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

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.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Harrit paper fails to confirm the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust.

All I find anywhere are discussion boards and YouTube videos that claim to do this. A prime example are your assertions above. I'm sorry, but individuals don't get to just say it ain't so, absent a published study, and expect someone to take his word for it.

When you supply me with a published study that refutes the findings of the Harrit et al. paper, I will be happy to have a discussion with you.

Good day, Mr. Oystein
 
When you supply me with a published study that refutes the findings of the Harrit et al. paper, I will be happy to have a discussion with you.

Perhaps you could also supply a published study that confirms the findings?
 
The burden of proof is on those who claim ...
You had made a claim, I had quoted it and asked you to support it with evidence.
You have since responded twice, and twice failed to support your claim - it was something about microsphere, the thread topic.
I conclude tentatively that you cannot support your claim with evidence, that instead you made it up out of the blue. I await your response that does include evidence. Your burden of proof still. Don't evade it, don't believe you can lure me away from your no-show of evidence!

...that the Harrit paper fails to confirm the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust.
Yes, I claimed this, but that would be off-topic - a derail that YOU introduced on September 27!
I still stand ready to back up that claim to anyone seriously and honestly interested - but that would have to go in a different thread.
I do not trust that you are debating seriously and honestly, since you keep trying to deflect the debate from the claim that YOU made without evidence on Sept 23.
Please back up your claim with evidence OR retract it now without further ado, when you admit that you cannot support your claim with evidence. That will show that you debate seriously and honestly.

When you supply me with a published study that refutes the findings of the Harrit et al. paper, I will be happy to have a discussion with you.
What dishonest silliness!
Why are you even debating here if the only standard that you accept is "published" papers? You made a claim above - can we reject it because YOU, Kenn, haven't published it in a journal?

And besides, a true statement, and a valid argument, are true and valid no matter who made it where <-- AGREED OR NOT?
Published articles can make false claims and invalid arguments.
Youtubes and debate forums can host true claims and valid arguments.

Don't dance around your burden of proof. You made an assertive claim on September 23, and I asked you to back it up with supporting evidence on September 24. That's where this bit of debate is still at: You haven't supported ypur claim yet!
 
Perhaps you could also supply a published study that confirms the findings?

I do acknowledge that I cannot find another study that confirms the findings of the Harrit paper. I am waiting for the publication of a second study, whether it confirms or refutes the Harrit findings. So far, there is just one, to which I imagine there would be great interest by a number of individuals and organizations in either confirming or refuting. Perhaps if NIST had tested what should have been among the very first of hypotheses of the buildings' collapses, particularly in the case of WTC 7, this issue would have been resolved long ago. Instead, NIST took seven years to complete a computer model purporting to show initiation of collapse by failure of a single support column, but would not release it in its entirety.
 
The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Harrit paper fails to confirm the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust. ... Good day, Mr. Oystein
Please read the paper, it makes claims not supported by the experimental data. DSC not match thermite, and the energy for four samples does not match. How do you explain the energy and DSC? Harrit and Jones waved their hands and declared thermite, yet not a single piece of WTC steel was damaged by thermite. Why don't the samples match thermite? The paper did not prove the presence of elemental aluminum, how do you explain this? Why has the paper never made it past speculation?

The paper peer review was by fellow 9/11 truth believers with various plots they can't define or support with evidence, including no planes, and other unsupported claims.
The paper has never made the news because the findings are not supported by the speculations made.

For this thread we find iron micro-spheres are found in fires where iron bearing substances are present; thus the iron micro-spheres are not evidence for thermite, but are evidence of iron bearing substances being present in the WTC. The big problem with claiming thermite was used on 9/11 to cause the collapse is the total lack of damage to WTC steel due to thermite, and the total lack of thermite products found after 9/11.
There is no burden of proof required for a paper which failed to prove the presence of thermite used on 9/11. You need to produce damage to WTC steel due to thermite, something Jones and Harrit failed to find.

Jones made up the thermite claim with no evidence, only speculation and false claims four years after 9/11.
External Quote:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/7drxn

WTC collapses due to controlled demolition
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the links above to see the actual collapse for yourself, please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE: http://tinyurl.com/7drxn ) Yet the floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as observed is prima facie evidence for the use of pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features. Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverizations, and I can provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking errors/omissions?)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)

8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

This article was posted on 9.16.05
The paper did not prove thermite. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim for thermite, the paper failed.
 
You had made a claim, I had quoted it and asked you to support it with evidence.
You have since responded twice, and twice failed to support your claim - it was something about microsphere, the thread topic.
I conclude tentatively that you cannot support your claim with evidence, that instead you made it up out of the blue. I await your response that does include evidence. Your burden of proof still. Don't evade it, don't believe you can lure me away from your no-show of evidence!


Yes, I claimed this, but that would be off-topic - a derail that YOU introduced on September 27!
I still stand ready to back up that claim to anyone seriously and honestly interested - but that would have to go in a different thread.
I do not trust that you are debating seriously and honestly, since you keep trying to deflect the debate from the claim that YOU made without evidence on Sept 23.
Please back up your claim with evidence OR retract it now without further ado, when you admit that you cannot support your claim with evidence. That will show that you debate seriously and honestly.


What dishonest silliness!
Why are you even debating here if the only standard that you accept is "published" papers? You made a claim above - can we reject it because YOU, Kenn, haven't published it in a journal?

And besides, a true statement, and a valid argument, are true and valid no matter who made it where <-- AGREED OR NOT?
Published articles can make false claims and invalid arguments.
Youtubes and debate forums can host true claims and valid arguments.

Don't dance around your burden of proof. You made an assertive claim on September 23, and I asked you to back it up with supporting evidence on September 24. That's where this bit of debate is still at: You haven't supported ypur claim yet!

Laypersons such as myself and, I'm sure, the majority of the public in regard to chemistry must rely on published studies by experts in the field to assist them in forming their own opinions and conclusions.

I eagerly await the publication of another study that will either confirm of refute the findings of the Harrit paper. It seems to me there should be numerous individuals and organizations eager follow up with their own scientific studies.
 
...to which I imagine there would be great interest by a number of individuals and organizations in either confirming or refuting...
Perhaps you imagined that claim about microspheres that you made on Sept 23, too?

Perhaps if NIST had tested what should have been among the very first of hypotheses of the buildings' collapses, particularly in the case of WTC 7, this issue would have been resolved long ago. Instead, NIST took seven years to complete a computer model purporting to show initiation of collapse by failure of a single support column, but would not release it in its entirety.
Off-topic.
You run further and further from the thread-topic, to which you provided a claim, but failed to support it with evidence.
 
I eagerly await the publication of another study that will either confirm of refute the findings of the Harrit paper. It seems to me there should be numerous individuals and organizations eager follow up with their own scientific studies.

I think this perception is wrong. Personally I think it would be great if conspiracy theories that are believed by a large number of people were addressed by mainstream science. I was involved in just such an effort regarding "chemtrails". However there really isn't much motivation when the vast majority of relevant scientists consider the controlled demolition hypothesis to be preposterous.
 
Laypersons such as myself and, I'm sure, the majority of the public in regard to chemistry must rely on published studies by experts in the field to assist them in forming their own opinions and conclusions.
If that's your honest standard, fine.
Then please cite the published studies by experts that support the claim you made on September 23. If you cannot do that, then retract the claim, as, by your standards, it is not supported by evidence and can thus be dismissed without evidence.

I eagerly await the publication of another study that will either confirm of refute the findings of the Harrit paper. It seems to me there should be numerous individuals and organizations eager follow up with their own scientific studies.
This is still beyond the topic of this thread. STOP that line of discussion at once!!

You made an assertive claim on Sept. 23.
Please back it up with evidence or refute it!
I should be saying "1-2-3 - you're out", but I am nice, I give you a fourth chance to provide the evidence I asked for. If you fail a fourth to address your own claim of Sept 23, and its lack of evidence, by either
- retracting the claim
- supporting it with evidence
I shall come to the final conclusion that you are not interested in reasoned and honest debate.
 
I do acknowledge that I cannot find another study that confirms the findings of the Harrit paper. I am waiting for the publication of a second study, whether it confirms or refutes the Harrit findings.
That desire would be furthered better if this one paper had been published in a true peer review journal rather than in a pay-to-publish or a review-by like-minded-fellow journal.
So far, there is just one, to which I imagine there would be great interest by a number of individuals and organizations in either confirming or refuting.
Actually another was commissioned... Millette? Concluded that the chips were primer paint
Perhaps if NIST had tested what should have been among the very first of hypotheses of the buildings' collapses,
You mean completely ignore the large, fast aircraft as causes of two, and the hours long unchecked fires for the third.
particularly in the case of WTC 7, this issue would have been resolved long ago. Instead, NIST took seven years to complete a computer model purporting to show initiation of collapse by failure of a single support column, but would not release it in its entirety.
ONE building, in which no one died. You do understand why this report was delayed until after the other reports were completed
 
The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Harrit paper fails to confirm the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust.

All I find anywhere are discussion boards and YouTube videos that claim to do this. A prime example are your assertions above. I'm sorry, but individuals don't get to just say it ain't so, absent a published study, and expect someone to take his word for it.

When you supply me with a published study that refutes the findings of the Harrit et al. paper, I will be happy to have a discussion with you.

Good day, Mr. Oystein

Then why did Jones insist the spheres were first Iron oxide spheres from thermate not thermite?

Why are the spheres Identical in spectra to fly ash?

I wouldn't be surprised if reduced Microspheres are found, as Thermal Lances produce them, or they can be produced though dirrect reduction with H2. The burden of proof is on Harrit and Jones it can not be removed until the findings are conclusive which now they defiantly are not.

Why did Jones and Harrit reference the fly ash microspheres in RJ Lee's paper?
 
Laypersons such as myself and, I'm sure, the majority of the public in regard to chemistry must rely on published studies by experts in the field to assist them in forming their own opinions and conclusions.

I eagerly await the publication of another study that will either confirm of refute the findings of the Harrit paper. It seems to me there should be numerous individuals and organizations eager follow up with their own scientific studies.

Only if and when the studies are valid accurate and make no false claims that should have been rejected in peer review.

A paper saying the sky is green with orange pokadots, would not be a valid study.

The Harrit and Jones study makes a false claim there fore it can not be taken as an accurate, and valid scientific study.

That claim is in relation to the percentage of Microspheres and there creation as addressed in the RJ Lee study.
A study of one building for a law firm that can not be referenced to give an average concentration of all microspheres in the dust,
and calls the Microspheres Fly ash not reduced Iron.

There fore Jones and Harrit are contradicted by the RJ Lee study, and are in fact in conflict with it.
 
Seems to me the sample space and collection conditions were uncontrolled as far as the truther *studies* go. And then they never explain how the iron micro sphere producing thermite they claim was placed, where it was placed, how much was used, how it was placed, how it was ignited, how the placement went undiscovered, and so on... what it did to the steel and how it produced the collapse observations on record.

Jones was caught pushing the false interpretation of the diagonal cut column claiming it was done with thermate. And we know that there were torches used in the clean up process and perhaps before in the recovery period which would contaminate the site and could produce by products unrelated to the collapse. We don't know when the samples were taken either. Iron micro-spheres do not seem to be something unexpected in fires and collapses of office towers. But one would have to have data / samples from other similar steel framed buildings which burned and collapsed in part or in whole.
 
Jeffrey the Microspheres are meaningless, Jones knew that when he published the Bethlehem paper, he was confronted with the truth and ran from it, pyrite is the major sources of Iron Microspheres in coal, as well as reduced Iron.
The extra large sphere Fe 3O4 in my own finger tips was created similar to Microspheres used in xerography, from rust Fe 2O3 at around 1400 C, In a chimney event, there are problems with all Jones samples and his data no firm or accurate conclusion can be drawn from any of Jones and Harrit work, and all attempts at duplication or conclusive finding have failed.
Jones work must for all intended purposes be considered Junk science of no relevancy to understanding the events of 9/11/2001.
 
Does anybody know specific what type of epoxy resin Millett is doing his FTIR on?
Are you talking about Dr. James Millette's study for Chris Mohr on red-gray chips from WTC dust?

Then the question is posed weirdly. Millette did not do FTIR "on epoxy resin". He did it on the red layer of selected chips, not knowing what the material is - the whole purpose of the study was to identify the previously unknown material.

FTIR revealed that the red layer of some chips contains a major proportion of epoxide functional groups - in layman's speak, that would be specific and typical types of branches or twigs on the tree of a larger molecule. This proves that the organic matrix, or a significant portion thereof, is cured (read: former) epoxy resin - not epoxy resin itself.

You are probably meant to ask if Millette was able to identify the specific type of resin and/or curing agent(s). The answer is: No. Just that it's epoxy. All epoxy resins have epoxy functional groups, by definition.
 
Thanks a lot for that answer. Do you know if DSC-measurments have been conducted on epoxy resins, so it can be compared to Harrit et als DSC-measurement on the red/grey chips?
 
Thanks a lot for that answer. Do you know if DSC-measurments have been conducted on epoxy resins, so it can be compared to Harrit et als DSC-measurement on the red/grey chips?
DSC is rarely done to measure the heat flow of chemical reactions - it is therefore in most cases a less-than-competent method for material characterisation, and quite a folly as a forensic tool for material identification, especially when you know that your unknown material is a mix of several unknown substances.

However, I do have this paper (a PhD thesis), that interestingly studied preparations of thermite with epoxy:

Ferranti, Louis, Jr.: Mechanochemical Reactions and Strengthening in Epoxy-Cast Aluminum Iron-Oxide Mixtures. Georgia Tech Theses and Dissertations, 2007.

The Chapter "Characterization of Thermochemical Reaction Energetics" begins on page 185. Ferranti did DTA, not DSC - it's a similar method, but not the same, so you can't compare output plots 1:1.

First, make sure to read and understand Section 4.2.1 on page 185f. Take note of the following to statements:
a) "...it is challenging to extract quantitative measurements of the thermal properties of the sample using DTA, tough the temperatures at which transitions occur can be identified fairly accurately."
b) "...all runs were made in an inert argon atmosphere."

Now go to Figure 4.19 on page 192! It has several DTA plots - the black curve denoted with the letter "e" is for pure epoxy.
Follow that curve slowly from left (20 °C) to right.
Under 100 °C, there is some up and down, which the author does not comment on. I think this could be an indication that the material has been freshly prepared - epoxy not fully cured, perhaps some left-over solvent, whatever.
Beyond 160 °C, the epoxy curve slowly rises above 0 -indicating some weak exothermal reaction. After about 340 °C, the curve rises to a first peak, which occurs at ~380 °C. The author explains:
External Quote:
Each composition shows an initial exothermic peak at 383.1 ± 6.1 °C due to crystallization. This is known as cold crystallization and occurs upon heating polymers that are amorphous or have very low crystallinity [171].
Ok, so we learn: Epoxy typically shows an exotherm around 380 °C due to crystallization.

Next, we see a trough in the epoxy plot, with a local minimum at ~400 °C (although still above 0, i.e. exotherm). the author explains:
External Quote:
The crystallization peaks were followed immediately by an endoderm that ranged between 397 and 410 °C, corresponding to the decomposition of epoxy. Pure epoxy has a decomposition temperature of 410.2 ± 0.7 °C, which is in fairly good agreement with many studies conducted for epoxy resin cured with numerous hardeners [172-174]. The thermal stability in cured-epoxy resin systems will depend, in part, on the chemical structure and bonds, as well as on the functionality and crosslinking density of the resin [171]. The volatile products evolving from the decomposition of epoxy typically include water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide [172], however, the specific makeup is primarily dictated by the resin and hardener composition. The addition of solid particles appears to slightly influence the decomposition temperature.
Please take note that both processes now identified - exotherm crystallization, endotherm decomposition - do not involve any reaction with any other substance.

The epoxy curve goes on to a large hump, but the author no longer comments on the properties of epoxy.
We won't need to either, as will become apparent shortly.

Let's now look at Harrit et al's DSC curves:



I retouched Fig. 19 - added the x-axis, so it is easier to see where 0 is; and also added some vertical lines to aide reading the temperatures at which things "happen".

Check out the red and the blue curve!

Notice:
  • They start rising abobe zero near 180-200 °C
  • They have first small peaks slightly under 400 °C
  • These peaks are immediately followed by troughs
Do you see how the behaviour of these two curves nicely matches the behaviour of Ferranti's DTA curves? The temperatures are slightly higher than Ferranti's, but as Ferranti explained, mixing epoxy with stuff tends to alter event temperatures somewhat, so no surprise there.

Of course, Harrit's curves then run to a sudden and seemingly steep peak at ~425 °C - a departure from the slower development of Ferranti's sample.
What happened here? -> The epoxy ignited - burned on ambient air!
Look here: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf - Table A-1 lists the ignition temperature of epoxy as 427 °C!
It's clear now why we need not look any further on Ferranti's graph - Harrit's sample burns and no longer is epoxy.



I think you will now agree with me that the red and blue curve in Harrit's Figure 19 are quite consistent with epoxy - while the green and black curve are not! Harrit et al tested two different materials in the DSC, and never understood this! This goes to show their flabbergasting incompetence. In fact, they show DSC data, but don't in fact use it to make their case - there is no intelligent comparison, no explanation of DSC data!
I just gave you an explanation for two of the four plots. They are consistent with an epoxy-based paint.
 
Millette did not do FTIR "on epoxy resin"

So how did he obtain the red graf? http://www.nmsr.org/millette.jpg
Most probably pulled it out of a reference database. The software that processes and analyses the FTIR hardware's raw data would typically come with a reference database - provided by the manufacturer, or the result of some cumulative effort. You don't look at FTIR (or XEDS, or SAED, or...) graphs by naked eye and compare them to dozens or hundreds of samples of reference materials you scanned yourself. The computer does the identifying for you. In the XEDS graphs, all the symbols of chemical elements are inserted by the software.

(Interestingly, the XEDS graphs in Harrit et al are NOT labeled by software, but by the authors manually, as you can tell for example by the failure to label the clear magnesium peak in Fig. 14; several element labels missing in Fig. 7, too. I can't tell if this was incompetent handling of the XEDS output, or a deliberate decision to hide the presence of elements deemed inconvenient to the authors).
 
Not to reopen a months dead thread, but were the mix designs for the concrete in WTC published or provided somewhere? Fly ash is common in concrete now, but I would only be guessing regarding when the towers were built.

Regarding the molybdenum microsphere, thermite isn't quite hot enough to melt molybdenum, 4500 F vs 4753 F to melt elemental Mo.
 
Not to reopen a months dead thread, but were the mix designs for the concrete in WTC published or provided somewhere? Fly ash is common in concrete now, but I would only be guessing regarding when the towers were built.

Regarding the molybdenum microsphere, thermite isn't quite hot enough to melt molybdenum, 4500 F vs 4753 F to melt elemental Mo.

light weight no stone aggregate...
 
Not to reopen a months dead thread, but were the mix designs for the concrete in WTC published or provided somewhere? Fly ash is common in concrete now, but I would only be guessing regarding when the towers were built.

Regarding the molybdenum microsphere, thermite isn't quite hot enough to melt molybdenum, 4500 F vs 4753 F to melt elemental Mo.
light weight no stone aggregate...
I hope it's not too late to add to this years-old discussion. The only reference to the mix design for lightweight concrete in the NIST Towers investigation was in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B where it says the following:
NCSTAR 1-6B Section 4.2.6.jpg
While the aggregate specified was "haydite," which is composed of expanded shale, there is no record of actual mixture proportions or compressive strength test results which leaves open the possibility that an alternative aggregate was used. At about the time the WTC Twin Towers were being constructed, the National Slag Association (NSA) was promoting the use of granulated expanded blast furnace slag as a lightweight aggregate in structural concrete. Below is an article published by the NSA about a 42-story reinforced concrete building constructed in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada in 1973 that used expanded blast furnace slag as an aggregate in its concrete.
nsa_172-14 Use of Pelletized EBFS in a High-Rise_1.jpg
nsa_172-14 Use of Pelletized EBFS in a High-Rise_2.jpg
Expanded blast furnace slag is a byproduct of the iron-production industry. It consists primarily of silicates, aluminosilicates, and calcium-alumina-silicates, but may also contain small amounts of elemental iron and iron-rich composites in the form of microspheres formed as the 3,000 degrees F molten slag is cooled and "foamed" by the introduction of water, air or steam. Magnetic separation is used to remove the great majority of the ferrous particles, but small amounts may still remain entrained in the finished slag aggregate. Below is an article by Hendrik G. van Oss, as published in the U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook in 2002 that goes into detail about how blast furnace slag is processed into lightweight aggregate and how iron contamination may be present in the finished product.
Iron Contamination in Slag Aggregate_1.jpg
Iron Contamination in Slag Aggregate_2.jpg
Iron Contamination in Slag Aggregate_3.jpg
Iron Contamination in Slag Aggregate_4.jpg
Iron Contamination in Slag Aggregate_6.jpg
Iron Contamination in Slag Aggregate_5.jpg
Blast furnace slag in finely ground form has also been used as a cement additive and, in unground form, as an aggregate in Europe. Below is an article published by "Euroslag" in 2003 that mentions its uses. Those with an understanding of chemistry may find it interesting to compare the chemical composition of blast furnace slag with the chemical composition of microspheres found in WTC dust.

Euroslag GBS Leaflet_1.jpg
Euroslag GBS Leaflet_2.jpg
Euroslag GBS Leaflet_3.jpg
Euroslag GBS Leaflet_4.jpg
 
Last edited:
From the Millette study; "The solvents included methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and two commercial paint strippers used for epoxy resins."
Yet, they could not dissolve the material… if just an commercial epoxy, why does it not dissolve?
 
The latter pages have degenerated into something of a ramble, but still contain useful information. Pity nobody will ever read it.
Hi, I guess I'm nobody than, I do not understand why this is marked debunked. The Harrit paper ruled out thermite and nano thermite (ignition point too low) the Millette paper confirmed that it was not thermite or nano thermite because by the definition of thermite included Aluminum spheres (whereas the samples contained aluminum plates, that could not be characterized as elemental because it was embedded in an epoxy).
However, Millette did not find that the aluminum was already oxidized, Nor did he investigate the ignition point described in the paper he was being paid to replicate.
The red rust primer epoxy does not explain why neither lab could not dissolve the substance with methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), which should dissolve epoxy paints.
 
Ok, finally finished the thread and studied both the Harrit and Millette reports. This thread noted that about less than 10% of the red material could possibly be rust and aluminum and the rest an epoxy and silicate. This ratio is consistent with rocket fuel: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3309249A/en
This thread offered several examples of primer paint that had a similar (not exact) chemical composition, however the proposed primers were oil based and not epoxy!
 
Both Harrit et Al and Millette et Al provided descriptions of the Aluminum.
First the professional analysis of Millette et Al
"The SEM-EDS and backscattered electron (BE) analysis of the cross-sections of the gray layer in the red/gray chip showed it to be primarily iron consistent with a carbon steel. The cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin. The thinnest kaolin plates were on the order of 6 nm with many sets of plates less than 1 micrometer thick. Small x-ray peaks of other elements were sometimes present. The particles were in a carbon-based matrix."
The Harrit et Al provided a image of these plate like structures.
IMG_0137.png

This is compared with kaolin BSE from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...olished-sections-of-claystones_fig3_249852893
IMG_0138.png

SEM images of claystones. (a), (b) and (c) BSE images of polished sections of claystones showing the fine-grained size and small amounts of quartz (Qtz), Ti and Fe oxides (FeOx), pyrites (Py) and organic matter (O.M.) fragments are distinguished; (d), (e) and (f) SE images of claystones showing anhedral particles of kaolinite and illite; in (d) sample lamination is observed.

Lamination, not plates.
However, UFG Aluminum does produce plates. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/6/8/3469
"

3.1. Initial Microstructure

The microstructures of the ufg 4p, 6p, and 8p aluminum samples are consistent with that reported previously in literature, e.g., [10,11,12,13]. The grain geometry as viewed from the transverse view under a TEM, shown in Figure 1a–c respectively, consists of ultra-fine pancake shaped grains. The relatively low dislocation density within these pancake shaped grains suggests the occurrence of a dynamic recovery process during ARB processing; a notion similarly suggested by Li et al. [13] in the case of ARBed aluminum."
"Figure 1. Microstructure of the (a) 4p; (b) 6p; and (c) 8p Accumulative Roll Bonding (ARB) CP aluminum samples as viewed under bright field transmission electron microscope (TEM) imaging; (d) an Electron Channeling Contrast Imaging (ECCI) micrograph of an 8p samples showing the composite nature of the present microstructure."
IMG_0139.png


So I agree with Millette et Al, it is not elemental Aluminum, but rather UFG Aluminum (plates or pancakes). I disagree with Millette that it was not kaolin. Kaolin can laminate (yes) it does not form plate like structures.
 
Last edited:
A cured epoxy is a crosslinked polymer, and while strong solvents can swell and soften it (so that it can be removed with scraping, for example) it isn't really dissolved.
So epoxy paint primer does not dissolve in epoxy thinners? Why does the methodology of both Millette et Al and Harrit et Al seem to assume the MEK would work? (Millette even tried for 55 hours before moving on with the experiment).
 
Last edited:
So epoxy paint primer does not dissolve in epoxy thinners? Why does the methodology of both Millette et Al and Harrit et Al seem to assume the MKE would work? (Millette even tried for 55 hours before moving on with the experiment).
Epoxy paints are sold as a two-pack of acrylic and the epoxy component, both parts liquid resins. Once they're combined, they react rapidly to form a very tough solvent-resistant coating. That's why they use it for such applications as the floors of garages.

Now if you're asking me to mind-read Millette and Harrit, that's way above my pay grade.
 
Epoxy paints are sold as a two-pack of acrylic and the epoxy component, both parts liquid resins. Once they're combined, they react rapidly to form a very tough solvent-resistant coating. That's why they use it for such applications as the floors of garages.

Now if you're asking me to mind-read Millette and Harrit, that's way above my pay grade.
First, thank you for engaging with me. Second, I concede that asking you to speculate on the methodology dose not advance the cause of identifying the substance in question.
Back to the evidence:
(Edit: better source)
"A major advantage of using an epoxy is that it provides a very strong, permanent bond in adhesive applications. This perma- nence can also act as a limitation when needing to rework, remove or "decapsu- late" the cured epoxy. This document lists several techniques which have shown to be effective tools in removing cured epoxy from substrates.
1. Chlorinated solvent is the most aggres- sive way to attack cured epoxy. Methylene chloride (dichloromethane) has shown the most success but does require the material to be soaked for several hours. Stripping Agent MS-111 (which contains approxi- mately 85% methylene chloride) from the Miller- Stephenson Chemical Co. in Danbury, CT is a product that works very well. Dynaloy LLC also has several epoxy solvents and removers based on which type of epoxy hardener is used in a product.
2. A warm solution of sulfuric acid will dissolve the cured epoxy. This, like the chlorinated solvents, also requires a good soaking. An effective technique that some customers have used is repeatedly dropping the acid on the top surface of the epoxy to facilitate the removal.
3. Other chemicals which have shown to be effective: toluene, NMP (n-methly- pyrollidone) and MEK (methyl-ethyl- ketone)."
https://www.tedpella.com/technote_html/Reworking_Cured_Epoxy.pdf (edit: added quote function)
 
Last edited:
Can you please reframe why this is debunked? I found nothing in this thread that allowed me the freedom and peace of mind of resolving the cognitive dissonance I endure trying to come to terms with this info (heal and move on). I found no explanation for nano sized particles. The paints that were supposed to explain it were inexact with pigment formulation and were not even epoxy (oil based instead). Millette et Al was not sufficient to exclude other possibilities that would also appear as a kaolin like substance under testing by x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) that would support Harrit et Al finding of energetic exotherms. Nor do I find sufficient evidence that the Silicon and Aluminum were indeed covalently bonded. Please help me understand, it has been a long road to make it this far and I am still stuck on this 10 year old debate.
 
Last edited:
I hope it's not too late to add to this years-old discussion.
The only reference to the mix design for lightweight concrete in the NIST Towers investigation was in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B where it says the following:
View attachment 53184While the aggregate specified was "haydite," which is composed of expanded shale, there is no record of actual mixture proportions or compressive strength test results which leaves open the possibility that an alternative aggregate was used. At about the time the WTC Twin Towers were being constructed, the National Slag Association (NSA) was promoting the use of granulated expanded blast furnace slag as a lightweight aggregate in structural concrete. Below is an article published by the NSA about a 42-story reinforced concrete building constructed in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada in 1973 that used expanded blast furnace slag as an aggregate in its concrete.
View attachment 53185View attachment 53186Expanded blast furnace slag is a byproduct of the iron-production industry. It consists primarily of silicates, aluminosilicates, and calcium-alumina-silicates, but may also contain small amounts of elemental iron and iron-rich composites in the form of microspheres formed as the 3,000 degrees F molten slag is cooled and "foamed" by the introduction of water, air or steam. Magnetic separation is used to remove the great majority of the ferrous particles, but small amounts may still remain entrained in the finished slag aggregate. Below is an article by Hendrik G. van Oss, as published in the U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook in 2002 that goes into detail about how blast furnace slag is processed into lightweight aggregate and how iron contamination may be present in the finished product.View attachment 53187View attachment 53188View attachment 53189View attachment 53190View attachment 53192View attachment 53191Blast furnace slag in finely ground form has also been used as a cement additive and, in unground form, as an aggregate in Europe. Below is an article published by "Euroslag" in 2003 that mentions its uses. Those with an understanding of chemistry may find it interesting to compare the chemical composition of blast furnace slag with the chemical composition of microspheres found in WTC dust.

View attachment 53194
Please explain, is this evidence for the iron microspheres? Or am I to look for chemical similarities to the substance in question?
 
DSC is rarely done to measure the heat flow of chemical reactions
- it is therefore in most cases a less-than-competent method for material characterisation, and quite a folly as a forensic tool for material identification, especially when you know that your unknown material is a mix of several unknown substances.
However, I do have this paper (a PhD thesis), that interestingly studied preparations of thermite with epoxy:

Ferranti, Louis, Jr.: Mechanochemical Reactions and Strengthening in Epoxy-Cast Aluminum Iron-Oxide Mixtures. Georgia Tech Theses and Dissertations, 2007.
Too bad this did not study is restricted to mechanochemical reactions.
The Chapter "Characterization of Thermochemical Reaction Energetics" begins on page 185. Ferranti did DTA, not DSC - it's a similar method, but not the same, so you can't compare output plots 1:1.

First, make sure to read and understand Section 4.2.1 on page 185f. Take note of the following to statements:
a) "...it is challenging to extract quantitative measurements of the thermal properties of the sample using DTA, tough the temperatures at which transitions occur can be identified fairly accurately."
b) "...all runs were made in an inert argon atmosphere."

Now go to Figure 4.19 on page 192! It has several DTA plots - the black curve denoted with the letter "e" is for pure epoxy.
Follow that curve slowly from left (20 °C) to right.
Under 100 °C, there is some up and down, which the author does not comment on. I think this could be an indication that the material has been freshly prepared - epoxy not fully cured, perhaps some left-over solvent, whatever.
Beyond 160 °C, the epoxy curve slowly rises above 0 -indicating some weak exothermal reaction. After about 340 °C, the curve rises to a first peak, which occurs at ~380 °C. The author explains:
External Quote:
Each composition shows an initial exothermic peak at 383.1 ± 6.1 °C due to crystallization. This is known as cold crystallization and occurs upon heating polymers that are amorphous or have very low crystallinity [171].
Ok, so we learn: Epoxy typically shows an exotherm around 380 °C due to crystallization.

Next, we see a trough in the epoxy plot, with a local minimum at ~400 °C (although still above 0, i.e. exotherm). the author explains:
External Quote:
The crystallization peaks were followed immediately by an endoderm that ranged between 397 and 410 °C, corresponding to the decomposition of epoxy. Pure epoxy has a decomposition temperature of 410.2 ± 0.7 °C, which is in fairly good agreement with many studies conducted for epoxy resin cured with numerous hardeners [172-174]. The thermal stability in cured-epoxy resin systems will depend, in part, on the chemical structure and bonds, as well as on the functionality and crosslinking density of the resin [171]. The volatile products evolving from the decomposition of epoxy typically include water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide [172], however, the specific makeup is primarily dictated by the resin and hardener composition. The addition of solid particles appears to slightly influence the decomposition temperature.
Please take note that both processes now identified - exotherm crystallization, endotherm decomposition - do not involve any reaction with any other substance.

The epoxy curve goes on to a large hump, but the author no longer comments on the properties of epoxy.
We won't need to either, as will become apparent shortly.

Let's now look at Harrit et al's DSC curves:



I retouched Fig. 19 - added the x-axis, so it is easier to see where 0 is; and also added some vertical lines to aide reading the temperatures at which things "happen".

Check out the red and the blue curve!

Notice:
  • They start rising abobe zero near 180-200 °C
  • They have first small peaks slightly under 400 °C
  • These peaks are immediately followed by troughs
Do you see how the behaviour of these two curves nicely matches the behaviour of Ferranti's DTA curves?
The temperatures are slightly higher than Ferranti's, but as Ferranti explained, mixing epoxy with stuff tends to alter event temperatures somewhat, so no surprise there.

Of course, Harrit's curves then run to a sudden and seemingly steep peak at ~425 °C - a departure from the slower development of Ferranti's sample.
What happened here? -> The epoxy ignited - burned on ambient air!
Look here: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf - Table A-1 lists the ignition temperature of epoxy as 427 °C!
It's clear now why we need not look any further on Ferranti's graph - Harrit's sample burns and no longer is epoxy.




I think you will now agree with me that the red and blue curve in Harrit's Figure 19 are quite consistent with epoxy - while the green and black curve are not! Harrit et al tested two different materials in the DSC, and never understood this! This goes to show their flabbergasting incompetence. In fact, they show DSC data, but don't in fact use it to make their case - there is no intelligent comparison, no explanation of DSC data!
I just gave you an explanation for two of the four plots. They are consistent with an epoxy-based paint.
well consistent with epoxy anyway. But you have not excluded epoxy thematic propellant only suggested another epoxy (paint) might also explain the exothermic properties.

Are you claiming that if DSC were to be performed on epoxy paint Harrit et Al DSC results could be reproduced?
 
Can you please reframe why this is debunked? I found nothing in this thread that allowed me the freedom and peace of mind of resolving the cognitive dissonance I endure trying to come to terms with this info (heal and move on). I found no explanation for nano sized particles.
The topic of this thread is the iron microspheres. Mick has re-created microspheres in his garage in various ways, see the thread linked in the OP: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/making-iron-microspheres-grinding-impacts-welding-burning.9533/
Going by that, lots of microspheres would've been generated when the WTC was built.

You seem to be hung up on the composition of the chips that the sample microspheres adhere to? And you recognize the chips are not thermite in your post #747 ? But you're not satisfied until you know what these chips are?

It's legitimate curiosity.
However, for debunking purposes, it's sufficient to have shown that neither the microspheres nor the red chips prove that thermite was used on the building.
 
Back
Top