Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

reply to post by bsbray11


Jones is a physicist; not a chemist. Rebut my criticisms, if you can.

reply to post by pteridine


I will, when you go back and add legitimate sources to each claim you make in your "criticism."

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

I will, when you go back and add legitimate sources to each claim you make in your "criticism."

I have used Jones paper, and references within, for the heats of combustion of the chips and the photos of the spent red chips that show incomplete combustion. The data on the explosives is from a referenced paper and is generally correct. You don't need to look up any heats of combustion or calculate anything. The source is the Jones' Bentham paper we are discussing as the inspiration for Cole's pyrotechnics.

As to the comment that hydrocarbons burning in air have much more energy per unit mass than thermite, here is a link to some heats of combustion that you can refer to, as needed.
en.wikipedia.org...

Note that hydrocarbons are greater than 40 kJ/gram while Thermite [Jones paper] is less than 4 kJ/gram. Paint binders are hydrocarbons, so my statement that the binder has significantly more energy than any thermite is correct.

You may proceed with your analysis.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You ARE confused.

You are talking about the time for the collapse from start to end. You are ignoring that during those 16 seconds the collapse did drop at free-fall acceleration. The overall collapse time is irrelevant.

I'm most certainly not confused. And I am indeed talking about the total collapse time. If you bother to look at what I was responding to, you'll see I was correcting a small factual error among the rantings of impressme.

Subsequently I've been told that this doesn't matter and has never been a concern of Truthers anyway. The latter is indubitably false. The former may be true, but that begs the question as to why so many sites propagate such an idea and, more trivially, why impressme is so keen to foster it.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

I will, when you go back and add legitimate sources to each claim you make in your "criticism."

I have used Jones paper, and references within

Jones' paper uses all the same data and comes to a completely different conclusion to you. Basically you just post quotes from his paper and rant on them. That's pathetic. When you have real sources for all the crap you say that contradicts Jones' report, then I'll take you seriously. Why would I want to argue with someone who makes facts up out of thin air and then can never document them?


Getting a source from you on any given claim you make is like pulling teeth. It takes a string of posts in a row asking you over and over, and then when you finally decide to try to give a source, like the latest example, you just told me to do a search for something unrelated that might give an "estimate." And this is what you want me to refute. There is nothing to refute man. Grow up and learn how to source all your important claims. As of right now you're asking me to go do all the work proving you wrong, when you proved nothing in the first place. I have no intention of playing your stupid game until you have something of substance to start with. I don't enjoy having discussions with you in the first place because of how many fallacies you repeatedly use, and never learn better. And I know you'll just respond, repeating yourself again, telling me to refute nonsense that doesn't mean anything in the first place. Go ahead. I'll just tell you to post actual sources for all your crap again.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


You know what's cool about the phrase "collapse time," is that it has no formal physics definition.

Presumably it would include the whole period of time during which the structure is deteriorating and losing stability.

And if that's the case, WTC7's "collapse time" could start when it was first set on fire or when the first explosion was reported from it, or even right after construction was completely in the 1980s.


Same for the Twin Towers. We could've started timing those collapses right after impact, or started timing at the 1993 bombing, or even when they were just constructed.

Originally posted by pteridine

Jet fuel is a mixture of hydrocarbons.

OK here are some figures for you...

Open air burning temperatures: 260-315°C

www.associatepublisher.com...

Taking all of the above information in account, it appears that flame tip temperatures for turbulent diffusion flames should be estimated as being around 320~400°C. For small flames (less than about 1 m base diameter), continuous flame region temperatures of around 900°C should be expected. For large pools, the latter value can rise to 1100~1200°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

The jet fuel burns cooler than a typical room fire, so it would make no difference to the overall fire temperature.
The only thing it will do is accelerate the burn time, in other words the stuff in the room will burn quicker.
It's a common fallacy that liquid fuel is super volatile and burns really hot. A candle flame is hotter, 1,000 °C.

reply to post by ANOK

The only thing it will do is accelerate the burn time, in other words the stuff in the room will burn quicker.

What if the "stuff in the room" includes an entire commercial jet aircraft - any difference?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

I will, when you go back and add legitimate sources to each claim you make in your "criticism."

I have used Jones paper, and references within

Jones' paper uses all the same data and comes to a completely different conclusion to you. Basically you just post quotes from his paper and rant on them. That's pathetic. When you have real sources for all the crap you say that contradicts Jones' report, then I'll take you seriously. Why would I want to argue with someone who makes facts up out of thin air and then can never document them?

That is because Jones starts with a predetermined conclusion. I do not post quotes and rant on them. As the supreme ranter on this thread, you should realize that. I use Jones' thermo data and show that it is internally inconsistent and does not justify the conclusions. What is pathetic is your inability to understand simple thermodynamics after your claims of advanced technical education. I even made it easy for you and referenced the pictures in Jones paper so you don't have to read or do arithmetic.

You lack the ability to prove me wrong or even engage in the discussion.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11

I have used Jones paper, and references within

Jones' paper uses all the same data and comes to a completely different conclusion to you.

That is because Jones starts with a predetermined conclusion.

Oh yeah, of course, completely different than you, because you're always open to being wrong.

I do not post quotes and rant on them.

When you're half stating a bunch of opinions and half making claims with no sources and totally unsupported, yes, that is called ranting.

I use Jones' thermo data and show that it is internally inconsistent and does not justify the conclusions.

Yes, I saw, and you do it while making up figures and never posting real sources for them. That's what I'm asking you to fix. You still apparently have no intention.

Let me give you a clue. When I ask for a source, and you tell me to do a Google search for something else completely, there's your indication, that you are ranting and nothing you say is of any consequence to anyone.

Or let me give you a second clue. When you state as unequivocal fact that the material Jones studied was paint, but then are totally unable to show any paint with the same ingredients, or any other evidence that it's paint, there's another indication that you're ranting, have no substance, are of no consequence to anything, etc.

I really don't take anything you post seriously anymore, and if that's anyone's fault, I'd say it's yours. Like I said, I would put you on ignore but it makes you feel too good when I do that.

reply to post by ANOK


It spreads the fire and causes more building contents to burn that may not have otherwise ignited. While the temperature of the fuel varies somewhat...

" For small flames (less than about 1 m base diameter), continuous flame region temperatures of around 900°C should be expected. For large pools, the latter value can rise to 1100~1200°C."
www.doctorfire.com...

the importance of the fuel is that it rapidly spreads the fire.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You know what's cool about the phrase "collapse time," is that it has no formal physics definition.

Presumably it would include the whole period of time during which the structure is deteriorating and losing stability.

And if that's the case, WTC7's "collapse time" could start when it was first set on fire or when the first explosion was reported from it, or even right after construction was completely in the 1980s.


Same for the Twin Towers. We could've started timing those collapses right after impact, or started timing at the 1993 bombing, or even when they were just constructed.

So it's definitely longer than 15 seconds then.

reply to post by bsbray11


I take it by your response that you are completely out of your depth in this discussion and are unable to understand simple thermodynamics or the printed word. You ask for sources and I keep saying that Jones' paper has all the data in it. That is the source. You ask for paint that has the characteristics of aged paint 30 years old and insinuate that if none is produced, then the red chips can't be paint. Jones uses fresh paint of unknown origin and says that it isn't the same, ergo this must be thermite. He measures the conductivity of both but forgets that the red paint has gray iron oxide from the steel structure attached to it. He is either incompetent or disingenuous. Check your lists of logical fallacies and see if Jones violated any rules of logic in his paper.

His red chips, after reaction in the DSC, show that they are still red by Jones photographs. The iron oxide is still iron oxide. What can that mean, BS? Hint: The reaction was only the binder burning because the vaunted analytical team ran the DSC in air and got more energy out than is possible with any thermite/thermate or any combination of thermite with any "high energy" additive. How can that be? I told you that hydrocarbon paint binder has significantly more energy than thermite so a small amount of burning binder has a big effect on the data.

Stop stalling and making excuses. Explain Jones red chips energetics or admit that he misled his acolytes.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
You know what's cool about the phrase "collapse time," is that it has no formal physics definition.

Presumably it would include the whole period of time during which the structure is deteriorating and losing stability.

And if that's the case, WTC7's "collapse time" could start when it was first set on fire or when the first explosion was reported from it, or even right after construction was completely in the 1980s. ...

So it's definitely longer than 15 seconds then.

Sure.

So then you agree that the collapse time for WTC7 could be over 10 years long, since "collapse time" has no formal definition?

Originally posted by pteridine
I take it by your response that you are completely out of your depth in this discussion

No, no, this is just more ranting. Insulting my intelligence, misrepresenting arguments, continuing to ignore requests for sources for your claims and many other fallacies that make your posts amount to nothing but emotional diatribe.

I don't give a damn what you think, pteridine. That's why I ask you to post sources. Again, last time I asked you for a source, just on the last page of this thread, it took me several times asking you before you even responded, and then it turned out you didn't even have a source.

I don't take you seriously.


Give me another rant, I'll give you another response like this. Learn what a source is. Narrow your argument. I don't even know what point you are trying to make anymore. The ranting is immature.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK

 

It spreads the fire and causes more building contents to burn that may not have otherwise ignited. While the temperature of the fuel varies somewhat...

" For small flames (less than about 1 m base diameter), continuous flame region temperatures of around 900°C should be expected. For large pools, the latter value can rise to 1100~1200°C."
www.doctorfire.com...

the importance of the fuel is that it rapidly spreads the fire.

If the fuel rapidly spreads the fire, it also rapidly extinguishes itself. Fire needs three things to burn, fuel, oxygen, heat. Take away the fuel, no more fire. Liquid fuel evaporates quickly and would not cause the fire to burn longer. Most of the fuel would have been evaporated in the initial fireball anyway, it would be hard for any of it to escape that instant ignition.

Also just because there is more fire it doesn't mean the temperatures are higher. The towers could have been completely engulfed top to bottom they still wouldn't collapse after one hour.

reply to post by bsbray11

The soure of the data is the paper. If you can't understand it, just say so.

reply to post by pteridine


It's not like I haven't already posted this two or three times (what was I just saying about you totally ignoring me?), but your own source disagrees with your claims.

Your source, proves you wrong.

If you don't think so, don't just give me your freaking word, because that's totally worthless to me. Post sources that AGREE with what you say.

You have never posted anything on these forums to indicate to me that you're more intelligent or qualified than Dr. Steven Jones himself, no matter what cute insults you can think up to try and discredit him. I've never seen Jones calling other people names or insulting them, despite differences. Just mark that up as more evidence that he's reached a higher level of maturity.

POST SOURCES THAT AGREE WITH YOU.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

It's not like I haven't already posted this two or three times (what was I just saying about you totally ignoring me?), but your own source disagrees with your claims.

Your source, proves you wrong.

POST SOURCES THAT AGREE WITH YOU.

edit on 7-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

I understand that you cannot think anything that someone has not already posted. I am not limited by your shortcomings. I am not using the faulty conclusions of the source, just the data from the source. The source doesn't have to agree with me. You use NIST data and don't agree with the report's conclusions.

reply to post by pteridine


Let me break this down and make a perfectly clear example here of why you are posting garbage.


Here is a quote from you on the last page:

Originally posted by pteridine
The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used.

Okay. Now I asked for a source for this claim. I'm still waiting on one, because this was your response after I already asked repeatedly for your source:

Originally posted by pteridine
For energy output of the hydrocarbon binder, look up the heat of combustion of wax as an estimate.

So your source, for claiming "The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used," is "look up the heat of combustion of wax as an estimate." That is not a real source, and your original claim is still completely baseless. There is nothing to debunk because you didn't present a competent argument in the first place.


I'm convinced no one ever taught you what sources even are, or why they are used.