Active Thermitic Material - a Question

[LARED]

What does Active Thermitic Material mean? A web search reveals absolutely no hits outside of the Jones etal paper claiming its discovery.

Can anyone explain this apparently made up class of material?

An interesting link

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/658208-2dvIfX/webviewable/

[AZCat]

1. Am I allowed to answer?

Or is this question reserved for the "truthier" members of our forum?

[LARED]

2. It's an open question, fire at will -nt

[AZCat]

3. Sweet!

My take is, not surprisingly, a bit cynical. The term "active thermitic material", as it is used by the "truth movement", is no different from the more familiar term "pyroclastic clouds". It is an attempt to co-opt scientific terminology, at least in appearance. That the phrases don't mean anything isn't of concern to those who use it, because it's the appearance of meaning that matters to them. It's even better if the phrase resembles, but is not quite like any other, because there's less of a chance people with actual knowledge will object to the misuse and appropriation (see, for example, the "pyroclastic clouds" fallout).


ETA: Phrases like this also serve as "code words", because the speaker knows the hidden meaning ("I'm a believer in September 11th conspiracy theories") will only be apparent to those who have the requisite insider knowledge.

[LARED]

4. I agree with your take on this, also

I think the word "active" was used on purpose to create a false impression in the truther community to generate the meme that real thermite was discovered and it was active because it was left over from the supposed demo. A little more fuel for the fire indicating Jones is a fraud, as the embellisment just appears to be meant to convey some extra meaningless meaning (as you pointed out)

The link I posted (which as incorrect now fixed http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=3&page=0&osti_id=658208 ) is a paper I discover after reading most of Jones' paper and wondered why he did not compare his results with actual thermite. Or at least something known to be close in chemical composition to whatever he believes the sample to be. In looking at the paper, I noticed the various chemical compositions were just identified as "Thermite Reactions", and there was no delineation regarding active or inactive thermite.

So I figured I'd call on the Truther community to explain why Jones felt it necessary to make up a class of thermite. And hopefully to get a few to look past all the very technical sounding stuff in the paper that is frankly nearly as meaningless as the title and start to educate themselves.

[AZCat]

6. That sounds accurate.

I'll need to take time to read the article you linked later (it's about bed time) but I think you're correct about the use of "active".

Remember, though - if Jones compares his results to a known substance, it just gives people one more thing to examine. His only safety lies in vague allusions to some magical, non-comparable form of therm_te, which he can claim has (surprise) all the characteristics he wants and none of the characteristics he doesn't want.

[jberryhill]

14. "why Jones felt it necessary to make up a class of thermite"

Oh come now, Lared.

If you are going to consider the other side, you have to step out of your mindset for a moment.

Instead of wondering "why Jones felt it necessary to make up a class of thermite", you should be curious why the perpetrators felt it necessary to use a novel form of thermite for which Jones had no choice other than to assign a name to it.

Duh.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. "Cargo cult science"

That's what 9/11 CD science is all over.

[AZCat]

7. What an appropriate description!

Pretty pathetic, really. Why do we fund primary and secondary school science programs if this is the result - a group of people duped by a paper that violates fundamental principles of the scientific method?

[HamdenRice]

20. Totally OT, and not sure you will even be able to read this but here goes--->

Since you're not accepting PMs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=125376&mesg_id=125376

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=125376&mesg_id=125427

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

24. Thanks! nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. good for both of you

This conceivably could be a matter of life and death, and lots of the advice on that thread seems unlikely to be helpful.

[rollingrock]

8. You think because something doesn't show up on google, means it doesn't exist?

you really ought to get out more.

[LARED]

9. Nope, there are plenty of resources not directly

available on the Internet.

Do you know what Active Thermitic Materials means?

[Neo Atheist]

10. it's basically proof that the 9/11 Truthers and the Creationists are the same breed of idiot

Active Thermitic Material = fancy way of saying "thermite"
Intelligent Design = "GENESIS IS THE TRUTH, NOT THIS EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION!!"

If the "truth"ers simply said "there was thermite in the world trade center" someone would point out that "yeah, d-bag, it's used to weld steel together and copper wiring." If they say "active thermitic material" it sounds like an explosive. It's basically a way for these people to sound smart without actually being smart.

[BeFree]

11. Yeah!!

And the NIST didn't look for thermite in the WTC because they expected to find thermite there, so why even look for it? So, they didn't.

Active would mean something is volatile in an expected range of conditions.
Inactive thermitic material would be materials that are not volatile within an expected range of conditions.

There was a lot of inactive thermitic material around the WTC, that's why NIST didn't look for it. They knew it was there.

Question is: Did NIST look for actual "live" thermitic compounds? Any NIST experts here who can answer that question?

[Realityhack]

12. Full of sound and fury...

but ultimately you are just doing the same thing Jones did and throwing around scientific sounding words without proper operational definitions.

[BeFree]

16. Hey!

Question is: Did NIST look for actual "live" thermitic compounds? Any NIST experts here who can answer that question?

So, no, you don't have an NIST answer. Move along.

[Realityhack]

43. You must define the term 'live' in this context

before that is even a valid question.

Right now you have not even asked a question. You are stringing words together but they signify nothing.

[backwoodsbob]

47. hey Will Jones allow samples of what he tested

to be independently tested?

[Bolo Boffin]

48. I don't know.

At this point, I wouldn't trust Jones to not tamper with the dust.

There are other sources for WTC dust, though.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf

That PDF was prepared by the RJ LeeGroup. They found paint chips in the dust. Why didn't Jones? Wouldn't finding paint chips in his samples and testing them against his red/gray chips been something worthwhile for Jones to do? Why didn't he do this?

[Neo Atheist]

13. There is no difference between "live" and (I guess) "dead" thermitic compounds

You can't "activate" Thermite beyond exposing it to high heat, much like pure magnesium. The chemical reaction however involving the exposing of Thermite to high heat is so limited in its scope and so short in its duration that to use it in the nefarious ways "truth"ers imply Thermite was used is akin to using Legos as a means to blow up the World Trade Center.

[BeFree]

17. Fail!

Question is: Did NIST look for actual "live" thermitic compounds? Any NIST experts here who can answer that question?

So, no, you don't have an NIST answer. Move along.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. How about "warmed-over" themitic compounds?

While you're making up silly distinctions, there's another.

Since Jones didn't even look for compounds with the $40 test that would have done so, I don't know why you're upset about this.

[BeFree]

28. Move along, Bolo

Since you can't or won't even answer the question about your precious NIST.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Maybe if you could explain the difference between active and inactive thermitic materials?

What makes thermitic materials "live" as opposed to "dead"?

[BeFree]

31. Are you blind?

Move along until you can answer the question about your NIST.

No answer for you!

[Bolo Boffin]

32. :eyes: n/t

[wildbilln864]

29. so why do you think...

thermit couldn't be used to bring down those towers? :popcorn:

[BeFree]

33. Ya know

All that would be needed is a hole in a column big enough to stuff some thermite into. Along with a radio controlled igniter.

It would drop down to the first obstruction and once ignited would melt the steel. Is that why the spire looked like it melted? Just asking.

[wildbilln864]

34. that's similar to...

what the guy is saying in the thread I posted called "Max Photon". :hi:

[BeFree]

36. Really?

Great minds think alike? I am not Max, people. Not that anyone thot I might be.

So, if at the basement level several cuts were made in just a few of the columns, and the thermite was added, at any time the radio controlled igniter could set the thermite to work. Being that it was contained inside the column, it would probably get as hot as possible, maybe even so hot that it would continue to cook for days and days. Especially since it was contained?

[wildbilln864]

37. yes...

he talks about shock tubes being used. Did you see the link I posted? It's small and easy to miss, so I was wondering, lol.
:hi:

[BeFree]

38. What's that? Shock tube?

Saw the link. And checked it out. The idea that there would be intentional misleading of everything is interesting. No doubt the people doing the coverup are getting real nervous. They must be getting down to just a few of the old crew still alive, and they must be pretty smug.

They're like the keepers of the flame - the high priests in their monastery, feverishly working to make sure their bible doesn't get questioned, cuz every time it does another layer of lies falls to the floor leaving the whole OCT becoming nekkid.

[SidDithers]

15. What are the conditions in which thermitic material is active...

as opposed to being inactive?

Sid

[BeFree]

18. Fail #76

Question is: Did NIST look for actual "live" thermitic compounds? Any NIST experts here who can answer that question?

So, no, you don't have an NIST answer. Move along.

[SidDithers]

22. Hey, you're the one who brought up "expected range of conditions"...

but if you want to run away from you're own criteria, that's fine with me. Truly, I'd expect no less.

Sid

[BeFree]

27. Move along

If you don't even know what the NIST says about thermite and the WTC, you need to go read your bible.

Gawd, I've turned into a bible beater! Only I use their bible to beat them.

Basically, what I have read of their bible is this: The Planes are almighty!

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. confirming the suspicions that you don't read much n/t

[LARED]

39. This is definitely a contender for the

most incoherent truther post this week.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Actually, the hands-down winner...

will be mrgerbik's post in "I have a question for 'truthers' ". I read it three times and still couldn't figure out wtf he was saying. He actually knocked SLAD out of contention...that's hard to do.

[Realityhack]

44. That is POSSIBLE? ... off to go read said post n/t

[tetedur]

19. Perhaps the authors of the paper entitled "Active Thermitic Material"

were referring to "active" as in "strongly reducing metal" as referred to here:

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/redox/faq/activity-series.shtml

If you follow the link the site explains an "activity series."

The most active metals are at the top of the table; the least active are at the bottom.

[LARED]

40. I guess that is a slim possibly, but seeing

as I don't believe there was much said about relative activity of one thermite compound verse another, it's getting dangerously close to wishful thinking.

[tetedur]

46. Of course you don't understand

I could tell when I saw how you misused the electrochemical meaning of the term "active" in your thread. Perhaps you could Google "metal displacement reaction" then put that together with thermitic reaction and come up with some understanding. But then again, that's really wishful thinking.

[eomer]

26. Google: No results found for "made up class of material".

You've apparently invented a new term yourself. Congrats.

The authors used words to describe what they found in their investigation: that the material had a composition consistent with that of thermite (was thermitic) and produced an energetic reaction when heated (was active). Clearly they were not inventing a new term; rather, they put words together to form meaning -- an activity that is rather common.

They haven't yet compared the material with commercially available variants of super-thermite and thus can't definitively name it; in the meantime they just used a descriptive phrase.

[LARED]

42. I could be wrong, but

producing an "energetic reaction" (what do you mean anyway, as all exothermic reactions are energetic?) when heated is not normally described as being "Active"

[Realityhack]

45. Exactly what type of thermite isn't exothermic? n/t