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

Bmead

Member
And let me ask you is good science what YOU say it is?
Remember the "good science" of Nat Geo and the purpose built shaped charge of 175lb of thermite
You call Kevin Ryan out, whereabouts can i find you discrediting Nat Geo?
That was provable fraud on watching it but double proven when John Cole used 1.5LBS to slice into steel
That is where the lay person comes in, i wasn't a scientist but i know a few things and before ignition i knew there would be no damage to Nat Geos steel column.
Therefore it is necessary to be clear on what "good science" is because it seems to me, that good science here is, what proves your ideas, to me, i daresay fault could be found IF what you say about Ryan is true.
Therefore it HAS to be xxx no. of tests running over xxx questions answers are sought to, by BOTH groups and a joint selected independent
Then if truthers are wrong they have to suck it up and deal with it.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
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.
Missed this part first time. Let's address it. Thermite, nanothermite, C4, RDX and Semtex are all identifiable through standard methods, which don't involve DSC or burning tests btw.
If you refer to Millette, he followed the
So I guess your position is that the industry/scientific standard is not ok with you? And your expertise to make that decision?
 

Bmead

Member
NO that is NOT what i said is it.
Let me clarify
YOU said -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.
To which i said that defining a thermitic material as NOT thermitic because it lacked AL and NOT testing it's ignition result would be like saying that in the absence of a SPECIFIC plasticizer, that what we all thought was c4, could NOT be explosive. But by testing it to see if it could explode we see the reaction and then could say. Ah semtex/pe4

So no i am not a scientist but a good scientist will not refuse to test all aspects.
It is a major factor. Paints may burn, hell c4 burns not explodes if you set fire to it, does that mean c4 is not explosive?
NO. It means to prove c4 is an explosive it needs to be exploded using the appropriate detonation method.
So these chips should be subject not to one or two test that biased scientists think (which applies to BOTH sides) but to a full range of tests
 

Alienentity

Active Member
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.
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.[/quote]

Look, I'm sorry if you're upset. You seem to think you understand the science but it's clear that you don't. Don't blame me for pointing this out, I'm just the messenger.

This is not an exercise to measure the qualifications of the people involved, it's about their use of scientific standards. I've already replied with Millettes methodology FYI, you should take a deep breath and show some respect for the field of forensic science. Please.

I think you're very mixed up about the various claims, vs the abilities of various substances and their alleged abilities against structural steel. You seem to be mixing up regular thermite with nanothermite, bulk thermite vs painted on nanothermite etc... and that is a big problem if you really want to understand this stuff.

I do see a flaw in your insistence that either debunkers or truthers should be telling forensic scientists how to do their jobs! I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into your POV at all. Try telling a CSI how to do their job, or a heart surgeon, and see how far that gets you. This isn't playschool or kindergarten, it's the adult world of scientists.
I also have a major problem with you insisting that their should be special 'debunker' or 'truther' scientists! Any properly qualified lab in any country, no matter what their politics, should be ok to do this testing.


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
I'm sorry, this is just gibberish to me.
 

Bmead

Member
Missed this part first time. Let's address it. Thermite, nanothermite, C4, RDX and Semtex are all identifiable through standard methods, which don't involve DSC or burning tests btw.
If you refer to Millette, he followed the
So I guess your position is that the industry/scientific standard is not ok with you? And your expertise to make that decision?
And my expertise is -do a little research, are you seriously naive enough to tell me that science never lies or has interests to hide anything? Because if so i will happily start a new thread and gather data, but you will be needing a ton more storage capacity for this site.
I was not ref. Millette but since you mention him, how about you demonstrate this
1) How he is totally independent with no interest in a result
2) The same for any truther
Therefore NEITHER can necessarily be trusted until BOTH have conducted the same tests together
 

Alienentity

Active Member
NO that is NOT what i said is it.
Let me clarify
YOU said -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.
To which i said that defining a thermitic material as NOT thermitic because it lacked AL and NOT testing it's ignition result would be like saying that in the absence of a SPECIFIC plasticizer, that what we all thought was c4, could NOT be explosive. But by testing it to see if it could explode we see the reaction and then could say. Ah semtex/pe4

So no i am not a scientist but a good scientist will not refuse to test all aspects.
It is a major factor. Paints may burn, hell c4 burns not explodes if you set fire to it, does that mean c4 is not explosive?
NO. It means to prove c4 is an explosive it needs to be exploded using the appropriate detonation method.
So these chips should be subject not to one or two test that biased scientists think (which applies to BOTH sides) but to a full range of tests
The only possible reactants in these chips is iron oxide and aluminum. It doesn't matter what C4 or Semtex is made of, because XEDS of the chips shows that they're not made of those chemicals. They're not made of chocolate and molasses either, so we don't need to taste them for sweetness.

Here's a link to the forensics guidelines. Do some reading before you post further.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
No you keep sidestepping

DID the scientists who said thermite was in the dust lie?
DID nat geo scientists carry out their test in a scientific NON fraudulent manner
DO you assert that no group could have an interest in being right, ergo debunker or ct, will both just report the facts and that is all?
I appreciate the brevity of that post. I suggest you read this thread from the first post, and your questions will be answered by the time you get all the way to these ones.
I'm not going to comment on Nat Geo, it's not relevant to Harrit, Millette, Couannier or Basile. Nor am I going to ask you to address all the conspiracy website claims, none of which are relevant to the basic scientific/forensic matter of identifying the red layer of the chips.

Here's a pdf to the guide for testing intact explosives. Millette first did XEDS to identify any active chemical ingredients. He could eliminate the high explosives you listed by this method, and did so. He next performed tests, as per the guidelines, to determine if there was thermitic material.
Here are the tests he did:
For other readers, if you don't mind I'll post it in this comment for reference:
http://www.ncfs.org/twgfex/docs/Guide_for_identification_of_intact_explosives.pdf
 

Jay Howard

Member
Here’s yet another example of what salesmanship looks like:

Alienentity said:
What else would be painted onto carbon steel, forming a bilayer chip made of Epoxy, Iron Oxide and Kaolin bonded to the steel?

This is a classic example of “begging the question” because we don’t agree on the composition of the red material NOR the gray material, yet they are framed within this question as if their material identities had been established. They aren’t. If they were, we wouldn’t be arguing about them. Stop selling.


Yet another sales pitch:


Alienentity said:
…Millette has invalidated their results so far, by showing that there is no elemental Al in the red layer.

That’s not what can be inferred by not finding something. What can be inferred is that they didn’t find what they were purportedly looking for. This is basic science. Basic epistemology, for that matter. If you don’t find something, you cannot say it doesn’t exist. It might, it might not. But the fact that they didn’t find elemental Al doesn’t invalidate the results of someone who did find elemental Al.


In fact, Harrit’s results come epistemically closer to “invalidating” Millette’s results because he has positive confirmation of elemental Al. Millette simply didn’t find it. And again, you have no real criticism of the techniques of Harrit—just his conclusions--a sure sign of your motivation to sweep even the thought of foul play down the memory hole.


Sentiments like yours come from a strong motivation to make this evidence disappear or seem insignificant, despite the fact that neither you nor anyone else can find cured paint that ignites at 430C and produces molten iron. Nor do you have any real criticism of the methods employed by the Harrit team.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
What else but paint would be applied in a thin layer onto steel, and be composed of epoxy, iron oxide and Kaolin? It seems like a fair question.

If you're afraid of the answer, not my problem.

Millette invalidated the Harrit claim, showing that more rigorous testing of the same species of chips resulted in a negative result. Scientifically their claim is invalidated, rather than validated.
YOu may not prefer the wording, but in order for their claims to be accepted as scientific facts, others must validate the claims. That's how it works.

It's a tough world out there. You want credibility, you have to measure up; you have to prove yourself amongst sometimes hostile and critical scrutiny. That's how adults do it.

Jones and his buddies have been making grandiose claims for years, yet they have scant little science to back them up. One nominally peer-reviewed paper in an obscure and unknown journal (not even in the top 100 journals by ranking in chemistry) and no presentations to academic or professional scientific conferences.
But a ton of salesmanship, in fact $500K+ last year in sales pitches. Grandstanding and attention-seeking pronouncements yes. But not one independent study to back it up, and no further investigation into the true nature of the chips. Nada.

Sentiments like yours show a strong motivation to sidestep good science, to take shortcuts thru normal processes and push an extremist and paranoid agenda over any cautious or rational approach. The grandiose claims are just the egoists flair; the icing on the cake.
 
In the dust out of the billions of fragments would it be possible that there were more than one red grey chip or piece of something in the dust? Would it be possible for millete to scour the dust for a piece of epoxy and iron oxide and kaolin and test that one piece?
 

Bmead

Member
When you suggest people want to sidestep good science you are not being fair. Earlier you said, to the effect of, either side would follow science and i should not question it. I suggested that actually because science has deliberately lied about results and tests and been proven wrong before, that what you see is not what you get all the time. Which if Jones and Harrit lied, is self proving. Except did you not suggest a lack of aluminium meant not thermitic? Because unless i am mistaken, kaolin was detected which includes aluminium oxides. Secondly the testing procedures did not match. Millette washed his chips for a start which the others did not.
And initially they assumed the al, was just kaolin but did deeper analysis.
Now the problem here is you asserted that

"Any properly qualified lab in any country, no matter what their politics, should be ok to do this testing"

And

"The only possible reactants in these chips is iron oxide and aluminum."

Now, what i said is not that truthers or debunkers tell any scientist what to test for, but that scientists on both sides determine the exact tests and how they will carry them out.
Your insistence there is no conflict of interests is obviously not true because 1 person finds results different to what other scientists did.
So there either exists a difference in methods used or one group are liars
If the scientists claiming active thermitic material are liars, then there exists as much reason to claim the exact same for the other side

OR they did not conduct the tests the same. There was a difference in the washing of the chips for a start.
What else?
They (harrit etc) insist they conducted the tests properly, so only a study of boths work in detail can establish the differences in how they did this work.
For Millete's samples, there's no proven chain of custody.

I do not call his integrity into question though, i do not stoop to outright accusations like debunker groups.
My simple claim was exact matching tests. The "it isn't thermite so i won't do an ignition test" is just as good as NIST "there were no explosives so we did not test for them"
From visual/audio/testimony there is reason to have suspected especially with wtc 7 the presence of explosives
That is validated by D.Jowenko whether he is right is a different thing but is suggestive to LOOK
And as you follow rules and regs you will know they SHOULD have.
As well as, since it was accepted as Al Qaeda (known for bombngs not hijackings) that a bomb could also be attributable to them not any government group

But good science refused that test then
Good science claimed the molten metal was aluminium from the airplanes, which just visually is disproven given molten al. is silver not orange

I see this in his sponsors work but no more in Millettes own
His final report will definitely report carefully on the chain of custody. It doesn't
The person who prevailed upon Millette was firmly in the debunking camp and according to his own words, spent months finding someone, with such bias on his own part is that right? It is no better than me finding Steve Jones.
You know and i know it will be unacceptable unless YOU had a say in who did the tests too
As it stands, the Millette tests are not a conclusive debunk as you assert, simply because the two have different ideas and the claim of "liar" to one by YOU who is as unqualified as me to say so. And as far as i know Millettes paper is not yet peer reviewed-i accept that may have changed now i admit i do not know

But how the hell you get to say he says ergo true?
I mean when Harrit etc produced their paper did you accept without question? I bet that you insisted a bias existed, that they were conspiracy sided and thus invalid.

All we have is claim and counter claim.
Therefore it is just stalemate at best, therefore the sensible argument is both scientists agree on working together to conduct whatever tests they ALL agree on (not me. the scientists) using as many samples with the chain of custody agreed, to then come to a definitive answer

You can say i rant or rave but there is bare facts and they are-

1 group presented findings and debunkers called it into question and accused it of being lies

a second group present findings and debunkers insist that is truth there is no conflict of interest and that closes the case

1st group respond to the claims, you pick aspects you like of that claim and call them liars, whilst forgetting you previously labelled them exactly the same.
ie you say Ryan says xxx test not done etc etc whereas you a non science person and the entire debunking movement called Harrit and the rest liars with not an ounce of science among you

That is hypocrisy at best.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
That is hypocrisy at best.
It's apparently not within your power to make that judgement. To make it one needs an alternative, and you don't have one, nor have you the judgement to go with it.

"whereas you a non science person and the entire debunking movement called Harrit and the rest liars with not an ounce of science among you" is both illiterate, abusive, and inaccurate.

Try addressing a single topic, follow up your reasoning with facts. Don't wander into abuse, or the whole place will have you on ignore.
 

Bmead

Member
I am not trying to insult or abuse anyone. So sorry if that seemed so.

What i am trying to say is quite simply that-When the paper on thermite was put out there no one said, they did the science there's the proof
Now that someone who was avidly a debunker, Chris Mohr, has a scientist produce a paper, everyone says the science was done there is the proof.

That needs no backing up beyond the entire thread, beyond every criticism of Harrit etc, and backing of Millette
Not being a scientist, i simply said that two opposing sides could have reasons to lie.

What do we know as absolute fact?
That there were two papers that on the main point was disagreeing
That point resides around whether the aluminium residues were Kaolin, and whether the washing procedure of the samples removed particles, and whether there is a clear chain of custody

Those are true facts

All i have said all the way along is 100% i am not a forensic scientist, but, to prevent any accusations that someone is biased (and this is essentially what has been levelled at harrit,jones etc) That to be fair people who are forensic scientists who believe the thermite is there, should not do separate works, but with scientists that people like Mohr, believe are independent-Set out their procedures and do the tests.

If Jones and Harrit believe there is a fault in those elements i listed, how can it be resolved?
Not by them doing more tests which inevitably you would say they lied.
And not by Millette doing it because truthers myself included may think, is there an ulterior motive here, we are not in those labs are we?
We read what was done not see what was done, and even seeing it, we know nothing of right or wrong of it.

Therefore if together these scientists say These are the exact procedures that define existence of thermitic material, then do it together they both being present have to arrive at the same procedure or, say they tried to manipulate the test

There is no reason not to do this, any excuse is just that. You have your chips, you have your methods and you have your qualified scientists.

My reasoning is sound. Now to substantiate this claim of need to do this i refer you to the US supreme court

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Con...Underlying_Problems_with_Forensic_Science.php
(WASHINGTON, DC; June 25, 2009) –The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that defendants have a right to cross-examine forensic analysts who handle the underlying scientific testing and analysis in criminal cases. The Innocence Project, as part of the Innocence Network, filed an amicus brief in the case highlighting forensic problems that contribute to wrongful convictions – and urging the Supreme Court to recognize that forensic evidence is too often distorted or exaggerated. Today’s 5-4 decision, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority, reached that conclusion.

Key quotes from today’s majority opinion:

“Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation.”

“A forensic analyst responding to a request from a law enforcement official may feel pressure – or have an incentive – to alter the evidence in a manner favorable to the prosecution.”

“Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used at criminal trials.”

This, in cases not likely to indict people massive conspiracy to murder thousands
So, there is FACT. The Supreme Court and forensic investigators admit the fact. So there needs to be another option especially in this case​
 

Jay Howard

Member
There’s so much hedging going on it’s clear that the approach of the explosive/incendiary deniers changes constantly, looking for simply anything that gives the appearance of persuasion. Let’s take a look at some of the claims made so far by deniers:


1. “It’s paint/primer because it has some of the same ingredients.”


There are some of the same ingredients, true. But it doesn’t have the same properties. As posted ad naseum, there isn’t a paint that ignites at 430C and produces iron microspheres. If you disagree, please show me one that does that. If you can't, then just chip some paint off any old object and torch it with a blowtorch, and we'll say it's the same.

Also, the particle size of the Fe2O3 is at a scale that is cost-prohibitive for commercial paint. The particles size (100-200 nm) is not necessary for commercial paint and no paint manufacturer would spend the money for uniform, nano-scale particles unless it served some specialized purpose.

This relative uniformity of the Fe2O3 particles cannot be dismissed as "unreal" by deniers because both Millette's group and the Harrit team found the same particles at the same scale. Despite what Jazzy might spout, you don't get uniform nano-scale particles from "grinding them with a mortar and pestle." There are a few different techniques for getting Fe2O3 particles this size, and they are "bottom-up" approaches--starting from the molecular and atomic levels and building larger from there.

This is not a disputable point, and not because I say so. If it's true that this stuff is primer paint, then there would be absolutely no need to be concerned about uniformity of the iron oxide particles because aesthetics is not a primary concern--this isn't designer paint, it's a protective coating. The Fe2O3 need not be uniform nano-scale to serve its function in primer paint.


2. “Even if it IS painted-on nanothermite, it couldn’t have done the damage witnessed to the WTC complex. That could only happen by planes and office fires.”


Ok, so even if you find poison in the system of a dead person, there’s no need to look further, it’s STILL SUICIDE! Right. This sentiment is ever-present in the denier camp, and it's a strange one to have because why wouldn't you want to look deeper and dispell any doubt? I mean, if you're right and there's nothing of interest to be found by a truly independent investigation, why would you be so adamant about not wanting to look further?

It only makes sense if you're trying to hide something.


3. “Harrit’s team needs to do more testing, like they said they would. Otherwise, how can we believe anything they’ve already done?”


If it weren’t for the work they’ve already done, you’d still be denying the iron microspheres and the vaporized lead were significant. All the deniers were demanding an academic paper about real evidence of fuckery, and they publish one. To which you respond “Now you need to publish more…” It’s clear that no amount of scientifically valid research will have any effect whatsoever on those of you who are motivated to deny it. Don’t misunderstand me: I’m all for testing. But if you are too, why do you deny the significance of the DSC tests? They could confirm or invalidate the results of the Harrit team.


If I believed the red-gray chips were just primer, I would find primer, burn it and note the ignition temp and study the by-products. If it didn’t ignite near the same temp or like the red-gray chips (like a flash) and didn’t produce molten iron, I could rule out the primer with confidence. It’s a simple test. It’s been performed. Paint chips do not act like this substance under increased temperatures.


The burden of proof is on those who deny the significance of the red-gray chips. If you think it’s paint, find some paint that has the same properties. It’s not up to the Harrit team to test all paints in existence to prove their point. They found positive confirmation of a strange material. It is an argument from ignorance to try to claim that since no paint yet found has the same properties, the Harrit team is on the hook for finding one. Frankly, that’s ridiculous—and completely out of sync with scientific practice.
 
Last edited:

Bmead

Member
Mr. Mohr was unable to gain access to any samples used in the Harrit study so four samples were chosen from the archives of MVA Scientific Consultants. These dust samples had been collected within a month of 11 September 2001 and sent to MVA for different projects.

So exactly WHAT projects, we have no knowledge of what was done to the samples all we know is that
In order to confirm that the samples chosen had the characteristics of WTC dust, the samples were examined by stereomicroscope and by polarized light
microscopy.
So what were they compared to? They can only be compared to each other which proves they are related to each other, OR they can be tested against Harrit etc except they got no samples, so they could only match if they match multiple confirmed sources, which none are offered, and if they do not match Harrit etc written analysis then the test is already saying this is not a match to these samples.

2. Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water.
Rinsing off any particles ON the chips. And, al. reacts with water to create aluminium hydroxide, so change to the composition of the chips anyway


The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe
So aluminium definitely there as far as Millette claims

Organic solvents, including those sold commercially for epoxy paint/coating stripping, were found to soften the red layer of the red/gray chips but did not dissolve the epoxy resin sufficiently so particles within the coating could be dispersed for direct examination. In this study no organic solvent was found to release particles from within the epoxy resin and it was necessary to use low temperature ashing to eliminate the epoxy resin matrix and extract the component parts of the coating. The other procedures generally used to examine component particles within a coating without extraction (cross-sections and thin sections) were also applied in this study.
So solvents used to dissolve exacctly what this is purported to be WONT dissolve it.
Right so we are saying this is JUST paint, but solvents specifically design to dissolve paint, doesn't. So it is super paint then?

the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers

What is China clay

china clay
noun
  1. 1.
    another term for kaolin.


https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S02/is.7589.1974.pdf

China clay is a naturally occurring mineral which is widely used in
explosive formulations, both commercial and military.

https://plus.google.com/+EricWeber420/posts/FqnHbVLVyCU
And the residue found was there because thermite is used to both make metal frames for buildings and for welding them.
So there is no thermite but there is thermite? How does this work, you have no residue because we say so, but the residue you found that you didn't find was found because it was part of the building, so....shouldn't everyone have found some then?


http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
.The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canisterbut that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole.



And now, rather than debunk thermite, we debunk the container, John Cole managed to sever a beam, and yet he did not work on containers extensively, moreover, it would have to be considered that use of thermite was to facilitate not to cut every single column. The containers for which could be anything, given the utter destruction, we are going to assert every worker can identify everything they touched?

Now we have concisely covered the fact of bias. And i will not carry on and cite endless sources for proving Military have secret weapons not publiclly known.

Also as welding was done in the building of the towers plenty of thermite should be available so as pointed out, denying the existence can't be contradicted by admitting it is there but factually it IS there, so a failure to find ANY would actually tell us NONE was used in the construction despite it being exceedingly common.
We are told the aluminium planes melted yet there is no large concentrations of ALuminium anywhere?

The solution is to use Samples of dust that have not been used for unknown "other" things and to use the two parties who have conducted tests already TOGETHER.
As an addition,we cannot say it is paint chips because your own expert cant say conclusively that it is.


 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread is devolving rapidly.

It's pointless to bury information in a thousand post thread nobody will read, and in individual posts nobody will find. So I'm shortly going to close this thread, and I invite people to start new threads on individual points contained herein.

There are interesting claims of evidence here, which have probably been addressed, or can be addressed, but since they are mid thread, it's kind of pointless. For example:

Also, the particle size of the Fe2O3 is at a scale that is cost-prohibitive for commercial paint. The particles size (100-200 nm) is not necessary for commercial paint and no paint manufacturer would spend the money for uniform, nano-scale particles unless it served some specialized purpose.

This relative uniformity of the Fe2O3 particles cannot be dismissed as "unreal" by deniers because both Millette's group and the Harrit team found the same particles at the same scale. Despite what Jazzy might spout, you don't get uniform nano-scale particles from "grinding them with a mortar and pestle." There are a few different techniques for getting Fe2O3 particles this size, and they are "bottom-up" approaches--starting from the molecular and atomic levels and building larger from there.

This is not a disputable point, and not because I say so. If it's true that this stuff is primer paint, then there would be absolutely no need to be concerned about uniformity of the iron oxide particles because aesthetics is not a primary concern--this isn't designer paint, it's a protective coating. The Fe2O3 need not be uniform nano-scale to serve its function in primer paint.

Seems like it should be reasonably easily settled one way or another, and if done in a dedicated thread it can be settled forever.

So let's not waste time churning, and instead create some nuggets of antibunk that can actually be useful.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Bmead Hamish and Jay, you go ahead and keep barking, we'll see where you are with the science in another ten years.

Clearly none of you either understand the science or would be willing to accept any standard tests which refute your claims. Therefore discussion is futile.
It's a free world, you can bet on the wrong horse if you must. Don't say you weren't well warned.
 

Jay Howard

Member
According to the title of this thread, the iron microspheres either are or are not evidence of a thermitic reaction. Since the publication of the Harrit paper, there is a material candidate for the source of these microspheres. The claims that the red-gray chips are simply paint is directly in contradiction to the claim that the iron microspheres are produced from ignition of this material.

Hence the identity of the red-gray chips is at the center of the claim that the iron ms are not evidence of a thermitic reaction.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
According to the title of this thread, the iron microspheres either are or are not evidence of a thermitic reaction. Since the publication of the Harrit paper, there is a material candidate for the source of these microspheres. The claims that the red-gray chips are simply paint is directly in contradiction to the claim that the iron microspheres are produced from ignition of this material.

Hence the identity of the red-gray chips is at the center of the claim that the iron ms are not evidence of a thermitic reaction.
There are plenty of candidates for the sources of the microspheres. The red-grey chips issues is really a separate topic.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
I tend to agree with Jay, as in this case it appears the chips were the source of the microspheres. But since:

a) the composition of the chips was not fully identified in the Harrit study by standardized forensic guidelines
b) the DSC exotherm is slow and inconclusive scientifically
c) microspheres can arise from several different processes, including the burning of organics in the presence of small particles of metals and other elements
d) the Harrit study has never been confirmed by any independent lab

Then most people would conclude that the microspheres in this case are not proof of a thermitic reaction, and that the claim of Harrit et al. is not substantiated.
 

Jay Howard

Member
Bmead Hamish and Jay, you go ahead and keep barking, we'll see where you are with the science in another ten years.

Clearly none of you either understand the science or would be willing to accept any standard tests which refute your claims. Therefore discussion is futile.
It's a free world, you can bet on the wrong horse if you must. Don't say you weren't well warned.

If you were interested in putting this debate to bed properly, why are you opposed to an independent investigation? If you suspected foul play in the death of a loved one, and there were contradictory toxicology reports, why would you oppose re-opening the investigation with ALL the new data under consideration?

It only makes sense if you want to protect the Official Conspiracy Theory.
 

Jay Howard

Member
So, as it stands, Harrit et. al., found positive confirmation of elemental Al in the matrix. The Millette group simply didn't find it. They didn't find "negative confirmation." They just didn't find it. Anyway you cut it, that's not a definitive finding. Think about it in temporal terms--if Millette's group didn't find any elemental Al, then Harrit's group does, that basically invalidates the Millette group's (negative) finding.

Just because Millette looked after Harrit doesn't change anything.
 

Jay Howard

Member
There are plenty of candidates for the sources of the microspheres. The red-grey chips issues is really a separate topic.
It's only a separate topic if you completely disregard the Harrit team's findings--AND the confirmation of these findings by Mark Basile. If you want to completely disregard the Harrit team's paper, wouldn't you be obliged to give a substantive reason(s)?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's only a separate topic if you completely disregard the Harrit team's findings--AND the confirmation of these findings by Mark Basile. If you want to completely disregard the Harrit team's paper, wouldn't you be obliged to give a substantive reason(s)?
It's a related topic, but the presence or absence of iron microspheres is not related to the original thread topic, which is if iron microspheres by themselves are specific evidence of thermite.
 

Jay Howard

Member
I tend to agree with Jay, as in this case it appears the chips were the source of the microspheres. But since:

a) the composition of the chips was not fully identified in the Harrit study by standardized forensic guidelines
Yet, you have no substantive criticism of their methods. Was their spectroscopy equipment not calibrated correctly? Was it at the wrong energy? What is your real problem with the Harrit team's data? (Other than their conclusions.)

Alienentity said:
b) the DSC exotherm is slow and inconclusive scientifically
On what grounds is the DSC "inconclusive?" The samples ignited at about 430C and produced molten iron. What paint does that?

Alienentity said:
c) microspheres can arise from several different processes, including the burning of organics in the presence of small particles of metals and other elements
Is that with or without a blowtorch?

Alienentity said:
d) the Harrit study has never been confirmed by any independent lab
Nor has it been "disconfirmed" by any independent lab. Despite your repetitions, not finding something does not "invalidate" finding it. It only works the other way around.

Alienentity said:
Then most people would conclude that the microspheres in this case are not proof of a thermitic reaction, and that the claim of Harrit et al. is not substantiated.
Not if they're paying attention. And keep in mind, most Americans believe in angels too.
 

Jay Howard

Member
It's a related topic, but the presence or absence of iron microspheres is not related to the original thread topic, which is if iron microspheres by themselves are specific evidence of thermite.
The topic is if microspheres in the WTC dust are or are not evidence of a thermitic reaction. Trying to narrow discussion to exclude the red-gray chips is just a passive admission of the failure to debunk the significance of the microspheres.
 

Bmead

Member
I tend to agree with Jay, as in this case it appears the chips were the source of the microspheres. But since:

a) the composition of the chips was not fully identified in the Harrit study by standardized forensic guidelines
The chips were NOT id'd by Millet, but WERE ruled out as WTC paint chips
b) the DSC exotherm is slow and inconclusive scientifically
Yet oddly, you a non scientist tell me this, while real scientists use it still
c) microspheres can arise from several different processes, including the burning of organics in the presence of small particles of metals and other elements
Yet thermite is ONE of those
d) the Harrit study has never been confirmed by any independent lab
Nor has the Millette

Additional- i factually proved there exists forensic manipulation according to forensic scientists and the US SUPREME COURT
That over rules your opinion, it does not matter whether you like it it is basic fact

The Millette samples have zero chain of custody and were used for UNSPECIFIED other projects which may have contaminated them, this IS 100% WORLDWIDE agreed as not scientific
They were compared not by any means other than they were red and gray, there is NOTHING to suggest they match other wtc dust samples except in that they were compared against themselves

It has NOT been proven these chips are NOT some type of thermitic material at all, because they have NOT been ignited

They were thoroughly washed, potential for creating aluminium hydroxide and washing away other micro particles

Also people like Popular Mechanics said molten metal falling from the tower was aluminium PROVABLY false as that is silver NOT orange

These are not guesses, they are basic facts all the way
And we can even go so far to PROVE scientific manipulation in the debunk camp just by looking at the Nat Geo Scientists but i will stick just to this, not one word i have said is a lie.
Further more let me reiterate the most vital point

As i provided the source for, a debunking site claimed 0 thermite (as did you) This same site, and many building sites attest to thermite use in building construction
Now this means thermite should not only be present in multiple samples, it means it should be confirmable as being there by ANYONE
So the sensible debunk would have stuck at that answer
But you have just said categorically NONE exists. This places the burden of proof on YOU to prove beyond doubt none was used in the buildings construction.
And for the people who like the source, believe it existed there. Explain how NONE can exist when it blatantly did?
You skim right across these things and demand proofs, they are proven, you then tell us stop barking. I point in black and white to science flaws and you skim it again.
The fact is science is only as good as the answer YOU want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Howard

Member
Why isn't anyone really following up on the concept of the Harrit team committing fraud? It's been bandied about here more than once, but no real follow-through on any of it. Just the occasional "You bet your ass they're liars! They're DAMNED liars, and they're telling LIES!" but no substantiation, no specific qualm with any of their data. But if you give these guys the benefit of the doubt that they weren't just making the entire paper up out of thin air, the conclusions are indeed damning.

Highly-engineered, experimental, low-ignition, energetic nanocomposites are pretty fucking cool, I admit. However, under the circumstances, the implications are AT LEAST we do not have the whole story about how those buildings fell. And it's time to take a serious look, openly, like the Vatican reading the Gnostic Gospels, so no one is selling any bullshit.

Or, you can dismiss all this "nano-leprachauns" or whatever because it was perpetrated by a bunch of hucksters looking to get some of that delicious 9-11 Truth money.

You’ve got to admit, if these guys are faking it, it’s one of the strangest, most motiveless, self-stultifying grifts in history. What’s most strange is the claim they make about the chips turning to molten iron from an ignition point literally thousands of degrees lower. What a thing to make up out of thin air! Why not go the “conventional explosives-unconventional detonation timing” route? Why not get in on the “Judy Wood/DEW/Spaghetti Monster” theory? It’s got production value for sure. Someone is really putting a lot of effort into the whole thing already. It’s prime. But no, you’re suggesting these 8 academics got together and said “how can we turn a quick buck out of the worst tragedy in American History?”

So what’s the rest of your theory of their grift? They found some paint chips in the dust and decided they would simply claim some strange and extraordinary things about them—despite their apparent ubiquity in the dust. Despite the relatively simple and testable claim of turning to molten iron, they sprayed the ends with molten iron and threw some metal spheres onto a plate whenever they filmed one burning? All to perpetuate a completely fabricated tale about the most tragic mass murder in our history in search of a couple extra bucks…Who’s got the tinfoil hat on?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So what’s the rest of your theory of their grift? They found some paint chips in the dust and decided they would simply claim some strange and extraordinary things about them—despite their apparent ubiquity in the dust. Despite the relatively simple and testable claim of turning to molten iron, they sprayed the ends with molten iron and threw some metal spheres onto a plate whenever they filmed one burning? All to perpetuate a completely fabricated tale about the most tragic mass murder in our history in search of a couple extra bucks…Who’s got the tinfoil hat on?
You exaggerate, and are being silly. It seems more like they are simply exhibiting confirmation bias, and are perhaps stretching a little on a few points. They are people who already believe in controlled demolition, and so are searching for confirmation of that. Hence they have a tendency to dismiss other explanations.

Let's see what Basile's independant study brings up.

This thread has run its course. Let's start some new, more focussed threads.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The Al2O3 is a fine white powder. I saw a lot of fine white powder. The Al2O3 is not vapour and blows away like dust.
Gypsum board when crushed breaks up into gypsum dust.... white powder. Gypsum was used to fire proof core columns... a building using thousands of tons of gypsum products would yield immense amount of white dust upon collapse.
 

Kenn

New Member
I'm pretty sure it's thermite in WTC dust as evidence for thermite. The iron spheres produced by the non-thermitic reactions you're talking about is iron oxide, which is quite different from the iron spheres found in the WTC dust and produced by the thermitic reactions of the red/gray chips by Harrit et al.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
I'm pretty sure it's thermite in WTC dust as evidence for thermite. The iron spheres produced by the non-thermitic reactions you're talking about is iron oxide, which is quite different from the iron spheres found in the WTC dust and produced by the thermitic reactions of the red/gray chips by Harrit et al.
There was no thermite in the dust. Jones and Harrit reaction from their dust produce iron oxide, no Aluminum Oxide. If they had thermite, there would be aluminum oxide, they found dust. Iron microspheres are formed in fires due to iron bearing substances in the fire, like 9/11. With iron and aluminum near 5-6 percent in the background as it is, it would be hard not to find iron spheres after a major fire - the earth crust is 5-6 percent Fe, Al.

The iron spheres from Harrit, iron oxide, no aluminum oxide... plus the DSC does not match, nor the energy, no match to thermite. They failed to do the correct test to determine what the dust was. I have read the paper, not proof for thermite (if there was proof, and since Jone/Harrit failed to team with a newspaper, I would have taken the data to a newspaper and broke the biggest story since Watergate and earned a Pulitzer with the newspaper; but there is no evidence thermite was used, and no evidence thermite in in the dust; why did jones/harrit fail to get a Pulitzer for the big inside job). Iron spheres occur in fires. The Big evidence lacking to prove thermite was used on 9/11 to destroy the WTC - no damage to WTC steel from thermite.

No one found evidence of thermite on the steel. Like fused iron to the steel, you might find fused copper to iron, but why is no iron fused to steel if thermite was used.
Was anyone looking for extraordinary damage?

This was the most unusual damage found, corrosion on steel after 911 due to fire, 800-1000C. Corrosion of steel in the pile after 911, but no damage from thermite. oops, 9/11 truth said all the evidence was shipped off and not studied... that was bunk. Corrosion is not melted steel, a liquid eutectic, not melted steel. See NIST, and see FEMA appendix C, and go to the USGS, google WTC dust USGS... (please don't quote mine Appendix C with claims of melted steel, get help from a chemical engineer to explain eutectic, etc first)
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I'm pretty sure it's thermite in WTC dust as evidence for thermite. The iron spheres produced by the non-thermitic reactions you're talking about is iron oxide, which is quite different from the iron spheres found in the WTC dust and produced by the thermitic reactions of the red/gray chips by Harrit et al.
Can you be specific and point us to the data of
a) iron[-oxide] spheres produced by the non-thermitic reactions you're talking about (this would be a vast number of different processes producing such spheres, most probably with a fairly wide range of iron:eek:xygen rates and other properties)
b) "the iron spheres found in the WTC dust" (there also must be a wide range of property values and many modes of creation)
c) "the iron spheres ... produced by the thermitic reactions of the red/gray chips by Harrit et al."

I think you will find that you have not been presented with convincing data, clear criteria, reproducible results. What Jones and Harrit present is vague and largely anecdotal. They are ignorant of the vast amount of previous analysis of all kinds of "iron-rich microspheres" in many sorts of materials, particularly ashes.

When Jones first announced those microspheres ten years ago or so, he spoke of iron-contents (by mass, I believe) of 20% to 40% or something like that - easily in line with mundane spherical ash particles that often contain magnetite (Fe3O4). He beefed up that content in later statements, including the 2009 "active thermite" paper, but remained strangely vague about incidence of higher percentages, and never presented a single specific experiment where he showed the chip, its elemental composition and microstructure prior to burning, thermal data, and analysis of its ash post burning. Sloppy work!
 

Kenn

New Member
Can you be specific and point us to the data of
a) iron[-oxide] spheres produced by the non-thermitic reactions you're talking about (this would be a vast number of different processes producing such spheres, most probably with a fairly wide range of iron:eek:xygen rates and other properties)
b) "the iron spheres found in the WTC dust" (there also must be a wide range of property values and many modes of creation)
c) "the iron spheres ... produced by the thermitic reactions of the red/gray chips by Harrit et al."

I think you will find that you have not been presented with convincing data, clear criteria, reproducible results. What Jones and Harrit present is vague and largely anecdotal. They are ignorant of the vast amount of previous analysis of all kinds of "iron-rich microspheres" in many sorts of materials, particularly ashes.

When Jones first announced those microspheres ten years ago or so, he spoke of iron-contents (by mass, I believe) of 20% to 40% or something like that - easily in line with mundane spherical ash particles that often contain magnetite (Fe3O4). He beefed up that content in later statements, including the 2009 "active thermite" paper, but remained strangely vague about incidence of higher percentages, and never presented a single specific experiment where he showed the chip, its elemental composition and microstructure prior to burning, thermal data, and analysis of its ash post burning. Sloppy work!
And you will furnish me with a source that effectively challenges the Harrit paper when? Your statements show you either didn't read that paper thoroughly or are suffering severely from cognitive dissonance, as I presume most of those still believing in the official version of 9/11 are.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
And you will furnish me with a source that effectively challenges the Harrit paper when? Your statements show you either didn't read that paper thoroughly or are suffering severely from cognitive dissonance, as I presume most of those still believing in the official version of 9/11 are.
I read the paper, it is not proof of thermite. The DSC does not match thermite. The energy output of four samples of dust, don't match thermite. The video I saw of "burning" the chip, did not react fast enough to be nano-thermite, this is chemistry, not opinions. Look at the spectrum, then study other spectrum. There is no proof of elemental Aluminum in the dust, in fact the aluminum looks exactly like it is bound up in clay with Si. The platelets in the paper look like clay.
Summary.
DSC does not match, not thermite possible conclusion.
Energy levels don't match, four different levels, not thermite possible conclusion.
Claims of elemental aluminum, no proof, not supported by paper, not thermite possible conclusion.

If the paper proved thermite, we could take the proof, go to a newspaper and earn the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate, as this would prove the inside job. Why has no one exposed thermite was used on 9/11? Because there is not evidence for thermite being used on 9/11. We don't need to know chemistry to see the big errors in the paper. Reading comprehension shows no support for proof of thermite in the dust. We can't take conclusions from the paper as proof of anything, the tests and results don't support the conclusions and claims in the paper. The DSC is enough to question the leap to thermite. The energy, is also.

No proof of thermite in the paper.
On topic, iron rich spheres are found in fires due to iron bearing substances, not a signature of thermite.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
And you will furnish me with a source that effectively challenges the Harrit paper when? Your statements show you either didn't read that paper thoroughly or are suffering severely from cognitive dissonance, as I presume most of those still believing in the official version of 9/11 are.
You made claim, I asked you rather specifically for evidence that backs up your claim.
Your attempt to reverse the burden of evidence, and your falling back on personal attacks, both shed a negative light on your confidence in the veracity of your claims.

I must thus reject your claims ("The iron spheres produced by the non-thermitic reactions you're talking about is iron oxide, which is quite different from the iron spheres found in the WTC dust and produced by the thermitic reactions of the red/gray chips by Harrit et al.") out of hand - what you asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

I stand ready to have an adult discussion with you about the Harrit paper, and how it refutes itself (the data presented actually contradicts its conclusions), once you resolve to drop the insults, and to present evidence for your assertions, or to retract your assertion when you find you can't support them with evidence.
I think you already found you can't support them with evidence. So please retract your claims now.
 
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