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

[Mick West]

I think your summary of the test is basically correct. They put these chips in a very precise oven--increasing the temperature at a slow, constant rate. They ignite at 430C (806F) and produce an energy spike and Fe microspheres. The same test was performed on primer paint on steel and no spike in energy, no Fe microspheres.

Why do they say "8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue," if they ignited at 430C? Did they increase the temperature, ignition occurred at 430C, and they continued to heat to 700C?

Why do these tests (if done properly and I'm representing the results correctly) not disconfirm your claim that the red-gray chips are primer paint?

Primer paint seems to most likely thing to me. Where are the tests they did on primer paint? My feeling there is that if it did nt react the same way as the WTC chips, this is more likely because of some difference in circumstances than because it is unreacted nano-thermite.

Your position is one of attempting to get at the truth, right? I have to ask, on what grounds are you rejecting the "nano-energetic compound" theory of iron-based microsphere creation?

I'm not rejecting it in the sense that thermite produces microspheres. I just see not need to invoke a new cause (nanothermite)for the spheres when existing causes (fire, grinding, fly ash) can account for them. We know that there was a fire and a collapse. We do not know there was nanothermite. Occam.

 

[dunbar]

Occam.

Parsimony is very fine and good but remember: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more."

 

[Jazzy]

How then, is it outlandish to theorize that the red-gray chips are the likely cause of the iron-based ms found in the WTC dust?

Because tons of iron microspheres would definitely have been made by the friction between a million square feet of tower steel moving past itself at 120 mph. That would have to be discriminated from the microspheres produced by the paint chips, if any.

On the other hand, you claim without a shred of evidence, not a single reference to an experiment that confirms your theory, not any kind of work that examines the size, composition or structure of debris created by friction compared to the WTC ms, that FRICTION is the primary reason for the ms and any further looking at anything else as a possible explanation is stupid and futile.

Friction isn't "my theory". Friction is a fact. Do you wish to state that the towers fell down their core columns without friction? Be my guest...

I have never said "looking at anything else as a possible explanation is stupid and futile".

Friction is the most obvious case for microspheres. Friction didn't possibly, or probably occur; it definitely occurred. Do you wish to state that steel doesn't make sparks? Be my guest…

Do you wish to state that sparks don't make microspheres? Be my guest...

Iron-based microspheres found in abundance in the WTC dust? - Friction.
Red-gray chips found in the WTC dust which have uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles? - Red oxide primer and aluminum paint.
Red-gray chips ignite at relatively low temp, spike in energy release, and leave Iron-based ms as by-product? - Red oxide primer and aluminum paint.
Other evidence of high-temperature reactions that occurred during the WTC event? - Friction. Kinetic energy.

It's important to note here that the "nano-energetic compound" theory, for which you are so feverishly dismissing as even a possible explanation

I have never said that I dismissed it as even a possible explanation.

is able to account for ALL the other "anomalous" phenomena for which you must employ several unrelated

How is what I propose "unrelated"?

untested theories

Ditto untested?

your "shotgun-of-theories" approach of low-probability, untested claims sits in low rank against a single, tested theory which accounts for the TOTALITY of evidence.

What totality of evidence is that? Paint chips?

abuse

Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly: This is what the FEMA/BPAT performance assessment Appendix C said about the steel in question: "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting was readily visible in the near-surface structure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion."

That's my boy.

And you account for this by saying that this steel fell in an "aqueous environment" while hot, right?

Wrong. That wasn't my account at all.

You will recall that I have stated elsewhere that the falling steel struck ground zero with two-thirds of its potential energy available as kinetic energy upon impact. This would concentrate as HEAT close to ground zero. Firemen's water then reached this trapped heat, and helped the exposed iron form a eutectic with the wallboard sulfur, available as sulfates, which have a partial solubility in water. Calcium needn't be precipitated except as chalk, by absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The sulfur ions can do great damage in small amounts, greatly reducing the melt temperature of iron. The environment is water/steam/air, and high temperatures. All are required.

No corroborative evidence.

You've just listed it yourself.

No attempt to replicate the phenomenon.

You are a one.

No source for the elemental sulfur--and we know there was elemental sulfur from the EDX spectroscopy that show S and no Ca in the steel. Again, your theory does very little to get us closer to an answer for all these phenomena, just a veil of doubt designed to discourage a unified explanation of these data sets. Or as you call it, "science."

I like the way you mix abuse with your lies.

abuse

more abuse

Your position is that the iron ms were created by the friction of steel on steel AND by steel friction from the primer paint?

God give me strength !

No, sweet pea, I asked what you thought they were testing for, because it's obvious that to rule out microspheres produced by friction of the towers falling down their cores, one would have to duplicate those friction conditions, namely primed and painted steel surfaces, heavy loads, and speeds up to 120 mph, to see what you got.

So again, here you have a lot of confidence in your theories, but absolutely zero corroborative testing confirming your hypotheses. No spectroscopy done to compare the elemental composition of ms created by friction vs. aluminothermic reactions. No micrographic comparison of friction ms vs WTC ms. Nada. The only test comparing the properties of primer paint to the red-gray chips shows them to perform very differently under increased temps: Namely, the red-gray chips demonstrate an explosive spike in energy release AND leave iron-based microspheres as a by-product. The primer paint eventually just peels off the steel. No explosive spike in energy release, no iron microspheres.

There is no corroboration in what you have brought to the table. Just paint chips.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you that aluminum paint is required to allow a reaction to take place. Are you simple?

To a scientist, that would be enough to give good reason to rethink the idea that these red-gray chips are primer paint. But you still cling to this idea as if it settled the question of origin of the WTC ms. It doesn't even have any merit whatsoever. Your position is based entirely on wishful thinking and self-proclaimed authority. But that just doesn't cut it in the real world of evidence and data-set corroboration.

You aren't a scientist because you can neither answer my questions nor state my case accurately. We are sticklers for that sort of thing.

This scientist's mind says "the red chips are primer, and the gray chips are paint". It also says "they are the simple constituents of thermite anyway."

Closer to the truth to say "Science shouldn't have any politics, but all science is done by people. And people have politics." That's why we need external standards of theory adequacy, which indeed, we do.

You demonstrate this.

One principle of theory adequacy says the theory that explains the most phenomena and ignores the least is the most powerful theory.

Your "theory" ignores potential energy and friction. I'm fairly sure if we delved into it some more we'd find it also ignores buckling theory.

Another says that theories that can be repeated by independent parties are better than theories that cannot be repeated.

I think that's drinks all round. Your cough...

As it stands, the "nano-energetic compound" theory of WTC ms creation is better by leaps and bounds than any other attempt at explanation. And again, the biggest barriers to this theory are the psychological boundaries in accepting the implications of the red-gray chips.

Red oxide primer and aluminum paint? Could it be that the towers were painted all over with it?

Why do these tests (if done properly and I'm representing the results correctly) not disconfirm your claim that the red-gray chips are primer paint?

Because you keep omitting the aluminum paint.

Your position is one of attempting to get at the truth, right? I have to ask, on what grounds are you rejecting the "nano-energetic compound" theory of iron-based microsphere creation?

Because you show me paint chips.

Because you don't have any manners.

Because you don't answer my questions.

Because you accuse me of actions I haven't carried out.

(That's enough - Ed.)

 

[Mick West]

How many tons of these chips were there, btw?

Because there seems like a awful lot of explosive material with a low ignition point to be just floating around. What happened there? Did half the nano-thermite not go off, then get safely shredded?

 

[Jay Howard]

Why do they say "8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue," if they ignited at 430C? Did they increase the temperature, ignition occurred at 430C, and they continued to heat to 700C?

They ran the DSC to 700C as protocol.

The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 ̊C per minute up to a temperature of 700 ̊C.

page 10 Harrit, Jones, Farrer


Right in the abstract:

When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ̊C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

page 1 Harrit, Jones, Farrer

You're just reading it wrong. Not a big deal. But the fact is the ignition temp was about 430C for the 4 samples tested. The graph on page 20 shows the exothermic spike (explosion) at about 400-470C.

Primer paint seems to most likely thing to me. Where are the tests they did on primer paint? My feeling there is that if it did nt react the same way as the WTC chips, this is more likely because of some difference in circumstances than because it is unreacted nano-thermite.

WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT

This is from the Harrit paper linked above:

The elemental composition of the red/gray chips was obtained by means of X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) in the SEM mode.1 Before measurement, the chips were broken (with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise.

page 4 Harrit
The "burn tests" on the primer paint were performed by NIST and documented in NCSTAR1-3c Appendix D, but they don't specify a method, just that it was done "in the laboratory."

A series of controlled burn tests were conducted in the laboratory and it quickly became apparent that this technique would have limited utility.... This paint, essentially a ceramic coating, was found to crack in a particular pattern when the steel was heated to 250C, and was found to spall off entirely when heated to in excess of 650C.

page 151 NCSTAR 1-3c Appendix D

There you go. No Fe microspheres. No exothermic spike. It's not the same substance.

I'm not rejecting it in the sense that thermite produces microspheres. I just see not need to invoke a new cause (nanothermite)for the spheres when existing causes (fire, grinding, fly ash) can account for them. We know that there was a fire and a collapse. We do not know there was nanothermite. Occam.

We have the red-gray chips for all the world to see, and they are definitely not paint--not according to NIST and not according to Jones, Harrit and Farrer, et. al. There is not "new cause" being invoked. This is a unifying explanation for not only the red-gray chips, but their property of burning at relatively low temps and producing Fe-based microspheres as a by-product.

I'm sure you will agree the red-gray chips are some kind of highly engineered substance, which at any rate, is not primer paint, and it needs to be accounted for. Why was it in the buildings? What other purpose could it serve other than to cause destruction? Who put it there? I'm sure, at this point these questions are burning you up as they are the rest of the world who have been exposed to the this difficult mess and it's unappealing implications.

 

[Jazzy]

WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT

I'm sure, at this point these questions are burning you up as they are the rest of the world who have been exposed to the this difficult mess and it's unappealing implications.

Except that the towers were painted with primer AND aluminum paint.

Your consistent ignoring of that fact has its own unappealing implications.

How are we to know what Harrit was doing? Is a "red/gray chip" NOT made of primer and aluminum paint? Why would one try to ignite primer on its own? Why put an apostrophe in "its"?

The calcium and sulfur are likely to originate from contamination with wallboard material (gypsum, calcium sulfate). The signals from zinc and chromium could be from a surface contamination with primer paint.

Or they could be primer paint. How would a thermitic charge be contaminated by well-hardened paint?

Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint

But there was only a tiny proportion of it in primer paint, by all accounts. Maybe it's in the noise. Notice the apostrophe.

 

[Jay Howard]

How many tons of these chips were there, btw?

Because there seems like a awful lot of explosive material with a low ignition point to be just floating around. What happened there? Did half the nano-thermite not go off, then get safely shredded?

That's a very good question, Mick. I'm not sure, but it's definitely worth investigating.

 

[Mick West]

That's a very good question, Mick. I'm not sure, but it's definitely worth investigating.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

1. How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived During the WTC Destruction?

In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and concrete fragments had been removed by hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately 0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of sepa- rated dust. Further samples are being analyzed to refine this estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers produced enormous clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult to ascertain; but clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust must be substantial given the fraction observed in these sam- plings.

So they are saying that a ton or so of the thermite did not go off? And instead got finely shredded? How much was there to start with?

 

[Mick West]

There you go. No Fe microspheres. No exothermic spike. It's not the same substance.

There I go? You quoted some unrelated NIST tests on paint. Where did anyone test red-gray chips of primer paint & rust? Or red-gray chips of two layers of different paints?

 

[Jay Howard]

1. How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived During the WTC Destruction?


So they are saying that a ton or so of the thermite did not go off? And instead got finely shredded? How much was there to start with?

Again, that's a great question whose answer I have a deep interest in.

 

[Jay Howard]

There I go? You quoted some unrelated NIST tests on paint. Where did anyone test red-gray chips of primer paint & rust? Or red-gray chips of two layers of different paints?

Where did anyone find red-gray chips of primer paint and rust? Are you just begging the question as well?

How are those tests unrelated? They cooked the primer paint on the steel girders to check for a correlation between temperature and cracking patterns. The temps they took the paint through exceeded the temps at which the red-gray chips ignited in the DSC. No ferrous microspheres, no exothermic spike. By what logic could you possible believe these chips are primer paint and rust?

Do you have a single micrograph of the primer or primer and rust anywhere that contains uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles in it? There are plenty of micrographs of paint particles readily accessible on google images. None contain uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles.

If you are convinced the red-gray chips are just paint, despite the mounting evidence against it, the burden of proof is now on you.

 

[Mick West]

Where did anyone find red-gray chips of primer paint and rust? Are you just begging the question as well?

How are those tests unrelated? They cooked the primer paint on the steel girders to check for a correlation between temperature and cracking patterns. The temps they took the paint through exceeded the temps at which the red-gray chips ignited in the DSC. No ferrous microspheres, no exothermic spike. By what logic could you possible believe these chips are primer paint and rust?

Paint on steel is different to paint that has flaked off steel.

 

[Mick West]

Paint on steel is different to paint that has flaked off steel.

And who was looking for ferrous microspheres from primer paint?

 

[Jay Howard]

Paint on steel is different to paint that has flaked off steel.

I can't disagree with that, but I don't see what that has to do with the red-gray chips.

 

[Mick West]

I can't disagree with that, but I don't see what that has to do with the red-gray chips.

You need to compare one set of red-grey chips with another. Not red-grey chips with a red layer on steel.

 

[Jay Howard]

You need to compare one set of red-grey chips with another. Not red-grey chips with a red layer on steel.

Please help me understand what you're saying. It sounds like you believe the red-gray chips are a layer of paint attached to a layer of rust. Is that correct?

 

[Jazzy]

Please help me understand what you're saying. It sounds like you believe the red-gray chips are a layer of paint attached to a layer of rust. Is that correct?

LOL.

 

[Mick West]

Please help me understand what you're saying. It sounds like you believe the red-gray chips are a layer of paint attached to a layer of rust. Is that correct?

Sounds plausible. I don't think this has been conclusively disproved.

 

[Jazzy]

I think that when they were building the towers, the erectors received their preformed steel subassemblies primed in a red oxide primer, with Fe2 O3 particles ground to 100 nm, erected them into position, and then painted them with aluminum paint, quite probably with a particle size of 100 nm, stood back, and then said "Isn't that beautiful!".

Then they finished off the building with cladding and by then the internal services were up and running, and the show was on the road*.

How are the mighty fallen.

* Yes, it was a serial thing. Allow me a little poetic license.

 

[Jay Howard]

Sounds plausible. I don't think this has been conclusively disproved.

The "Thermitic Material" paper you link to above is very clear about the red portion of this substance in question. It consists of 2 kinds of particles mixed intimately within a hydrocarbon matrix. That's just not what rust is. Not in any formulation. Period. Again, if you have reason to believe that's what rust is, now is the time to demonstrate that. Doubt is a poor substitute for evidence.

 

[Mick West]

Red is paint. Gray is rust. Maybe.

 

[Jay Howard]

Red is paint. Gray is rust. Maybe.

That's your best argument to all the evidence that the red-gray chips are a highly-engineered energetic nano-composite? The red is paint? What reason do you have to make this claim? Do you have an SEM micrograph showing paint with uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles? Because if you don't, you have no basis to make this claim other than wishful thinking.

When shown what the primer did when heated, (namely, NOT explode nor create Fe microspheres), you reply that test isn't good enough to satisfy your doubt. Yet you have not a single study to point to nor even a photomicrograph to link to which backs up your claim whatsoever.

It looks like you simply want to believe this stuff is paint. Wanting to believe something is true is a far sight from real scientific inquiry.

 

[Jay Howard]

The opponents of the "energetic nanocomposite" theory do not have evidence in their favor. From a raw, scientific perspective, this debate isn't much of one, and it seems the only appeal anyone can make to dismiss the reality of explosive material found in the WTC dust is a deep desire for it to not be true.

At this point, the reality of this explosive substance can no longer be doubted in the minds of impartial people. This material has been examined intensely and determined to be something NOT found in a paint can--something which shouldn't be in a building. This substance appears to be a high-tech material designed to create a bridge between relatively low temperatures found in normal office fires up to at least 3100F. How else it was used is not clear and would only be speculative at this point. But it cannot be dismissed as "unreal" anymore.

Its properties go a long way in explaining many anomalous pieces of evidence about the fall of the 3 WTC high rises that day.

If we take that small step past incredulity, there can be little doubt that this material was manufactured in a laboratory capable of making nano-scale particles on a production level.

 

[Jazzy]

If we take that small step past incredulity, there can be little doubt that this material was manufactured in a laboratory capable of making nano-scale particles on a production level.

You mean a small step into utter credulity? That's yours for the taking.

"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite." - AE911T

Introduction
Revised Progress Report of Results: MVA9119 Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust
This revised report summarizes the results to date of the analyses of red/gray chips found in samples of dust generated by the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster of 11 September 2001. MVA Scientific Consultants was requested by Mr. Chris Mohr of Classical Guide to scientifically study red/gray chips from WTC dust that matched those presented in a paper by Harrit et al., 2009,1 which concluded that thermitic material was present in the WTC dust.
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. They are identified by the sample numbers shown below and on the New York City map shown in Figure 1. The red/gray chips discussed in this report were analyzed during the period from 18 November 2011 to 20 February 2012. Some analytical results characterizing the particles in the dust from two of the samples (4808-L1616 and 9119-X0135) had been previously published in the scientific literature. 2,3

http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

Are these people friends of yours? Why were you not told? It seems the provenance of Harrit's material is questionable...

 

[Jay Howard]

You mean a small step into utter credulity? That's yours for the taking.

"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite." - AE911T

Introduction
Revised Progress Report of Results: MVA9119 Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust
This revised report summarizes the results to date of the analyses of red/gray chips found in samples of dust generated by the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster of 11 September 2001. MVA Scientific Consultants was requested by Mr. Chris Mohr of Classical Guide to scientifically study red/gray chips from WTC dust that matched those presented in a paper by Harrit et al., 2009,1 which concluded that thermitic material was present in the WTC dust.
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. They are identified by the sample numbers shown below and on the New York City map shown in Figure 1. The red/gray chips discussed in this report were analyzed during the period from 18 November 2011 to 20 February 2012. Some analytical results characterizing the particles in the dust from two of the samples (4808-L1616 and 9119-X0135) had been previously published in the scientific literature. 2,3

http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

Are these people friends of yours? Why were you not told? It seems the provenance of Harrit's material is questionable...

How is the provenance of the chips in question? It seems pretty clear they found the same material that Harrit, et. al. found. But the real tell is that they didn't heat it to 470C to see what it would do. They just classified the Fe2O3 as "pigment" and the aluminosilicate as "kaolin" and called it a day.

As you well know, they were unable to match the "paint" to any known brands and it was a definite negative for the paint/primer used in the construction of the WTC complex.

So no heat test--they cooked it, but only to 400C. They classified the particles but were unable to find a positive match for any known paint. Still, you cling to this as if it settled the issue.

To the disinterested observer, this is not a repeat of the original test. It's poor scientific technique to exclude the most definitive test. To me, it looks like a whitewash. Why not heat the chips up and see what happens? What do you have to lose (if you're an impartial lab)? I don't see a justification for not heating the chips to their known ignition point. If they didn't ignite, then either something is wrong with the technique executed by Harrit, et. al. or they found a different substance. Either way it would put a stake in the "energetic nanocomposite" theory. But they didn't do it.

I've read all kinds of reasons why they didn't, but in the end, they didn't repeat the experiment. Period. [...]

 

[Jazzy]

How is the provenance of the chips in question? It seems pretty clear they found the same material that Harrit, et. al. found.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips

It is quite obvious that they didn't.

But the real tell is that they didn't heat it to 470C to see what it would do. They just classified the Fe2O3 as "pigment" and the aluminosilicate as "kaolin" and called it a day.

Because they knew it wasn't reactive.

As you well know, they were unable to match the "paint" to any known brands and it was a definite negative for the paint/primer used in the construction of the WTC complex.

The dust was a mixture of all sources. It couldn't be expected to be a match for any single source.

So - pap - I don't see a justification for not heating the chips to their known ignition point.

How about "incombustible molecules have no ignition point? That seems reasonable to me.

If they didn't ignite, then either something is wrong with the technique executed by Harrit, et. al. or they found a different substance. Either way it would put a stake in the "energetic nanocomposite" theory. But they didn't do it.

They didn't ignite because there was no aluminum.

I've read all kinds of reasons why they didn't, but in the end, they didn't repeat the experiment. Period. Weak [...]

[...]

 

[Jay Howard]

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips

AND YET... And yet, the chips ignited at about 430C and left iron microspheres as a by-product.

It is quite obvious that they didn't.

It seems Dr. Millete and I are in disagreement with you on this one. The microscopy and spectroscopy seem to indicate a match for the material studied by Harrit, et. al. Not sure what grounds you have to dispute this, but as usual, this would be the time to back up your bare assertion with some kind of justification other than the letters after your name or a condescending tone.

Because they knew it wasn't reactive.

In a very real sense, this is equivalent to saying "they knew Harrit et.al. were completely fabricating their work." But, without actually saying that. It is also equivalent to saying "they knew it would ignite and didn't want to corroborate the work they were contracted to contradict."

Either way, it's a textbook example of poor scientific method. The whole point of laying out protocols for your experiment is so other people can do exactly the same thing. That way, if it does NOT turn out the same, the replicators are on solid ground to say "it's bunk." As it stands, Millete, et. al. did some sciency stuff, packed it up in a formal dress, and sold it to you and others as "good science." It is closer akin to a sales brochure.

The bottom line, no matter how you dress it up, is they did not replicate the study, and they did not find a match for the material in any paint they looked at, and you better believe they wanted to find a match.

The dust was a mixture of all sources. It couldn't be expected to be a match for any single source.

Yes, it could. If they found a sliver of paint, there is no doubt they would have matched it with the techniques they and the Harrit team were using. But they didn't. Any denial of this point is an indication of a poor understanding of the techniques at their disposal.

How about "incombustible molecules have no ignition point? That seems reasonable to me.

The whole point of the scientific method is to distinguish assumptions from reality. To go into the test assuming the substance will not ignite simply isn't doing science.

They didn't ignite because there was no aluminum.

There was indeed aluminum. It wasn't elemental Al, true, but if it explodes, what difference does it make?

[...]

Just to be clear, let's have a mock dialogue to show you how unfounded your position is.

Jay: "the chips are thermitic."

Jazzy: "Well, do they ignite?"

Jay: "I didn't try to ignite them."

Jazzy: "Then how do you know they're thermitic?"

Jay: "I just know."

Of course, that's complete bs. You wouldn't accept that as any kind of rationale, would you? Let's try it the other way around:

Jazzy: "The chips are NOT thermitic."

Jay: "Do they ignite at 500C?"

Jazzy: "No, of course not!"

Jay: "So you tried to ignite them?"

Jazzy: "No."

Jay: "Why not?"

Jazzy: "Because they AREN'T THERMITIC!"

Jay: "How do you know?"

Jazzy: "I just know."

Again, complete bs. But this is EXACTLY the position you are maintaining. It's unfounded and it's not science.

 

[Hitstirrer]

The bottom line, no matter how you dress it up, is they did not replicate the study, and they did not find a match for the material in any paint they looked at, and you better believe they wanted to find a match. quote]

Not only did they not replicate the study but they have also failed to achieve peer review and be in a position to publish their findings. Since then the people commissioning that study ( JREF ) have kept a very low profile on this subject.

And the remark from Jazzy - " Because they knew it wasn't reactive."- reminds me of NIST's classic line when asked why they didn't test for energetic material - " because we knew there was none there ".

Science ?

 

[Mick West]

There was indeed aluminum. It wasn't elemental Al, true, but if it explodes, what difference does it make?

If it wasn't elemental aluminum it would not be reactive, so would not explode.

Your line here is supposed to be that it's nano-elemental-aluminum, hence not detectable (as the individual elemental metal particles are too small, on the atomic scale), yet even more reactive.

 

[Jay Howard]

If it wasn't elemental aluminum it would not be reactive, so would not explode.

You mean "we wouldn't expect it to be reactive." But apparently it is. Unless you are accusing the Harrit team of fabricating their DSC data. Is that your stance?

Your line here is supposed to be that it's nano-elemental-aluminum, hence not detectable (as the individual elemental metal particles are too small, on the atomic scale), yet even more reactive.

Ha! That's an interesting theory, but I don't think there's any spectroscopy data to back it up. Let me be clear here because I don't want this point to be lost in the noise: this material, whatever it is, exploded in the DSC test performed by the Harrit team. There are no if, ands or buts about it. Unless they made up their data. Why not answer that question definitively by heating the chips to 500C and see what happens?

It seems the only reason NOT to do that would be to prevent the "energetic nanocomposite" theory from being corroborated by another lab.

 

[Mick West]

What, so you are suggesting there was non-elemental non-nano particles of some compound of aluminum, in a reactive form?

That's not nano thermite then, is it.

How much energy did the "explosion" produce? What was the energy density?

 

[Hitstirrer]

How much energy did the "explosion" produce? What was the energy density?

An interesting question. Last time that I saw this asked by a debunker in a different forum they were complaining that Harrit showed a larger energy output than should have been observed from a classic thermetic reaction. It was a tiny extra increase seen but Harrit had anticipated that question and suggested that possibly some of the binding material bonding the chip layers had contributed to the excess.

 

[Mick West]

possibly some of the binding material bonding the chip layers had contributed to the excess.

Or maybe even have been entirely responsible for it?

 

[Hitstirrer]

Or maybe even have been entirely responsible for it?

If it could produce microspheres of elemental iron then err yes. But ignition at 430C has to be considered too.

 

[Hitstirrer]

And if someeone could identify some basic organic material that is used as a binding agent but is also capable of huge energy release then you may have discovered the new wonder explosive. But I doubt that such a basic mistake has been made by generations of scientists.

 

[Mick West]

Huge energy release. How huge was this again? What was the energy density compared to, say, glue? (or paint)

 

[Hitstirrer]

Huge energy release. How huge was this again? What was the energy density compared to, say, glue? (or paint)

We have been down this road before. As you well know its all about speed of release and not about total release. I have already mentioned that candlewax ( and paper for that matter ) has a higher total energy output weight for weight than thermite but you wouldnt try to weld railway lines with a candle flame.

 

[Mick West]

We have been down this road before. As you well know its all about speed of release and not about total release. I have already mentioned that candlewax ( and paper for that matter ) has a higher total energy output weight for weight than thermite but you wouldnt try to weld railway lines with a candle flame.

So what was the energy release per second?

 

[Hitstirrer]

So what was the energy release per second?

Have you actually read the Harrit paper

 

[Mick West]

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Some samples were also tested in a differential scanning calorimeter (Netzsch DSC 404C) to measure heat flow into or out of the red/gray chips. The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 ̊C per minute up to a tem- perature of 700 ̊C. During heating, the samples were con- tained in alumina pans and air was allowed to flow at 55 milliliters per minute during the heating. The plots were gen- erated by acquiring data points at a rate of 20 points per ̊C or 200 points per minute. The equipment was calibrated to display the data in watts per gram. The plots were set to dis- play positive heat flow out of the sample such that exother- mic behavior of the sample would yield a peak and endo- thermic behavior a trough.

10ºC per minute. So the exothermic peak reaction from 370ºC to 470ºC would have taken ten minutes? Is that correct? with an additional previous ten minutes of very low level exothermicity?