ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 conspiracy theories , Niels Harrit

Reply
Old 16th March 2011, 06:28 PM   #561
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Could you explain how steel cutting explosives could cause ejection of steel girders?
...without the entire eastern half of Connecticut hearing it.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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
Old 16th March 2011, 07:20 PM   #562
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Could you explain how steel cutting explosives could cause ejection of steel girders?
...without the entire eastern half of Connecticut hearing it.
Actually the challenge is even more basic than the need for "hush-a-boom" explosives.

Steel cutting explosives - the so-called "high explosives" - are not good a lifting and throwing things. The "lower explosives" such as ANFO can lift and throw things BUT.....lets see if cicorp can work out a way to do it in the WTC Tower setting 'coz he is the one making the claim and I don't think I can.
ozeco41 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
Old 17th March 2011, 06:20 AM   #563
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Actually the challenge is even more basic than the need for "hush-a-boom" explosives.

Steel cutting explosives - the so-called "high explosives" - are not good a lifting and throwing things. The "lower explosives" such as ANFO can lift and throw things BUT.....lets see if cicorp can work out a way to do it in the WTC Tower setting 'coz he is the one making the claim and I don't think I can.
Bit of info here - this is what a cutter charge does to steel beams

BBC Explosions How We Shook the World 4:30 mins

Notice the clean cut and how the cut surface is covered in copper. Truthers - also note that the beam didn't fly hundreds of meters. It also made a loud BANG like all explosives.
Sunstealer 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
Old 17th March 2011, 01:27 PM   #564
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Bit of info here - this is what a cutter charge does to steel beams

BBC Explosions How We Shook the World 4:30 mins

Notice the clean cut and how the cut surface is covered in copper. Truthers - also note that the beam didn't fly hundreds of meters. It also made a loud BANG like all explosives.
Ah but the truthers have their hushaboom, the nonexplosive explosive to explain the lack of BANG..
Is there an icon for irony ?
I could sure use one about now
George 152 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
Old 31st March 2011, 05:57 AM   #565
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!

I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.

Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.

Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=876

with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120

This is one and the same material!

Note how in the paper they say

The bolded part is their own bias.

Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.

Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.
Hey Sunstealer,
I wasted a day off to write up your finding in my modest blog, for posteriority:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2...paint-not.html
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 10:10 AM   #566
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Hey Sunstealer,
I wasted a day off to write up your finding in my modest blog, for posteriority:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2...paint-not.html
Nice, well put. Just one thing.

Quote:
3.65keV: keV: both have a high peak; for sample a-d it is labelled "Ca", for the primer paint it is labled "C". I propose that one of the two lables is in error. Should be C in either place
This peak should be labelled Calcium (Ca). There is a K-alpha at 3.69 and K-beta at 4.01Kev http://csrri.iit.edu/cgi-bin/period-...ner=10&name=Ca

From this handy tool - http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html
Sunstealer 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
Old 31st March 2011, 10:15 AM   #567
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Nice, well put. Just one thing.

This peak should be labelled Calcium (Ca). There is a K-alpha at 3.69 and K-beta at 4.01Kev http://csrri.iit.edu/cgi-bin/period-...ner=10&name=Ca

From this handy tool - http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html
Ah, thanks! I was lazy and worked from memory.
Correction will be done promptly, and I'll include that link
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 12:05 PM   #568
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
I found a funny gem from the German blogosphere:

http://www.911-archiv.net/blog/sitti...wtc-staub.html

This is a year old, but I think worth reporting. Under the title "News concerning WTC dust", the blogger, Dirk Gerhardt (a truther) tells of his efforts in getting a dust sample from the Harrit teams, and the obstacles he faces. Plug the URL into Google-translate, if you want to read it all, but the conditions Harrit sets up for anyone wanting to analyse his dust are given in English:
  • all conversation and publishing will be done in English
  • primer paint analysis will be performed before actually handing out the dust probe, so that we can countercheck the methods used and to facilitate the differentiation of red/gray chips from paint chips
  • information regarding what analysis the GRT will perform (SEM/XEDS? DSC?)
  • task description of how to proceed to find right chips and fresh surfaces -- to be followed for the dust sample
  • review and knowing where to publish beforehand
  • no publishing on JREF

While the last bullet has me giggling heartily, the second is curious: Why would they want anyone to work with primer paint? It i s already clear that the red-grey chips are not primer paint!


This post also talks about a mineralogist named Dr. Gunnar Ries, a debunker, who has critiqued the Harrit paper, and truthers who believe it.
Here: http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blo...-trade-centers (criticizes methods)
and here: http://amphibol.blogspot.com/2010/02...er-selbst.html (polemicizes against truthers)

ETA: Dr. Ries doubts if the elements C and O were really detected: Usually, EDS detectors have a window made of Beryllium that is 8 microns thin. This window absorbs any X-rays under 1keV - including the C and O lines. If Harrit e.al. had used a detector with an ultra-thin window, or without window, they would likely have mentioned it, as both are rare, and difficult to handle.
Ries, too, suspects that the plate-like structure are aluminium silicates (clay).

Last edited by Oystein; 31st March 2011 at 12:13 PM.
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 12:32 PM   #569
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
ETA: Dr. Ries doubts if the elements C and O were really detected: Usually, EDS detectors have a window made of Beryllium that is 8 microns thin. This window absorbs any X-rays under 1keV - including the C and O lines. If Harrit e.al. had used a detector with an ultra-thin window, or without window, they would likely have mentioned it, as both are rare, and difficult to handle.
Ries, too, suspects that the plate-like structure are aluminium silicates (clay).
Hey Ostein, good information in your links. I have to say, though, atmosphere supporting ultra thin windows are now the norm, not the exception. The Moxtek UTW is supported by a cu grid, and it has transmission of X-rays down to 100 eV (Be, if you're good). Most manufacturers are using UTWs because they don't have the same toxicity considerations that Be windows have. The new European standards for handling Be are quite draconian, and ultra thin windows, because they're more friable and prone to oxidation, are the biggest problem.

I can still get 125 um Be windows for my X-ray tubes and 25 um Be windows for my high energy detectors, but those are pretty rare.

Some people still want UTWs because they have a system flooded with light, which will make your X-ray detector go nuts. The Be is opaque, so that solves the problem. But now they're putting 10 nm coatings of Al on the surface of the UTWs to make them opaque too. You lose the 100 eV photons, but you can keep the lights on when you're working.

Anyway, blah blah blah. Far be it for me to defend Harrit, but looking at his spectra, I think it's pretty clear that he was using a UTW.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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
Old 31st March 2011, 12:53 PM   #570
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
snip

Ries, too, suspects that the plate-like structure are aluminium silicates (clay).
Not the only one, cough, nudge.

Would be nice to get a translation. "Wurst mit frites, bitter" is about as good as my German gets! I'll use a web-translator to have a look. I'm not sure what they want to do with the sample before handing it over. Are they saying they want to analyse all the red/gray chips and primer paint in the sample or are they talking about separation. Odd that they seem to elude to their being primer paint chips present in the dust or have I got that wrong.

The "no to JREF" cracks me up. What are they scared of?
Sunstealer 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
Old 31st March 2011, 01:38 PM   #571
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Not the only one, cough, nudge.

Would be nice to get a translation. "Wurst mit frites, bitter" is about as good as my German gets! I'll use a web-translator to have a look. I'm not sure what they want to do with the sample before handing it over. Are they saying they want to analyse all the red/gray chips and primer paint in the sample or are they talking about separation. Odd that they seem to elude to their being primer paint chips present in the dust or have I got that wrong.
I'm confused on that as well. And are they assuming there is only one primer paint in existence? I have 2 different cans in my garage!

Quote:
The "no to JREF" cracks me up. What are they scared of?
You.

Duh.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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
Old 31st March 2011, 01:55 PM   #572
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Not the only one, cough, nudge.
I had you in mind when I wrote "Ries, too, ..."

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Would be nice to get a translation. "Wurst mit frites, bitter" is about as good as my German gets! I'll use a web-translator to have a look. I'm not sure what they want to do with the sample before handing it over. Are they saying they want to analyse all the red/gray chips and primer paint in the sample or are they talking about separation. Odd that they seem to elude to their being primer paint chips present in the dust or have I got that wrong.
I think the German blogger is merely interpreting and commenting on Harrit's conditions, and didn't do a translation. He says that they want to check if you will use methods that they agree with. In reality, I think they want to make sure you won't use the methods that will unequivocally prove them wrong.

Google translate is often surprisingly good. If you need help with some phrases, feel free to get back to me.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
The "no to JREF" cracks me up. What are they scared of?
The Almond said it: You. Well, and Ryan, Dave, and all the others.
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 02:00 PM   #573
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
I'm confused on that as well. And are they assuming there is only one primer paint in existence? I have 2 different cans in my garage!...
Since they already analysed original WTC steel primer, and found it isn't the same material as the red layer from the red-grey chips, they want other researchers to do the same.
Of course we KNOW already that these chips are not WTC steel primer. They are a different red paint. The MEK-soaked chip on the other hand was WTC steel primer.
But really, it doesn't matter what primer or paint you compare this to, or if you compare at all. Valid methods will show that the red layer contains hematite and kaolinite in a carbon matrix, possibly resin, and does not contain elemental Al, and also no Al2O3. Therefore, without comparison, any competent researcher will determine that NO thermite is present, nor the residues of a thermite reaction. Finding the exact paint that this layer is would be a bonus, but quite unnecessary.
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 02:01 PM   #574
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Hey Ostein, good information in your links. I have to say, though, atmosphere supporting ultra thin windows are now the norm, not the exception. The Moxtek UTW is supported by a cu grid, and it has transmission of X-rays down to 100 eV (Be, if you're good). Most manufacturers are using UTWs because they don't have the same toxicity considerations that Be windows have. The new European standards for handling Be are quite draconian, and ultra thin windows, because they're more friable and prone to oxidation, are the biggest problem.

I can still get 125 um Be windows for my X-ray tubes and 25 um Be windows for my high energy detectors, but those are pretty rare.

Some people still want UTWs because they have a system flooded with light, which will make your X-ray detector go nuts. The Be is opaque, so that solves the problem. But now they're putting 10 nm coatings of Al on the surface of the UTWs to make them opaque too. You lose the 100 eV photons, but you can keep the lights on when you're working.

Anyway, blah blah blah. Far be it for me to defend Harrit, but looking at his spectra, I think it's pretty clear that he was using a UTW.
Ah, okay, thanks a lot! I'll relay that back to Gunnar Ries
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 02:28 PM   #575
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
I'm confused on that as well. And are they assuming there is only one primer paint in existence? I have 2 different cans in my garage!
Well exactly. Their samples a-d (which ended up in the DSC) could be any kind of paint adhered to Iron oxide. Who knows exactly where it's from. I've been doing some decorating over the last few months and there's potentially paint from 100 years ago under the modern stuff and guess what? There are different colours and types in different rooms! Maybe, just maybe, Tnemec red primer paint wasn't the only paint or type used at the WTC.

I've read, rather tried to piece together Gunnar Ries's argument(s) using google translate so I may not be exactly right, but there seem to be two issues for him.

1. Window type/material (specifically Beryllium- Be) used in the SiLi detector and how that has issues detecting elements with Z<=11 (Sodium - Na). Sorry Z is atomic number - see periodic table.

2. He's effectively saying that it's easy to determine whether a clay is present using powder diffraction (XRD) which is a standard geological test. Also seems to think that chemists should have recognised the appearance and elemental make up as being a clay mineral for the observed platelets.

On 1 - The Almond has addressed that. I can't see any issue but I've just had to go for a quick crash course on the state of detector technology courtesy of the interweb (getting down towards Be now!). I'm fairly sure that even 10 years ago Oxygen was not a problem for detectors due to the change in material (polycarbonate??) or thickness of detector windows. Carbon conductive tabs (for holding the sample down) could potentially be an issue but I assume they knew what they are doing. This could all get highly technical very quickly and I doubt a lot of readers have got a scooby what we are jabbering on about anyway!

On 2 - I agree. Although his argument sort of contradicts his first with regard to whether Oxygen in the spectra is accurate, but I think his initial reaction (if I'm reading the translation correctly) was more to do with particle shape rather than looking at spectra. I was the same; saw the shape and clustering and immediately thought of kaolin clay because it's distinctive - It actually reminded me of the lecture I first encountered it in at the time. Sad.
Sunstealer 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
Old 31st March 2011, 02:44 PM   #576
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I think the German blogger is merely interpreting and commenting on Harrit's conditions, and didn't do a translation. He says that they want to check if you will use methods that they agree with. In reality, I think they want to make sure you won't use the methods that will unequivocally prove them wrong.
I agree. I think they know their game is up.

I was trying to find a hammer hitting a nail smilie, but I think this is just as apt - nothing seems to suit them. It would also explain why they aren't pushing for truthers to donate so they can get a fully independent lab analysis for around $1000 performed.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Google translate is often surprisingly good. If you need help with some phrases, feel free to get back to me.
Sure, Ta.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 31st March 2011 at 02:47 PM. Reason: addition
Sunstealer 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
Old 31st March 2011, 02:48 PM   #577
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
...
I've read, rather tried to piece together Gunnar Ries's argument(s) using google translate so I may not be exactly right, but there seem to be two issues for him.

1. Window type/material (specifically Beryllium- Be) used in the SiLi detector and how that has issues detecting elements with Z<=11 (Sodium - Na). Sorry Z is atomic number - see periodic table.

2. He's effectively saying that it's easy to determine whether a clay is present using powder diffraction (XRD) which is a standard geological test. Also seems to think that chemists should have recognised the appearance and elemental make up as being a clay mineral for the observed platelets.

On 1 - The Almond has addressed that. I can't see any issue but I've just had to go for a quick crash course on the state of detector technology courtesy of the interweb (getting down towards Be now!). I'm fairly sure that even 10 years ago Oxygen was not a problem for detectors due to the change in material (polycarbonate??) or thickness of detector windows. Carbon conductive tabs (for holding the sample down) could potentially be an issue but I assume they knew what they are doing. This could all get highly technical very quickly and I doubt a lot of readers have got a scooby what we are jabbering on about anyway!

On 2 - I agree. Although his argument sort of contradicts his first with regard to whether Oxygen in the spectra is accurate, but I think his initial reaction (if I'm reading the translation correctly) was more to do with particle shape rather than looking at spectra. I was the same; saw the shape and clustering and immediately thought of kaolin clay because it's distinctive - It actually reminded me of the lecture I first encountered it in at the time. Sad.
Yep, you are paraphrasing it correctly so far.
I just added Gunnar to my Facebook account, and also replied to one of his blog posts. Going to alert him about this window issue, and ask what became of this struggle to get a dust sample from the Harrit group. I'll show him our discussion here, too.
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 03:22 PM   #578
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
 
ImANiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Let me further things right along. As far as I can tell, these are the latest objections from the Jones camp, paraphrased;

1) You're only focusing on the one sample.

2) The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the post-MEK XEDS spectra, Figs 16, 17 and 18

Harrit, in his eponymous paper, claims that the sample could not be primer paint...

In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).

3) There's no Magnesium in their samples, but there is in the Paint XDS

4) Regardless of the similar appearance under a microscope, the samples soaked in MEK behaved differently from the soaked primer paint samples. The chip samples retained their structure, where the paint chips became soaked.

5) Mark Basile confirmed their results in an independant analysis.

All these objections were sourced from THIS blog.
__________________
...JUST ASKING...

Last edited by ImANiceGuy; 31st March 2011 at 04:33 PM.
ImANiceGuy 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
Old 31st March 2011, 03:51 PM   #579
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Let me further things right along. As far as I can tell, these are the latest objections from Jones, paraphrased;

1) You're only focusing on the one sample.
WRONG.
We are focussing on ALL samples that Harrit e.al. provide data for. All that data shows that one sample is different from the others. It follows that whatever results Harrit gathered for this different sample, can not be applied to the other samples. When the authors claim that the red-grey chips contain elemental Al and release so and so much energy in the calorimeter, then it must be pointed out that they are in ERROR.

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
2) The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the post-MEK XEDS spectra, Figs 16, 17 and 18
a) What would this disappearance of Zn and Ca prove? Did the MEK magically remove these?
b) They didn't do a proper before/after soak comparison. The one before graph (Fig. 14) shows one thing, the 3 after graphs (Fig. 16-18) show another.
c) For Fig. 17, they used a weak (10 kV) electron ray that would not yield any results above 3 or 4 keV, and would thus miss the Ca and Zn peaks at 4.01 and 8.64keV
d) The broad, low peak near 1 keV in Fig. 18 is quite possibly the same as the one in Fig 14, and may well represent Zn (1.01-1.04keV) instead of Na (1.04-1.07keV)

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Harrit, in his eponymous paper, claims that the sample could not be primer paint...

In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).
Harrit is guessing there, however the XEDS spectra for primer paint and the pre-MEK sample are so stricingly similar, it is irresponsible to dismiss it with mere speculation.

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
3) There's no Magnesium in their samples, but there is in the Paint XDS
WRONG
Fig. 14 (pre-MEK sample) shows an unlabelled peak at 1.25keV. That is the K-alpha level of magnesium.
It wasn't us who flunked here, it was Harrit who failed to label that peak.

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
4) Regardless of the similar appearance under a microscope, the samples soaked in MEK behaved differently from the soaked primer paint samples. The chip samples retained their structure, where the paint chips became soaked.
a) There was only one chip that they soaked in MEK.
b) In Harrit (2009), the soaked a totally different paint or primer (scratched from the BYU football stadium, iirc), not WTC steel primer
c) Or do you have any documentation of them soaking WTC steel primer in MEK? Where is it?

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
5) Mark Basile confirmed their results in an independant analysis.
a) You can't call Mark Basile "independent". He is mentioned second in the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (page 30), right after David Griscom (who later revealed that he was one of the "peer reviewers". Mark Basile collaborated on he Harrit paper
b) Where is Basile's paper? URL?
c) He used the same incompetent methods. Of course he got the same results, if he didn't manage to differentiate between the different kinds of red chips.

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
All these objections were sourced from THIS blog.
Aha.
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 04:43 PM   #580
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
...
All these objections were sourced from THIS blog.
For some reason, I can't post a comment there. So I'll paste it here:

Several things are wrong or problematic in this blog post:

1. "Sunstealer is apparently focusing on one chip in particular" - this is false. You quote Sunstealer as follows: "Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different". The important point of this whole topic is that the MEK-soaked chip is of a different material than the DSC-treated chips a-d.

2. You quote Jones: "I am certain that if we had done this, there would have been no zinc on the inside...". He is merely guessing, or engaging in wishful thinking. You let this pass, when in fact he admits flatly that they worked sloppily, and that the alleged "peer-review" didn't catch a serious methodological flaw.

c) Fig. 16-18 do NOT show measurements equivalent to Fig. 14. There is no proper before/after comparison.

d) Fig. 17 shows results from a weak, 10kV only, electron ray. This would not yield any peaks beyond 3 or 4 keV. Consequently, the graph is flat on the right, and misses possible (probably) peaks of Ca (4.01keV) and Zn (8.64keV).

e) Fig. 18 shows a peak near 1keV - where there is a peak in Fig. 14 as well. In 14, that peak is labelled "Zn", in 18, it is labelled "Na". Strange, eh?

f) "Furthermore, Dr. Harrit goes on to point out that: Magnesium was never observed"
This is patently false. It is in the data, Harrit simply failed to notice it. Figures 14 and 18 have a peak at 1.25keV, which is Magnesium (K-alpha level). These peaks are just not labelled in the graphs. Interestingly, Fig. 17 does contain the same 1.25keV peak, and it IS labelled "Mg"!

g) Jones: "After soaking in MEK, the red/gray chips (still wet with MEK) remained very hard"
Duh. The red-grey chips are different from the chip described in Fig. 14-18. The latter is described in the paper as having swollen considerably due to MEK treatment. It wouldn't be "very hard" in that state. I'd choose not to trust Jones too much here. I am missing independent confirmation of his claims. Too little of what he speaks of here is actually in the content of the paper.

h) "independent confirmation from chemical engineer Mark Basile".
WHAT? Basile is acknowledged in Harrit (2009) for his contribution to that paper. His is the second name, right after "peer-reviewer" David Griscom (is it possible that Basile, too, was a hand-picked "peer-reviewer"? Since when are anonymous peer reviewers acknowledged in a paper?). His work is hardly "independent".

i) "The red/gray chips discovered do not act like paint, do not have the same ingredients as paint, and do not look like paint."
WRONG. The plate-like structures look a whole lot like aluminosilicates (clay), and contain the same elements (Si, Al, O); the "rhombic-shaped, ... iron-rich grains" look a whole lot like hematite (pigment), and they are found in a C-rich matrix (resin?). Even Harrit (2009) finds on page 7 "Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint
chips", so they definitely looked like paint! And "the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or
even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films”" (page 26)
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 05:41 PM   #581
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
 
ImANiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Thanks for your reply Oystein, much appreciated!

I'm not a proponent of the thermite theory, so I won't pretend to defend their position. I'm skeptical of Jones for all of his grievous errors in methodology and procedure in the creation and publication of his information.

That said, I find it fascinating that Harrit, Jones et al. continue to proclaim their findings as proof, when the JREF opposition is so certain the case is closed. What is the sticking point here?


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
WRONG.
We are focussing on ALL samples that Harrit e.al. provide data for. All that data shows that one sample is different from the others. It follows that whatever results Harrit gathered for this different sample, can not be applied to the other samples. When the authors claim that the red-grey chips contain elemental Al and release so and so much energy in the calorimeter, then it must be pointed out that they are in ERROR.

Here, straight from the horse's mouth from the blog link posted above...

A lot of Zn was present in the dust (a fact recorded also in the USGS data set for the WTC dust). The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the post-MEK XEDS spectra, Figs 16, 17 and 18, appears to be ignored by the JREF'ers but is crucially important as demonstration that this is NOT primer paint.

a) What would this disappearance of Zn and Ca prove? Did the MEK magically remove these?

From Harrit paper: In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).

b) They didn't do a proper before/after soak comparison. The one before graph (Fig. 14) shows one thing, the 3 after graphs (Fig. 16-18) show another.

figures...

c) For Fig. 17, they used a weak (10 kV) electron ray that would not yield any results above 3 or 4 keV, and would thus miss the Ca and Zn peaks at 4.01 and 8.64keV

wouldn't surprise me; what's the alternate scenario then? Complete fabrication?

d) The broad, low peak near 1 keV in Fig. 18 is quite possibly the same as the one in Fig 14, and may well represent Zn (1.01-1.04keV) instead of Na (1.04-1.07keV)

quite possibly...
I'll see what I can drum up in regards to the rest later....
__________________
...JUST ASKING...
ImANiceGuy 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
Old 31st March 2011, 06:13 PM   #582
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
Thanks for your reply Oystein, much appreciated!

I'm not a proponent of the thermite theory, so I won't pretend to defend their position. I'm skeptical of Jones for all of his grievous errors in methodology and procedure in the creation and publication of his information.

That said, I find it fascinating that Harrit, Jones et al. continue to proclaim their findings as proof, when the JREF opposition is so certain the case is closed. What is the sticking point here?
...
The sticking point is that Harrit, Jones et al. depend on belief. They set up a dogma, and they must stick to it, or else they will be ousted as high priests of that cult. They have reason to hope that a good portion of their flock will never listen to reason. Just like the churches resisted revisions of their world view in the face of scientific advances, and many conservative believers remained faithful.

Theirs is a political movement, not a scientific endeavour. The results are determined by political goals, not by rational inspection.
Oystein 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
Old 31st March 2011, 07:50 PM   #583
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
c) For Fig. 17, they used a weak (10 kV) electron ray that would not yield any results above 3 or 4 keV, and would thus miss the Ca and Zn peaks at 4.01 and 8.64keV
Sorry to cut in here again, Oystein. I'm not picking on you, I promise! But a 10 keV electron beam will excite all the way up to the iron absorption edge around 7 keV. There is more than sufficient over voltage to excite the Ca K-L3 transition at 3.63 keV. When we're analyzing concrete, we frequently run at 10 keV and I still see everything below iron very clearly. Zn is another story since the absorption edge is over 9 keV, so an exciting electron needs to retain more than 90% of its initial energy. You'll still get the line, but the X-rays will only come from the first few nanometers of the surface. Most of those buggers, of course, end up being backscattered, and don't undergo any photoelectric ionization.

Quote:
d) The broad, low peak near 1 keV in Fig. 18 is quite possibly the same as the one in Fig 14, and may well represent Zn (1.01-1.04keV) instead of Na (1.04-1.07keV)
Good catch on this one. Both the Cu L3-M5 (L-alpha) and Zn L3-M5 transitions are right near there around Na, and most vendor supplied EDX software will actually misidentify these peaks.

[/quote]
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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
Old 31st March 2011, 08:03 PM   #584
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
[...]Maybe, just maybe, Tnemec red primer paint wasn't the only paint or type used at the WTC.
This is The Almond making a shocked face.
Quote:
On 1 - The Almond has addressed that. I can't see any issue but I've just had to go for a quick crash course on the state of detector technology courtesy of the interweb (getting down towards Be now!). I'm fairly sure that even 10 years ago Oxygen was not a problem for detectors due to the change in material (polycarbonate??)
UTWs have been an industry standard for at least 10 years in VP-SEM/ESEM applications. Prior to that, UTW detectors couldn't support atmospheric pressure, so you had to be very careful. Us XRF guys still use Be windows, though.

Quote:
Carbon conductive tabs (for holding the sample down) could potentially be an issue but I assume they knew what they are doing. This could all get highly technical very quickly and I doubt a lot of readers have got a scooby what we are jabbering on about anyway!
Without getting overly technical...Their carbon numbers might be in question precisely because of the carbon tape. If they're operating in variable pressure mode, where water vapor is introduced to the chamber to combat surface charging, the "skirt" of the electron beam widens considerably. It is possible for an electron to bounce off a water molecule and hit the carbon tape, generate an X-ray, and then travel to the detector. Unusually high carbon peaks are really common in VP-SEM's nowadays.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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
Old 1st April 2011, 12:48 AM   #585
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Sorry to cut in here again, Oystein. I'm not picking on you, I promise! But a 10 keV electron beam will excite all the way up to the iron absorption edge around 7 keV. There is more than sufficient over voltage to excite the Ca K-L3 transition at 3.63 keV. When we're analyzing concrete, we frequently run at 10 keV and I still see everything below iron very clearly. Zn is another story since the absorption edge is over 9 keV, so an exciting electron needs to retain more than 90% of its initial energy. You'll still get the line, but the X-rays will only come from the first few nanometers of the surface. Most of those buggers, of course, end up being backscattered, and don't undergo any photoelectric ionization.
Hehe you are not picking at all, and I am here to learn. Prior to yesterday, my knowledge about EDS didn't significantly differ from zero. I had read a few things here and there and read that the beam voltage limits the possible results, and was too lazy to go back and check for the precise numbers. I admit I went out on limp there - my mistake. But here is the beauty of it: You just showed that we here at JREF don't simply support each other; instead, we are commited to facts.
Thanks for correcting me, and the explanation.

Now do you have a guess where the Ca peak went in Fig. 16?

Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Good catch on this one. Both the Cu L3-M5 (L-alpha) and Zn L3-M5 transitions are right near there around Na, and most vendor supplied EDX software will actually misidentify these peaks.
So actually it could have been Na or even Cu both times?
Oystein 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
Old 5th May 2011, 03:31 PM   #586
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,179
FYI Farrer made a reply on this debate

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/
Kent1 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
Old 6th May 2011, 03:01 PM   #587
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by Kent1 View Post
FYI Farrer made a reply on this debate

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/
Uhm can't find a post by Farrer - direct link?

(Reading on...)
Oh cool! He replied to MY JREF post:
"Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Two Coats of Paint Dry..."

Last edited by Oystein; 6th May 2011 at 03:04 PM.
Oystein 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
Old 6th May 2011, 04:31 PM   #588
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
I linked to another portion of this 2009 lecture by Steven Jones in another thread, where Dr. Jones mentions that Dr. Farrer had been in contact with Dr. Tillotson of LLNL.

However, elsewhere Dr. Jones lauds the work of the 'Journal of 9/11 Studies' and features none other than 'Dr. David Griscom', who was apparently one of the peer reviewers of the 2008 Bentham Open paper.

Seems like an awfully cosy relationship between Dr. Jones and Dr. Griscom - I wonder how truthers would react if something like this had gone on on the 'official' side? Just wondering....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_LMIyeuy-Q&t=1m50s

ETA I forgot to add that Jones introduces Griscom's relationship as follows:

' who read our paper, by the way....and supported it, and he's also published a paper challenging the official story(™) of 9/11 in the Journal of 9/11 Studies'

Nowhere of course does the ever-slick Jones mention Griscom's role as a peer-reviewer of the paper. That would give the impression (rightly) of a possible conflict of interest, and a too-cosy relationship. Jones avoids this problem by simply omitting those facts.

His technique is not surprising while it is less than ethical - Jones has a chronic habit of downplaying any uncertainties in his arguments, completely omitting contradictory information, and otherwise acting far less like a good scientist than a salesman with a pitch to make.*



*just one example is the way he gravely and rather cavalierly misrepresents the extent and nature of the fires in WTC 7, cherry-picking thru factoids and completely ignoring all the other good evidence.

IMO it's entirely fitting that he is once again chasing the free-energy Holy Grail, similar to his former cold-fusion research career.....which has also been a dead-end, but provided him with ample career opportunities.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

Last edited by alienentity; 6th May 2011 at 04:40 PM.
alienentity 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
Old 7th May 2011, 08:41 AM   #589
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
That said, I find it fascinating that Harrit, Jones et al. continue to proclaim their findings as proof, when the JREF opposition is so certain the case is closed. What is the sticking point here?
That's the question I have for all truthers not just them and not just this subject. Of course its worth pointing out that its not just "JREF opposition" that think they're wrong, the complete lack of any mainstream support or any articles in legitimate and respected peer reviewed journals and the hilariously fringe number of supporters they have managed to drum up since 2005/2006 apparently doesn't make them think maybe there is a reason for that either.

In the end they are like Creationists, they can be shown to be wrong 100% of the time back to front and they will still think they are right. I'm only still interested because I want to know how they can rationalise being wrong all the time yet still think they are on the side of "truth"

Last edited by Edx; 7th May 2011 at 08:51 AM.
Edx 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
Old 7th May 2011, 08:43 AM   #590
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
'Dr. David Griscom', who was apparently one of the peer reviewers of the 2008 Bentham Open paper.
Whats the best evidence we have that he reviewed the Bentham paper?
Edx 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
Old 7th May 2011, 09:51 AM   #591
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Whats the best evidence we have that he reviewed the Bentham paper?
His own admission:

'Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review. Absolutely false! I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions. '

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2...energetic.html

An example of the judgement of this man is provided on the SLC blog

'I envision a similar 9/11 scheme, but one where the passengers boarded under their true names. Indeed, the seat occupancies on all four aircraft allegedly hijacked on 9/11 were very much lower that industry average (averaging 26% of capacity vis-à-vis 71% for all domestic flights in July 2001). So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts).'

Here he speculates about how the passengers who were killed on the four flights were actually paid frauds who agreed never to contact their families again..... seriously?

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...for-laugh.html
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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
Old 8th May 2011, 03:01 AM   #592
Meikel
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4
Gunnar Ries vs. Niels Harrit

Hello,

a bit late, but do you know the response from Niels Harrit to Gunnar Ries (Questions German, answers English)?

www mysteries-magazin com/index.php?op=news&func=news&id=5252

(sorry, but as new user I am not allowed to post a real external link - I hope that form does not violate the forum rules)

He clarifies some aspects, for example the used equipment. For me the remarkable sections are:

Niels Harrit: Dr. Ries is correct. There is no doubt that the iron mineral is hematite, but we didn’t know for sure at the time of writing the paper. Later, we have obtained TEM diffraction evidence for the identity of the iron mineral, but in my opinion, this result alone does not merit a new publication.

and

Niels Harrit: The DSC measurements were conducted with access of the atmosphere because these were the conditions for the only published comparable measurement by Tillotson. We contacted Dr. Tillotson personally on the phone, and he informed us of this detail. Furthermore, WTC was not demolished under argon.

To my knowledge the difference is, that Tillotson knows exactly what his sample contains, and therefore knows which energy comes from what.

In my opinion Harrit's statement WTC was not demolished under argon is not scientific - very friendly expressed - regarding to the nanothermite reaction and the analysis of unknown mixed materials.

I'am not sure about this, but what about kaolinite suspension properties, keyword "card house structure". I think such micrographs are matching even better to Harrit's micrographs than pure mineralic kaolinite. For those people without expertise to understand the excellent work from sunstealer et al.

Meikel.
Meikel 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
Old 8th May 2011, 04:18 AM   #593
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Hello and welcome to the forum, Meikel! Funny thing: Just last night I met a German by the name of Michael who calls and spells himself informally "Meikel", excatly as you do

Originally Posted by Meikel View Post
Hello,

a bit late, but do you know the response from Niels Harrit to Gunnar Ries (Questions German, answers English)?

www mysteries-magazin com/index.php?op=news&func=news&id=5252

(sorry, but as new user I am not allowed to post a real external link - I hope that form does not violate the forum rules)
...
First of all: Here is the link:
http://mysteries-magazin.com/index.p...c=news&id=5252
No, posting a link like you did is not against rules - barring newbees from posting fully-formed links is just a guard against spam-bots.

[quote=Meikel;7161717]...
He clarifies some aspects, for example the used equipment. For me the remarkable sections are:

Niels Harrit: Dr. Ries is correct. There is no doubt that the iron mineral is hematite, but we didn’t know for sure at the time of writing the paper. Later, we have obtained TEM diffraction evidence for the identity of the iron mineral, but in my opinion, this result alone does not merit a new publication.

Amazing that 8 great scientists and their peer-reviewer Griscom and their "independent" confirmer Mark Basile had to be told it's hematite - goes to show that none of them apparently have any experience with these kinds of materials.

Originally Posted by Meikel View Post
...
and

Niels Harrit: The DSC measurements were conducted with access of the atmosphere because these were the conditions for the only published comparable measurement by Tillotson. We contacted Dr. Tillotson personally on the phone, and he informed us of this detail. Furthermore, WTC was not demolished under argon.

To my knowledge the difference is, that Tillotson knows exactly what his sample contains, and therefore knows which energy comes from what.

In my opinion Harrit's statement WTC was not demolished under argon is not scientific - very friendly expressed - regarding to the nanothermite reaction and the analysis of unknown mixed materials.
I think you are spot on the mark. Apparently, they did this DSC test with a forgone conclusion in mind. It's rather astonishing that they did not discard that conclusion when the results differed so markedly from Tillotson's, with a much higher peak at a significantly lower temperature.

Originally Posted by Meikel View Post
I'am not sure about this, but what about kaolinite suspension properties, keyword "card house structure". I think such micrographs are matching even better to Harrit's micrographs than pure mineralic kaolinite. For those people without expertise to understand the excellent work from sunstealer et al.

Meikel.
Sorry, I don't get what you are trying to say here...
Oystein 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
Old 8th May 2011, 05:15 AM   #594
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Some more remarks on Harrit's reply:

1. XEDS equipment:
Originally Posted by Harrit
...About half of the discussion in the essay refers directly and indirectly to the ability of an X-ray detector to record radiation with energies below 1 keV. The background is, that X-ray detectors are commonly equipped with a beryllium window, which does not transmit below this threshold.
...
I can inform about the following:
The X-ray detector used in our measurements is NOT equipped with a Be window. It is NOT windowless. It is equipped with a SUTW (super-ultra thin window) capable of detecting down to at least 110 eV.
We already discussed Ries' problem with supposed Be-windows, and rejected them.
Harrit's clarification is helpful, and shows that we (in this case: The Almond, iirc) were right, Ries wrong.


2.
Originally Posted by Harrit
Another main claim by Dr. Ries is that the Al-Si-O rich particles are some alumino-silicate clay mineral.
...
Interesting. It would become Dr. Ries well to provide a reference for a swelling reaction by a clay particle with MEK comparable to that observed by the red/grey chips. If – at the same time – Dr. Ries could provide a reference to a chemical reaction by a clay mineral, which provides elemental iron. It would be sensational.
This rebuttal is pretty weak. The primary data - XEDS and SEM - make a very strong case for kaolinite. While it is true that Ries has not provided any reference to experiment, I am not sure he has the burden of proof here. Harrit has failed to rule out an obvious candidate, and that leaves us with reasonable doubt.
Asking for a clay reaction that yields elemental iron is silly on several levels: a) We are unconvinced by claims of elemental iron; b) there were admittedly iron pigments in the sample, and no reason to assume that the Al-Si-O compound played any role in the reaction; c) there is still that unidentified carbon matrix, the invisible elephant in the room, that must have provided most of the energy, as the paper itself hints.


3.
Originally Posted by Ries
Leider wurden vor der MEK-Behandlung keine Elementverteilungsbilder und nach der MEK-Behandlung keine Elementspektren (von der selben Stelle) aufgezeichnet. (Translation: Unfortunately, before the MEK treatment no images of the distribution of elements was done, and after MEK treatment, no spectra of elements were recorded (from the same location).)
Originally Posted by Harrit
All XEDS maps in the paper – exept one(!) - were done on broken chips. That is, just before measurement a chip was broken and the measurement carried out on a freshly exposed, uncontaminated surface. This also true of figure 6 in Dr. Ries’ assay (Fig. 10 in Harrit et al.), which must do as an account for the elemntal distribution in the red layer before MEK soaking. Obviously, it was not possible to follow the same procedure on the chip, which were used for MEK soaking.
Harrit is confused. Fig. 10 in Harrit et. al. shows a cross section with element distribution of one of the chips that were NOT treated with MEK. The problem were have with the MEK-treated chip is that there is strong evidence it is a different material.
It is not obvious to me at all why it wasn't possible to treat the MEK-soaked chip just like the others and break it and measure uncontaminated surfaces. Maybe I am missing something here, but that is precisely the kin of sloppy work that the paper has become so infamous for.


4.
Originally Posted by Harrit
In this case, the XEDS was taken from the ”raw” surface (Fig. 7 in Ries’ essay), and the signals from calcium and sulfur is most probably from calcium sulfate (as both parties agree upon).
Maybe Ries agrees, but we don't. That MEK chip is just too good a match with WTC primer paint presented by Steven Jones in a subsequent lecture to be dismissed as merely contaminated. See my blog post on this, with the usual thanks to Sunstealer:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2...paint-not.html


5.
Originally Posted by Harrit
This paint contained ca. 30 % ZnCrO4 which is one reason why the red/grey chips are not primer paint. Another major difference between the chips and the primer paint is the thermal stability, which went to 650 °C in case of the primer paint.
Harrit is correct here. The red-grey chips that they incinerated are not WTC primer paint. They are paint still, but an, as yet, unidentified kind. The MEK soaked chip however is very likely WTC primer (Tnemec), but that piece wasn't subjected to heating. That chip has signals for Zn and Cr, which shouldn't be hand-waved as contaminations, since they did not do a proper "after" XEDS of the same location.


6.
Originally Posted by Ries
Tonminerale, mit ihrer teilweise extrem hohen Kationen-Austauschkapazität können ohne Probleme Elemente an ihre Umgebung abgeben, vorausgesetzt, Tauschpartner und entsprechende Lösungsmittel stehen zur Verfügung. (Translation: Clay minerals, with their sometimes high capacity to exchange cations, can release elements to their environment without problem, provided that exchange partners and suitable solvents are available.)
Originally Posted by Harrit
Interesting. It would become Dr. Ries well to provide a reference for an cation-exchange reaction under comparable circumstances which could remove aluminum from a clay mineral.

And where is the cation being substituted for aluminum in figure 9 (Ries’ numbering)?
Can anybody comment on this?


7.
Originally Posted by Harrit
Some have suggested, that the nanothermitic material could be formed from the ingredients in the fires is WTC. This is total nonsense from a chemical point of view.
I agree with Harrit. These chips did not mix and form as a result of collapse and fires. They are some well-formulated paint.



8.
Originally Posted by Harrit
If Dr. Ries can come up with a coherent, comprehensive model to explain all the evidence including this, I will be happy to consider it.
Dr. Harrit has no comprehensive model that would explain his data:
- The energy release that exceeds that of thermite
- The differences to Tillotson's data
- What the heck Si is doing in a thermitic formulation
- etc.
Oystein 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
Old 9th May 2011, 02:45 AM   #595
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,669
Originally Posted by Meikel View Post
Niels Harrit: [...] Furthermore, WTC was not demolished under argon.
Good God. Words are simply inadequate to convey just how stupid a statement that is, from someone claiming even a rudimentary level of understanding of chemical analysis, let alone a serious scientist. The only possible response to this sort of idiocy is a Stundie nomination for Harrit.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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
Old 9th May 2011, 04:30 AM   #596
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by Meikel View Post
Niels Harrit: [...] Furthermore, WTC was not demolished under argon.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Good God. Words are simply inadequate to convey just how stupid a statement that is, from someone claiming even a rudimentary level of understanding of chemical analysis, let alone a serious scientist. The only possible response to this sort of idiocy is a Stundie nomination for Harrit.

Dave
Dave is right; that is monumentally stupid.

For new folks who haven't been keeping up with this: The point of the calorimeter test being run with something other than oxygen is to eliminate the possibility of simple organic combustion being the source of the energy peak. You see, Harrit, Jones, and the like are claiming that their chips are not paint and furthermore have an organic "sol gel" binder. Well, if that's so, how do they know that their DSC results were from a thermitic reaction and not that supposed "binder" burning?

The answer to that was to have eliminated the possibility of organics combining by making sure the DSC test was not run in an atmosphere with oxygen. If you keep the organic constituent from burning, you eliminate the criticism that the organics were the source of the energy showing up in their DSC data.

To make the argument he did is beyond mind-blowing. The point of the criticism of the DSC is not about replication of the WTC conditions, it's about failing to properly account for other sources of the energy released.

--------

This is all irrelevant anyway, though. There was only one real energy release in the DSC data, so Jones and Harrit cannot argue both that the organic binder burnt and that there was a "thermitic" release of energy. Can't have it both ways, not when their own DSC data only shows a single energy release. This is exactly what I mean when I say that their own data contradicts their claim.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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
Old 9th May 2011, 06:01 AM   #597
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
...
This is all irrelevant anyway, though. There was only one real energy release in the DSC data, so Jones and Harrit cannot argue both that the organic binder burnt and that there was a "thermitic" release of energy. Can't have it both ways, not when their own DSC data only shows a single energy release. This is exactly what I mean when I say that their own data contradicts their claim.
I have read this before, and it sounds reasonable, but I am not yet 100% convinced: Is it really true that the type of DSC that they used would show two peaks at distinct temperatures if the sample was a mix of (at least) two different compounds with different ignition points? You see, you can control the external temperature of the device, but I can imagine that once the first compound starts to burn, this might raise local temperature enough to ignite the second compound without any raise in the measured (externally applied) temperature.

Does anybody have a link that shows me such double peaks are both possible and expected?
Oystein 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
Old 9th May 2011, 06:50 AM   #598
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I have read this before, and it sounds reasonable, but I am not yet 100% convinced: Is it really true that the type of DSC that they used would show two peaks at distinct temperatures if the sample was a mix of (at least) two different compounds with different ignition points? You see, you can control the external temperature of the device, but I can imagine that once the first compound starts to burn, this might raise local temperature enough to ignite the second compound without any raise in the measured (externally applied) temperature.

Does anybody have a link that shows me such double peaks are both possible and expected?
Actually, I was working from Jones/Harrit's own DSC comparison, as well as the original Tillotson DSC graph. Fig. 29 in Jones/Harrit's Bentham paper, which references Fig. 3 of Tillotson's Nanostructured Energetic Materials... paper. Tillotson's peak occurs at around 530oC. Jones'/Harrit's is lower.

I guess you can make an argument that it would be one broad, smeared graph, but I'd need to be convined of that. I'll defer to actual chemists on this, but what I recall from my degree back in the dim origins of time (ok, fine, 1988 to 92), there should be more or less discrete peaks since there are only two compounds and therefore two exotherms to deal with.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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
Old 9th May 2011, 07:21 AM   #599
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Actually, I was working from Jones/Harrit's own DSC comparison, as well as the original Tillotson DSC graph. Fig. 29 in Jones/Harrit's Bentham paper, which references Fig. 3 of Tillotson's Nanostructured Energetic Materials... paper. Tillotson's peak occurs at around 530oC. Jones'/Harrit's is lower.

I guess you can make an argument that it would be one broad, smeared graph, but I'd need to be convined of that. I'll defer to actual chemists on this, but what I recall from my degree back in the dim origins of time (ok, fine, 1988 to 92), there should be more or less discrete peaks since there are only two compounds and therefore two exotherms to deal with.
Well, now, wait... re-skimming Tillotson's paper just nudged me into thinking something else. His paper had a few lines that said:
Quote:
... and aerogel composite will have a more difficult time dissipating a thermal stress than a xerogel composite. This likely results in the more rapid formation of 'hot spots' in the aerogel material, at a given temperature. Once one of the hot spots reaches the ignition point the reaction is self-propogating an the entire compiste is ignited.
... So therefore it could indeed be that areas in a gel matrix can get hot enough to set off the redox. That's basically what Tillotson's saying there. That opens the door to such a reaction having a lower DSC exotherm due to the reaction being set off by a localized hot spot.

That's starting to get lost in individual trees and losing sight of the forest, though. We've got to keep in mind that this is only the case if the researcher has an aerogel-thermite composite to begin with. It's a bit absurd to claim that's the case when the micrographs and X-ray spectra demonstrate the presence of aluminosilicates, and no effort is made to identify the presence of thermite reaction products. My point in all this is to acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong about dual/multiple peaks showing up in a calorimeter test, not to defend the Jones/Harrit findings. Dave Rogers and everyone else here are still correct about the notion of testing in inert atmosphere, and that's specifically because the charge of ogranic combustion still stands. The researchers still haven't eliminated that as the sole reason for the DSC result, either via analysis of the reaction products in the end, or eliminating the possibility of organic combustion during the DSC. So from that data alone we still can't tell whether the peak only due to organics burning or not (fine, we can tell from other methods, but I'm isolating down the calorimeter data itself; in the absence of the photomicrographs and X-ray spectra, all you have is a peak, and you don't know which reaction it comes from when there's more than one to choose from).

And remember: It's Jones and Harrit themselves who tried to use this an an excuse for their energy figures:
Quote:
We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic...

...As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component.
That leaves it to them to work to eliminate "air oxidation" as the source of the energy peak. They can't simply say "oh, we got this peak, it's thermite plus some organic combustion" when they haven't established the "thermite" to begin with.

And to reassert proper perspective: It's still the case that none of this overturns what the micrographs and X-EDS data says (second link on that). So I admit, we've allowed ourselves to slip into a very minute examination of a point that doesn't make any difference in the overall view. The photomicrographs and X-ray spectra that Sunstealer analyzed is, by itself, already definitive for refuting the thermite claim. The points regarding the DSC results turn out to be purely pedantic in the light of all that. It functions more as a point to show the sloppy work and rush to conclusions than anything else.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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
Old 9th May 2011, 07:32 AM   #600
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,669
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
That leaves it to them to work to eliminate "air oxidation" as the source of the energy peak. They can't simply say "oh, we got this peak, it's thermite plus some organic combustion" when they haven't established the "thermite" to begin with.
Another way to look at it is that they've established that there is some energy E released by the reaction, comprising Ec + Et, where Ec is the combustion and Et the thermite energy. From the conservation of energy, we can be certain that Ec is non-zero; there isn't enough energy in a thermite reaction to supply all that's observed. However, it's easily possible for Et to be zero, because combustion reactions release more energy. The heart of Harrit et al's argument is that Et is non-zero, yet they have produced no evidence demonstrating that that is the case.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.