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 Niels Harrit , richard gage , steven jones

Reply
Old 20th January 2012, 02:55 PM   #81
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The iron rich spheres Jones found are Iron Oxide mixed with cement dust, gypsum dust, burnt paper dust (carbon), and other dust from the WTC after they burned the dust sample they had. Means you win.

I looked up spectrum of iron oxide on gypsum, and it looks like Jones iron rich sphere. Iron rich to the 911 truth nuts is iron oxide, mixed with gypsum and cement dust.

Jones and his morons can add chemistry to their list of things they can't do, along with not figuring out 911. They burn their dust and come up with iron oxide, the opposite of what they need.
The key is "iron rich".

The percentage of iron in those spheres is what tells the tale.

MM
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
Old 20th January 2012, 03:05 PM   #82
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,705
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The key is "iron rich".

The percentage of iron in those spheres is what tells the tale.

MM
The iron rich sphere after burning the sample, is rust, iron oxide, which is not a product of thermite burning. Case closed = you support idiots who can't do chemistry. Not news since you can't do chemistry (if you could, you would know Jones is nuts on this claim) and reality based research. You don't check the lies you support; why? Got that Pulitzer yet? When?


Get a clue, guess what is in the top four elements in the earth's crust? Fe, means your crack team of paranoid conspiracy theorist nuts discovered the 4th most abundant element combined with Oxygen, iron rust; Not a product of thermite, they burned their dust and got liberated some iron oxide, mixed with cement and gypsum dust. It this was thermite dust which burned, they would have Fe, nothing more. You are in the 11th years of perpetual failure for 911 truth; it only takes 6 to 8 years to get a PhD in chemistry, what is stopping you from gaining the knowledge to challenge your hero's on 911 issues, or prove your claim of thermite?

Have you taken the paper, the thermite paper to your local University to get a Chemistry PhD Professor to explain why you were fooled?
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.htm
Not very skeptical of you to blindly support liars, unable to prove one point they made.

Last edited by beachnut; 20th January 2012 at 03:19 PM.
beachnut 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 20th January 2012, 03:18 PM   #83
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,554
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
Hi guys

Recently, I burned some steel wool live on tv (local Danish network) to challenge the claims of Harrit et al. and Harrit responded by e-mail with what I shall translate here:
Welcome Steen.

If you do need to enter into discussions with truthers take care to not lose the context.

Two key points:
1) The reason thermXte is raised in discussions about WTC collapses on 9/11 is that it is used to imply that there was some form of demolition involved in the collapses.
2) It is a common ploy of truthers to take discussion down long winding side tracks into irrelevant detail. The truther's goal is to prevent discussion progressing - and never ending disputes about thermXte (or iron micro spheres) has been a favoured means of achieving that diversion.

The reality of the context is that there was no demolition. Restate that claim in scientific language if you wish. "There has never been a plausible claim made for demolition." Arguing about thermXte is an attempt to introduce CD via the back door and so has some pseudo legitimacy. If you need to enter the thermxte debate (or microspheres, or any other of the truther preferred details) then remember that the truthers goal is to keep discussion going round in circles. I prefer to stand firm on the reality of "no CD therefore thermXte discussion is a waste of time in the context of 9/11 conspiracies".

Since there was no CD -- and it is up to the truthers to make and support a claim that there was CD -- the questions about thermXte are irrelevant. I have said several times on this forum that it wouldn't matter if there was a 100tonne stockpile of thermxte on site - it wasn't used in CD because there was no CD.

Somewhat surprising even many debunkers will not accept that simple situation. Probably because they find that disagreeing with "truthers" is fun.

Last edited by ozeco41; 20th January 2012 at 03:19 PM.
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 20th January 2012, 04:03 PM   #84
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,705
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The key is "iron rich".

The percentage of iron in those spheres is what tells the tale.

MM
You fail to put forth any effort to verify Jones' work, and fail to see it is fraud, bad science, moronic nonsense from what is a personable madman on 911.

Iron oxide -


Jones' iron sphere, is a sphere of iron oxide.


Iron oxide, not a product of thermite. Jones proves it is iron oxide right next to the photo of his iron oxide sphere.

In world where iron is 4.5 percent of the crust, why would it be strange to Jones and his morons on 911 that the WTC dust from a steel building is 5.87 percent for Fe? What logic does Jones use to make up his fantasy? 10 years of gullibility. For most people, there are short burst of gullibility, a few seconds, or minutes when we are teased by friends and family. Yet you let total strangers pull the wool over your eyes and you religiously spread their lies and delusions. Why are we skeptical of people we know, but trust total idiots like Jones? Why do 911 truth followers trust crazy ideas they google?

Last edited by beachnut; 20th January 2012 at 04:06 PM.
beachnut 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 20th January 2012, 04:05 PM   #85
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You fail to put forth any effort to verify Jones' work, and fail to see it is fraud, bad science, moronic nonsense from what is a personable madman on 911.

Iron oxide -
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...thersource.jpg

Jones' iron sphere, is a sphere of iron oxide.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...jonespaper.jpg
Iron oxide, not a product of thermite. Jones proves it is iron oxide right next to the photo of his iron oxide sphere.

In world where iron is 4.5 percent of the crust, why would it be strange to Jones and his morons on 911 the WTC dust from a steel building to be in the 5.87 percent range for Fe? What logic does Jones use to make up his fantasy? 10 years of gullibility. For most people, there are short burst of gullibility, a few seconds, or minutes when we are teased by friends and family. Yet you let total strangers pull the wool over your eyes and you religiously spread their lies and delusions. Why are we skeptical of people we know, but trust total idiots like Jones? Why do 911 truth followers trust crazy ideas they google?
Echoing stuff that is beyond your comprehension does not make an argument.

MM
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
Old 20th January 2012, 04:08 PM   #86
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Echoing stuff that is beyond your comprehension does not make an argument.

MM
What part did he get wrong and why. It's not beyond your comprehension, is it?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 20th January 2012, 04:39 PM   #87
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What part did he get wrong and why. It's not beyond your comprehension, is it?
Are you his nurse or what?

MM
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
Old 20th January 2012, 04:44 PM   #88
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Are you his nurse or what?

MM
Nope. What did he get wrong?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 20th January 2012, 05:30 PM   #89
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
Thanks for your prompt responses, Beachnut and The Almond.

Although, I am new in here, posting, I am however quite familiar with the issues and with Harrit. We met several times. And recently, my collegue and I challenged him at a mutual lecture. He later forbade that we showed his part publically.

Anyway, he claims that his process with the red/grey chips is basically different from mine when I burnt steel wool. And I just want to clear that up, being a novice within chemistry.

He says that the process of the chips is a reduction and that the steel wool undergoes an oxidation. And when I read his paper, "Actibe Thermitic Material...", I notice this:

"Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide."

So, could he have a point? Is his process significantly different to mine?

And:

He also points to the fact that the (residue) spheres in his experiment contains aluminum and that my spheres do not.

Is that prove or indication of a reduction?

cheers
Steen
Steen Svanholm 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 20th January 2012, 06:07 PM   #90
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,705
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Echoing stuff that is beyond your comprehension does not make an argument.

MM
Oops, your delusion is busted. Need some cheese with that post?


Most likely I have one more chem engr course than you do. The iron rich spheres have iron oxide and evidence of concrete dust and gypsum dust, no evidence of themite. Never seen thermite with carbon, Ca, Si, et al. Not sure why you fall for lies from people who are identified as conspiracy nuts and paranoid lunatics. When you have the Pulitzer, come back and rub my nose in it; but that is a fantasy that will never happen. Take your fantasy of thermite add 10 dollars, and you have a nice tip for the person loading your groceries. good luck with your tons of thermite dust, you have all the elements, you don't have thermite. It is amazing you don't protest salt.

Iron is 5 percent of the earth's crust. For > (math symbol for greater than) 50 years I have been able to take a magnet and gather iron rich spheres and particles from Atlanta Ga, to Diego Garcia, to Perth, Saudi Arabia, Italy, UK, Japan, all around the earth. To find iron in the dust of the WTC at 5.87 percent is not unusual. Only 911 truth can take reality and turn it into delusional conspiracies of thermite, and the inside job they can't define.
You have nothing. You failed to refute, you have to post nothing. If you had something you could put me on ignore and gather that Pulitzer.



Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
...
And:

He also points to the fact that the (residue) spheres in his experiment contains aluminum and that my spheres do not.

Is that prove or indication of a reduction?

cheers
Steen
There was concrete dust in the dust from the WTC. Al is in the concrete, Al is also 8 percent of the earth's crust, guess what you might find in dust.

Welcome to JREF. Take a look at his paper again, and study the spectrum they have. Their Iron stuff looks like iron oxide and other compounds.

He is nuts on 911. There should not be Al in your sample if you used steel wool. He has not made a point, a kid in grade school could figure out what he told you.

The samples they have, if they are real WTC dust, have a chance to have concrete dust, gypsum dust, and other things already studied, with reports available.

Last edited by beachnut; 20th January 2012 at 06:19 PM.
beachnut 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 20th January 2012, 07:45 PM   #91
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
Guys, thanks again for your fast responses.

Perhaps I should just make it clear to ozeco41 and others that I am hardly a newbie in 911-matters. My collegue and I launched our Danish website w-w-w.911facts.dk in July 2011, the first website in Denmark to scrutinize various conspiracy claims. So far we wrote more than 60 articles, each comparing the individual claim to the corresponding facts and primary sources. We focus mostly on claims made by the Danish version of the Truth Movement, aka i11time.dk (In the 11th hour) where Harrit is a VIP-member.
So you do not have to explain everything from the beginning, although I appreciate your willingness to do so.

Chemistry, however, is perhaps not my most developed skill, so please forgive me for asking banale questions, and any lecture here would be welcomed.

I have, of course, read and reread Harrit et als paper, Jones' paper, and also Harrits paint-denying paper.

I get your points about iron oxide which is all over and that you may find most anything in the chaotic dust of wtc, e.g. Al.

Still, none of you commented directly on the reduction/oxidation issue? Is Harrit right that my experiment is an oxidation and his experiment is a reduction?

And reading your answer, Beachnut, another thing puzzles me: Al is in the gypsum, all right, but (and I may miss a clue or two here) I understood the Harrit paper the way that they did not do spectral analysis on the dust but only on the chips and the residue of the chips. So the gypsum should not be part of it, right? Still, they find Al in the chips and the iron oxide spheres residue. Plese correct me, if I am wrong here.

Cheers,
Steen
Steen Svanholm 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 20th January 2012, 08:41 PM   #92
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Hey Steen,
Good job looking into this stuff, and welcome to the forums!

Dave posted his results here which show that PURE iron microspheres can indeed be formed by an ordinary Bic lighter and steel wool.

This puts the lie to the truther claim that ONLY extremely high temperatures can produce iron microspheres - it just isn't true!

Now, Harrit may well be trying to bamboozle you into thinking that Dave Thomas' evidence doesn't exist or isn't valid, but he's not going to succeed by complaining that the 'process' is different!!! That's the whole point - that there are a number of proposed sources for these microspheres, whereas Harrit et al. are claiming there are not.

Don't forget that eutectic mixtures allow melting at lower temperatures than found with pure metals. Harrit knows this but he's not going to volunteer that info to you.

That's my two cents anyway. I'm not a chemist, btw.
__________________
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 20th January 2012, 09:17 PM   #93
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Are you his nurse or what?

MM
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Echoing stuff that is beyond your comprehension does not make an argument.

MM
Still waiting for your non-insulting response to a very detailed scientific debunking of your main point.
Robrob 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 20th January 2012, 10:43 PM   #94
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
Anyway, he claims that his process with the red/grey chips is basically different from mine when I burnt steel wool. And I just want to clear that up, being a novice within chemistry.

He says that the process of the chips is a reduction and that the steel wool undergoes an oxidation. And when I read his paper, "Actibe Thermitic Material...", I notice this:

"Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide."

So, could he have a point? Is his process significantly different to mine?
Welcome to the Forum.

Your reaction is different than an actual thermite reaction. But that doesn't mean that it's different than what Dr. Harrit had with his chips -- since, as we all have figured out by now, he's not actually reacting thermite.

What you did is simple oxidation. Iron burns, provided it's sufficiently treated to react with oxygen. Normal blocks of iron don't burn easily because they have a "passivating" layer of iron oxide (i.e., rust) on the outside which protects the raw iron underneath, and what little oxygen gets through this layer doesn't cause enough of a reaction that you notice. Steel wool, however, can burn, because the greater surface area exposes much more iron to the oxygen, and thus it burns quickly, essentially "rusting" so fast that it causes a noticeable increase in temperature.

In thermite we have a "redox" reaction. This is simultaneous oxidation of elemental aluminum (that's the "ox") and reduction of iron oxide (that's the "re"). In short, the iron gives up its oxygen, at a cost in energy, which then reacts with the aluminum for a net release of energy. This kind of reaction is indeed different than what you did. But it's not so easy to tell.

Both of these reactions can create "iron rich microspheres." Looking for these is not a good way to tell what kind of reaction actually took place, which is why the Truthers have been barking up the wrong tree for almost a decade.

You see, if you have actual thermite, iron oxide + aluminum ==> iron + aluminum oxide + heat, in real life it doesn't stop there. You then have hot elemental iron in the atmosphere, which oxidizes on its own almost immediately. There's no reason at all to expect the iron to stay elementally pure, unless you carried out the reaction in a neutral atmosphere, or a vacuum.

Truthers like Steven Jones also make the extraordinary assumption that the shape of the resultants was significant. The argument was that you'd only see microspheres as a result of surface tension acting on droplets of the material, i.e. you'd need an actual pool of molten, pure iron to get any microspheres splashing out of it. As it turns out, this is nonsense, since "iron rich microspheres" can be created in many processes that don't involve melting a large volume of iron -- like burning steel wool, as Dave Thomas showed some time ago.

So, in conclusion, there is a difference between your reaction and a thermite reaction, but it isn't clear that there is one between what you did and what Dr. Harrit did. He has never provided any evidence that he indeed was reacting thermite. He just thinks he did.
R.Mackey 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 20th January 2012, 11:07 PM   #95
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
The whole question of oxidation or reduction is just a diversion from the Main Point of Truthiness, which goes as follows:
  • Iron melts at 1538 C, 2800 F, which is "way too hot for jet fuel or office fires." The very presence of the iron-rich microspheres supposedly proves that thermite was used.
    Here's the video in question:
    YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
    I AGREE

  • Then, the presence of ThermiteTM supposedly proves the Inside Job Controlled Demolition. They needed Thermite to do the job quietly, which it did, except for those high explosives required to eject heavy steel beams hundreds of feet.

This chain of logic fails completely because, as the experiments show, one can make iron microspheres with a lighter and steel wool; iron microspheres are also common in ash, as was mentioned.

Moreover, Iron Oxide melts at an even higher temperature, 1566 C., so both need high temperatures to melt.

The simple thing the Truthers are required to ignore is that fires can heat filaments and small globs of iron or iron oxide to annealing temperatures, lower than melting, but where the particles can form energy-minimizing shapes like spheres.

Iron microspheres do not prove 9/11 was an Inside Job. The End.
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2012, 11:56 PM   #96
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,705
See above post(s).

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
...

Still, none of you commented directly on the reduction/oxidation issue? Is Harrit right that my experiment is an oxidation and his experiment is a reduction?

And reading your answer, Beachnut, another thing puzzles me: Al is in the gypsum, all right, but (and I may miss a clue or two here) I understood the Harrit paper the way that they did not do spectral analysis on the dust but only on the chips and the residue of the chips. So the gypsum should not be part of it, right? Still, they find Al in the chips and the iron oxide spheres residue. Plese correct me, if I am wrong here.

Cheers,
Steen
Tons of gypsum, it is in wallboard, 3 inches of wallboard were used to insulate the core columns from fire, the reason the insulation fell off easy during impact.

gypsum - CaSO4.2H2O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

Cement has Al and Fe in it. Fly ash is used in cement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

This is iron oxide in a bone, looks like, the iron oxide Jones found; but Jones ignores the oxygen.



All the elements Jones found, are elements you would find in WTC due to a collapse and fire in the WTC.



This is what Jones calls an iron sphere from WTC dust, which he says is a product of thermite. Iron oxide is not a product of thermite. Al, CA, S, are found in cement and wall board. Dust from the WTC.

There is no thermite product found, no iron, fused to the steel of the WTC. Anyone using RJ Lee reports fails, the dust samples in the RJ Lee report were taken after WTC clean up.


Al is found in paper, glossy paper, kaolinite is used, in magazines etc, like National Geographic.

kaolinite - Al2Si2O5(OH)4

There are many sources for Al, and Fe.

Last edited by beachnut; 21st January 2012 at 12:42 AM.
beachnut 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 21st January 2012, 01:40 AM   #97
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
The whole question of oxidation or reduction is just a diversion from the Main Point of Truthiness, which goes as follows:
  • Iron melts at 1538 C, 2800 F, which is "way too hot for jet fuel or office fires." The very presence of the iron-rich microspheres supposedly proves that thermite was used.
    Here's the video in question:
    YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
    I AGREE

  • Then, the presence of ThermiteTM supposedly proves the Inside Job Controlled Demolition. They needed Thermite to do the job quietly, which it did, except for those high explosives required to eject heavy steel beams hundreds of feet.

This chain of logic fails completely because, as the experiments show, one can make iron microspheres with a lighter and steel wool; iron microspheres are also common in ash, as was mentioned.

Moreover, Iron Oxide melts at an even higher temperature, 1566 C., so both need high temperatures to melt.

The simple thing the Truthers are required to ignore is that fires can heat filaments and small globs of iron or iron oxide to annealing temperatures, lower than melting, but where the particles can form energy-minimizing shapes like spheres.

Iron microspheres do not prove 9/11 was an Inside Job. The End.

Hey Dave! I've favorited the video, etc... but can you please give the thing a proper title? May I suggest something attractive to truther moths, such as 'Iron microspheres prove Thermite?'

thx

AE

ps just realized I've neglected to change my avatar. Must put on to-do list
__________________
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 21st January 2012, 03:49 AM   #98
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
Really appreciate your thourough comments, guys.

As mentioned earlier, I repeated Dave Thomas' BIC-lighter-steel-wool-burning on Dansih TV (local network) as may be seen here at 4:00
h-t-t-p://webtv.fjordtv.dk/index_2.aspx?poditemid=15703&tagsid=398

(Due to forums regulations I cannot post URLs just yet, therefore the hyphens in h-t-t-p)

R. Mackey, your explanation here was very helpful:
"So, in conclusion, there is a difference between your reaction and a thermite reaction, but it isn't clear that there is one between what you did and what Dr. Harrit did. He has never provided any evidence that he indeed was reacting thermite. He just thinks he did."

So do I understand it correctly when I say that Harrit et al. are wrong mainly because of two things?:
1. They ignite the chips at a good 400 C. (too low for thermite that ignites at 900 C).
2. They do it in "open air". (Should have been done in an inert atmosphere).

So I did not make thermite residue and Harrit et al. did not make thermite residue. And the reason why he finds Al and Si in his residue (mine was not scanned but it was in principle pure Iron oxide, right?) is because the samples were already mixed with gypsym and other ingredients from the chaos that day, correct?

Still, Harrit et al. cleans the samples before igniting, so if there was gypsum and other things in the dust to begin with, it would be gone after the cleaning, would it not?

Or does the chips (within) themselves contain traces of gypsum and other ingredients?

That would sound a bit strange to me if we, on the other hand, assume that the chips might be red primer paint on steel. The wallboards would not be mounted between the paint and the steel, right?

Or perhaps the Al in the chips inherit from the paint itself?

Again, I may miss a point or two, so your are welcome to lecture and mock me, all you like. I need to understand this correctly.
Steen Svanholm 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 21st January 2012, 01:09 PM   #99
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You fail to put forth any effort to verify Jones' work, and fail to see it is fraud, bad science, moronic nonsense from what is a personable madman on 911.

Iron oxide -
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...thersource.jpg

Jones' iron sphere, is a sphere of iron oxide.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...jonespaper.jpg
Iron oxide, not a product of thermite. Jones proves it is iron oxide right next to the photo of his iron oxide sphere.
Those plate-like structures in the bottom picture look like kaolinite. Paint residue or ash from burning self-copying paper. (Iron powder and kaolin that can be pressed out of one piece of paper to form an image on another.)
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 21st January 2012, 02:19 PM   #100
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
So do I understand it correctly when I say that Harrit et al. are wrong mainly because of two things?:
1. They ignite the chips at a good 400 C. (too low for thermite that ignites at 900 C).
2. They do it in "open air". (Should have been done in an inert atmosphere).
Regarding your first point: Ordinary thermite is rather difficult to ignite. There may be some way to process thermite or pack it with some other chemical so that it ignites at a much lower temperature. However, LOTS of things will ignite at about 400oC, so what Harrit did here is not conclusive at all. He could have a mystery substance that he can't even define. Or he could have paint. Guess which one is more likely.

The second point is more important. Thermite will react without needing any air at all, because its redox reaction supplies its own oxygen. Normal combustion, however, will not progress in an inert atmosphere (although there are combustion-like processes, such as pyrolysis, which can still happen in an inert atmosphere, so be careful). Anyway, there is no excuse for Dr. Harrit never trying his reaction in an inert atmosphere. If he had and he got the same kind of reaction, it would be a much more compelling story.

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
So I did not make thermite residue and Harrit et al. did not make thermite residue. And the reason why he finds Al and Si in his residue (mine was not scanned but it was in principle pure Iron oxide, right?) is because the samples were already mixed with gypsym and other ingredients from the chaos that day, correct?
It's hard to say, and that's one thing that Chris Mohr's experiment may help solve. I believe the aluminum in Dr. Harrit's sample was already in the form of an aluminum silicate, i.e. of mineral origin as a component in paint. But there are lots of possibilities. Contamination of the sample is one of them.

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
Still, Harrit et al. cleans the samples before igniting, so if there was gypsum and other things in the dust to begin with, it would be gone after the cleaning, would it not?
Depends on how he cleaned it. Based on his other mistakes I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's also a lot easier to know how to clean something when you know what it is... and he doesn't appear to know that.

At the end of the day, Dr. Harrit leaves us with several observations that he says are evidence of nanothermite, but all of those observations can also be explained without nanothermite. His paper also includes observations that are totally inconsistent with nanothermite -- the energy content, the stunningly high carbon content, the morphology, the magnetic nature, and the total lack of an explanation for what exactly it was supposed to do.

We may never know exactly what he has, but what he found doesn't impress me at all. I could easily take a pinch of dust from an old automobile, analyze the heck out of it, and find enough "anomalies" to make an equally compelling nonsense story.
R.Mackey 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 21st January 2012, 02:31 PM   #101
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Hey Dave! I've favorited the video, etc... but can you please give the thing a proper title? May I suggest something attractive to truther moths, such as 'Iron microspheres prove Thermite?'

thx

AE

ps just realized I've neglected to change my avatar. Must put on to-do list
Got 'er done, thanks!
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2012, 02:51 PM   #102
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Yes it is important to present your misinformation as credibly as possible.

MM
You might want to mention that to Jones et al.......The Bentham paper has not set the scientific world on fire......
sheeplesnshills 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 21st January 2012, 02:53 PM   #103
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
.....

Anyway, there is no excuse for Dr. Harrit never trying his reaction in an inert atmosphere. If he had and he got the same kind of reaction, it would be a much more compelling story.
You would think by now Dr. Harrit would have done this test to answer this persistent question.




And published his results.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch 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 21st January 2012, 04:01 PM   #104
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
You would think by now Dr. Harrit would have done this test to answer this persistent question.

He probably has, and didn't like the result.........
sheeplesnshills 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 21st January 2012, 04:20 PM   #105
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Echoing stuff that is beyond your comprehension does not make an argument.

MM
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 21st January 2012, 04:23 PM   #106
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Echoing stuff that is beyond your My comprehension does not make an argument.

MM
You spelled "my" wrong
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Dont get me loln off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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 21st January 2012, 04:45 PM   #107
Pantaz
Muse
 
Pantaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
... I have, of course, read and reread Harrit et als paper, Jones' paper, and also Harrits paint-denying paper. ...
If you haven't seen the thread yet, there is new testing of the WTC dust being performed now. Forum member chrismohr launched the project in November. He established contact with a reliable lab, recruited financial donors, and has just reported that the study has officially started.
Pantaz 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 21st January 2012, 05:46 PM   #108
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Pantaz View Post
If you haven't seen the thread yet, there is new testing of the WTC dust being performed now. Forum member chrismohr launched the project in November. He established contact with a reliable lab, recruited financial donors, and has just reported that the study has officially started.
Kewl. Been out of the loop due to severe boredom with 9/11 Truth. Still checking in once in a while.
__________________
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 23rd January 2012, 02:51 AM   #109
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
R Mackey, thanks for a pedagogical answer that makes total sense.

1. One thing was new to me. You said that the "magnetic nature" was inconsistent with nanothermite if I understand you correctly. Would you explain that. Would nano not be magnetic, or... ?

2. About the presence of Al and/or Si, does the relative amount of each compared to Fe and O give a hint of what the substance is or what is it is not?

3. Chris Mohr's experiment I am not familiar with. Is that mentioned here in the forums?

4. Are you or either persons in here professionals within chemistry or would I have had the same knowledge as you if I had chemistry in high school?

5. About the issue of Harrit et al. not testing in an inert atmosphere, I went through the report again, and I could not determine what kind of atmosphere he tested in at all. So how do we know for sure that he did not test it in an inert atmosphere? Can we conclude that solely from him not mentioning it?

Again, I really appreciate everyone here, having patience with my questions. I need to get facts straight for our website before cocluding anything and in order to confront Harrit properly and with the relevant questions.

Cheers
Steen
Steen Svanholm 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 23rd January 2012, 03:53 AM   #110
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
About the presence of Al and/or Si, does the relative amount of each compared to Fe and O give a hint of what the substance is or what is it is not?
That and the presence of plate-like crystals associated with the iron oxide strongly suggest that the Al and Si are from kaolinite.

Quote:
Are you or either persons in here professionals within chemistry or would I have had the same knowledge as you if I had chemistry in high school?
There are professional chemists among us, along with professionals in various fields that give us occassion to work with some of the materials in question. Even a kid who collects rocks and minerals should be able to see what is wrong with Jones' assement of the paint chips based on the microscopic examination.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 23rd January 2012, 06:52 AM   #111
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
R Mackey, thanks for a pedagogical answer that makes total sense.

1. One thing was new to me. You said that the "magnetic nature" was inconsistent with nanothermite if I understand you correctly. Would you explain that. Would nano not be magnetic, or... ?

2. About the presence of Al and/or Si, does the relative amount of each compared to Fe and O give a hint of what the substance is or what is it is not?

3. Chris Mohr's experiment I am not familiar with. Is that mentioned here in the forums?

4. Are you or either persons in here professionals within chemistry or would I have had the same knowledge as you if I had chemistry in high school?

5. About the issue of Harrit et al. not testing in an inert atmosphere, I went through the report again, and I could not determine what kind of atmosphere he tested in at all. So how do we know for sure that he did not test it in an inert atmosphere? Can we conclude that solely from him not mentioning it?

Again, I really appreciate everyone here, having patience with my questions. I need to get facts straight for our website before cocluding anything and in order to confront Harrit properly and with the relevant questions.

Cheers
Steen
Hi Steen! Welcome to the Forum!

Disclosure to all others: Steen and I have privately chatted about the Harrit e.al. paper about 2 months ago.

To chime in with some answers:
1. I fail to see R.Mackey's point - owing perhaps to my poor understanding of magnetism. Thermite (whether nano or not) contains iron oxide. It is generally assumed that this would be Fe2O3 in its alpha-phase which is weakly antiferromagnetic, but there is no principal reason why other iron oxides couldn't also be a part of it. Jones's red-gray chips are most likely paint on spalled, oxidized steel, so again we'd expect alpha-Fe2O3 to dominate, but would also expect other phases (Fe3O4, FeO...) with different magnetic properties. The paint that Harrit e.al. present in their Fig. 2-11 contains alpha-Fe2O3 (rhombohedric hematite crystals are visible) below micron-size. So in terms of chemistry, crytalization and magnetism, the iron oxides in their chips is not really distinguishable from the iron oxides in generic thermite.

2. Absolutely yes. Fig. 7 in Harrit e.al. consistently shows Si peaks that are slightly higher than the Al peaks, Since Si also has a slightly higher atomic weight, this means that in all 4 chips (a)-(d), there is practically the same number of Al and and Si atoms. Fig 10 shows an XEDS map of several element. It reveals no particular correlation of C and O to anything else, but that Al and Si map each other very well. Also, we can see that areas rich in Al and Si correlate with those regions where we see these peculiar platelets in the BSE image. Fig 11 finally reveals that the thin platelets indeed have this signature of Al=Si but no Fe, along with lots of O, whereas Fe is assocuated mainly with O, and all other elements are considered by the authors to be the effect of a beam not focussed enough. Taken together, it would seem that Al and Si are bound with each other and O - i.e. we are looking at an aluminium silicate with equal amounts of Si and Al. Kaolinite happens to be such an aluminium silicate: it has the sum formula Al2Si2O5(OH)4. And surprise surprise: Kaolinite not only has a chemical composition that matches Harrit's XEDS data perfectly, it also looks exactly like, and has the same typical size as, the platelets and stacks of platelets that Harrit sees, too, in Figures 5, 8, 9 and 10.
(Note: C is always present in the XEDS data; that's because the pigments are, as Harrit correctly comments, embedded in an organic matrix that is just everywhere in the samples and around the pigments; H can't be detected by XEDS, that's why it is absent fromn the spectra)

3. Yes. Chris used "my" thread "Origin of the paint..." to inform us about the progress of his efforts to have red-gray chips independently tested by a competent lab. He finally decided on a lab in Atlanta Georgia and an experimenter by the name of Jim Milette. Jim has access to dust samples that were collected east of the WTC a few days after the collapses, and that were already the subject of a paper about environmental hazards, that Jim co-authored in 2002. The focus back then was on substances that may pose a health hazard, such as asbestos. Since that study wasn't interested in how the towers collapsed, they did not go into any details about, for example, particles of iron oxide or paint, simply because neither is a significant hazard.
In that thread, Chris also organized financial support - the test will cost US$1000.
Chris Mohr will give Jim Milette the go-ahead this week, after hopefully the last checks are in to add up to those 1000 dollars.

4. The Almond and Sunstealer have both extensive professional experience with the kind of material analysis of the kind that Harrit e.al did, but both are not really active here any longer. I believe they still read our threads now and then.
Ivan Kminek, I understand, is a chemist, or chemistry student, at a university in thhe Czech Republik. His background I believe is more organic chemistry - polymers and such stuff, not so much material physics or the anorganic chemistry of pigments.
All others, myself included, I believe are more or less amateurs with regard to chemistry, although some may have had a chemistry course or two at university as part of their science or engineering education.

5. I don't have a link handy, and am too lazy to search now, but we have read a reply by Harrit where he defended the choice of doing the DSC under air with the (moronic) observation that the towers weren't CDed under Argon. Note however that the DSC results that went into their paper were obtained by Jeff Farrer, probably at or near Brigham Young University in Utah, where he is a university lab manager. Note too that Jeff admitted in his AE911T interview that he had never worked with a DSC before and "quickly learned" it fromn someone right before running his tests. I don't remember if Jeff is on record with regard to the atmosphere he used.
I think it can be construed from the paper that they did the DSC test with atmospheric oxygen present. On p. 28: "One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic". The usual mode for organic materials to be "energetic" is for them to burn with external oxygen. The exception are monomolecular substances that make conventional high explosives - a possibility they surely would have mentioned in that context if they knew that no extra O was present.
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 23rd January 2012, 07:20 AM   #112
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Oystein: , just for your record (since we should perhaps know better each other) Although I consider myself sometimes as an "eternal student", I'm 58 years old and I've been working as a polymer/organic chemist in Czech Academy of Sciences for almost 25 years (with one eleven years long "break" when I have been forced to feed my family as an editor of family magazine).
In a Web of Science (I'm not sure if it is freely accessible), there is a record that I have published 45 papers in peer-reviewed polymeric and organic chemistry journals with h-index 13 (about 9 citation per one paper).
Of course it is not so important here, but pls do not consider me as a student anymore, I'm definitely not so young (and fresh)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 23rd January 2012 at 07:21 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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 23rd January 2012, 07:56 AM   #113
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
Hi guys

Recently, I burned some steel wool live on tv (local Danish network) to challenge the claims of Harrit et al. and Harrit responded by e-mail with what I shall translate here:

"The experiment done by Steen Svanholm is the opposite reaction of the thermite reaction. He burns iron powder that ignite when the temperature is is high enough. Burning is by definition a reaction with the oxygen in the air. The process that Svanholm demonstrates is:
iron + oxygen produces ironoxide

Within chemistry this type of reaction is called an oxidation.

The particles he points to after the experiment are ironoxide and they are not round.

The thermite reaction is the exact opposite:

Ironoxide + aluminum produces aluminumoxide
Within chemistry this type of reaction is called a reduction.

The particles found in the dust from WTC contains elementary iron.

Many of them also contain aluminum and silicon. This is characteristic to iron-rich spheres produced in the thermite reaction.

Svanholm would have flunked the chemistry exam in high school if he had made a fool of himself in this manner."

What are you guys' opinion about his response?

Regards
Steen Svanholm
911facts.dk
And now, working backwards, some comments on your original question:

Originally Posted by Harrit
The experiment done by Steen Svanholm is the opposite reaction of the thermite reaction. He burns iron powder that ignite when the temperature is is high enough. Burning is by definition a reaction with the oxygen in the air. The process that Svanholm demonstrates is:
iron + oxygen produces ironoxide

Within chemistry this type of reaction is called an oxidation.

The particles he points to after the experiment are ironoxide...
This is correct so far. You have oxidized steel and produced iron-rich microspheres. That is as far as the steel-wool-experiment can take you: That there is at least one other, mundane, process by which iron-rich microspheres can be produced. This refutes any truther argument that "iron-rich microspheres can only be explained by a thermite reaction because only a thermite reaction reaches temperatures above the melting point of iron".
There are, in fact, many processes that can produce iron-rich microspheres.

Originally Posted by Harrit
The particles he points to after the experiment are ironoxide and they are not round.
I think he errs here. I haven't seen the particles that you point to, Steen, but I have seen Dave Thomas' video where he does in fact show spheres after burning steel wool that weren't there before.

Originally Posted by Harrit
The thermite reaction is the exact opposite:

Ironoxide + aluminum produces aluminumoxide
Within chemistry this type of reaction is called a reduction.
This again is correct. Only problem is: Harrit still needs to prove that a thermite reaction happened anywhere...

Anyway, if his argument is "my iron microspheres came fromn a different process than Steen's microspheres", then he is of course right, but you hopefully never claimed that Harrit's microspheres were produced by burning steel wool with a lighter.

Originally Posted by Harrit
The particles found in the dust from WTC contains elementary iron.
This is questionable. First of all, finding elemental iron in the dust is in itself not proof for a thermmite reaction, and whatever may have been found in the dust has not been connected by Harrit or anyone else to the supposed active thermitic material in the red-gray chips. It is simply unknown, for any sphere found already in the dust, what it originated from. If they take the >5% iron-rich microspheres quote from the RJ Lee report serious and assume only a thermite reaction can create such spheres, then quickyl you have to posit the burning of several tons of thermite before and during the collapse. Of which there is no corroborating evidence.

Now let's look at Harrit's own data. In Fig 27, he presents a sphere that was extracted from the dust (i.e. was not produced by burning chips) - it is a random sphere, they could have taken any of millions I guess. With all the possibility of picking a sphere with a particularly high Fe-content. Let's see what the data holds. Here is the sphere (plus some other freckles of dust):

And here is it's XEDS spectrum:

The higher Fe-peak is about 85% the height of the O peak. Compare this to Fig. 6 which shows the gray layer before any ignition:


In these spectra, Fe peak is between 70% and 120% of O peak. So it seems that the pre-ignition gray layer has more fe relative to O than the dust sphere. And how do Harritr e.al. describe the chemical composition of the gray layer? Page 19: "The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide"
Since the gray layer is "mostly of iron oxide", and since that sphere has relatively more O, it stands to reason to say that it also "mostly of iron oxide" rather than elemental iron.


Now on to microspheres that resulted from ignition of chips. The most extreme case seemed to be this:


We do not know what the characteristics were of this particular chip before it was destroyed in the DSC test, so it would be invalid to compare it to chips (a)-(d) or any others. Credit the sloppy work of Harrit e.al.
In the text, they say that "A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present".
I don't know... what do they mean by "elemental contents"? Proportions by weight or by atom count? If the former, then a Fe:O ratio by mass of 2:1 means about 4:7 by mols, which means we are looking at Fe2O3 with some O still to spend.
Anyway, since we don't know what was in that chip before the DSC procedure, we can't know if any iron was reduced. What we do know is that they flashed that probe with a thin carbon layer, and that carbon can reduce iron oxide. So even an experimental error is not totally implausible, given the fact that Jeff Farrer had never done DSC tests before.

Originally Posted by Harrit
Many of them also contain aluminum and silicon. This is characteristic to iron-rich spheres produced in the thermite reaction.
It is not surprising at all that they would find Al and Si post-ignition when they found aluminium silicate pre-ignition. It would be more surprising if the Al and Si would just vanish.


Originally Posted by Harrit
Svanholm would have flunked the chemistry exam in high school if he had made a fool of himself in this manner
Maybe, and you bet that Oystein will flunk almost every conceivable chemistry exam, but Harrit will flunk together with us. In fact, he flunked already by publishing that crap paper.
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 23rd January 2012, 07:59 AM   #114
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Oystein: , just for your record (since we should perhaps know better each other) Although I consider myself sometimes as an "eternal student", I'm 58 years old and I've been working as a polymer/organic chemist in Czech Academy of Sciences for almost 25 years (with one eleven years long "break" when I have been forced to feed my family as an editor of family magazine).
In a Web of Science (I'm not sure if it is freely accessible), there is a record that I have published 45 papers in peer-reviewed polymeric and organic chemistry journals with h-index 13 (about 9 citation per one paper).
Of course it is not so important here, but pls do not consider me as a student anymore, I'm definitely not so young (and fresh)
Oops
Well at least no one can accuse me of inflating your credentials to strengthen an argument from authority
Thanks for the clarification.

I made another, smaller, blunder when I claimed that The Almond wasn't really active here any longer. In fact, The Almond replied already in this thread a couple of days ago, on the previous page!
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 23rd January 2012, 11:04 AM   #115
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
R Mackey, thanks for a pedagogical answer that makes total sense.
You're welcome. Just to supplement Oystein's comments:

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
1. One thing was new to me. You said that the "magnetic nature" was inconsistent with nanothermite if I understand you correctly. Would you explain that. Would nano not be magnetic, or... ?
Nanothermite, being a precision material, should contain only Fe2O3 and no other oxides of iron. Those oxides should also exist in "beads" approximately 10 nm across or smaller, as described in Dr. Tillotson's papers. These "beads" would be distributed more or less uniformly. Such a construction would be weakly antiferromagnetic. However, because it's in such small pieces, it cannot form large magnetic regions and will be very weak indeed. Compared to ordinary materials, it would not be magnetic enough to notice without careful measurement.

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
2. About the presence of Al and/or Si, does the relative amount of each compared to Fe and O give a hint of what the substance is or what is it is not?
Sure does. Others are better suited to comment on this, however.

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
3. Chris Mohr's experiment I am not familiar with. Is that mentioned here in the forums?
Chris Mohr has contracted a scientist to perform more focused testing on dust samples from the World Trade Center. Unsurprisingly, the Truthers have decided not to provide him with any of their samples. There's a long thread on it on the front page of the Forum -- I don't remember when the talk of this experiment started, but it's towards the end. You might want to just search for Chris Mohr's posts or PM him directly.

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
4. Are you or either persons in here professionals within chemistry or would I have had the same knowledge as you if I had chemistry in high school?
I have approximately two years of college chemistry (inorganic, organic, and biochemistry) but I am speaking as a generalist. I have no unusual qualification in chemistry. Still, it's more than enough to handle Truther claims.

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
5. About the issue of Harrit et al. not testing in an inert atmosphere, I went through the report again, and I could not determine what kind of atmosphere he tested in at all. So how do we know for sure that he did not test it in an inert atmosphere? Can we conclude that solely from him not mentioning it?
It would not be correct to conclude testing in air without them commenting, but Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones have been asked, and when asked, they did state that their calorimetry was tested in air, not in an inert atmosphere.
R.Mackey 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 30th January 2012, 08:49 AM   #116
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
Again, thanks to everyone for detailed explanations. I think I got enough work with so far.

About Chris Mohr's experiment, it was mentioned that several in here helped covering the expenses. If funds are still needed, I may be able to support a bit too, so I'd like to know if you have an international account number: Iban and Swift codes?

Kindly,
Steen
Steen Svanholm 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 30th January 2012, 09:49 AM   #117
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
Again, thanks to everyone for detailed explanations. I think I got enough work with so far.

About Chris Mohr's experiment, it was mentioned that several in here helped covering the expenses. If funds are still needed, I may be able to support a bit too, so I'd like to know if you have an international account number: Iban and Swift codes?

Kindly,
Steen
Chris Mohr told us a few days ago that, after adjusting his own contribution by US$5, we reached the required US$1000 precisely.

Chris asked the lab guy, Jim Milette, if he had access to some other materials of interest, such as paint from floor joists, or WTC bulk concrete, and if Jim does actually find these thing on store somewhere, we might decide to spend some more money on a follow-up study. So hold your cash for the moment!
Method of payment was: Those in the USA sent Chris a check via mail, and those outside send money through PayPal to someone in the USA, who then wrote a check, or increased the amount on his own check accordingly. That's because Chris doesn't use PayPal, but it is probably the easiest and cheapest methof for most of us to transfer money oversees.
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 30th January 2012, 07:35 PM   #118
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Oops
Well at least no one can accuse me of inflating your credentials to strengthen an argument from authority
Thanks for the clarification.

I made another, smaller, blunder when I claimed that The Almond wasn't really active here any longer. In fact, The Almond replied already in this thread a couple of days ago, on the previous page!
Hallelujah! Someone still reads my word-salad posts! If I may be permitted to expound, I'm a bit of a lurker, but I still do poke my head in for any threads that could use some sciency stuff.

I've been working in the materials research industry for about 7 years now as a research engineer specializing in the X-ray analysis of building materials. Every few days, the boss comes into my office, hands me two wads of something, and asks me to find the differences between the two. I've had extensive experience doing analysis of dust, dirt and ash using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis techniques. I do quite a bit of work that's exactly like what RJ Lee does, but I don't do it on their scale.

I can also say that the hardest thing I have to do is look at a microscopic bit of stuff, and determine what the parent material is. This is infuriating with dust samples, since the range of possibilities is essentially a tiny bit of everything on earth, organic and inorganic. When I come across a material, I know what its major inorganic constituents are, but then I have to do endless amounts of research to carefully narrow down the list of possibilities. I search mineral databases, the McCrone Particle Atlas, research papers, polymer journals, and half a dozen other resources. It's a lot of work!
__________________
"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 January 2012, 03:34 AM   #119
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Hallelujah! Someone still reads my word-salad posts! If I may be permitted to expound, I'm a bit of a lurker, but I still do poke my head in for any threads that could use some sciency stuff.

I've been working in the materials research industry for about 7 years now as a research engineer specializing in the X-ray analysis of building materials. Every few days, the boss comes into my office, hands me two wads of something, and asks me to find the differences between the two. I've had extensive experience doing analysis of dust, dirt and ash using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis techniques. I do quite a bit of work that's exactly like what RJ Lee does, but I don't do it on their scale.

I can also say that the hardest thing I have to do is look at a microscopic bit of stuff, and determine what the parent material is. This is infuriating with dust samples, since the range of possibilities is essentially a tiny bit of everything on earth, organic and inorganic. When I come across a material, I know what its major inorganic constituents are, but then I have to do endless amounts of research to carefully narrow down the list of possibilities. I search mineral databases, the McCrone Particle Atlas, research papers, polymer journals, and half a dozen other resources. It's a lot of work!
Couldn't you do a couple of simple experiments some time? Something along the lines of
- find a bit of old steel with red primer
- knock some of the paint off with a hammer
- look at it to see if it contains iron oxide and some organic vehicle
- heat it on a hot plate till it burns away
- look again for microspheres
- measure their iron content

Snap a few photos of what your doing, maybe with a nice greeting to JREF on a paper card so we know you took those pics...


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 January 2012, 04:13 AM   #120
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Hi, Oystein,

I think that now is better to wait until some results from Jim's research are out.

- As I remarked in "your microsphere thread", different paints containing iron oxide could provide quite different results. Namely iron oxide pigment particle size can play a quite important role, as for behavior of samples during heating under air and formation of microspheres - I think).
- Remember experiments of Henryco: he didn't find any microspheres in burned red chips (perhaps they were different from chips burned in Bentham paper, but... who knows).
- We should also remember that according to Sunstealer, microspheres are formed basically from gray layers during heating of red-gray chips. So, potential Almond's samples should contain such gray layers of oxidized steel.
I think that experiments on some accidental primer can easily bring more confusion than clarification, if no microspheres are found.

But, if Almond agrees, why not? It could be fun

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 31st January 2012 at 04:35 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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 02:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.