View Single Post
Old 20th February 2014, 02:38 PM   #4081
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Remember, survivors often talked about "hurricane winds" as they were running down the WTC steps.

Not enough iron-rich spheres?

Come on!

Or do you actually think the "contaminated" barrel had thermite in it?"
Hurricane winds were not evidenced by the drifting black smoke we ALL observed Chris. Though I have little doubt the stairwells were channeling a lot of air from the breached building above and thus quite windy.

But not enough iron-rich spheres?

Think about it.

Dr. Harrit and particularly Mark Basile studied many red chips which were barely discernible to the eye in many cases. Yet they produced abundant iron-rich spheroids.

If those tiny dust chips were indeed steel primer paint, and given that they were outputting iron spheres at the relatively low temperature of 430C, don't you think that Dave's honking big pile of steel primer paint residue should have been swimming in all kinds of these microspheres?

Given the microscopic size of these microspheres, it is not implausible that an old combustion barrel like Dave used could have contained any number of iron microspheres previously created by processes that were not thermitic.

Regarding Dr. Harrit's often quoted statement;
Originally Posted by Dr. Harrit
"A scientific paper is a set of data and the best hypothesis rationalizing the observations. Fe-rich spheroids are observed after a thermite reaction. Fe-rich spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction.
It is important that the context of that statement be taken into account. It is incredibly naive of you or anyone else to assume that Dr. Harrit is oblivious to all the processes that can create molten iron.

Dr. Harrit was responding to this comment and false perception;
Originally Posted by Interviewer
"Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but there is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids.

Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous."

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
"Two points, MM:
  • The only possible contamination would have been ashes from the burning wood. I took care to sample the burned beam where no ashes had smudged the burned paint. Of course, the only contamination that would have mattered would have been thermite itself; I can vouch that there was none.
  • Our science group purchased an hour of scanning electron microscope time. It was a couple hundred bucks. That doesn't leave a lot of time to search for things. SEM 'scopes really blow things up, a tiny sample holder becomes like exploring Africa. We spent much of our time making sure there were no spheres on the control (un-burned) sample. After verifying that to our satisfaction, we moved on to the burned samples. Once we had found the two spheres, our time was about used up, so we declared success and moved on.

If you're that dubious, MM, why not repeat the experiment on your own? Is there a university with an SEM nearby? What do they charge for usage? Maybe Dick Gage can cough up a couple thousand for you to follow up on this?
Okay Dave, regarding your testing in an old steel combustion barrel, there are any number of possible sources for a few microscopic iron microspheres to have contaminated your burned primer paint residue.

Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc. Or are you suggesting you could spot such contaminants with the visible eye as you studiously avoided that wood ash smudge that so concerned you?

What you describe in your response is a rushed job. A VERY rushed job.

In a proper laboratory environment, Dr. Harrit et al spent countless hours performing, cataloging and analyzing their research and you feel you have credibly debunked them by the sloppy bit of work you squeezed into one hour.

Hypocrisy rules;

Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus
"Someone wake me when this guy actually publishes his results."
Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:
Originally Posted by alienentity
"Who needs peer review when you have youtube?"
Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:
Originally Posted by Edx
"Truthers dont need anything more substantial than someone that is apparently an expert telling them what they want to hear, if they do that in a youtube video its the perfect combination."
By the way, as you know Mark Basile is working on repeating his tests and publishing the results.

He has tested verified paints in lab conditions and never found molten spheres of any kind.

How many times do you think you can pull the steel wool over our eyes Dave?

Miragememories 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