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 james millette , kevin ryan , Niels Harrit , paint chips , richard gage , steven jones , wtc

Reply
Old 22nd January 2013, 03:18 PM   #1521
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
cjnewson88: I have just 3 questions I would like you to answer.
1. Oystein is wrong as explained in my post 1515.

2. Oystein is wrong, he does not offer any evidence to support his conclusions, no links to the authors admitting the extra data does not support their paper, and that they have found no more evidence. Until then his story is just that, a story.

3. You are right, a=b=c=d. As far as I know.
jtl 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 22nd January 2013, 03:25 PM   #1522
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
I think I speak for a lot of members and lurkers here when I state the appreciation of the very informative posts made by the likes of Sunstealer, Oystein, and Ivan. I personally think that Sunstealer is mainly responsible for thinning out the thermite crowd with his analysis of the Harrit et.al paper. Millete has basically confirmed his findings he made a few years ago, forcing most truthers to back off their position or go back to conventional explosions. As you can see, there are only few hangers-on left, desperately trying to find a way to make thermite work.

My question is since this is the preliminary report, is there anything possible that Truthers could legitimately hang their hat on in the final report? Or does the preliminary report completely rule out thermite? Are they stuck with the false hopes of the lame DSC argument?*

*ETA: These questions are actually being asked by a cousin acquaintance of mine, Lennay. Here she is in this video. She's the one on the right...or left...you decide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTqKcojrVY
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
John Wooden

Last edited by TexasJack; 22nd January 2013 at 03:36 PM.
TexasJack 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 22nd January 2013, 03:27 PM   #1523
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"…I think, personally, after having talked to him on the phone, that Basile is an honest man, and somewhat open towards admitting that the stuff really isn't thermite after all. But he has stopped communication with me, and I don't know why. So I hesitate..."
I quite believe that Mark Basile is an honest and sincere man and that he is quite willing to admit he is wrong if shown to be wrong.

But if you wish to imply that you and he were so chummy on the phone that he confided doubts about the red chips being thermitic, I suggest you provide some proof.

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 22nd January 2013, 03:29 PM   #1524
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I quite believe that Mark Basile is an honest and sincere man and that he is quite willing to admit he is wrong if shown to be wrong.

But if you wish to imply that you and he were so chummy on the phone that he confided doubts about the red chips being thermitic, I suggest you provide some proof.

MM
Mark thinks corrosion is due to thermite. Rules him out as a rational person. He thinks steel exposed to 1,000 C and less, were ravaged by thermite. It is pathetic nonsense. Mark has nothing.
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 22nd January 2013, 03:37 PM   #1525
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Millette repeats (perhaps copies) the mistake Harrit made about the composition of Tnemec:
http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf

In that letter, Figure 3, Harrit quotes the Tnemec formula found in the NIST report. It states: "Zinc yellow 20.3%"
These 20% do NOT actually refer to the paint but to the total pigment! All pigments add up to 100%, all vehicle ingredients likewise add up to 100%.
But you mix vehicle and pigments in a certain proportion. In the case of LaClede paint that proportion is 71.5% : 28.5% organics (non-volatile!) : pigment. Assuming that Tnemec would have a similar proportion, the actual Zinc Yellow (ZnCrO4) content of the dry paint would be 20.3% * 28.5% = 5.8%. Of this, Zn makes up 36% by weight, Cr 29% and O the balance. In the paint, Zn would be thus expected to be 2.1% and Cr 1.7% of the mass.

2.1% Zn is actually nicely compatible with the Zn-signal in Fig. 14!
Cr is a bit too low, but quantification of XEDS spectra is an imprecise thing anyway, so we are at least in the right ball park.
Remember why the zinc chromate is included in the paint formulation. It's for corrosion protection. The mechanism by which it does this is the zinc chromate will slightly dissolve due to moist air penetrating the paint. The dissolved zinc chromate will then react with the steel's surface to form a passive layer (of zinc) which protects the steel. Over time the zinc chromate is removed from the paint via this degradation and can lead to problems of corrosion. I would imagine that there is a concentration gradient for zinc across the paint thickness due to this process, I'll have to see if that's the case.

I suspect that the same is true of zinc phosphate.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 22nd January 2013 at 03:39 PM.
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 22nd January 2013, 03:37 PM   #1526
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You guys are so lame. First you deny that Millette ruled out Tnemec and now it comes down to Millette must have made a mistake, which you blame on Harrit.
Do you at least see the mistake that Harrit made?

Millette's data doesn't rule out Tnemec.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You also ignore that you have referred directly to an actual graph of known Tnemec paint and it is obvious from that graph that is has much more Zn in it than both the Millette chips and Harrit fig14, so you this latest explanation of failed math is a dead end.
It is not obvious.
Eyeballing peak heights is not sufficient to make that determination.

Do you understand that? You can't just look at two XEDS spectra and declare that one shows more Zn than the other.

Can you explain how you would compare two XEDS spectra quantitatively? Thanks.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Millette does not refer to Harrit about the Tnemec paint, he went to the producer, so maybe the producer made mistakes?
No. The producer most assuredly did not make a mistake.

The 20% Zinc yellow value is taken from Table 1, which is taken from Reference 16, which is the same Tnemec formulation documented by NIST that Harrit's letter referred to.

Since I informed Millette of the Harrit letter, and in it the composition of Tnemec as specified in 1967 for the WTC perimeter columns, it is very well possible that Millette copied Harrit's error; or he may have made the same mistake using the same reference.

As for the reference to 177 Tnemec formulations from the producer's website: These are current formulations. Formulations produced, sold and used by Tnemec Corp. in the late 60s and early 70s may very well not be listed on today's product information!

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Besides lack of Zn, millette adds:
Quote:
and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips.
You think Millette also made a mistake here? Face the facts.
This could actually be a good point.
Almost.
However, I think a fuller quote clears this up:
Originally Posted by Millette
At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
It is not entirely clear, but reading in context, I think that he found no diatoms in the chips characterised by "epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments". In other words: Those chips that match Harrit's chips a-d. This is expected then: Chips a-d are not Tnemec, we know that; and Tnemec contains no kaolin (Al-silicate).
The context is slightly ambiguous, and it is possible that he looked for, but didn't find, diatoms in other chips as well, including those that resemble Tnemec / the MEK chip.

I could ask Millette (via Chris Mohr). Shall I?
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 22nd January 2013, 03:46 PM   #1527
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Must be, unless there are also other new papers on the way?
Jones spoke in September about an unnamed scientist, a geologist, who wants to study chips. He said he would blog more about this, but I haven't seen any details since.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I found a recent interview with Basile on a radio show that I will listen to, and check how it compares to your story. With your meltdowns in mind and some of your posts here I do wonder a bit if he did not get fed up with you, and that you are bending the truth a bit?
This:
http://www.911freefall.com/2012/12/m...-wtc-dust.html

I have a good portion (maybe half) of the actual interview already transcribed. I could dump a PDF, if you like?
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 22nd January 2013, 03:50 PM   #1528
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
1. Oystein is wrong as explained in my post 1515.
You didn't even start to address my argument in post 1515

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
2. Oystein is wrong, he does not offer any evidence to support his conclusions, no links to the authors admitting the extra data does not support their paper, and that they have found no more evidence. Until then his story is just that, a story.
I think you hadn't yet seen my links and quotes that show that Farrer and Jones admit to finding nothing to prove thermite with XRD and TEM.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
3. You are right, a=b=c=d. As far as I know.
cjnewson asked you to explain your answer. Why do you think that a=b=c=d?
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 22nd January 2013, 03:53 PM   #1529
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Oystein: Without evidence for elemental Al, you haven't proven thermite.
TEM and XRD can provide evidence for elemental Al.
They just didn't.
As Farrer and Jones publicly admitted.
Oystein you have a tendency to misrepresent what people say. I will have to go over those 911blogger arguments later as there is a lot of material, but I quickly note a couple of things. Jones actually says new tests rule out al bearing compounds so no kaolin, no laclede. There does not seem to be any ruling out of aluminum.

Quote:
Jones: Do debunkers ever do experiments? I say, do the experiment and let us know what you find! Experiments are much more convincing in science than hand-waving arguments.
Having tried to talk to you and Sunstealer, it is not hard to imagine that the arguments you presented may have been a bit less convincing than you think. It is easy to agree with Jones on hand-waving arguments, as you and sunstealer are prone to that.

Last edited by jtl; 22nd January 2013 at 04:00 PM.
jtl 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 22nd January 2013, 03:57 PM   #1530
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by TexasJack View Post
...
My question is since this is the preliminary report, is there anything possible that Truthers could legitimately hang their hat on in the final report? Or does the preliminary report completely rule out thermite? Are they stuck with the false hopes of the lame DSC argument?*
...
We haven't seen the final report yet, and I don't know yet what Millette will have done above and beyond the prelim report. And my crystal ball is jammed. So no, I don't know how much hope it will leave truthers to hang on to.

One fundamental problem is that there are several different kinds of red-gray chip - no one knows how many - which always leaves the possibility for truthers to claim Millette didn't look at the "right" chips. He'd have to tally all the different kinds, and go into great detail with them, to close most of that door.

And also he will hardly be able to definitely ID each kind of chip as this or that particular paint (or whatever else some chips may be). We haven't found any LaClede samples yet for comparison, for example.
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 22nd January 2013, 04:02 PM   #1531
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Quote:
Jones: Do debunkers ever do experiments? I say, do the experiment and let us know what you find! Experiments are much more convincing in science than hand-waving arguments.
It would be good to see some of jone's experiments since the Bentham paper.

Perhaps jtl can link me to some ?
Spanx 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 22nd January 2013, 04:04 PM   #1532
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Remember why the zinc chromate is included in the paint formulation. It's for corrosion protection. The mechanism by which it does this is the zinc chromate will slightly dissolve due to moist air penetrating the paint. The dissolved zinc chromate will then react with the steel's surface to form a passive layer (of zinc) which protects the steel. Over time the zinc chromate is removed from the paint via this degradation and can lead to problems of corrosion. I would imagine that there is a concentration gradient for zinc across the paint thickness due to this process, I'll have to see if that's the case.
Where would the chrome go in the process?

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I suspect that the same is true of zinc phosphate.
Why phosphate?
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 22nd January 2013, 04:09 PM   #1533
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Oystein you have a tendency to misrepresent what people say. I will have to go over those 911blogger arguments later as there is a lot of material, but I quickly note a couple of things. Jones actually says new tests rule out al bearing compounds so no kaolin, no laclede. There does not seem to be any ruling out of aluminum.
No, he doesn't say that.
Or actually, he at first did say it:
Jones: "We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 "
But then he had correct himself, after Farrer told him he was wrong:
Jones, paraphrasing Farrer: "With regard to the 0.92 ratio, Jeff notes that he did not use standards for the TEM/XEDS analysis so this ratio could be consistent with unity."

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Having tried to talk to you and Sunstealer, it is not hard to imagine that the arguments you presented may have been a bit less convincing than you think. It is easy to agree with Jones on hand-waving arguments, as you and sunstealer are prone to that.
Blablabla.
You are out of your depth, and it shows.
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 22nd January 2013, 04:45 PM   #1534
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtl:
Having tried to talk to you and Sunstealer, it is not hard to imagine that the arguments you presented may have been a bit less convincing than you think. It is easy to agree with Jones on hand-waving arguments, as you and sunstealer are prone to that.

Oystein:
Blablabla.

You are out of your depth, and it shows.

Quote:
Oystein: No, he doesn't say that.
Or actually, he at first did say it:
Jones: "We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 "
But then he had correct himself, after Farrer told him he was wrong:
Jones, paraphrasing Farrer: "With regard to the 0.92 ratio, Jeff notes that he did not use standards for the TEM/XEDS analysis so this ratio could be consistent with unity."
Once again you resort to hand waving argument, suddenly the XRD disappears and you talk like there is only TEM but the following quote which you posted here clearly had the XRD. The TEM may be inconclusive about no kaolin but the XRD is not:
Quote:
Jones: "I will say that after our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments."
Maybe you should keep up the bla bla bla and go back to ranting about jelly.
Donīt have another meltdown, but you should realize that if you try to go outside this JREF forum with this kind of endless hand waving people will notice even though your buddies here donīt. Just note that you cant play mr.surprised when actual scientists like jones and basile give up on talking to you.

Quote:
It is not entirely clear, but reading in context, I think that he found no diatoms in the chips characterised by "epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments".
No it is quite clear, millette says the chips in his study do not match tnemec. Stop your hand waving non sense.

Last edited by jtl; 22nd January 2013 at 04:55 PM.
jtl 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 22nd January 2013, 05:11 PM   #1535
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 24,899
Mod Warning I have not infracted anyone in this thread, because I would have had to infract everyone. From this post forward, however, any bickering or incivility will be considered disregarding a moderator directive and will be dealt with harshly. DO NOT personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Posted By:jhunter1163
jhunter1163 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 22nd January 2013, 05:21 PM   #1536
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Once again you resort to hand waving argument, suddenly the XRD disappears and you talk like there is only TEM but the following quote which you posted here clearly had the XRD. The TEM may be inconclusive about no kaolin but the XRD is not:
XRD is capable of detecting elemental Al.
What Jones writes includes elemental Al: He did not find any proof for it.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Maybe you should keep up the bla bla bla and go back to ranting about jelly.
Donīt have another meltdown, but you should realize that if you try to go outside this JREF forum with this kind of endless hand waving people will notice even though your buddies here donīt. Just note that you cant play mr.surprised when actual scientists like jones and basile give up on talking to you.
You place too much trust in authorities.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
No it is quite clear, millette says the chips in his study do not match tnemec. Stop your hand waving non sense.
Quite clear? Yes. The opposite of what you imply. See, Millette didn't write just "the chips in this study" - he wrote, as I quoted fully: "red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments)"
Why did you quote only half that phrase? Inconvenient fact contained inside the parentheses?

Bye bye.

Last edited by Oystein; 22nd January 2013 at 05:24 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 22nd January 2013, 05:24 PM   #1537
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
... It is easy to agree with Jones on hand-waving arguments, as you and sunstealer are prone to that.
Jones?

Jones first letter of having delusions about 911, Sept 2005, Jones had an idiotic episode and declared, thermite. Then his fellow paranoid conspiracy theorists, faked a paper. Or did someone tease them with fake dust? That would be funny.

Quote:
Jones first indications we was nuts on 911...
Quote:
5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.


12 feet are to 1300 feet as insanity is to reality. Wave hands, make up thermite. Jones.

Quote:
Jones...
6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.
No melted steel, but molten metal means? FIRE, Dr Jones, not thermite, not the nonsense you have.

Jones wins the hand-waving nonsense, as he declares thermite with no evidence. 2005... 9.16.05 The reason Jones was fired.

I love the experiment with the cement block - he essentially ignores E=mgh released and jumps to woo - super hand-waving winner... Jones, and you now with no clue what DSC is for.

It is easy to see why Millette's paper found not thermite in WTC dust. No thermite was used on 911 except in a few failed minds, like Jones.

Not sure how Jones goes from thermite, to full blown nuts.
Quote:
Jones says...
Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)
Paranoid, Jones makes up thermite, then the make up a fake paper. Why? You can't make up this stuff. Why put nonsense in his letter?

Why can't Gage fund a study with his over a million dollars take from nuts who believe in thermite anyway? Because his believers don't care.

If 911 truth funded a study years ago, there would be no reason for 911 truth to exist. But then we have JFK, Bigfoot, and UFO, oh my.
How to improve Millette's study? Understand there was no thermite used on 911. No thermite products found fused to steel, no thermite product found.

Last edited by beachnut; 22nd January 2013 at 05:26 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 22nd January 2013, 06:39 PM   #1538
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,467
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
.

Does Jones address and answer the challenges in his next, and final, response? Nooooo!
He entirely dodges all questions, all challenges!
Instead, argues ad homininem, incessantly!
Some examples:
"this anonymous Oystein fellow"
"Does payment motivate your efforts to defend the “official story” of 9/11?"
Conspiracists typically stoop to accusing the other side of being paid agents for the Vast Conspiracy. Seriously, that thread is a summum malum of pseudoscience! The ghost of William of Ockham let out a wail that shook my windows when Prof. Jones tried to account for the lack of elemental Al showing up in XRD by pulling "amorphous aluminum alloys" out of his nether regions!

The thread even includes a post by a Holocaust Denier. Ominous that he got more votes than the fellow who argued that they shouldn't let their site be contaminated by such sorts.
Redwood 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 22nd January 2013, 06:54 PM   #1539
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,467
Originally Posted by jtl View Post

Question: The al in the residue spheres kind of has to be pure al? Al oxide and kaolin have very high melting temps while al melts below 700. How can we get al from kaolin of al oxide from laclede or tnemec in those dsc tests?
Bless your heart, laddie, but nobody, not even Harrit or Jones, is claiming that elemental aluminum is in the residue. Real thermite contains aluminum, and its biggest reaction product (by volume) is aluminum oxide. Jones and Harrit have yet to account for its absence from WTC dust, if they wish to make a thermite claim.

Aluminum silicate is a common ingredient in paint, and it is readily identifiable in the electron microscope photos of the chips. It's the thin platelets. It's quite stable chemically, but it may change crystal structure from heating.
Redwood 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 22nd January 2013, 07:18 PM   #1540
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Redwood: No, laddie, the yield for ferric oxide thermite is fixed by the immutable Laws of Thermodynamics, and there is nothing that anyone can do to raise it.
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You mean nothing besides adding extra chemicals to it like the organic matrix. This can also make nonexplosive thermite explosive.
No. Putting thermite into an organic matrix will not increase the energy yield of the thermite. The combustion of the organic matrix, in air, will dwarf the energy yield from the thermite. (That's what makes Jones' & Harrit's DSC tests extra-ridiculous. They did them in air.) But most of that energy will be carried away as hot CO2. If a very stupid person ever tried to use an organic matrix thermite to melt the steel columns in a building that was on fire like the WTCs, the energy generated by burning the matrix, compared to the energy of the building fires, would be like a grain of salt tossed into the ocean. Far better to simply pack ordinary, 1890s-type thermite about the columns in a melt-proof container.

This was actually done in 1937 in the demolition of one tower of the Chicago Exposition's "Century of Progress" skyride , but it required at least 700 kg. to bring down two legs of the tower, and the cupolas that held the thermite were enormous. Good luck on building anything such in the WTCs without anyone noticing!

As to the explosive potential of the conversion of the solid matrix to gas by heating: I watched Kevin Ryan's backyard-brewed thermite, and it had less explosive quality than a kielbasa I once heated in a microwave without poking vent holes with a fork.
Redwood 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 22nd January 2013, 07:19 PM   #1541
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Redwood: Bless your heart, laddie, but nobody, not even Harrit or Jones, is claiming that elemental aluminum is in the residue. Real thermite contains aluminum, and its biggest reaction product (by volume) is aluminum oxide. Jones and Harrit have yet to account for its absence from WTC dust, if they wish to make a thermite claim
.

There is al signature in the molten sphere residue from the ignition tests, and this is also seen in the residue spheres from known thermite. But Harrit did not specify that they made sure this al was al oxide which is a weak point.

It just seems most likely that it is pure al because that melts below 700C while al oxide and kaolin have even higher melting points than iron at over 1800C.

Quote:
Jones tried to account for the lack of elemental Al showing up in XRD by pulling "amorphous aluminum alloys"
why is that impossible? Your buddies say his main chips(a to d in harrit paper) are laclede which means kaolin, but jones xrd rules out kaolin. Millette and jones ruled out Tnemec for those chips so al oxide from tnemec is not there. What options does that leave besides amorphous al?

Quote:
No. Putting thermite into an organic matrix will not increase the energy yield of the thermite.
Give it a rest, you are entering Ron Mossad territory. I wonīt spend any more time on answering this sort of stuff.

Quote:
Seriously, that thread is a summum malum of pseudoscience!
I donīt think you should make any big statements about other threads considering the state of this one

Last edited by jtl; 22nd January 2013 at 07:35 PM.
jtl 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 22nd January 2013, 07:38 PM   #1542
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
.

There is al signature in the molten sphere residue from the ignition tests, and this is also seen in the residue spheres from known thermite. But Harrit did not specify that they made sure this al was al oxide which is a weak point.

It just seems most likely that it is pure al because that melts below 700C while al oxide and kaolin have even higher melting points than iron at over 1800C.

why is that impossible? Your buddies say his main chips(a to d in harrit paper) are laclede which means kaolin, but jones xrd rules out kaolin. Millette and jones ruled out Tnemec for those chips so al oxide from tnemec is not there. What options does that leave besides amorphous al?

I donīt think you should make any big statements about other threads considering the state of this one
No melted steel, no thermite on 911. Makes Harrit paper a fraud; Millette's paper verifies the fraud.

Jones drops cement blocks 12 feet to simulate 911, and made up thermite due to some problem he has. Woo in action.

DSC is used for what?

Last edited by beachnut; 22nd January 2013 at 07:54 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 22nd January 2013, 07:53 PM   #1543
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Oystein: XRD is capable of detecting elemental Al.
What Jones writes includes elemental Al: He did not find any proof for it.
Oystein, the xrd rules out kaolin and the std form of elemental al, but there is a possibility for non conventional elemental amorphous al. You do not seem to realize that this result of no kaolin rules out laclede as an option for chips a to d.

Quote:
Oystein: Quite clear? Yes. The opposite of what you imply. See, Millette didn't write just "the chips in this study" - he wrote, as I quoted fully: "red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments)"
Oh please, if you think it will save face for you keep up the act, I will let others read the paper for themselves and see if millette offers other possibilities besides red chips with kaolin. Funny how there is only ftir for kaolin chips? He says some of them have Zn but none have enough to be tnemec:

Quote:
Millette:
At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
jtl 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 22nd January 2013, 08:19 PM   #1544
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
The mechanism by which it does this is the zinc chromate will slightly dissolve due to moist air penetrating the paint. The dissolved zinc chromate will then react with the steel's surface to form a passive layer (of zinc) which protects the steel. Over time the zinc chromate is removed from the paint via this degradation and can lead to problems of corrosion. I would imagine that there is a concentration gradient for zinc across the paint thickness due to this process, I'll have to see if that's the case.

I suspect that the same is true of zinc phosphate.
The trouble with this explanation is that we have and actual example of known tnemed from the wtc and its spectra, as pointed out in my post 1515

This sample would also have lessened amount of Zn if this explanation was valid, but in fact it has massive Zn peak compared to harrit fig14 and millette chips. (besides the fact that Harrit claims the Zn disappeared after wash)

If fig14 and millette chips are also wtc tnemec they should have same amount of Zn as the known wtc tnemec, even if they ALL lost Zn over the years.

So this explanation is a bit weak.

Last edited by jtl; 22nd January 2013 at 08:24 PM.
jtl 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 22nd January 2013, 08:29 PM   #1545
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Oystein, the xrd rules out kaolin and the std form of elemental al, but there is a possibility for non conventional elemental amorphous al. You do not seem to realize that this result of no kaolin rules out laclede as an option for chips a to d.



Oh please, if you think it will save face for you keep up the act, I will let others read the paper for themselves and see if millette offers other possibilities besides red chips with kaolin. Funny how there is only ftir for kaolin chips? He says some of them have Zn but none have enough to be tnemec:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf

oops

After looking at Harriet's failed paper (when if first came out), I thought the evidence looked like clay. It is used for coatings. No wonder Harrit fooled the non-science people like your cousin. Does your cousin think the fantasy of CD with thermite is true?

Last edited by beachnut; 22nd January 2013 at 08:32 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 22nd January 2013, 09:13 PM   #1546
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,467
.

Quote:
Real thermite contains aluminum, and its biggest reaction product (by volume) is aluminum oxide. Jones and Harrit have yet to account for its absence from WTC dust, if they wish to make a thermite claim.
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
There is al signature in the molten sphere residue from the ignition tests, and this is also seen in the residue spheres from known thermite. But Harrit did not specify that they made sure this al was al oxide which is a weak point.

It just seems most likely that it is pure al because that melts below 700C while al oxide and kaolin have even higher melting points than iron at over 1800C.
So we can't find elemental aluminum in the putative thermite, but it shows up in its reaction products? Does this thermite come from an alternate universe that runs in the opposite direction of ours?

Quote:
Jones tried to account for the lack of elemental Al showing up in XRD by pulling "amorphous aluminum alloys"

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
why is that impossible? Your buddies say his main chips(a to d in harrit paper) are laclede which means kaolin, but jones xrd rules out kaolin. Millette and jones ruled out Tnemec for those chips so al oxide from tnemec is not there. What options does that leave besides amorphous al?
Wrong. Jones' XRD rules out elemental aluminum, the sine qua non of thermite. He tries to excuse this by appealing to an XRD-invisible aluminum alloy, a violation of William of Ockham's razor. The ghost of Carl Sagan was in a better mood tonight than William, and he let out a guffaw. He suggests you read about the invisible dragon in his garage: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Quote:
No. Putting thermite into an organic matrix will not increase the energy yield of the thermite.
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Give it a rest, you are entering Ron Mossad territory. I wonīt spend any more time on answering this sort of stuff.
I think you've come up with a new type of "non-responsive response", the "argumentum ad hominem by proxy".

Quote:
Seriously, that thread is a summum malum of pseudoscience!
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I donīt think you should make any big statements about other threads considering the state of this one
There is a lot of pseudo-science on this thread, but it seems to be coming mainly from one person, who originally claimed to be only JAQing off! And as for the other thread, I recommend you ask the opinion of any chemistry professor at your school, if you are in school, and if you're not, take it to a chem professor at your local community college. You might consider enrolling in class. You'd learn something!
Redwood 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 22nd January 2013, 10:38 PM   #1547
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Originally Posted by Redwood
]No. Putting thermite into an organic matrix will not increase the energy yield of the thermite.
Give it a rest, you are entering Ron Mossad territory. I wonīt spend any more time on answering this sort of stuff.
I'm interested in this point, which I've raised before, about the limits on the energy yield of thermite: the popular literature on nanoenergetics suggests that nanoengineering greatly increases the power (vs. energy) density of a composite. Your debate opponents here cannot seem to acknowledge that we are talking about a nanoengineered product (likely because they have little knowledge of nanoenergetics) which means that we are talking about a different power potential entirely. Do you agree?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 22nd January 2013 at 10:39 PM.
ergo 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 22nd January 2013, 10:54 PM   #1548
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm interested in this point, which I've raised before, about the limits on the energy yield of thermite: the popular literature on nanoenergetics suggests that nanoengineering greatly increases the power (vs. energy) density of a composite. Your debate opponents here cannot seem to acknowledge that we are talking about a nanoengineered product (likely because they have little knowledge of nanoenergetics) which means that we are talking about a different power potential entirely. Do you agree?
It is chemistry, not opinion.

Who are they?

You can't change the amount of energy in thermite. Your post is nonsense, unless you can explain.

Are you saying you can get more joules out of super-nano-thermite than "standard" thermite?

Why can't you understand that the heat energy of the office fires is equal more than 2,500 Tons of thermite, and even though it is not efficient, a play on your energy/power play, it did cause the collapse?

Last edited by beachnut; 22nd January 2013 at 11:10 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 22nd January 2013, 11:24 PM   #1549
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,676
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Why can't you understand that the heat energy of the office fires is equal more than 2,500 Tons of thermite
That is really just the point. Truthers spend so much time arguing over nonsense, when at the end of the day, thermite was not needed to bring down those towers. There was plenty of heat being supplied by the 8 stories of uncontrolled, enormous fires. It really doesn't get more to the point than that.
__________________
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

Last edited by cjnewson88; 22nd January 2013 at 11:27 PM.
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 22nd January 2013, 11:28 PM   #1550
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You can't change the amount of energy in thermite.
Yes, that's your argument. And it's irrelevant.

Quote:
Are you saying you can get more joules out of super-nano-thermite than "standard" thermite?
My understanding is that energy density is measured in joules, power density in watts.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 2013, 12:00 AM   #1551
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, that's your argument. And it's irrelevant.
You agree you can't change the energy in thermite.

Millette's paper found no thermite. Why are you off topic? There is no thermite in this thread. Did you miss the paper?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
My understanding is that energy density is measured in joules, power density in watts.
So? Did you google that?

And?

Why can't office fires with the heat energy of 2,500 tons of thermite start the WTC collapse? You can't offer how much thermite it took, can you? Oops, there is no evidence of thermite. darn

Millette's paper says no thermite. The WTC steel has no damage from thermite. USGS found not themite. RJ Lee, found no thermite.

Do you still have a fantasy of thermite?

Last edited by beachnut; 23rd January 2013 at 12:03 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 23rd January 2013, 12:00 AM   #1552
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,952
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, that's your argument. And it's irrelevant.


My understanding is that energy density is measured in joules, power density in watts.
Your understanding is incorrect. Energy is measured in Joules, and power is measured in Watts.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 2013, 12:07 AM   #1553
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Your understanding is incorrect. Energy is measured in Joules, and power is measured in Watts.
Yes, ok.

J/kg (energy density)
W/m2 (power density)

What is the point you are trying to make with respect to the power density of nanoengineered materials?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 2013, 12:54 AM   #1554
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
.


I wonīt spend any more time on answering this sort of stuff.

Now there is a suprise !

You don't want to talk about your DSC Al making machine.

Please call me a troll, I love it when you talk dirty
Spanx 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 2013, 01:28 AM   #1555
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, that's your argument. And it's irrelevant.


My understanding is that energy density is measured in joules, power density in watts.
Well, that's wrong, but never mind.
Has anyone measure the power, or power density, of anything, what was the result, was the result compared to anything, and what was concluded from it?

That is all off-topic, but your tap-dancing should be fun

ETA: Oh:
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, ok.

J/kg (energy density)
W/m2 (power density)

What is the point you are trying to make with respect to the power density of nanoengineered materials?
Yes, fun indeed

Last edited by Oystein; 23rd January 2013 at 01:31 AM.
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 2013, 02:15 AM   #1556
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
OK, Jlt, you can be right in some aspects, you are probably wrong in some others. I will check it later. Before I will (perhaps) go to more “important” matters, one single older example of your hand-waving of rational arguments.

You: "Why should the layer have been so thin? Maybe itīs just a fragment of a thick piece?"

Me: This possibility (chips can be fragments of thick piece) had been torn apart into tiny pieces long ago here. There is simply no even closely reasonable truthers explanation, why active thermite layers should be diluted by inactive iron oxide (rust) layers, which can "serve" only as heat sinks and can only stop/preclude any thermitic reaction. (For me, there are also some other strong contra-arguments available, e.g.: alleged "thick piece" consisting of many multilayers in a fashion "red-gray-red-gray-red-gray-etc. layer) cannot be "delaminated" only to bilayers "red-gray", which we see in Bentham paper as well as in Millette's report. In such a case, also some other objects with more than two layers should be always and frequently found in WTC dust. At least I think so.)

You: It is just my opinion that these sort of arguments are weak. If there had been larger pieces then it does not seem impossible that explosive force could leave behind tiny fragments of the material and whatever it was attached to. Arguing about this kind of stuff gets us nowhere because it looks like avoiding Harrit. Much better to just falsify his hypothesis.

You see? You asked, I answered and you immediately hand-waved my answer without any thinking; and you added the remark that this kind of stuff gets us nowhere. So, why did you ask?

(Similarly, you boldly proposed some my additional experiments with Laclede paint imitation, and when I showed you my real TGA experiments with such an imitation, you basically hand-waved them, as expected.)

But back to „nanothermite multilayers“: you perhaps just did not understand my explanation.
Once again: let us have a “thick piece” of such multilayered stuff “red-gray-red-gray-red-gray…etc. layers. Explosive force (or any other destructive force) cannot leave behind only bilayers (or sometimes perhaps monolayers with some pieces of the second layer or so) , which we see in Bentham paper and in Millette’s report. It is apparent (at least to me) that any such explosion would yield (besides expected and probably strongly prevailing monolayers) also some 3-layered, 4-layered, 5-layered etc pieces/chips etc.

Well, we have this strange object in Fig. 31 in Bentham paper, which looks like a piece of some polymer "wrapped" by red-gray bilayers, but it is explicitly written that there is a lot of a lead in this “chip”, therefore it should not be thermite, multilayered or not. At least, it should not be any material shown before in Bentham paper. Otherwise, no single chip shows any presence even of the third layer (either the same one or different from other two layers) anywhere.

Hence, the occurrence of solely bilayers (and some monolayers) tells me that this material was bi-layered from the start. Such a material should be… e.g. the paint layer on rust layer

This matter is indeed marginal anyway. Later this day, I will try to read the fresh contributions here in detail and will (perhaps) try to respond…

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 23rd January 2013 at 03:03 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 2013, 03:04 AM   #1557
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Hey Ivan, sorry for waiting a day and more than 40 posts before replying to this.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post


Owing to quite a large amount of info in all these paint (and microspheres) threads, I'm not really sure: have we discussed this old good NIST image of Tnemec primer heated to more than 650 degrees C?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=7286

This burned paint layer with some rust scales is basically quite similar to "infamous" Bentham chips:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=7287

This is no surprise, since any such red primer paint "after exposure greater than 650 degrees" should be basically similar to unheated paint (visually). But what is probably interesting that we do not see any microspheres created from the scales here. Scales still look like scales (although the image quality is probably not good enough).

From this point of view (which is not conclusive) , Bentham chips heated in DSC device should be different kind of paint chips, since microsphere formation (mostly from gray rust scales) was very apparent there, at similar temperatures
I don't think I am following you there. I think you can't really compare that NIST photograph of heated Tnemec on solid, thick steel with images of another paint (I am pretty sure the photomicrographs are of chips a-d, they are LaClede) that has (probably) not been heated.
For starters, the magnification is different, and not indicated in the NIST image. I doubt we would even be able to see any microspheres if they were present.
Next, it might make a difference if the oxidized steel surface is still attached to the bulk of steel, or already spalled to a thin layer of just tens of microns.

So I am not sure what you are validly comparing
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 2013, 03:46 AM   #1558
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Hey Ivan, sorry for waiting a day and more than 40 posts before replying to this.



I don't think I am following you there. I think you can't really compare that NIST photograph of heated Tnemec on solid, thick steel with images of another paint (I am pretty sure the photomicrographs are of chips a-d, they are LaClede) that has (probably) not been heated.
For starters, the magnification is different, and not indicated in the NIST image. I doubt we would even be able to see any microspheres if they were present.
Next, it might make a difference if the oxidized steel surface is still attached to the bulk of steel, or already spalled to a thin layer of just tens of microns.

So I am not sure what you are validly comparing
Oystein: Visual comparison of heated Tnemec paint with "Bentham chips" is not important, I just referred to some loose resemblance of these two "materials".

I know that scale in NIST image is missing, but judging from the structures of gray layers, I would guess that the scales of both images are not so drastically different - perhaps NIST image has a scale 5-10 times higher (?). Therefore, microspheres might be perhaps observable.
I was interested basically only in these gray scales attached to the twisted red layer, since such scales could be subjected to similar condition like in DSC apparatus, at least from the time of red layer deformation/delamination from the steel.

But, indeed, this my post did not prove anything, it was just a reminder that micrographs of one authentic WTC paint with rust scales heated to similar temperatures like in Bentham paper are available

And (even before reading the new Jtl stuff), it seems that new XEDS spectra of authentic Tnemec primer chips (which should be obtained quite easily by Jim Millette) would be really very helpful.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 23rd January 2013 at 03:59 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 2013, 04:09 AM   #1559
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,211
Ivan,

I've compared the NIST photo in past with this:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2...?i=184&lores=1

That image alone speaks strongly against the claim that the red layers are part of a thicker material.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 2013, 04:34 AM   #1560
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Ivan,

I've compared the NIST photo in past with this:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2...?i=184&lores=1

That image alone speaks strongly against the claim that the red layers are part of a thicker material.
A few pages on, page 189-192, they show red-gray chips that already have spheres attached, and call those "partially reacted".

Haha! So much for the claim "there are no microspheres prior to igniting them"
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
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 01:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Đ 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.