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

Alienentity

Active Member
Also remember that Harrit's team did not do any analysis to find out how much Fe or Al had been consumed in the reaction.
Again judging from the XEDS, it doesn't look like a thermitic reaction took place.

Here's a quote from the paper:
'The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere'
Still missing after almost 5 years.... hmmmm

'Further studies of the
red material (separated from the gray material) compared to
known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.)
analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and
GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to iden-
tify the organic material.' Hmmm

Jones: 'XRD and TEM analyses are underway. I agree that these are important further tests' And the results? Hmmmm

Come on kiddies. How gullible are you? This group of artful dodgers has been playing the truth movement for years. They have, thru Jones and Farrer, free access to the equipment at BYU to peform the tests (some of which, the FTIR, XRD and TEM were apparently already done by 2009). Where is this data?

Their results have NOT been duplicated experimentally, so scientific repeatability, the benchmark of standard methodology has not been met. The team did not share their chips with Dr Millette, nor have they sent them to an independent lab. Considering that Richard Gage's AE911Truth is pulling in over $300K per year (I think his salary is around $100K) you think they might have a few bucks lying around to pay for the lab tests, seeing as they really, really, really want the world to know what really happened™.
But no. Chris Mohr has to scrounge up a measly $1000.00 to pay a top materials scientist to perform the same tests that Jones admits were needed....
Surely Richard Gage could spare $1000.00? I guess it's just not important enough to get hard scientific proof. Who'da thunk it?
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Again the question returns to the thermitists: If, out of the 10's of tons of documented Iron Oxide Primer paint coating WTC steel, none of it has been discovered in the dust samples of Millette, Couannier, Basile or Harrit et al., then WHERE DID IT ALL GO?

According to Jay, Tnemec is completely ruled out, and LaClede primer is some kind of shadowy bogeyman which most certainly and categorically cannot be the source of any of the dust chips! Wouldn't we, by simple statistical probability, HAVE to find at least SOME of these primer paints in the dust?

Maybe the aliens spirited it all away when they dustified the steel. Yeah, that must be it...
 

Jay Howard

Member
Again the question returns to the thermitists: If, out of the 10's of tons of documented Iron Oxide Primer paint coating WTC steel, none of it has been discovered in the dust samples of Millette, Couannier, Basile or Harrit et al., then WHERE DID IT ALL GO?

According to Jay, Tnemec is completely ruled out, and LaClede primer is some kind of shadowy bogeyman which most certainly and categorically cannot be the source of any of the dust chips! Wouldn't we, by simple statistical probability, HAVE to find at least SOME of these primer paints in the dust?

If paint chips don't produce iron microspheres upon ignition, then they aren't the same material as the red-gray chips. Not sure why this fact isn't registering with you.

As for paint chips in the dust samples, no one at ALL on any side of this discussion doubts there are paint chips in the dust. This is another non-issue made to look like something significant by you, for what purpose we can only guess. The fact is, the separation technique used by Millette's group as well as Harrit's group was magnetic. No surprise, paint chips are not magnetic--even ones with rust on one side, because normal iron oxide (iii) rust is not magnetic.

There are so many bullcrap attempts at explaining away the significance of the various high-temp phenomena that it boggles the mind. A few years ago--before the Harrit team published their findings on the nano-energetic compound they found, one "debunker" tried to argue that the iron microspheres were from boiled human blood from the fires. Very disturbing image, but totally and completely bunk. The natural progression of explanations went from left-over welding debris (which turns out are chemically distinct), on to sparking events, (also very chemically different), to fly-ash residue from the concrete (which we know was not nearly abundant enough as well as chemically different), now on to friction events (which no one wants to test because they know how much bull it is), and finally, now the microspheres, according to you, are to be expected from burning paint chips with iron oxide adhered to them.

I suppose if you can show a balanced equation showing how a paint chip can make molten iron when ignited (but not a real lab test), that should be good enough to accept the idea and FINALLY dispense with this talk of an explosive material being in the WTC dust. That is your goal, right? Shut down any discussion of explosives in the dust? Make sure the collective interest isn't piqued too much to call for a real investigation of the collapses?

To date, no one has been able to produce a paint chip that when ignited, produces molten iron.

Please let that sink in.

Their is no disagreement--even from Millette's group, that the red-gray chips have NOT FREE IRON in them. You don't dispute that, they don't dispute it, nor do I. Yet, when ignited, they produce MOLTEN IRON. Unless the laws of physics are being suspended for the burning of these chips, there is an oxidation-reduction reaction happening that must produce raw iron from iron oxide.

You aren't really arguing that the Harrit group is lying about their work. Any accusation to that effect would be baseless anyway. Again, the only stance you can take is that of pure denial. As the airplane flies overhead, you say "Manned-flight is an IMPOSSIBILITY..."

Good luck with that strategy.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
To date, no one has been able to produce a paint chip that when ignited, produces molten iron.

Paint+rust chip.

Perhaps the reason is simply because nobody has tried, because Harrit's work has not been repeated, and is inconclusive?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As for paint chips in the dust samples, no one at ALL on any side of this discussion doubts there are paint chips in the dust. This is another non-issue made to look like something significant by you, for what purpose we can only guess. The fact is, the separation technique used by Millette's group as well as Harrit's group was magnetic. No surprise, paint chips are not magnetic--even ones with rust on one side, because normal iron oxide (iii) rust is not magnetic.

Paint chips with rust on one side actually are magnetic, as is iron oxide.

Paint chips alone would also be magnetic if they used Iron(III) oxide as a pigment for the red color. Two of the primary uses of Iron(III) oxide are red/brown pigment, and magnetic media.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(III)_oxide#Magnetic_Recording

Pigment[edit]
Iron(III) oxide is also used as a pigment, under names "Pigment Brown 6", "Pigment Brown 7", and "Pigment Red 101".[8] Some of them, e.g. Pigment Red 101 and Pigment Brown 6, are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for use in cosmetics. Iron oxides are used as pigments in dental composites alongside titanium oxides.[9]

Hematite is the characteristic component of the Swedish paint color Falu red.

Magnetic Recording[edit]
Iron(III) oxide is the most common magnetic particle used for magnetic recording in hard drives and audio tape. The oxide is mixed with a binder and coated onto a plastic film substrate. Magnetic tape is used in audio and video cassettes and reel to reel tape recording of all kinds. The oxide is magnetized in the recording process in the pattern of the audio signals. When the tape is played back, the now magnetized ferric oxide is run over the tape heads, generating an electrical signal that is fed to an audio amplifier and speakers to reproduce the recorded sound.[/ex[
Content from External Source
Hence the magnetic separation should have got some paint chips.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Flaked off a couple more flakes of paint+rust from my rusty dumbbell, they were attracted to the magnet, as was the red dust powder.

(There's some steel wool dust there as well, from earlier experiments).
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Flaked off a couple more flakes of paint+rust from my rusty dumbbell, they were attracted to the magnet, as was the red dust powder.

(There's some steel wool dust there as well, from earlier experiments).

Ok. Now put those 'chips' into a jar of paint thinner for a day or so. Then into your $50k DSC machine and take them up to 430C.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok. Now put those 'chips' into a jar of paint thinner for a day or so. Then into your $50k DSC machine and take them up to 430C.

That appears to be a totally different point. I was simply pointing out that they are magnetic, hence Harrit and Millette both should have got some paint chips in their dust.
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
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.
LOL, dude, so you equivocate. You can't quite bring yourself to just say 'it's impossible', because you might be wrong.
How much money are you willing to bet? If you come up with a enough money and deposit it in a lawyer's office, we can probably come up with some samples for you. It would be worth our time then.
Let us know and I'll contact the JREF guys to get some paint samples to test. Seriously - put your money where your mouth is.

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?
Actually the chips disagree with you. There isn't enough aluminum. Don't take my word for it - show the charts to a chemistry professor, please. Do us all a favour and educate yourself on the matter.

There's less than 6% Fe and Al in the chips by weight. About 80% of the mass is epoxy. Please explain how a thermitic reaction can take place under those conditions. And please take your explanation to a chemistry prof for a second opinion. You won't like what you hear, but the truth sometimes hurts.

Besides, Harrit et al. failed to check to see whether the red layer of the chips lost any Al during the DSC test, or whether it was just the organic material which decomposed. So they have no scientifically valid basis for claiming a thermitic reaction.

But it gets worse and worse for your argument: You actually claim there's molten iron? LOL, you didn't look at the XEDS spectra, did you? Look at it - it should be pure iron, no oxide (the O gets used in the thermitic reaction, remember?). But that's not what the spheroids are composed of, so there's zero evidence to support your claim that it's molten iron. Mick's example of burned steel wool is factually molten iron, since we know what the burning material is. SAme with Dave Thomas' experiment.

It must make your eyeballs rattle to see empirical proof that you can get pure molten iron without thermite, but your bare assertions regarding 'molten iron' are preposterous. You have no evidence to make that claim. Nor evidence to prove that a paint cannot do this under certain conditions.

If your arguments had any more failures in them they'd win the Guinness World Record for empty rhetoric. Yikes!
You should ask Dr Jones to publish the FTIR data along with the other tests to show what they found out in 2009 about the true nature of their 'nanothermite'. Good luck, you know they won't tell you. And you know why. :)
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Ok. Now put those 'chips' into a jar of paint thinner for a day or so. Then into your $50k DSC machine and take them up to 430C.
Funny that; Jones et al. have access to those machines for free. But they never did get around to releasing the FTIR data, nor any of the further testing on the organic layer. DSC can't tell you what the materials are, it just measures energy content. To know what the things are you need the tests done by Millette - but Harrit et al. didn't do that, they admitted they didn't even know what the organic was. But they made many assumptions, and you know what happens when you make assumptions....
btw they didn't soak the chips which went into DSC. The MEK chip was a separate thing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So I used a mallet and screwdriver to seperate a bunch more chips from my increasingly distressed dumbell:


I then heated them for a few seconds with a small butane torch, they glowed red, and a few sparks flew off. The remainder looks through my microscope to have a bunch of shiny globules on it that visually resembled the steel wool spheres. I don't have a digital microscope at the moment, so this was the best I could do to represent what it looks like with my macro lens.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
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, ?
You're finally getting it. Harrit et al. are making stuff up. They have zero corroboration with any known nanothermite, since they didn't obtain any test samples of real nanothermite. They quoted a couple of abstracts, yet those documents describe compounds with entirely different energy profiles than the red layer of the paint chips.
But their pseudo-science fools a lot of people. That's very clear. Even now you don't expect them to follow thru with the work they agreed needed to be done in order to identify the chips. So in the meantime you're happy with 'we say it's nanothermite because we really really need it to be nanothermite. Please believe us and blame the US government for 9/11'
They have a political agenda to blame the US government for the collapse of the towers. They are zealots using inadequate techniques and making giant leaps beyond their evidence.
The real nanothermite they allude to only has an ED of about 1.5 KJ/G. Because that's what real nanothermite is like. It's not make-believe magic nanothermite in the style of Jones et al.
In their fairy-tale, nanothermite can function with only 6% thermitic ingredients bound in epoxy. Well ok, and Santa exists too. It's a complete farce, which is why nobody in the scientific community is giving them the time of day. They would be laughed off the podium of a scientific conference, which is why they dare not peddle their nonsense in a serious forum.
They make youtube videos, they give media interviews, but they won't go and present this claptrap to a serious group of scientific critics; nor will they follow thru with the things they promised, such as the FTIR data.
Nor will they compare the chips with any known samples of real nanothermite.
Because if they do that, the whole grand house of thermitic cards comes crashing down and that's it. Done.


I don't think you really believe they are making anything up at all.
Wow, really? After all my accusations that they are misrepresenting the data, and fudging and dodging? You don't think I believe their fairy tale is made up? I don't think I could be more obvious. :0


You are missing the point. The claim being made by me, here is that this substance is an experimental incendiary/explosive.
Uh huh. So why haven't they simply demonstrated it destroying steel? That would settle it. I guess they figure there's enough gullible truthers who will just swallow these bare assertions without requiring experimental evidence, or even (heaven forbid) one single replication of the data - you know, a basic scientific standard for anybody else.

Nope. No replication needed, no confirming tests. Just believe the proclamations as sacred knowledge. Got it. LOL



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?

I thought there was no primer in any of the WTC dust. Otherwise why are you and every other thermitist screaming loudly that the chips aren't primer?* I've already explained to you that Jones, Harrit et al. DID test primer paint, but they have mis-labeled the Epoxy/Iron Oxide/Kaolin as 'magic nanothermite', so none of you can perceive the truth of the matter.
They've poisoned the well very effectively by brainwashing the thermitic cultists into believing that 80%Epoxy with some pigment and clay is some super-secret experimental pixie-dust nanothermite incendiaryish but explosivish stuff that can do anything they say it can. It can burn steel at high temperatures, but it also can blow steel up, whichever you prefer. It is high-explosive, yet can explode without making a sound (see live videos of WTC 7 falling without a single explosion). Or, it can be super duper loud when required (all the 'explosion reports on 9/11 which must be super-secret nanothermite).
It's one-stop shopping for conspiracy theorists - yup, magic nanothermite does it all.

Now if only they would release the FTIR and other data so we could see what their chips are actually made out of.

Oh, that pesky burden of proof. If only it would disappear and we could just blame the skeptics...

'Further studies of the red material (separated from the gray material) compared to known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.) analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to iden-
tify the organic material.' April 2009
December 2013..... still nothing.

'Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red material would promote understanding.'
April 2009
December 2013... still nothing

'We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere' Nope, they never did report the results. What possible reason could there be? Let me think.... Hmmm...

'XRD and TEM analyses are underway' And they showed? Yes, and they showed....? Go on, please Dr Jones, do tell us!

Geez, if it goes on another 5 years with this gish gallop, Richard Gage will have earned the better part of $1 million peddling this conspiracy stuff. That's a pretty good game. I guess there really is no need to hurry with the results, the truth can wait just a little longer!

Weirdly, I trust the real nanothermite numbers, I've compared them to the red layer and they're not remotely the same.
Yet you reject the LaClede figures like they came from Satan and have the stain of the devil on them. But LaClede existed, even if the company went out of business.

You really expect me to find some original LaClede paint from the WTC? I guess I could get some from the WTC dust, but then it would set off the chain of denial again.
Can you answer a simple question? Is there any LaClede primer in the red chips?
Yes or no?


*You've been given the formula for LaClede primer, which is essentially identical to the red layer of the chips. It's as valid as the Jones team's references to real nanothermite from Tillotson, Gash et al.
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
paint chips are not magnetic--even ones with rust on one side, because normal iron oxide (iii) rust is not magnetic.

Really? What in the Harrit, Millette and Couannier chips is attracted to the magnets then?

I suppose you still think the spheroids are molten iron as well, even though they're not. You're getting a lot of basic information wrong, y'know.
 

Jay Howard

Member
Paint chips with rust on one side actually are magnetic, as is iron oxide.

Paint chips alone would also be magnetic if they used Iron(III) oxide as a pigment for the red color. Two of the primary uses of Iron(III) oxide are red/brown pigment, and magnetic media.

You forgot to include this part about the most common rust, which is alpha phase Iron(III) oxide, whose magnetic properties depend on a number of factors:

α-Fe2O3 has the rhombohedral, corundum (α-Al2O3) structure and is the most common form. It occurs naturally as the mineral hematite which is mined as the main ore of iron. It is antiferromagnetic below ~260 K (Morin transition temperature), and exhibits weak ferromagnetism between 260 K and the Néel temperature, 950 K.[2] It is easy to prepare using both thermal decomposition and precipitation in the liquid phase. Its magnetic properties are dependent on many factors, e.g. pressure, particle size, and magnetic field intensity.

So the sloppy way you "tested" for magnetism in paint chips makes no allowance for the kind of paint used nor for the phase transitions happening between the surface of the barbell and the unoxidized iron underneath.

Then you light it with a butane torch to "demonstrate" something which is unclear. Maybe that when you heat small bits of iron up to 1970C, they melt? If I were in the business of debunking, I would have to call that a poor test. That's putting it lightly.

Mick West said:
Hence the magnetic separation should have got some paint chips.

Maybe. Maybe not. That falls into the category of "that which we cannot speak." All the sudden this has turned into a test of any paint whatsoever that's adhered to a metal surface? Mick, your example is fucking ridiculous as a test for much of anything, and to propose otherwise is to participate in the illusion of science, a.k.a., salesmanship.
 

Jay Howard

Member
Really? What in the Harrit, Millette and Couannier chips is attracted to the magnets then?

That's actually a good question. What kind of Fe2O3 is the gray part of the chip? That would take a different set of tests, but one could isolate the red and gray parts of the chips and see if one or both of the sections was magnetic. From there, one could make further distinctions to isolate the specific molecular structure of the gray chips.

My guess is that the gray part is a gamma phase iron (III) oxide, but it's just a guess.

Alienentity said:
I suppose you still think the spheroids are molten iron as well, even though they're not. You're getting a lot of basic information wrong, y'know.

Even though they are. Unless you're saying it's the Fe2O3 which has melted? Is that what you're saying?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So the sloppy way you "tested" for magnetism in paint chips makes no allowance for the kind of paint used nor for the phase transitions happening between the surface of the barbell and the unoxidized iron underneath.

I tested it by seeing if it was attracted to a magnet.

Then you light it with a butane torch to "demonstrate" something which is unclear. Maybe that when you heat small bits of iron up to 1970C, they melt? If I were in the business of debunking, I would have to call that a poor test. That's putting it lightly.

1970C? Where did you get that from, the first reported case of sniffer's death?

Butane torches max out at 1430C, I doubt mine goes anywhere near that, as it's a creme-brûlée torch, more likely 1300C [Edit: Actually it's a jewelry torch, the Blazer GB 2001, max 1371C] . It is not hot enough to melt steel wool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butane_torch
Consumer air butane torches are often claimed to develop flame temperatures up to approximately 1,700 K(1,430 °C; 2,600 °F). This temperature is high enough to melt many common metals, such as aluminum and copper, and hot enough to vaporize many organic compounds as well.
Content from External Source
I didn't light it to demonstrate anything. I lit it to see what would happen.
 
Last edited:

Jay Howard

Member
Why is it acceptable to burn a piece of unknown paint from a barbell with a BLOWTORCH in order to dismiss the red-gray chips as significant, YET, it's too much to ask to try to see what temperature the primer used in the towers will ignite at and if it produces iron microspheres as a by-product?

Why isn't the latter the real standard? You say it's primer paint from the towers? Get some. Ignite it. See if it can produce iron microspheres from a 430C ignition temp. I feel like I'm talking to crazy people on here. This isn't complicated. And yet...

Light some cured primer up and if it doesn't produce an exotherm at 430-470C, then is simply isn't the same material. Full stop.

All the other rubbish "tests" and comparisons of similar materials that do not have the property of producing iron microspheres as a by-product are just attempts to fool dumb people. Get it together.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why is it acceptable to burn a piece of unknown paint from a barbell with a BLOWTORCH in order to dismiss the red-gray chips as significant, YET, it's too much to ask to try to see what temperature the primer used in the towers will ignite at and if it produces iron microspheres as a by-product?.

Because I don't have a DSC, a SEM, and an XEDS and in my garage. Nor do I have any old primer painted steel from the WTC. Just a dumbbell and a butane micro torch.

To your earlier point though, Harrit used oxyacetylene. What temperature was that?
 

Jay Howard

Member
I tested it by seeing if it was attracted to a magnet.

How can you tell if it wasn't the paint that was magnetic?

Mick West said:
1970C? Where did you get that from, the first reported case of sniffer's death?

That doesn't even make sense as a joke.

Mick West said:
Butane torches max out at 1430C, I doubt mine goes anywhere near that, as it's a creme-brûlée torch, more likely 1300C [Edit: Actually it's a jewelry torch, the Blazer GB 2001, max 1371C] . It is not hot enough to melt steel wool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butane_torch
Consumer air butane torches are often claimed to develop flame temperatures up to approximately 1,700 K(1,430 °C; 2,600 °F). This temperature is high enough to melt many common metals, such as aluminum and copper, and hot enough to vaporize many organic compounds as well.
Content from External Source
I didn't light it to demonstrate anything. I lit it to see what would happen.

But why? We know the max temp necessary for ignition of the red-gray chips was between 430-470C. You're "torch test" doesn't clarify anything. It's an act of desperation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How can you tell if it wasn't the paint that was magnetic?
Small particles of rust were also attracted to the magnet.

That doesn't even make sense as a joke.
Hah, I searched for 1970 in the article you linked, and it missed the 1,970 because of the comma, and found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butane
"Sudden sniffer's death" syndrome, first described by Bass in 1970,[13] is the most common single cause of "solvent related" death, resulting in 55% of known fatal cases.[12]
Content from External Source
Who said there are no coincidences?

Anyway, as seen, my torch only goes to 1371C


But why? We know the max temp necessary for ignition of the red-gray chips was between 430-470C. You're "torch test" doesn't clarify anything. It's an act of desperation.

Why? Because I like science. I did it because it was interesting.

One might ask why Harrit used oxyacetylene, which has a far higher temperature than butane. Was he desperate?
 

Jay Howard

Member
Small particles of rust were also attracted to the magnet.

How do you know the small pieces of rust didn't have small pieces of iron associated with them? You don't. It's a bunk test. How can you not see the difference here? Your actual test is under-determining your intended test. You're testing for any magnetic material at all in the mix of paint, rust and associated iron. If you want to conduct a real "magnetic paint chip" test that's relevant, use the cured primer paint that is a similar formula, age, etc.

You're right, some iron (III) oxide is (weakly) magnetic, but your demonstration gets us no closer to answering the question of whether the primer paint chips from the WTC dust were. Your test conflates or completely misses critical factors, such as the paint type, particle size, age of the metal, composition of the metal. I don't think you're unaware of these factors, which is why it looks like an act of desperation or an attempt to fool dumb people or an act of desperation designed to fool dumb people.


Mick West said:
Hah, I searched for 1970 in the article you linked, and it missed the 1,970 because of the comma, and found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butane
"Sudden sniffer's death" syndrome, first described by Bass in 1970,[13] is the most common single cause of "solvent related" death, resulting in 55% of known fatal cases.[12]
Content from External Source
Who said there are no coincidences?

Gotcha.

Mick West said:
Anyway, as seen, my torch only goes to 1371C

Why? Because I like science. I did it because it was interesting.

Interesting. Ok. But not relevant to make an argument about the properties of the red-gray chips. Again, you're well aware of this.

Mick West said:
One might ask why Harrit used oxyacetylene, which has a far higher temperature than butane. Was he desperate?

I'm talking about the DSC tests. They were very precise and they made nice, pretty graphs that correspond. Why would you think I'm talking about anything else?

Your "tests" are bunk. Bunk from a debunker. Why are you performing tests you know have no relevance? Because they're "interesting"? Because you "like science"? But you reply to my posts with these in a thread that is supposed to be relevant to the topic--as if your tests were a rebuttal. But they're not even relevant, much less a rebuttal.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm talking about the DSC tests. They were very precise and they made nice, pretty graphs that correspond. Why would you think I'm talking about anything else?

Because I did a torch test and Harrit did a torch test, so the sensible thing would be to compare them. I don't have a DSC.

Again, why criticise my test as bunk, and my flame as too hot, when Harrit did basically the same thing, with a much hotter flame.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
That's actually a good question. What kind of Fe2O3 is the gray part of the chip?
From Millette:
'The SEM-EDS and backscattered electron (BE) analysis of the cross-sections of the gray layer in the red/gray chip showed it to be primarily iron consistent with a carbon steel'
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Why isn't the latter the real standard? You say it's primer paint from the towers? Get some. Ignite it. See if it can produce iron microspheres from a 430C ignition temp. I feel like I'm talking to crazy people on here. This isn't complicated. And yet...

Your comments are getting increasingly vulgar, but the answer as to why Dr Millette didn't perform the sacred DSC is simple:
His job was to find out what the chips are made of, specifically the red layer. He used XEDS to determine that the samples had the same basic composition as the Harrit chips; that is, Iron Oxide, organic binder, Si and Al.
Prior to this the chips were selected using the same methodology as the Harrit team.

This determined that the chips matched Harrit et al.

He then performed a series of tests to separate the various components of the chips for study. Since MEK couldn't properly dissolve the epoxy binder, he performed low temp ashing to remove it, then examined the non-organic substances and reported his findings.

It's elementary why he didn't use DSC, because it can't tell you what the chip is, it can only measure energy content. In fact, because you have an apparent carbon steel layer attached to a pigment/epoxy layer, when you burn it you don't know whether the combustion artifacts, specifically spheroids, are created from the grey layer or the red layer. You just don't unless you can measure exactly the mass of both layers separately - something the Harrit team did not do, btw.
So DSC is useless to determine the composition of the chips; however, and ironically, Harrit's team neglected to perform a number of other tests which COULD have done so. They were left guessing at these things, and their guesses are the subject of our skepticism and rebuttal; added to this Dr Millette's tests conclusively show that the chips in fact are composed of Kaolin clay, synthetic hematite and epoxy resin.
You'll note that Harrit's team never did get that far in terms of identifying the components - they gave up, mezmerized by the drama of the DSC.

So, to paraphrase you, if I might: to obsess about DSC as some kind of 'proof' is complete bunk. Bunk from bunk scientists and their mindless followers. Why would you perform tests you know have no relevance? I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists instead of serious minds!

Jones and Harrit have had almost 5 years to get their results verified and duplicated. They have failed to do this. It is they who are guilty of bunk science, who have failed to follow a thorough, competent and standard forensic procedure to simply identify the chips.
Instead, they've done an incompetent job and jumped to outrageous and unfounded conclusions, pointing their fingers at some kind of phantom conspiracy which doesn't exist.
They are indeed half-crazed conspiracy nuts. They have no scientific credibility in making these claims, and they and their half-wit acolytes are rightly a laughingstock amongst the scientific community.

Let me present a little quote from Dr Steven Jones, regarding his proud work on nuclear fusion. That was a time when he worked hard to get his papers into established physics journals such as Physical Review Letters and Nature, unlike the present situation, where he either publishes in his own journal (JO911 Studies) or in an untested journal like Bentham Open. It is no coincidence that he no longer takes his work to top scientists in the relevant fields for corroboration - he's not doing the quality science he once was, nor is he interested in doing so. He says that the Metal-Catalyzed Fusion was finally corroborated, some 10 years after the initial paper:
'100% reproducible, which is crucial, of course, to science. Is that every time you do the experiment it works... and our hypothesis was completely sustained'

The 'Thermitic Materials' paper has never been reproduced, the findings have not been corroborated, so it is shear fantasy to proclaim that the claims have been verified! It is not good science, it's pseudo-science.
The only really definitive study done on the chips was in 2012 by Dr Millette; he carried through with the tests that Jones, Harrit et al. admitted were needed to determine the actual composition of the chips. He did not sustain their hypothesis, in fact he falsified it quite dramatically.
All this bafflegab about needing a DSC is a smokescreen to cover up the fact that the Harrit tests were inadequate and the latest competent study debunks the Harrit findings. It's sour grapes over the exposure of bad science. Shame on the lot of you.
Again to quote Dr Millette, remembering that the morphology of these chips and the method of selection was identical to the Harrit chips: '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.'
QED
It really is game, set and match, scientifically speaking. But it's not science which rules 9/11 Conspiracy theories, so they will live on as Zombie Doctrines, casting their empty accusations toward phantoms which do not exist.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
The remainder looks through my microscope to have a bunch of shiny globules on it that visually resembled the steel wool spheres.
Can you pick them up with a magnet?

I still think you could get the same thing to happen with some red oxide primer on its own.

P.S. I have a distant memory that the provenance of those chips was not protected. Does anyone know the truth of this?
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
Addendum to last note regarding the thermitist obsession with DSC and microspheres as some kind of pseudo-scientific 'holy grail':
It is axiomatic that the DSC findings of Harrit et al. prove the energy is NOT coming from a thermitic reaction. Even they agree on this, as the ED is far higher than any nanothermite could ever be. The bulk of the energy is from hydrocarbons, which comprise about 80% the mass of the red layer (just like primer paints of varying blends - what a coincidence eh?)
Thus the bulk of the heat generated also comes from the hydrocarbons, so it tells you nothing if you see an artifact of combustion sometimes; an artifact which has NEVER been replicated, therefore remains an unproven anomaly. It may or may not occur with other chip samples; FH Couannier did not find it, neither has Marc Basile to my knowledge.

Nor is it the real proof of thermitic reactions. The only real proof would be to show, thru standard practices - SEM-EDS, FTIR, TEM-SAED-EDS and PLM, that there is a stoichiometric mix of Iron Oxide and elemental Aluminum, in sufficient concentration to interact in a meaningful way. This was not done by Harrit et al.

The Harrit team were open about their choice of DSC over definitive tests; they were simply emulating the use of DSC by Tillotson et al. But crucially, Tillotson's team weren't looking to identify the substance by DSC, they were simply measuring its energy characteristics. They already knew exactly what it was.
It is at best terribly misleading for Harrit or his followers (like Jay Howard) to claim that you can identify a substance as thermite just by looking at a DSC scan. This is pure pseudoscience and false.
The fact is that Tillotson's sample did not acquire its energy from organics, but from the thermitic reaction, that's why its ED is only about 1.5 KJ/G; by definition the red chip layer is nothing like nanothermite even by that measure. So comparing the shape of it's scan is specious nonsense.

It's a farce when Harrit et al. claim they have a comparable substance when they don't even offer a sample of the known aerogel for direct comparison! That's science 101 - get the original and compare it.

They have effectively, through skilful propaganda, turned the burden of proof on its head, so instead of demanding that they replicate their results, verify the chip composition etc, the demand is now made that skeptics find paint that produces the same result! What the flame? This is mad science, nothing more. It's meant to inflame the uneducated masses to support a modern-day witch hunt (and a cottage industry of books, DVD's, lecture tours etc). Speaking of witch, I see the 2012 tax return for AE911Truth is in.
Looks like gross revenues were about $550,000. Not bad at all. Maybe I should get in on this racket!
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
btw, in what conceivable way could the aerogel method described in UCRL-PROC-201186 (the Gash paper constantly referenced by thermitists) resemble the red layer of the dust chips? Here's a description of its structure '
In this particular example, a solid skeleton of fuel based on resorcinol-formaldehyde has nanocrystalline ammonium perchlorate, the oxidizer, trapped within
the pores. At optimum stoichiometry it has approximately the energy density of HMX.'
We have a uniform (not unicorn, as in Harrit's imagination) gel, with the oxidizer in pores. No platelets made of silica. A different type of engineered material in fact.

Without finding a match for the red layers amongst any of these proposed materials, it is entirely speculative. I would love to see them try, I really would.

Everybody knows that buildings can be demolished by explosive controlled demolition. We know exactly how it's done, and we can tell by looking at steel whether it's been cut by demolition charges. But without any real evidence that this method was used, it's an irrelevant diversion to the discovery of what actually happened to the WTC buildings.

In the same way the exploration of nanomaterials is irrelevant as there is no real evidence that any kind of superthermite was present; there are simply some inconclusive tests by the proponents of that hypothesis followed by other conclusive tests showing the hypothesis to be false.

Even worse, the thermitists actual hypothesis posits that the explosive would have to be painted on, very thinly, onto the steel! This proposal is not only untested and unproven, it simply doesn't exist in the history of demolition! There are mountains of validation required for this theory to be even remotely plausible to a serious and discerning scientific audience.
The work hasn't even begun, and yet the thermitist cult has turned the idea into an almost religious belief.

There should be absolutely no leeway given to the thermitists, and no 'new investigation', until they have met the expected scientific standards, the burden of proof. It would be dangerously foolish to do otherwise.
Really, I guess you could say I agree there needs to be new investigation - by Jones et al. to properly identify their chips. Why do they continue to avoid this due diligence?
 

Alienentity

Active Member
and heres a video of an experiment proving thermite can cut wtc steel

That's odd, I thought Harrit et al. were saying it wasn't thermite, but a special nanothermite that was painted onto the steel.
Maybe I wasn't paying attention to their paper, but I didn't notice them talking about Aluminum powder and Iron Oxide, which doesn't ignite until you reach very high temperatures - you know, not like the red chips, which gave off exotherms at 430º C.

Can you explain what I missed in the paper?

Can you explain why regular thermite is relevant to the nanothermite hypothesis? I don't get it...

ps, can you summarize what Harrit's points are? I can't watch the videos on my computer, the connection's too slow. Just a bullet point list would be fine, to show that you are on top of the discussion and have a grasp of the subject at hand.
Otherwise I have some videos I can post as well, and we don't have to actually have a discussion. That might be easier for you.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
....can you summarize what Harrit's points are? I can't watch the videos on my computer, the connection's too slow.

Its a pity that your BB is too slow. That vid covers many points that you may wish to rebutt. Are the vids that you offer in return on your hard-drive? Or do you intend to offer a URL ? If they are only available online it just causes me to wonder how you know they will be helpful if you can't watch them is all.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Its a pity that your BB is too slow. That vid covers many points that you may wish to rebutt. Are the vids that you offer in return on your hard-drive? Or do you intend to offer a URL ? If they are only available online it just causes me to wonder how you know they will be helpful if you can't watch them is all.

Very perceptive.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I watched some of the Harrit video, and found this particularly relevant to the discussion: From 3:35.

Harrit: I'm just telling the experience we had with the debunkers. They fell down on one of the pictures in the paper, here, which shows the chip which was used for the swelling experiment with MEK, they say "Hah! you se you see here you have Crome, you have Zinc, that proves it is the primer paint. The point here is that the previous picture, these EDS have been taken on chips that have been broken, so you have a clean surface, which is the way to do it. Now in the experiment where we had to put the chip in MEK we could not break it, of course, so this is, actually, it show all the contamination from the rest of the building. Let me just point out here, you see a great big sulfur peak, and you see calcium is big. we have already talked about wallboard [drywall]. This is contamination of calcium sulfate from the wallboard, which was all over. And this zinc chromate could very well be primer paint sticking on the outside of the red chips and the point is when you break the chip, where you get a clean cut, there is no Zinc chromate. That is one reason why the red-gray chips is not the primer paint.
Content from External Source
Which raises two questions:

A) If the chips were surface contaminated with all kinds of stuff, then could they not also be surface contaminated with some fine steel dust? Dust which could combust, and form spheres with the same mechanism as the steel wool combustion?

B) The MEK chip was one where evidence of elemental aluminum was claimed. Why could this not have been only surface contamination?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Which raises two questions:

A) If the chips were surface contaminated with all kinds of stuff, then could they not also be surface contaminated with some fine steel dust? Dust which could combust, and form spheres with the same mechanism as the steel wool combustion?

B) The MEK chip was one where evidence of elemental aluminum was claimed. Why could this not have been only surface contamination?

As you know, I'm not a chemist ( if thats the right discipline to answer these questions ) But I can suggest some possibilities.

A) Yes. All things are possible if you are in the business of finding straws to cling to. But Jazzy tells me that all such dust came from sliding steel and all of those particles instantly turned into spheres from the same friction heat. So they wouldn't be still hanging around to seek out a friendly red/grey chip, amongst the mass of debris, to cling to. They had to be very selective that way to satisfy your question, otherwise billions of such minute steel dust fragments would have been reported on by RJ Lee at al.

B) Yes. Except that my understanding is that nano sized particles of elemental Al react very rapidly with any O thats around, and ceases to be elemental any more. If there was elemental Al dust hanging around - once again waiting to seek out a friendly red/grey chip to stick to amongst the mass of debris - it wouldn't be around very long. That is if my understanding is correct of course.

As I say, these are just suggestions thrown out there to be shot down by a proper chemist.
 

qed

Senior Member
As you know, I'm not a chemist
...
Except that my understanding is that nano sized particles of elemental Al react very rapidly with any O thats around, and ceases to be elemental any more.
At least give one reference!
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top