1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Some theories about controlled demolition of the World Trade Center rely upon the use of a speculative material called "Nanothermite". Nanothermite is basically regular thermite with the constituents (iron oxide and aluminum) mixed together more completely, using very small particles - even down to mixing together individual molecules. The close proximity of the particles means they combine more efficiently, and so the reaction is much quicker and more powerful.

    Livermore labs have been researching these materials - in particular their creation using a gel support matrix to achieve the fine mixing.

    https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
    There are theoretical devices that use regular thermite for cutting steel:
    http://techportal.eere.energy.gov/technology.do/techID=764
    [​IMG]

    There are also simple practical devices that have been show to cut half inch thick steel with thermate (a version of thermite).


    So the questions I'd like to resolve in this thread is if nano-thermite would be any better at cutting steel than regular thermite - or would it be more like TNT?

    Thermite is a pyrotechnic, it burns and releases a lot of energy, but it releases it slowly as localized heat. Monomolecular explosives (TNT, C4, etc) release their energy very rapidly, as heat, but more as kinetic energy, but the total energy released is less. As nanothermite gets more power, will it stop being a pyrotechnic, and start being an explosive?

    The question here is what happens to the cutting efficiency of thermite if you make the reaction quicker. Can the more rapid release of energy be used to melt thick steel?
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Wikipedia explains the difference:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
    The distinction between a kinetically controlled reaction and a thermally controlled reaction is an important one. C4, for example can be ignited and will burn without exploding.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive)
    Regular thermite has a thermally controlled reaction - it burns, which is what produces the intense local heat that melts the steel. If this transitions to a kinetically controlled reaction, then will the same amount of heat (and melting) be produced, or will the thermite simply explode by expanding rapidly. If it's the latter, then the containment vessel would not be able to focus the energy - and essentially all you could do with it is what you can do with conventional explosives: shaped charges, loud bang.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  3. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    You have seen that top down thermite can cut steel, and you have also seen a US govt expert say that bottom up nano thermite is much more powerful. If that's not enough for you, you need to go and speak to LLNL and put them right.
     
  4. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Just came across http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mrz/pdfs/2013_CF_Jian.pdf
    on nano thermite. I'm a little busy at the moment but not too busy to give a quick link. Might be useful. It was buried in between a bunch of conspiracy related websites.
    I'll give it a read later, I'm not too familiar with nano thermite (and hence related conspiracies) so I'll give it a read when I'm finished working.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I emailed them, but you know how that goes.

    But I really don't understand why a simple "more powerful" is enough for you. Do you understand the distinction between thermally and kinetically controlled reactions? Power and melting things are not the same thing. So if more power means that it explode like C4, then that's not going to do the same thing as if it burns like thermate.
     
  6. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    I would suggest you take a closer look at the whole thing before trying to debate it. Who did you contact at LLNL?
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What whole thing? Could you at least address how you think the increased power would manifest itself? Hotter and quicker burning?

    Randy Simpson. He was the contact email there, but it's likely old.
     
  8. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Maybe this would help.

    llnl2.
    In reality they look like this.
    lll.
     
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    How does it help? That's just a bit of the article I linked.

    I understand the molecular/particulate structure of the nanocomposites. I just don't know if that translates to something that cuts better, or something that blows up faster.
     
  10. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Great, I am not quite so clear on it, I just trust the experts that wrote about it pre 911. So, maybe you could run through how you would make such a compound incendiary as opposed to high explosive.
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You'd increase the size of the particles.
     
  12. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Are you guessing that? Doesn't sound right to me. I would have guessed that to decrease the amount of Al would slow the exchange rate of the oxygen. ie it wouldn't move the air as quickly. G;ad we agree that this substance can be tuned to do either job though.
     
  13. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    nanothermite of the kind you're describing isn't used in LTCs. And the platelet structure of the red chips from WTC dust isn't like a sol-gel anyway. It's a completely different structure, both chemically and molecularly (is that a word?).
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Just going by Wikipedia:
    Of course changing the proportions to get incomplete combustion would work too, you could also have a higher proportion of support matrix.

    It seemed though, in the LLNL piece you quoted, the idea was to make it more explosive. You seems to want something much more like normal thermite/thermate. How would you characterize the operative chemical reaction of the "tuned" nanothermite you propose using?
     
  15. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    LLNL-style nanothermite of the type you're referring to wouldn't do anything to structural steel if applied in a thin layer as the paint chips in the WTC dust. That's probably why Jon Cole hasn't demonstrated it on steel, well actually nobody has, come to think of it. It's just a thought experiment of thermitists at this point.
     
  16. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    I didn't say it was painted on. That's just a strawman you're using. Jon Cole has clearly demonstrated that thermitic devices can indeed cut steel. You can't get around that.
     
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Nobody disputes that Cole cut steel with thermate loaded devices.

    The question here is if nanothermite would do it better, and if so then how much, and in what way.
     
  18. hamishsubedei

    hamishsubedei Member

    By changing the size of the reactants you can time the thermitic reaction exactly, this would have been very useful in the destruction of the towers as the timing was crucial , probably a combination of different sized thermite mixtures were used ranging from micro to nano particles to accurately time the cutting or exploding affect.
    Perhaps nano thermite was used like the above device in which the heat creates a jet of hot air which can vaporise steel or concrete in its path with little sound, or perhaps it was used like a traditional bomb .
    Because the red chips are just the remnants of the unreacted nanothermite found, then idea that it was painted on in that width or size is probably untrue , perhaps the red layer was much larger or connected to something else
     
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The question though is about cutting. How is nano thermite better than regular thermite for cutting? How much better, and in what way?
     
  20. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Or perhaps none of the above. There's no evidence of any kind of cutter device, nano or otherwise.
     
  21. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    I think you missed the point. This is a discussion about nano vs regular thermites. Jon Cole has not demonstrated that a painted-on nanothermite could do anything to steel. It's just an assumption pulled out of thin air but never tested.

    The issue is far beyond what you may have described; each of the Harrit chips has a gray layer attached, which is consistent with carbon steel. So every indicator (accepted by Jones and Harrit) is that it was a thin layer of red material. They claim it's thermitic, we disagree and say it's paint.
    Despite your protestations that's what we're dealing with in terms of evidence.

    ps, specifically you referenced LLNL nanothermite. Jon Cole hasn't done anything with that material, unless there's some new research I haven't seen.
     
  22. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Kevin Ryan has... Here's the video of him making it. Not exactly the right ingredients as some are highly restricted but the nottom up process of manufacture is well demonstrated.
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And how well did it cut thick steel?
     
  24. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Thanks for the link, I think I've seen it before. Since all the red/gray chips have an attached layer of carbon steel, indicating that the material was directly applied to steel (strangely that's exactly like primer paint), then
    a) you must explain why it is always attached that way, and what this means for the application
    b) you must show that it has some way in that form of destroying structural steel

    That's just to test the basic hypothesis based on the evidence. There are hundreds of explosives one could look at, and we already know a lot about them and how they're used for implosions.

    Nobody has yet demonstrated or even really explained how this thin painted layer would be effective in an implosion. I don't think even a single demolition expert has explained it either.
     
  25. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Gerry, I think we should all agree that the hypothesis must be consistent with the evidence; any residue or 'unexploded' material needs to be attached to a gray layer as well, otherwise you're not reproducing anything according to the evidence.

    Like I said, lots of things explode, but the allegation being made is very specific: the 'explosive' is a thin layer attached to carbon steel. That's what must be tested.

    I realize it's a virtually insurmountable hurdle (nobody has yet come up with a real testable theory as to how it might be used), but we're not making the allegations, the burden of proof is on the accusers.
     
  26. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    No that is not what the basis of this thread is. It is just how you would like to frame it. I don't mind debating but try to stay on topic.
     
  27. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    OK, then in that case your Kevin Ryan video is not relevant to the thread either. It doesn't speak to Mick's question about whether it would be better for cutting through thick steel than regular thermite.

    If you're interested in relating to the claims for the WTC, then we have to address the thin red layer attached to carbon steel. If you just want an abstract discussion without any relevance to the WTC, then fine, no bi-layer nanothermite. You can use whatever thermite and any amount you like all day long. If that makes you happy.
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, the thread is about how nano thermite cuts steel differently to thermite
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Does anyone have a video of nanothermite cutting steel? I haven't seen it. Love to have a look.
     
  30. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Ok, so we know that standard top down manufactured thermitic material can cut steel. Why would bottom up manufactured nano thermitic material NOT be able to do it?
     
  31. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Then let's see it.
     
  32. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Mick's post #1 on this thread shows a top down thermitic device cutting steel on the video, which prompts my question. Why would bottom up manufactured nano thermitic material NOT be able to do it?
     
  33. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Then let's see it.
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It would if it were essentially the same thing. The suggestion is that it is different, "better" in some way, more "powerful". The question is in what way exactly is it different, and how would this help cut the steel and/or use less.

    A practical example would be very useful. If Ryan has made nano-thermite, then why does he not demonstrate cutting some steel with it?
     
  35. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    I don't think there's any empirical data showing that either thermite or nanothermite is good for cutting through really thick steel. It also depends on how you define 'thick'.
    We have some patent information for apparent devices, but no tests on thick, structural steel such as that used in the WTC.

    I wonder why there are no youtube videos showing a large building being demolished using either of them. You'd think 9/11 Truthers would have found some by now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    The elements that are required to make nano thermitic materials are not all freely available on the open market for obvious reasons. If someone tried to get a hold of some of these materials they could expect a knock on the door from someone other than a delivery man. LLNL have stated for years that such a substance is more powerful than a top down made explosive/incendiary. Let me know what Mr Simpson from there gets back to you with.
     
  37. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    There are certainly proprietary mixes and ingredients, but that stuff is no more exotic than lots of other chemical explosives out there. If those LLNL guys are experimenting, it may mean that the mixtures may never be used, or never be commercially avialable. That's not the purpose of the lab. It would be the job of a private company to bring a product to market.

    Explosives are not rare or really secret in general. Their use is very common, let's not try to make them into something they're not. :)
     
  38. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Ask him.
     
  39. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Correct, but not all explosives or incendiaries are too well known publicly. Such as nano thermite. Mick even referred to it as
    Yet our government has known of it's existence since at least 1995, and that's just the furthest I've found after some searching.

    There are many, many papers on the net about nano thermite. I'm not referring to 9/11 truth sites, I'm talking lab experiments, most from recent years, but as I said, some date back to at least 1995.
    Our government was fully aware of them well before 2001. Didn't they deny their existence when truthers first brought up the idea of them being used?

    The problem is, if you just type 'nano thermite' into the google search engine you're going to get loads of bogus truther websites and this and that. You actually have to search for things like Al/Bi2O3 or Al/CuO to get better results. Probably because truther websites make many mentions of nano thermites but they rarely go into the slightest detail about the stuff.
     
  40. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Citation? Not that I'm aware of.