Jones' Dust Analysis - Common Arguments Addressed

**Note this is a draft and not properly formatted. Proof reading in process.**

This research paper addresses common arguments against the dust analysis performed by Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones in simple scientific terms. This is a first draft but I’d like to post this now to get feedback and improve upon the content before submitting this for review by local Universities.

The sources used to complete this paper are from unbiased authors most dating prior to September 11, 2001. References post 9/11/01 are taken from the same author, or major Universities.

The structure of this summary is as follows:

Bold Text highlights a common argument put forth by those who support the official story.
A Response is given based on experiments and data provided by credible sources.

The sourced material appears in quote blocks followed by a reference

Any of my comments and observations are italicized below the quoted source.

Contents of this Summary
1. Energy release of nano-energetic materials
2. What is a nanoenergetic material?
3. Properties of Sol-Gel engineered structures
4. Ignition properties of nano particles
5. The use of oxygen in DSC and reaction temperatures


Energy release of nano-energetic materials
Argument - "What Dr. Jones found has an energy release greater than the maximum theoretical output of Thermite, therefore it cannot be Thermite!"

Response: Jones does not claim the chips are thermite. They are a form of energetic material with similar properties of Thermite.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/182bbe3c5850.jpg[/atsimg]
The above quote is an e-mail response from Dr. Jones.

The debate community is mistaken and taking Harrit and Jones' explanation out of context. I have been guilty of this too. Scientists claim the chips are an energetic material and have a similar chemical signature to that of nanothermite, however this does not imply the chips are Thermite.

FORMULATION AND PERFORMANCE OF NOVEL ENERGETIC NANOCOMPOSITES AND GAS GENERATORS PREPARED BY SOL-GEL METHODS, Page 10
nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant
amounts of gas. In the field of composite energetic materials, properties such as ingredient distribution, particle
size, and morphology affect both sensitivity and performance. Since the reaction kinetics of composite
energetic materials are typically controlled by the mass transport rates between reactants, one would
anticipate new and potentially exceptional performance from energetic nanocomposites. We have
developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants,
and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. Hence, although composites may have extreme energy densities, the release rate of that energy is below that
which may be attained in a chemical kinetics controlled process. In monomolecular energetic materials the rate
of energy release is primarily controlled by chemical kinetics, and not by mass transport. Therefore, monomolecular
materials can have much greater power than composite energetic materials.

Current composite energetic materials can store energy as densely as 23 kJ/cm’. Although composites may
have extreme energy densities, the release rate of that energy is below that which may be attained in a process
controlled by chemical kinetics.

New technologies have improved the energy release of nano- structured materials using a process called Sol-Gel which can accurately control the formation of matrix design over previous composite methods. Energetic materials produced using the Sol-Gel method burn more rapidly and violently while producing higher gas pressures. Futhermore chemical kinetics produce superior results to structures which use mass transport to produce the total energy.


What is an Nano-Energetic Material?

Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker. April 10, 2000
Page three, paragraph one: Nanostructured composites are multicomponent materials in which at least one of the component phases has one or more dimensions (length, width, or thickness) in the nanometer size range, defined as 1 to 100 nm. Energetic nanocomposites are a class of material that have both a fuel and oxidizer component intimately mixed and where at least one of the component phases meets the size definition.

What is meant by Sol-Gel?

Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker. April 10, 2000
Page two, paragraph one: Introduction of precise control reactivity
Our main interest in the sol-gel approach to pyrotechnic materials is that it offers the possibility to precisely control the composition, morphology and reactivity of the target material at the nanometer scale. These are important variables for both safety and performance considerations. Those variables are difficult to achieve by other
conventional techniques. Such control of the nanostructure could enable the creation of pyrotechnics with exceptional properties.
Page 14, paragraph one: chemist control over properties by altering parameters such as pore size, surface area, etc.
These energetic nanocomposites have the potential for releasing controlled amounts of energy at a controlled rate.

It is interesting to note that nano materials formed using Sol-Gel methods have more precise mixing of fuel and oxidizers for higher performance, as well as the ability to control component sizes down to a scale of single digit nanometers. For complete definitions of sol-gel, aero-gel, etc. reference the PDF listed above.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c676d3e7bfa.jpg[/atsimg]
**Note: use of Fe(III) Elemental iron in LLNL structures and also found in Jones' studies.

What we’re seeing in this photo is a matrix of fuel and oxidizer analogous to a three-dimensional honeycomb. The pores within the honeycomb matrix house controlled sizes of oxidizer materials that are mixed to a specific ratio for controlled energy release. This sort of uniform pattern cannot be a result of a building collapse!

Argument: "The Thermite would have ignitied from jet fuel fires and jet plane impact”
Response: nanoenergetic materials can be tailored to react at certain temperatures,
impact forces, and friction

we have shown that energetic ingredients processed by conventional methods exhibited drop-hammer
impact sensitivities less than 10 cm, whereas the same constituents processed with sol-gel chemistry
showed more than 130 cm sensitivity.
Impact sensitivity is reduced. See "Safety of Nanostructred Materials", page 8 of:
Nanostructured Energetic Materials Dervied from Sol-Gel Chemistry

The Sol-Gel approach to processing nano materials can alter impact sensitivity of at least 13 times lower than previous conventional methods. This means the force required to ignite the material is increased and therefore cannot be compared to early generations of thermitic mixtures.

Argument: "Chips do not fully react; chips should not be partially ignited if Thermite!"
Response: Gas pressure is rapidly expanding and exploding particles away from ignitoin source before reaction can occur. Rapid pressure ejection away from igntion source before ignition threshold is achieved

It is important to mix the thermite ingredients thoroughly in order to create a homogeneous mixture.
Unless the thermite is sufficiently mixed, it may be difficult to ignite or sustain the thermite reaction.
Source: www.amazingrust.com...

Response: See impact studies and Types of Ignition
Section 2.3 Characterization Methods, page 5 and 6 of:
Sol-Gel Processing of Energetic Materials, T.M. Tillotson. Aug. 18, 1997

Ignition of our nanocomposites has been achieved using butane flame, resistive heating element, and laser illumination (LASER IGNITION).
Magnesium Ribbon (Mg)
• Magnesium metal burns in an Oxygen environment (air) in a very bright, exothermic reaction. Magnesium ribbon can burn at several thousand degrees easily igniting thermite. The Magnesium ribbon is useful as it acts like a fuse, calmly burning, allowing a short delay between when the ribbon is lit and when the thermite begins to react.
•
Other forms of Magnesium metal can be substituted for Magnesium ribbon such as metal turnings, powders, or even common sparkers which contain Magnesium.
Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) + Glycerin
• An alternative to using Magnesium ribbon is to use the heat given off by the reaction between Potassium Permanganate and glycerin. Potassium Permanganate is an extremely powerful Oxidizer which spontaneously ignites after coming in contact with glycerin.
•
After adding a few drops of glycerin to Potassium Permanganate powder and a short delay, a violent exothermic oxidation reaction occurs which will ignite a thermite mixture.

These excerpts can be studied in depth by reading the linked material within the quotes. Ignition qualities of nanoenergetic structures can be tailored to specific levels. Several types of igniting methods can be used to prevent accidental light-off in certain environments. In addition, the rapid gas expansion forces particles away from the source which may impede the contiguous reaction from occurring. Also note, the drop hammer test yields a threshold of 50% efficiency as an acceptable percentage of ignition. That implies that un-reacted structures will remain.

Argument: “If explosives were used, sound levels would have been apparent for miles!”
Response: Nanoenergetic materials do not produce loud noises like RDX, PTEN.

It is known that the mechanical, acoustic, electronic, and optical properties are significantly and favorably altered in materials called "nanostructures", which are made from nanometer-scale building blocks (usually 1 to 100 nm).
Source: Nanostructured Energetic Materials Derived from Sol-Gel Chemistry, March 15, 2000.

Argument: Jones should not have used oxygen during his test to prove a thermetic reaction. Why did Jones Use Oxygen in his test?

Response: Jones used oxygen to test his sample under the same conditions used by LLNL
To duplicate the control sample test parameters found in this experiment:

Tillotson TM, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW (1999), Nanostructure High Explosives Using Sol-gel Chemistry,
98-ERD-048, LLNL Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Annual Report FY1999

Why is the presence of oxygen insignificant in any case?

Ignition Studies of Al/Fe2O3 Novel Energetic Nanocomposites. Dec., 2004. Page two, paragraph one:

Energetic materials [1,2] are a class of substances that store energy chemically and, when ignited, undergo an exothermic reaction without the need for an external substance such as oxygen. Figure 4 shows the plot of flame temperature as a function of ignition temperature. Ignition starts at a temperature of around 410ºC. As expected, the flame temperature is independent of ignition temperature and is of the order of 4000ºC.

The flame temperature in our samples may be compared with the reported "adiabatic flame temperature" of about 3350ºC for the Al-Fe2O3 reaction [14].

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d188900b91d.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see, additional heat from combustion in air has absolutely no weight with respect to the big picture, or with the exotherm,
or massive heat already created by the chemical reaction. Carbon cannot achieve 4000 ºC temperatures 'in air', or any other scenario based on the DSC testing. Therefore those that use the excuse of oxygen being present in the DSC test do not understand the energy potential of the thermitic reaction, nor can they explain the total heat produced by combustion in air.

Combusiton would first use ambient oxygen to process the burning of the fuel source, not the oxygen molecules bound to oxides
of Iron, or Aluminum. This proves that an aluminothermic reaction took place because the previously iron oxide is now reduced to elemental iron (Fe III). In addition the quick and narrow exotherm recorded by Jones outperforms the trace measured by LLNL which indicates
an aluminothermic reaction which is possibly more energetic than LLNL quotes in their study (over 4000 ºC). That is more than twice the heat necessary to melt structural steel.



Argument: "Combustion in oxygen contributed to peak temperatures, and helped to melt elemental iron"
Response: Heat of reaction, ignition temp. vs. reaction temps can be found on page 35 and forward in the following document:

IGNITION STUDIES OF Al-Fe203 ENERGETIC NANOCOMPOSITES by SRIDHAR PATIBANDLA, M.S.

also see:
Ignition Studies of Al/Fe2O3 Novel Energetic Nanocomposites. Dec., 2004, Page 6:

The thermite reaction between aluminum and iron oxide can be written as Fe2O3 + Al ==> Fe + Al2O3 + H (1) where H is the energy released during the reaction. We have made an estimate of the amount of energy released per square centimeter of our samples using the following known values from literature (heat of formation for Al2O3 is –335 kJ/mole•atom and heat of formation for Fe2O3 is –168 kJ/mole•atom [15]).

Assuming a volume reaction between Fe2O3 and Al we estimate that the energy released
is about 0.4 J/cm2 in our samples. This is a thousand times higher than the energy
released due to a purely surface reaction (as in planar films).

Page 5:
Figure 4 shows the plot of flame temperature as a function of ignition
temperature. Ignition starts at a temperature of around 410 ºC. As expected, the flame
temperature is independent of ignition temperature and is of the order of 4000 ºC. The
large flame temperature is consistent with the large energy release expected.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5435df944f41.jpg[/atsimg]

Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker, April 2000
Alternatively, one could add metal-oxide components that are more reactive with Al(s) to increase
the energy released. 17 Finally, this would also permit the addition of metal-oxide constituent(s)
that provide a desired spectral emission to the energetic nanocomposite. This type of synthetic
control should allow the chemist to tailor the pyrotechnic's burn and spectral properties to fit a
desired application.

Argument: “The spheres are not pure iron, therefore the chips are not thermite!”
Response: The spheres should not be expected to be pure iron because the matrix contains
mixtures of several elements including aluminum, iron, magnesium, etc.

Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy and Zeta Potential Analysis, June 2004.
The majority of these particles are aluminum particles; some -eutectic inclusions (formed by impurities Fe, Si, etc.), iron oxides and stainless steel particles are also found. The origin of these particles is thought to arise from machining, caustic etching as well as contamination in the wash water during cleaning.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/182bbe3c5850.jpg[/atsimg]

Since the elements are tightly formed in a matrix, the explosive reaction and high heat melted the aluminum and iron together
into tiny spheres due to surface tension. AL has a lower melting point than iron, so it is acceptable and expected to see traces of
other elements besides simply iron in the spheres. LLNL and F.E.M.A. also comment on the "Iron rich spheres", as opposed to
purely Iron spheres.

Cool. I don't know if you saw this video yet, it was just released FOIA act from NIST.

You can hear lots of explosions.

Check it.

www.youtube.com...

Thanks for your research.

Originally posted by turbofan
The above quote is an e-mail response from Dr. Jones.

The debate community is mistaken and taking Harrit and Jones' explanation out of context. I have been guilty of this too. Scientists claim the chips are an energetic material and have a similar chemical signature to that of nanothermite, however this does not imply the chips are Thermite.

I don't know whether the guy knows he was caught at a lie and he's now trying to weasel out of it, or more likely, he simply wrote a research paper that all these dammned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites grabbed onto and inflated until it took on a life of its own. Jones uses the phrase "Thermitic material" in his paper, which he invented himself, to describe the properties he discovered. In this terminology, all aluminum is "thermitic material" becuase aluminum is a component of thermite, but becuase his bag is in physics rather than chemisty he either glosses over this point or he doesn't really know it.

Who know? Maybe his "thermitic material" phrase was meant to define a class of materials that acts like thermite, rather than saying he really really things this stuff is thermite but he can't tell for sure.

Argument: There was no comparative control group in the observation.

Shill!! Government Loyalist!! Traitor!! STFU!!!

Originally posted by turbofan
**Note this is a draft and not properly formatted. Proof reading in process.**

That's fine, I will do what I can to make sure I am careful about what I quote.

Before I begin, I must state that I am neither a chemist nor a materials scientist. My understanding of this is not particularly great, and so I am going to review this post and discuss where I believe things may not be accurate.

Argument - "What Dr. Jones found has an energy release greater than the maximum theoretical output of Thermite, therefore it cannot be Thermite!"

Response: Jones does not claim the chips are thermite. They are a form of energetic material with similar properties of Thermite.

On the contrary, while Dr Jones does not state that the chips are a specific type of Thermite, the analysis shows the chemical composition of the samples, which reveal the possible chemical reactions. The largest constituents are consistent with Thermite. No literature I have been able to find gives energy release numbers close to the 7.5kJ/g maximum provided by Dr Jones. In addition, this test failed in an attempted repetition by a French author:

These chips dont react even when heated up to 900°C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion. Photos, spectra and analyses: www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf

The debate community is mistaken and taking Harrit and Jones' explanation out of context. I have been guilty of this too. Scientists claim the chips are an energetic material and have a similar chemical signature to that of nanothermite, however this does not imply the chips are Thermite.

Whether they're produced by deposition or by grinding or by any other method, they still remain Thermites if they have the same chemical composition. The easiest way to settle this would be for Dr Jones to prepare what he proposes was prepared and demonstrate the similarity. Especially considering that his tests do not seem to have been repeated successfully.

What we’re seeing in this photo is a matrix of fuel and oxidizer analogous to a three-dimensional honeycomb. The pores within the honeycomb matrix house controlled sizes of oxidizer materials that are mixed to a specific ratio for controlled energy release. This sort of uniform pattern cannot be a result of a building collapse!

This is purely speculation.

Argument: "The Thermite would have ignitied from jet fuel fires and jet plane impact”

Response: nanoenergetic materials can be tailored to react at certain temperatures,
impact forces, and friction

(quote removed)

I cannot find the source for this quote. The paper name does not seem to exist, and there are very few references on google to excerpts. Dr Jones' own research shows reaction at under 500C, a temperature easily reachable in fires. It's certainly true that if correctly constructed, a material can have lowered impact resistance, but in this case Dr Jones provides the data for you.

Argument: "Chips do not fully react; chips should not be partially ignited if Thermite!"

Response: Gas pressure is rapidly expanding and exploding particles away from ignitoin source before reaction can occur. Rapid pressure ejection away from igntion source before ignition threshold is achieved

Thermite does not behave like a high explosive, the primary production is liquid iron, although I wouldn't entirely agree with the statement. It would be possible to get some unreacted thermite I think, but not as much as Dr Jones believes.

Argument: “If explosives were used, sound levels would have been apparent for miles!”

Response: Nanoenergetic materials do not produce loud noises like RDX, PTEN.

This is partially true, Nanothermites do have high propagation speeds, but they are not high explosives. This argument is usually employed when people claim nanothermites have high explosive like properties.

Argument: Jones should not have used oxygen during his test to prove a thermetic reaction. Why did Jones Use Oxygen in his test?

Response: Jones used oxygen to test his sample under the same conditions used by LLNL
To duplicate the control sample test parameters found in this experiment:

But he failed to duplicate the sample he illustrated in his paper? This doesn't seem to be an answer to the argument, just a red herring. Regardless of that specific experiment, he should have tested in an inert atmosphere.

Why is the presence of oxygen insignificant in any case?
The associated quote and graph here are from a paper which is testing nanothermite, not the red chips from the WTC, this doesn't make sense:

Carbon cannot achieve 4000 ºC temperatures 'in air', or any other scenario based on the DSC testing. Therefore those that use the excuse of oxygen being present in the DSC test do not understand the energy potential of the thermitic reaction, nor can they explain the total heat produced by combustion in air.

These 4000c results are not from Dr Jones experiment, they're from a completely different experiment.

Argument: "Combustion in oxygen contributed to peak temperatures, and helped to melt elemental iron"

Response: Heat of reaction, ignition temp. vs. reaction temps can be found on page 35 and forward in the following document:

This also isn't an answer to the question, if non-thermite reactions resulted in significant contribution to the energy released, then that is a good reason to do the test in an inert atmosphere!

Argument: “The spheres are not pure iron, therefore the chips are not thermite!”
Not sure who's making this argument, I won't argue against it, although it is true that if such a material was supposedly manufactured on the nanoscale, there should not be so much contamination.

I think your document needs some revision, but it's a nice attempt at collating information.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Jones uses the phrase "Thermitic material" in his paper, which he invented himself, to describe the properties he discovered. In this terminology, all aluminum is "thermitic material" becuase aluminum is a component of thermite, but becuase his bag is in physics rather than chemisty he either glosses over this point or he doesn't really know it.

Who know? Maybe his "thermitic material" phrase was meant to define a class of materials that acts like thermite, rather than saying he really really things this stuff is thermite but he can't tell for sure.

False.

Jones did not create the term "thermitic material".

You may find this term in at least one paper quoted in my summary, "Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics
in a Beaker", dated April 2000.

I will address "Exponent"'s comments tomorrow, but until then he should review my post.

The reaction temperature of the energetic material measured by Tillotson is 4000'C which is independent of
ignition temperature.

The composition of this material is similar to what Jones found in the dust.

The DSC exotherm that Jones produced is narrower (faster reaction), and a higher peak (more heat) than measured
by LLNL.

This indiciates that the unreacted material in the WTC dust is at least as potent as the mixture tested by LLNL.

Originally posted by turbofan
The reaction temperature of the energetic material measured by Tillotson is 4000'C which is independent of
ignition temperature.

The composition of this material is similar to what Jones found in the dust.

That doesn't mean you can claim that Jones' experiment produced a 4000c flame and therefore could not be through combustion. That's just dishonest.

The DSC exotherm that Jones produced is narrower (faster reaction), and a higher peak (more heat) than measured
by LLNL.

This indiciates that the unreacted material in the WTC dust is at least as potent as the mixture tested by LLNL.

That might be useful if 'potency' was important, but it doesn't seem to be of any use at all.

I look forward to your response.

Exponent,

How is "Potency" not a concern between the LLNL sample and Dr Jones' sample?

Is this an issue of semantics, or do you believe the more narrow and higher peak does not indicate a more
energetic material? (More energetic meaning more powerful, greater explosive potential, greater thermal release).

BTW, you linked the wrong study in your previous reply. YOu have linked the study of red-red chips, not the
study of the red-gray chips. You may find the correct PDF on the main page of "The Dark Side of Gravity".

Once we're on the same page, we can move forward.

I respect your efforts here, but Jones' findings are pretty pointless if they can't be replicated. and apparently they can't.

So I guess I'd like you to address that "common argument".

Originally posted by turbofan
Is this an issue of semantics, or do you believe the more narrow and higher peak does not indicate a more
energetic material? (More energetic meaning more powerful, greater explosive potential, greater thermal release).

These do not mean the same thing at all. The area under the graph represents heat, the slope of the graph represents release rate.

Nanothermites exhibit faster reaction rates, but this has a specific use, and high explosives exhibit faster reaction rates plus their product is gaseous, that's why they are used.

I can appreciate nanothermites are in some ways superior to normal thermites, but unless you can propose a mechanism for actually using them in a demolition, we can't decide whether those ways are advantageous.

BTW, you linked the wrong study in your previous reply. YOu have linked the study of red-red chips, not the
study of the red-gray chips. You may find the correct PDF on the main page of "The Dark Side of Gravity".

Once we're on the same page, we can move forward.

The author has quite a few PDFs in both languages, perhaps you could link the one you are talking about directly?

Originally posted by exponentNanothermites exhibit faster reaction rates, but this has a specific use, and high explosives exhibit faster reaction rates plus their product is gaseous, that's why they are used.

nanothermitic material also produces gas. See the linked PDF's in my original post.

How do you propose these chips produced a quicker and hotter exotherm if they were not at least
as powerful as the LLNL material?


reply to post by exponent


Here is the proper link:

www.darksideofgravity.com...

Originally posted by turbofan
nanothermitic material also produces gas. See the linked PDF's in my original post.

Once again could you be more specific? Which gas do they produce, and from reacting which elements? Remember you are telling me that this is not one particular type of thermite, so I am not going to go telling you the chemical reactions.

How do you propose these chips produced a quicker and hotter exotherm if they were not at least
as powerful as the LLNL material?

Because there's no such thing as 'powerful' in these terms. It reacted quicker, which results in the higher slope and greater peak. However, the area under the graph is the total heat emitted, and when you are trying to melt steel it is this that is more important than reaction rate.

If you can tell me how this would be used in a demolition device, then I can tell you whether a greater reaction rate would be of any use at all. I doubt it.

Here is the proper link:

www.darksideofgravity.com...

Oh I see, this paper actually links to the one I was referring to, because the author was unable to replicate Dr Jones' conclusions:

- Not even one chip of the same kind in the 7g of dust from our four samples (instead of dozens expected according to the authors of the publi).
- Instead, dozens of chips showing the same red aspect on both faces, aspect and chemical composition difficult to distinguish from the one found in the red layer of the red/gray chips.

The chemical analysis shows few elements in the grey layer that could be of much use in a thermite composition. Once again it's you who is arguing that others often falsely claim the material to be of a specific type, so I will leave it up to you to decide on what the relevance is of each layer and what you think that paper found.

Once again could you be more specific? Which gas do they produce, and from reacting which elements?

Exponent,
With all due respect I have linked several PDF's from three sources which I have read back to back.
I expect you to research on your own time before engaging in a debate and asking questions which
can be answered by reading the material.

In the spirit of being a good sport here are at least two sources for the expulsion of gas during reaction
of the material:
IGNITION STUDIES OF Al-Fe203 ENERGETIC NANOCOMPOSITES, Page 35
Sol-Gel Processing of Energetic Materials, Tillotson.

Because there's no such thing as 'powerful' in these terms. It reacted quicker, which results in the higher slope and greater peak.

It seems there is a contradiction in your sentence. It reacted quicker, resulting in a higher slope (greater
slew), and more heat...but the material is 'not as powerful'?

Well then 'Exponent', how do you describe a substance that outperforms another substance in reaction
time, and thermal potential? What is your scientific word for this feat?

However, the area under the graph is the total heat emitted, and when you are trying to melt
steel it is this that is more important than reaction rate.

Agreed. We have the formula (shown in my orignal post) to calculate these values. Total heat is
important and if you can achieve that heat quicker, it is also a bonus. Reaction rate may not be
the most important parameter, but there is obvious benefit of reaching the temperature sooner.

As you read all of these PDF's you will notice there is great attention to detail with respect to sizes
of elements down to the nano scale. Smaller particles reacter quicker. Isn't the nomenclature of
this technology a dead give away for the importance of reaction time alone?

If you can tell me how this would be used in a demolition device, then I can tell you whether
a greater reaction rate would be of any use at all. I doubt it.

First of all, I don't believe you have the right to tell me/us whether a greater reaction rate would be of any
use. Once we start seeing some names and credentials, we can address your expertise in the demo
business.

If I may offer a few simple and logical reasons for faster reaction rate in a demo, please consider the following:
One needs to destroy columns in rapid succession in order to bring a building down. Having a faster
reaction rate to produce the required heat sooner will result in a more accurate timing in destruction of the
columns.

A faster reaction also creates greater pressure. Transistioning temperature quickly also 'thermally shocks'
the steel. Consider the effects of dropping ice into warm water...the ice cracks. Try cooling a hot pan quickly
with cold water. The pan will bend. Spray your brake rotors with water after intense braking. Let me know if the rotors crack, or warp. Will they crack if they cool slowly by ambient air? Not likely. Therefore thermal shock by rapid
transition is a benefit.

Lastly, I watched a show on Discovery this week called, "The Detonators". It's a show about demolitions.
Some columns are pre-prepped before blasting. Perhaps the nano-material pre-prepped specific core columns
before destruction. Feel free to watch the show online and perhaps the same episode I watched this week:
>> dsc.discovery.com...

Oh I see, this paper actually links to the one I was referring to, because the author was unable to replicate
Dr Jones' conclusions

The author confirmed Jones' results, however his samples did not react for reasons stated in his summary.
For your information, Henry supports Jones and believes the towers were brought down by unconventional
methods.

Futhermore, Mark Basille also reviewed the paper and supports Jones. That makes two independent
reviews beyond the peer review for publication.

The chemical analysis shows few elements in the grey layer that could be of much use in a thermite composition.

What is your source for this?

Once again it's you who is arguing that others often falsely claim the material to be of a specific type,
so I will leave it up to you to decide on what the relevance is of each layer and what you think that paper found.

The scientists found an energetic material. That has been proven through DSC testing, Highpower magnification,
etc.all compared to a known control sample.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I respect your efforts here, but Jones' findings are pretty pointless if they can't be replicated. and apparently they can't.

So I guess I'd like you to address that "common argument".

Any move on this?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I respect your efforts here, but Jones' findings are pretty pointless if they can't be replicated. and apparently they can't.

So I guess I'd like you to address that "common argument".

Any move on this?

Sorry, I overlooked that.

911blogger.com...

Mark Basile was able to duplicate the results. You may read and listen to his interview using the link above.

Originally posted by turbofan
Exponent,
With all due respect I have linked several PDF's from three sources which I have read back to back.
I expect you to research on your own time before engaging in a debate and asking questions which
can be answered by reading the material.

Turbofan, you can't both claim that debunkers are too quick to decide on what material it is, then ask me to go and read papers and decide what material it is! I asked you because I don't want to mis-state your position.

In the spirit of being a good sport here are at least two sources for the expulsion of gas during reaction
of the material:
IGNITION STUDIES OF Al-Fe203 ENERGETIC NANOCOMPOSITES, Page 35
Sol-Gel Processing of Energetic Materials, Tillotson.

I can find references in neither of these papers to the conversion of thermite into gas. Not on page 35 or page 35 of the PDF can I find anything that seems useful. If you're going to have a go at me for not doing your research for you, then the least you could do is be specific enough that I can understand what exactly it is you are claiming.

Because there's no such thing as 'powerful' in these terms. It reacted quicker, which results in the higher slope and greater peak.

It seems there is a contradiction in your sentence. It reacted quicker, resulting in a higher slope (greater
slew), and more heat...but the material is 'not as powerful'?

It's not clear that there was more heat produced, the graphs are obviously contaminated partially, but the area underneath the reaction curve does seem to indicate that the known 'nano-thermite' had higher heat release, but lower flux.

As you read all of these PDF's you will notice there is great attention to detail with respect to sizes
of elements down to the nano scale. Smaller particles reacter quicker. Isn't the nomenclature of
this technology a dead give away for the importance of reaction time alone?

Well of course these papers are dealing with reaction time, but that doesn't mean it's of any practical use to you.

First of all, I don't believe you have the right to tell me/us whether a greater reaction rate would be of any
use. Once we start seeing some names and credentials, we can address your expertise in the demo
business.

Lets try coming up with a method that would actually work before having a go at me for wanting to see it.

A faster reaction also creates greater pressure. Transistioning temperature quickly also 'thermally shocks'
the steel. Consider the effects of dropping ice into warm water...the ice cracks. Try cooling a hot pan quickly
with cold water. The pan will bend. Spray your brake rotors with water after intense braking. Let me know if the rotors crack, or warp. Will they crack if they cool slowly by ambient air? Not likely. Therefore thermal shock by rapid
transition is a benefit.

This only occurs when cooling, as the material has to shrink back and if it does not have enough time, fractures or warps as you said. Heating is a different matter, you can warp steel, but you do so by softening it, not exactly ideal for demolition.

Lastly, I watched a show on Discovery this week called, "The Detonators". It's a show about demolitions.
Some columns are pre-prepped before blasting. Perhaps the nano-material pre-prepped specific core columns
before destruction. Feel free to watch the show online and perhaps the same episode I watched this week:
>> dsc.discovery.com...

I've seen this show before, but using thermite and high explosives would surely be the worst of both worlds.

The author confirmed Jones' results, however his samples did not react for reasons stated in his summary.
For your information, Henry supports Jones and believes the towers were brought down by unconventional
methods.

I don't see any confirmation of Dr Jones' results in his paper, only the failure to get any of these chips to react at temperatures Dr Jones claimed they would? Where is the confirmation?

Futhermore, Mark Basille also reviewed the paper and supports Jones. That makes two independent
reviews beyond the peer review for publication.

The paper was not peer reviewed, and I have not been able to find who Mark Basille is or any credentials or report from him about his confirmation. Are you saying that he read the paper and believed it, or that he got some bilayer/red chips and tested them?

What is your source for this?

The chemical analysis in the paper I posted.

The scientists found an energetic material. That has been proven through DSC testing, Highpower magnification,
etc.all compared to a known control sample.

I don't see any SEM images of actual nanothermite that look anything like the 'red chips' that Dr Jones found, their DSC testing showed that the thermite does not match a control sample. Why are you being so disingenuous.

Seriously turbofan, I am glad you are responding, but you should at least try and be somewhat critical of this paper, rather than accepting it without question. At the very least perhaps you could explain how this nano thermite would be used in demolition, and why you would use it instead of regular cheap thermite?

reply to post by exponent


Once again Exponent, you are not possibly reading all of my initial post, or the referenced literature if you
are asking these questions.

Let's go through your post one question at a time. You wanted a source to show that nano materials produce
gas when ignited. I gave you two, but they were apparently not good enough. Here is another:

FORMULATION AND PERFORMANCE OF NOVEL ENERGETIC NANOCOMPOSITES AND GAS GENERATORS PREPARED BY SOL-GEL METHODS, Page 10
nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant
amounts of gas.

Exponent, do you agree that gas is produced by the reaction of elements described in these documents?

Lastly for those asking about Mark Basile: Yes, he tested samples and duplicated the results. You can review
the transcript of his interview and also find the audio here:

911blogger.com...

Originally posted by turbofan
Once again Exponent, you are not possibly reading all of my initial post, or the referenced literature if you
are asking these questions.

Let's go through your post one question at a time. You wanted a source to show that nano materials produce
gas when ignited. I gave you two, but they were apparently not good enough. Here is another:

It's not that they weren't good enough, it's that I couldn't find them.

FORMULATION AND PERFORMANCE OF NOVEL ENERGETIC NANOCOMPOSITES AND GAS GENERATORS PREPARED BY SOL-GEL METHODS, Page 10
nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant
amounts of gas.

Exponent, do you agree that gas is produced by the reaction of elements described in these documents?

Certainly, but you left off the chemical formula beforehand which shows this to be quite a complex nano-thermite, augmented by Silicon and organic compounds in order to create this gas, that's why the paper studies 'gas generators'. This is not how high explosives work though, this reaction requires a primary thermite reaction, and a secondary reaction to produce the gas, wheras the primary reaction of high explosives is to transition to gas.

This is why they are so powerful and used as propellants in controlled demolition, and why there's no good reason to think it would be replaced with Thermite.

Lastly for those asking about Mark Basile: Yes, he tested samples and duplicated the results. You can review the transcript of his interview and also find the audio here:

I'm not really interested in an interview, I'm interested in his qualifications and the paper he has produced.