View Single Post
Old 10th December 2015, 07:13 PM   #1580
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Now, that was not that difficult was it? The data shows that upon ignition the red material goes through a reaction that reduces the iron-oxide, as is expected with a thermite reaction. The reaction that melted the iron-oxide, was in other words not a conventional oxidation reaction, aka normal carbon fueled burning/oxidation.

Thatīs because the expected audience for chemistry journals is assumed to understand the basics, as the word "conventional" in the phrase "conventional quantitative analysis" indicates.

The spectra in figures with elements besides iron show large oxygen peaks because only the iron is reduced while the aluminum, and carbon and silicon additives are oxidized when the reaction occurs in air.

You have been criticized for posting experiments where you gave the false impression that spheres were formed even though none were formed, and for not understanding the topic at hand. When you burned/oxidized your steel wool you did not understand that you were demonstrating an oxidation reaction that began with pure metal and ended up with an oxide, which is the exact opposite to the reaction shown by Harrit et al., and you did not understand that you only blew up parts of the steel wire like a balloon and formed objects that look similar to previously melted spheres but are not the real thing.

If you repeat your steel wool and barrel burn experiments and cheat the 700C temperature limit of Harritīs DSC and the 1000C limit of an open air fire with a torch(oxy-acetylene perhaps) that is hot enough to actually achieve the melting-point temperatures of the iron-based materials in the wire, the beams, the paint etc, you could melt those materials and perhaps even form spheres. You could do the same thing with a DSC set to maybe 1800C or some sort of a blast furnace as used by power-plants.

This way you could end up forming spheres but since you would be burning/oxidizing the metal you would end up with an oxide as is the case with the fly-ash spheres from power plants. This is the opposite process to reduction. This is not about comparing the oxygen levels of spheres formed via different processes; This is about noting the type of reaction which means oxidation vs reduction.

To challenge Harrit you would have to melt and reduce 100nm iron-oxide in a DSC or oven or some other sort of a controlled air environment limited to 700C. Find a scientist willing to put his name along with yours and publish in a scientific journal. Donīt expect Dr. Harrit to respond to YouTube videos.
You have pointed out some problems with the steel wool demo (not spherical, and probably iron oxide) which are probably relevant. That's why I have moved on - and revisited the topic with a very different experiment, namely burning painted beams to create iron spheroids. Your complaint on that experiment is that I can't be sure the nice irony spheroids I found were actually created by paint and fire, and that it might have been "contamination." Oh, and "iron oxides". You have yet to deal with the obvious problem this concession on your part creates for 9/11 Truth: the Twin Towers were not a sterile lab environment, either, and truther reports of "iron spheroids can only be formed by Thermite" fall apart when one considers the many ways that these spheroids can be formed (grinding, cutting, burning, etc.).

In my new experiment, I am thinking about testing the Harrit/Jones claim that these spheres indicate temps of over 1400o C. (Harrit refers to Jones paper repeatedly, it's his reference [5]).
Jones SE, Farrer J, Jenkins GS, et al. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction. J 9/11 Studies 2008; 19: 1-11. [Accessed
February 7, 2009]. Available from:

So, I'll be looking at ways to create such microspheres, at temperatures less than 1400oC. 700oC is probably adequate for my purposes.

I'll also be looking at iron versus iron oxide content; however, simply finding some iron oxide is not proof that "no reduction has occurred," because iron rusts, even without liquid water. So these spheroids may indeed be "reduced" to elemental iron, followed by surface oxidation to create a patina of rust (iron oxide).

If I can get a materials scientist to help out/co-publish, that would be splendid. But don't knock YouTube, my burn barrel video has over 2000 views, while the Harrit/Bentham paper has a mere 48 Google Scholar citations, and most of those are from political or psychological journals.

In fact, I could only find one paper referring to Harrit/Bentham from an actual materials scientist. Some guy named Millette.

DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top