- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:24 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Ok, I want to see that test, not the regular thermite test. Where is the video for the nanothermite test?
I've never heard of nanothermite until just now... had to look it up and... uhh... holy crap
I have no dog in this fight, I want that to be clear, but that shite is crazy... and how does it explode with such force without pressure build up??
nanothermite test
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:56 am to TheArrogantCorndog
Well thanks to you I just spent the last 30 minutes watching people blow random stuff up on YouTube.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:26 am to Willie Stroker
Posted on 8/9/17 at 9:04 am to TigersHuskers
quote:The intelligent thing to do is to put your faith and trust in government and fake news. They would never lie to you.
So im more convinced than ever that the govt allowed 9/11 to happen
They mostly allowed it so that way they can use more surveillance on us, but in addition to that, they allowed it to happen so that way they can make more money through war profiteering. Either way when you look at the vast amount of evidence its pretty easy to conclude that the CIA and other agencies knew about it and let it happen
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:42 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
Manganese was used in steel, paint, batteries, and ceramics.
Okay.
quote:
Barium? LINK? No mention of barium nitrate, right?
Higher than normal (200 ppm in soil) concentrations of barium were found in the WTC dust. USGS
LINK
Barium nitrate? IDK. There is no mention of barium nitrate being used as an accelerate.
quote:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:
It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper. [4,6]
quote:
Finding aluminum oxide might have established a link, but that duddn't hsppen, did it?
Because AlO3 dissipates as an aerosol upon the reaction of thermite.
Here is the reaction:
Fe2O3 + 2 Al ? 2 Fe + Al2O3
Lot of elemental Al and Fe203 (i.e., common rust...that's why the un-ignighted composite thermite is redish in color) was found on the un-ignited composites of nano-thermite. Lots of elemental Fe microspheres were found in the dust. Fe does not form micropheres without first melting. Fe melts above 2,700 degrees F. Jet fuel and office appurtenances cannot burn above 2,700 degrees F under ambient conditions.
quote:
Both barium nitrate and aluminum oxide were not found. Both are unique to thermate and would have no reason for being found at the WTC except through the use of thermate. Yet no traces were found.....weird, huh?
Barium was found in WTC dust at higher concentration than normal. Elemental barium would be an indication that barium compound did exist and went though a exothermic reaction and the byproduct is elemental barium. Anyway, there are are a several other nitrates that could have been used including peroxides. Furthermore when thermite is enriched with nitrates or peroxides to lower its ignition temperature it's technically a thermate.
quote:
Both are unique to thermate and would have no reason for being found at the WTC except through the use of thermate.
The claim is thermite, not thermate. If signficant concentration so nitrites were found in the WTC dust then the claim would be thermate.
quote:
Yet no traces were found.....weird, huh?
No. Because thermate is not being claimed.
quote:
Liar
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:54 pm to GumboPot
Where is the video of the full scale nanothermite testing on a replica WTC beam?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:02 pm to TheArrogantCorndog
quote:
I've never heard of nanothermite until just now... had to look it up and... uhh... holy crap
I have no dog in this fight, I want that to be clear, but that shite is crazy... and how does it explode with such force without pressure build up??
Thermite and nano-thermite have the same chemical composition.
The major difference is partial size and surface area. Nano-thermite burns more vigorously (more power) because there is more surface area to react per unit volume.
Let's do a simple example:
Place a 4 mm sphere in a 4 mm cubed box. What is the reactive surface area? Reactive surface area would = A = 4pir^2 = 4*pi*4^2 = 64pi mm^2.
Now lets place 64 1 mm spheres in the same 4 mm cubed box stacked 4 high, 4 deep and 4 long. The reactive surface area would = 64*4*pi*1^2 = 256 mm^2.
Simply by reducing the particle size we have increased the reactive surface area four times.
That is, we achieve 4 times the power (energy per unit time) assuming all surface areas are reacting simultaneously.
Sorry for geeking out.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:05 pm to GumboPot
Ok, so thermite is a slow burn and nano thermite is an explosive?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:06 pm to upgrayedd
On page 22 in my post 5 post from the bottom. Can't link on this computer (YouTube blocked).
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:07 pm to GumboPot
That's thermite, not nanothermite.
Where's the nanothermite full scale testing.
Where's the nanothermite full scale testing.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:13 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Ok, so thermite is a slow burn and nano thermite is an explosive?
Explosive is an ambiguous term.
I'd rather use the word power because it has a clear definition of energy per unit of time.
When you look at that figure above remember that relatively high rates have relatively smaller times because time is in the denominator.
For example 10 joules per 5 seconds gives me 2 watts of power. Whereas 10 joules per 2 seconds give me 5 watts of power.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:17 pm to GumboPot
The one thing I learned from this thread is that... When someone really believes in something, they will find anything they can to try to justify what it is they believe.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:22 pm to OweO
quote:
The one thing I learned from this thread is that... When someone really believes in something, they will find anything they can to try to justify what it is they believe.
Yup.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:28 pm to OweO
quote:
When someone really believes in something, they will find anything they can to try to justify what it is they believe.
I'm trying not to do that.
That is why I'm focused on the forensic part of the investigation that involves material properties. Notice I generally stayed away from the logistical part and if I do delve into the logistical part it's pure speculation. With that said, the material properties of the evidence collected will and does form a foundation.
That's why I hate when TxTiger or anyone else start suggesting CGI in these threads. Planes really hit the buildings.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:33 pm to GumboPot
Why would the US government want to orchestrate 9/11? What could possibly be gained by doing this?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:36 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The report technically refers to nanothermite as "Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics".
That's not a full scale testing of nanothermite on a steel beam. They just analyzed the "samples" they found and use that to draw wild conclusions. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here and be open minded about these theories, but you can't even produce a video of someone putting nanothermite on a steel beam similar to those in the WTC. This nanothermite theory seems to be the lynch pin for the demo of the WTC yet no one has ever gone into full scale testing. Have you ever wondered why that is the case? Perhaps you're just too invested in the conspiracy theory.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:41 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here and be open minded about these theories, but you can't even produce a video of someone putting nanothermite on a steel beam similar to those in the WTC.
2nd time:
quote:
On page 22 in my post 5 post from the bottom. Can't link on this computer (YouTube blocked).
ETA: Everyone needs to watch that video.
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 8/9/17 at 1:42 pm to DeafJam73
quote:The US government did not orchestrate 9/11. Were there operatives within the realm of government with knowledge of it? There had to be.
Why would the US government want to orchestrate 9/11?
quote:Money and power, the same reason all wars are waged. 9/11 was the trigger for decades long war and much needed regime change in the Middle East.
What could possibly be gained by doing this?
It's really no more complicated than that. Sorry for not having some wild conspiracy theory to throw at you.
Page 23 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News