Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

[Alienentity]

Wow, to any good materials scientist, Iron Oxide, Kaolinite clay and epoxy is paint.
To a 9/11 conspiracist, particularly a thermitist, it's explosive nanothermite.
Wow. Just. Wow.

Has it blown up a steel beam? Nope, not a single one has been blown up experimentally to prove the thermitist claim.
Did it blow up the towers? Gee, I dunno, did aliens blow up the towers? There's about the same amount of evidence for both thermite and aliens. It's near zero.

Since iron-rich or silicon-rich microspheres are in no way evidence of temperatures needed to melt steel, why do thermitists keep insisting that they are? In the RJ Lee report it is clearly stated that '
The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into
spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular
silicates or fly ash.'
They are expert at understanding and analyzing these processes, they do not see it as evidence of temperatures at the melting point of steel.

Fine steel wool can be burned, producing pure iron microspheres, yet no thermitic process is required - just oxygen and a flame.

This incorrect meme needs to be put to rest. It is falsified as a proof of thermitic materials in the towers on 9/11.
The idea that the red layer of the chips is some kind of magic nanothermite is also falsified. It has no chemical ability to produce a thermitic reaction.

It's turned into another Zombie Doctrine which can't be killed with facts. But it sure is fun to shoot at zombies anyhow...

 

[Jay Howard]

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.

And again, you must appeal to a bare assertion rather than a demonstrated fact to try to obscure the results of Dr. Millette's work. They can find a hydrocarbon matrix, iron oxide and aluminosilicate plates in the red chips, as the Harrit team did as well, but Millette's group failed to find any match for it WHATSOEVER.

This fact seems to pass over you time and time 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.

That's weird, because you should be embarrassed. You are not understanding the implications of either of these studies, nor that of the NIST study involving the burning of the primer paint.

Like I said before, if you don't want to call this material "thermitic," that's fine by me. But how do you account for it combusting at 430C and turning into molten iron? No matter what you call the red-gray chips, you cannot find a match for them.

If you wanted to shut this debate down for good, find any paint ever made, EVER that combusts at 430C and becomes molten iron. When you do that, you win! But until that happens, you must contend with the facts. Or just pretend the issue is settled, like you're doing. Honestly, it's like watching someone in his underwear trying to sell space vacations to the sidewalk.

If you don't want to deal with the reality of the situation, I'm happy to point it out all day and night long for all the world to see.

Prove me wrong. All you have to do is get some primer you think is a match, light it up and see if it produces molten iron upon ignition. If it does, BAM! You win! That's all you need to do. I'm watching with baited breath.

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.

So you're hanging your hat on the idea that the red material is some variant of the LaClede formula? Ok, find a single flake of it, anywhere. Burn it. Did it produce molten iron upon ignition at 430C? No? Then it isn't the same. Period.

Why are you so resistant to testing your theory? If you can't or don't or won't test your theory, you aren't doing science. You're doing something else. Like sales.

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.

So then how did the red-gray chips produce molten iron upon ignition? Was that a thermodynamic miracle? Is that what you're accusing the Harrit team of doing? Faking a miracle?

That's a bold claim. It's much more likely that the material in question did exactly what they reported it did, and it simply isn't paint. And you could prove them all to be fakes if you could produce one single flake of paint that, when heated to 430C, produced iron microspheres.

What's holding you back?

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.

So you're accusing the Harrit team of fraud? Or do you have some paint that combusts at 430C and makes molten iron? It's got to be one or the other. Which is it? And why can't you or Dr. Millette's lab or anyone else in the world able to find a match for the red material?

Could it be that you're simply wrong? Could it be that this material is in fact an explosive/incendiary that requires a re-evaluation of the murder of 3000 people? The facts say "yes." You say, "nothing to see here."

 

[Alienentity]

Here's some chemistry to illustrate why the chips aren't thermitic:

Fe2O3 + 2 Al → Al2O3 + 2 Fe is the thermite reaction, according to the hypothesis of thermitists. Aluminum is the fuel and Iron Oxide is the oxidant. We all agree on this.
In the chips of Marc Basile, the composition is as follows (by weight)

• 87.8% hydrocarbon matrix
  
  
• 3.54% iron oxide
  
  
• 1.58% aluminium (not elemental, see Millette study)
  
  
• 7.08% other inorganic compounds
  

So assuming that the Al is elemental, there is a bit too much of it - if it were indeed mixed for the purpose of the thermite reaction it's incorrect by about 7%.
However, looking at the energy of the chips, at most 4.78% of the material could be thermitic - and that's assuming ALL the Al is elemental. Of course we know that's not the case.
Given that assumption, only about 1.4% of the heat when the chip is burned can possibly come from the 'thermitic' materials in the chip. The rest is from organic hydrocarbons which provide almost 99% of the rest of the energy.

This is not controversial. You can look at the XEDS from Harrit et al., Millette and Basile and see the similarity in these values. Whether there's a bit of Strontium or Chromium is of no consequence to the energy output;nor does the absence or presence of Zinc Chromate. The overwhelming evidence is that the chips are dominated entirely by organics, not thermitics. End of story.

 

[Alienentity]

Again we see every attempt is made by thermitists to disqualify paints as the source of an epoxy matrix with Iron Oxide and Kaolin clay. Weird, but true.

Today a misrepresentation of NIST's paint studies has been presented, with the aim at 'proving' that primer paint doesn't burn at 430º C. (Another diversionary tactic, as we already can see from XEDS that the red layer isn't thermitic).
The gross misrepresentation is to compare a tiny flake of paint residue in a DSC with a heat test done on painted structural steel for forensic study. This is comparing apples with cantaloupes, and functions the same way as the insistence that extreme temperatures must be reached to produce microspheres (falsified many times over).
The scale of the materials involved and their application is ignored to make such a comparison.

 

[Alienentity]

And again, you must appeal to a bare assertion rather than a demonstrated fact to try to obscure the results of Dr. Millette's work. They can find a hydrocarbon matrix, iron oxide and aluminosilicate plates in the red chips, as the Harrit team did as well, but Millette's group failed to find any match for it WHATSOEVER.

This fact seems to pass over you time and time again.

Millette's group is not the only one studying the matter. It would be best if you could stop pretending it were not so. You've already been given the formula for LaClede paint, are you claiming it's ingredients do NOT closely match the Harrit chips? If so, please explain in detail or admit that LaClede
a) was used in the towers
b) indeed is very similar in composition to the chips

If you don't, I will. You cannot keep running from reality.

That's weird, because you should be embarrassed. You are not understanding the implications of either of these studies, nor that of the NIST study involving the burning of the primer paint.

Entirely different test, different conditions, apples to cantaloupes. Your magic nanothermite still is just epoxy, Iron Oxide and Kaolin. You can't hide from the facts forever.

Prove me wrong. All you have to do is get some primer you think is a match, light it up and see if it produces molten iron upon ignition. If it does, BAM! You win! That's all you need to do. I'm watching with baited breath.

LOL, it's you who has to prove that your magic nanothermite can destroy steel. We're still waiting. Endless claims, no experimental proof. Bam, you lose.

So you're hanging your hat on the idea that the red material is some variant of the LaClede formula? Ok, find a single flake of it, anywhere. Burn it. Did it produce molten iron upon ignition at 430C? No? Then it isn't the same. Period.

Oops, Harrit et al. already did that, and so did FH Couannier. Remember him? He didn't see any microspheres. They appear to be an artifact not duplicated by burning the red layer, even by other truthers.
If an experiment is not repeatable, it's not reliable. So far, not good for thermitists.
Even worse, thermitists are completely at the fail level for showing that their magic material can harm steel. The clock continues to tick...

Why are you so resistant to testing your theory? If you can't or don't or won't test your theory, you aren't doing science. You're doing something else. Like sales.

It's not a theory. LaClede was used in abundance. You've been given the formula, which you're running from. It's the thermitists who refuse to test or prove their theories, so you're not doing science. You're doing sales. Yes, you really are. Please, take your theories to a scientific convention and present them for review, why are you not doing that? Why is Harrit not doing that? Because he's doing sales, traveling around pretending he knows what he's talking about.
Quite a bunch of hypocrites.

If you wanted to shut this debate down for good, find any paint ever made, EVER that combusts at 430C and becomes molten iron. When you do that, you win!

I just won, thanks for playing.
Here's the proof:
Laclede Standard Steel Joist Paint (LREP-10001)

• C: 48% by weight
• O: 21%
• Fe: 11%
• Si: 2.5%
• Al: 2.4%
• Sr: 0.5%
• Cr: 0.3%

Example 1: Harrit's XEDS Chips A-B. Very close match for LaClede primer. C,O, Fe, Si, Al in similar amounts. How 'bout that? Chemically this is primer paint. XEDS doesn't lie. It sure as heck ain't thermite.

So then how did the red-gray chips produce molten iron upon ignition? Was that a thermodynamic miracle? Is that what you're accusing the Harrit team of doing? Faking a miracle?

The effect has never been duplicated. It is far from proven, and in any case you don't seem to understand the various mechanisms for production of the spheres. Maybe this field is not appropriate for you to study, the chemistry is complicated. Please feel free to discuss your concerns with a qualified materials scientist, a chemist, someone who can explain the process to you in a way you can understand.

And why can't you or Dr. Millette's lab or anyone else in the world able to find a match for the red material?

We did. You apparently are not able to apprehend that reality. Your loss, for sure.

Could it be that you're simply wrong?

No. The material is not thermitic. Therefore there is zero chance I'm wrong, and 100% chance you're wrong. That's just the way reality is. It sucks to be on the wrong side.

 

[Alienentity]

Epoxy Primers - very common materials used worldwide, including the WTC towers. Expected to be present in WTC dust, strangely 9/11 truthers NEVER find any traces of them! Time to take off those thermite goggles, guys, and see reality.

Just one example (of hundreds), from Halox.com

EPON 1001-X-75

• USEurope 2K Polyamide Cured Epoxy Red Iron Oxide Primer using HALOX® BW-111

Main ingredients: Epoxy vehicle with Iron Oxide
WTC dust chips: Epoxy with Iron Oxide, and other ingredients

If it quacks like primer paint, it probably is primer paint.

 

[Mick West]

Not sure what you're trying to say here, Mick. Please clarify.

I mean there is no compelling need from my perspective. If you did get more scientists to investigate and come to your conclusion, then I'd maybe see a need. But not with this.

 

[Jazzy]

You're making a laughingstock out of yourself by denying the obvious. Paint is paint is paint.

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...

I'm glad YOU do.

 

[Jazzy]

So then how did the red-gray chips produce molten iron upon ignition?

You have already been informed that there will be a redox reaction between the binder and the iron oxide pigment.

This will produce elemental iron molecules on the faces of the iron oxide particles.

There is considerable thermal agitation at 430 deg C, and the chip surfaces with their pure iron molecules will be moving back and forth.

Whenever the iron molecules approach each other they will on occasion adhere to each other, and, in spite of the continuous agitation, will remain stuck to each other - by their surface tension.

Over time these aggregations of iron molecules will become spherical, which is the lowest energy state for the surface tension forces.

There you have your "microspheres".

Note that for microspheres it isn't necessary to reach the melt temperature of 1535 deg C required for liquid iron in bulk.

Feel free to disregard this, as you have with all science so far, in your desperation to prove your unprovable point.

.

 

[Jay Howard]

Here's some chemistry to illustrate why the chips aren't thermitic:

Fe2O3 + 2 Al → Al2O3 + 2 Fe is the thermite reaction, according to the hypothesis of thermitists. Aluminum is the fuel and Iron Oxide is the oxidant. We all agree on this.
In the chips of Marc Basile, the composition is as follows (by weight)

• 87.8% hydrocarbon matrix
  
  
• 3.54% iron oxide
  
  
• 1.58% aluminium (not elemental, see Millette study)
  
  
• 7.08% other inorganic compounds

So assuming that the Al is elemental, there is a bit too much of it - if it were indeed mixed for the purpose of the thermite reaction it's incorrect by about 7%.
However, looking at the energy of the chips, at most 4.78% of the material could be thermitic - and that's assuming ALL the Al is elemental. Of course we know that's not the case.
Given that assumption, only about 1.4% of the heat when the chip is burned can possibly come from the 'thermitic' materials in the chip. The rest is from organic hydrocarbons which provide almost 99% of the rest of the energy.

This is not controversial. You can look at the XEDS from Harrit et al., Millette and Basile and see the similarity in these values. Whether there's a bit of Strontium or Chromium is of no consequence to the energy output;nor does the absence or presence of Zinc Chromate. The overwhelming evidence is that the chips are dominated entirely by organics, not thermitics. End of story.

There are three choices at this point:

1. Millette's group is wrong about the composition of the chips.
2. Harrit's group is making up the iron microspheres as by-products.
3. A miracle happened.

I think it's safe to say no miracles have occured. That leaves 2 possibilities. Are you accusing the Harrit group of fraud?

 

[Jay Howard]

I mean there is no compelling need from my perspective. If you did get more scientists to investigate and come to your conclusion, then I'd maybe see a need. But not with this.

Are you disputing that the Harrit team found that the red-gray chips produced iron microspheres upon ignition?

Are you disputing that the chips in fact ignited at 430C in the DSC?

 

[Hitstirrer]

Here is a recent blog by Kevin Ryan that is very relevent to this thread and touches on all the tried and tested debunker claims regarding iron microspheres.

http://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/

I feel that its necesary to explain that I am simply the one posting this information. In the past, people in here have demanded that I personally should defend information that I provide to the death. I am perfectly willing to engage in the general debate about the blog of course but thats all.

 

[Jay Howard]

Again we see every attempt is made by thermitists to disqualify paints as the source of an epoxy matrix with Iron Oxide and Kaolin clay. Weird, but true.

If any paint anywhere, ever produced iron microspheres when it ignited, you would have a point. But does any paint anywhere ever have that property? No.

That you keep ignoring this pivotal fact is just another indication that you're not trying to make sense of this material. You're trying to down play the significance of this. But why? Why are you unable to say the obvious: that no paint does what the red-gray chips do?

Are you trying to clarify the facts or are you trying to obscure them? Why would you be trying to obscure them?

Today a misrepresentation of NIST's paint studies has been presented, with the aim at 'proving' that primer paint doesn't burn at 430º C. (Another diversionary tactic, as we already can see from XEDS that the red layer isn't thermitic).
The gross misrepresentation is to compare a tiny flake of paint residue in a DSC with a heat test done on painted structural steel for forensic study. This is comparing apples with cantaloupes, and functions the same way as the insistence that extreme temperatures must be reached to produce microspheres (falsified many times over).
The scale of the materials involved and their application is ignored to make such a comparison.

So are you saying that the primer examined in the NIST test (NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D) is in fact the red-gray chip material? And if it were simply heated independently of the steel it would produce Iron Microspheres? That seems like a pretty easy test to perform.

You seem to want to put all your eggs into the XEDS and other spectra tests as if to say "well, if it's got the same (or close to the same) ingredients it MUST be the same material." That isn't always true. In fact, it's probably more often false than not. Ask a cook or a chemist. It's certainly no guarantee. But it might be true. So why not do another test or two and confirm it for sure? At any rate, it's a first step in identifying the chips--not a wholly reliable, be-all, end-all confirmation. Why do you keep acting like it settled the issue?

You don't have to be a genius or a materials scientist to see that similar ingredients are not a definitive test for a material match. But you are certain the red-gray chips are just paint. Despite Dr. Millette's admissions that:

1. "none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study."
and
2. "At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined."

But you are certain this stuff is paint. Solely based on the ingredients--not the properties. It seems you have very little interest in taking into account the properties of the red-gray chips, as if that didn't matter to making a positive match.

Table salt. Sodium and Chloride. If bound, it's delicious on french fries. If not bound, they're both poisonous. Same ingredients. Very different properties. You wouldn't go around saying it's the "same substance" just because the XEDS data was a match, would you? You don't like that example, fine. The point remains.

You're not being honest if you don't take into account the properties of the red-gray chips. And why aren't you being honest? We're talking about the murder of 3000 Americans. Why are you trying to play silly games and tout "certainties" where they do not exist?

 

[Jay Howard]

Seriously, what is this stuff that, when ignited, forms molten iron? What paint does that?

All the XEDS and FTIR data in the world cannot reconcile the formation of molten iron at ignition. This ain't paint.

 

[Jay Howard]

The real tell that you don't even believe your own bull is that you hedge your own bets against yourself:

LOL, it's you who has to prove that your magic nanothermite can destroy steel. We're still waiting. Endless claims, no experimental proof. Bam, you lose.

You're basically saying "even if it IS nanothermitic, it's not powerful enough to cause the destruction of the towers..."

To everyone reading that, it's an admission that you know full well this stuff is indeed an explosive/incendiary that shouldn't be in the dust. I don't know anyone whose studied this material that has made knowledge claims about its specific uses. My theory is that it's a "thermal bridge." But that's just my pet theory. I do NOT in fact know how exactly this material was used. But it's a high-temperature explosive/incendiary that was apparently used in a set of buildings that have numerous high-temperature phenomena which are unaccountable for in the Official Conspiracy Theory. Seems sensible to look further.

What I know is that if upon examination of a dead body for which we can rule out suicide, the toxicology report comes back positive for poison, there's good reason to look for a murderer.

 

[Mick West]

Seriously, what is this stuff that, when ignited, forms molten iron? What paint does that?

Paint backed by a layer of rust?

How much molten iron did it form? How does that compare to nanothermite?

 

[Jazzy]

There are three choices at this point

Nope.

One choice - with three options.

it's a high-temperature explosive/incendiary that was apparently used in a set of buildings that have numerous high-temperature phenomena which are unaccountable for in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

They have been accounted for in this thread. If not previously, so you are, once again, wrong.

Seems sensible to look further.

You should try it some time. Try reading that which you didn't write in this thread.

 

[Alienentity]

If any paint anywhere, ever produced iron microspheres when it ignited, you would have a point. But does any paint anywhere ever have that property? No.

Prove that no paint anywhere has that property. Oops, you can't. Bare assertion noted.

The microspheres are not a pivotal fact. They're an interesting byproduct of combustion of many substances.

So are you saying that the primer examined in the NIST test (NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D) is in fact the red-gray chip material?

Since there were a number of different paint formulations, we don't know if the NIST test has any relation. Some paints are very heat resistant, others less so.
Harrit's own EDS spectra are not identical, most likely because one of the chips is Tnemec (the MEK chip, which they did not heat). Look at the spectra, it's chip C. As the song goes 'one of these is not like the others'. Since it was cut cleanly in cross-section, the different elements don't appear to be contamination.

When FH Couannier did his tests on samples sent to him, he did not see decomposition at 430º, or at all. He did not see microspheres. Yet without question his samples are real WTC dust, and of the same morphology as the Harrit samples, including chip C which is different. So it doesn't surprise us that they don't behave the same way - and none of them, including Harrit's, are thermitic. Just because Harrit et al. use the word 'thermitic' doesn't mean it is. I'm not a communist because I like socialized medicine, but some people use that label too.
Am I saying Harrit is being unscientific (even fraudulent) by claiming that the chips are thermitic? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. He's wrong, dead wrong.
There cannot be a thermitic reaction in a material which is primarily an epoxy vehicle, and which contains basically NO elemental Aluminum.
The answer is still 'NO'.

You seem to want to put all your eggs into the XEDS and other spectra tests as if to say "well, if it's got the same (or close to the same) ingredients it MUST be the same material." That isn't always true. In fact, it's probably more often false than not.

Bare assertion noted. Please show examples of a material which is primarily organic, with less than 5% any possible thermitic materials, that can behave like real thermite. (Drum roll, followed by sound of crickets)
Please show us an epoxy-based Iron Oxide primer paint that doesn't have epoxy and Iron Oxide - you can't
Please show us a verified, as in real, sample of nanothermite which is made 80% of Epoxy and Iron Oxide with Kaolin - you can't

Bare assertion followed by bare assertion followed by denial of basic chemistry followed by dodge. That's all you bring to the table. Not enough. Not convincing, not real, not tested.

The best part about the rhetorical bafflegab you're engaging in is that you can twist it either way:
You can use XEDS data to pretend that there isn't a paint on the planet, probably even in the entire galaxy, which could ever match the red chips. Millette was using the Tnemec data to compare, and you love it.
On the other hand, you deny XEDS can be reliable if we can show another paint which matches the Harrit chips.
Too funny. I hope the cognitive dissonance isn't hurting your brain...

Oh, this next statement is another of your clumsy lies:

But you are certain this stuff is paint. Solely based on the ingredients--not the properties.

Nope. Wrong again. based on both the ingredients and the properties, as scientifically demonstrated by Millette's many definitive tests.
He proved the chips are made of epoxy, Iron Oxide and Kaolin clay.
I'd love to see you try to make your arguments in front of a serious scientific gathering. Please let me know if you do so I can get a bag of popcorn and watch the ensuing humiliation you'll experience.
It'll be even more fun than toying with you here.

You've set many traps for yourself, but there are a few still lurking out there. I've found them and will set them off shortly. It'll be fun to see you dance around a bit more. Stay tuned!

 

[Jay Howard]

Paint backed by a layer of rust?

How much molten iron did it form? How does that compare to nanothermite?

I don't know how much molten iron it formed. Don't you think it's significant that it formed molten iron AT ALL? Or that no one has been able to identify what "paint" this is? Or that no paint known to man forms molten iron when ignited?

Are you debunking claims or defending claims? This stuff is clearly not paint. The existence of it fits nicely into accounting for the other high-temperature evidence. It clearly is some kind of explosive/incendiary. Why are you claiming it's paint in the face of the experimental evidence to the contrary?

By what standards are you using to "debunk" claims? They do not appear to be consistsent with "evaluating empirical evidence."

 

[Mick West]

I don't know how much molten iron it formed. Don't you think it's significant that it formed molten iron AT ALL? Or that no one has been able to identify what "paint" this is? Or that no paint known to man forms molten iron when ignited?

No. Small particles of iron will form spheres when ignited. So if the flakes contained small particles of iron (for example if it was some paint flaked off steel, and had a bottom layer of rusting steel), then it's not at all unreasonable that they would form spheres. Consider the size of the spheres we are talking about:

 

[Alienentity]

Or that no one has been able to identify what "paint" this is?

Another false statement. An excellent candidate has indeed been found, the formula and the correspondence with the red layers has been given to you. And you've handwaved it away like every other cogent piece of science... it's truthful for you to simply say 'I don't accept the evidence', it's not truthful to say 'no one has been able to identify what paint it is'.

Or that no paint known to man forms molten iron when ignited?

Don't forget to include 'known to the entire solar system and galaxy' while you're making that bare assertion.

 

[Alienentity]

Paint is often made of organic materials, mixed with inorganic materials. That is a fact.
Organic materials which are in contact with small masses of metals will (edit), when burned, create metallic microspheres. That is a fact.

Therefore an ordinary paint is quite capable of forming microspheres under certain conditions. In fact this has already been proven empirically, by experiment, by such people as Dave Thomas NMSR.

This fact is often deflected by thermitists. That doesn't mean it isn't fact. It just means thermitists are wrong.

 

[Alienentity]

OK, I've found experimental data for combustion of dried paint in the same formulation as LaClede, done by the late materials scientist Ivan Kminek. I'll find the complete report, but here is his summary:
' Like the most of organic polymers, such epoxy resin rapidly degrades at temperatures ca 380 – 430 degress of C both under air and under inert atmosphere (!) This degradation is always exothermic (it is more exothermic under air) and it would be accompanied by quite sharp exothermic peaks in DSC in this region. This is in full accordance with the exotherms observed in Bentham paper. Simply: "Bentham team" observed a burning of epoxy binder. I proved even experimentally for prepared Laclede paint imitation that it vividly burns when ignited and is rapidly degraded both under air and nitrogen at about 380 – 400 degrees C (followed by thermogravimetric analysis, TGA). The remaining discrepancy (red chip in Bentham paper burned at slightly higher temperatures around 430 degrees C), can be attributed to the fact that chips were almost 40 years old and thus inevitably oxidized.'

So here Dr Kminek has created a comparable material to test, showing that it indeed does burn in a similar way to the older paint chips found in the WTC dust.

We're not concerned with the microsphere diversion here as explained above; however, it is worth reminding the reader that FH Couannier's chip samples, selected by the same methodology as Harrit et al., and Dr James Millette, did not produce any microspheres. They are, however, like the other samples, clearly WTC dust samples.
Dr Kminek further notes, based on the estimated area of LaClede painted trusses and the thickness of approximately 25 microns that 'the amount of Laclede paint chips in the dust to be 20-30 tons. This is in a reasonable agreement with the concentration of red chips (0.1 %,) '

So we're looking for any amount between 10 and 20 tons of this material, much of which was removed from the steel during collapse (NIST). Herein lies further peril for the pleas of the thermitists: they continue to insist, illogically and against all empirical evidence, that there is ZERO primer paint in any of the WTC dust samples.

Can the thermitists explain, without resorting to bafflegab, how it could be possible that NONE of the WTC primer paint types have ended up in any WTC dust samples?
Not a single one: not Millette's, not Harrit's not Basile's, not Couannier's - all of their red chips were something OTHER than WTC primer paint flakes? Really?
It's a truly great mystery then: where did all that paint go? Must be magic, or aliens, or DEW posited by Dr Judy Wood. Yup, that's the sane way to go.
We'd be crazy to think that what looks like paint flakes and tests like paint flakes (Millette, Couannier) is actually paint, right? Nuts! We're covering up the conspiracy™!
Apparently the conspiracy is so vast that, sensing the danger 30 years into the future, the original builders of the towers colluded to fake the use of primer paints. They knew that by not applying the primer, it could be ruled out in future by the self-anointed cult of thermitists as a possible source for the red chips! It would become THE conclusive proof that thermitic material was painted on instead, later on, while nobody noticed.
How else could it be that as of 2013, not one red chip, even when made of epoxy resin and Iron Oxide, and Kaolin clay, could possibly be made of primer paint?
How else folks?
Ask yourself that question, and the following realization that the thermitic material theory is a complete farce, top to bottom. It is, quite literally, impossible for it to be true.
There is no escape for the thermitists - they are a complete failure. Every single one of them.

I guess tilting at windmills is lots of fun... at least for the people laughing at you.

 

[Hitstirrer]

Just a thought.

Opinions and estimates vary as to the total mass of iron rich microspheres distributed in the dust all over Manhattan. They vary from 10 tons through to 100 tons dependant upon assumptions made.

Its been proposed by people in here that they were formed individually, as billions of individual tiny flakes of rust reached a high enough temperature to melt - using paint still adhering to the flakes as fuel. That intimately attached paint is integral to the theory of course because they accept that lab tests have shown that the 'paint' fuel burning caused the microspheres, and not another heat source used to ignite the 'paint'. Anything else would undermine the theory. The lab tests dictate that.

When faced with the conundrum of alternative heat being available, sufficient to cause the 'paint' to ignite, but not to melt the flakes themselves, an imaginative additional theory of 'friction' was put forward. Great. Friction could cause the flakes to be scoured off and also ignite the 'paint'. Two answers in one.

I have no real problem with that theory. Its neat and elegant.

Its the scale that I have issues over. Not the scale required to create many tons of spheres. My problem is that so few of the unignited flakes remain in the dust. Which means, logically, that almost all of the rust flakes scoured off managed to turn themselves into iron rich microspheres. Almost all of them with just a tiny % remaining to be found by Harrit. Many many tons of individual rust flakes all managed to get themselves into identical situations where just sufficient heat was then made available, exactly where they all were, to cause the 'paint' attached to them to burn and melt the 'rust' to produce billions of microspheres.

There is no suggestion by people that the huge number of separate melting events of flakes were instead a few large scale melting events and ejection of a large quantity of molten steel all at once - it has to be billions of individual rust flakes for the theory to gain traction. Individual events, all identical - billions of them.

That concept does trouble me.

Just a thought.

 

[Mick West]

Just a thought.

Opinions and estimates vary as to the total mass of iron rich microspheres distributed in the dust all over Manhattan. They vary from 10 tons through to 100 tons dependant upon assumptions made.

Its been proposed by people in here that they were formed individually, as billions of individual tiny flakes of rust reached a high enough temperature to melt - using paint still adhering to the flakes as fuel. That intimately attached paint is integral to the theory of course because they accept that lab tests have shown that the 'paint' fuel burning caused the microspheres, and not another heat source used to ignite the 'paint'. Anything else would undermine the theory. The lab tests dictate that.

When faced with the conundrum of alternative heat being available, sufficient to cause the 'paint' to ignite, but not to melt the flakes themselves, an imaginative additional theory of 'friction' was put forward. Great. Friction could cause the flakes to be scoured off and also ignite the 'paint'. Two answers in one.

I have no real problem with that theory. Its neat and elegant.

Its the scale that I have issues over. Not the scale required to create many tons of spheres. My problem is that so few of the unignited flakes remain in the dust. Which means, logically, that almost all of the rust flakes scoured off managed to turn themselves into iron rich microspheres. Almost all of them with just a tiny % remaining to be found by Harrit. Many many tons of individual rust flakes all managed to get themselves into identical situations where just sufficient heat was then made available, exactly where they all were, to cause the 'paint' attached to them to burn and melt the 'rust' to produce billions of microspheres.

There is no suggestion by people that the huge number of separate melting events of flakes were instead a few large scale melting events and ejection of a large quantity of molten steel all at once - it has to be billions of individual rust flakes for the theory to gain traction. Individual events, all identical - billions of them.

That concept does trouble me.

Just a thought.

There are several potential sources of iron-rich microspheres, they don't all have to come from burning paint and rust. Not even most of them.

But really if you want to be troubled by the scale, you should be putting some more precise numbers on things. How many spheres were there? What was their total weight? How was this calculated? And ditto for the flakes.

 

[Jazzy]

The best part about the rhetorical bafflegab you're engaging in is that you can twist it either way: You can use XEDS data to pretend that there isn't a paint on the planet, probably even in the entire galaxy, which could ever match the red chips. Millette was using the Tnemec data to compare, and you love it. On the other hand, you deny XEDS can be reliable if we can show another paint which matches the Harrit chips. Too funny. I hope the cognitive dissonance isn't hurting your brain.

Can't say I agree with you there. About the dissonance, that is.

"Bafflegab". Great word for when rhetoricians meet scientists.

 

[Jazzy]

Just a thought.

Try more than one at a time.

One day the thought will occur to you that friction on steel itself creates microspheres. Every time you have seen a bright spark it has been a whole bunch of microspheres you have been looking at.

And how many thousands of square feet of steel were subjected to friction when 106 floors slid down 250 (was it?) columns for 1350 feet??

Work it out. It ball-parks out to between 10 and 100 tons of scraped-off steel microspheres. (As a Fermi calculation).

 

[Hitstirrer]

.... friction on steel itself creates microspheres.

I have to say that made me smile. I twice wrote a paragraph predicting that you would 'kneejerk' a reaction exactly like that. And then deleted them so that I could observe it happening. I allowed an hour and you let me down.

Note Mick's request to me to quantify claims. That applies to you too you know, old boy.

 

[Alienentity]

I have to say that made me smile. I twice wrote a paragraph predicting that you would 'kneejerk' a reaction exactly like that. And then deleted them so that I could observe it happening. I allowed an hour and you let me down.

Note Mick's request to me to quantify claims. That applies to you too you know, old boy.

I think these are all valid questions, whether regarding the mass of primer paint, or of microspheres possibly produced on 9/11 itself. Trouble is, it seems to me, that while we have a rough idea how much primer was on the steel, and approximately what the composition was, we can't have anything like even that precision when it comes to the byproducts of steel-on-steel collisions, nor on the chimney effect of the fires mentioned by RJ Lee, nor of the myriad other fire-related products of combustion.
All you really have are some artifacts in the dust, but it doesn't get you very far.

I don't even know if anyone can really measure how much of the material was created. It depends on where it was collected, how it was evaluated, etc. I recall RJ Lee did not give a figure in terms of weight, but of distribution. I could go reread it but that was the gist of it.

 

[Alienentity]

I agree with Mick. This could certainly be a worthy side project for someone who is truly fascinated by such things. I say go for it if it floats your boat...

 

[Alienentity]

btw, do any of you find it more than a little curious that Jones et al. stated in 2009 'The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere'
And Jones said in correspondence with others in 2009 'XRD and TEM analyses are underway. I agree that these are important further tests'

And yet as of 2013 we've had only crickets from these guys? We're talking 4 long years since that paper, folks. Something's fishy about it. I'm guessing their tests showed that the chips aren't thermitic, and that the Al and Si mixture is in fact Kaolin. Why else would they go mute on this?

Regarding Kaolin, Jones was busy splitting hairs even in 2012 regarding the platelets 'the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4'
So he's disqualifying Kaolin on that basis.. But a quick check with http://webmineral.com/data/Kaolinite.shtml shows that the ratio isn't actually 1.0. Jones is incorrect. It's about 96% Al:Si (20.90% vs 21.76%). So that's pretty freakin' close, based on one tiny platelet.

Just one more thing that makes Dr Jones less credible every time he opens his mouth, IMO. I've found a number of other obvious dodges he's been using as well. Maybe he and the others just can't stand being wrong; well, of course they can't, it would be a colossal embarrassment to them if they admitted they were wrong about the whole thing. They'll probably never do it, even after Basile's study gets funded and exposes this magical-thinking exercise once again. They'll just slink away and hope nobody notices.

Meantime, where's the much vaunted 'XRD and TEM' analysis? Where's the FTIR?. Haven't heard a peep from them about it since 2009.

 

[Alienentity]

Further regarding the equivocations of Dr Jones, notice that he's apparently oblivious to the fact that the Al and Si in his chips isn't more than about 5% of the weight of the chips? And worse, there's as much Si as Al! This stuff is so way, way off actual nanothermite you could drive a alien ship through the gap, yet to the thermitists it's bang on! Yikes, talk about a double-standard the size of Pluto! Yet he can equivocate about 4% elsewhere when it suits his purpose (to mislead, that is. Or to put it more charitably, to prop up a lost cause)

I suppose that's one advantage of magic nanothermite: it can be whatever you say it is, it can have as little or as much of anything one can imagine, all whilst retaining its magic properties. Very convenient. But the problem is it's just an exercise in empty speculation - nobody has actually provided any samples of such nanothermite for comparison! And they want skeptics to provide 30 year old primer from the WTC for them!
Hows about they come up with their magic substance and blow it up for us? We're waiting!

 

[Jazzy]

And they want skeptics to provide 30 year old primer from the WTC for them!

Forty year old.

 

[Jazzy]

I have to say that made me smile. I twice wrote a paragraph predicting that you would 'kneejerk' a reaction exactly like that.

That's me. Knee-jerking to selective bafflegab in defense of your waving off the obvious.

Note Mick's request to me to quantify claims. That applies to you too you know, old boy.

I don't have to be too specific with mine. The ball-park figures serve as some validation. You won't be safe.

As AE says:

while we have a rough idea how much primer was on the steel, and approximately what the composition was, we can't have anything like even that precision when it comes to the byproducts of steel-on-steel collisions, nor on the chimney effect of the fires mentioned by RJ Lee, nor of the myriad other fire-related products of combustion. All you really have are some artifacts in the dust, but it doesn't get you very far.

It especially won't get you far when you deny and ignore elements in the debate, which so far you continue to do.

 

[Alienentity]

Forty year old.

LOL, right you are. I'm still freezing time at 2001..

 

[Jay Howard]

No. Small particles of iron will form spheres when ignited. So if the flakes contained small particles of iron (for example if it was some paint flaked off steel, and had a bottom layer of rusting steel), then it's not at all unreasonable that they would form spheres. Consider the size of the spheres we are talking about:

So, therefore paint does this? Not at all. I'm not sure what your purpose of reposting the steel wool is. I don't disagree with the fact of the phenomenon, but are you saying the red-gray chips are undergoing some similar process?

Keep in mind, there is no raw iron in the red-gray chips. There is an oxidation-reduction reaction happening. That is a very different type of reaction than that happening in the steel wool. What, in your understanding, is the relationship between the steel wool forming microspheres and the red-gray chips forming microspheres?

I see none. They are two entirely different reactions. Are you just misunderstanding what's happening with these two examples or do you have some insight you can shed on these phenom?

 

[Jay Howard]

Further regarding the equivocations of Dr Jones, notice that he's apparently oblivious to the fact that the Al and Si in his chips isn't more than about 5% of the weight of the chips? And worse, there's as much Si as Al! This stuff is so way, way off actual nanothermite...

Why are you even trying to argue that it's "different from actual nanothermite"? If you think the Harrit team is completely making up their work, why don't you just say "it doesn't form molten iron when ignited"? And "They threw a bunch of iron filings down to make it look like ignition by-products..."?

Again, it's like you're hedging your bets against findings you may be unaware of that confirm the Harrit team's work. If you really thought they were making up their results, that would be the argument you were making, yet I practically have to pull your teeth to get you to say that.

I don't think you really believe they are making anything up at all.

...I suppose that's one advantage of magic nanothermite: it can be whatever you say it is, it can have as little or as much of anything one can imagine, all whilst retaining its magic properties. Very convenient. But the problem is it's just an exercise in empty speculation - nobody has actually provided any samples of such nanothermite for comparison!

You are missing the point. The claim being made by me, here is that this substance is an experimental incendiary/explosive. All that is known about it is what has been learned by doing experiements on it. I don't expect any "samples" to be forthcoming for analysis. Not sure where you got that idea, but it's not necessary to say "this stuff shouldn't be here."

Again, you take the "shotgun" approach to dismissing the red-gray chips as significant. It's a sure sign you just want the discussion to end, to evaporate. "Nothing to see here, folks..." Your desire to make this evidence appear insignificant or "not evidence" is noted.

And they want skeptics to provide 30 year old primer from the WTC for them!

Is this an unreasonable test to perform? It's not "for me" so much as it's for the people who were murdered. Not sure why you seem to keep losing that point in all the noise. If the red-gray chips turn out to in fact be an explosive/incendiary, as it seems they are, would you not want a piece or two of primer paint from the WTC collapses to be used and tested for comparative properties?

If you answered "no," you are not in the business of finding out what happened. What do you have to lose? If it's just primer paint as you and others continue to claim, we all go home satisfied that the murder of 3000 people has been dealt with properly. If it's NOT primer paint or any other kind of industrial coating, then we owe it to the families of the fallen (and ourselves as Americans) to find out WTF is going on. How did that substance get in the towers? What purpose did it serve? Is there any evidence of other fuckery about?

There is no doubt you want NONE of these questions properly answered. I get that. But it raises questions about motivations. Why would you NOT want to BE SURE this material is not an explosive/incendiary? Why would you be satisfied NOT TESTING to be sure? Why is it unreasonable to compare it to the primer paint used and recovered in the WTC dust?

Whatever your reasons, it's clear you'd rather this discussion go away and anyone having it look silly for asking these questions.

 

[Jay Howard]

Another false statement. An excellent candidate has indeed been found, the formula and the correspondence with the red layers has been given to you. And you've handwaved it away like every other cogent piece of science... it's truthful for you to simply say 'I don't accept the evidence', it's not truthful to say 'no one has been able to identify what paint it is'.

Don't forget to include 'known to the entire solar system and galaxy' while you're making that bare assertion.

You are confusing a "bare assertion" with a substantiated generalization. I'm not omniscient, but I'm willing to bet that neither you nor anyone else can find a paint that forms iron microspheres when ignited.

Kminek burned some paint mixture he made up in a lab, but it did NOT form any iron microspheres. No surprise. The laws of physics will not change to fit beliefs. Either an oxidation-reduction reaction is happening when the chips are burned OR the Harrit team is making up their work. We both know they didn't make anything up.

Not enough Aluminum? Apparently the chips themselves disagree with you. This question remains outside the ability of your approach to answer: How exactly do you account for the production of molten iron upon ignition of the red-gray chips?

Until you deal with that question, all you're doing is denying the FACTS that lay before us all. The "paint chips" theory is unable to account for this fact. Running away from this fact makes it no less true nor significant. It just exposes your inability to deal with it.

 

[Mick West]

Keep in mind, there is no raw iron in the red-gray chips. ?

Not even a little bit? I posted the steel wool image for scale. To show that it would only take very very small particles of iron/steel (which might easily be missed) to make some iron microspheres. But the point there was more about the general production of iron-rich microspheres, not necessarily the mechanism by which they appeared in the DSC product.

 

[Alienentity]

So, therefore paint does this? Not at all. I'm not sure what your purpose of reposting the steel wool is. I don't disagree with the fact of the phenomenon, but are you saying the red-gray chips are undergoing some similar process?

Keep in mind, there is no raw iron in the red-gray chips. There is an oxidation-reduction reaction happening. That is a very different type of reaction than that happening in the steel wool. What, in your understanding, is the relationship between the steel wool forming microspheres and the red-gray chips forming microspheres?

I see none. They are two entirely different reactions. Are you just misunderstanding what's happening with these two examples or do you have some insight you can shed on these phenom?

A true thermitic reaction reaches temps above the melting point of bulk steel. Jones et al. are making the claim that the red chips are undergoing this reaction. They are specifically demanding that the ONLY way the microspheres could be forming is by this reaction.

Clearly, they are incorrect. There are other documented processes that can produce microspheres.

Besides, one need only look at the XEDS of the microspheres in the Bentham paper. (figures 24-27). The chips start out with precious little Fe and Al to begin with, yet the spheroids are formed from O, Fe, Si and Al. There's a lot of Si in the spheres, and a lot of O (75% of the spheroids have more O than Fe). And there's about 50% as much Al as Si.
If a thermitic reaction were really occurring, the Al would be consumed; the iron would be stripped of O so should be elemental. Harrit's team did not find this, I don't even think they tested for it. So they've proved absolutely nothing with this DSC result with regard to an alleged thermitic reaction.
To be charitable I think their confirmation bias was so strong they seized anything that could be misinterpreted, or misunderstood, if you like, in favour of their need to find thermite.
Take away the conspiracy, and the thermite disappears as well. It's just an Iron reduction reaction on a tiny scale.

Ask yourself, if you dare, why, after almost 5 years, Harrit, Jones et al. have NOT followed through with the simple yet definitive tests they declared were needed to identify the chips? Well actually they claim some of these have been done, but why have they not published or even discussed the results?
I think we all know the reason behind this 5 year silence: the results definitively rule out thermite. They are not willing to admit they were wrong, and will not let their followers know. I believe Kevin Ryan even refused to let Dr Millette have some of the Harrit team chips in 2012, probably for that reason - they could no longer claim that Millette's chips were not the same. Plausible deniability and all that. LOL