1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So basically you are saying it's unknown if it's any better than regular thermite for cutting steel? That's the answer to the thread?
     
  2. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    I think nanoenergetic materials are being used in commercial pyrotechnics. I don't know what the brand names are, I think it's just another development in the industry so it's not easy to reference on that basis alone.
    If you want to conduct some experiments you might want to contact a few of the universities which are doing research for a start. One is Michael R. Zachariah at the University of Maryland.
    But I think qualified civilians are already working with these materials, that's a simple fact.
     
  3. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Bingo. The answer is that the myriad claims made by thermitists are just not based on real experiments. They're speculative and theoretical - and even the theory is shaky.

    They've all been backed into a corner by Steven Jones and his buddies, since they made some very premature claims and conclusions which are most likely incorrect.
     
  4. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Thats what I've been saying all the time. How can it be otherwise? But mostly what's wrong is your insistance that regular thermite would be even considered as the correct substance to cut 3" steel. Ergo - nanothermite being better or worse at a task that would never be contemplated is a theological type question.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Vec

    Vec New Member

    Nano materials are available for purchase, for instance from American Elements, but I don't know if you need any kind of license to get them. I know that there is some question about the health effects of being around them without proper protective gear. There are several journal articles I've found that talk about it. I don't think you could buy the actual nano thermite, but it is possible at least to get the Aluminum and Iron Oxide nano particles... though like I said I don't know if it requires any sort license. I think it's pretty cost-prohibitive too. Maybe upwards of 10$ a gram or more (and you might have to order in bulk, I don't know).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And yet AE911 says:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...een-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html (http://archive.is/w2AMw)
    So when they say "effectively cut through steel columns", are they not talking about 3" thick steel? What are they talking about here?
     
  7. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Fair enough. But those are the claims being made, that's what this thread is about...
     
  8. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Yah, I don't get the gripe about this thread. It's on topic vis-a-vis these claims
     
  9. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Clearly Jon Cole was able to 'invent' a device to focus garage thermite and demonstrate its ability to cut steel. In fact I could envisage a vague market out there for redneck engineers to find that attractive. It may even be possible for Jon to refine his backwoods springloaded Heath Robinson clothespeg device to cut 3" steel. But I would hardly call it an effective alternative method of carrying out that task.

    Its like painting a wall with a 1" brush when there is a roller available. Possible but not sensible. And then you start a thread in Meta to discover if a roller can paint a 10 sq yard wall better or worse than a 1" brush. The wall ends up painted. So which was 'better' ?

    As you know, I don't go along with the 'tons of NT cutting dozens of 3" steel sections' theory. I may be wrong of course. If AE911 think I'm wrong then that paragraph you quote would be the type of thing they would write.

    I think that there is a possibility that NT had a role but I'm more inclined to look closer at the pulverisation of megatons of concrete than the much smaller task of causing load bearing columns to cease doing that job. ( resist the impulse to start a new thread Mick )

    And that takes me back to my answer in #244.
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But would you agree this thread has a place if people, such as AE911 and other, are floating ideas about cutting columns more efficiently with nano-thermite?

    I understand you don't think that's what happened. But Metabunk is not all about debunking your personal theories.
     
  11. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    I think most of the answers we are looking for can be found here, it's a tad bit long but is very informative and well referenced. I've been on and off reading through it and other PDFs on the subject as well.
    For example, re: where to buy nano particles commercially, they give a pretty good list of nano particle suppliers, I haven't checked through them all yet but check for yourself.
    Etc.
    So i think that list alone dispels any notion of nano particles being 'secret' to the public, and also it gives people quite a good selection of places to potentially purchase some and do experiments (at their own discretion, obviously) to back up whatever claims they are making.
     
  12. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Here's what that article in my last post says about the benefits of nano particles...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    This is exactly the kind of place that such a thread would appear. Everyone else considers it for a pecosecond and then decides that its irelevent. As the premice hinges entirely on whether any kind of thermite was used to cut 3" steel, as part of a plan to demolish highrise steelframe buildings, then that aspect is what is overwhelmingly the most important point.

    Are you trying to subliminally prove that NT is worse than garage thermite in a Jon Cole type device ? You say not. You say that its a genuine attempt to answer a question. If so, then what difference does it make.

    You say this isn't a debunk attempt but it sure looks that way from my perspective.
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's an investigation of a claim - that nano-thermite would cut the columns better than regular thermite. AE911 is one example of people making such a claim.
     
  15. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    I think if that was the case, there would be much fewer sites discussing nano thermite being used on 9/11 over 12 years after it happened! In fact, if you type nano thermite into google, that's almost all you get, conspiracy related sites or debunking sites, all related to 9/11. It's clearly tossed around a lot.

    That's what's being discussed. Thermite vs nano thermite...what is the difference? Why is nano thermite 'better' for cutting steel, if it is at all? That's what the aim of this thread is. Not necessarily a debunk per se, more so a fact find. If the facts point towards improbability or impossibility, then so be it.

    . The point is that there are varying claims of thermite or nano thermite being used on 9/11 to demolish the buildings (whether you subscribe to them or not, they exist). The point of this thread is to establish facts about thermite and nano thermite (more specifically their ability to cut steel), and decide if they are even practical or possible for such a job.

    Certainly, in a sense it is. Because there are claims that the stuff was used on 9/11, and the point is that so far it's nothing beyond pure speculation. There is no real scientific data to back up these claims, so what's presented here is (what is meant to be) discussion regarding the use of thermite or nano thermite for that job. Are these claims reasonable? Can they be backed up with facts? Verifiable evidence? That's all this thread is.

    You say you don't buy into the theories...maybe you could help disprove them then with your knowledge on the subject?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    My knowledge of Thermite v NT in reference to its use to cut 3" thick steel is negligible. I suspect that everyone here is at that same level. Until Jon Cole demonstrated a home made device that 'kinda' persuaded thermite to cut to order it had always been assumed that it was useless at that job. JREF was full of page after page scoffing at the very idea.

    That was at the base of my earlier request to see if 25kg of NT could be purchased on the open market so the JC could continue with his experimentation. Until such a side by side comparison can take place then this thread will circle endlessly due to lack of data to focus on. Of course even then people would dispute the result because we are told that NT can be tailored to have a myriad of different effects and who is to know whether the right recipe had been used to fit inside a modified JC device. See the problem ?

    It is for these kind of reasons that I say the thread is pointless. And why a moments thought would reveal that. It has nothing to do with whether I subscribe to the theory that NT was used to cut 3" steel or not. Its a 'how many angels can dance on a pinhead' discussion.
     
  17. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    And there isn't a single piece of steel seen in the debris or recovered steel which shows any sign of having been cut by either of these materials. There was cutting with lances in the clean up. And there are photos of steel being cut as well as afterwards... such as the Steven Jones...(fake) diagonal cut column which started the entire nonsense. Rather than retract his error... he never did.... he disappeared and came up with a new (and completely unfounded) theory of nano thermite... which turns out to be nothing but paint on the steel. No one has repeated the Harrit-Jones study and Millette has determined the red gray chips to be primer paint.

    But none of the rational reasons why NT is bunk will deter those who believe it. Jon Cole proves nothing that wasn't already known... thermite burns hot enough to melt steel.
     
  18. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    As you say, its always been known that thermite can melt steel. But its just a granular material that reacts relatively slowly, and much merriment was seen in places like JREF pointing out that cutting vertically was impossible as it would just heat locally and fall away. JC made a crude 'shaped charge' type device to show otherwise. But that doesn't also prove that such a device was used that day.
     
  19. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    It was always an assumption that, as applied to the scale of the WTC towers thermite was not a workable concept. There are a number of reasons for this of course. But Cole's experiment, while perhaps promising, does not deal with steel of the thickness and configuration of that found in the towers.
    I suppose the JREF'ers should have spelled out their skepticism in more detail.

    I think for Cole to bring the experiment up to a plausible level he'd need to reconstruct either a core column or perimeter column assembly. Only then would it be possible to find out the amount of thermite that might work, and where it would have to be placed.
    From there, assuming it could be done successfully, one could start assessing what evidence would be found on the recovered steel and see if there was any which corresponded.
    Also it would allow people to judge how plausible it might be to assemble and attach devices to necessary structures without detection. The process would be long and tedious.

    There is so much data missing that discussion is mostly theoretical. Yet there is an extensive mythology about the use of thermitics on 9/11, partly because there are few attempts to break down individual assumptions in the manner of this thread.
     
  20. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Nano particles are on the market and have been for some time. What's stopping anyone from proving nano thermite can cut through a certain thickness of steel? A few posts back I listed a number of sites that sell them. Go to Applied Nanotech, Inc.'s site and have a go yourself aye? Or maybe direct some folks like Jon Cole there if he wants to experiment as he did with thermite.

    No, again, it's people making claims and having absolutely zilch to back them up. These people are out there; they are certain nano thermite was used. But they can't bring the science or the demonstrations or any type of real evidence to the table. That's all that's being looked for in this thread. Maybe it's out there. Maybe it's not. Maybe another Jon Cole will come along and show us just how easy it is to melt thick steel with some homemade device using nano thermite.
     
  21. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Do you seriously think that government scientists developing nano technology to 'improve' a basic well known thermetic reaction would actually end up with an inferior product ? Over the years there have been many articles describing subdued excitement at the early indications of the huge possibilities around this technology. Is it all misplaced ?

    If not, then I would suspect that in one of its many forms it could be made to outperform garage thermite. If that means, for the purpose of this thread, that NT must be tailored to cut 3" steel better than a Heath Robinson device made in someones back yard using garage thermite then I suspect that it would be possible. Do you ?

    In the absence of reports of such experimentation there can be no definitive answer to the question posed here. But the odds appear well stacked that NT could outperform granular thermite if its formulation required that.
     
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Any yet again, it depends on what parameters are "improved" and what effect those improvements have for a particular task.

    If you improve some of the parameters of a substance, then it might be better for some tasks, and worse for others. Like if you alter the muzzle velocity of a bullet, it does not mean that everything you can do with a bullet would then be better.

    So for this particular task, cutting steel, in what way would it be better, and how much?
     
  23. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    You want me to speculate ?
     
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No. I want to quantify your statements in terms of what is known.

    All you are saying is "they probably have something that is better for some tasks in some ways to some degree". Which is both obvious and pointless.
     
  25. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Err -- isn't that what I've been saying about this thread for ages ?
     
  26. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    There are universities studying nanoenergetics as well. Some of the developments are aimed at engineering compounds which may be more stable or less toxic. Those are 'improved', but they're not being designed to cut steel in particular. A thermal match doesn't cut steel.

    That's a general statement which doesn't address the subject of this thread, as I've given examples of above.

    I think we're continuing to demonstrate that, while nanoenergetics are novel and interesting, they are not necessarily 'better' at everything because of this. It depends what the task is. There seems to be a strong bias among many that these materials possess some kind of magical qualities which allow them to do whatever you can imagine. That's not realistic.
    I think it's useful to try to bring the conversation down to earth a little. Don't you?
     
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You say things like:

    Which is simply a rhetorical question. I'm trying to figure out HOW it would be better at cutting steel, if at all significantly.
     
  28. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Who said that thermite in its basic form has been used to cut 3" steel ? Nobody. So why are you trying to figure out if something different can do that better when it hasn't been done in the first place ? This is getting surreal.

    Didn't we agree ages ago that your search was futile because of insufficient data ?
     
  29. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    You think that its being realistic and down to earth to attempt to second guess whether garage thermite is worse or better than highly researched and developed thermite at a simple task like cutting 3" steel if it has been extensively and specifically formulated to do that ?
     
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It has not been answered.

    Again a rhetorical question. It's utterly pointless sayinging things like "better" unless you quantify in what way. What are the physical properties that would be changed to make it better?
     
  31. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Better at cutting 3" steel ? Better at doing something that hasn't been done in the first place by the material you wish to compare with ?

    And you expect me to define the chemical adjustments and physical properties to be changed to make it 'better' at something that hasn't been done ?

    I will have to politely decline on the grounds that its a nebulous request.
     
  32. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    You don't have to participate in this thread if you think it's pointless. No worries.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  33. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Great idea. I will sit and watch you guys go into a reducing spiral until you disappear up your own cyberasses. But the conclusion will be the same.

    @Mick West nailed it in post #241.
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why do you keep posting then?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  35. hamishsubedei

    hamishsubedei Member

    so basille.org has received enough donations now to get an independent test of the red material , guess we will find out soon then whether its nano thermite, if it is how will debunkers respond ?
     
  36. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Or if it isn't NT what will the truth people say? It's inconclusive? Harrit and Jones blew it?
     
  37. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I expect that the results will never be seen.
     
  38. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    These truth folks have a problem. They can find missing details, anomalies and some errors and ommissions in the official reports. But when they put forth what their own "science and engineering" they appear to make stuff up and their science and engineering has no foundation. It's junk science. Their experiments, such as Cole's prove nothing about the collapses, their papers can't be confirmed by other investigators or contain flaws and need to be withdrawn such as Momentum Transfer and the NT paper, Missing Jolt to name a few. The authors refuse to accept the criticism. There is no science to support their main thesis - CD.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2014
  39. Vec

    Vec New Member

    I will be genuinely flabbergasted if the red material is NT. I'm nearly 100% certain that it isn't. If the spectra from the Harrit (et al.) paper are accurate, then there's no way it could be. I'm also pretty certain that if the analysis shows that it isn't NT, that the results will never be seen or it will be deemed "inconclusive" by the truther community because it doesn't fit with the narrative. My certainty on the matter of NT is almost as great as it can be, but I am of course willing to entertain actual verifiable evidence to the contrary.
     
  40. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    We already know it isn't nanothermite, but the Basile-sponsored study with confirm this yet again. You seem to have forgotten Dr Millette's study!

    Why do truthers act as if an independent study has not already been done? They will have a hard time wriggling out of it this time, so I'm looking forward to the results!