what are *active thermitic compounds?*

[backwoodsbob]

are they like jumping jacks?

[wildbilln864]

1. this is alread discussed in another thread. nt

[Realityhack]

7. Several in fact... and you have yet to provide a clear deffinition in any of them.

[scott75]

8. Can you post a link to where it's explained? -nt

[tetedur]

11. If your question is "what is active thermitic material"

you might follow a link given here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=240987&mesg_id=241061

Metals can be classified based on the "activity", that is, the ease with which they can have chemical reactions.

A typical thermite can be aluminum mixed with iron oxide. When ignited, the result is aluminum oxide, elemental iron and heat.

Look up redox reactions.

[Realityhack]

12. So WTF would 'inactive' thermite be?

The term is blatantly made up.

[greyl]

13. "Use as many jargon terms as possible(make them up if necessary)"

From The Bluffer's Guide To Astrology & Fortune Telling.

"To bolster the credibility of their claims, pseudosciences typically use lots of scientific jargon."
Psychology, by Hockenbury and Hockenbury

[Realityhack]

14. Yeah I get that...

but I was wondering if those who seem to be defending this as a reasonable term can define the difference between what would be 'active' and 'inactive'.
I know it is most likely just like the use of 'pyroclastic clouds' or 'zero point energy' (when abused) etc.

[greyl]

25. Just harmonizing while we wait. ;) nt

[tetedur]

19. I agree the term inactive thermite is made up---

by you. I cannot help you with a definition of something someone has posited as the opposite of "active" because it is a total misuse of of the word in the context of the paper in question. Neither is "inactive" used in the paper in question.

"Active" here describes the classification of the metals found in the dust.

[Realityhack]

20. Right but the problem is that all thermite would by deffinition be 'active'

using your definition (and it is far from clear that Jones was using it in this way). So it hardly makes sense to say it is an 'active thermitic material' when all thermitic material would by definition be 'active'.

It is possible Jones meant it in this way but I find it unlikely. In any case this is hardly the most important/critical flaw in the paper.

[LARED]

17. Except for the part that activity is a relative term

useful for comparing one compound against another.

Jones did not use active in that sense.

[Realityhack]

22. Well in order to do that he might need an operational deffinition...

and I am not convinced he knows WTF that is.

[jberryhill]

2. They are what plants crave!

That's why they are in Brawndo!

[LARED]

3. I think there is a strong possiblity that "active thermitic compounds"

is a new fangled way to say paint chip.

It's not to bad. A bit on the wordy side.

"I prepared the window frame for paint by removing the active thermitic compounds with a paint scraper. It was hard work."

[LARED]

4. Perhaps they are similiar to these active fellows

Beans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ45se_3TKA

[tetedur]

5. "Some babies never learn" -Bob Dylan

And what's that old saying? You can fool some of the people some of the time...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

When this tact is used to mock/discredit the work of the authors of "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" you have to say to yourself, "That's all they have."

That's all they have. Really. No real research, no real response with their own paper, just ignorant mocking from the sidelines.

You also have to ask yourself, who is being won over to their point of view with this attitude?

[Realityhack]

6. This is hardly the only argument against the paper.

Do some poking around on the internet and you will find the 'science' is easily debunked.

[tetedur]

9. Science is debunked by asking if active thermitic materials

are jumping jacks? Wow.

And that's an "argument?"

[Realityhack]

10. Reading comprehension for the loose.

I said no such thing in my post. I pointed out that their are many discussions available here and elsewhere of the 'science' presented in the paper. So your complaints that people are reaching because this is the only criticism they have are baseless and you are either ignorant of the discussions of the scientific merits of the paper or being intellectually dishonest.

The fact that the authors use an undefined term and never provide an operational deffinition does show the paper is hardly up to academic standards.

[LARED]

15. There was a point in time when DU'ers would spend time and effort

to debunk silliness likes Jones work. Let me clarify that the reasons Jones work is silly is not because it is wholly inaccurate or sloppy it is because he draws conclusions that are unmerited and he skips over some pretty basic research that would be helpful in uncovering the true nature of the materials.

The reality of the situation is most (not all) of DU'er that have the background to critique the Jones' of the world have provided feedback many times over the years, only to have a bunch of willfully ignorant truthers call them shills, hacks, or spend time devising the most arcane reasons to cling to their silly notions.

After a few years of that mockery is a default response.

[Realityhack]

16. To be fair...

A number of people have provided specific reasons why this paper was bunk. Not a super detailed academic refutation (it doesn't warrant that anyway) but numerous specifics.

So despite the mockery the information needed to understand why the paper is junk is on the board. But by the 10th time the same 'point' is made by Jones supporters... yes the mockery comes out and rightfully so as they have at that point demonstrated willful ignorance as the errors have been pointed out for all to see.

[LARED]

18. I agree - far better said by you. nt

[SidDithers]

21. We almost had a definition here...

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=240987&mesg_id=241042

But the poster declined to expand on the "range of conditions" that might differentiate between active and inactive.

Sid

Edit: spelling

[Sancho]

23. Here's a video with an interview of one of the article writers explaining...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o


There are captions. Interesting.

[Realityhack]

24. Nope. He does not explain what an 'active' thermic compound is in that video. n/t

[William Seger]

26. Another question: What does "highly energetic" mean

Jones seems to be quite fixated on the fact that his paint chips have a slightly higher energy density than some explosives like TNT and RDX -- completely ignoring the fact that things like jet fuel and paper have energy densities many times higher, yet he claims that steel is impervious to those things burning. "High explosives" don't have high energy densities; they just release their energy at a very high rate. Jones has yet to show that his paint chips do anything like that; he just assumes it, after first assuming that it's "nanothermite" (even though the low ignition temperature implies that it is not). Calling his paint chips "highly energetic" seems to be a conscious attempt to dodge the issue, and another attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of his little cult.