Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The great thermate debate
11-13-2010, 05:30 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-13-2010, 07:02 PM by JFK.)
#1
The great thermate debate
Edit - embedded video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

Now envision using high strength ceramics such as used in racing engines instead of steel for the container.
Would that explain the grey layer in Jones et al nanothermate ?
[Image: Signature2.gif]
Reply
11-13-2010, 11:53 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-13-2010, 11:55 PM by JFK.)
#2
RE: The great thermate debate
Anyway, I found his attempt at a "segmented thermic box cutter" rather interesting.

[Image: Dust_Puff.gif]

And some say that you can not use therm*te as an explosive. Icon_rolleyes
[Image: Signature2.gif]
Reply
11-14-2010, 02:25 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-14-2010, 02:28 AM by Dunamis.)
#3
RE: The great thermate debate
Man that was brilliant. How many debunking shows from TV did he just debunk? At least it was different on Brainiac (UK show with Richard Hammond from Top Gear, believe it or not). Their experiment showed Thermite melting through the engine of a car, strange Myth Busters and others have had so many problems. All they used on Brainiac to contain the Thermite was a "slow release mechanism, a [ceramic] plant pot".

If the stuff is loose the reaction can blast most Thermite away from contact with the desired material.



"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." -- 1 John 2:6
"Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly... This is the interrelated structure of reality." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." -- Proverbs 18:13
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -- Leo Tolstoy
"To love is to be vulnerable" -- C.S Lewis

The Kingdom of God is within you! -- Luke 17:20-21

https://duckduckgo.com/
Reply
11-15-2010, 12:51 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-15-2010, 01:05 PM by JazzRoc.)
#4
RE: The great thermate debate
A brilliant piece of investigative science in the absence of NIST. Quality, until the maker broke his own "physical principles" rule. Hubris, I guess.

HOWEVER...

The claim that the fire melted the steel was a MEDIA claim, and not a claim that NIST ever made.

Molten aluminum at the temperatures agreed to have occurred in the towers DOES GLOW YELLOW. In fact ALL materials glow the same color at ANY given temperature - that's a physical principle too.

Wasn't it a bit of a coincidence that the columns that were "apparently" thermated WERE EXACTLY where the plane wreckage and kerosine/office FIRE happened to be, EXACTLY opposite the strike? I mean, HOW NEAT WAS THAT? LOL
Just the slightest twitch of the pilot's finger would have put him FIFTY FEET in ANY DIRECTION at 565mph.

Or did they "do" EVERY column on EVERY floor? That might have taken as long as it took to build the towers in the first place...
And what a fire-resistant means of ignition the, er, "operatives" must have found, that could survive 1800 deg F and even collapsing floors before being set off! What might that have been, do you think? A MAGIC one? LOL

Neither NIST nor the MEDIA ever considered HIGH-ENERGY IMPACTS as the source of iron microspherules. The logic is easy: whack any IRON hard enough, and you'll see a FLASH. What's the flash made of? High temperature iron VAPOR. What does that condense to? GUESS. You're ALL good at that. Next, what happens when a steel tower collapses? (Hint: steel beams falling from a thousand feet reach around 300 mph.) Might that have made a FEW high-energy impacts?

And finally (deja vu of deja vu) the molten iron of a thermate reaction (2,500 deg C - a 1,000 deg C HOTTER than the melting point of iron) would CUT STRAIGHT DOWN and NOT POUR OUT of the building, as so ably demonstrated by the Brainiacs.

So does that CONFIRM the existence of THERMATE?

I guess it DOESN'T.

You guys just won't lie down, will you?



Reply
11-15-2010, 01:49 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-15-2010, 01:53 AM by JFK.)
#5
RE: The great thermate debate
Couldn't resist viewing that post even if you are still on ignore...

Meh.. It was flowing off 4" of lightweight concrete ( likely from the core area )...
Think for a moment.
What are the ingredients of lightweight concrete ? ( i.e. what makes it lightweight ? )

Edit to add - the only time my molten aluminum in my casting projects glowed that yellow was when I got it way too hot, what kept the cooler molten aluminum from flowing out while still silvery ?
[Image: Signature2.gif]
Reply
11-15-2010, 12:56 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-15-2010, 01:09 PM by JazzRoc.)
#6
RE: The great thermate debate
(11-15-2010, 01:49 AM)JFK Wrote: What are the ingredients of lightweight concrete? (i.e. what makes it lightweight?)
AIR. Incorporating VERMICULITE is one way of achieving this.

What's in a thermic lance (which cuts through concrete)? Guess... yes, you guessed it: THERMITE. (The aluminum part of it - the oxygen is supplied as a GAS.)

Quote:what kept the cooler molten aluminum from flowing out while still silvery?
A BOWED floor. An edge collapse released it. There was at least TWENTY TONS of it lying about in what could be described as a MUFFLE FURNACE.

YOU think for a moment. A moment seems to be all you can manage.
Reply
11-15-2010, 04:28 PM,
#7
RE: The great thermate debate
Interesting... http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/verm.html

But not to derail, you also do realize that it is also used as a "heat shield" do you not ?
Therefore your previous statement "would CUT STRAIGHT DOWN and NOT POUR OUT" is basically null and void, which was my point in asking you that question.

And why did your "molten aluminum" not revert back to it's "silvery" state upon it's freefall decent ?

Here is an experiment for you, take a crucible of your bright yellow molten aluminum and pour it out the window of your car whilst travelling at 100+ miles per hour and time how long it takes to turn silvery again. Wink
( a video of that would be splendid )
[Image: Signature2.gif]
Reply
11-15-2010, 04:58 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-15-2010, 05:16 PM by JazzRoc.)
#8
RE: The great thermate debate
(11-15-2010, 04:28 PM)JFK Wrote: Interesting... http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/verm.html
Yes, vermiculite and asbestos are related. There was a lot of asbestos in the towers, some of which had been replaced.

Quote:But not to derail, you also do realize that it is also used as a "heat shield" do you not ?
Therefore your previous statement "would CUT STRAIGHT DOWN and NOT POUR OUT" is basically null and void
NO.
It's YOUR point which fails because THERMITE product at 2,500 deg C DESTROYS "heat shields" no matter how much air they contain.
Had it been thermite product, I REPEAT, it would have gone STRAIGHT DOWN. The very fact that ANYTHING contained it PROVED the molten metal wasn't thermite-produced iron. Had it been, it would have been WHITE HOT - NOT YELLOW.

Quote:And why did your "molten aluminum" not revert back to it's "silvery" state upon it's freefall decent ?
That's an interesting one - which I have told you before. As the falling stream of ALUMINUM breaks into droplets, it INCREASES ITS SURFACE AREA, exposing itself to atmospheric oxygen. That exposure is GREATLY EXOTHERMIC (it's the same reaction that causes the heating in thermite), so the material doesn't cool at all. In a high-speed airstream aluminum liquid at 1000 deg C would burn like solid magnesium at room temperature does in still air.

Quote:Here is an experiment for you
Answered.

What is it about you that makes you so confident, if it isn't darkest ignorance?

Reply
11-15-2010, 06:04 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-15-2010, 06:29 PM by JFK.)
#9
RE: The great thermate debate
(11-15-2010, 04:58 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: What is it about you that makes you so confident, if it isn't darkest ignorance?
Experience, something which you claim to have, but is obvious ( to me ) that you do not have.

(11-15-2010, 04:58 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: Had it been thermite product, I REPEAT, it would have gone STRAIGHT DOWN.

Obviously you did not even bother to watch the video in the opening post. Why exactly are you even bothering to participate in this thread if not to troll ?
[Image: Signature2.gif]
Reply
11-15-2010, 07:57 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-15-2010, 08:04 PM by rsol.)
#10
RE: The great thermate debate
no hes not a troll. he is honestly debunking you on what he understands. Although he seems to only go with an explanation that he accepts. for example:

Quote:"That's an interesting one - which I have told you before. As the falling stream of ALUMINUM breaks into droplets, it INCREASES ITS SURFACE AREA, exposing itself to atmospheric oxygen. That exposure is GREATLY EXOTHERMIC (it's the same reaction that causes the heating in thermite), so the material doesn't cool at all. In a high-speed airstream aluminum liquid at 1000 deg C would burn like solid magnesium at room temperature does in still air."

incorrect. it would only happen if it were exposed to PURE oxygen. The majority of air is nitrogen, oxygen makes up a TINY amount in the air. Also your other point, my fave. "INCREASES ITS SURFACE AREA"
dont you know how a heat sink operates??? You do but it would impede on your claim. 20% oxygen on the ground almost 80% nitrogen..one cools while the other aids in exothermic reaction? 4-1 not great odds.

I like how, with this logic, you are now comparing aluminium to a cigaretteSmile comicalSmile

JFK he isnt a troll. Hes not stupid either, if anything i think he just wants the matter settled.

remember jazz you are saying that aluminium when heated to silly temps will "glow" when blown on with normal natural air?

in your words "(it's the same reaction that causes the heating in thermite)"
erm so the fact thermite has iron oxide in it. thats not where it gets its oxygen from? must have missed that class.....

Come on jazz think it through.....

Reply
11-15-2010, 09:41 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-15-2010, 09:52 PM by JazzRoc.)
#11
RE: The great thermate debate
(11-15-2010, 07:57 PM)rsol Wrote: incorrect. it would only happen if it were exposed to PURE oxygen. The majority of air is nitrogen, oxygen makes up a TINY amount in the air.
One fifth. 20%. It forms a NITRIDE with the nitrogen (2Al + N2 > 2AlN), and the reaction is interestingly both endothermic AND exothermic through the range of temperatures we are considering here. It's reasonable to roughly assume it is merely a DILUENT.
But this STILL MEANS that A FIFTH of the air it meets is going to undergo that HIGHLY EXOTHERMIC reaction.

Quote:Also your other point, my fave. "INCREASES ITS SURFACE AREA". Dont you know how a heat sink operates?
No heat sinks I know of are exothermic. (Snarl moderated.)

Quote:you are saying that aluminium when heated to silly temps will "glow" when blown on with normal natural air?
NO. The oxide crust would prevent further oxidation at the surface of a pool of molten aluminum. (It's less dense, and floats.)
I'm saying that as a pool of molten aluminum glowing yellow at 1000+ deg C will NOT lose heat when it dramatically increases its surface area by breaking into droplets (exposing "virgin" molten aluminum) as it falls through the air, but GAIN HEAT.

Quote:so the fact thermite has iron oxide in it. thats not where it gets its oxygen from? must have missed that class... Come on jazz think it through...
Somehow you have misread me. I'm saying that THAT exothermic oxidation reaction is the SAME in both cases.

Perhaps you are drawing away from the more salient point that thermite iron at 2,500 deg C will NOT be contained by lightweight concrete.

The ONLY materials that WOULD contain it are Al2O3, SiC, Si3N4 fibre materials, as used to "tile" the Space Shuttle.

Reply
11-15-2010, 09:52 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-15-2010, 10:27 PM by rsol.)
#12
RE: The great thermate debate
high surface area is what a heat sink IS. More surface area means more area to cool.

Quote:"I'm saying that THAT exothermic oxidation reaction is the SAME in both cases."

I know i was just yanking your danggliesSmile but its not completely the same is it?the amount of oxygen in iron oxide is not comparable to the oxygen in the air. Otherwise things would rust instantly.

Quote:"I'm saying that as a pool of molten aluminum glowing yellow at 1000+ deg C will NOT lose heat when it dramatically increases its surface area by breaking into droplets as it falls through the air, but GAIN HEAT."

I would like some data on this. I consider this equation to be out of the water. 1000+ deg would be molten aluminium, steel, whatever metal you choose (Yellow hot jazz!). it still cant reach those sorts of temps even leaving the building never mind increase! I still consider endothermic over your bellowed cigarette motif.

Show me what you got.
"Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."

Please note the exact words "reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius" note that they do not conclude ABOVE that figure.
Sustained at 1000c? doubtful....fires move to new fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene please note the figure of 990c burning in air.

please note the temperature for YELLOW HOT METAL which is in excess of 1090c.

you see my problem with this explanation?
Reply
11-15-2010, 10:39 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-15-2010, 10:55 PM by JazzRoc.)
#13
RE: The great thermate debate
(11-15-2010, 09:52 PM)rsol Wrote: More surface area means more area to cool.
More area to HEAT!

Quote:i was just yanking your dangglies
That's a bit naughty just after dressing me down for bluntness. lol

Quote:but it's not completely the same is it? The amount of oxygen in iron oxide is not comparable to the oxygen in the air.
FeO2, Fe3O4? It's the SAME oxygen. That's what chemistry is all about.

Quote:Otherwise things would rust instantly.
The only metal elements that don't oxidize INSTANTLY on their surface are called NOBLE. The rest DO. Rusting is an oxidation process involving water and applicable only to iron. Leave my dangglies alone.

Quote:I would like some data on this. I consider this equation to be out of the water. 1000+ deg would be molten aluminium, steel, whatever metal you choose (Yellow hot jazz!). it still cant reach those sorts of temps even leaving the building never mind increase! I still consider endothermic over your bellowed cigarette motif. Show me what you got.
Oh, very well. You forced me to remember my 1962 "A" level Chemistry, then go looking for this confirmation. The authors were concerned with the making of aluminum alloys, not the nitriding of aluminum, but they covered it, alright.

[Image: AlNexoendo.jpg]

http://www.hpc.msstate.edu/publications/docs/2010/01/5303DSC_PAPER_PUBLISHED_ONLINE.pdf

I hope you aren't disappointed. It's a side issue compared to thermite product containment, which I still believe you would now rather forget...

Quote:Sustained at 1000c? doubtful....fires move to new fuels.
A well-ventilated muffle furnace will easily exceed that. Fire may well move on, but a molten pool of aluminum resting on an insulating concrete floor isn't even going to lose heat by radiation if the ceiling is still yellow hot, is it?

Quote:note the figure of 990c burning in air. note the temperature for YELLOW HOT METAL which is in excess of 1090c. you see my problem with this explanation?
I can see your problem, but it's no problem for me. People argue that fire couldn't have been hot because a woman was standing beneath it. Haha. In the same way as a steel furnace cannot be hot because a man is prodding the liquid metal surface with a pole.
There were OTHER FLAMMABLE MATERIALS around, and it doesn't take a genius to note that the outlet speed of the smoke was in excess of 30 mph, and the "chimney" of the fire was at least fifty feet high. Not quite a BLAST FURNACE - but close.
Reply
11-15-2010, 11:30 PM,
#14
RE: The great thermate debate
Hey, ummm... This thread's title is "The great thermate debate" and not "The great aluminum or steel debate".

I want to see him disprove what has been shown to be a possibility in the video.

AND getting back to his first post in this thread, "The claim that the fire melted the steel was a MEDIA claim, and not a claim that NIST ever made.", perhaps he should learn to read, listen, and comprehend instead of repeating others ignorance at JREF ? < shrugs >

As this slide comes on screen he CLEARLY states "The media told us"
[Image: The_Media_told_us.png]

And as this slide comes into view he also CLEARLY states "The National Institute of Standards and Technology said"
[Image: Nist_told_us.png]

To me that means that CLEARLY shows jazzrock either did not watch, or did not comprehend the video in the opening post. ( I am going with comprehend as that seems to be the norm with him )

Besides, he is calling the firefighters who were there liars with his statements
[Image: FDNY.gif]

All of which which is typical for JREFians... as is the lame videoclip he attached at the end of his post.
Another lame JREFian trolling tactic.

Now, if what we saw pouring out of the towers looked more like this :
[Image: Molten_Aluminum_pour.png]
I might agree with him on that solitary point, but it didn't... Not even close.
[Image: Signature2.gif]
Reply
11-15-2010, 11:54 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-16-2010, 12:35 AM by rsol.)
#15
RE: The great thermate debate
ok im going to look into this for a bit. although im looking at sub 800c temp figures here on powder fine samples. in not sure if they subject it to high winds on a hunchSmile

Quote:"FeO2, Fe3O4? It's the SAME oxygen. That's what chemistry is all about."
no im talking about volume and reactive differences between a hot solid and a cool gas. forget the percentages.
water is hydrogen oxide. not altogether sure that would help with adding to a fire. split them up then it helps. so what does that prove?

Quote:"There were OTHER FLAMMABLE MATERIALS around"

where putting out a fire is a real pain in the arse. they ban fuels and have strict fire safety regs but keep one of the richest buildings on earth furnished with highly flammable out of date furniture.

Quote:"A well-ventilated muffle furnace will easily exceed that. Fire may well move on, but a molten pool of aluminium resting on an insulating concrete floor isn't even going to lose heat by radiation if the ceiling is still yellow hot, is it?"

just a minute there you said it was ventilated? aren't we missing this from our heat loss through convection? all that lovely wind you talk of? has another trick up its sleeve than just providing fire-fuel. are you going to show me samples of micro fine particles of steel subjected to nitrogen gasses?
can i just counter with this :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/AMD_heatsink_and_fan.jpg

please note it is made from aluminium. not molten i grant you but. well....you get my point. Also you could have a think at what a massive interconnected series of heatpipes can do to heat source? you are too localised with your thinking here. there are so many elements allowing heat to escape from the area. you want a sagging floor but a firm concrete to insulate heat. is it sagging or solid? ANY deviation of the floor would have any metals flowing toward the lower ends. also your debris did not just contain flammable materials but all kinds of things from parts of the building to parts of the plane. the very idea this has no quality in the equation beggars logic. anything not on fire will not aid air flow, let alone what actually IS. A covered fire will not burn well.

In order for a fire to reach such temps you would need air directly to the flames and under consistent pressure. gusts and gales on a clear September morn?


ok im looking at these figures and from what i understand this is to do with different gasses and the effect on temperatures of phase change from solid to liquid?
========================================
ah.

This is ascribed to the dissolution of aluminum
and Al–Si particles. Aluminum and silicon reacting in the
Al-rich phase depends on the -=gross silicon content=- of the
alloy.

========================================

also from what i can see these are abhorrent ranges due to phase change and dependent on the make up. look on those graphs beyond the peaks to the temps our metal is at. none of these temperatures are at yellow hot.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BRICS Summit: Far East Bloc versus America: 'Great Game' for Global Order via Banking and Currency? Solve et Coagula 9 3,865 01-13-2014, 10:10 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  CNN - Piers Morgan vs Larry Pratt - Gun laws "debate" fujiinn 9 3,175 01-12-2013, 01:12 AM
Last Post: R.R
  Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT Negentropic 105 58,700 12-01-2012, 05:50 AM
Last Post: macfadden
  Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable? Solve et Coagula 0 1,034 02-24-2012, 06:36 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Another great video by Luke at we are change.org Sovereignman 2 1,293 02-14-2012, 04:10 AM
Last Post: Sovereignman
  Ron Paul Owns Warmongers During Fox News Debate - 12/15/11 Solve et Coagula 0 886 12-25-2011, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  The Elite, the ‘Great Game’, & World War III Solve et Coagula 0 829 06-13-2011, 12:54 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Mideast Turmoil IS a Direct Threat to American Empire, and That’s Great Solve et Coagula 0 913 02-05-2011, 09:07 AM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  THE GREAT RENEGER video hilly7 2 1,151 08-18-2010, 10:25 PM
Last Post: hilly7
  The Great Bay: Chronicles of the Collapse Solve et Coagula 0 826 07-29-2010, 12:17 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)