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

Alienentity

Active Member
I hope thermitists will learn what DSC actually does, that you can 'burn' a material, even an explosive and it doesn't mean you've activated the ingredients as explosives. Thermitists claim that microspheres are 'proof' of a thermitic reaction, but that's impossible if the reaction took place over several minutes. That's not how a thermitic reaction proceeds folks.
To illustrate the difference in processes simply look at this video - of burning, but not exploding RDX. Would anyone argue that this RDX is acting in an explosive manner? REally? But that's precisely the argument they're making about the red/grey chips. It's a lost argument, it's completely false.

ps I guess I do need to add this, but lots of organics burn, yet are not explosive. The fact that something burns is simply does not indicate the presence of an explosive compound.
But there are other tests for that, like the ones Dr Millette performed. ;)

 
Last edited:
The thermitic reaction does not take several minutes, as seen in the video of its ignition


The advantage of nano thermite is its low temperature of reactivity compared with TNT and RDX which you can burn but won't explode.

Iron spheres are proof of a thermitic reaction because the iron oxide is reduced as seen in the spheres
 
Does paint do that ?

Why did the scientists use DSC anaylsis in their 2001 paper Aerogels Fe2O3 Tillotson ?
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Again you don't seem to understand what the DSC shows. 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.........
There were no explosions, no flashes of bright powerful instantaneous energy .......
I have never claimed to be any kind of scientist and the witchcraft of DSC experimentation is well outside my expertise. I just take note of what scientists say, and what chatroom people say to claim that those scientists are wrong. One chatroom person was saying that Harrit's results in a DSC did not prove that his material was a powerful 'explosive'. So I checked to see what result a powerful explosive would deliver in a DSC, and found it to produce a similar type of energy release. At the very least that shows that if RDX is an explosive then the red/grey chips could also be 'explosive'. So it didn't disprove but also didn't confirm. I am not even " trying to twist" using the 5 min / 10 min as some kind of evidence that it is in fact more powerful. As I said, there would be other discrepancies going on, like sample size, and graph scales etc and direct comparison would not be possible.

But the mysterious iron rich microsphere left on that DSC pan remains to be explained.

Perhaps you can find a DSC result of a test with primer paint that does that too.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
One chatroom person was saying that Harrit's results in a DSC did not prove that his material was a powerful 'explosive'. So I checked to see what result a powerful explosive would deliver in a DSC, and found it to produce a similar type of energy release..
Did you also check to see what type of energy release that anything that burns would produce?

Check out this chart. C4 has a lower energy density than coconut husks. In fact Harrit had to handwave away the suspiciously high energy release by attributing it to the organic matrix.



Hence the "chatroom person" (and I'd appreciate it if you stay away from such characterizations), was correct.

Source: http://physics.info/energy-chemical/
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Did you also check to see what type of energy release that anything that burns would produce?
I have never disputed that. We discussed this weeks ago. As you very well know it has little to do with the energy potential, weight for weight, but everything to do with the speed that it can be released. Your 'ringed' examples of - C4, and coconut husks explains that immediately.

My point was that known explosives and Harrit's chips, in a DSC, simply displayed their energy potential. Showing that it neither proved, nor disproved, the question whether Harrit's chips were 'explosive'.

But both Harrit and Basile discovered an iron microsphere as a product of a quite low equipment temperature event in relation to the melting temperature of iron. Begging the question as to whether paint primer can do that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
My point was that known explosives and Harrit's chips, in a DSC, simply displayed their energy potential. Showing that it neither proved, nor disproved, the question whether Harrit's chips were 'explosive'.
So the "chatroom person" was correct then? You said: "One chatroom person was saying that Harrit's results in a DSC did not prove that his material was a powerful 'explosive'." Or did you mean to type "disprove" instead of "did not prove"?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The thermitic reaction does not take several minutes, as seen in the video of its ignition


The advantage of nano thermite is its low temperature of reactivity compared with TNT and RDX which you can burn but won't explode.

Iron spheres are proof of a thermitic reaction because the iron oxide is reduced as seen in the spheres
In that video the chip is being heated with an oxyacetylene torch, which has a very high flame temperature.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
So the "chatroom person" was correct then? You said: "One chatroom person was saying that Harrit's results in a DSC did not prove that his material was a powerful 'explosive'." Or did you mean to type "disprove" instead of "did not prove"?
I meant that it was neither proved or disproved. I suppose that if the word 'saying' was changed to 'claiming' it makes it clearer. The conclusion was that known explosives, Harrit's chips, and other organic samples simply show an exothermic reaction. Nothing unexpected there. The consistent ignition point and the production of iron microspheres are the aspects that need to be replicated using primer paint though.

My issue was that some readers may not have understood fully. At first sight that statement seemed to indicate that it disproved the possibility of it being 'explosive'. All I did was to show that RDX performed exactly the same in a DSC machine and as that was a known explosive then it did not disprove the possibility that Harrit's chips would also react violently.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I meant that it was neither proved or disproved. I suppose that if the word 'saying' was changed to 'claiming' it makes it clearer. The conclusion was that known explosives, Harrit's chips, and other organic samples simply show an exothermic reaction. Nothing unexpected there. The consistent ignition point and the production of iron microspheres are the aspects that need to be replicated using primer paint though.
So they were correct then?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
So they were correct then?
Correct but a bit misleading. Which is why I wrote #644. The relevent text from there is below - with the full context in blue.

"One chatroom person was saying that Harrit's results in a DSC did not prove that his material was a powerful 'explosive'. So I checked to see what result a powerful explosive would deliver in a DSC, and found it to produce a similar type of energy release. At the very least that shows that if RDX is an explosive then the red/grey chips could also be 'explosive'. So it didn't disprove but also didn't confirm."

 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
A less charitable person than myself may think that all this exchange is doing is to scroll off the front page the other part of my post though. This part :-

But the mysterious iron rich microsphere left on that DSC pan remains to be explained.
Perhaps you can find a DSC result of a test with primer paint that does that too.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But the mysterious iron rich microsphere left on that DSC pan remains to be explained.
Perhaps you can find a DSC result of a test with primer paint that does that too.
Perhaps you could find one that does not? (a test of primer paint flaked off steel that is, so it has the grey layer)

Unless you eliminate that possibility, then the DSC test proves nothing.

And don't ask me to do it, I don't have access to a DSC. Harrit does.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Perhaps you could find one that does not? (a test of primer paint flaked off steel that is, so it has the grey layer) Unless you eliminate that possibility, then the DSC test proves nothing.
Forgive me but didn't Jazzy say that the paint alone would be sufficient to produce a microsphere ? He envisaged a reduction process using primer paint's own ingredients didn't he. This was his quote when he took issue at me mentioning a flake - from his post #612 -" I meant particulate iron oxide primer material. I have never mentioned flakes of rust."

Seems to me that the different debunk factions are setting different standards of proof. You want known primer, with some steel attached, to be tested in a DCS, and Jazzy doesnt require that, opining that the paint alone is needed. To be fair Im not bothered either way. And it doesnt need a DSC. Just a resistive strip like Basile's experiment. And a digi thermometer.

As long as the heat increases gradually to a max temp of 430 C and an iron microsphere results.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
The thermitic reaction does not take several minutes, as seen in the video of its ignition


The advantage of nano thermite is its low temperature of reactivity compared with TNT and RDX which you can burn but won't explode.

Iron spheres are proof of a thermitic reaction because the iron oxide is reduced as seen in the spheres
:Facepalm: This is not a DSC test, the guy's burning it with a blowtorch. The DSC was what we were talking about, remember? The 5 long minutes of exotherms (burning up of the red layer). You can't get around it. The whole claim is based on a gross misunderstanding of DSC and thermitic reactions.

If this is the type of 'evidence' you are relying on, you have a very hard road ahead indeed to square it with reality and a decent scientific standard.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Forgive me but didn't Jazzy say that the paint alone would be sufficient to produce a microsphere ? He envisaged a reduction process using primer paint's own ingredients didn't he. This was his quote when he took issue at me mentioning a flake - from his post #612 -" I meant particulate iron oxide primer material. I have never mentioned flakes of rust."

Seems to me that the different debunk factions are setting different standards of proof. You want known primer, with some steel attached, to be tested in a DCS, and Jazzy doesnt require that, opining that the paint alone is needed. To be fair Im not bothered either way. And it doesnt need a DSC. Just a resistive strip like Basile's experiment. And a digi thermometer.

As long as the heat increases gradually to a max temp of 430 C and an iron microsphere results.
I'm not Jazzy.

Did Basile get iron microspheres? I thought he just got a puff of white smoke, and it reacted exothermically remarkably faster than in the DSC, what's going on there then?
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Forgive me but didn't Jazzy say that the paint alone would be sufficient to produce a microsphere ? He envisaged a reduction process using primer paint's own ingredients didn't he. This was his quote when he took issue at me mentioning a flake - from his post #612 -" I meant particulate iron oxide primer material. I have never mentioned flakes of rust."

Seems to me that the different debunk factions are setting different standards of proof. You want known primer, with some steel attached, to be tested in a DCS, and Jazzy doesnt require that, opining that the paint alone is needed. To be fair Im not bothered either way. And it doesnt need a DSC. Just a resistive strip like Basile's experiment. And a digi thermometer.

As long as the heat increases gradually to a max temp of 430 C and an iron microsphere results.
Ivan Kminek confirmed, thru his own use of DSC and TGA that polymers show similar results to the red chips and other organics. You seem to agree that a DSC isn't able to prove that a substance is explosive. That is good progress, there's no need for further quibbling about whether the red chips are similar to RDX, we know they aren't very similar already. As Dr Frank Greening observed in 2009, first quoting the Harrit paper: ' Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Figure 29."

Greening:
This statement, also repeated in the Abstract to the paper, is simply not correct and shows a complete lack of understanding of DSC by the authors of the paper. Why do I say this? Well, Figure 29 is the DSC trace of a red chip heated from 20 deg C to 700 deg C at 10 deg C/ min and shows an exothermic peak extending from approximately 420 - 470 deg C. Now, as someone who has run many DSC analyses on a wide variety of materials, I know that the height and width of a DSC peak depends on many factors such as the sample-holder, the furnace atmosphere, the sample packing density, etc, but most of all, DSC peak widths depend on the heating rate. Given that the DSC trace of Harrit et al. was acquired at 10 deg C/min and has a FWHM ~ 25 deg C, one can be certain that a different peak width would have been obtained if a different heating rate had been used. Thus DSC peak widths are not indicative of reaction rates. This is amply illustrated by many of the DSC traces and the discussion given in Chapter 5 of the well-known chemistry textbook "Thermal Analysis" by W. Wendlandt.'

As another chatroom person said, this can all be settled with high energy microscopy/spectroscopy. So this fixation on DSC characteristics is known to be a red herring, when we can actually find out thru superior means what the chips are. Oh wait, that's been done by Dr Millette, so we don't even have to speculate about what would be found - we have a published study to refer to.

I can easily see why Dr Millette has become like Voldemort; the only way to keep the nanothermite dream alive is to avoid his study at all costs. Thus the DSC becomes the dark broom closet in which to hide. An ambiguous place which conveniently can neither confirm nor deny. If the bogeyman Millette would just go away, the nanothermite dream could live on....

The silicon, Aluminum, Iron, Titanium and Calcium- rich spheres are an interesting phenomenon, but since we can confirm that no thermite reaction can last 5 minutes, we already know that it didn't produce those artifacts. Dr Millette also showed that there was no elemental aluminum, using some definitive tests. He also presented his study to a conference of forensic experts, very much unlike the authors of the Bentham paper who prefer to stay away from mainstream science when it's inconvenient for them.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Did Basile get iron microspheres? I thought he just got a puff of white smoke, and it reacted exothermically remarkably faster than in the DSC, what's going on there then?
Basile DID get microspheres.

And as a precaution he ground up one chip in advance to check if spheres were in there before he heated another, in order to eliminate the possibility that he wasn't creating them at all as they were there in the first place. None were seen before heating.

Spheres were seen after heating to a max temp of 430 C on his resistive strip. He also noted a metallic 'lining' to micropores left after ignition too. Here is a brief quote from him taken from a transcript of an interview.

I basically have a setup where I have a stainless steel resistive heating element, that I basically use that's ... oh... what is it... It's about little less than a quarter of an inch across and I basically.. you know... using tweezers and micromanipulators or whatever put the chips basically in the center of the strip, and then by controlling the amount of electricity that flows through the strip, I can heat it up to pretty much any temperature that I want. I don't bring them, you know, anywheres near, you know, the temperatures to do anything harmful to them, but just up enough to basically get them to ignite, and they ignite in the region of... oh... somewhere a little over 400 degrees centigrade typically, and uhm.... When they ignite, you know, I basically have just recorded them burning and then after the fact you can open them up and look inside for these uh.. these iron droplets and films that I spoke of earlier
The interviewer then asked him what would happen if only ordinary paint chips were there. He replied --quote :-

it's just the level of energy release, so, yep, there'd be an energy release, but I wouldn't expect say if within that paint chip there was iron oxide as one of the pigments that they put in there, I wouldn't expect to open that paint chip afterwards and find, you know, molten iron has been produced and now there would be iron droplets inside the residue of that chip.
[Edit- he later did that very test and as expected got no spheres ]

http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/sounds-of-loud-and-clear.html

As I said, this is easy to replicate. Of course getting WTC dust to check isn't easy, but primer paint is. And rust is.
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
I thought the whole idea was to identify the red/grey chips. That has now been done at least once by Dr Millette, in a totally accessible study.

The microsphere issue is a distraction. Yes, it is certainly interesting, but it cannot prove or disprove a thermitic reaction on its own. Microspheres are well known and ubiquitous in modern civilization, the mechanisms for producing them are well studied and documented. They're not exotic and rare, it seems to me.

Even if one wants to replicate Basile's technique, one will need a sample of WTC dust. That is no easy task and far beyond the average inquiring mind. The fact that the chips are bound to an apparent carbon steel layer, and that they are 40 years old makes them difficult to replicate.
So assuming one came up with a similar material, and didn't find microspheres. One has really not proven or disproven anything.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Basile DID get microspheres.


As I said, this is easy to replicate. Of course getting WTC dust to check isn't easy, but primer paint is. And rust is.
Heck, all that needs to be done is for Harrit or Ryan to just give some chips to an independent lab and ask them to identify they chips. Not to tell them how to do it, but just let them do the due diligence. The closest match to Harrit's chips will be others in the same sample - it's very disappointing that Ryan declined to let Dr Millette have some.

The question could be answered within weeks. Why Harrit and his supporters refuse to do this is an open question to this day.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Can you link&quote to where he provides evidence of these microspheres? Were they iron? Also the no-spheres paint test? I tried to find them via your links, but had no luck.
I had no luck finding a report from him, just seems anecdotal. I know he's trying to raise money to hire someone to do a Millette-type study, as we've discussed. I hope it happens.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Can you link&quote to where he provides evidence of these microspheres? Were they iron? Also the no-spheres paint test? I tried to find them via your links, but had no luck.
I don't think that Basile has published. He is on public record at conferences and seminars though, and goes through his work in layman terms quite a lot. One of those is here. Its very amateurish as it appears to be simply an audience member with a camcorder who has uploaded to YT. Sound quality is appalling and a dog is barking at critical times.

Please skip to 38 mins where he begins to discuss chips, and ends at 50 minutes. Many of the questions asked in here are answered at some time in that 12 minutes.


You asked if he had done control tests on primer paint. It seems that he did. On two samples obtained from known WTC steel ( museum pieces I think ) Inexplicably one is blue and the other red.

Here are MP4's of those known primer heatings using the same equipment, so that you can compare with his red/grey chip ignition video.

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/paint chip red.mp4

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/paint chip blue.mp4
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here, I just popped into the garage and put a torch to some paint chips. Result:


(Original video attached)

Look at how there's a flash which illuminates the background. Momentarily energetic.

This is the same type of paint/rust chips as I used earlier. The residue seemed to have some tiny shiny metallic spheroids in it.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
Thanks Mick, great illustration of the point.
It just reinforces how this could be resolved by having Kevin Ryan send some of their chips for lab testing, duplicating the tests done by Millette to ascertain without doubt whether there is any elemental Al at all, and if so how much out of the total mass.
If they want to burn them I guess that's up to them; you can't confirm thermite except by tests other than DSC or simple combustion anyway.
 
So yea Mark Basille has samples and will send to an independent lab that will do a blind study please donate,
Until then I'm not going to read from amateur scientists any ''debunking'' theories or your opinions on DSC stuff
 

Alienentity

Active Member
So yea Mark Basille has samples and will send to an independent lab that will do a blind study please donate,
Until then I'm not going to read from amateur scientists any ''debunking'' theories or your opinions on DSC stuff
The sooner and the more you donate the sooner the study will happen. I take it you'll be very generous. :)
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Not only is Kevin Ryan in possession of WTC dust chips, the same batch studied in the 2009 'Active thermitic materials' paper, but he's a prominent member of AE911Truth. Yet he hasn't seen fit to allocate a few grand for independent testing of the chips they have!!

The mind reels at this reluctance. They have the materials and the means to commission another test which would, according to truther lore, confirm that the chips are thermitic, yet they do nothing. Instead they claim skeptics should do so, and even when skeptics carry out such independent tests, truthers reject these tests!!
Kevin Ryan himself is busy smearing Chris Mohr and Dr Jim Millette in a frenetic attempt to discredit the 2012 study done. I just reread his article and he actually lies brazenly about Millette. Yikes! Here's an excerpt:

Do you see the lies? He specifically DID test whether they were thermitic, by looking for elemental Al. Also HE DID do the MEK test. Ryan cannot possibly be ignorant of this, he's just lying. Period.
From the Millette study:
 

Bmead

Member
Seems like the most sensible and simple tests are 2- One being, exact chemical composition and Two, being ignition tests
i don't know the abundance of verified wtc dust, i assume some must be available from recent findings of the landing gear.
I assume that if a pro thermite and anti thermite person were to sit down, then both sides say i want xxx tests run, and xxx question answered.
Then invite a number of independents debunkers and truthers to film the testing and results, then the results can not be argued one way or the other, they will have agreed what to ask and what to test. The results will speak for themselves
And i think therein is the issue, the lack of doing exact same testing.
It would be ideal to do this and that then ends the debate to thermite or not
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Seems like the most sensible and simple tests are 2- One being, exact chemical composition and Two, being ignition tests
i don't know the abundance of verified wtc dust, i assume some must be available from recent findings of the landing gear.
I assume that if a pro thermite and anti thermite person were to sit down, then both sides say i want xxx tests run, and xxx question answered.
Then invite a number of independents debunkers and truthers to film the testing and results, then the results can not be argued one way or the other, they will have agreed what to ask and what to test. The results will speak for themselves
And i think therein is the issue, the lack of doing exact same testing.
It would be ideal to do this and that then ends the debate to thermite or not
My understanding is that ignition of chips is not going to tell you if they're thermitic. Only a definitive test for elemental Al can do that.

I defer to forensic scientists in that matter. Not debunkers or truthers.
 

Bmead

Member
Well certainly the ignition of a chip that causes a certain reaction that paint cannot, that average office items melted down cannot. then what one sees would likely be definable as exothermic oxidation reduction reaction which is essentially, to my understanding, then a thermitic material. If the ignited particles melt, burn or have a small (size relevant) reaction then it is hardly likely to say it was used to bring down the towers. To suggest only the presence of aluminium is able to suggest a thermitic material requires only one thermitic material. In 1545 thermite would be imagined and laughed at in fact, indeed, prior to it's being widely known which in most circles was not until after 9/11 thermate/thermite was not at all well known. So an ignition test is very much a required part of any fair test.

The al present is like saying if c4 does not have a specific plasticizer, it cannot be explosive, this despite pe4 and semtex. Whereas testing it for explosiveness would prove it had an explosive reaction.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well certainly the ignition of a chip that causes a certain reaction that paint cannot, that average office items melted down cannot. then what one sees would likely be definable as exothermic oxidation reduction reaction which is essentially, to my understanding, then a thermitic material.
Like wood? No, Harrit is using the word "thermitic" to mean "a form of thermite". Meaning it must have some metail in it, and they calim that metal is aluminum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
If the ignited particles melt, burn or have a small (size relevant) reaction then it is hardly likely to say it was used to bring down the towers. To suggest only the presence of aluminium is able to suggest a thermitic material requires only one thermitic material. In 1545 thermite would be imagined and laughed at in fact, indeed, prior to it's being widely known which in most circles was not until after 9/11 thermate/thermite was not at all well known. So an ignition test is very much a required part of any fair test.

The al present is like saying if c4 does not have a specific plasticizer, it cannot be explosive, this despite pe4 and semtex. Whereas testing it for explosiveness would prove it had an explosive reaction.
But that's not what they tested for.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Well certainly the ignition of a chip that causes a certain reaction that paint cannot, that average office items melted down cannot. then what one sees would likely be definable as exothermic oxidation reduction reaction which is essentially, to my understanding, then a thermitic material. If the ignited particles melt, burn or have a small (size relevant) reaction then it is hardly likely to say it was used to bring down the towers. To suggest only the presence of aluminium is able to suggest a thermitic material requires only one thermitic material. In 1545 thermite would be imagined and laughed at in fact, indeed, prior to it's being widely known which in most circles was not until after 9/11 thermate/thermite was not at all well known. So an ignition test is very much a required part of any fair test.

The al present is like saying if c4 does not have a specific plasticizer, it cannot be explosive, this despite pe4 and semtex. Whereas testing it for explosiveness would prove it had an explosive reaction.
Let's address your points carefully. Firstly, we already know that the Harrit chips are made of a carbon-based matrix (see Dr Millette's study for full FTIR identification of this), mixed with small amounts of iron oxide and kaolin clay, or aluminosilicate - the Kaolin contains both Si and Al.

So these are the only possible thermitic ingredients in the Harrit chips. In fact they claim exactly that it is an Iron Oxide/elemental Aluminum thermitic reaction. So it's fairly easy to test whether the Al is in fact elemental or not.
If it's not, then there's not thermite. Got it? It's not magic.

2) The claim that paint cannot burn is pure nonsense. It's true that not all primer paints will behave the same way, but don't believe this myth. Latex paint, for example, can burn quite well.
3) The presence of microspheres containing variously O, Si, Al, and Fe are not proof of a thermitic reaction. Similar things can be created by either thermitic reactions or a number of other well documented processes which are not thermitic. There's no way to tell which it is by looking at the spheres. That's because they don't require something to reach the melting point of bulk steel.

3) You don't get to decide what's relevant to a forensic scientist, because you're a layperson like me. You let the experts do what they do. I don't tell an airline pilot how far down the flaps need to be when I take a commercial flight either. That's because it's not my area of expertise.
We already know from materials scientists which tests can identify thermitic materials; let them do these tests and don't interfere with good science.
 

Bmead

Member
No not like wood. What i am simply saying is that because your side thinks JUST aluminium is good enough, i and i suspect many others, would like the ignition test. And, exact procedures all of which are agreed on before and witnessed through out.
That can only be a good thing, if Steve Jones,Harrit and those with samples or beliefs regarding thermite and those opposed to it are testing side by side same results can be the only answer and same tests will confirm the repeatability of the test and of course that ends the debate.
You have your scientists both your side, ct side and independents.
If 3 lots all come up with results that show a ignited particle causes a large thermitic reaction, the analysis of composition of multiple chips can then be taken to create a replicated larger quantity, this can then be used in a fair test like the John Cole tests. If the result is as he found in his tests, that it slices through steel.
The answer is self explanatory

This IS the best answer all around. On any side, if any party refuses, they have reason to, and that is because they know they will be shown to be wrong.
If i was in possession of samples i would go for this option.

Personally, i don't see controlled demolition as necessary for a conspiracy, i do also think that thermite is not the sole means of destruction. But. defining any use of it requires such testing that then cannot be argued from any side
 

Bmead

Member
[quote=".

3) You don't get to decide what's relevant to a forensic scientist, because you're a layperson like me. You let the experts do what they do. I don't tell an airline pilot how far down the flaps need to be when I take a commercial flight either. That's because it's not my area of expertise.
We already know from materials scientists which tests can identify thermitic materials; let them do these tests and don't interfere with good science.[/quote]

Of course i don't but then i am not stupid even though i am not a scientist, you see you cannot discredit those scientists that claim one thing because they ARE qualified. And any claim of interest in flawed results can be applied equally and more so to the other side.

Paint primers can ignite, but the point is, the molecular make up of these chips could not ignite so as to slice through steel.
No known paint can. So it is a reasonable request.
And scientists do not just decide what they want to know, experiments and tests may be required of them to discover the effects of something.
I fail to see a flaw in my suggestion that an independent body chosen by debunker side and truther side, then a debunker side scientist and a truther side all conduct tests incorporating all aspects wanted covered by them AND lay persons.

There is no flaw, because it can only reveal truth or lie
If a chip ignites there is a variant reaction between primer and thermite
So if as i said, it ignites and its reaction equates to the reaction of thermite this is evidence
and a true scientist does not hide from full testing.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later] 9/11 137
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's Analysis of Slag Residue from WTC Debris 9/11 20
Dan Wilson Debunked: Steven Crowder: The AIDS epidemic was a hoax Health and Quackery 9
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top