When we compare granular thermite with nanoparticulate thermite, the granular thermite does not always completely react, but the differences are relatively small.

3. What is significantly different is mass transfer, which is rate limiting. With nanoparticles, the reaction can occur much faster and energy per unit time can be very large but total energy cannot exceed our thermodynamic determination.

4. Particle size does not affect our calculation at all. We do not consider it to calculate the heat of reaction. This is the heat we would expect if we were reacting the molecular level; much smaller than the nanoscale.

5. We are comparing Jones measured results for the chips with these calculated results. Two of his chips put out more energy than is possible with thermite or any combination of thermite and the explosives he listed. They are being heated in air and therefore must be combusting.

6. We know what experiment he must do next.

reply to post by pteridine


Since I am not involved in this conversation at the moment, I would hope that leaves little room for distracting arguments and insulting posts. I am sure pteridine will show me the same I respect I am showing him.

I would like to see said sources. Can you provide them or tell me where to find them, please?

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Here is a gen chem lab demo that shows the calculation for thermite. Some superscripts and subscripts didn't take, so you should look at the link to see the symbols used.
Generally, one writes a stoichiometric equation and subtracts heat of formations of reactants from products. This one is easy. Energy of reaction is high but when we divide by total weight, energy per gram is relatively low.

www.ilpi.com...
"Let's calculate how much thermal energy is released in this reaction. If we look at the standard state enthalpy values for the products and reactants we find they are:


Component Hfo (kJ/mol)
Fe2O3(s) -822.2
Al(s) 0
Al2O3(s) -1,669.8
Fe (s) 0

Fe and Al are zero because, by definition, the Hfo of elements in their standard states is zero (OK, technically the iron is in the liquid state, but in the end it becomes solid again).

Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) -> Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)

The H for this reaction is the sum of the Hfo's of the products - the sum of the Hfo's of the reactants (multiplying each by their stoichiometric coefficient in the balanced reaction equation), i.e.:

Horxn = (1 mol)(HfoAl2O3) + (2 mol)(HfoFe) - (1 mol)(HfoFe2O3) - (2 mol)(HfoAl)

Horxn = (1 mol)(-1,669.8 kJ/mol) + (2 mol)(0) - (1 mol)(-822.2 kJ/mol) - (2mol)(0 kJ/mol)

Ho rxn = -847.6 kJ"

Originally posted by pteridine
Please read carefully so I don't have to keep explaining this.

I feel like saying the same to you.

2. In the real world, particle size affects total energy only to the extent that the reaction is incomplete. When we compare granular thermite with nanoparticulate thermite, the granular thermite does not always completely react, but the differences are relatively small

Source for "the differences are relatively small" please.

4. Particle size does not affect our calculation at all. We do not consider it to calculate the heat of reaction. This is the heat we would expect if we were reacting the molecular level; much smaller than the nanoscale.

You are still making assumptions which are not definite in reality and so these are arbitrary numbers and NOT the maximum amount of energy we could see from any given thermite reaction. The energy figure Jones used was of a very specific chemical name of a thermite reaction if you look at the actual source he used. That does not include thermites with additives such as what Los Alamos and the DoD have been researching, such as sulphur and other additives which produce different effects, in varying ratios and particle sizes as needed.

So you have not established the maximum of anything but conventional thermite, which doesn't match the chips to begin with. In other words you have established no theoretical maximum at all.

5. We are comparing Jones measured results for the chips with these calculated results. Two of his chips put out more energy than is possible with thermite or any combination of thermite and the explosives he listed.

Which does NOT automatically mean it must therefore have been combustion, especially when according to the scientists authoring this paper, the reaction itself created the iron-rich spheroids that indicated iron had become fluid during the reaction, such as with eutectic reactions like thermite. What this actually suggests is that the grade of thermite being analyzed is simply more energetic than any other brand the public is aware of. Combustion does not produce the temperatures to melt iron.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You are still making assumptions which are not definite in reality and so these are arbitrary numbers and NOT the maximum amount of energy we could see from any given thermite reaction. The energy figure Jones used was of a very specific chemical name of a thermite reaction if you look at the actual source he used. That does not include thermites with additives such as what Los Alamos and the DoD have been researching, such as sulphur and other additives which produce different effects, in varying ratios and particle sizes as needed.

Consider the analyses of the chips and tell me what non-conventional thermite might have been present. Any MoO3? Teflon? Elemental Sulfur?

The thermodynamic calculation is for the complete reaction of iron oxide-aluminum thermite regardless of particle size. Note what Jones is talking about in his paper. Note the thermite value in figure 30. Note also that Jones admits some energy output must be due to combustion. Are you claiming Jones is wrong?

Originally posted by pteridine
tell me what non-conventional thermite might have been present

It was never my job to guess chemical formulas of military thermites based on residues left behind. That is why I say further investigation.

Note also that Jones admits some energy output must be due to combustion. Are you claiming Jones is wrong?

He also claims because of the iron-rich spheroids created by the reaction, it is not all combustion. Are YOU claiming Jones is wrong?

reply to post by pteridine


Thank you very much. I really kind of wanted that put to rest so you two could move forward so I appreciate that.