9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

HOW INDEED CAN NANOTHERMITE BE EXPLOSIVE?
& THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE


T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite.

Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. (1)

Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It's not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive.”

Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.

EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2)

“Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.”

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2)

Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

Later in the paper Jones says

“"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive.
WTC Devastation by public domain

COMPARING NANOTHERMITE REACTION VELOCITIES TO EXPLOSIVE VELOCITIES

The explanation given for claiming that nanothermite is an explosive goes something like this. The thermite reaction is

Fe2O3 + 2 Al ---> 2 Fe + Al2O3

By making the particle sizes of the reactants smaller, down to the nanosize (approximately 30 nm to 60 nm) and mixing them well, the reaction takes place so fast that it becomes explosive. Let's look at some data from technical papers where the reaction velocity of nanothermites were measured and compare these values with the reaction velocities of explosives to see if it seems reasonable to call nanothermite an explosive.

A paper by Spitzer et al. published in the Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids in 2010 presents a variety of research on energetic nano-materials. (5) In one section they deal with nano-thermites made with tungsten trioxide (WO3) and aluminum nano-particles. They experimented with different particle sizes, but they highlight the mixture made with the smallest nano-particles of both WO3 and Al for its impressive performance.

“WO3/Al nano-thermites, which contain only nano-particles, have an impressive reactivity. The fireball generated by the deflagration is so hot that a slamming due to overpressure is heard. The combustion rate can reach 7.3 m/s. This value is extremely high compared to classical energetic materials.” (5)

A paper by Clapsaddle et al. published by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2005 also contains some reaction rate data for nanothermite composed of nano-particles of Fe2O3 and aluminum. (6) In Figure 2. in the paper the combustion velocity is plotted versus percent SiO2 content. The highest values were obtained at zero percent SiO2, so those are the only values I am going to cite. The nanothermite produced by a sol gel process had the highest velocity of 40.5 m/s, compared to the one produced by a simple mixing of the nano-particles with a combustion velocity of 8.8 m/s. (6)

Compare the above combustion velocities of nanothermite with the detonation velocities of high explosives HMX and RDX of 9,100 m/s and 8,750 m/s, respectively, and they are dwarfed by the velocities of the conventional high explosives. Steven Jones appears to be calling the nanothermite reaction explosive only in the sense that it is reacting much faster than regular thermite, but not in the sense that it is anywhere near as explosive as a conventional high explosive. By failing to make this distinction Jones has misled nearly the entire 911 truth movement into believing that nanothermite is a super explosive, possibly even more powerful than conventional high explosives.

From the above, it is quite clear that the “nano” in nanothermite does not make the thermite explosive anywhere near the degree of a high explosive like RDX.

In addition to saying that nano-izing thermite makes it explosive, I have heard Jones say that adding organics to nanothermite also makes it explosive. This issue is explored in the next section.

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE TO MAKE A NANOTHERMITE EXPLOSIVE?

First I would like to quote an entire two paragraph section, with its title, from the LLNL paper. (6)

“Gas generating Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R (R = –(CH2)2(CF2)7CF3) nanocomposites. ”

“One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume-work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects. Typically, work can be done by a rapidly produced gas that is released during the energetic reaction. Towards this end, the silica phase of sol-gel prepared oxidizers, in addition to modifying the burning velocities, has also been used to incorporate organic functionality that will decompose and generate gas upon ignition of the energetic composite [3-4, 7]. Phenomenological burn observations of these materials indicate that the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant amounts of gas. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the ignition of an energetic nanocomposite oxidizer mixed with 2 μm aluminum metal without (left) and with (middle) organic functionalization. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite without organic functionalization exhibits rapid ignition and emission of light and heat. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite with organic functionalization also exhibits these characteristics, but it also exhibits hot particle ejection due to the production of gas upon ignition. This reaction is very exothermic and results in the production of very high temperatures, intense light, and pressure from the generation of the gaseous byproducts resulting from the decomposition of the organic moieties.”

“These materials were also mixed with nanometer aluminum. Figure 5 (right) shows a still image of the ignition of the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposite mixed with 40 nm aluminum. This composite is much more reactive than the same oxidizing phase mixed with 2 μm aluminum metal; the burning of the composite with 40 nm aluminum occurs much too quickly to be able to observe the hot particle ejection. This observation is a good example of the importance mixing and the size scale of the reactants can have on the physical properties of the final energetic composite material. When the degree of mixing is on the nanoscale, the material is observed to react much more quickly, presumably due to the increase in mass transport rates of the reactants, as discussed above.” (6)

Note that in the title of the section quoted above, the symbol R is used to represent the organic functionality added to the nanothermite. In this case it is a 10 carbon atom straight chain functional group fully saturated, with hydrogen atoms on the first two carbon atoms of the chain and fluorine atoms on all the rest. I have not explored the precise energy level of this functional group, but I can tell by just looking at it that it will consume energy (from the thermite reaction) in order to break it down into multiple smaller molecules in order to get the expanding gases necessary to make it behave as explained. This is not an efficient way to make an explosive. I wouldn't expect the explosiveness to be anywhere near that of a conventional high explosive, and the qualitative description given in the paper certainly does not seem to support it being a true explosive, but unfortunately the paper does not give data on what its reaction rate would be. Wouldn't it be better if the organic added to the nanothermite was a molecule that, instead of consuming energy to drive its decomposition, actually produces energy as it decomposes? Such a molecule could be the RDX molecule. This leads to the quoted two-paragraph section below from the Spitzer et al. paper. (5)

“3. Gas generating nano-thermites ”

“Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties. The idea developed at ISL is to solidify explosives in porous inorganic matrixes described previously. Gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) are prepared by mixing Cr2O3/RDX and MnO2/RDX materials with aluminium nano-particles. The combustion mechanisms of these nano-thermites were investigated by DSC and high-speed video. In the case of Cr2O3-based GGNT, the decomposition of RDX induces the expansion and the fragmentation of the oxide matrix. The resulting Cr2O3 nano-particles, which are preheated by the combustion of the explosive, react violently with aluminium nano-particles. In the case of MnO2-based GGNT, the mechanism of combustion is somewhat different because the decomposition of RDX induces the melting of oxide particles. The droplets of molten MnO2 react with aluminium nano-particles.”

“The non-confined combustion of GGNT is rather slow (1-11 cm/s) in comparison with other nano-thermites presented here. However, in a confined environment their combustion rate is expected to be significantly higher. Indeed, the thermal decomposition of GGNT produces gaseous species, which contribute to increase the pressure and the combustion rate in accordance with the Vieille’s law. The thermal decomposition of miscellaneous GGNT compositions was studied in a closed vessel equipped with a pressure gauge. The GGNT were fired with a laser beam through a quartz window. The pressure signal was recorded along time for each material (Fig. 7). The pressure released by the combustion of a GGNT is directly linked to the RDX content of the nano-composite used to elaborate it. Depending on its formulation, a GGNT can provide a pressure ranging from a few bars to nearly three thousand bars.” (5)

I am surprised by the low number given for the reaction velocity, only 1-11 cm/s. Also, it does not say what percent RDX resulted in this low velocity. Maybe it was a very low content of RDX. But the main point I want to make about the above quoted section does not depend on this velocity anyway. The key point is that you have to blend explosives (like RDX) into nanothermite to make it an explosive (“give them blasting properties”).

WHAT NANOTHERMITE ADVOCATES NEED TO DO TO CLARIFY THEIR THEORY

Steven E. Jones and other nanothermite theory advocates should be upfront and truthful about these issues, and clearly elaborate upon the factors missing from their theory that need further fleshing out. It is not good enough to just say “explosive nanothermite” over and over again without explaining exactly what is meant by the term. If they think that incendiary thermite or incendiary nanothermite or low explosive nanothermite or high explosive nanothermite were used in cutter-charges, or some combination, then they should say so. The lack of or degree of explosiveness claimed, whether incendiary, low explosive, or high explosive, is key, because the type of cutter-charge used would depend on this. Once they clarify what they mean by their use of the term “nanothermite”, then they should start describing the quantities of thermite that would have been necessary for the destruction. Only by adding these details to their theory can it be fairly evaluated against alternative theories of the destruction of the buildings of the World Trade Center for the benefit of the wider 9/11 truth community.
___________________________________

THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

Find and document peer reviewed scientific research that demonstrates that a gas generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas generating chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000. For example, if a detonation velocity of 5500 m/s can be documented, then the donation amount will be $550. Only one prize will be awarded in the form of a donation to AE911Truth, and it will be awarded based upon the highest detonation velocity that can be documented. Those submitting entries grant the author the right to publish their entries. Entries must be in the form of a brief (no longer than one page) write-up, with the peer reviewed research cited, and at least scanned copies (electronic pdf files) of the cover page(s) and pages relied upon of the technical papers, if not a submittal of the entire paper(s). Entries should be sent by email to DetonationVelocity@att.net by June 20, 2011. The award will be announced and paid by July 20, 2011.

1 May 2011

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: T. Mark Hightower began his awakening in January 2004 after having stumbled upon the Serendipity web site and learning that the explosive demolition theory for WTC destruction was a more probable explanation than was the official story.

http://www.serendipity.li/

He has worked as an engineer for nearly 30 years, initially in the chemical industry, then in the space program, and currently in the environmental field. He is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

His research on 9/11 is an exercise of his Constitutional rights as a private citizen and in no way represents his employer or the professional societies of which he is a member.

REFERENCES

(1) Fictitious Book Cover, “Explosives in the WTC for Dummies”

(2) Jones, Steven E., “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” Journal of 911 Studies, Volume 3, September 2006

(3) Jones, Steven E., “Answers to Objections and Questions,” Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, 18 July 2006

(4) LLNL Web page cited by Jones – “Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives,”

http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

(5) Denis Spitzer, Marc Comet, Christian Baras, Vincent Pichot, Nelly Piazzon, “Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances,” Institut franco-allemand de recherches de Saint-Louis (ISL), UMR ISL/CNRS 3208, 5, rue du General Cassagnou, 68301 Saint-Louis, France,
Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 71 (2010) 100–108

(6) B. J. Clapsaddle, L. Zhao, D. Prentice, M. L. Pantoya, A. E. Gash, J. H. Satcher Jr., K. J. Shea, R. L. Simpson, “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,” March 25, 2005, Presented at 36th Annual Conference of ICT, Karlsruhe, Germany, June 28, 2005 through July 1, 2005 UCRL-PROC-210871, LLNL This paper is free to download at
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0...

Views: 2055

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You are understanding my presentation correctly.  I have not yet found a way to estimate how much RDX would be needed to turn all the concrete to dust.  I suspect that it would be a very large amount.

 

The calculation where I assumed a relative effectiveness factor of 0.6 for the 895 m/s nanothermite in order to determine that it would take 2.7 times as much nanothermite than RDX, was very much a hypothetical exercise.  It's like we know, that based on the low detonation velocity of 895 m/s for the nanothermite, that no amount of it would be able to cut the steel by means of shock wave effects (or any other effects), but let's pretend that it could do it, and assume a RE factor of 0.6 (very generous value) and then calculate how much it would take, just for the sake of illustration.

 

By the way, a very interesting thing came up during the interview.  I was commenting upon one of the references that Kevin Ryan cited, an article in Technology Review published by MIT of January 21, 2005, entitled "Military Reloads with Nanotech."

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/page1/

I noted that the article also referred to the application of nanotechnology to mini-nukes.  I will paste below the paragraphs from the end of the article that refer to this.

 

Nanotechnology "could completely change the face of weaponry," according to Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert with analyst firm and publisher Jane's Information Group. Oppenheimer says nations including the United States, Germany, and Russia are developing "mini-nuke" devices that use nanotechnology to create much smaller nuclear detonators.

Oppenheimer says the devices could fit inside a briefcase and would be powerful enough to destroy a building. Although the devices require nuclear materials, because of their small size "they blur the line with conventional weapons," Oppenheimer says.

The mini-nuke weapons are still in the research phase and may be surreptitiously funded since any form of nuclear proliferation is "politically contentious" because of the possibility that they could fall into the hands of terrorists, Oppenheimer says.

The creation of much smaller nuclear bombs adds new challenges to the effort to limit weapons of mass destruction, according to Oppenheimer.

"(The bombs) could blow open everything that is in place for arms control," Oppenheimer says. "Everything gets more dangerous."

Thanks for a great show and excellent calculations!

 

We are definitely left with an enormous energy deficit when considering any type of explosive. I have seen the rubble from demolitions, and it is not 60 micron powder. Please look at the notable lack of 200,000 tons of high grade steel that made building on this scale possible. Certainly 200,000 tons of steel alone would create a pile over 10 feet high, no?

 

*Expose the "active thermitic scam"!*

World Trade Center Stats
  • 200,000 tons of steel
  • 425,000 cubic yards of concrete
  • 43,600 windows
  • 12,000 miles of electric cables
  • Had its own zip code, 10048
Each Tower:
  • Had 110 floors
  • 208 ft by 208 ft at base
  • Weighed 500,000 tons
  • 1,368 ft high (north tower)
  • 1,362 ft high (south tower)
  • Contained 198 miles of heating ducts
  • 97 elevators for passengers, 6 for freight

I have posted this video of the sphere hitting the tower on David Icke forum. Although you can see the sphere on the original video that I have, in the transfer to youtube the video went down a generation, you can't see it in the video. I took the video apart frame by frame, enlarged 5 frames and circled the sphere. David Icke thread post is here:

 

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060161270&postcount=672

 

Thread: http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=133535&page=68

The WTC was hollow, gutted before 9/11: no debris


NYC has 176 zip codes.

There are 41 zip codes in Manhattan, 37 in Brooklyn, 61 in Queens, 25 in the Bronx, and 12 on Staten Island, for a total of 176 zip codes in New York City. One building in NYC has its own zip code : the Federal Reserve Bank, 33 Liberty Street, 10045. The World Trade Center had its own, as well, which is now inactive but reserved : 10048.
There are 8,210,000 people in NYC, There are over 19.3 million residents living in the entire state of New York. NY is the most densely populated city in the United States. It is also the number 1 market in the U.S.

 

World Trade Center Stats
  • 200,000 tons of steel
  • 425,000 cubic yards of concrete
  • 43,600 windows
  • 12,000 miles of electric cables
  • Had its own zip code, 10048
You have noted 12,000 miles of electric cables, but there were no cables, office furniture, toilets, computers, copy machines in the less than 3 stories of debris on 911. WHY? BECAUSE the WTC TOWERS were GUTTED and prepped for demolition on 911.
"
You have noted 12,000 miles of electric cables, but there were no cables, office furniture, toilets, computers, copy machines in the less than 3 stories of debris on 911. WHY? BECAUSE the WTC TOWERS were GUTTED and prepped for demolition on 911."
I've narrowed it down to...

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

 

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

 

Dicto simpliciter

 

Non Sequitur

 

Petitio principia

 

Did they remove the steel beforehand as well? Surely 200,000 tons of steel would amount to more than three stories.

jane doe said:


NYC has 176 zip codes.

There are 41 zip codes in Manhattan, 37 in Brooklyn, 61 in Queens, 25 in the Bronx, and 12 on Staten Island, for a total of 176 zip codes in New York City. One building in NYC has its own zip code : the Federal Reserve Bank, 33 Liberty Street, 10045. The World Trade Center had its own, as well, which is now inactive but reserved : 10048.
There are 8,210,000 people in NYC, There are over 19.3 million residents living in the entire state of New York. NY is the most densely populated city in the United States. It is also the number 1 market in the U.S.

 

World Trade Center Stats
  • 200,000 tons of steel
  • 425,000 cubic yards of concrete
  • 43,600 windows
  • 12,000 miles of electric cables
  • Had its own zip code, 10048
You have noted 12,000 miles of electric cables, but there were no cables, office furniture, toilets, computers, copy machines in the less than 3 stories of debris on 911. WHY? BECAUSE the WTC TOWERS were GUTTED and prepped for demolition on 911.

Same people with the same tired non-arguments. Excuse me, the towers were gutted, prepped for demolition on 911 01. It was a plan by Strategic Communication Laboratories, London. Op Northwoods/Mongoose nixed by Kennedy for Cuba, recycled to use television instead of radio.

 

Remember Orson Welles, War of the World? No. Theatre Arts 101 would have been a beneficial class for you. The rest of us took it for fun and a mick grade. It seems there are actually people like you two, who have heard of Welles PUNK of the WORLD. If Welles were mean and a lucifierian as the U.S. ,govt is, he could have overtaken the world with his production. Instead, he admitted it was a PUNK.

 

As for Bush Cheney et al. The STOLE money from the American people and the WORLD for their own aggrandizement: Death Hoax Fraud-$6 billion,, Real Estate Fraud-$7.2 billion, stock market manipulation and insider trading on American & United Put Options $2 billion worldwide, if not more, art market insurance fraud-$100 million. The insured artwork was removed from the towers before 911 & claimed as being lost, $100 million.

 

My point of posting zip codes in NYC is that there are 176 zip codes in NYC. WTC was just one. Federal Reserve has its own zip code. Your arguments are weak and senseless. You are the only 2 people who post on this thread. I am done with this forum. Why would anyone want to pay to join a forum where the same people post all the time. I like Jim Fetzer, but to be honest, this forum is worthless. GOODbye, paid posting punks.

You are excused! You did not disprove my admittedly tired argument, "where are the  200,000 tons of steel?"

 

We are very tired of you using this forum to peddle your religious crap anyway. 

 

Best of Luck,

 

Shallel*Octavia Sananda

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service