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

Alienentity

Active Member
I never mentioned a 'formula'. And its not testing the fire temps at all. More of a visual observation, and then comparison with published charts to give a rough min/max temp estimate of the temp that the steel reached.

But my point was more about the initial production of the charts in the first place, that were used as references. At that stage, if any weird' flakes melting' was seen it would have raised a few eyebrows. But that didn't happen. Thats my point. Heating painted steel in an oven to different temps in order to record the crazing patterns would have bound to include some edge 'flakes' in there. But not a mention of any steel flakes being melted at a temp below their normal point in that oven. Or the paint itself would have to have been rejected as a product hazard itself.

But I did. You're trying to compare unknown unknowns. It's a waste of everybody's time. You also speculate about the results and purpose of the testing without providing any documentation, we're not interested in your opinion, just the facts.

Funny that you deny this is a comparison when you clearly are trying to make some: 'not a mention of any steel flakes being melted'. You're directly trying to compare this kind of test with the type of melting of elements seen in the Harrit test.

But no, to you this is not comparing. LOL, how far the denial goes eh?

Next you guys will be denying that any primer paint is in any of the dust samples... oh wait, you already covered that silly denial! hehe
 

Alienentity

Active Member
I see that you still cling to that straw like a drowning man. Billions of rust chips - each with their own low grade fuel (unburnt resin) attached - all discovering ideal reducing conditions of ambient oxygen presure and absolute temperature, and enough time, to produce billions of iron rich microspheres. A bit like Goldilocks finding her ideal conditions. Just right. That was a fairy story too.

Oy, the denial with this one is strong! Dude, Dave Thomas produced these magic microspheres by exposing some primer-painted steel to open flame in a crude test. It's on youtube, it's even on this thread.

Your denial is denied. Fail.
Creating a strawman that only rust flakes can produce iron microspheres is not going to work. You fail again.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
All small objects burn in a small amount of time. If a 5mg piece of epoxy or wood were to ignite in a DSC, then it can only produce a sharp peak, because the fuel supply is almost instantly exhausted.

Try it. Slowly bring a piece of wood ( with a rust flake sat on it ) from ambient to 430 C and show me a microsphere.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Further to my post #594. I think that it may help a few people who see previous claims that paint can burn to produce an exothermic reaction to be told that any organic substance can do that. The word 'exothermic' does not mean that it was 'thermetic' reaction. Some people in here see the word 'exothermic' for a paint burn and mistake that to mean that it was therefore identical to a thermite burn. Its not.

Wiki says - "An exothermic reaction is a chemical or physical reaction that releases heat. It gives out energy to its surroundings. The energy needed for the reaction to occur is less than the total energy released"

A piece of wood that is lit by a match releases heat in an exothermic reaction and increases the heat in the environment close by. A wood stove is a large exothermic reaction. Paint does that too. But, like wood, it burns and releases its heat slowly. A thermetic reaction is also exothermic but releases its heat very rapidly.

All small objects burn in a small amount of time. If a 5mg piece of epoxy or wood were to ignite in a DSC, then it can only produce a sharp peak, because the fuel supply is almost instantly exhausted.

Try it. Slowly bring a piece of wood ( with a rust flake sat on it ) from ambient to 430 C and show me a microsphere.

We were discussing your claim that epoxy or wood would have a different time of reaction, not that it produced microspheres. Please don't try to change the subject like that.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
We were discussing your claim that epoxy or wood would have a different time of reaction, not that it produced microspheres. Please don't try to change the subject like that.

No change of subject. If you recall, Jazzy was asserting that resin, as fuel, attached to rust, would undergo a reduction process in absolutely ideal conditions that he stipulates, and produce billions of iron rich microspheres. Do you agree with him ?

And are you saying that a tiny piece of wood, or epoxy resin, would react exactly like a tiny quantity of nanthermite in a DSC raised slowly to 430 C, and that both would produce identical iron microspheres if the other 'layer' was a rust flake ?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No change of subject. If you recall, Jazzy was asserting that resin, as fuel, attached to rust, would undergo a reduction process in absolutely ideal conditions that he stipulates, and produce billions of iron rich microspheres. Do you agree with him ?

And are you saying that a tiny piece of wood, or epoxy resin, would react exactly like a tiny quantity of nanthermite in a DSC raised slowly to 430 C, and that both would produce identical iron microspheres if the other 'layer' was a rust flake ?

I'm saying that a very small sample of either nanothermite, or some hydrocarbon fuel, if ignited, would burn in a very small amount of time, and hence produce a peak. You said "Paint does that too. But, like wood, it burns and releases its heat slowly. A thermetic reaction is also exothermic but releases its heat very rapidly." That is what I was responding to. Nothing else. I would appreciate it if you address this particular point.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
All small objects burn in a small amount of time. If a 5mg piece of epoxy or wood were to ignite in a DSC, then it can only produce a sharp peak, because the fuel supply is almost instantly exhausted.

This 'sharp peak' is a thermitist parlour trick. The interval of time is not quick at all - the heating takes place over several minutes.

btw, Harrit et al. kept the DSC heating up to 700º C, yet all we saw was the release of organic material. Ivan Kminek did TGA analysis of his LaClede reconstruction, which shows the loss of mass over time. It corresponds well with the Harrit DSC - all the mass was essentially gone in a relatively narrow range of temperature. I'll post his TGA plots later, although again they measure a different aspect of the process.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
No change of subject. If you recall, Jazzy was asserting that resin, as fuel, attached to rust, would undergo a reduction process in absolutely ideal conditions that he stipulates, and produce billions of iron rich microspheres. Do you agree with him ?

And are you saying that a tiny piece of wood, or epoxy resin, would react exactly like a tiny quantity of nanthermite in a DSC raised slowly to 430 C, and that both would produce identical iron microspheres if the other 'layer' was a rust flake ?
Excuse me, but you haven't established that nanothermite heated in a DSC produces iron microspheres. Please supply documentation which shows a verified sample of nanothermite behaving this way.

You can't just bait and switch like that and get away with it. Show us data using real nanothermite and then compare to the Harrit chips.
Harrit et al. promised to do just that kind of scientific study, but haven't in almost 5 years (or at least are keeping mum on the results).

We can figure why they are reluctant to go there..... it would debunk their claims. This is not difficult you know.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
This whole song and dance is ridiculous anyway - the energy in the DSC came from the epoxy material, not the iron oxide or Al in the mixture. There is so little Al in the chips you can't get a thermitic reaction anyway, the molecules have to be close enough to react. Good god, if I have 100lbs of Aluminum powder 2 feet from 100 lbs of iron oxide powder, that's not thermite either, as long as they're not mixed directly together.

This refusal to acknowledge basic reality makes me think it's deliberate stupidity on the part of thermitists. I can't believe anybody who can use a computer is actually that dumb.

Besides, look at the XEDS of the microspheres!! The byproduct of a thermitic reaction is FeO and Al2O3. There should be several things that happen:

1) O should be reduced, so you should have a higher Fe to O ratio
2) Al should burn up as Al2O3 smoke, or should at least produce a white aluminum oxide powder
3) A very high intensity combustion should be visible, producing bright light

Now look at the red layer spectra, fig 7 and compare with sphere spectra fig 26 and 27. There is MORE oxygen relative to Fe than in the red layer, not less!
Even if there were some Al2O3 in the sphere, there should be roughly equal amounts of Al and O. Clearly there is far more O than Al, which again does not indicate Al2O3 (the byproduct of the thermite reaction)

Al should make up 52.9% of the mass of the molecule. Yet it doesn't. So we don't have evidence of Al2O3, nor the FeO that we would need to see for the remains of the thermitic reaction. ie there is NO evidence that a thermitic reaction has taken place. Duh....

The only 'evidence' that Harrit claims to have is the shape of the DSC plot, which is just an incompetent way to read DSC. Not surprising because neither Harrit nor Jones are expert in the behavior of polymers in DSC; I can't even find any evidence that Harrit is an expert with DSC period! He specialized in photochemistry, for crying out loud.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Actually that particular strawman claim is Jazzy's.

But I appreciate you telling him that you disaprove.

You're not fooling anyone. Not anyone with a modicum of intelligence, anyhow.... Jazzy described lots of other possible mechanisms for the spheroids, including the friction between steel beams during collapse.

The chimney effect described by RJ Lee is another one, where the iron oxide on the surface of the steel is liberated.

Nobody but you is suggesting that burned rust flakes are the only mechanism. You get to wear that one.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Actually that particular strawman claim is Jazzy's.
Show me. Ah, I see.

I meant particulate iron oxide primer material. I have never mentioned flakes of rust.

The difference is in scale. Flakes of rust have a high thermal mass compared with 100nM Fe2O3 paint particles*, and the epoxy combustion energy could diffuse more readily into a large body of rust before it could do its work, I believe.

You're definitely hopping in a gap there… :)

* Not only that, but rust is a complex hydrate of Fe2O3, and water has a devastatingly high specific heat. The Fe2O3 particles found in red oxide primer paint are anhydrous.
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I would appreciate it if you address this particular point.

Interesting how you can use the ploy of demanding an answer so that you can ignore answering my question. Before I address your point I will remind you of my own question. It was - " And are you saying that a tiny piece of wood, or epoxy resin, would react exactly like a tiny quantity of nanthermite in a DSC raised slowly to 430 C, and that both would produce identical iron microspheres if the other 'layer' was a rust flake ?" [ Edit - or a "particulate iron oxide primer material" as Jazzy has explained.]

Your point was :- " I'm saying that a very small sample of either nanothermite, or some hydrocarbon fuel, if ignited, would burn in a very small amount of time, and hence produce a peak."

In principle I agree with you. But would change your premice to read that a tiny piece of organic material would char in a small timescale. It would produce its own small bell curve of activity. The problem is your use of the words - " if ignited". A tiny piece of wood will not 'ignite' at 430 C. It will gradually char. Nanothermite ignites at 430 C producing a spike. Organic material doesn't either ignite or produce a spike.

Now have another go at my question please.
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Show me. Ah, I see.

I meant particulate iron oxide primer material. I have never mentioned flakes of rust.
.

Good. You spotted your error. And edited accordingly. But I apologise. You now claim that billions of particulates of iron oxide primer material went through a highly selective reduction process in ideal conditions of your specification, using a timescale of your chosing, to produce billions of microspheres.

And thank you @Alienentity for reminding me that Jazzy earlier hedged his bets by his incredible 'sliding steel' scenario and 'chimney' blast furnace ideas. Both, when added to his reduction of iron oxide theory could well have supplied billions of molten spheres. If they were accurate theories that is.

Now all you need to do is show me experimentation where particulates of iron oxide primer, attached to resin particles, when heated from ambient to 430 C will actually produce an iron microsphere and we can settle this in no time.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Nobody but you is suggesting that burned rust flakes are the only mechanism.

You really need to work on your reading skills. I have never suggested that burned rust flakes are the only mechanism. You have become very confused by my ridiculing of that possibility in an ironic way. I assumed that Jazzy was suggesting that the chips were steel flakes and organic binder but he has explained that he claims it was instead -- quote " particulate iron oxide primer material."
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Nanothermite ignites at 430 C producing a spike. Organic material doesn't either ignite or produce a spike.

I call bullpucky on that claim. the DSC 'spike' has to do with timeframe. If you don't know how to read a DSC, that's find, but don't pretend you understand something that you clearly don't.

Do you even know what the heating rate of the Harrit DSC was? I'll tell you: '20 deg C to 700 deg C at 10 deg C/ min'
The Harrit plot shows an exothermic reaction over 50º, which corresponds to FIVE MINUTES!
Now then, onto the fake claim that this was a thermitic reaction: real nanothermite is an explosive, so if in fact such a reaction had indeed taken place in the DSC (it didn't obviously) it would have been extremely violent and quick - not over 5 freaking minutes.

Please, please don't try to twist reality and try to maintain that it was a tiny speck of nanothermite but took 5 minutes to burn. Please don't make yourself look that stupid.

You guys can't win this debate based on science. You've already lost, we're just trying to help others understand just how painfully wrong the thermitist claims are, that's all.

'Yeah, the superthermite exploded in the DSC, it only took like 5 minutes for it! Wow, that's some mighty powerful explosion alright'. As a joke this might work, but as a serious proposition? Not in your lifetime, not in this universe.

Polymer chemist Ivan Kminek already has testified that epoxies will produce these sorts of exothermic plots, and he did that science for 25 years. Niels Harrit? Not his field of study..
Steven Jones? Not his field of study; Kevin Ryan? Not his field of study. Do I need to rub salt into this gaping wound?

You cannot deflect away from these realities successfully amongst reasonably informed people. It ain't gonna work. There was no thermitic reaction, the DSC actually proves it (although you didn't know that); the composition of the spheres proves it (why is there so much O versus the metals? That's impossible according to chemistry of thermite reaction).

The list goes on and on.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
You really need to work on your reading skills. I have never suggested that burned rust flakes are the only mechanism. You have become very confused by my ridiculing of that possibility in an ironic way. I assumed that Jazzy was suggesting that the chips were steel flakes and organic binder but he has explained that he claims it was instead -- quote " particulate iron oxide primer material."

Chalk it up to boredom with your diversionary nit-picking. You made an unsupported claim that nanothermite produces iron microspheres. Provide full documentation or withdraw that claim.
Provide the DSC plots and pictures of the microspheres taken during those tests on verified nanothermite. You're not allowed to lie in order to make your case. That's a violation of the forum guidelines.

Now provide the documentation.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
I'm sorry guys, I'm not interested in further interaction with a troll who makes stuff up and can't provide any documentation. That's the point when you realize the debate is truly over and the other side has gone off the rails.

The last two claims, that nanothermite produces iron spheres in a DSC, and that 'Organic material doesn't either ignite or produce a spike.' are just outright fabrication. They are not worthy of presentation in a serious discussion;

This behavior is just trolling, that's all. The debate is over.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Chalk it up to boredom with your diversionary nit-picking.

You wern't bored at all. If you had realised that that particular claim had been made in here by one of your own OCT guys you wouldn't have written that rebuttal. Now you have been shown to be partisan like that you run away.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
You wern't bored at all. If you had realised that that particular claim had been made in here by one of your own OCT guys you wouldn't have written that rebuttal. Now you have been shown to be partisan like that you run away.
The last two claims, that nanothermite produces iron spheres in a DSC, and that 'Organic material doesn't either ignite or produce a spike.' are just outright fabrication. They are not worthy of presentation in a serious discussion

Either produce documentation or be labeled a troll. Your choice.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
The Niels Harrit bait-and-switch explained:

XEDS for a microsphere produced by ignition of 'commerical thermite' is shown in figure 24 of the Bentham paper. But it's
a) not nanothermite in any way, shape or form
b) was not put in a DSC to produce the spheres. It was burned conventionally.
c) The scale is completely different. fig 24 scale is 1mm. The spheres are many times larger than those in fig 25, where the scale is 10 micrometres! that's a difference of 10-3 vs 10-6! 100X larger scale. (edit to reflect not just the scale but the unit of 10 um)
To explain the obvious, the scales are manipulated so the spheres all look the same size in either scan. Clever tactic, but deceptive.

Different material, different scale of product, different testing method. Complete and utter bunk. They're using it, with a straight face, to prove nanothermite? Really?

That, friends, is why Harrit et al. are failing to get any attention in the relevant scientific communities. Their claims are garbage. It's flim-flam based on some bait-and-switch (I've proven it above) and cheap parlour tricks using DSC plots. The closer you look at it, the more fraudulent it appears. Yes, I literally call it fraud, using this definition; 'obtained, done by, or involving deception'.

There is clear deception in the behavior of Harrit et al., not least is their reneging on their promise to release FTIR and other test data, including comparisons with real nanothermite. They've had almost 5 years to make good on their promise, but have obviously not kept it. Nor will they. This is now just a con job.
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
And wrong again Hitstirrer, I do find you boring. That's why I'm barely skimming your comments. I have found two of your false claims, however, and have highlighted them. Again, they are as follows:
'nanothermite produces iron spheres in a DSC, and 'Organic material doesn't either ignite or produce a spike.'

You must either produce documentation for those claims or be labeled a simple troll. You are not allowed to just make stuff up.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
You now claim that billions of particulates of iron oxide primer material went through a highly selective reduction process in ideal conditions of your specification, using a timescale of your chosing, to produce billions of microspheres.
It would take a billion atoms of iron to make a microscopically-visible microsphere.

I wrote: "Local energy excess will allow a partial reduction of the iron oxide to iron molecules, in reducing conditions (of unburnt resin), and allow it to collect as microspheres, given time and continuing surplus energy and reducing conditions."

I have accentuated the part you have persisted in missing.

And thank you for reminding me that Jazzy earlier hedged his bets by his incredible 'sliding steel' scenario and 'chimney' blast furnace ideas.
The steel friction idea has a few examples.


Everyone either a sphere or a microsphere.

The "chimney" theory isn't mine.

Both, when added to his reduction of iron oxide theory could well have supplied billions of molten spheres. If they were accurate theories that is.
So, in your opinion, blast furnaces have never worked. Well, thanks for that.

Now all you need to do is show me experimentation where particulates of iron oxide primer, attached to resin particles, when heated from ambient to 430 C will actually produce an iron microsphere and we can settle this in no time.
Well, it's lucky for you I live on a desert island with my apple. Perhaps.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting how you can use the ploy of demanding an answer so that you can ignore answering my question. Before I address your point I will remind you of my own question. It was - " And are you saying that a tiny piece of wood, or epoxy resin, would react exactly like a tiny quantity of nanthermite in a DSC raised slowly to 430 C, and that both would produce identical iron microspheres if the other 'layer' was a rust flake ?" [ Edit - or a "particulate iron oxide primer material" as Jazzy has explained.]

No, and I don't understand where this question even comes from. It seems entirely rhetorical. What's the actual point are you trying to make?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
No, and I don't understand where this question even comes from. It seems entirely rhetorical. What's the actual point are you trying to make?

Well- I've read it again and it seems pretty clear to me. But if you still want to avoid addressing that its fine.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Your question that you claim Mick is 'avoiding' is nonsense - you make a claim that it behaves "exactly like a tiny quantity of nanthermite in a DSC raised slowly to 430 C"

Where is the test done on known nano-thermite to confirm this 'exactly like'?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm going to put this thread on pause for a day. Seems like it's getting a bit too personal, and long winded.

If anyone wants to start more focussed (and useful) threads on the sub topics raised here, then feel free.

Please have a look at the politeness policy before continuing, specifically:

'
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Unpaused. Politeness policy will be more strictly applied. Please stick to science, and report any impolite posts. Thanks.
 

Jay Howard

Member
Alienentity said:
This gets so confusing, because Harrit's chips look just the same as Millette and Couannier's, yet Millette's have zero elemental Aluminum, ruling out thermite.
Which are primer paint and which aren't?
If none of them are primer paint, then what are they?
What else would be painted onto carbon steel, forming a bilayer chip made of Epoxy, Iron Oxide and Kaolin bonded to the steel?


There are a number of assumptions on your part. Let's look at these two:
1. There isn’t elemental Al


The fact is, one lab found it and another didn’t. The fact that another lab didn’t find it does NOT mean it doesn’t exist. It’s always an easier claim to say you didn’t find something, because they don't have to be "liars" to not find it. But that doesn't mean it isn't there. And yet, the ONLY reason you can point lean on to say it’s not there is that Millette’s lab didn’t find it. You don’t have a real criticism with the Harrit group’s methods, just their conclusions. And if you’re leaning on Couannier for support, then you are hitching your wagon to unicorns. He’s somewhere between “Death Rays” and “Vortex Bombs”. Not exactly a reliable theorist.


2. The Gray layer is carbon steel.


The only lab who said anything like this was Millette’s and they said it was “consistent with carbon steel.” Not that it “was carbon steel.” Huge difference. If you think those are identical claims, I have some property in Arizona that is “consistent with beachfront property” for sale.


The question of the provenance of the gray material is an important one, but it has not been settled. But the most definitive, easily-conducted test to confirm/disconfirm the red-gray chips as primer paint would be to get some primer paint, light it up, and see if it produces iron microspheres.


Why neither you nor anyone else has been able to do this is the real mystery. Yet you say this without sarcasm:


Alienentity said:
It almost seems like they don't want to come to a scientific conclusion, but that wouldn't be very nice of them. I'm sure they wouldn't play games like that on such important matters.

What are they hiding? Clearly something has stopped them, but what is it?


What are they hiding, indeed? Why can’t any of you who want so badly to dismiss the red-gray chips as primer find a single chip of paint that ignites at 430C and produces iron microspheres?


Not with a BLOWTORCH! If you heat rust and paint chips with a torch, and you find high-temp by-products, you haven’t really demonstrated anything. And it’s a shame I have to point that out at a site purporting to be about “debunking.” And yet, here I am, having to clarify this.

We are looking for paint chips that produce molten iron from a relatively low ignition point. Firing a bunch of rust, iron flakes and paint chips with a blowtorch doesn't differentiate between between by-products of the torch and by-products of the chips themselves. Again, this is common sense. And yet.

The problem is that most paint chips aren’t going to ignite at 430C, so it’s no surprise not a single one of you who denies the strangeness of the red-gray chips wants to try this experiment properly. I say “most,” but probably there aren’t any paint chips that ignite at 430C. And if they produce iron microspheres by virtue of their own exotherm, you in fact have successfully dismissed the significance of the red-gray chips!


But no one has done this. And strangely, no one who doubts the significance of the red-gray chips seems interested in doing this. Why is that?


Alienentity said:
DSC can't tell you if thermite is present, it's very misleading to try to use it as a proof.


You’re right that the DSC can’t tell you if thermite is present. But it CAN tell you ignition point, and that a material is explosive or not. And it can tell you if paint chips have the same reaction. It CAN differentiate the red-gray chips from paint chips. So why are you so averse to using it (or even a conventional oven)? It’s as definitive as it’s going to get without high energy microscopy/spectroscopy.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The problem is that most paint chips aren’t going to ignite at 430C
Uh, uh.

The problem is that most paint chips will have ignited by 430C.

"Fahrenheit 451" springs to mind. (Er, that's 268 deg C). Which is the temperature at which finely-divided organic compounds catch fire in air. Like the pages of books and finely-divided epoxy resin...

NOT 430 deg C.

And it is the clay filler and iron oxide particles which are holding that combustion back by acting as temporarily-unreactive heat sinks.

Organic dye molecules in paints don't take up as much heat as metal oxides and clays, so paints containing them would be long gone.

But the most definitive, easily-conducted test to confirm/disconfirm the red-gray chips as primer paint would be to get some primer paint, light it up, and see if it produces iron microspheres.
So what's holding you up? Between the two of us, you're the one with the burden of proof.

I'm damn sure it's some of the primer paint off the towers. The steelwork lost it, so it must have been to the dust it was lost. Prove to me I'm wrong.

.
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
There are a number of assumptions on your part. Let's look at these two:
1. There isn’t elemental Al
Hmmm, well Millette's chips didn't have any. So we might say that none of the chips are identical nor come from the same source. In that case where did they come from?
We think they came from the primer paint, of one formulation or another. Since the Harrit results have not been replicated, you cannot go around stating that they are definitively nanothermite. You can only say that Harrit et al. have made this claim. I'm fine with that.

2. The Gray layer is carbon steel.
If it's not carbon steel, then what else could it be? Please state an alternative hypothesis. Otherwise you're into the territory that 'nothing can be proven, no matter what tests are done'. Which would apply to you as well as us.


You’re right that the DSC can’t tell you if thermite is present. But it CAN tell you ignition point, and that a material is explosive or not.
Please substantiate the last claim with documentation. It is just a bare assertion.

It CAN differentiate the red-gray chips from paint chips.
It can differentiate chips of unknown origin with other unknown or known chips. It can compare certain aspects of heat release, but what is DSC used for by scientists? If you do some research, you'll find DSC isn't used to identify materials, just to look at phase transitions etc.. to refine chemical formulas like curing of polymers.
So why are you so averse to using it (or even a conventional oven)? It’s as definitive as it’s going to get without high energy microscopy/spectroscopy.
You have your answer in the question 'as definitive as it's going to get without high energy microscopy/spectroscopy'. The latter are the superior methods for determining composition. They should be used instead. By your own admission. I agree, Harrit et al. should have done so, but have left all the thermitists in a difficult position by failing to do so.
If you're frustrated why not direct it at those who have put you in the position? This IMO is the major mistake you're committing here.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Jay, to address your claim that DSC can determine whether something is explosive or not (for which you've provided no documentation) I will remind you that Harrit's DSC exotherms happened over 5 long minutes. This was no explosion, nor would anybody I hope try to claim that it was a 5 minute thermitic reaction!
I've started looking at DSC analysis of various known explosives, as I suspected it's being used to look at phase changes, I assume with an eye to tweaking forumulas. But most important is that RDX in the following example is NOT exploding in the DSC, it's being vaporized or burned. Same with the red layer of the WTC chips, they're not exploding, they're just burning in the DSC.
But thermitists are literally claiming that a thermitic reaction (explosion) has occurred causing the microspheres. This is where their claims have gone off the rails. It's just plain wrong. By definition, even if it were nanothermite it still wouldn't explode (nor could it over 5 minutes) so no ultra-high temperatures have occurred, ergo no melting temperatures of iron. So by definition the microspheres have been created by a different process which does not involve these extremely high temps.

You can't get around this. Nor should you. Just take a deep breath and inhale the reality check; relax and accept that this was not a thermitic reaction. What you've been told is false. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

Check the article here

ps If you look at the Tillotson or Gash papers on nanothermite, do they mention anywhere that the DSC caused the material to explode? Of course not. But this very important fact is completely missed by myriad truthers in their haste. And Harrit et al. have lead the pack in this mad rush of misunderstanding.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
For reference to the claim that paint chips wont ignite at 430C (I don't know if that's true or not but I'm skeptical), here is a list of auto-ignition temperatures for various substances - unfortunately, there isn't one for paint. Though probably for its constituents.

Fuel or Chemical Autoignition Temperature
(oC) (oF)
Acetaldehyde 175 347
Acetone 465 869
Acetylene 305 581
Anthracite - glow point 600 1112
Benzene 560 1040
Bituminous coal - g.p. 454 850
Butane 405 761
Carbon 700 1292
Carbon disulfide, CS 290 194
Carbon monoxide 609 1128
Charcoal 349 660
Coal-tar oil 580 1076
Coke 700 1292
Cyclohexane 245 473
Diethyl ether 160 320
Diesel, Jet A-1 210 410
Ethane 515 959
Ethylene 490 914
Ethyl Alcohol, Ethanol 365 689
Fuel Oil No.1 210 410
Fuel Oil No.2 256 494
Fuel Oil No.4 262 505
Heavy hydrocarbons 750 1382
Hydrogen 500 932
Gas oil 336 637
Gasoline, Petrol 280 536
Gun Cotton 221 430
Kerosene 295 563
Isobutane 462 864
Isobutene 465 869
Isooctane 447 837
Isopentane 420 788
Isopropyl Alcohol 399 750
Light gas 600 1112
Light hydrocarbons 650 1202
Lignite - glow point 526 979
Magnesium 473 883
Methane (Natural Gas) 580 1076
Methanol Methyl Alcohol 470 878
Naphtha 225 437
Neoheaxane 425 797
Neopentane 450 842
Nitro-glycerine 254 490
n-Butane 405 761
n-Heptane 215 419
n-Hexane 225 437
n-Octane 220 428
n-Pentane 260 500
n-Pentene 298 569
Oak Wood - dry 482 900
Paper 218 - 246 424 - 475
Peat 227 440
Petroleum 400 752
Pine Wood - dry 427 800
Phosphorus, amorphous 260 500
Phosphorus, transparent 49 120
Phosphorus, white 34 93
Production gas 750 1382
Propane 470 878
Propylene 458 856
p-Xylene 530 986
Rifle Powder 288 550
Triethylborane -20 -4
Toluene 535 995
Semi anthracite coal 400 752
Semi bituminous coal - g.p 527 980
Silane < 21 < 70
Styrene 490 914
Sulphur 243 470
Wood 300 572
Xylene 463 867
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I will remind you that Harrit's DSC exotherms happened over 5 long minutes. This was no explosion, nor would anybody I hope try to claim that it was a 5 minute thermitic reaction!
I've started looking at DSC analysis of various known explosives, .....
But most important is that RDX in the following example is NOT exploding in the DSC, it's being vaporized or burned.

Thank you for the RDX comparison.

I did a similar check, co-incidentally on RDX, and found this paper.

http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol2_...of_energetic_materials_by_thermal_methods.pdf

I would draw attention to pages 54,55,56 where those test parameters and results are shown. The rate of temperature rise used in that study was 2 degrees C per minute. The energetic phase and energy release appears to take place from approx 210 C through to 230 C which @ 2 degrees per minute works out to 10 minutes.

Your own quoted paper gives a rate of temperature rise of 10 degrees C per minute. The graph very roughly shows energy release taking place between an input of 200 C and 300 C which at 10C/min = 10 minutes.

They match near enough. But isn't RDX a well known explosive ?

You remind us that --quote " ..... Harrit's DSC exotherms happened over 5 long minutes."

But a known explosive takes 10 long minutes to release its energy in a DSC -- and Harrit's material -- (said to NOT be an explosive) did that in half the time. Of course the discrepacy may be due entirely to sample size but on the face of it RDX v Harrits chips appear to compare in performance to a known explosive in a DSC experiment.

Producing a paper that shows RDX performing worse than Harrits material does seem to be an odd thing to do when you are trying to debunk his findings.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Thank you for the RDX comparison.

But a known explosive takes 10 long minutes to release its energy in a DSC -- and Harrit's material -- (said to NOT be an explosive) did that in half the time. Of course the discrepacy may be due entirely to sample size but on the face of it RDX v Harrits chips appear to compare in performance to a known explosive in a DSC experiment.

Producing a paper that shows RDX performing worse than Harrits material does seem to be an odd thing to do when you are trying to debunk his findings.

You're welcome. Again you don't seem to understand what the DSC shows. The only thing you can say regarding the RDX vs red/grey chips in the DSC is that the organic material in the red chips decomposes in a narrower heat range than does RDX. That's it.

It should be painfully obvious that the so-called 'spike' which thermitists say shows how energetic the material is - is irrelevant to whether it is an explosive material or not.
I picked RDX because everyone recognizes it as an extremely powerful explosive, in fact it could easily be used (not as a paint) for demolition. In fact it actually IS used for controlled demolition. And yet the DSC can't show you that it's a powerful explosive, because that's not what DSC is designed to do.

If you're trying to twist this comparison to show that the red chips are more powerful than RDX, using a 5 minute vs 10 minute plot, then you're well into the realm of nonsense, instead of science. Besides, you've also ignored the coup de grace for thermitist theories: the RDX wasn't exploding in the DSC, just decomposing in a slow manner; just as the red/grey chips did. There were no explosions, no flashes of bright powerful instantaneous energy release, just a measured decay of materials.

You can't measure the explosive power output or the temperature of explosion using a DSC. Nobody can. But truthers insist that's what happened.
Well... ok then. In your alternate world, but not this one.
 
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