Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

Originally posted by pteridine
Of course he proved nothing with his demonstration.

From the looks of the melted steel in the video, it looks like he proved he could melt it. Sorry. I don't care to hear your horrible reasons why this isn't the case, when it obviously is.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Too bad the stuff that he used was thermAte, which Jones et al. claim was not found, but nano-thermite.

You must not know what those words mean. Thermate is a form of thermite:

Thermate is a variation of thermite

en.wikipedia.org...


What Jones et. al. found was not pure thermite, ie the conventional iron oxide and aluminum only. So if your argument is that conventional thermite is a different substance entirely from thermate, then the substances Jones et. al. studied was also different from conventional thermite. It was not just iron oxide and aluminum. What they chose to call it has no bearing on that fact, though your erroneous perceptions might for you. Chemistry is chemistry no matter what names you make up to call the processes and materials. Think about it. Your argument is petty and inconsequential.


And since you haven't already noticed, it would probably help your confusion if someone pointed out to you that the terms are often used interchangeably. Maybe that's too much for you to handle. All you do to go from thermite to thermate is add a couple extra ingredients, and those vary as well. Once again, what Jones et. al. studied was not just iron oxide and aluminum, either. The material in Jones' paper featured particles that would've been way too small for Cole to easily make in his backyard.

So, why does thermAte have a different NAME than thermIte? I mean, they are the same right?

Cake and cookies have the same basic ingredients, but different names. Should we just be able to interchange them? No, of course not. Because they are two different substances.

Nice try though. What Jones et al. claim to have found was unreacted nano-thermIte, not thermAte.

Originally posted by bsbray11
What is a "prople"? All you've done here is pointed out a semantic difference. This stuff still eats through steel and you could make a million different varieties with different additives and different ratios between the ingredients.

edit on 28-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

Sorry, that should read "problem". I didn't proofread my post. My apologies.

No, it is NOT a semantic difference.

Unless we can start calling cake cookies and cookies cake.

Cars and computers have the same basic chemicals too. Plastics, metal, glass, rubber. Is my laptop also a car? No, of course not.

Not to mention the heat energy rate of release for what Jones et al. found is HIGHER than any flavor of thermite/thermate/nanothermite/acmehushabooom is capable of.

reply to post by bsbray11


The material that Jones claims to have found is not any sort of thermite. I have provided the thermodynamic analysis, using Jones data, in this thread and you have not responded. You had asked for proof at one point. See if you can rebut my analysis: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, why does thermAte have a different NAME than thermIte? I mean, they are the same right?

Why does Porsche have a different name than car? I mean they are the same, right?

Asking questions is the same as "debunking," right? I mean I'm debunking something right now by asking questions aren't I??

Nice try though. What Jones et al. claim to have found was unreacted nano-thermIte, not thermAte.

Nice try? Why don't you go ahead and define the word "thermite" once and for all chief, since you apparently don't like Wikipedia's interpretation that thermate is a form of thermite, and since the science behind that reasoning is apparently too cloudy for you to understand. Because like I said, what Jones was looking at wasn't just iron oxide and aluminum. Nice try though.

Originally posted by pteridine
The material that Jones claims to have found is not any sort of thermite.

I don't understand why I even have to read garbage like this when, if you had entertained the idea that Jones might actually be right, you would already understand why this is not supposed to match conventional forms of thermite, and what you call it doesn't make a damned bit of difference. I don't understand why you can't get that, but it's not my problem. There are psychologists who study stuff like that. They call it information bias: you obsess over some (fallacious) arguments and fully ignore others that you don't even want to read.

I have provided the thermodynamic analysis, using Jones data, in this thread and you have not responded.

More convoluted layman commentary on a pdf that I can already read for myself, chock full of the usual fallacies and avoiding any sort of direct proof of anything. Doesn't look like you are describing paint there buddy (notice you didn't even try to compare any of it to paint -- yet you state as fact that it was paint anyway -- the epitome of unprofessional and one more reason why I don't take you seriously in the first place, believe me), and there are no DoD/Los Alamos samples of nano-thermite to compare to either, so what were you trying to accomplish anyway? More semantic games, so you can look at a substance that no one is saying brought down the towers (pure iron oxide and aluminum), and telling us what we already know, that it's not pure iron oxide and aluminum? All of this is typical from you, and at this point I never expect to see any better.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, why does thermAte have a different NAME than thermIte? I mean, they are the same right?

Why does Porsche have a different name than car? I mean they are the same, right?

Asking questions is the same as "debunking," right? I mean I'm debunking something right now by asking questions aren't I??

Well, using that logic, a Porsche and a Kia are the same thing. Right?

So are cake and cookies.

Pancakes and waffles, same exact thing.

I can go on for days if you would like.

ThermAte is NOT thermIte. Just as diesel and kerosene are different, diesel and gasoline. All have the same basic ingredients, with some additional additives....

Originally posted by bsbray11

Nice try though. What Jones et al. claim to have found was unreacted nano-thermIte, not thermAte.

Nice try? Why don't you go ahead and define the word "thermite" once and for all chief, since you apparently don't like Wikipedia's interpretation that thermate is a form of thermite, and since the science behind that reasoning is apparently too cloudy for you to understand. Because like I said, what Jones was looking at wasn't just iron oxide and aluminum. Nice try though.

Thermite is aluminum and iron oxide. Thermate is aluminum, iron oxide, and sulfer and sometimes barium nitrate.

Even Wikipedia had a little citation on the thermAte page that says "Not to be confused with thermite.".

You can see that here.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, what part of "they are two different substances" do you not understand?

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
Asking questions is the same as "debunking," right? I mean I'm debunking something right now by asking questions aren't I??

Well, using that logic, a Porsche and a Kia are the same thing. Right?

So are cake and cookies

No, not quite.

I'm not sure why this is so hard. I should have been trained as an elementary school teacher.

A Porsche is a type of car. Therefore a Porsche is a car, but a car is not necessarily a Porsche. Stop! Don't try to force yourself to prove me wrong yet! I know it hurts. Okay, stop and let's try to go over it again. A Porsche is a type of car. But a car, is not necessarily a Porsche. It could be any car. But Porsche is a specific kind. Okay, do we have it yet? I'm just going to pretend so.


Now let's take the quantum leap over to thermite. I had an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on thermate. It said thermate was a variation of thermite. Many other websites online make note of this. Basic thermite is iron oxide and aluminum. But thermate is iron oxide and aluminum and other additives to make the basic reaction more rapid, energetic, etc. So thermate is a kind of thermite, but thermite isn't necessarily thermate in the same way that car is not necessarily Porsche. Woah, I brought that first example back pretty quick! Could you keep up with that? No? Oh well, I tried.


I would spend a few more paragraphs trying to break this down for you, but I think I'll do it in successive posts instead so you won't have to read too much all at once. Once you understand the brain surgery I'm trying to explain in this post, maybe we can have a shot at understanding why this whole "argument" of yours changes absolutely nothing about the ability of the material in the OP to cut through steel, and a very similar material being found all over Ground Zero, neither of them conventional thermite.

Bsbray,

Please look at Jone et al. paper (found here www.benthamscience.com... )

and turn your attention to page 19 of the PDF. Look at the graph.

What does that tell you?


(I'll give you a hint. What Jones et al. found was NOT thermite of any flavor. )

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, not quite.

I'm not sure why this is so hard. I should have been trained as an elementary school teacher.

A Porsche is a type of car. Therefore a Porsche is a car, but a car is not necessarily a Porsche. Stop! Don't try to force yourself to prove me wrong yet! I know it hurts. Okay, stop and let's try to go over it again. A Porsche is a type of car. But a car, is not necessarily a Porsche. It could be any car. But Porsche is a specific kind. Okay, do we have it yet? I'm just going to pretend so.


Now let's take the quantum leap over to thermite. I had an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on thermate. It said thermate was a variation of thermite. Many other websites online make note of this. Basic thermite is iron oxide and aluminum. But thermate is iron oxide and aluminum and other additives to make the basic reaction more rapid, energetic, etc. So thermate is a kind of thermite, but thermite isn't necessarily thermate in the same way that car is not necessarily Porsche. Woah, I brought that first example back pretty quick! Could you keep up with that? No? Oh well, I tried.

I would spend a few more paragraphs trying to break this down for you, but I think I'll do it in successive posts instead so you won't have to read too much all at once. Once you understand the brain surgery I'm trying to explain in this post, maybe we can have a shot at understanding why this whole "argument" of yours changes absolutely nothing about the ability of the material in the OP to cut through steel, and a very similar material being found all over Ground Zero, neither of them conventional thermite.

edit on 29-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

Let me explain this for you.

Thermite is not thermate, and thermate is not thermite.

Are cake and cookies the same thing?

They both use flour, eggs, sugar and butter, right?

Ok, so they should be interchangable using your logic.

But wait, cake uses baking powder, while cookies use baking soda. This is simmilar to the differences between thermate and thermite. They are not the same. Do you understand this difference?

Can you understand why they have different names?

reply to post by FDNY343


How is that not a form of thermite? The three graphs show what made up silicon-rich, aluminum-rich and iron-rich portions of the material. In those graphs you see peaks of oxygen, iron, and aluminum, all three of which are the basic components of thermite, along with other elements that also do nothing to rule out a form of thermite. Also, it reacts within a very narrow temperature range and simultaneously produces tiny iron spheres, indicating that iron is in fact melted during the process just like it is during every thermite reaction that involves iron as a fuel.

What are you seeing that I'm not seeing? Or are you just presuming yourself to now be so much of a chemical/explosives/Los Alamos expert, that you can tell whether or not something is military-grade nanothermite just by looking at graphs like this? That's what it looks like to me. You have no argument, you just say, "Look at this. I'm right." Is there anything else I should know? No? Okay then.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by FDNY343

 

How is that not a form of thermite? The three graphs show what made up silicon-rich, aluminum-rich and iron-rich portions of the material. In those graphs you see peaks of oxygen, iron, and aluminum, all three of which are the basic components of thermite, along with other elements that also do nothing to rule out a form of thermite.

What are you seeing that I'm not seeing? Or are you just presuming yourself to now be so much of a chemical/explosives/Los Alamos expert, that you can tell whether or not something is military-grade nanothermite just by looking at graphs like this? That's what it looks like to me. You have no argument, you just say, "Look at this. I'm right." Is there anything else I should know? No? Okay then.

No, you're missing the graph on page 19 of the PDF. sorry, I should have specified.

It has two lines. One is nano-themite, one is not. Which one produces more heat energy per g?

Originally posted by FDNY343
Let me explain this for you.

Thermite is not thermate, and thermate is not thermite.

Not according to Wikipedia, among other sources, or even common sense. A Porsche is a kind of car for good reason. There are similarities so obvious that you would have to be deaf blind and dumb to miss them. The same with thermite and thermate. You would have to be in such a condition, or else in some serious denial, to miss the obvious similarities and relationship between them.

Your problem is that you didn't stop and think when I asked you to in my post. Your stubborn zealousness went marching right on into nonsense anyway.

Are cake and cookies the same thing?

Do you know how to read?

I already addressed this in what I thought was excruciatingly painful detail above. I also thought it would be of no use -- and I was right about that too.


Maybe this is just another case of information bias, and you just tuned me out and ignored that post altogether. I'll give you a second shot at it since by all appearances you did totally ignore it:

A Porsche is a type of car. Therefore a Porsche is a car, but a car is not necessarily a Porsche. Stop! Don't try to force yourself to prove me wrong yet! I know it hurts. Okay, stop and let's try to go over it again. A Porsche is a type of car. But a car, is not necessarily a Porsche. It could be any car. But Porsche is a specific kind. Okay, do we have it yet? I'm just going to pretend so.


Now let's take the quantum leap over to thermite. I had an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on thermate. It said thermate was a variation of thermite. Many other websites online make note of this. Basic thermite is iron oxide and aluminum. But thermate is iron oxide and aluminum and other additives to make the basic reaction more rapid, energetic, etc. So thermate is a kind of thermite, but thermite isn't necessarily thermate in the same way that car is not necessarily Porsche. Woah, I brought that first example back pretty quick! Could you keep up with that?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The material that Jones claims to have found is not any sort of thermite.

I don't understand why I even have to read garbage like this when, if you had entertained the idea that Jones might actually be right, you would already understand why this is not supposed to match conventional forms of thermite, and what you call it doesn't make a damned bit of difference. I don't understand why you can't get that, but it's not my problem. There are psychologists who study stuff like that. They call it information bias: you obsess over some (fallacious) arguments and fully ignore others that you don't even want to read.

I have provided the thermodynamic analysis, using Jones data, in this thread and you have not responded.

More convoluted layman commentary on a pdf that I can already read for myself, chock full of the usual fallacies and avoiding any sort of direct proof of anything. Doesn't look like you are describing paint there buddy (notice you didn't even try to compare any of it to paint -- yet you state as fact that it was paint anyway -- the epitome of unprofessional and one more reason why I don't take you seriously in the first place, believe me), and there are no DoD/Los Alamos samples of nano-thermite to compare to either, so what were you trying to accomplish anyway? More semantic games, so you can look at a substance that no one is saying brought down the towers (pure iron oxide and aluminum), and telling us what we already know, that it's not pure iron oxide and aluminum? All of this is typical from you, and at this point I never expect to see any better.]

Once again, you only respond with vituperative, senseless diatribe. If you are unable to understand the simple thermodynamics I have presented, say so and I will explain it to you, again. Maybe you are bluffing about the technical training you claim to have and are just afraid to comment. You could begin by explaining the fallacies you claim it to be chock-full of, unless that claim was just more of your rant.

Jones debunks himself with his own data. The analysis I show makes no discrimination between "conventional" thermite and the nano-particulate thermite; both are still bound by the energies of reaction. You are as confused as many others if you think that the theoretical energies change based on particle size. Perhaps you should review chemical thermodynamics before posting.

I state that it is paint because it is a red iron-oxide containing coating on oxidized steel that contains aluminosilicate fillers, and looks like what the WTC structural steel was covered with. Other analyses by Jones show paint-like characteristics for the red layer. There are 10-100 tons of it in the dust, unreacted, according to Jones. After reaction in the DSC, large portions of red chips are unreacted. The thermodynamics eliminate thermite of any type or a mixture of thermite and the energetic materials shown. It isn't thermite and if it isn't paint, what is it?
Cole's demonstration is a "so what" event. Many things designed to cut steel will cut steel. He could have just as well used a welding machine with a cutting rod or a saw to cut the steel. He used thermate which, in various forms, is modified thermite. Thermite was not found at the WTC site so Cole's backyard chemistry experiment means nothing.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Let me explain this for you.

Thermite is not thermate, and thermate is not thermite.

Not according to Wikipedia, among other sources, or even common sense. A Porsche is a kind of car for good reason. There are similarities so obvious that you would have to be deaf blind and dumb to miss them. The same with thermite and thermate. You would have to be in such a condition, or else in some serious denial, to miss the obvious similarities and relationship between them.

Your problem is that you didn't stop and think when I asked you to in my post. Your stubborn zealousness went marching right on into nonsense anyway.

Are cake and cookies the same thing?

Do you know how to read?

I already addressed this in what I thought was excruciatingly painful detail above. I also thought it would be of no use -- and I was right about that too.


Maybe this is just another case of information bias, and you just tuned me out and ignored that post altogether. I'll give you a second shot at it since by all appearances you did totally ignore it:

A Porsche is a type of car. Therefore a Porsche is a car, but a car is not necessarily a Porsche. Stop! Don't try to force yourself to prove me wrong yet! I know it hurts. Okay, stop and let's try to go over it again. A Porsche is a type of car. But a car, is not necessarily a Porsche. It could be any car. But Porsche is a specific kind. Okay, do we have it yet? I'm just going to pretend so.


Now let's take the quantum leap over to thermite. I had an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on thermate. It said thermate was a variation of thermite. Many other websites online make note of this. Basic thermite is iron oxide and aluminum. But thermate is iron oxide and aluminum and other additives to make the basic reaction more rapid, energetic, etc. So thermate is a kind of thermite, but thermite isn't necessarily thermate in the same way that car is not necessarily Porsche. Woah, I brought that first example back pretty quick! Could you keep up with that?

edit on 29-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

Do you see the part on the thermAte page that said "Not to be confused with thermite"?

Do you not understand that diesel fuel is simmilar to gasoline, but it less refined? So, using your logic, it's the same.

Do you wonder why there are two names for two different substances?

Thermite is aluminum and iron oxide.

Thermate adds sulfer and sometimes barium nitrate.

Just as cookies use the same basic ingredients, but have just one ingredient difference. Just the same as thermite and thermate. Hence, why they have different names.

Originally posted by pteridine
Once again, you only respond with vituperative, senseless diatribe.

That's all you gave me to work with. What else is there to discuss? You also see steel being cut with very simple materials in the OP, that are easy to acquire. All the rest is a bunch of senseless diatribe, coming from you. The "analysis" you just linked to, was an internet rant. You didn't compare to any control samples of any other substances, you make assumptions and jumps in reasoning and you don't even stick to one point. You have already showed me what you have to "explain" and it is nothing.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Do you see the part on the thermAte page that said "Not to be confused with thermite"?

And you wouldn't want to confuse all cars with Porsches, either, would you? But I don't guess you thought about that one, since you're exhibiting classic information bias and your head is a one way street.

The very same page tells you explicitly "Thermate is a variation of thermite" but you out and out ignore that.

Just as cookies use the same basic ingredients, but have just one ingredient difference. Just the same as thermite and thermate. Hence, why they have different names.

You keep ignoring something:

"Thermate is a variation of thermite"

You ignore it on purpose, I think, because I know you're not blind. You apparently choose to be ignorant.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Do you see the part on the thermAte page that said "Not to be confused with thermite"?

And you wouldn't want to confuse all cars with Porsches, either, would you? But I don't guess you thought about that one, since you're exhibiting classic information bias and your head is a one way street.

The very same page tells you explicitly "Thermate is a variation of thermite" but you out and out ignore that.

Just as cookies use the same basic ingredients, but have just one ingredient difference. Just the same as thermite and thermate. Hence, why they have different names.

You keep ignoring something:

"Thermate is a variation of thermite"

You ignore it on purpose, I think, because I know you're not blind. You apparently choose to be ignorant.

And cake is just a variation of cookies I suppose?

They are two different things.

Just because it is a variation of thermite, does not make the term interchangeable.

Originally posted by FDNY343
And cake is just a variation of cookies I suppose?

If you want to look at it that way, why not. Thermate is still a form of thermite. Where the hell do you think the word "thermate" comes from in the first place?

Just because it is a variation of thermite, does not make the term interchangeable.

Right, just like if I had a Porsche in my driveway, I wouldn't just call it a car if I were talking about it. But if I didn't know what kind of car it was, or if it was a new model of car, then why should I be so specific as to call it a Porsche? You see where I'm going with this? Eh? Eh? No? Awww come on FDNY.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Once again, you only respond with vituperative, senseless diatribe.

That's all you gave me to work with. What else is there to discuss? You also see steel being cut with very simple materials in the OP, that are easy to acquire. All the rest is a bunch of senseless diatribe, coming from you. The "analysis" you just linked to, was an internet rant. You didn't compare to any control samples of any other substances, you make assumptions and jumps in reasoning and you don't even stick to one point. You have already showed me what you have to "explain" and it is nothing.

"Nothing" being Jones paper, of course. Your standard 'angry boy' responses are pitiful and you lack emotional control. I conclude that you are unable to understand my critique or just don't like that idea that Jones' paper is not conclusive of thermite.
Show your self-proclaimed technical skills and rebut my criticisms of Jones vanity publication. It should be easy for you based on your claim that it was chock-full of fallacies. After you destroy my critique of the thermodynamics you can then rebut my claims of failed analytical protocols and invalid conclusions.

Originally posted by pteridine
"Nothing" being Jones paper, of course. Your standard 'angry boy' responses are pitiful and you lack emotional control.

Angry boy responses? Are you being serious or is this some kind of Tim and Eric running gag you have going on these forums?


Everything I said in my last post still stands. The OP speaks for itself and your empty words can't refute it.