Discussion in '9/11' started by Mick West, Oct 12, 2013.
Correct. It's primer paint.
Explosives don't need oxygen to work.
Thought this summed up part of the problem with this discussion from the outset.
So why did LANL test the nano thermite in ''normal air'' conditions.
Well, I haven't read LANL's work, so I don't know what they were testing for.
From my own experience with bomb calorimeters (essentially what was used), one shouldn't really pyrolize explosives at all. They have no more energy than fuels, weight-for-weight. The only difference is the energy delivery speed.
If the material contains its own oxygen, then it doesn't need air. Primer paint is such a case, and should be pyrolized in an inert atmosphere.
Anyone found a paint yet that ignites at 430C and produces iron microspheres as a by-product?
Anyone found some red-grey flakes that burn rapidly in the absence of oxygen?
So that's a "no."
No paint found that does what the red-gray chips do when ignited at relatively low temperatures. No paint found that has the same components at the same sizes.
And let me reiterate: I agree that the red-gray chips should be tested in an inert atmosphere to confirm their "thermitic" nature. As it stands, they ignited at about 430C and produced iron microspheres--very nearly identical to the iron microspheres found in the WTC dust.
Any way you cut it, these chips do what no known paint can do. It was tested by Harrit, et. al. in ambient air--just like the air it would have been surrounded by in the WTC towers.
There is every reason to believe this stuff is a highly-engineered thermal bridge that has no concievable purpose other than to cause destruction. No one made this stuff in a cave--this stuff MUST have been made in a lab. The XEDS and SEM/BSE data is conclusive in this regard.
What do you have besides doubt? A consulting fee?
Lack of confirmation.
Found this thread while in search of other things, however, upon reading thru it I see a couple of things that I believe are worth adding.
1) The red layer of WTC dust chips examined by Dr Millette are comprised mostly of a carbon-based matrix; there isn't enough Fe or Al by % (even assuming the A l is elemental, which it isn't - but just for the sake of argument) to allow a thermitic reaction. End of story.
1a) There is no point burning it, since it's organic material and will combust. That cannot demonstrate a thermitic reaction, nor did it in the paper authored by Harrit/Jones et al. They could conceivably have carried out the test without oxygen present, but did not, so they cannot claim correctly that they have proven a thermitic reaction by that method either - the DSC just burned something organic, that's all.
2) OK, so something burned, but when compared with known thermite it produced a completely different exotherm, some 400º C lower than real thermite in fact. This alone strongly indicates it's not thermite, but again we already know it isn't because of the predominance of other materials than fe and al in the red layer.
3) The energy density of the red layer is a big problem for the thermite claim - At least 2 chips measured above the theoretical maximum of ordinary thermite (3.96 kJ/g); known nanothermite has an even lower ED due to the smaller particles and greater oxidation. So right there we again falsify the claim that a thermitic reaction is the primary suspect: it is clearly something else.
To an unbiased and skeptical observer it is obvious that the most likely source for the red/grey chips is a layer of primer paint with iron oxide attached to it. We already know this material should be found in abundance, so it's expected in the dust.
Briefly wading into the 'controversy' over the iron-rich microspheres, there is nothing suspicious about their presence, as there are a number of known sources for such artifacts which are accounted for in the fires and collapses. One does not need to introduce a conspiracy-driven hypothesis into the mix in order to understand fully what has occurred. There is no conspiracy theory at play regarding the physics of the collapses in fact; one only needs to consider impact, combustion, failure and collapse. The motivations of the hijackers, the skills of the pilots, the insurance policies of the building owners and leasees - none of those are relevant to such a discussion. In other words, take away the conspiracy, and there is no thermite. And there never was.
Don't understand this comment. Are you accusing Mick of taking money for his position?
It's about time you acknowledged the inevitable redox reaction between heavy metal oxides and polymer hydrocarbon binding media. (This will take place even in an inert atmosphere).
You rely on the denial of this reaction, and it makes what you write totally false.
Why am I having to repeat this?
Heavens to Betsy! I do believe I am offended by your implications, sir! What an inconcievable proposition!
Of course, you are familiar with standard English punctuation, like a question mark, yes? Let no implication stand that isn't one with which you already agree!
Of course, anything to keep from talking about the evidence at hand: red-gray chips that have no known manufactured counterpart, composed of relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles, elemental Al, ignite at about 430C and produce IRON MICROSPHERES as a by-product.
The biggest criticisms:
"They don't behave like conventional thermite because they ignite at LOWER temps and have GREATER energy density."
That doesn't really help your case, fyi.
"I doubt the information in the Harrit team's paper because..."
Your unfounded doubt is noted.
Sure it is. Regardless of the fact that no such paint can be found by ANYONE that has these components and properties. And you can be sure plenty of people have tried their hardest to locate one. Why is rationality taking a backseat in the examination of this (and other) piece(s) of evidence?
The data in the Harrit, et. al. paper is conclusive by virtue of the cross-corroboration of the tests which confirm the existence of elemental Al and Fe2O3 particles. What kind of confirmation are you looking for?
When you have time, I'd appreciate a response to the points I made above. I think for the thermitic theory to even have a faint fighting chance, there would have to be enough Fe and Al by % for a thermitic reaction. Clearly, looking at either Harrit et al. XEDS or Millette's data we can see there isn't enough, not by a long shot. It is irrelevant who the manufacturer of the primer was (probably a variant on the LaClede formula) because with primer and the red layer alike the predominant material is an organic binder.
Any decent materials scientist is going to spot this right away, so why pound away at an idea which just doesn't work? It's a complete waste of time by this stage in the game. The game is over, chemically-speaking. The thermite theory has been falsified empirically. QED.
Can you please explain why "there isn't enough".
In a powder-entrained type, the support matrix comprises about 10% of the material, with energetic powders making up 90%.
In a gel, the gel is an oxidizer (iron oxide, for example) and the fuel (Aluminum powder) is embedded in the pores of the gel.
It's pretty much the same principle as conventional gunpowder (a dense fuel/oxidizer mixture) but with different methods of binding the reacting materials, and small size of metal fuel particles.
(Source: Randy Simpson, LLNL)
Nobody has made an explosive which was mostly made of a carbon binder, with less than 10% reactive ingredients. It wouldn't be explosive in that case... On the other hand, that's very close to the mixture found in LaClede steel primer, shown below expressed in % by weight. Very similar to the red chip layer measured by Harrit et al. In a couple of Harrit's samples there's more Si than either Fe or Al! That's why it is impossible for it to produce a thermitic reaction, by definition.
If you wanted to try a crude experiment, you could just take some ordinary black powder, then dilute the oxidizer/fuel with epoxy until it's about 10% by weight. Light it and see what happens to the speed of the reaction. It won't be fast anymore, and it won't be explosive anymore. But that's obvious, right?
LaClede Primer (from Oystein's notes)
C: 48% by weight
H, N: 7% each
I still don't get it? What did you mean "A consulting fee?"?
Do you mean the cost of getting a test done properly?
Or is your sarcasm to confirm my initial impression?
Just be clear please. It's a small point I know, but it distracts from the facts.
Can you refute that there was not
Yes. Alien Entity uses much the same technique of "refutation" that Jazzy uses: make some scientificky-sounding argument, which is a kind of argument from authority, or "confident manner" (a technique refined to a fine art by Ryan Mackey), and pretend it trumps actual tests.
The fact of the matter is neither Jazzy nor AE can find any paint whatsoever, regardless of chemical composition that ignites at 430C and produces iron microspheres as a by-product. Jazzy loves to write out some chemical equation and slam his hand down as if that just showed everyone the simple truth about this or that. And despite a balanced chemical equation involving elements present in both paint and the red-gray chips, neither he nor AE can show any paint that does what the red-gray chips do.
So simply saying "there isn't enough..." to be this material or that is like saying "mechanical flight is impossible" while watching an airplane buzz by. It is a vacuous claim made to persuade the uncritical thinker.
A) Confirmation of what the results actually signify from experts in the various domains
B) Replication of the results by other scientists
Hi Jay, isn't that ironic, accusing me of a 'scientificky-sounding argument'? In fact Harrit et al. are making just such bare assertions, by claiming (falsely) that the microspheres can 'only' be produced by a thermitic reaction or extremely high temperatures. It's a false statement, so one's belief in it is terribly mistaken. It is already established that such microspheres are produced variously as 'fly ash', by simple mechanical processes analogous to a grinder, and even by ignition of pure steel itself - when the mass of the steel or iron is small, as in a flake of rust, or steel wool.
So, no, it isn't true that microspheres are PROOF of thermitic reactions, while they may also produce them.
In the case of the towers, the other sources of microspheres have not been eliminated, and the presence of thermite has not been demonstrated either. You have an endless rhetorical stalemate as a result, with thermitists refusing to back down, in spite of the lack of real evidence. I give you points for supposition, no question. That's not enough to establish fact though.
I'll leave the allegation of 'argument from authority' for now, again quite ironic that it's precisely the technique used by the '2000 architects and engineers' folks.... quite amusing.
Harrit et al. have made an allegation that the chips are thermitic. Millette's FTIR study shows exactly what the red layer is made of, but I left that out of my comments until there was a response. If you care to find out what the composition is please look at Millette's work, and please by all means go to the head of your local university chemistry department and ask for clarification. Don't take Millette's word, or my word. Ask a third party to explain the results to you. You're not going to like the answer, but I can't help you there.
Ask a chemistry prof about the possibility that a material with 10% reactive ingredients in a carbon matrix can produce a thermitic reaction. It's not a difficult question. I see you've already tried to poison the well by making the false analogy of the airplane which cannot fly. I guess you can just ignore all the LLNL data, the chemistry and so on, and fixate on the mystery of the microspheres as a trump card for all other knowledge. Be my guest if you want to travel down that path, but it won't lead you to any enlightenment on the matter.
If you insist on experimental testing to prove anything, then ask Harrit et al. to demonstrate a very thin painted layer of your 'nanothermite', composed exactly as the red layer of the chips, cutting through a thick structural steel column. Whoops, they haven't done that, have they? They merely assume this quasi-magical event, and their obedient followers accept it uncritically. They've made the claim, they should come up with the proof - steel and nanothermite are not untestable, so when are they going to step up and prove their theory?
The answer is: never. You know it, and we know it.
Remember that a chemistry prof can look at both XEDS and FTIR and see that there is less Fe and Al than Si or C in most of the chips. If a molecule of Al is not in contact with oxidant, it can't produce a thermitic reaction (Look at Fig 7 in the Harrit paper, there isn't much O to react with), so you've got a Mt Everest of uphill battle in front of you to overcome this reality. Let us know how it works out for ya!
ps I've added what I wanted to add to this conversation. I've made some suggestions as to how thermitists could prove the concept they're suggesting. That's it for me.
I am interested in the argument that there was not
given that, if true, then the 'discovery of thermite" is falsified.
I have looked at the Harrit paper and so have an idea of their distributions.
Can any debunker, @Jazzy springs to mind,
give us the expected distribution from a thermitic reaction (with reasons).
Further, can someone please explain, if the thermite hypothesis is valid, what exactly these chips would be? (I am thinking the products of the reaction).
Per unit weight, the proportions would be molar wrt the summed atomic weights of the reactants (2Al and Fe2O3, 25% to 75%) which is schoolboys stuff. Less the weight of the binder, which will be a small additional percentage.
2Fe (molten iron) and Al203 (a fine white ALUMINA smoke). 52% to 48% by weight.
These are fag-packet figures. There is no need to go further, as these are so obviously different from these "red chips".
Am I correct that it is being claimed that the "chips" are the by-product?
The claim is that they are "unreacted thermitic material" - i.e. actual unignited thermite that was (presumably) painted on girders, but just flaked off, like paint would.
It ignites at 430C.
It produces iron microspheres.
It has a greater energy density than conventional thermite.
It is composed of nanoparticulate Fe2O3 and elemental Al.
It was in all the WTC dust samples studied by the Harrit team.
Yet, the substance in question has no known manufacturing correlate.
I appreciate your confidence in this knowledge claim, but how do you account for the fact that the substance contains free Al, relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles and produces iron microspheres as a by-product? You cannot simply leave these facts unreconciled. That is your current stance, which indicates you have no interest in doing science. You like to sound scientific, yet you fail to take into account actual experimentation.
If you don't think the label "thermitic" should not apply to the material because it was burned in an ambient atmosphere, that's fine. It's still unlike any paint known.
Again, a very confident-sounding claim, but have you taken a piece of dried primer (of a LaClede formula variant) and tested to see what temperature it ignites at? Or if it produces IRON MICROSPHERES upon ignition? That would be a DECISIVE VICTORY to put to bed the notion that the red-gray chips are some unexploded, experimental military-grade thermal bridge material FOREVER! But we both know the reason no one has done that is because that's not what dried paint or primer paint does when it ignites.
If they were just some "variant of the LaClede formula," why was Dr. Millette unable to make that connection?
So, any material with organic binder is like any other material with organic binder? That's so clearly not true, it pains me to have to point it out.
Again with your "Anybody who knows can tell you..." argument from authority. And yet, why has not a SINGLE EXPERIMENT been done to confirm what "any decent materials scientist" can spot right away? Maybe because it's not true. Maybe no one has done an experiment to show how the LaClede formula burns at 430C and produces IRON MICROSPHERES because it simply doesn't do that. Maybe you have to stuff your posts with so much bluster and fluff about how "obvious it is to any expert" because you don't have a real argument to stand on.
People who are paying attention can see the difference between an argument with no substance and an argument with real empirical tests underpinning it. You can quote all the percentages of material composition, but it gets you no closer to dismissing the red-gray chips as evidence of a criminal conspiracy attempting to hide underneath the hijackings.
Except you don't mean "empirically." You mean it has detractors, such as yourself, who have no empirical basis WHATSOEVER to make claims of the insignificance of this evidence. And yet again, you make my point by trying to make the red-gray chips, as well as their by-products unimportant in the framework Official Conspiracy Theory.
If you take away all your appeals to authority, all your bare assertions stated with nothing but a salesman's confidence, there is no substance behind anything you say. You can't expect anyone to take your position seriously if you have nothing to back up your claims.
I see you bowed out of the discussion already, and that's the only smart move you can make at this point. The science clearly undermines your position. Your official theory is no help. All you can do is say things with a sense of authority and disappear--hoping some weak-minded individual who doesn't have the will to think for himself will agree with you. That's what "victory" looks like to you.
This is why I don't engage with people whose clear purpose is to persuade--not to disambiguate. I'm of the opinion that when facts are laid bare, people can tell the difference between bull and sense. I'm not selling a goddamned thing. If you have a problem with the arguments I make, let's take a look at them and break it down to the most understandable pieces we can. I don't fear that. I relish it.
Do you feel the same way about the OCT? Should the Official Conspiracy Theory be tested in some other way besides a computer simulation where the inputs can be inflated or deflated with mere keystrokes?
Why don't the UL floor truss tests count as a clear refutation of the Heat-Induced Collapse Theory?
Was NIST able to demonstrate how molten aluminum with organic substances mixed in can look like a river of molten iron like the metal that poured out of the North Tower?
Was NIST or Jazzy or anyone whatsoever been able to demonstrate how friction events can cause the massive amount of iron microspheres in the dust?
Has NIST been able to demonstrate how a liquid eutectic can form in a rubble pile?
Has anyone been able to replicate the vaporization of lead with burning batteries and impacts?
If you are in the business of "debunking" claims, why do you demand more testing of one theory which has had multiple tests done on it, and yet hold tight to another theory which either has not been tested at all or when it is tested, is demonstrated to be false?
Sounds like a bunch of topics for other threads. This one has already drifted too far.
Has anyone been able to produce iron microspheres that match the iron microspheres in the wtc dust ? , without using a thermitic reaction, last time I looked FLY ASH IS NOT THE SAME...
I see you've not read the Millette study. Sigh. Figures why you're trying to argue moot points. I'm afraid you can't just argue your way out of this.
Actually, Harrit et al. tested primer paint, most likely LaClede. Dr Millette looked at the same material in the dust, selected for the same criteria.
Harrit discovered it ignited at a much lower temperature than actual nanothermite, but was too bullheaded to recognize that the proof (against his initial theory) was staring him in the face. Not my fault, but his. You ought to take heed and let reality sink in a little.
Nope, that's exactly what primer paint does. We know this because the chemistry of the chips is a match for commercial paint. Very sorry to burst your bubble, chum, you seem to have invested a lot of your self worth on this erroneous concept. Fact is, Millette's very thorough tests confirm that the elements are EXACTLY as expected from paint - C,O,Al,Si and Fe along with Ti and Ca, in an epoxy resin. Bang on in fact.
But unlike ANY nanothermite we're ever going to see.
He was hired to identify the material. Read the study. He did so. It wasn't his job to track down the exact paint formula, that was done by a few other people, based on specs for the towers.
Want to know how much LaClede primer there was on the steel? Brace yourself - '
LaClede Standard Primer is a zinc-free paint formulation with which the floor joists of the twin towers were painted.
The painted area of these LaClede-painted floor joists in both towers was roughly 600,000 m2 while Tnemec is only known to have been specified for about 400,000 m2 of perimeter column surface. For the rest of the structural steel – core columns, hat truss and others, a total of 300,000 m2 the primer used isn't known.'
So based on this we expect a large amount of either primer paint in the WTC dust. And that's exactly what is found. In each case, the paint is adhered to a 'gray layer', ie the steel. Ever wonder why the chips have two layers? You should, that's what paint looks like.
The composition of the primer is identical to Harrit's and Millette's dust samples:
Fe2O3, a red pigment
Aluminium Silicate” is kaolin, chemical formula Al2Si2O5(OH)4, a clay mineral very commonly used in paints to control gloss consistence. Kaolin appears naturally in platetelets some micrometers across and some tens of nanometers thick, which tend to stack.
epoxy vehicle about 68% C
That's why all the chips are mainly Carbon, with other stuff mixed in. Look at the XEDS of Harrit - lots of C, Si, O and often less Fe and Al than Si! No thermite there. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat 'it's thermite', that doesn't change the reality that it cannot be.
This is a lost cause for you, whether you see it yet or not. It's not thermite, it never was and it never will be, despite the protestations.
I prefer not to waste time, but I reserve the right to rebut any misrepresentations you continue to make. Stay tuned.
Suggest you take your concerns to a qualified third party, perhaps they will help you understand things better.
Just a general note to any who might be reading this (heaven help you): Thermitists have fallen over themselves to accept Harrit's claims of elemental Al, while being completely oblivious to the fact that there's a fairly small amount of Al, elemental or not, in the chips.
So the argument is actually moot, they just don't realize it, or cannot face facts.
They can continue to call paint chips 'nanothermite' but that don't make 'em so!
I quote the Millette study, much more thorough than that of Harrit et al. Unlike Harrit and Jones, Millette is actually an expert at this type of study, so he didn't make the rookie mistakes they did. He used FTIR, for one thing. He took the guesswork and speculation out of it, and found nothing remarkable. Sure, it's a letdown for the conspiracy hounds, but so what? That's their problem. Let the record show that the chips are consistent with primer paint... circa 1970.
'In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.'
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.'
This last exchange is a great illustration of the way a person, taking a highly contrarian approach, can fail to see something really obvious. Hanging on to the contrarian belief becomes more important than actually discovering what happened. I have made this error as well in my life, so I understand how it works. Sometimes the obvious is correct.
In this case, the microspheres are intriguing, but cannot answer the big question - were explosives present in the towers? They're too common and not definitive enough to answer it. Insisting that they possess some kind of magical key is not rational when confronted with the reality that they can be produced a number of ways, without extreme high temperature.
The bi-layered chips found in the dust are peculiar as a foundation of the belief of explosive controlled demolition of the towers - they are chemically very similar to the composition of various primer paints coating the structural steel of the towers, but very unlike any known thermitic material, whether conventional or 'nano' scale.
That is to say, they are primarily some kind of carbon-based matrix (epoxy matches best) attached to carbon steel - this is not something that can be seriously disputed when regarding both the Harrit and Millette studies.
The last desperate refuge of those who wish this stuff to be nanothermite, against much better judgement IMO, is to claim it might be possibly some kind of special, 'experimental military-grade thermal bridge material' (holy bafflegab, Batman!), which of course cannot be proven to exist. But failing to see the obvious (it's paint) the conspiracy theorist prefers the speculative, imaginative and highly improbable. Quelle surprise!
But that's what it takes to cling to these beliefs. Not really any different from those who refuse to accept that planes hit the Pentagon, or even the towers; or refuse to accept that there were ever hijackers; or that fires could destroy these magnificent structures. An amazing capacity to deny the most basic and obvious realities surrounding 9/11. That truly defines the 9/11 Truth Movement as of 2013.
I admit my curiosity regarding the nanothermite meme has been piqued this week, so I've been digging around some more. I found an interesting article from September 2013 in Veteran's Today Journal. It's by Don Fox and Jim Fetzer. I don't know Don, but of course I'm familiar with Mr Fetzer. They have an interesting critique of the nanothermite theory, as follows:
'Major and minor dust samples
The group that dominates A&E911 and produced “Explosive Evidence”–Richard Gage, Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and Neils Harrit, especially–have insisted that the key to understanding 9/11 is tiny chips of unexploded energetic material found in dust samples from apartments in the vicinity of “Ground Zero”, to which they refer as “nanothermite”. The catch turns out be that nanothermite is a feeble explosive that has 1/13 the force of TNT, the universal standard. Research by T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, moreover, has shown that it only has a detonation velocity of 895m/s, which is far from the speed of sound in concrete and steel, which are 3,200m/s and 6,100m/s, respectively. Since it is a law of materials science that an explosive cannot destroy a material unless it has a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. You can’t get there from there.'
I haven't tried to verify whether any of this is true or not, but even assuming that the DV of NT is somewhat higher than stated, wouldn't it be very difficult, nay impossible, to cut a steel column if you were only painting on a thin layer of the material?
Demolitions are done using shaped charges with metal cutting layers, not by painting on the explosive. I don't think any thermitist has tried to paint actual nanothermite and test the theory - correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find any experimental data to back up their claims.
But of course it gets even worse for the nanothermite theory, because - even if you accept the findings of Mark Hightower regarding explosive velocity of known nanothermite - the WTC dust chips have, even by the most generous analysis, only a small fraction of possible reactive ingredients* with which to accomplish this alleged task! (about 10% in the best-case scenario).
Again, I think the challenge should go out to Jones, Harrit et al. to whip up a batch of 'nanothermite' according to the formula found in the red layer of the chips, paint it thinly onto some structural steel and demonstrate how it can destroy the steel. They've made the claim, but where's the data to support it?
So far it's all speculation.
btw I discovered that a 'bait and switch' has been going on regarding AE911Truth's claims over the years. Many people have pointed out that fires and explosions of the plane crashes would have destroyed any potential demolition devices around the impact/fire areas. Therefore they would not be able to initiate collapses in those areas as claimed by proponents of the controlled demolition theory. Apparently AE911Truth has made the claim that thermite has a very high ignition temperature (about 2200 ºC), so wouldn't be affected by such fires - some have even called it the 'fireproof explanation'. That's all fine, on a purely speculative level. However, when Jones, Harrit et al. published their 'Active Thermitic Materials' paper in 2009, they specifically documented and claimed that the chips ignite at around 430º C!
This directly contradicts a major claim previously made, as obviously the chips are not 'fire proof' at all!
It seems the properties of conventional thermite and nanothermite have been interchanged, perhaps by mistake, perhaps just for convenience' sake. But it looks like a bit of 'bait and switch' to me.
*this assumes the presence of elemental Al, which was falsified by Dr James Millette
Let's talk about Dr. Millette's work. You left out some of the conclusions--the ones that are less speculative. My emphases.
I think you missed that part. Here's another part you seem to have neglected to comprehend:
You think they were motivated to find a match? You better believe it. But they failed. It's not the primer used in the towers. It's not ANY KNOWN PRIMER. It's NOT SPECULATION that they didn't find a match. It IS speculation that the red-gray chips are some kind of primer paint. They are simply making that part up--in the face of their own inability to find a match.
What about the iron microspheres? What did they say when they tested the chips at their ignition point?
Nothing. Because they didn't raise the temperature in the oven high enough to reach the known ignition point. I realize that wasn't their goal in ashing the red material. But you would think that performing a separate experiment to burn the material and confirm that they either did or did NOT produce iron microspheres would be a primary consideration a forensic laboratory whose task it was to deny that these chips were a candidate for foul play in the WTC collapses. Apparently not.
So, knowing full well that the ignition temps of the chips are about 430C, they made sure their protocol DID NOT EXCEED 400C. Why wouldn't they just turn the furnace up and test the combustion products--seeing as how that's a major lynch pin of the evidence?
I have a guess. But it's speculation. Fact of the matter is they failed to test to see if these chips produce molten iron upon ignition.
Apparently, this type of failure to confirm/disconfirm happens quite a bit from supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Why? If they are so sure this stuff is nothing to be concerned about, why can't they burn it and analyze the by-products to be sure? Probably because their real goal is to support a pre-conceived theory. There isn't another good reason why they didn't turn their oven up another 30C and prove for sure this stuff is just paint.
So this is what the final verdict is on the Millette analysis:
1. The red-gray chips are no known paint-primer they can identify
2. They are indeed composed of relatively uniform 100-200 nm iron oxide particles
3. Their FTIR data conflicts with the Harrit team's data regarding the existence of elemental Al
4. They neither confirmed nor disconfirmed the ignition by-products for failure to test
5. They neither found a match for this material, nor denied the thermitic nature of it
6. Ultimately, they were unable to rule out the red-gray chips as evidence of an experimental thermal bridge material used to cause harm and murder people on 9/11/2001
So in the best interpretation, we can say their analysis is inconclusive as to a determination of the "thermitic" nature of the red-gray chips. It is also inconclusive, at best, as to a match to any known paint/primer.
This is what NIST found:
So clearly, the red-gray chips are some other substance than primer paint as the organic binder burned away without consequence up to 400C. The primer paint studied by NIST as adhered to the steel columns was not affected until 650C, and at that point, it simply burned the organic binder and left the ceramic coating to simply crack and flake off.
The red-gray chips turned into iron microspheres and gaseous by-products at much lower temps than the primer paint on the WTC columns. There is no way to confuse the red-gray material with paint or primer paint or any known manufactured substance. Show me some paint that when dried, ignites at 430C and produces iron microspheres, and then you have a real wedge. Otherwise, you have nothing but rhetoric.
I don't know why you keep saying that as if this fact played in your favor. It doesn't. A lower ignition temp simply moves it further away from any kind of paint/primer. There is no reason to believe a lab couldn't have designed the particle/matrix to ignite at a lower temperature. The fact is, the red-gray chips MAKE MOLTEN IRON WHEN IGNITED. There is no getting around this fact. Let that sink in.
Thanks for the advice. Maybe you should focus on the fact that no known paint or primer paint has been identified as a positive match. None known. Lower ignition temp than known nanothermites. Produces iron microspheres as a by-product. Let that sink in.
If you want to dismiss the possibility that this material is something other than paint, simply burn some paint and show how it forms molten iron on its edges like the chips studied by Harrit, et. al. This doesn’t require a laboratory or a DSC. Just a lighter, tweezers and a camera. ANYONE COULD DO IT. Why has no one done so?
The only real refutation of the Harrit team's work otherwise is that the Harrit team is making up their findings. Why? It makes no sense why anyone would make up their data—to seed the ends of paint chips with iron to make it look like an experimental incendiary?? Getting 8 other professionals together to make such a claim that could be easily refuted if false? For the purpose of …? What? They didn’t make any money doing their research. In fact, they had to come out of pocket to buy time at the labs, get the paper published, plus their time in doing the work. That’s much less believable than the proposition that they simply found some material that doesn’t act like any known paint.
If they're wrong, show some paint that does what the red-gray chips do, or go home.
I have no need to "argue my way out of this," I simply need to point out the facts. A technique it seems you would like to avoid at all costs.
Except it's not. Show me the match. Light it up and see if it produces iron microspheres at 430C. You can't. All you have, yet again, is an assertion of confidence.
You're not bursting my bubble, chum. You're living in one.
I read the study. You should do the same. This time, read all of it--even the parts that make you feel weird inside.
The fact is they couldn't match it with 177 different formulas.
So is this "unknown" primer unidentifiable? It's definitely not one of the 177 types they tried to match it against. Why the lack of curiosity on your and Dr. Millett's part? Why are you satisfied NOT knowing what this stuff is?
If they found a positive match, we would be having a different conversation. If primer paint from the towers turned into molten iron when ignited at 430C, we would be having a different conversation.
If you had ANY evidence WHATSOEVER to back up your assertion that the red-gray chips are primer paint, then we would be having a very different conversation. The fact is, this substance is different in MANY ways from known primers. And until you show a primer that can turn into molten iron when ignited at 430C, you are just trying to sell something.
Why are you trying to be a salesman? I'm not buying. And I'm not selling. So save it.
Right. I don't think I'm the one who needs clarification about the meaning of "none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study."
And yet, they ignite at 430C and produce MOLTEN IRON! A fact it seems you are unable to process. Let that sink in.
And a general note to anyone reading this: if you have to make your point by hiding facts, chances are you're selling something. If you have to make a failure to make a match look like a positive match, chances are you're selling something.
Wasn't their task to figure out what the chip were? Labs generally don't get tasked with "denying" things.
I agree that labs "generally don't get tasked with 'denying' things," yet despite their failure to make a match for this material, they deny it is anything other than primer paint.
And yet, despite their own failure to find a match among 177 forumulae, they DENY that this stuff is anything other than primer paint.
And despite their failure to even attempt to ignite this material at its known ignition temp, they DENY that it's anything other than primer paint.
I agree with you, Mick, that's not what labs generally get tasked with. And yet...
Did MVA Scientific Consultants find a match for the red-gray chips?
You claimed that they should have done certain things if they were concerned with denying something. But if they were instead simply concerned with identifying the chips, then what is the relevance of the tests.
Maybe you'd have better luck convincing people if you could get some more scientists to look into the matter?
If they were actually concerned with identifying the chips as paint, why wouldn't they take a known sample of primer and burn it, then compare the red-gray chips to the same temps? That would make for a very definitive test.
And to top it off, they were 100% UNSUCCESSFUL in identifying the chips with any known primer paint. Why doesn't that register as significant to you?
I'm not trying to sway scientists into looking into anything. I'm just interested in what we can say about the tests they in fact performed. Because Dr. Millette's group didn't attempt to ignite the chips in their possession, they have chosen NOT to rule out the chips definitively as a candidate for some kind of incendiary/explosive.
They want us to rely SOLELY on their FTIR data to rule out the "thermitic" hypothesis for the chips. Well, that is ultimately an act of faith--as you can well see, because you are in the business of debunking. Are you saying you can't see the flaw in the logic of not burning the red-gray chips to their reported ignition temp?
To anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the Official Conspiracy Theory, the failure to burn these chips and analyze their by-products is the result of not wanting to confirm the results of the Harrit team. If they DID burn them, and got the same iron microspheres, they would be forced to conclude that the material was in fact, explosive/incendiary, and of no known manufactured paint.
Aren't you the one saying the chips need to have the results replicated by other labs?
No. I'm saying that if your claims are not really believable because of lack of replication (both experimentally, and analytically). But I see no compelling need to do so.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, Mick. Please clarify.
LOL, you mean the part when they chemically identified 'epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments', so if the iron oxide with non-elemental Al (whoops, you can't dodge that one!) isn't paint (your apparent claim) what is it? Tick tock, there is no nanothermite made of epoxy. Sorry, you lose this argument again.
Please, show the XEDS to any materials scientist and ask them if this material is thermitic. I dare you. You won't, but you should, because it would teach you a little simple chemistry: it ain't thermitic, no matter how many times you insist it is.
This is too funny. Honestly. I'm starting to enjoy this a lot.
Wow, they looked at one manufacturer, because they thought the paint was made only by Tnemec. But they didn't check LaClede's formulas, remember? 'roughly 600,000 m2 while Tnemec is only known to have been specified for about 400,000 m2 of perimeter column surface. For the rest of the structural steel – core columns, hat truss and others, a total of 300,000 m2 the primer used isn't known.'
That's a huge amount of material, different from Tnemec (no Zinc Chromate for example), along with the other various formulas which nobody has documented, but which we KNOW will be found in the WTC dust. Why? Because we know they were applied to the steel after it was manufactured.
Do i personally care which primer paint made the red chips? Not really, because we already know that the material in the chips cannot be thermitic. Epoxy resin is not thermitic, neither is aluminosilicate. Both materials were identified by Dr Millette. You're making a laughingstock out of yourself by denying the obvious. Paint is paint is paint.
A French truther scientist FH Couannier tested chips sent to him, his didn't produce any microspheres. Same material, no thermite, no spheres. So what? The material in the chips is known: it isn't thermitic material. Nor do you need to reach the melting point of steel to make microspheres. But we all know this. Your attempt to insert magic microspheres as proof has already failed, you should just stop digging the hole deeper for yourself. They don't prove the presence of thermite.
Because it's not a lynchpin unless you don't understand how to identify materials properly. You apparently do not understand, nor does Harrit (or if he now does, he isn't confessing his errors).
Again you assume that the claim of microspheres as proof of thermite is valid; it simply isn't. Let's move along, you're wasting everybody's time.
Now let's look at your other chattering points:
1. The red-gray chips are no known paint-primer they can identify - but they are a primer paint, nonetheless, almost identical to the LaClede formula. Would you like to see the LaClede specs again to refresh your memory? Otherwise just read above.
2. They are indeed composed of relatively uniform 100-200 nm iron oxide particles - Same as Harrit's, and as other primer paints
3. Their FTIR data conflicts with the Harrit team's data regarding the existence of elemental Al - It's actually definitive proof that the Al is not elemental, therefore no thermitic reaction would be possible even if the concentration were appropriate (which it isn't)
4. They neither confirmed nor disconfirmed the ignition by-products for failure to test - True, but FH Couannier was not able to replicate the microspheres with his samples
5. They neither found a match for this material, nor denied the thermitic nature of it - False. They specifically concluded 'the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.'
6. Ultimately, they were unable to rule out the red-gray chips as evidence of an experimental thermal bridge material used to cause harm and murder people on 9/11/2001 - False. They were able to prove that the chemistry does not allow a thermitic reaction. No amount of baffelgab is going to change that.
False. They conclude it is not thermitic. You must look at and respect both their conclusion, rather than misrepresenting it, and the definitive tests which prove there was no elemental Aluminum.
Yours is hardly 'best interpretation', it is frankly absurd and furthermore blatantly false - you've several times completely misrepresented what they wrote. They wrote the exact opposite of what you claimed. That's not remotely honest. But that's why you're forced to do it I suppose, because the argument is lost. We know it, and so should you.
Show me a layer of this material destroying a structural steel column, otherwise you have nothing but rhetoric. You seem to forget the burden of proof is on you and your fellow thermitists. Show that it can destroy a steel column or admit you have nothing but hot air. Are you ever going to man-up and prove this theory? Another 12 years perhaps?
I'm snickering, this becomes completely juvenile when you try to reverse the burden of proof.
The material is mainly made of carbon, with small amounts of Iron Oxide and Aluminosilicates. Who cares if it ignites at 400º or 450º? It's not thermitic either way.
Aliens could have designed it, or it could be magic. Prove that wrong. I know! It's alien technology, that's why it can be thermitic even when we know the chemistry cannot provide the reaction. Prove that it isn't alien or magic.
Not by the chart given in Millette's paper. But it has been identified as probably LaClede. So it's not a fact.
We do know.
In fact, we know that chemically this material is almost identical to KNOWN primer (LaClede), but NOT even close to any known nanothermite. Hence your appeal to magic.
Your magic nanothermite must:
burn at a much lower temp than any known to mankind, with no empirical data provided to corroborate
produce far more energy than any known nanothermite - in fact more than regular thermite, (meaning that the chemical reaction is not thermitic)
Since a thermitic reaction cannot, chemically, produce more than about 3.96 kJ/g, and nanothermite even less (typically around 1.5 KJ/g), then the red layer is not undergoing primarily thermitic processes. But because it's magic, it is still nanothermite. We get it. Nanothermite is the answer, what was the question?
None known. Lower ignition temp than known nanothermites. Produces iron microspheres as a by-product. Let that sink in.
If you want to prove that this material could destroy steel structure, just mix some up (we have the chemical makeup in detail now) and show it doing so. ANYONE COULD DO IT. Why has no one done so?
You've had 12 years, actually 4 years since the Harrit paper. Yet the paper's authors have not seen fit to:
a) present it at a scientific conference for peer discussion and evaulation
b) mix up a batch and show it's amazing magic power to destroy
I know why - because they haven't got the stones to stand in front of anyone but 9/11 conspiracy theorists with this nonsense. They love to preach to the crowd, but not to a knowledgeable scientific gathering.
Show us some magic nanothermite identical in chemistry to the red chips and blow up some steel with is, or go home. Seriously. YOU make the claims, you must provide the proof. It is a coward's way to shift the burden. We already can see from the chemistry that it's not thermite. Apparently you are unable to perceive something this blatantly obvious. I feel for you, if you're sincere. I really do. If you would only take this data to a top-notch materials scientist and let them explain it to you, you would be much wiser. You seem unable to accept simple facts presented clearly, maybe you need an authority figure to give them to you.
Actually Dr Millette has given you the answer, but you pretended he hadn't. So scratch that suggestion. I don't think you want to learn what this stuff actually is.
If you want to end this discussion now I'm fine with that. If you keep replying and revving up the baffelgab, I think I'll keep responding and shooting down your red herrings. Your call. I kind of like this game though...
Here's the calculated formula for LaClede. Please look at Harrit's graphs to see the similarity.
C: 48% by weight
H, N: 7% each
There was roughly 50% more LaClede than Tnemec on the steel, we expect to find it in the dust, along with various other formulas that were in use at the time.[/quote]
Separate names with a comma.