Discussion in '9/11' started by Mick West, Jan 3, 2014.
Thought it would be an opportune moment to ask if LLNL replied to your email yet Mick?
Or melting steel?
In what way is it better at cutting thick steel?
No, really it isn't, as I told you I would let you know if they did. Please try to be honest here. It's not a debate.
It depends which parameters are "improved"
Thats your question @Mick West . But its based on the premise that nanothermite was ( allegedly) in fact used to cut thick steel. What if it was only ( allegedly ) used to cut connection bolts holding columns and / or trusses together ?
Basing a thread on an imagined task, and then trying to discover whether a product, on which there is virtually zero released data on its performance, can perform that imagined task, would seem to be pointless.
Casting around to dispute whether a huge investment in the development of nanothermite could produce a superior product to thermite, that can be made locally, at very low cost, is equally pointless - because a moments thought on that would reveal the answer.
It is, don't be so hard on yourself.
So you didn't get an undeliverable message back from it?
And which are? And what effect does it have. That's the question.
No. Feel free to try yourself though.
The question is how much better it would be at cutting thick steel.
You can keep saying it's "better" in a vague general sense. But in what way is it better? And how does that affect the cutting of steel?
I am quite satisfied to use what they had to say on October 2000, here https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
Sorry Gerry. It look like you are trolling now. Why don't you come back in a week?
So you didn't actually read and understand my post #205 then. I just find it hard to accept that you refuse to consider even the possibility that a multi million dollar investment in such technology could possibly produce a product that was superior to stuff I made in my garage.
Which doesn't mention cutting steel at all!
OK. That does it. Thread now well and truly closed. Another undebunked one to chalk up.
This isn't a debunking thread. It's a tread that's trying to figure out if nano thermite would be better than thermate at cutting thick steel. And if so, then how much better and in which way.
Like I told Gerry, it's not a debate. I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm trying to figure out what the difference would be.
I love how it went straight to an attack on Mick while completely ignoring the when the answer was very clearly answered that yes it is highly tunable by changing the formulation HOWEVER in all tests :
This answers both questions Yes it is tunable but NO it is NOT better for cutting in any of the formulations. It IS however great for welding .
I suspect he was blinded by the prospect of having defeated the infamous Mick West in a debate thus establishing his CT credentials forever!!
Again though it's not a debate. It's fact finding.
Perhaps a broader question might be to try to expand beyond simple cutting thick steel, and quantify exactly what benefits nanothermite might bring to a demolition.
I've seen a lot of hand-waving, about how it's "better" and "advanced" and how lots of research has gone into it. But what does it actually do in physical terms that make it specifically useful for some demolition task - even a hypothesized demolition task. Perhaps another thread though.
And then there's the stuff from the last two pages that we've just done over the last little while. From what I see here @Hitstirrer, Mick has directly answered every question that Gerry put to him.. time and again, Mick just didnt necessarily give Gerry the answers he wanted.
Sorry for the long reply time..
You think gravity can't do that. That doesn't mean it can't.
I see what you did there. You think the picture gives you the formula. Actually, the material is laid down in extraordinarily thin layers, 10 to 10,000 Angstroms.
An Angstrom is .0001 microns!
But the red layer of the chips is not a multilayer, it's a matrix with platelets. The red layer itself is 25 microns thick, or about 250,000 Angstroms.
So it's most definitely not similar to the stuff incorrectly referred to.
Devil's in the details, init?
Wow, really? That is your idea of an inquiry into the question? Neither of you has been able to address, except in the most vague and unsupported way, HOW nanothermite might be better for cutting thick steel.
We've been suggesting that the mark would be 3" steel because it correlates closely to WTC steel.
Jon Cole's experiment doesn't address that question, as he didn't achieve a cross-sectional burn thru lighter steel that he was testing on.
So we don't actually have data to suggest that thermite can cut thru very thick steel in the first place. That's one issue already.
But comparing nanothermite you guys have fallen very short of the mark in terms of establishing how, in terms of physics, it would be different, or even better, than regular thermite for that task.
You have pointed out that it can be tuned, but not been able to explain how it would need to be tuned in order to be 'better' than regular thermite for that task. No progress there.
Just repeating over and over that it's 'better' or that a bunch of investment would make it 'better' than thermite is meaningless. It might very well be that NO formulation of nanothermite is 'better' than regular thermite for cutting thick steel. Thermite could be the best. We don't know. I remain skeptical of your claims as you simply cannot find any proof to back them up.
None of you can explain how on earth thermite or nanothermite would practicably be used to create the 9/11 events. I've already pointed out the self-cancelling proposition of using thermite with a nanothermite 'kicker', as nanothermite would cook off in the presence of even an office fire accelerated by jet fuel - in that case you can forget about 'controlled' fx.
When it comes to WTC 7, I hope none of you is seriously proposing that regular thermite could instantaneously melt 80 columns while on fire itself; or that nanothermite could explode the columns but not make an explosive sound. None of that is even remotely plausible from a physics POV. But you're kind of stuck with that default position.
I think there was even a quote which mentioned how a 'tuned' version of nanothermite could use pores with RDX or PETN. I don't suppose you realize that would disqualify the red chips from that kind of 'tuning'.
If this is considered a 'win' for you, then I submit that the meaning of the word 'win' has reversed itself. But carry on.
And not a single example of this 'miracle material' being used for cutting steel, in over 13 years !
I actually have a suspicion that nano thermite might be considerably worse at cutting steel. There are these videos on youtube that show nano thermites burning more like flash powder than a cutting incendiary. I am aware that the nano thermites in these videos have very different compositions than an Al+FeO mixture, but they are almost the only video evidence of nano thermites I can find. I have to wonder if the small particle size increases exposure to the oxidizing agent and therefore increases burn rate significantly. It might be possible to mediate that effect by introducing other elements, but it still makes me wonder if the only thing nano thermites are good at is igniting at lower temperatures.
Maybe someone else has some other videos or evidence we can look at? I have to imagine that nano thermite isn't exactly hard to make, so anyone want to grind down some rust and an aluminum baseball bat and pulverize them to extremely small particles, record lighting it and showing us what it does?
Wait, what is the criteria for a thermite to be considered "nano"? You can buy 500 mesh (~30 micron) aluminum and iron oxide powders on amazon for super cheap. Anyone want to do some experiments this weekend? Cost you like ~$25 to get the ingredients.
Some time ago I suggested a similar thing but was told that the material in question cannot be 'ground down' as you suggest, but has to be 'built up' from molecular level. The first method can be carried out in your garage but the second requires a pretty sophisticated laboratory set up.
Where is the evidence in the debris that thick steel was cut?
I'm not aware of any evidence that thick steel was cut pre-collapse. However it is frequently proposed that it happened. The fact that Hitstirrer disowns the theory does not mean it is no longer worth debunking. In particular the patent in the OP crops up many times in 9/11 discussions, as does nano-thermite.
But I'm also unaware of evidence of cut bolts, or "small concussive charges", which sounds like a topic for another thread.
Bolts discussion moved to:
Mick, your policy of splitting every minute point off just means that unless a casual reader follows the bread crumbs they never get to see any rebuttal of your points.
If a detective investigation using a hundred detectives on separate strands of the mystery were told to lock themselves in separate rooms and never discuss their findings with each other there would be little chance of discovering the culprit. All of these points are interlinked and contribute to an understanding of the whole picture.
You really need to reconsider this policy.
There are plenty of other forums with different policies. You may pick which forum you want to post in.
I'm not sure what point of mine you think you rebutted though.
I've already told you that you just have to ask me to leave and it will happen.
And as you have moved my comment to another thread, and deleted a lot of it, then others will not be able to see my rebuttal and decide for themselves will they. That is my point.
New topics in new threads. This is about cutting thick steel with nanothermite. If you want to discuss cutting bolts with nanothermite, then feel free to do so in the bolts thread.
I happen to think Mick's approach is a good policy. When I've been visiting JREF lately there hasn't been enough moderation to keep threads on topic. I actually lose interest in those threads for that reason, even though some of the OT discussions are interesting the thread becomes too diluted.
In fact this particular thread shows how challenging it is to come up with factual support for the assumption that nanothermite is somehow 'better' than thermite for cutting steel. For me at least I'd have to say the jury is still very much out on that score. I'd put it in the 'unknown and not demonstrated' column for now.
Its a meaningless thread though. What is the purpose of attempting to compare a substance on which there is hardly any real data due to its closely guarded nature with a substance that I can make at home ?
In any case, no sensible commercial operative would try to cut 3" thick steel with common or garden thermite. Never have- never will. So what is the point in trying to discover if a totally different product can do what has never been attempted by another less versatile substance ?
Unless you amend the constraints, to compare the use of thermite in a thermic lance used to cut steel, and instead load the same lance with nanothermite, then the link to cutting may make more sense. But again it would still be a pointless search because a nanothermite lance doesnt exist either.
While you personally might not theorise that nano thermite was used to cut columns, it certainly has been theorised. Hence to address those theories we need to establish if there's any science behind it - or if it's simply a theory invoking some unknown technology.
I just don't agree with that, as Mick points out this is directly relevant to 9/11 truth claims, supported on this thread by Gerry and others.
I also don't agree that the nature of the LLNL nanothermite, for example, is 'closely guarded' or as some have claimed 'classified'. A lot of info has in fact been published and discussed at conferences.
For example, the much-referenced 'Synthesis and Characterization of Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials' paper by Gash, Siimpson et al. was presented at the
International Pyrotechnics Seminar, Fort Collins, CO, United States, in 2004.
Last year the conference was held in Valencia, Spain. Referring the website for the topics covered we find a long list, including military uses! So it seems this research isn't actually secret and classified as 9/11 Truthers so often claim:
I'm willing to bet that not a single person from the 9/11 nanothermite crowd has bothered to attend one of these conferences to discuss the uses of materials. Dr Jones, Harrit, Kevin Ryan? Not a mention from any of them, nor have they presented their paper at the conference even once in these many years.
No wonder conspiracy theorists seem so disconnected from reality at times! They keep making the mistake that what they don't know/understand = conspiracy.
I'm also willing to bet that, if we look at the topics covered during the last 5 pyrotechnics seminars, nanoscale energetic materials have been covered every time.
Why are truthers still claiming that this knowledge is secret? It isn't. Another convenient fallacy to excuse the fact that truthers don't do enough research on the topics they make claims about.
OK. As you have fully researched this commonly available material please send me a link to where I can buy 25 kilograms of nanothermite. I want to do a few experiments in my back yard.
LOL, if you have a license you can order lots of pyrotechnic supplies here in Canada. That's a standard safety requirement in the industry.
If you're working at a fireworks or pyrotechnics company you will have access to many of these materials, which is why they're being discussed openly at these seminars.
There's lots of commercially made stuff you can't buy without proper authorization. That doesn't make it secret. I think you're confusing 'secret and classified' with 'not easy to get'.
I bet you a good chemist could make some from scratch if they wanted to.
I know all about firework supplies but thats not the topic. Is nanothermite made commercially for use by authorised civilians, in bulk ?
I'm not confusing the semantics either. Its not secret. Patents exist. Its certainly 'not easy to get'. And I suspect that certain 'recipes' will be classified if the early info about intended research area is correct.
As you say, in lab quantities solgel techniques can produce very small quantities. My crib is about this thread really. Until the general public ( properly licenced) can get their hands on bulk supplies then there is no basis to try to compare the performance against ordinary thermite to carry out the ludicrous task of cutting 3" thick steel using either product.
Separate names with a comma.