Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

reply to post by bsbray11


This is what I provided in www.abovetopsecret.com...

"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."

The sources were Jones paper and references within and the wiki article on heats of combustion. It is apparent that you are stalling and can't respond. Either discussion of thermodynamics is beyond your ability or you realize that there is no evidence for thermite in Jones paper. Jones paper was published in Bentham not because it threatened any primary journal, but because it was so poorly done that no primary journal would publish it. Had it been done properly and showed thermite, any number of legimitate journals would have published it. It wasn't and didn't and was relegated to Bentham.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?

If you like. As long as we're both agreed that the 7ish seconds used by lots of Truth Movement sites, and the sub-15 seconds impressme so indignantly pushes above, are incorrect.

Originally posted by pteridine
This is what I provided in www.abovetopsecret.com...

"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."

That wasn't your statement though. This was your actual statement:

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.

Did you actually show the DSC for a paint binder under the same conditions Jones used?

No.

When I asked you for a source, this is what you posted:

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

I realize you totally ignored this and now are backpeddling. The combustion energy is not the only relevant variable here and you know it. Grow up and learn how to post real sources. All the irrelevant ranting about everything except what I asked is pathetic.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
So then you agree that the collapse time for WTC7 could be over 10 years long, since "collapse time" has no formal definition?

If you like. As long as we're both agreed that the 7ish seconds used by lots of Truth Movement sites, and the sub-15 seconds impressme so indignantly pushes above, are incorrect.

It doesn't matter, because WTC7 still accelerated at free-fall. That's why people were bringing up the collapse time in the first place.

But you can say the collapse time was 10 years. That's fine. This is why the "collapse time" is technically meaningless.

WTC7 still accelerated at free-fall. One day maybe a miracle will occur and the implications of that will dawn on you. But unless you actually learn physics one day, I doubt that's ever going to happen.

reply to post by bsbray11


You have every opportunity to show that I am incorrect. Your problem is that you are unable to do so and are squirming and wriggling trying to find excuses not to address my criticism. Combusting hydrocarbons all have energies about ten times that of thermite; showing DSC's of cured paint is pointless. It is the binder energies that are important. Jones' energy calculations show that two of his samples have far too much energy to be thermite and his photographs show that the iron oxide remained unreacted.

reply to post by pteridine

You have every opportunity to show that I am incorrect.

You cannot prove something out of nothing.

It is not up to us to prove your opinions correct, it is up to *you* to prove your opinions true and you have not.

Originally posted by pteridine
You have every opportunity to show that I am incorrect.

And I have. You make claims that are baseless. Read my post above again please.

Your problem is that you are unable to do so and are squirming and wriggling trying to find excuses not to address my criticism.

Sorry, but what I am showing you is a perfectly legitimately reason to disregard everything you say. I could post "Sheep are really green and they poop out of their mouths," and then when you ask me for a source, I could say, "Do a Google search for what sheep meat tastes like," and it would be logically equivalent to your argument above. Instead of even engaging in that stupidity, all I have to tell you is that your "reasoning" is baseless in the first place and doesn't even need to be refuted. It refutes itself.

You said:

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.

And then when asked for a source you said:

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

Now compare to the example I just gave you about green sheep pooping out of their mouths. It's exactly equivalent to your "argument" here. I ask for a source for your baseless claim, and you tell me to do a Google search for something completely different instead. Heat combustion is not the same as a DSC. You don't even know what you're talking about. I'm trying to decide whether you're intentionally lying or just ignorant, but you probably don't even know the answer to that yourself. If I had to guess I'd say it's a mixture of the two.

Combusting hydrocarbons all have energies about ten times that of thermite; showing DSC's of cured paint is pointless.

Oh, okay, now it's pointless.

Earlier you were claiming that the DSC proved me wrong, but when I ask you to prove it, now they're pointless.

Like I said, grow up. The only one doing the squirming is you. You can stop posting whenever you'd like, and you would only be doing yourself a favor.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Combusting hydrocarbons all have energies about ten times that of thermite; showing DSC's of cured paint is pointless.

Oh, okay, now it's pointless.

Earlier you were claiming that the DSC proved me wrong, but when I ask you to prove it, now they're pointless.

Like I said, grow up. The only one doing the squirming is you. You can stop posting whenever you'd like, and you would only be doing yourself a favor

The data from the DSC, not the DSC trace itself. You cannot be as dense as you pretend to be so I will assume that you are begging me to stop posting because you realize that Jones' theory is bankrupt. You love the theory and the possibility that there is a coverup of physical evidence that would show CD of the WTC and the Pentagon.
Jones' paper does not prove thermite, BS. The thermo is wrong and the chips show no characteristics of thermite. Use your head for something other than a hat rack.

Originally posted by pteridine
The data from the DSC, not the DSC trace itself.

You never posted either for paint binder so what difference does it make?

You cannot be as dense as you pretend to be so I will assume that you are begging me to stop posting because you realize that Jones' theory is bankrupt.

I'm not begging you to stop posting. I was just offering you the option to save yourself repeated embarrassment.

You love the theory and the possibility that there is a coverup of physical evidence that would show CD of the WTC and the Pentagon.
Jones' paper does not prove thermite, BS. The thermo is wrong and the chips show no characteristics of thermite. Use your head for something other than a hat rack.

Let's see... irrelevant to you showing sources for what you claim.... irrelevant to you showing sources for what you claim.... and.... an insult. Brilliant.


Well it looks like you utterly failed to deliver the source for your claim "The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used" once again.

Surprise, surprise.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The data from the DSC, not the DSC trace itself.

You never posted either for paint binder so what difference does it make?

The binder in paint is polymeric hydrocarbons. The energy of hydrocarbons is 10 times the energy of thermite. The DSC trace is not based on intrinsic properties and is a function of instrument conditions. As can be seen in Jones' data, two of the chips have much more energy than if they were all thermite or a mixture of thermite and high explosive. As can be seen in Jones' photos, the red iron oxide is intact after the chips reacted in the DSC.
This means that they are not thermite.
Work on the pictures if the math is too deep for you.

Sources: Jones' paper and previous heat of combustion reference.

reply to post by pteridine


Sorry, I'm not addressing any other nonsense you post until you finally give a source for the claim you made 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.

Show the DSC data for paint so we can actually compare.


You can't make statements about the data if you don't actually have it. That would be lying.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

Sorry, I'm not addressing any other nonsense you post until you finally give a source for the claim you made 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.

Show the DSC data for paint so we can actually compare.


You can't make statements about the data if you don't actually have it. That would be lying.

The DSC trace of paint will not show kJ/g. That is a calculated value from integrating the DSC trace. Each instrument is calibrated under the conditions of the sample run. Jones says he calibrated the DSC and his values are accurate. The other way to get the value is with a calorimeter. Jones did not have a calorimeter. What he had were the instruments he used. He had a DSC. Source: Jones paper. He calculated the exotherm in kJ/g. The exotherms for 4 chips are shown in the figure that I referenced so many times. Source: Jones paper. The values vary widely, the first hint that either the chips are not 'highly engineered' or that sample prep was not done well. Two of the samples are below the energy of thermite and two are far above. Source: Jones paper. One way to account for the excess energy is through combustion or a combination of combustion and some other reaction, such as thermite. Unfortunately, Jones screwed up and ran the DSC in air so that any organic material present would combust. He should have run it under Argon so there would be no combustion clouding the results and an exotherm would have shown the possibility of thermite.

Now the easy part. The chips that reacted in the DSC were photographed and showed that the red iron oxide was still present after the exotherm. Source: Jones paper. Red iron oxide is a component of the suspected thermite. Source: Jones paper. If the red iron oxide was present after reaction of the chips in the DSC, in air, and an exotherm was measured, what caused it?

Here is a chance to use your technical skills and imagination and arrive at a conclusion on your own. If you say you don't know, I'll understand, but try anyway.

reply to post by pteridine

The energy of hydrocarbons is 10 times the energy of thermite.

Based on what scientific evidence?

The DSC trace is not based on intrinsic properties and is a function of instrument conditions

Wrong! Besides your opinions how about *you* providing some scientific evidence to back your assumptions?

Jones' data, two of the chips have much more energy than if they were all thermite or a mixture of thermite and high explosive.

That is completely untrue. Where does Jones’ state this in his Journal that the two chips have more energy than thermite? Jones did not make any such statement.

This nonsense, the fact is this is *your* interpretation into twisting Jones science.

This means that they are not thermite.

Wrong, this is your assumption, it is not a fact.

I wish you would stick to the facts in Jones’ Journal, and stop making up hot air.

reply to post by pteridine

The values vary widely, the first hint that either the chips are not 'highly engineered' or that sample prep was not done well. Two of the samples are below the energy of thermite and two are far above. Source: Jones paper. One way to account for the excess energy is through combustion or a combination of combustion and some other reaction, such as thermite. Unfortunately, Jones screwed up and ran the DSC in air so that any organic material present would combust. He should have run it under Argon so there would be no combustion clouding the results and an exotherm would have shown the possibility of thermite.

Besides your “bias opinions” against Jones and his science you cannot prove that Jones did not do his tests correctly furthermore, you do not have the WTC dust sample to run your own analysis. So please stop pretending that you have the WTC dust samples and that you have run your own test. You are all over the place in here, cherry picking a little of this and a little of that making nothing but your assumptions or opinions without providing a shred of real science to back your ridiculous claims.

For G-d sake no one has this WTC dust samples but Steven Jones. This kind of testing has “NEVER” been done before. The combinations of particles discovered under an electronic microscope and all the particles found were extracted, separated and tested in a controlled environment each particle was tested to confirm its properties.

The only problem Jones had was to determine exactly what kind of na-nothermite he was testing. That is why in his opinion Jones believes we are talking military science, this highly energetic ingredient, chemical compound, organic component of the red
Material is unknown. Jones said that he could not find any known source for this particular na-nothermite, Jones said in his journal:

8. What Future Studies are Contemplated?

We observe that the total energy released from some of
the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone
(3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the
red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical
compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red
material would promote understanding. [color=gold]Further studies of the
red material (separated from the gray material) compared to
known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.)
analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and
GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify
the organic material.
We have observed that some chips have additional elements
such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. [color=gold](31)
which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and
displays multiple red and gray layers.
In addition, the gray-layer material demands further
study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears
in multiple layers, as seen in Fig. (32).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.

_ www.bentham-open.org...

You do not know what these chemical
Compounds involved in the organic component of the red
Material are or what they do, no one does for that matter, unless you’re a scientist in the USA military holding secret military weapons patents to this new highly energetic material?

The fact is you have not disproved anything but only gave your assumtions to what you think, nothing more.

FYI

Thermite Types (by metal Oxide):

Iron(III) Oxide - Fe2O3
Iron(II, III) Oxide - Fe3O4
Copper(II) Oxide - CuO
Copper(I) Oxide - Cu2O
Tin(IV) Oxide - SnO2
Titanium(IV) Oxide - TiO2
Manganese(IV) Oxide - MnO2
Manganese(III) Oxide - Mn2O3
Chromium(III) Oxide - Cr2O3
Cobalt(II) Oxide - CoO
Silicon Dioxide - SiO2
Nickel(II) Oxide - NiO
Vanadium(V) Oxide - V2O5
Silver(I) Oxide - Ag2O

Generally, thermite is made by mixing Iron Oxide and Aluminum powder and igniting it at very high temperatures (a few thousand degrees). The reaction releases so much energy, molten Iron metal is produced as one of the products.

The two most common types of thermite are made using either Iron(III) Oxide, Fe2O3 (also known as Hematite), or using Iron(II, III) Oxide, Fe3O4 (also known as Magnetite). The Iron Oxide is mixed with finely powdered Aluminum metal. When the thermite reacts, liquid Iron metal and Aluminum Oxide, Al2O3, is produced as a result..

I haven't heard this argument for awhile, but OSers used to claim that the aluminum from the plane, and iron oxide from the WTC steel, could naturally create a thermite reaction...

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.

www.amazingrust.com...

In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel. Greg Fuchek.

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. Leslie Robertson.

I'm just so happy that science has progressed so far that we can now determine the amounts of a given compound in a specimen by merely looking at pictures. All that lab equipment was just too expensive and, imho, was prohibitive to the pursuit of "real" science, anyway.

reply to post by pteridine


Sorry, I'm not addressing any other nonsense you post until you post a source for your claim 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.

Maybe it's time you admit you were making it up, and have no source?


Otherwise, post the DSC data for paint under the same conditions Jones used. You must have been lying on the last thread page. What a shock. No wonder you're claiming it's irrelevant now.


Btw I'm not even reading your garbage rants. If I don't see a link to a legitimate source, or diagrams of the DSC data that are also sourced, I'm not reading your hormonal rant and I'm just going to ask you for your source again.

reply to post by bsbray11


I know that any studied response is far beyond your capabilities, BS, and that you will use any excuse to avoid displaying your ineptitude. If there is ever any evidence of thermite having been used in the collapses of the WTC towers, be sure and let me know. You might want to study basic thermodynamics before you next try to claim thermite based on Jones' paper. Cole looked like he had a lot of fun doing his demo and it was entertaining to watch.

reply to post by pteridine


I didn't see any links in your post. You know, to provide a real source for this claim?:

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.

You never provide sources. If you can't give one for a claim you made on the last page, why should I believe you can source any of the other puke that you post? You act like you are the ultimate authority for everything, which is pure pompousness.

Any time you're ready to retract your claim is fine with me.




Btw you have some other posts to respond to above, and they were posted earlier than mine, unless you're copping out of those too. I guess you just find it easier to rant about why you never post sources, and that's your easy way out.

reply to post by bsbray11


You are becoming tiresome. I linked you to the heats of combustion of hydrocarbons. Paint binders are hydrocarbons and combusting hydrocarbons produce greater than 40kJ/g. Thermite produces about 3.9kJ/gram. This is simple thermo and all of it is readily calculated using standard heats of formation. Check your CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

FYI, the reason that thermite has such a low exotherm is that the oxidant, iron oxide, is weighed. The oxidant when burning hydrocarbons is O2 in air and that is not weighed. Relative atomic masses also work against thermite's energy/gram. The temperature of reaction is something else as is the rate of reaction. Much higher and faster for thermites, so the energy output per unit time and temperature of reaction are much higher. The nano composites are even faster because they are less constrained by mass transfer limitations. The total energies are theoretically the same for all but, in fact, some of the nanocomposites actually have less energy output. This is because while all aluminum forms an oxide coating, nano scale aluminum has a much higher surface area and forms proportionally more oxide based on total charge weight.

Jones fails to explain why, after supposed reaction, red iron oxide remained unreacted. For any to remain unreacted means that the thermite reaction didn't complete itself [or there was no thermite.] Note that in two cases there was already much more than the theoretical amount of energy released for a thermite reaction.
Obviously, Jones is in error and the energy can't be from thermite. I also question his analytical protocols and interpretation of the EDAX results but I am keeping this simple as there are likely not many chemists on this board. In my estimation, Jones EDAX elemental mapping looks like an aluminosilicate and not elemental aluminum. SEMs commonly use Al stages and operators have been known to shine through discontinuous samples and see the stage. An XRD would be definitive by showing Al and not an aluminosilicate.

The bottom line is that Jones has not proved thermite and has a lot more work to do before he can make that claim.