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

Jay Howard

Member
No, I'm asking you what you mean by "It's not dust if the piece they found evenly distributed Al in the matrix was soaked in MEK for hours." which does not seem to make any sense.

If something is dusty, and it is submerged in MEK or mineral spirits or acetone or some other type of thinner, the thinner will wash the dust off the object--especially if it's being agitated. Hence the Al wasn't contamination. Nor was it bound to another element because it was about 3 times as abundant as oxygen where the two are present together. Also, there are clearly places on the fragment where Si is abundant and Al is not and vice versa. Thus the only possibility is that it's elemental Al.

They used MEK to allow any bound particles to be revealed from within the binder. The XEDS maps they made of the tip of the fragment reveal Al over a large portion of the exposed surface of the fragment tip.

If all they did was break open a piece of the chip, do XEDS analysis of it, and found Al, they could not claim it was elemental. However, they did an number of corroborative steps which empirically confirm the existence of elemental Al.

Now, what do you mean by "sufficiently strong empirical evidence"?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If something is dusty, and it is submerged in MEK or mineral spirits or acetone or some other type of thinner, the thinner will wash the dust off the object--especially if it's being agitated. Hence the Al wasn't contamination. Nor was it bound to another element because it was about 3 times as abundant as oxygen where the two are present together. Also, there are clearly places on the fragment where Si is abundant and Al is not and vice versa. Thus the only possibility is that it's elemental Al.

They used MEK to allow any bound particles to be revealed from within the binder. The XEDS maps they made of the tip of the fragment reveal Al over a large portion of the exposed surface of the fragment tip.

If all they did was break open a piece of the chip, do XEDS analysis of it, and found Al, they could not claim it was elemental. However, they did an number of corroborative steps which empirically confirm the existence of elemental Al.

Now, what do you mean by "sufficiently strong empirical evidence"?

I'd like to hear some independent analysis of this technique. I have no way of verifying it myself.
 

Jay Howard

Member
I'd like to hear some independent analysis of this technique. I have no way of verifying it myself.

What part? The MEK soak? The XEDS mapping?

I appreciate genuine skepticism, Mick. I'm a skeptic myself. This world if full of salesmen plying their wares, and it's a matter of survival to have a healthy ability to delineate a conclusion backed by facts from a feeling about a conclusion that isn't backed by facts. In most people, the feeling wins. This is the instinct we should fight, right?

So I ask in earnest, do you have a problem with the methods or with the conclusions? Would you have the same problem accepting the validity of the techniques that appeared to verify that no elemental Al existed in the material?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What part? The MEK soak? The XEDS mapping?

I appreciate genuine skepticism, Mick. I'm a skeptic myself. This world if full of salesmen plying their wares, and it's a matter of survival to have a healthy ability to delineate a conclusion backed by facts from a feeling about a conclusion that isn't backed by facts. In most people, the feeling wins. This is the instinct we should fight, right?

So I ask in earnest, do you have a problem with the methods or with the conclusions? Would you have the same problem accepting the validity of the techniques that appeared to verify that no elemental Al existed in the material?

I have no problem with finding elemental aluminum, there was plenty in the building. I just don't feel able to judge the accuracy of the determination of some small-scale evenly distributed aluminum dust in the red chips. I'd need to hear from some independent expert, because I lack the experience to judge if it is correct.
 

Jay Howard

Member
I have no problem with finding elemental aluminum, there was plenty in the building.

Are you implying that a possible explanation for the elemental Al found in the MEK-soaked red chip is that the structural aluminum powderized and imbedded evenly into the hydrocarbon matrix of this material? That's about as realistic as al Qaida making energetic nanocomposites. Which is to say, not realistic at all, at all.

Mick West said:
I just don't feel able to judge the accuracy of the determination of some small-scale evenly distributed aluminum dust in the red chips. I'd need to hear from some independent expert, because I lack the experience to judge if it is correct.

Do you feel able to judge the accuracy of the non-existence of small-scale, evenly distributed Al dust in the red chips?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do you feel able to judge the accuracy of the non-existence of small-scale, evenly distributed Al dust in the red chips?

I think I've been quite clear here. I don't feel there's compelling evidence that there's some kind of nano-suspension of aluminum there. I make no claims beyond that.
 

Jay Howard

Member
I think I've been quite clear here. I don't feel there's compelling evidence that there's some kind of nano-suspension of aluminum there. I make no claims beyond that.

I get that you doubt that. That's not a question. The question is what's not "compelling" to you about XEDS graphs and mapping? And why do you keep wanting to make the corroboration of elemental Al in the red material some kind of personally subjective standard? It sounds like you are simply unable to poke any holes in the conclusion that this is an energetic nanocomposite.

Do you have a criticism about their techniques? About the test design?

If all they did was SEM and BSE imaging, then it would be totally understandable that you were not compelled by the evidence. But that's far from all they did. What do you make of the fact that the chips ignite at about 430C and produce iron microspheres as a by-product? What do you make of the fact that the red material has nearly uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles in it? The XEDS maps? The before-soaking vs. after-soaking XEDS graphs for the red material?

You can doubt all you want, but even a kid can see that when you add up all the pieces of this puzzle, it's not paint, it's explosive, and it accounts for all the high-temp phenomena that apologizers for the official theory have been unable to account for.

What is your real criticism?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I get that you doubt that. That's not a question. The question is what's not "compelling" to you about XEDS graphs and mapping? And why do you keep wanting to make the corroboration of elemental Al in the red material some kind of personally subjective standard? It sounds like you are simply unable to poke any holes in the conclusion that this is an energetic nanocomposite.

Do you have a criticism about their techniques? About the test design?

If all they did was SEM and BSE imaging, then it would be totally understandable that you were not compelled by the evidence. But that's far from all they did. What do you make of the fact that the chips ignite at about 430C and produce iron microspheres as a by-product? What do you make of the fact that the red material has nearly uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles in it? The XEDS maps? The before-soaking vs. after-soaking XEDS graphs for the red material?

You can doubt all you want, but even a kid can see that when you add up all the pieces of this puzzle, it's not paint, it's explosive, and it accounts for all the high-temp phenomena that apologizers for the official theory have been unable to account for.

What is your real criticism?

I see some work done by a very small group of people who were already convinced that there was controlled demolition, and who set out to look for evidence of thermite. Since I don't have experience of the science, I can't tell if their techniques and inferences are correct. Hence I'd like to see other opinions from people who understand the science and the techniques better than I do.
 

Jay Howard

Member
I see some work done by a very small group of people who were already convinced that there was controlled demolition, and who set out to look for evidence of thermite. Since I don't have experience of the science, I can't tell if their techniques and inferences are correct. Hence I'd like to see other opinions from people who understand the science and the techniques better than I do.


But as it stands, you cannot see anything incorrect about the techniques used or their interpretation, is that right?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But as it stands, you cannot see anything incorrect about the techniques used or their interpretation, is that right?

But I can't see what is correct either, because I lack the knowleds and experience.

For example - ignition at 430C, because to the peak in the DSC. What's going on there? Did the chip explode? Did it burn slowly for ten minutes? Did it burn rapidly in a fraction of the second, and that resulted in a ten minute long peak?
 

Jay Howard

Member
Do you lack the knowledge and experience to understand the RJ Lee addendum noted in the OP?

As for the burn rate for a mm sized piece of the material, it is safe to say at any rate, paint doesn't do that. Nor does paint leave Fe microspheres for ashes. I've heard doubts of this material being thermitic because it burned too fast to be thermite (which, btw, no one with an understanding of it is claiming--the claim is that it is "thermitic" meaning a substance that is using Al and a metal oxide to combust). Now you seem to be claiming it can't be thermitic because it's burning too slowly. Is that right?

Or are you just making an observation in an attempt to properly classify the substance?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do you lack the knowledge and experience to understand the RJ Lee addendum noted in the OP?
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to.

As for the burn rate for a mm sized piece of the material, it is safe to say at any rate, paint doesn't do that. Nor does paint leave Fe microspheres for ashes. I've heard doubts of this material being thermitic because it burned too fast to be thermite (which, btw, no one with an understanding of it is claiming--the claim is that it is "thermitic" meaning a substance that is using Al and a metal oxide to combust). Now you seem to be claiming it can't be thermitic because it's burning too slowly. Is that right?

Or are you just making an observation in an attempt to properly classify the substance?

No, I'm saying I don't understand what is going on in the DSC. Rapid or slow combustion. It's not clear.
 

Jay Howard

Member
Looking Likely: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

So, whatever is going on in the DSC, whether it's rapid or slow combustion, I think it's safe to say that the title of this thread is poorly named. I appreciate a skeptical approach because people believe some crazy things based on their feelings. It's critical to be able to distinguish a sales pitch from a good theory, and the fact is, most people cannot do that.
And as it stands, the "official" theory (or sets of theories) are at best an ad hoc collection of untested guesses that appear to be made up only when the evidence of high-temp reactions is presented. There is considerable pushback against the idea of collections of molten metal being anything other than aluminum. Yet this stands in a strange juxtaposition against the existence of the iron microspheres.

That is, the apologist must claim the molten metal is aluminum because temps didn't get hot enough to melt iron or steel AND the iron ms were the result of some other low-temp process. This is despite the fact that tests have been unable to make molten aluminum look like the metal that flowed out of the North Tower before it fell and unable to design a test that creates an abundance of iron ms from falling steel girders.

At the same time, the "energetic nanocomposite" theory easily (but uncomfortably) accounts for both these phenomena.

The vaporized lead as well can only be accounted for through tortuous logic, and yet again, another untested theory by (non-official, apologist) accounts. And yet again, the "energetic nanocomposite" theory explains this phenomenon fairly well.

The WPI steel, too, has only some vague, untested theory to account for it within the official boundaries of explanation, yet it fits nicely into an explantion using energetic nanocomposites.

And the more evidence for high-temp reactions is found, the grab-bag of apologist theories simply adds another tortuous, unlikely explanation to account for it. This stands in stark contrast to good theory creation. A "good" theory should be able to account for the most evidence of any of the theories and discount the least amount of evidence as "unreal" or "insignificant".

The history of science is rife with examples of incorrect theories being modified and modified to fit the latest observations, until they run their epicycles into a pit of dispair. The geocentric/heliocentric model is a paradigm example of this. Creationism vs. evolution runs a similar pattern.

A disconcerting difference here is that very few if any of these apologist attempts to account for high-temp phenomena have been tested, yet they are held closely and protected as if first born sons. Whereas the "energetic nanocomposite" theory has a candidate substance which has had numerous tests run on it which all corroborate the idea that this stuff is a likely candidate for causing serious structural damage to the buildings AND it accounts for ALL the other high-temp phenomena! That is, it can account for sets of data--or as Stephen Pepper said, it has "danda corroboration."

So then why are untested, shot-from-the-hip theories which have little relationship to each other taken more seriously than a tested, corroborated theory which accounts for all the phenomena witnessed and discovered?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It was show there are a variety of possible sources of iron microsphere. RJ Lee did not find them suspicious. Nobody other than truthers seems to have a problem with them. They are not some kind of fingerprint of thermite alone. Hence the title is still valid.
 

Jay Howard

Member
It was show there are a variety of possible sources of iron microsphere. RJ Lee did not find them suspicious. Nobody other than truthers seems to have a problem with them. They are not some kind of fingerprint of thermite alone. Hence the title is still valid.


You're missing the point: The "energetic nanocomposite" theory is leaps and bounds ahead of any other explanation. If there were only the Fe ms to explain, then sure, there would be more equality between the competing theories, but there are several bodies of evidence that official (or non-official-apologist) attempts at explanation fail basic corroborative tests or are not even out of the hypothesis stage.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You're missing the point: The "energetic nanocomposite" theory is leaps and bounds ahead of any other explanation. If there were only the Fe ms to explain, then sure, there would be more equality between the competing theories, but there are several bodies of evidence that official (or non-official-apologist) attempts at explanation fail basic corroborative tests or are not even out of the hypothesis stage.

No, I understand your point. I just disagree with it. It seems most plausible to me that the red chips are simply some environmental substance such as paint that have been misidentified by Harrit.

The primary reasons I have for that are the amount of the substance that is "unreacted", the fact that it looks like paint chips, and the fact that it's in a thin layer that could not possibly have contained enough energy to chew through several inches of steel - no matter how fast it reacted. Combine that with the lack of any actual melted-through steel (beams, girders, splices, bolts, anything), and the fact that the collapse initiation was in the middle of an enormous multi-story raging fire (of something that supposedly ignites at 430C), and that fact that it survived the plane impact (which would have been at a fairly random point), and the fact that progressive collapse does NOT actually need all the resistance removed.

Then the "official" story seems by far the most plausible.
 

Jay Howard

Member
No, I understand your point. I just disagree with it. It seems most plausible to me that the red chips are simply some environmental substance such as paint that have been misidentified by Harrit.

Despite the fact that:

1. No match for this substance has been found from any paint manufacturer
2. This stuff ignites at 430C
3. Ignition produces Iron Microspheres
4. It does not dissolve in MEK for 55 hours
5. It has relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles in it
6. There is clear evidence for elemental Al in it

Again, if there were just one or maybe 2 of these facts in play, it is conceivable that the material had not been ruled out as paint or some other industrial coating. But the totality of these facts (and others I'm not bothering to detail) give us good reason to believe it isn't paint.

If this stuff is paint, why can't anyone find a match for it? Is it possible there was some obscure paint that was used? It's possible. But how likely is it that some obscure paint was used that also has expensive nano-particular Fe2O3 AND ignites at 430C AND produces iron microspheres as a by-product?

Less than likely. Far, FAR less than likely. So unlikely it starts to seem ridiculous as a theory. So ridiculous that it is becoming a mark of dogmatism to believe it. Dogmatism is when one's belief exceeds the rational grounds for that belief. Clearly "paint" theorists have crossed that line.

Mick West said:
The primary reasons I have for that are the amount of the substance that is "unreacted", the fact that it looks like paint chips, and the fact that it's in a thin layer that could not possibly have contained enough energy to chew through several inches of steel - no matter how fast it reacted.

Harrit et. al. were burning tiny, mm-sized pieces. It shouldn't take much to imagine vast quantities of this stuff causing serious damage. Perhaps this stuff was used as a temperature bridge for some other, as-yet undiscovered agent? I don't know. But what is clear is that we certainly have enough reason to look further, and anyone who denies that is not on the side of honest inquiry.

Mick West said:
Combine that with the lack of any actual melted-through steel (beams, girders, splices, bolts, anything)...

How does this not count?


Mick West said:
...and the fact that the collapse initiation was in the middle of an enormous multi-story raging fire (of something that supposedly ignites at 430C), and that fact that it survived the plane impact (which would have been at a fairly random point), and the fact that progressive collapse does NOT actually need all the resistance removed.

Then the "official" story seems by far the most plausible.

So let's recap to be sure it's clear what your definition of "most plausible" is.

1. Molten metal: all aluminum
2. Iron microspheres: friction events, low-temp events
3. Vaporized lead (not sure if you're with Jazzy on this one): Batteries + crashes + fires
4. WPI steel: doesn't exist

All of these interpretations are together, in your view, the most plausible explanation?

It seems the one difficult hurdle to plausibility for the vast majority of backers of the Official Conspiracy Theory is that to accept the best explanation (in terms of explaining the evidence with a single, unifying theory and discounting nothing as "unreal") is that it requires a psychological leap into some scary territory: we must accept that our own government is populated by some sociopathic mfs. Not a comforting thought. But if uncomfortable thoughts keep one from forming good theories, perhaps one needs a new hobby.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A couple of pieces of thin steel reduced in thinness by some kind of chemical reaction is entirely different from thermite bringing down massive columns. And you don't answer any of my other objections.

All you've done is found a thin substance that burns, that resembles paint chips, but one group of people claim that it's not point chips because of some tests they have done.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So you'd rather have no theory at all than entertain a theory that can account for it because of the unappealing implications?

Erm, no. I have a theory. The one that can account for the most facts while introducing the fewest new entities.
 

Jay Howard

Member
Erm, no. I have a theory. The one that can account for the most facts while introducing the fewest new entities.

What does your theory say caused this?
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. 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.
 

Jay Howard

Member
I don't know what caused it.

But you're sure this wasn't caused by this suspicious substance or some other kind of incendiary or explosive. Why take such an unjustified negative position to a fairly rigorous, (if psychologically difficult) explanation?

You need an answer to the question of what caused that damage. A good answer exists. You refuse to even entertain that explanation because...why?

So again, it appears you'd rather have no explanation than a good one that carries difficult implications. The facts don't care what the implications are.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not "sure" of anything. I'm going with the explanation that best seems to fit all available facts. That the explanation contains some unknowns is only to be expected in such a complex event.

I have no problem with "difficult implications" if they seemed to fit the evidence better.
 

Jay Howard

Member
I'm not "sure" of anything. I'm going with the explanation that best seems to fit all available facts.

It seems like you are very resistant to the explanation that best fits all the available facts. Why is it you are doubting the "energetic nanocomposite" theory? It's definitely not paint. It ignites at 430C and produces iron microspheres. It would account for vaporized lead, steel with holes in it, molten metal, among other bodies of evidence. Yet you would rather say you don't have a good explanation than agree that this energetic compound may be a primary or secondary cause to all these high-temp phenomena. Why exactly?

Mick West said:
That the explanation contains some unknowns is only to be expected in such a complex event.

So you're sticking with the theory that cannot explain certain phenomena over a theory that can explain those phenomena. That's very similar to being dogmatic. The evidence is clearly in favor of the red-gray chips being a type of high-tech explosive/incendiary.

Mick West said:
I have no problem with "difficult implications" if they seemed to fit the evidence better.

If this were true, you wouldn't be saying:
Mick West said:
I don't know what caused it.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
So you're sticking with the theory that cannot explain certain phenomena over a theory that can explain those phenomena. That's very similar to being dogmatic. The evidence is clearly in favor of the red-gray chips being a type of high-tech explosive/incendiary.

no it isn't. there is exactly NO verifiable evidence of that at all - the assertion is based solely on people such as you saying it is true.

I prefer an explanation that has actual physical and verifiable evidence for it - even if it leaves some gaps - over an explanation that supposedly completely explains "everything" (which AFAIK is not true) and for which there is no credible evidence.

If I was to go for the later I would go for an explanation that involved invisible aliens, space ships, temporal displacements, teleportation and tractor beams - because I could construct one with that that left no gaps at all for anyone to argue against and so it would be "better" than yours.

And a lot more interesting.
 

Jay Howard

Member
no it isn't. there is exactly NO verifiable evidence of that at all - the assertion is based solely on people such as you saying it is true.

Why doesn't XEDS data, SE and BSE microscopy images and DSC data count as verifiable evidence?

MikeC said:
I prefer an explanation that has actual physical and verifiable evidence for it - even if it leaves some gaps - over an explanation that supposedly completely explains "everything" (which AFAIK is not true) and for which there is no credible evidence.

Not trying to be offensive, but this isn't about what you prefer. It's about objective standards for theory adequacy. Explaining "everything" is not a requirement of any theory. How does the official account deal with the WPI steel? You want physical, verifiable evidence? Me too. That's exactly what the "energetic nanocomposite" theory has which the Official Conspiracy Theory does NOT. Yet you want to pretend the OCT is a better explanation?


edit: grammar
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Why doesn't XEDS data, SE and BSE microscopy images and DSC data not count as verifiable evidence?

it is certainly verifiable evidence - just not of thermite.

Not trying to be offensive, but this isn't about what you prefer. It's about objective standards for theory adequacy. Explaining "everything" is not a requirement of any theory.

so why did you make it one of your arguments?

How does the official account deal with the WPI steel? You want physical, verifiable evidence? Me too.

and yet in the immediately previous sentence you have said: "Explaining "everything" is not a requirement of any theory."

I think you are confused about your own position.

That's exactly what the "energetic nanocomposite" theory has which the Official Conspiracy Theory does NOT.

Make up your mind - either such things are important, or they are not.

Yet you want to pretend the OCT is a better explanation?

No I do not pretend at all.

I am confident it is a better theory, because there is no actual evidence supporting the ""energetic nanocomposite theory" beyond you and others saying it must be true.

I am also confident that you have no comprehension why you are talking nonsense.
 

Jay Howard

Member
No I do not pretend at all.

I am confident it is a better theory, because there is no actual evidence supporting the ""energetic nanocomposite theory" beyond you and others saying it must be true.

I've backed up my claims from the beginning. There is not one single argument in your post, which is ironic because you accuse me of making bare assertions with your own bare assertions.

Make an argument. Challenge something with facts, please.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
No match for this substance has been found from any paint manufacturer
Someone attempted to match it with samples scraped-off hardened different paints? Or did they just study the proportions listed on the can?

This stuff ignites at 430C
So would any red oxide primer ignited with a reducing agent - the binder it is in.

Ignition produces Iron Microspheres
Atomic iron will gather into spheroids at elevated temperatures in a reducing environment.

It does not dissolve in MEK for 55 hours
So?

It has relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles in it
Like primer paint.

There is clear evidence for elemental Al in it
There was evidence of kaolin. Maybe some sand.

others I'm not bothering to detail
You had better.

give us good reason to believe it isn't paint
You missed out the "no".

how likely is it that some obscure paint was used that also has expensive nano-particular Fe2O3 AND ignites at 430C AND produces iron microspheres as a by-product?
Very likely, if you are talking red oxide primer paint.

Take ANY red oxide primer paint, ignite it in reducing conditions, and hold it at an elevated temperature for time enough for thermal vibration and surface tension forces to do their work, and you will achieve the same result.

How does this not count?
As an example of accelerated rusting?

I don't believe the towers fell because they rusted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Howard

Member
Someone attempted to match it with samples scraped-off hardened different paints? Or did they just study the proportions listed on the can?

Do you have an argument of why it would matter? The fact is, no paint has been matched. Period.

Jazzy said:
As an example of accelerated rusting?

I don't believe the towers fell because they rusted.

That sounds an awful lot like you're trying to say the WPI steel is not significant and doesn't represent anything noteworthy. That's exactly what I've been claiming all along: the weaker theory must pretend the evidence of high-temperature reactions are no big deal, or they don't exist. Thanks for driving the point home.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I've backed up my claims from the beginning.

entirely to your own satisfaction I am sure.

To me they are specious, they fall apart under close examination, and are almost always outright wrong. The sole basis I can see for the conclusions you make is wishful thinking - in the face of actual verifiable and objective evidence.

There is not one single argument in your post, which is ironic because you accuse me of making bare assertions with your own bare assertions.

my post did not make claims because they have already been made in this thread and many others. And I am not surprised that you are happy to note that from yourself but do not recognize that others can do so too.

Make an argument. Challenge something with facts, please.

there are multiple facts in this and other threads that you do not accept - as I said - you have no idea why you are talking nonsense despite Mick's ongoing and way-over-the-top-patient-beyond-what-is-reasonable responses to you.

After I while I get sick of the endless denial, obfuscation, self congratulation and ignorance - welcome to my ignore list
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It seems like you are very resistant to the explanation that best fits all the available facts. Why is it you are doubting the "energetic nanocomposite" theory? It's definitely not paint. It ignites at 430C and produces iron microspheres. It would account for vaporized lead, steel with holes in it, molten metal, among other bodies of evidence. Yet you would rather say you don't have a good explanation than agree that this energetic compound may be a primary or secondary cause to all these high-temp phenomena. Why exactly?
:

Because I've seen no independent confirmation of these tests and/or conclusions. And it does not fit the larger picture of collapse that started on floors that were at a temperature much hotter than the ignition temperature of the chips.

Plus paint explains the very large quantity of the red/grey chips. Leftover nano-themite does not.

You have to look at ALL the facts. And see what explanation best explains the MOST of them without leaving inexplicable facts.

Misidentified paint chips wins out over leftover nano-thermite paint chips by a significant distance.
 

Jay Howard

Member
Because I've seen no independent confirmation of these tests and/or conclusions. And it does not fit the larger picture of collapse that started on floors that were at a temperature much hotter than the ignition temperature of the chips.

Be careful not to squeeze one theory "energetic nanocomposites" (ENC), into another, the "Heat-Induced Collapse Theory" (HICT). If the ENC is right, the collapses were not the result solely or even primarily of heat-warped steel, they were the result of some other processes, likely involving melting, cutting or blasting steel. For the purpose of this argument, we have to both agree that this question has not been adequately answered. Right? If this issue were settled, we wouldn't be disagreeing in the first place. As it stands, you take issue with accelerants/incendiaries/explosives (besides jet fuel/office products) and I take issue with the ability of the official theory to account for all the damage that was done. So until we both agree about that primary issue, you can't assume premises that I outright reject and vice versa.

Two things about temperatures "much hotter than the ignition temperature of the chips":
1. Hotter temps do not mitigate against the existence, purpose nor effects these chips may or may not have had.
and
2. The NIST reports are clear that temps could not have gotten much hotter than about 1000-1100C for more than 15-20 min in any one location before the "official" fuel sources burned out. This is not to be confused (as it so often is) with temps that pieces of steel could have reached in those circumstances. Whatever the gas temps, it is thermodynamically impossible for the steel to have gotten any hotter from those gases.

As for independent confirmation, I do not begrudge anyone wishing to independently confirm some data, but what exactly are you contesting? Is it the methods, the data itself or the interpretation of the data? It's a fair request, but it should not be used as a stalling technique. I think the data speaks for itself, because, although I am not an expert in SEM or XEDS graphing, I'm familiar enough to make sense of the data. But to be honest, (and what are we really doing if we aren't being honest?), I have to take their word for it about calibration and instrument settings.

Outside of that, though, their data reveal this substance to be unlike a wide variety of paint, primer and industrial coatings. The data confirm the existence of relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles and also elemental Al in the substrate. The chips ignite at about 430C and produce iron microspheres. There is no match for a paint/primer/industrial coating. All of this is consistent with this material being a highly engineered ENC.

Mick West said:
Plus paint explains the very large quantity of the red/grey chips. Leftover nano-themite does not.

I don't see a clear argument here. Why do leftover pieces of it in the dust mitigate at all against it being an ENC? Why couldn't that substance break off and not ignite properly? Why are you expecting a 100% burn rate from an exotic substance we cannot even agree on the nature of? Whatever the properties of this substance, finding it in the dust is not an argument against it being some unignited explosive residue.

Mick West said:
You have to look at ALL the facts. And see what explanation best explains the MOST of them without leaving inexplicable facts.

Agreed. So what caused this?:



Mick West said:
Misidentified paint chips wins out over leftover nano-thermite paint chips by a significant distance.

Really? How does the MPC theory deal with vaporized lead? How does it explain the WPI steel pictured above? How does it deal with the fact that the chips were not found to be a match for any of the most commonly used paints and primers in the WTC Towers? Or the fact that the chips produce iron microspheres when burned? Show me a paint that does that. Don't you want confirmation of that basic, testable bit of data?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Really? How does the MPC theory deal with vaporized lead? How does it explain the WPI steel pictured above? How does it deal with the fact that the chips were not found to be a match for any of the most commonly used paints and primers in the WTC Towers? Or the fact that the chips produce iron microspheres when burned? Show me a paint that does that. Don't you want confirmation of that basic, testable bit of data?

I thought you were trying not to squeeze one theory into another? Why does the paint chip theory need to explain that steel?
 

Jay Howard

Member
I thought you were trying not to squeeze one theory into another? Why does the paint chip theory need to explain that steel?

I'm not. You claimed the "Misidentified Paint-Chip" theory (what I'm referring to as the MPC theory) could better account for the data than the ENC theory. We both agree the WPI steel exists, right? We both agree vaporized lead exists as evidence too. We both agree that theories that account for more phenomena and ignore less are better than ones that must ignore or dismiss evidence, right? So in terms of explanatory power, the ENC theory is far and above better than the MPC theory.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not. You claimed the "Misidentified Paint-Chip" theory (what I'm referring to as the MPC theory) could better account for the data than the ENC theory. We both agree the WPI steel exists, right? We both agree vaporized lead exists as evidence too. We both agree that theories that account for more phenomena and ignore less are better than ones that must ignore or dismiss evidence, right? So in terms of explanatory power, the ENC theory is far and above better than the MPC theory.

I don't think your use of acronyms is very helpful here.

Your explanation seems to raise far more questions than it answers. Rather anti-Occam.
 
Top