• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chris Mohr's YouTube Part 23 Epilogue: WTC Dust Update; Saying Goodbye to 9/11 Truth

DaveThomasNMSR said:
...
No need to wait for results, Ziggi. ...
Click to expand...

Speaking of "waiting for results", I have a few questions for Ziggi "real Truthers don't give honest and straight answers" Zugam:
  1. In Dr. Farrer's TEM results, was there any indication whatsoever of elemental Al? Yes or No, Ziggi?
  2. In the interview with "Freefall Radio" on October 24, 2013, a certain Ziggi Zugam claimed that Mark Basile had already at the time oh so many resuls, he might end up writing several papers. Where are those results, more than 2 years later, Ziggi?
  3. Oh, and while we are at it: Who the heck appointed you as spokesperson and gatekeeper for Mark Basile, Ziggi, tasked with not allowing any questions about the $5000 donors gave in the belief Mark would send samples to independent labs without undue delay?
  4. Where are Kevin Ryan's FTIR results, Ziggi? Harrit et al wrote in their 2009 paper thar they would soon publish these results.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
...Harrit et. al. have claimed they found Fe:O ratios of up to 4:1, but only for the spheroid appearing in Fig. 21. If this claim can be validated, that would indicate reduction of iron...
Click to expand...

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.

DaveThomasNMSR said:
But, they have NOT provided any details as to their "conventional quantitative analysis" which they claim provided the 4:1 Fe:O ratio measurement....
Click to expand...

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

DaveThomasNMSR said:
Nor have they performed similar "conventional quantitative analyses" for many other samples exhibiting obvious dominance of oxygen over iron in the XEDS, such as Fig. 24 (commercial thermiteTM, oxygen peak towers over iron peak), Fig. 26 (another DSC spheroid, oxygen peak towers over iron peak), and Fig. 27 (WTC dust spheroid, oxygen peak towers over iron peak). ....
Click to expand...

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.

DaveThomasNMSR said:
Meanwhile, truthers have criticized my experiments showing production of iron-rich spheroids via means besides ThermiteTM, mainly on the basis of these spheroids having oxygen peaks in XEDS, and thus possible iron oxide content (as can also be argued for spheroids in Harrit's Fig. 24 (commercial thermiteTM), Fig. 26 (another DSC spheroid), and Fig. 27 (WTC dust spheroid).....
Click to expand...

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.

DaveThomasNMSR said:
....No dirty burn barrels, no uncontrolled environments. I expect to get microspheres from all of these methods. In addition to XEDS examinations of spheroid composition, I am also looking at "conventional quantitative analysis routines" to answer the question:

Which of these iron-rich spheroids are composed of elemental iron? Which have significant amount of iron oxides?

Now that school is out for the semester, I'm starting to get serious.

No need to wait for results, Ziggi. Why don't you just debunk my experiment now, before it even happens?
Click to expand...

If you repeat your steel wool and barrel burn experiments and cheat the 700C temperature limit of Harrit´s 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. Don´t expect Dr. Harrit to respond to YouTube videos.
 
Ziggi said:
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.
Click to expand...

What data?

Ziggi said:
That´s because the expected audience for chemistry journals is assumed to understand the basics, as the word "conventional" in the phrase "conventional quantitative analysis" indicates.
Click to expand...
Now I understand, they figure everyone will assume they know what they're talking about because the intended audience does.

Good plan, and their actual intended audience (you) promotes it. :rolleyes:

BTW: Who elected you gate keeper/spokesperson for the Basile study?
 
Ziggi said:
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.



That´s 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 Harrit´s 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. Don´t expect Dr. Harrit to respond to YouTube videos.
Click to expand...

Wrong, steel will oxidize with the H2O produced in the burn of hydrocarbons, or carbohydrates, when the steel with high, surface area burns oxidizes it creates both Fe and Fe 3O4 microspheres.

Steel is the fuel that can melt steel as it oxidizes at 2000C in air, provided it has high surface
Area! This is a well known fact of steel chemistry in waste incinerators, and why Jones lost
the first microspheres. Debate!
Those waste incinerators are not forced air oxidated!
 
Ziggi said:
That´s because the expected audience for chemistry journals is assumed to understand the basics, as the word "conventional" in the phrase "conventional quantitative analysis" indicates.
Click to expand...
What does the adjective "conventional" actually mean, very specifically, in this context?
I.o.w.: In what specific way would the "quantitative analysis" have been different if it had not been "conventional"? Or what alternatives are there to a "conventional quantitative analysis" from XEDS data?
A failure to answer this will be interpreted as you totally speaking out of your arse as you very obviously then do not understand that part of the paper.

A few more questions for you, none of them new:
  1. In Dr. Farrer's TEM results, was there any indication whatsoever of elemental Al? Yes or No, Ziggi?
  2. In the interview with "Freefall Radio" on October 24, 2013, a certain Ziggi Zugam claimed that Mark Basile had already at the time oh so many resuls, he might end up writing several papers. Where are those results, more than 2 years later, Ziggi?
  3. Oh, and while we are at it: Who the heck appointed you as spokesperson and gatekeeper for Mark Basile, Ziggi, tasked with not allowing any questions about the $5000 donors gave in the belief Mark would send samples to independent labs without undue delay?
  4. Where are Kevin Ryan's FTIR results, Ziggi? Harrit et al wrote in their 2009 paper thar they would soon publish these results.
 
Has anyone ever seen any of ziggi's experiments ?

Or are we just waiting for the $5000 Basile experiment?

Surely we must be able to see some of ziggi's work somewhere, what with him being such an expert :cool:
 
Spanx said:
Has anyone ever seen any of ziggi's experiments?
Click to expand...
Ziggi experiments? Which?

Oh wait:
http://nanothermite911.blogspot.de/2014/02/911-free-fall-2614-guest-host-john.html
JM Talboo said:
One thing that you're [Ziggi] gonna be doing is, Mark has sent me one of these samples of World Trade Center primer paint, and in the original "Active thermitic material" paper, Steven Jones has a video where he shows, the take one of these paint chips and take an oxy-acetylene torch to it, and touch it to the chip and get it close, and it flashes again upon ignition, a really brilliant flash. They say when they did this with ... just the World Trade Center primer paint, that it just reduced to fragile ashes, but the thing is, we don't have a video to show that. So that's what we're hoping you [Ziggi] can get for us. I'm gonna send you [Ziggi] this chip, and hopefully you [Ziggi] can show that it does just reduce to fragile ashes, and then I'm gonna send along some other just random paint samples, too, to see what happens
Click to expand...
Ziggi, did you ever do any such tests? Where are the results?
 
What a fantastic experiment, using an oxy-acetylene torch on paint chips :D

I wonder what could possibly happen ?
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
I am not your "pal." Please do not refer to me as your "pal", "buddy", or etc.



Harrit et. al. have claimed they found Fe:O ratios of up to 4:1, but only for the spheroid appearing in Fig. 21. If this claim can be validated, that would indicate reduction of iron.

But, they have NOT provided any details as to their "conventional quantitative analysis" which they claim provided the 4:1 Fe:O ratio measurement. Nor have they performed similar "conventional quantitative analyses" for many other samples exhibiting obvious dominance of oxygen over iron in the XEDS, such as Fig. 24 (commercial thermiteTM, oxygen peak towers over iron peak), Fig. 26 (another DSC spheroid, oxygen peak towers over iron peak), and Fig. 27 (WTC dust spheroid, oxygen peak towers over iron peak).

You have ignored these key points before.



Yes, I understand Harrit et. al's claim, as I have explained oh-so-many-times.



If you'll stop with the lecturing and pretending to be smart, I will re-iterate this for you once again.

Harrit's experiment is in shambles. It has not convinced the scientific community that nanothermites were used to demolish the Twin Towers. It was marred by missed measurements and confused "analyses." Harrit's experiment was such a flop, truthers have raised $5000 to revisit the analyses with new experiments and data, but I think that effort itself has degenerated into partisan squabbles: it has failed. Not surprising, considering the ringleaders for that circus.

Meanwhile, truthers have criticized my experiments showing production of iron-rich spheroids via means besides ThermiteTM, mainly on the basis of these spheroids having oxygen peaks in XEDS, and thus possible iron oxide content (as can also be argued for spheroids in Harrit's Fig. 24 (commercial thermiteTM), Fig. 26 (another DSC spheroid), and Fig. 27 (WTC dust spheroid).

So, I am planning on carrying out a new, improved experiment. I plan to investigate a number of methods for producing iron-rich microspheroids, to include cutting steel, grinding steel, using flint, oxidation/reduction reactions, heating paint chips from steel beams until they "explode", commercial ThermiteTM, as well as using aluminum-foil coated cannonballs to produce thermitic spheroids (with the activation energy required for the thermitic reaction supplied by the kinetic energy of the colliding cannonballs).

No dirty burn barrels, no uncontrolled environments. I expect to get microspheres from all of these methods. In addition to XEDS examinations of spheroid composition, I am also looking at "conventional quantitative analysis routines" to answer the question:

Which of these iron-rich spheroids are composed of elemental iron? Which have significant amount of iron oxides?

Now that school is out for the semester, I'm starting to get serious.

No need to wait for results, Ziggi. Why don't you just debunk my experiment now, before it even happens?
Click to expand...

Your making a mistake Dave I will send you the drawing on the reaction chamber and how to
Build it, then just place red paint chips inside, with any plastic hydrocarbon and pitch it in a wood fire, and you will see significant reduction by products if you want ignite the chips
In a DSC, and see what happens.
I have not designed it to be absolutely air tight, since that is not nessisary, to form a reducing atmosphere.
I would have already sent the drawing, but have had some personal problems lately.
Once you duplicate what I have done I hope Ziggi likes eating crow.

PS. Ziggi if Jones couldn't win a debate against me over microspheres, what makes you think
You can?
 
Spanx said:
What a fantastic experiment, using an oxy-acetylene torch on paint chips :D

I wonder what could possibly happen ?
Click to expand...

I'm no chemist but I'll take a stab at it and say, reduce to ash? I say this because I suspect that there are a lot of common materials that reduce to ash when subjected to temps in the vicinity of 1000 degree C in normal atmospheric conditions.
 
jaydeehess said:
I'm no chemist but I'll take a stab at it and say, reduce to ash? I say this because I suspect that there are a lot of common materials that reduce to ash when subjected to temps in the vicinity of 1000 degree C in normal atmospheric conditions.
Click to expand...

A welder produces a spark that can reach 450,000C, I have welded paint and it burns to ash.

Now burn paper inside a red painted filing cabinet, and check for microspheres, you will find thousands.

The smoldering paper creates the perfect reduction environment for Iron oxide reduction.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
....burn paper inside a red painted filing cabinet, and check for microspheres, you will find thousands.

The smoldering paper creates the perfect reduction environment for Iron oxide reduction.
Click to expand...
You mean conditions like this might have been true!!!
jaydeehess said:
All the lab work and chemical equations aside, the fires at the WTC complex during the month of September 2001 contained a myriad of materials and a spectrum of oxygen availability and temperatures. Reduced iron microspheres could have been produced without thermite.
So yes, yes, yes, Harrit should have done comparisons if he was going to claim they MUST indicate thermite.
Click to expand...

Nah, all those file cabinets disappeared when the space-a-beams dustified them. (or,,,, horrors,,, the space-a-beam steel dustifier itself produces elemental iron microspheres.......)
 
jaydeehess said:
I'm no chemist but I'll take a stab at it and say, reduce to ash? I say this because I suspect that there are a lot of common materials that reduce to ash when subjected to temps in the vicinity of 1000 degree C in normal atmospheric conditions.
Click to expand...

Hmm and what if that paint adhered to, say, a gray layer of steel mill?
 
Oystein said:
Hmm and what if that paint adhered to, say, a gray layer of steel mill?
Click to expand...

It would not match the chips in the Harrit study though because of the high Zinc content,
A building like the world trade would have multiple paint primers involved, as different metal surfaces need different treatments, such as a red painted Aluminum car body in the parking
Garage.
 
Oystein said:
Hmm and what if that paint adhered to, say, a gray layer of steel mill?
Click to expand...

If that were the case, to the trained eye it could only be a super special nanothermite. Thankfully the chip would have been ignited during the experiment and all evidence of the said chip would be gone and a fundraiser would be setup.

This is where Jim Millette went wrong, he still has the chips due to not heating above 430c. Any confident lab knows that you need to dispose of all evidence to make a claim, as it's the only way to establish if you have found thermite ;)
 
Oystein said:
Ziggi experiments? Which?

Oh wait:
http://nanothermite911.blogspot.de/2014/02/911-free-fall-2614-guest-host-john.html

Ziggi, did you ever do any such tests? Where are the results?
Click to expand...


That's some high quality truthering right there!



BTW- I thought we were getting an update on the Basile study in October. What happened Ziggi?
I'm sure the people who donated want to know what you're doing with their money. A two year period to complete a simple study is laughable.

You do know Christmas is coming don't you?
 
Africanus said:
One point is even more important: What kind of ratio was determined? Mass ratio? Atomic ratio? This point was not referenced in the whole paper.
Click to expand...

Valid question, although I think it is fair to assume they likely talk about atomic ratio. See for example page 19, which makes a lot more sense if the ratio there is atom numbers:
Harrit et al said:
after accounting for oxygen fractions to trace elements,
it is found that the Fe:O ratio for the spectrum in Fig.
(18) is approximately 2:3. This indicates that the iron is oxidized
and apparently in oxidation state III, indicating that Fe2O3, or
perhaps an iron (III) oxo-bridged polymer, is present.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggi said:
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.



That´s 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 Harrit´s 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. Don´t expect Dr. Harrit to respond to YouTube videos.
Click to expand...

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: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf


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.

:rolleyes:
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
...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.).
Click to expand...

The only reaction that forms iron spheres is the oxidation-reduction thermite reaction. That you imagine that you will prove otherwise in future experiments does not mean you can prove otherwise today.

The WTC Towers were indeed not sterile, the remnants of an energetic red material were found in the dust in the form of miniscule red/gray chips, and we already know this red material is one major source for the iron rich spheres found in the WTC dust, if not the only one. Your obvious problem is that the data by Harrit et al show that this material forms melted iron spheres via an oxidation-reduction reaction that uses aluminum to reduce iron-oxide, otherwise known as a thermite reaction. We therefore already know that a principal source for those WTC iron spheres was a thermitic material.

DaveThomasNMSR said:
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.
Click to expand...

YouTube won´t do if you want Dr. Harrit to notice your work, and that is true for most if not all serious scientists. It is quite silly of you to equate GS citations and YouTube views, and even more silly to think that 2000 hits makes your 2plus year old video noteworthy. As an example I looked up the most unworthy topic I could think of, a dog taking a """", a found a 3 years old video of just that, with more than 150 thousand views. Neither this video nor yours is found cited in any papers though.

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

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Millette was also researching the iron sphere issue and he also had big plans to publish..but then he went silent and was never heard from again:

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I just talked with Jim Millette. In the next couple weeks he plans to write up a short followup on the progress of his research, with some of his thin section work expanded upon and the process of elimination he is going through as he tries to identify the specific source of the red-gray chips.

Then, in the end of April, he will give another progress report, this time on his research into the iron-rich microspheres.
He also said that this project is so big, it may end up being several peer-reviewed papers, not just one. And no, there is no set date for publication. A big project will take time.
Click to expand...
 
Why was WTC steel not damaged on 911 by thermite? Because thermite is a lie.

Ziggi said:
... the remnants of an energetic red material were found in the dust in the form of miniscule red/gray chips, ...
Click to expand...

Iron rich sphere have occurred in fires since the beginning of time due to burning stuff with iron in it. To deny this is anti-intellectual freedom to be gullible and fall for the lies of Jones and Harrit, too old 911 truth nuts, past harvest, rotting in paranoid conspiracy fungusitis.


The silly part is your chips burn with less energy than the tons of paper found in with the dust.

Dust studies were already done by real scientists equipped to identify what the dust was; the unqualified Harrit and Jones made up their conclusion to fool people who can't think for themselves. Only 911 truth nuts have found thermite in the dust, and fail to explain why no steel was damaged on 911 by thermite; you can't, 911 truth can't, and you never will explain this simple question...

Why is no steel on 911 damaged by thermite?

Why can't you answer the simple question.

The iron sphere Harrit and Jones have in the paper are iron oxide... and your post is filled with BS. too many lies and made up BS... Like a fantasy
 
Ziggi said:
The only reaction that forms iron spheres is the oxidation-reduction thermite reaction.
Click to expand...
You have a citation from a reputable source in metallurgy or chemistry to back this bold statement up?

The WTC Towers were indeed not sterile, the remnants of an energetic red material were found in the dust in the form of miniscule red/gray chips, and we already know this red material is one major source for the iron rich spheres found in the WTC dust, if not the only one.
Click to expand...
Major? How is that determined?

Your obvious problem is that the data by Harrit et al show that this material forms melted iron spheres via an oxidation-reduction reaction that uses aluminum to reduce iron-oxide, otherwise known as a thermite reaction. We therefore already know that a principal source for those WTC iron spheres was a thermitic material.
Click to expand...
No, we might conclude that iron spheres are created by an aluminum reduction of iron oxide in the chips. Are all aluminum reduction of iron oxide reactions referred to as thermite reactions?

YouTube won´t do if you want Dr. Harrit to notice your work
Click to expand...
Whew, then Youtube can also be ignored by NIST. That takes a load off.

Millette was also researching the iron sphere issue and he also had big plans to publish..but then he went silent and was never heard from again:
Click to expand...
Well then that makes it all better doesn't it.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Thanks for putting that in writing!
Click to expand...

And your point is?? Dr. Harrit put that in writing 5 years ago in his response to Rancourt, but you did not understand it then and it seems you still have not understood it despite all the discussion here now. Do you have any sort of a real response to my last post or is this all you got?
 
Spanx said:
Does anyone have any idea what this is all about ;)

Are we talking thermite ?

http://survivaltopics.com/flint-and-steel-what-causes-the-sparks/
Click to expand...

You've got something there, Spanx!

Image158.gif
 
Ziggi said:
And your point is?? Dr. Harrit put that in writing 5 years ago in his response to Rancourt, but you did not understand it then and it seems you still have not understood it despite all the discussion here now. Do you have any sort of a real response to my last post or is this all you got?
Click to expand...

Hmm, why would I thank you for saying "The only reaction that forms iron spheres is the oxidation-reduction thermite reaction." ?

If you would stop your lecturing and trying to look smart, you might even figure it out!
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Hmm, why would I thank you for saying "The only reaction that forms iron spheres is the oxidation-reduction thermite reaction." ?

If you would stop your lecturing and trying to look smart, you might even figure it out!
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an (oxidation)(reduction) reaction that's ridiculous!

Thermite is Aluminum reducing Iron oxide.

Carbon is also a reducing agent, carbon is used to reduce Alumina to Aluminum.

The heat of a carbon flame can reduce Iron oxide, with high surface area.

An electrical spark can create microspheres.

The the red grey chips can create microspheres if the Kaolin and epoxy traps in the
Carbon creating a reducing atmosphere!
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
You've got something there, Spanx!

[qimg]http://www.northwestjournal.ca/Image158.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Well sparks of that sort are oxidizing iron, not reducing iron oxide. However, the spheres in the picture are paramagnetic, according to the article, so its not all Fe2O3.

Since a spark is the chipping off and burning of a small chunk of iron, its quite possible that the surface oxidizes while the interior, not coming into contact with air, stays purely iron. A larger, shall we call it, millisphere, could end up as a microsphere simply by evaporating the oxidized outer layer.

No? Yes?
 
jaydeehess said:
Well sparks of that sort are oxidizing iron, not reducing iron oxide. However, the spheres in the picture are paramagnetic, according to the article, so its not all Fe2O3.

Since a spark is the chipping off and burning of a small chunk of iron, its quite possible that the surface oxidizes while the interior, not coming into contact with air, stays purely iron. A larger, shall we call it, millisphere, could end up as a microsphere simply by evaporating the oxidized outer layer.

No? Yes?
Click to expand...

None of it is Fe2O3, it's FeO- Fe3O4.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
None of it is Fe2O3, it's FeO- Fe3O4.
Click to expand...

Ziggi seems to be saying that Harrit's spheres were reduced FExOy, resulting in hot elemental iron, presumably that developed an oxidized outer layer.(after all it does have an oxygen content)

Chipping bits o'iron with a flint (or with another chunk o'iron, or chunk o'concrete, etc) from a large chunk o'iron means one IS starting with elemental iron that 'burns'. Only the outer layer of the bit o'iron is in contact with oxygen so it stands to reason, to me and I haven't taken chemistry for 40 years, that some will end up with elemental iron cores and a outer oxide layer.

I could recall wrong but there was there not also an aluminum cladding on the exterior of the steel perimeter columns, and thus we have the equivalent of Dave's cannonballs+aluminum sheeting.(is Ziggi trying to imply that aluminum cladding bashed between steel columns IS thermite?)

Then there is the 'contaminated' burn barrel! Ok, so iron spheres get created in a mix of burning materials.

ARE ANY of these other iron microspheres distinguishable from those produced in an aluminum/ferrous oxide thermite reaction, if indeed iron microspheres are produced by such a reaction? Harrot says his spheres are special as product of the thermite burn, is there backing for the claim?
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Hmm, why would I thank you for saying "The only reaction that forms iron spheres is the oxidation-reduction thermite reaction." ?

If you would stop your lecturing and trying to look smart, you might even figure it out!
Click to expand...

Dave, are you too embarrassed to reveal the answer yourself? There is nothing for me to figure out - unless you come up with a better explanation it just looks like you posted that comment because you still have not understood the topic at hand:

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
And your point is?? Dr. Harrit put that in writing 5 years ago in his response to Rancourt, but you did not understand it then and it seems you still have not understood it despite all the discussion here now. Do you have any sort of a real response to my last post or is this all you got?
Click to expand...

Further proof that you have still not understood the discussion is your comment to Spanx:
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
You've got something there, Spanx!
Click to expand...

The article he referred to is of course about iron being burned/oxidized, not reduced:

the particle of iron spontaneously becomes so hot that it glows as it oxidizes
Click to expand...

But I have been struggling - unsuccessfully obviously - to make you understand the difference between that and the process shown by Harrit et al:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
The only reaction that forms iron spheres is the oxidation-reduction thermite reaction. ... we already know this red material is one major source for the iron rich spheres found in the WTC dust, if not the only one. ...
Click to expand...

I am not forgetting the many questions you are already dodging, but I have two more:

Did the iron rich spheres found in the WTC dust form from the red layer of the red/gray chips or from the gray layer?
Did they form by a thermite reaction with aluminium, and aluminium only?
 
Oystein said:
I am not forgetting the many questions you are already dodging, but I have two more:

Did the iron rich spheres found in the WTC dust form from the red layer of the red/gray chips or from the gray layer?

Did they form by a thermite reaction with aluminium, and aluminium only?
Click to expand...

You are an endless source of questions.

I am reminded of little children that repeatedly ask “why” but show little interest in hearing the answer.

Your questions have been answered, but like landmines, you keep planting them in the hope that the responder will slip and provide an erroneous answer, no matter how trivial, that can be mocked and ridiculed.

The iron-rich microspheres were produced from the red chip material after a thermitic reaction.

The thermitic reaction involved aluminum.
 
Ziggi said:
Dave, are you too embarrassed to reveal the answer yourself? There is nothing for me to figure out - unless you come up with a better explanation it just looks like you posted that comment because you still have not understood the topic at hand:



Further proof that you have still not understood the discussion is your comment to Spanx:


The article he referred to is of course about iron being burned/oxidized, not reduced:



But I have been struggling - unsuccessfully obviously - to make you understand the difference between that and the process shown by Harrit et al:
Click to expand...
Dave Thomas and Oystein are way ahead on points on this one.
 
Criteria said:
Post #1595 oh unobservant one.
Click to expand...

That answers the questions from weeks ago? Nice try.

I'll give you an easy one:

In Dr. Farrer's TEM results, was there any indication whatsoever of elemental Al? Yes or No ?

BTW: Your "answers" to the questions are not supported by the Harrit paper...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom