Proof of thermite?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
…
7
8
9
10

Proof of thermite?; More strong evidence
Topic Started: Apr 28 2008, 10:09 PM (6,204 Views)
tharg	May 14 2008, 04:49 PM Post #176
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08	Quote: what key ingredient? Since I, and I believe Professor Jones too have never subscribed to thermite in the strictest sense your question is not relevant without clarification What is thermite in its less strict sense then Headspin? Or are you leaving your options open? ETA. I have already explained the missing ingredients to JFK, if you scroll back you will see that. Edited by tharg, May 14 2008, 04:54 PM.
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08


tharg	May 14 2008, 05:12 PM Post #177
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08	Quote: and it is perfectly possible to get that temperature as a result of a aluminothermic or indeed a silicothermic reaction, or indeed it is perfectly possible to get a thermite reaction to produce a temperature of 4000C which would probably vapourise any aluminum-oxide which happened to contaminate the hot iron-sulfur liquid/gas product from the thermite reaction. You had best explain your train of thought here. Can you expand on this a bit?
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08


JFK	May 14 2008, 05:17 PM Post #178
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	tharg May 14 2008, 04:43 PM Thats the problem you face when you let your political agenda get in the way of your scientific integrity. Exactly. How is the queen while we are on the subject.... subject ?
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


tharg	May 14 2008, 05:22 PM Post #179
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08	JFK May 14 2008, 05:17 PM tharg May 14 2008, 04:43 PM Thats the problem you face when you let your political agenda get in the way of your scientific integrity. Exactly. How is the queen while we are on the subject.... subject ? I wasnt aware of the queen having any interest in spouting strange agenda driven scientific theories? Am I missing out on that? Sounds a laugh. Or is that just a really poor attempt at an insult? Do you have a problem with people from the UK, JFK? You are supposed to be a moderator of an international forum, remember? Shouldnt you be keeping your prejudices and insults to your private life? Edited by tharg, May 14 2008, 05:28 PM.
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08


JFK	May 14 2008, 05:31 PM Post #180
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	tharg May 14 2008, 05:22 PM JFK May 14 2008, 05:17 PM tharg May 14 2008, 04:43 PM Thats the problem you face when you let your political agenda get in the way of your scientific integrity. Exactly. How is the queen while we are on the subject.... subject ? I wasnt aware of the queen having any interest in spouting strange agenda driven scientific theories? Am I missing out on that? Sounds a laugh. Or is that just a really poor attempt at an insult? Do you have a problem with people from the UK, JFK? I bolded the part which I was referring to since you could not figure out what you wrote. No, as a matter of fact I have some very good friends from the UK..... It is the imbeciles from there and everywhere else which I have a problem with.
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


tharg	May 14 2008, 05:47 PM Post #181
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08	Quote: Thats the problem you face when you let your political agenda get in the way of your scientific integrity. This is my statement concerning a scientist with a political agenda, S.Jones. JFK responds... Quote: Exactly. How is the queen while we are on the subject.... subject ? Now there are a number of things wrong here, one you have failed to explain the connection between scientists with political agendas and their statements about 9/11, and the Queen. Secondly you attempt to demean me and therefore my previous arguments by calling me a "subject". What kind of behavior is that for a moderator of a forum? If you dont have anything to add to the thread then best not post, thats advice that YOU should be aware of.
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08


JFK	May 14 2008, 05:55 PM Post #182
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	tharg May 14 2008, 05:47 PM Quote: Thats the problem you face when you let your political agenda get in the way of your scientific integrity. This is my statement concerning a scientist with a political agenda, S.Jones. JFK responds... Quote: Exactly. How is the queen while we are on the subject.... subject ? Now there are a number of things wrong here, one you have failed to explain the connection between scientists with political agendas and their statements about 9/11, and the Queen. Secondly you attempt to demean me and therefore my previous arguments by calling me a "subject". What kind of behavior is that for a moderator of a forum? If you dont have anything to add to the thread then best not post, thats advice that YOU should be aware of. So, you deny being a subject of the Queen. Tell me, exactly what does that make you then ? Hint - Being Patriotic is not an answer in your case. BTW, you brought up the subject of political agendas to which I replied.
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


tharg	May 14 2008, 06:00 PM Post #183
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08	Have you ever heard of the concept of keeping threads on topic JFK? It seems that your idea of the role of moderator is somewhat different to the usual. Maybe you shouldnt really be one? Think about it. You have personally derailed this thread, all by yourself dude. Well done.
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08


JFK	May 14 2008, 06:11 PM Post #184
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	tharg May 14 2008, 06:00 PM Have you ever heard of the concept of keeping threads on topic JFK? It seems that your idea of the role of moderator is somewhat different to the usual. Maybe you shouldnt really be one? Think about it. You have personally derailed this thread, all by yourself dude. Well done. Yeah, you are right.... My appologies. Spending too much time reading at jref and it's rubbing off.
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Headspin	May 14 2008, 06:18 PM Post #185
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	tharg May 14 2008, 04:49 PM Quote: what key ingredient? Since I, and I believe Professor Jones too have never subscribed to thermite in the strictest sense your question is not relevant without clarification What is thermite in its less strict sense then Headspin? Or are you leaving your options open? ETA. I have already explained the missing ingredients to JFK, if you scroll back you will see that. ok so you say : "Strange that no barium nitrate was detected in the steel samples taken by Jones to be "smoking gun" evidence of thermate though. " you know barium nitrate is not required for thermite or thermate, its been covered a million times. besides USGS found high levels of barium in the dust: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html "You would expect a large spike in the EDX analysis, but there isnt even a small one. Likewise for Aluminium Oxide, which should be a large spike whether it was thermite or thermate." EDS is elemental analysis, so you inadvertently mispoke when you said "Aluminum-oxide", but it obviously a fair point to look for both Aluminium and Oxygen spikes. Oxygen has been found in Professor Jones samples and the FEMA plots shows it too. Professor Jones has found Aluminum and Oxygen in the dust micro-spheres and solidified samples. FEMA's report show Oxygen and Silicon peaks but not Aluminum. The Aluminum in a thermate reaction bonds with oxygen and is largely given off as an ashy smoke. the molten residue left behind is largely iron and sulphur eutectic mix which could rapidly "corrode" any steel I-beams it comes into contact with. It is probable that it will be contaminated with Alumina (oxide), but whether the contamination is high enough to be detected at all points in the sample is not proven to me. I think this is a reasonable question/assumption.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	May 14 2008, 07:19 PM Post #186
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	tharg May 14 2008, 04:38 PM Quote: so you have a choice to make, either the sulfur content of the Eutectic was at precisely 31.4%, which would indicate malfeasant interference....unless someone can show how such a precise concentration of sulfur occurs naturally in a random mix of......hmmm..where did that elemental sulphur come from? No Headspin, the sulphur content could be in a range of percentages around that figure, according to that graph, and still be "around 1000deg C". Try looking at the graph yourself. You are not serious are you? what is the error level? pointwhatuvvapercentage? FEMA are giving the minimum possible temperature of 1000C (basically above 994C), the Fe-S Eutectic is liquid between 994C-1800C, even pushing the temperature up to 1200c the sulfur concentration has to still be within a very small precise window. if FEMA are stating a maximum temperature of 1000c, then the sulfur concentration would have to be precisely 31.4% (+-0.X%), this seems like a bizarre coincidence! if your thinking is that the Fe-S Eutectic heated up from cold to 1000C (and maybe above 1000c by a little), then you have to shoe-horn in the data by explaining how the Eutectic just happens to have the concentration within that small window. you also have to explain where the elemental sulfur somes from - plaster/gypsm is an inadequate explanation. you also have to explain why the sulfur did not all evaporate at 444C which is way before the eutectic forms at its minimum of 994C if your thinking is that the Fe-S Eutectic cooled from a high temperature of 2500c to cold, then the observations are explained.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	May 14 2008, 07:34 PM Post #187
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	JFK May 14 2008, 06:11 PM Spending too much time reading at <snip unmentionable website> and it's rubbing off. don't do it, it can be a serious mindfuck. pages and pages of drivel only babysitters are familiar with, if you had not spent that time there, you might have discovered the secret to life, the universe and everything! ...or you could have read this: http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-04182006-112442/unrestricted/Prentice_Thesis_v5.pdf
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


JFK	May 14 2008, 07:54 PM Post #188
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Thanks Headspin.... Interesting paper....
Posts: 4,224 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Headspin	May 14 2008, 08:32 PM Post #189
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Professor Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Tony Szamboti and Kevin Barrett on last weeks Air America's Clout with Richard Greene, so up to date, very good show. http://www.radiodujour.com/mp3/20080508_richardgreene_scholarsdebate.mp3
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	May 14 2008, 09:17 PM Post #190
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	tharg May 14 2008, 04:49 PM Quote: what key ingredient? Since I, and I believe Professor Jones too have never subscribed to thermite in the strictest sense your question is not relevant without clarification What is thermite in its less strict sense then Headspin? Or are you leaving your options open? I mean there are some variations such as aerogel and xerogel nanothermites, superthermites which behave totally different from Youtube flowerpot thermite. a good deal of flexibility is possible when designing your explosives. it is possible to fill the air pockets with other enhancing agents - oxidizers etc. If you go back to Professor Steven Jones 2005 paper and his early presentations you'll see he mentioned all this way back then, but all the nay-sayers always want to only talk about thermite in its basic form. light: good insulator: explosive: https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html short video http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/776
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Avenger	May 14 2008, 09:59 PM Post #191
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	tharg It was a corrosive attack along the grain boundaries of the steel at a temperature well below the normal "melting " point of steel. This involved sulphur attacking the steel at around 1000deg C forming iron sulphides, these will form a liquid at that temperature. In no sense did the steel "melt", it corroded. I suggest you actually read the FEMA analysis properly. I did. It said steel melted. You seem to think that sulfur can liquefy steel without melting it. I don't see a difference, but, at any rate, that report mentioned melting of steel (and liquefying, if there's a difference) and not just corrosion. All the insults in the world won't change that. And where did the sulfur even come from again? I agree with Headspin. Gypsum wallboard is an inadequate explanation. It's fire rated for good reason. tharg BTW I have answered your Lead question in the appropriate thread. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/178420/1/#new tharg Likewise for Aluminium Oxide, which should be a large spike whether it was thermite or thermate. Again, no sign of it. Quote: In a thermite reaction, a metallic compound is reduced by one of several metals or metallic alloys in such a way that when the mixture is ignited at one place, the reaction continues of its own accord, so that under complete oxidation of the reducing element, a fluid slag is formed, while the reduced metal is obtained as a homogeneous uniform regulus; if the oxide is used in excess, the reduced metal is free, or practically free, from the element used as a reducing agent. http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/delights/texts/Demonstration_17.htm
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


tharg	May 15 2008, 04:08 AM Post #192
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08	Quote: FEMA are giving the minimum possible temperature of 1000C (basically above 994C), the Fe-S Eutectic is liquid between 994C-1800C, even pushing the temperature up to 1200c the sulfur concentration has to still be within a very small precise window. if FEMA are stating a maximum temperature of 1000c, then the sulfur concentration would have to be precisely 31.4% (+-0.X%), this seems like a bizarre coincidence! You seem to be working this out in reverse?? Why do you think that the observed results of the mixture formed showing a sulphur ratio like that are coincidence? Do you think that perhaps FEMA came to the temperature conclusion due to exactly the reasons you are stating? Quite bizarre logic. Quote: you also have to explain where the elemental sulfur somes from - plaster/gypsm is an inadequate explanation. you also have to explain why the sulfur did not all evaporate at 444C which is way before the eutectic forms at its minimum of 994C Can you tell me why gypsum wallboard is an "inadequate" explanation? Im sure you must have some calculations to back up your statement. Can you also tell me why you think all the sulphur would have evaporated at 444C? Likewise, you must have some calculations to back up this statement. Thanks. Edited by tharg, May 15 2008, 04:12 AM.
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08


tharg	May 15 2008, 04:20 AM Post #193
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08	Headspin May 14 2008, 09:17 PM tharg May 14 2008, 04:49 PM Quote: what key ingredient? Since I, and I believe Professor Jones too have never subscribed to thermite in the strictest sense your question is not relevant without clarification What is thermite in its less strict sense then Headspin? Or are you leaving your options open? I mean there are some variations such as aerogel and xerogel nanothermites, superthermites which behave totally different from Youtube flowerpot thermite. a good deal of flexibility is possible when designing your explosives. it is possible to fill the air pockets with other enhancing agents - oxidizers etc. If you go back to Professor Steven Jones 2005 paper and his early presentations you'll see he mentioned all this way back then, but all the nay-sayers always want to only talk about thermite in its basic form. light: good insulator: explosive: https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html short video http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/776 Ok Headspin. Maybe you can give some examples of the trace elements found after these reactions and where they have been found in wtc dust or steel samples? If you want to start speculating with no evidence about nanothermites etc, then thats fine, but speculation is all it is, you need physical evidence. The first one you have linked to would leave what chemical element as a trace? Guess what, exactly the same one you cant find in the FEMA samples for more the common form of thermite. Edited by tharg, May 15 2008, 04:28 AM.
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08


Miragememories	May 15 2008, 06:47 AM Post #194
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Interesting that therg didn't touch my Frank Greening reference. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Headspin	May 16 2008, 06:15 AM Post #195
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	tharg May 15 2008, 04:08 AM Quote: FEMA are giving the minimum possible temperature of 1000C (basically above 994C), the Fe-S Eutectic is liquid between 994C-1800C, even pushing the temperature up to 1200c the sulfur concentration has to still be within a very small precise window. if FEMA are stating a maximum temperature of 1000c, then the sulfur concentration would have to be precisely 31.4% (+-0.X%), this seems like a bizarre coincidence! You seem to be working this out in reverse?? Why do you think that the observed results of the mixture formed showing a sulphur ratio like that are coincidence? Do you think that perhaps FEMA came to the temperature conclusion due to exactly the reasons you are stating? Quite bizarre logic. "Ad Lapidem is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses a statement as absurd without giving a reason why it is supposedly absurd. It is considered close to the ad hominem fallacy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem tharg headspin you also have to explain where the elemental sulfur somes from - plaster/gypsm is an inadequate explanation. you also have to explain why the sulfur did not all evaporate at 444C which is way before the eutectic forms at its minimum of 994C Can you tell me why gypsum wallboard is an "inadequate" explanation? Elemental Sodium is extremely reactive in water - it explodes! its that soft metal that burns orange in water, most people should remember doing that in the school lab. Sodium-chloride is common table salt - there is no chance of an explosion or a fire when you add common table salt to water. Elemental Sulfur is extremely reactive with metals http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/jcesoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/FEZNSUL/PAGE1.HTM Sulfur in wallboard exists within the compound calcium-sulfate CaSO4, the sulfur is bound to the other atoms within the compound like a magnet sticking to steel. http://www.gpda.com/student.htm The notion that sprinkling calcium-sulfate on a steel I-beam will melt holes in that steel I-beam is as absurd a notion as expecting an explosion from adding common table salt to water. tharg Can you also tell me why you think all the sulphur would have evaporated at 444C? because sulfur evaporates at 444C like water evaporates at 100C. its just a fact. Edited by Headspin, May 16 2008, 06:21 AM.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	May 16 2008, 06:57 AM Post #196
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Avenger May 14 2008, 09:59 PM In a thermite reaction, a metallic compound is reduced by one of several metals or metallic alloys in such a way that when the mixture is ignited at one place, the reaction continues of its own accord, so that under complete oxidation of the reducing element, a fluid slag is formed, while the reduced metal is obtained as a homogeneous uniform regulus; if the <iron> oxide is used in excess, the reduced metal is free, or practically free, from the element <aluminum> used as a reducing agent. http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/delights/texts/Demonstration_17.htm "Limitations: Because the dwell times <of X-EDS> are typically shorter than in WDS analysis, elements in low concentration may not give a response." http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/geochemsheets/elementmapping.html so any small aluminum contamination of the molten iron would not necessarily be picked up by XEDS, similarly with a small aluminum-oxide contamination. this would seem to be a reasonable explanation to the typical "where is the aluminum in the EDS plots shown in FEMA's appendix C" experimental EDS plots on thermate lab samples would clear it up either way though.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


tharg	May 16 2008, 08:04 AM Post #197
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08	Quote: "because sulfur evaporates at 444C like water evaporates at 100C. its just a fact." But sulphur from thermate doesnt??? Do you want a shovel? Quote: Sulfur in wallboard exists within the compound calcium-sulfate CaSO4, the sulfur is bound to the other atoms within the compound like a magnet sticking to steel. Until heated. http://tinyurl.com/6ln28c Heating well within the limits at the wtcs produces SO2. http://tinyurl.com/2cr69c Edited by tharg, May 16 2008, 08:24 AM.
Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #303 Joined: 02/11/08


Avenger	May 17 2008, 08:42 PM Post #198
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Heating well within the limits at the wtcs produces SO2. What SO2? I don't see that in the FEMA report. And where's the calcium oxide?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Freq Band	May 18 2008, 01:31 AM Post #199
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08	Sure, it was hot down beneath the rubble for a long time. No one is arguing that. And if it had enough fuel to stay hot, it would act like a kiln. Given enough fuel (combustible material, not jet fuel) and fresh air from below (subways, sub-ground floors) and with the surrounding non-combustible rubble to insulate it....you have a kiln. Even a kiln fueled by plain'old wood can reach 2300 Fahrenheit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yz2P7_ihSY So I would not be too surprised to find some very hot spots, possibly hot enough to contain molten steel. But even supposing there was some molten steel, this in no way suggests the use/presence of thermite. In fact the whole explanation of how anyone would find concentrated amounts (red hot pools) of molten steel induced by thermite.... is kinda wacky. I mean, how much of the stuff do you think they used to cut those beams ?? .....and once a beam is cut, the hot residue falls through the tower's debris....and somehow finds all it's other hot little residue buddies, for some hellish pool party? If the images of the metal flowing out of the still-standing tower is any indication of it's action, why don't we see some grand sparky fireworks display during the collapse ? Someone suggested the "pools" were being kept hot by unused/un-ignited thermite. Correct me if I'm wrong..... thermite needs to be in sufficient concentration to perform it action. In other words, if it's spread out like dust, it's no longer "thermite", hence, no thermite action is then possible. (??) Or, there was this explanation: Stundie How could the Thermite account or the molten steel? Of course, I'm not expert but I'll explain it for you. Thermite does a great job at melting steel, so lets say this mixture of the thermite burns at approx 2500 °C, the concrete and rubble under the WTC would be a great insulator of the heat and steel is a great conductor so it would retain the heat....of course, thermite doesn't require any oxygen, so if any was still reacting after the collapse and under the debris, it would continue to do so. How long would it continue to react ?....enough to keep steel at a molten state for days ? Steel IS a great conductor. Stundie is correct. But being a great conductor not only means it absorbs heat very well, it also means it dissipates heat equally as well. So there had to be a constant heat source , creating enough heat to prevent dissipation (cooling). Things don't get hot...and stay hot for no reason. =FB=
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08


Avenger	May 18 2008, 12:30 PM Post #200
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Sure, it was hot down beneath the rubble for a long time. No one is arguing that. And if it had enough fuel to stay hot, it would act like a kiln. Given enough fuel (combustible material, not jet fuel) and fresh air from below (subways, sub-ground floors) and with the surrounding non-combustible rubble to insulate it....you have a kiln. Fresh air. That's a good one. Quote: Even a kiln fueled by plain'old wood can reach 2300 Fahrenheit. If you say so. Look, I was just asking about the sulfur dioxide and the calcium oxide. Because I don't see that in the FEMA report. Do you have a comment about that?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
7
8
9
10