Discussion in '9/11' started by Mick West, Jan 3, 2014.
Send me his email address. But why do you think he didn't test it on steel?
Certainly. I'm not certain on if I'm able to give the link so if I'm breaking any rules please remove it for me.
Looks like our buddies at Los Alamos were looking into nano thermites in the mid 90s.
Given what's presented in the article, I think it's safe to say they already were aware of nano thermites at least some time before this. It's not something they just happened to bump into on accident at the time this was created.
A relevant quote would be helpful. It's quite obvious to anyone with an understanding of the subject that the finer the powders, the better the burn. So simply finding a discussion of "nano" sized particles is not the same thing as showing that anyone was considering using super thermite for cutting steel, or that it is even practical to do so.
The problem is, nano thermite obviously could melt steel in the order of magnitudes better than thermite even. NIST uses the figure of 0.13 lbs of thermite per pound of steel to heat and melt it, so about 100 lbs of thermite being used for a single column weighing 1,000 pounds per foot. Nano thermite would literally take less than a pound if there was a known way to apply it to the column to melt it, making it much more feasible to sneak in, say during routine maintenance by a small crew of individuals.
The thing with nano thermite vs regular thermite is it's low ignition temp, incredibly high temps produced, and also it's combustion characteristics are highly customizable. Adjusting factors like pressure, oxide shell thickness, ignition rate, and many other factors can drastically alter the characteristics, leading to incredibly high temps that either burn or literally explode if you want them to.
It's not a question of if nano thermite would melt steel better, it's a question of what type of device would allow such a procedure to happen. Given that none of the literature indicates it has been used for the purpose of melting steel, if we are to believe it was used to melt steel in wtc7 then we can only assume it was used with classified government devices, which we can never prove.
It's a dead end unless someone literally has physical evidence from the scene of either by product of the reaction or part of a device used, assuming it isn't completely destroyed.
Showing that it has been used for that purpose, since 9/11 would show that at least it is possible. I haven't seen that evidence either
Josh, I meant that there was no citation that the government was denying it existed. We know it existed. You've misunderstood the conversation vis the allegation you made.
It could? Where do you get that from? Has non-thermite ever melted steel? What if it just goes off in a flash? Kinetic rather than thermal?
Citation needed showing nanothermite melting steel, with data.
Speculation upon speculation. No evidence for this. Nobody has any data on melting steel with nanothermite.
It's very much that question. And there is no empirical data showing it would melt steel better, or how it would melt it. This is just more speculation.
So is nano-thermite a completely hypothetical substance? Have any amounts been made, or is it just a proposed improvement to thermite?
This is not what the LANL paper says, and is not correct. The LANL paper says, correctly, that the reaction rate of nanothermite can be 1,000 times greater than that of conventional thermite. But the reaction rate is not the same thing as the total energy released, which is what determines how much thermal energy could be delivered to the steel. The total energy released for a stoichiometric mixture of Al and MoO3 is, again from the LANL paper, 1.12 kcal/gm, and this remains the same whatever size the particles of Al and MoO3 might be. So if it takes 100 lbs of thermite to raise a given piece of steel to a given temperature, it would also take 100 lbs of nanothermite to produce the same temperature rise.
It's not hypothetical at all. There are a lot of different formulations for it, whether sol-gel, xerogel etc and different reactants. In my view nanothermites are really another class of explosives mainly. They seem to be designed to do the things that explosives do - in pyrotechnics or explosive devices or related products.
The thing is that there's just no empirical data, no experimental evidence of nanothermite being used to either
a) melt bulk steel
b) create an explosive cutting device similar to those using other explosives
c) demolish a building
It appears that these uses are entirely hypothetical. Maybe that will change in the future, but that's what we seem to have as of 2014.
That's pretty accurate I think except that conventional thermites have a higher energy density than nanothermites using Al/Fe reactions. And I haven't seen any data which compares the heat of reaction between various formulas and particle sizes. That would be interesting if it were available.
So formulas exist, but does it actually exist and get actively used for things? The wiki page mentions research and possible uses, but it all seems in the future-tense ie, hypothetical. (maybe I'm using that word wrong)
When researching 911 related topics such as these, involving .gov agencies, it is preferable to look at what they said BEFORE 911
LLNL from OCTOBER 2000............
Yeah that's about right. We don't know of any uses in building demolition, for example. There's definitely been research done as you've read about.
That nanothermite can release no more energy than regular thermite is a consequence of the physical law that the energy released by a particular set of reactants is determined solely by the difference in enthalpy between the reactants and the reaction products. This has not changed since September 2001, and is not contradicted by the LLNL quote you provide from October 2000.
Entirely without numbers, except to tell you that TNT has half the energy density of composites, as it's monomolecular.
So what's the effect here as to how well nanothermite can cut through steel? Does nanothermite produce any more heat, or just release that heat faster. How does this fast release of heat cut the steel more efficiently?
Did you get a reply from Simpson from LLNL yet?
You'd be the first to know if I did.
Surely since AE911 are proposing that nanothermite would cut steel, they would have some rough figures on how much would be needed? Or is it just a hand-waving "better".
Given that regular thermitic material has been proven to be capable of doing this, isn't is safe to say that material made of similar elements, but on a finer scale can also do this?
Only if it does the same thing (supplies heat at a particular location). If it just become more kinetically energetic, then no.
And if it does the same thing, then approximately how much "better" is it? And in what way is it better?
LLNL seem to be saying that it can do pressure/volume work to a greater degree, although they don't quantify that exactly. What you can see in Jon Cole's video is that regular thermitic material can react in a concussive way. You see this when his tree gets trimmed from blasted material.
So, not cutting steel any better then?
And what's with the LLNL appeal to authority all the time? Could you please some actual research, instead of a press release?
I think this is relevant. From the link in my other post.
Wait, so Jones isn't claiming that nanothermite cuts steel by melting at all? What does he actually say?
I think it's a mix of both.
Thanks Pete. It seems Jones has really not properly researched the material before jumping to various conclusions about it. No wonder they are confused about how any such material might have been used - they just don't have data to support their claims of explosive nanothermite demolition. The cart is way ahead of the horse...
Nevermind that, at least to my mind, they have not conclusively established that there was any type of thermitic material present in the towers anyway. Thus such discussion about various forms of thermite is rather academic.
Gerry and Josh seem convinced that nanothermite is much better at cutting steel than conventional thermite but just don't have anything substantial to back up the assertion. I get that they think it is so, I just don't see the data. That's as fair as I can get.
Where is the experimental data to show nanothermite cutting structural steel? I suspect it doesn't exist, else we'd have seen it already. But Gerry and Josh may find the data if it's out there, who knows? Until then.....
It seems that nano thermite would only be 'better' than regular thermite in the sense that it has a lower ignition temp. Nano sized particles of Al would have a higher specific surface area and thinner oxide shell, and therefore diffuses at a quicker rate given there are more diffusion channels, leading to thermal runaway at lower temps. Doesn't seem like there's any practical application for melting steel, not any more practical than regular thermite anyway. Seems like a dead end at this point (let alone in 2001)
It is rather a dead end, agreed. Especially since, at a lower ignition temperature any nanothermite in the vicinity of intense fire or heat would cook off and be destroyed, just like conventional explosives would. The idea that a controlled demolition could take place during those conditions is extremely far-fetched.
Let me ask you a question, if you are in classified military projects and you had to come up with an explosive device/incendiary that could melt or cut through steel then what would you be thinking in terms of how to make one and what explosive/incendiary material would you use? Nano thermite or thermite would be obviously be the starting point ,
1.It creates very high temperatures.
2.Nano thermite can be modified to control the speed of the reaction.
we have to speculate to the devices used but as classified projects do exist, if we saw a b2 bomber bombing us we wouldn't try and debunk it by saying that there are no government documents released pertaining to that type of technology so therefore I didn't just get bombed . If there is evidence of nano thermite in the dust then just because we don't know what device was used doesn't mean that its impossible for a device to exist and these devices could have existed for 10 - 20 years they will not just release this sort of information on LANL websites knowing that China or any other 'enemies' won't start making that technology too.Would you want China to have Nanothermite cutting devices capable of bringing down towers? I don't think so …..
To me because they released that info in 2001 means that this technology was probably around in the 80s
The topic of this thread is how it compares to regular thermite, and if it would actually be better.
Static electricity from rubbing a balloon on your hair creates higher temperatures than regular thermite (in a discharge spark, like a mini lightning bolt). This does not mean you can cut steel by walking rapidly across a carpet in your socks.
temperature != energy
Yikes, that's a long comment which boils down to 'technology exists which can cut thru steel'. Yeah, we know this already, it's not news..
Nanothermite as an explosive does not have the same velocity as many conventional explosives, ie it's less effective for that job. It's not magic material.
Next point, regarding the alleged nanothermite in the dust; that claim has never been scientifically validated anywhere else, in fact the only complete study done specifically refutes the allegation. At this point the allegation is very much a question mark, and is certainly NOT, in the normal sense of the word, an established scientific fact.
So it seems ever more futile to proceed as if it WERE a scientific fact. That just does not make sense to me. I'm not making a living by making allegations so I have no pressing reason to jump to conclusions; I would suggest to you that thus far the main proponents of this theory are people who are pursuing careers in the 9/11 conspiracy industry. That is to say they are being paid to lecture, publish books etc which reiterate these allegations.
But again there isn't a shred of evidence that any nanothermite device has ever been demonstrated experimentally to cut steel!
This fact has apparently escaped the attention of almost all 9/11 truthers who believe in the theory; mind you their DEW opponents beg to differ. So I guess it's a stalemate even within 9/11 truth. Depends on which flavour you favour
Interesting, I guess nanothermite would cause concrete to turn into dust then.
So it would survive the fires in the wtc.
The sources you cite are talking about thermite not nanothermite.
Hmm, so then that rules out the material in the red/gray chips completely. They burn at430ºc. Thanks for clarifying that it isn't a match for the chips!
I know this isn't the main topic, but it is worth noting that thermite or nanothermite cannot be all materials at once!
It's tempting to mix all forms together and pretend they're all sharing the same properties, but you get much colder in terms of understanding that way.
Nano thermite is just super fine thermite.
Why does it rule out nanothermite at 430 ?
A protective layer on the nano thermite for example might suffice or perhaps it was encapsulated.
It does not rule out the nanothermite at 430c because that is what was found .
It is clear from the spheres found in the wtc such as molybdenum coated with aluminium and iron spheres coated with aluminium, nickel, potassium and sulphur that more than one type of thermite/nanothermite was used
The topic is how exactly nanothermite differs from regular thermite, and if it could cut steel better.
If I didn't know better I"d say you were fixated on thermite and nanothermite. I guess if you squint really hard, everything looks like thermite.
OK, so back to the OP: why would different types of thermite/nanothermite be used for cutting steel?
Nobody's ever used either for demolishing highrises anyway, certainly nanothermite has never been shown to be used for this.
I don't suppose you have any examples to share with us?
Separate names with a comma.