Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!

DaveThomasNMSR

Muse
DaveThomasNMSR
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
877

Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!

Here are some photographs and results from a little experiment I did last May. While Truthers claim that only Thermite can create iron-rich microspheres, the video above shows some doozies being created by burning primer-painted steel beams in an ordinary wood fire in a burn barrel.

Here is the orange-primer-painted steel beam I obtained at the New Mexico Tech boneyard. We cut it in half after selection.

beams.jpg


I filled our burn-barrel with cedar wood, and prepared to light the fire.

firewood.jpg


I used paper and a few squirts of barbecue lighter fluid (representing tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel) to get the fire going.

barrelfire.jpg


Once the fire was going well, I gently placed one of the painted beams into the fire.

theFire.jpg


Here are the post-fire control and burned beams.

beams-after.jpg


These beams were far too large to be placed inside the scanning electron microscope, so I had to obtain samples by pressing an adhesive surface on the beams (very ineffective), or by scraping paint samples off the beams, choosing regions with paint only, and no ash residue (much more effective).

samples.jpg


After the samples were prepared for the Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), we scoured the un-burned samples, looking for anything remotely resembling a sphere. We found lots of tiny white blobs, but nothing at all spheroidal. Here is sample unburned#2, from a typical location (in the 3rd region examined).

Unburned2-3.jpg


Here is the EDX (Energy-dispersive X-ray) spectroscopy results for point 1 (one of the white blobs):

Unburned2-3-p1.jpg


It shows lots of lead and chromium, and is most likely lead chromate (PbCrO4). There is also quite a bit of carbon.

An EDX spectrogram of one of the dark areas (Point 2) showed similar composition:

Unburned2-3-p2.jpg


Things got really interesting when we started looking over the burned samples. It wasn't long at all before we stumbled over this beautifully spherical droplet of iron-rich material:

Burned1-2.jpg


Here is the EDX of Point#1, right on the big sphere. This sample has a lot of iron!

Burned1-2-p1.jpg


And here's the spectrogram of a point not on the sphere:

Burned1-2-p2.jpg


This shows a lot of silicon, magnesium, and chromium, but not nearly as much iron as the sphere.

We kept looking, and soon found another microsphere on a different region of the burned sample:

Burned1-4.jpg


Its EDX also showed that it was also very rich in iron (Fe), with a little oxygen:

Burned1-4-p1.jpg


Now, on this page, Talboo and Zugam quote Neils Harrit:

As noted by Harrit elsewhere, the "paper is a set of data and the best hypothesis rationalizing the observations." He emphasizes that spheres of reduced iron "are observed after a thermite reaction," and that such "spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction."
Click to expand...


The Basile.org article shows micrographs and their spectra for Fig. 24 from the Harrit/Bentham paper on "Nanothermitic Incendiaries": "Spheres formed during ignition of commercial thermite, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum":
spheres_commercial_s.png
xeds_commercial_s.png



And also, Fig. 25: "Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum ..." :
spheres_chips_s.png
xeds_chips_s.png



And finally, for Fig. 27 and 28: "Spheres extracted from WTC dust" and "XEDS spectrum from a sphere found in the WTC dust":
spheres_wtc_s.png
xeds_wtc_s.png


The Basile.org article notes that

Harrit et al. state that they found iron spheres "with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1..."
Click to expand...

and, they make a lot of noise about Harrit's microspheres being "reduced iron."

But just look at their spectra, and at the spectra of the burn-barrel microspheres above. The "ordinary fire" produces microspheres with more iron than oxygen, while the "thermitic" samples in the Basile.org article all show comparable amounts of oxygen and iron, which leads to my conclusion:

Hey, Basile.org, your WTC sphere has more oxygen than iron! If high Fe:O ratios are so important, why are yours so low?
Click to expand...

There are many ways this experiment could be improved, using perhaps a controlled heating protocol, for which the temperature of formation of iron-rich microspheres from the combustion of painted steel could be obtained. Thoughtful suggestions for future work will be given thoughtful consideration.

Discuss.

Oh, by the way, there are more fun videos at NMSR's YouTube Channel. Why not subscribe today? ;)
 
Last edited:
Dave I'm really grateful for your work on this. When I asked you to do something like this experiment, I really didn't know if we would find microspheres at all, or if there would be iron-rich spheres. Their presence after a regular fire with steel and paint primer knocks down a major contention of the 9/11 Truth thermite assertions. Wow! Neils Harrit wrote to, I think Oystein, and said something like, if we find iron-rich spheres after a regular fire with prosaic paint, then halleluliah, more data! Let's see now how the 9/11 Truth community responds to this. There's always room for improvement... like doing this with DSC and measuring the exothermicalness of thereaction etc. but I can;t see how anyone can deny what you DID do and the conclusion that prosaic paint on steel can indeed create iron-rich microspheres when burned. Great job!
 
chrismohr said:
Dave I'm really grateful for your work on this. When I asked you to do something like this experiment, I really didn't know if we would find microspheres at all, or if there would be iron-rich spheres. Their presence after a regular fire with steel and paint primer knocks down a major contention of the 9/11 Truth thermite assertions. Wow! Neils Harrit wrote to, I think Oystein, and said something like, if we find iron-rich spheres after a regular fire with prosaic paint, then halleluliah, more data! Let's see now how the 9/11 Truth community responds to this. There's always room for improvement... like doing this with DSC and measuring the exothermicalness of thereaction etc. but I can;t see how anyone can deny what you DID do and the conclusion that prosaic paint on steel can indeed create iron-rich microspheres when burned. Great job!
Click to expand...

Thanks,Chris!
like.jpg
 
Iron rich micro-spheres can be found in fire; why can't 911 truth do science. Will 911 truth followers start thinking for themselves.

I love science; great job. It is not news iron spheres can be products of fire. Cool seeing an experiment, and the lab work to show those who can't do reality based research.

Thank you
 
Last edited:
Great stuff :)

I'll predict they'll say you found too much iron in your spheres: "No true thermitic reaction would produce that much iron" ;)
 
Thanks again, Dave! A great work:cool:

I think that the second microsphere, sticked on the surface, could (basically) originate not from the burned paint itself, but e.g. from this steel barrel (?). But the first microsphere is "immersed" in the paint ash, so it should originate from the paint on steel beam.

And, anyway, both microspheres were simply created at "low temperatures" of burning wood;)

I hope that your results could convince some better oriented truthers, but "true nanothermite believers" like Talboo or Zugam cannot be convinced by anything.
Anyway, you just proved experimentally what we have claimed for years: that such iron rich microspheres are by no means the proof of thermitic reaction:cool:
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
There's always room for improvement... like doing this with DSC and measuring the exothermicalness of the reaction etc. but I can;t see how anyone can deny what you DID do and the conclusion that prosaic paint on steel can indeed create iron-rich microspheres when burned. Great job!
Click to expand...

Chris: there is really no need to measure closely the exothermic effects of burning this paint (or any other paint with polymer binder). Some exotherms will be observed for sure in the temperature range ca 350-550 degrees C, exactly like in Bentham paper:cool:
 
Dave: So paradoxically, EDX spectra of your microspheres are closer to the expected product of thermitic reaction (pure Fe) than the spectra of Bentham microspheres and the spectrum of microsphere created by burning of real thermite;)

This again proves how nonsensical/unsupported is the claim "it was thermite!" just after looking at some very few spectra of such microspheres...
 
Hi Dave,

congratulations, you did a pretty good job! Now some comments:

1. Do you know the composition of the paint? It is obvious that lead chromate was used as pigment, but what the other components of the paint? Most interesting would be the binder.

2. Some experimental details should be added:

  • How were the samples treated before the SEM/EDX investigation (e.g. coating)?
  • What was the acceleration voltage of the EDX measurements?
  • Were the SEM micrographs recorded in SE or BSE modus (my guess: SE modus)?

3. Some suggestions for further experiments:

  • As the discovered microspheres are rather big, I think it should be possible to detect them using a light microscope.
  • It would be a good idea to do a quantitative analysis of your microsphere in order to determine the iron to oxygen atomic ratio.
  • You asked for further experiments with controlled heating. Here's my suggestion: I'd cut off several pieces from the beams and put them in a muffle furnace. Then I'd heat them to a temperature of eg. 100°C and keep them at that temperature for a while (e.g. 30 min). Now you take one of the pieces out of the furnace and let it cool down, if necessary in vacuo or nitrogen atmosphere to avoid oxidation. This sample is then subjected to the analysis routine. The temperature of furnace is then raised in 100°C steps and procedure described above is repeated until the maximum temperature of the furnace is reached.
 
<Truther> Obviously you're part of the Elite, and They altered your data points! </Truther>

Seriously though, stellar work. I look forward to seeing more!
 
LSSBB said:
Says something about Truthers dedication to the Truth that they don't do the same thing themselves as a comparison to validate their claims.
Click to expand...

Why bother? Harrit et al. already proved their foregone conclusion, they don't have to do any more work. :rolleyes:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLyYv5Y2YSM&feature=youtube

It looks like truthers are commenting on yt.

They seem to be saying there was some form of contamination with the paint or the barrel ?

If this is the case, why would the paint or barrel be contaminated with thermite :confused:

How much did they pay you to put thermite in the barrel Dave :D I thought Robrob was joking ;)
 
In his desperate attempt to discredit Dave's experiment Ziggi Zugam misses the decisive point: the microspheres were produced at temperatures well below the melting point of iron/steel. Something that was not possible according to earlier statements of the TM. 9/11 Truth debunked once more.
 
Well, Kawika may be right that the second, loosely attached microsphere could originate e.g. from the steel barrel and could be then transferred to the beam surface by "winds of fire". Hypothetically.
From this point of view Dave's experiment is not sufficiently "clean", but it is a quite a good simulation of real WTC fire.


Africanus: I agree, optical microscopy can find more easily more of such microspheres:cool:
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Well, Kawika may be right that the second, loosely attached microsphere could originate e.g. from the steel barrel and could be then transferred to the beam surface by "winds of fire". Hypothetically.
From this point of view Dave's experiment is not sufficiently "clean", but it is a quite a good simulation of real WTC fire.
Click to expand...

Since Harrit claims that ONLY thermite can produce these spheres, does it then really matter, if they are formed from the steel barrel or the piece being burned?
 
Josarhus said:
Since Harrit claims that ONLY thermite can produce these spheres, does it then really matter, if they are formed from the steel barrel or the piece being burned?
Click to expand...

Agreed:cool: Dave simply found and documented these microspheres definitely not originating from any thermitic reaction, which was the basic goal. They are as good as any other found iron-rich microspheres, as proofs.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
Agreed:cool: Dave simply found and documented these microspheres definitely not originating from any thermitic reaction, which was the basic goal. They are as good as any other found iron-rich microspheres, as proofs.
Click to expand...

I know that they will move the goalpost on this matter as well.

I have debated one of Harrits friends, who himself has no knowledge of chemistry at all. After I showed him that these spheres can form without any thermite being burned, he asked me for the equation for the conversion of lead chromate to elemental iron. This question comes directly from Harrit!

Apparently Harrit will only accept spheres being formed from the paint side of any chips and not the rust/steel it is attached to.

If I am not mistaken, Harrit has never showed that his spheres ONLY come from the red layer of his chips?!

And Harrit is clearly missing the point, that the forming of iron rich spheres from any source, disproves his idea that only thermite, can produce them.
 
Josarhus said:
I know that they will move the goalpost on this matter as well.

I have debated one of Harrits friends, who himself has no knowledge of chemistry at all. After I showed him that these spheres can form without any thermite being burned, he asked me for the equation for the conversion of lead chromate to elemental iron. This question comes directly from Harrit!

Apparently Harrit will only accept spheres being formed from the paint side of any chips and not the rust/steel it is attached to.

If I am not mistaken, Harrit has never showed that his spheres ONLY come from the red layer of his chips?!

And Harrit is clearly missing the point, that the forming of iron rich spheres from any source, disproves his idea that only thermite, can produce them.
Click to expand...

You are correct, until today there is no evidence that the iron-rich microspheres in the Bentham paper originate from the red layer of Harrit's chips. Harrit et al. published not a single photo of a post-DSC chip that shows the adherring gray layer. The presence of a red/brown material after DSC is a good hint that the opposite is true.

But that is not the only omission in Harrit's paper. He also did not clarify if the Fe:O ratio he gave are atomic or mass ratios, although that would be a crucial information. His ratios (from 2:1 up to 4:1) are in good accordance with the mass ratios of iron oxides, which would be 3.5 for FeO, 2.6 for Fe3O4 and 2.3 for Fe2O3.
 
Josarhus said:
"Since Harrit claims that ONLY thermite can produce these spheres, does it then really matter, if they are formed from the steel barrel or the piece being burned?"
Click to expand...

Dr. Harrit has never claimed that thermitic reactions were the sole method of melting steel.

He does not believe that an ordinary wood fire in a steel barrel is going to heat primer paint to the point that iron oxide will melt into iron-rich microspheres.

Dave's test is a mess just like is infamous steel wool hand waving.

Take an old steel barrel (likely heavily contaminated with welding-created iron-rich microspheres), dump in a pile of wood fuel, burn off the primer paint from steel, extract steel from debris sludge at the bottom of the barrel, scrap off residue and examine.

Two iron-rich microspheres are found and are immediately attributed to the burned primer paint.

The possibility of contamination being the source of Dave's discovery of a couple of microspheres is never acknowledged or considered.

Why only two?

Why not a myriad of various microspheres, spheroids etc?

How strange that in all the heat experiments previously reported on primer paints, iron-rich microspheres were not discovered.

Who knew it was so easy.

Dr. Harrit replied to me that Dave's test was rubbish and that when Dave publishes his work, Dr. Harrit will gladly respond.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Dr. Harrit replied to me that Dave's test was rubbish and that when Dave publishes his work, Dr. Harrit will gladly respond.

MM
Click to expand...

MM

Can you confirm that your above quote is a direct response from Dr Harrit and you are in some way working as his spokes person ?
 
Miragememories said:
Dr. Harrit has never claimed that thermitic reactions were the sole method of melting steel.

He does not believe that an ordinary wood fire in a steel barrel is going to heat primer paint to the point that iron oxide will melt into iron-rich microspheres.

Dave's test is a mess just like is infamous steel wool hand waving.

Take an old steel barrel (likely heavily contaminated with welding-created iron-rich microspheres), dump in a pile of wood fuel, burn off the primer paint from steel, extract steel from debris sludge at the bottom of the barrel, scrap off residue and examine.

Two iron-rich microspheres are found and are immediately attributed to the burned primer paint.

The possibility of contamination being the source of Dave's discovery of a couple of microspheres is never acknowledged or considered.

Why only two?

Why not a myriad of various microspheres, spheroids etc?

How strange that in all the heat experiments previously reported on primer paints, iron-rich microspheres were not discovered.

Who knew it was so easy.

Dr. Harrit replied to me that Dave's test was rubbish and that when Dave publishes his work, Dr. Harrit will gladly respond.

MM
Click to expand...
LOL, take an old building (likely heavily contaminated with welding-created iron-rich microspheres), this can't get better.

Of course iron spheres are common in fires... experts, unlike Harrit who seems to be crazy comparing himself to Galileo, when Harrit spreads lies about 911, the fantasy of thermite.

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee
Click to expand...

BTW, all the things in the experiment were in the WTC. Steel, wood, paint, and more.

Next, the percent of iron, just iron in WTC is less than 2 percent, not 5 or 6 percent. Most the dust is from wallboard, insulation, and concrete, and other contents of the WTC. Plus the iron percent is not all iron spheres. 911 truth lies, and thermite is one of the dumbest claims.

The steel wool was valid, as is burning stuff. You have trusted men who have gone off the deep end into woo woo land. Where is Jones? Gage may be the only sane 911 truth pusher, as he makes a living, traveling and spreading the word for donations to his old age fund.

It does not matter where the iron sphere come from, they were found due to fire. How much steel was in the WTC? (likely heavily contaminated with welding-created iron-rich micro-spheres), lol

It is common for iron sphere to arise from fires, and then a simple demonstration is ignore by you, and the rest of those who refuse to think for themselves in 911 truth, followers in a faith based fail movement which has no single integrated plot, no single theory, and what will you do with 77 and 93? Delusions of thermite, 12 years and no action by 911 truth.

BTW, the product of thermite is iron, not iron oxide as seen the iron sphere Jones and Harriet have said were due to thermite. oops, the energy of the dust Jones and Harriet is not like thermite, it is like dust. Good luck with finding reality, as you and Harriet ignore reality and pick to remain in the fantasy world of thermite.

How many iron spheres has Jones found in WTC dust? The RJ Lee study is after clean up, and not all the iron he found was iron spheres.

Blind support for Jones and Harrit's thermite lie. Faith is cool, but not rational.

From the RJ Lee report on dust sampled after clean up...
particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust
Click to expand...
Fire, not themite.

All the BS you have about this demonstration, goes double for the Jones/Harrit fake paper event. With simple reading comprehension skills, it is evident Jones and Harrit did not find thermite in their study. Simple reading comprehension, don't need to be an engineer, or physicist, just a grade school graduate. Their is no proof the dust was from the WTC event... But there is proof iron spheres occur in fires, by RJ Lee, in studies, and in a simple demo now ignored by those fooled by liars on thermite, Jones/Harrit, and other "experts" in 911 truth.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Somehow I doubt the veracity of mm's statement.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to doubt the veracity. I do find it and MM's response to be validation of how humans will often do whatever they feel is necessary to avoid changing their minds. Truth is apparently not the goal here, dragging out the argument and staving off defeat is. What a sad waste of everyone's time, to cling to some shred that you think validates your belief and be in denial as experiment after experiment proves your wrong. Putting off response until the results are published is only one way of avoiding the facts. Simplistic denials by calling it rubbish with no details as to why is another avoidance tactic.
 
Miragememories said:
Dr. Harrit has never claimed that thermitic reactions were the sole method of melting steel.
...

Dr. Harrit replied to me that Dave's test was rubbish and that when Dave publishes his work, Dr. Harrit will gladly respond.

MM
Click to expand...


Nice attempted dodge from the real issue, which is the formation of iron-rich microspheres without thermite.

Here's what Harrit says about that.

From http://stj911.org/blog/research-faqs/:

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Dr. Rancourt

Thank you for your interest in our publication, and the effort you have made to formulate the questions as they appear in

http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html

Our answers follow below. Your questions are highlighted in green. (on this post here they are italics)

Yours sincerely

Niels Harrit
...

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but there is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids. Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous.

ANSWER: A scientific paper is a set of data and the best hypothesis rationalizing the observations. Fe-rich spheroids are observed after a thermite reaction. Fe-rich spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction.

“Tenuous”?
Click to expand...

You're welcome, MM!
 
LSSBB said:
I have no reason to doubt the veracity. I do find it and MM's response to be validation of how humans will often do whatever they feel is necessary to avoid changing their minds. Truth is apparently not the goal here, dragging out the argument and staving off defeat is. What a sad waste of everyone's time, to cling to some shred that you think validates your belief and be in denial as experiment after experiment proves your wrong. Putting off response until the results are published is only one way of avoiding the facts. Simplistic denials by calling it rubbish with no details as to why is another avoidance tactic.
Click to expand...

His kind lie so much, it's the default position. Only after concrete proof has been shown can we take any of them at their word.
 
Miragememories said:
Take an old steel barrel (likely heavily contaminated with welding-created iron-rich microspheres)...
Click to expand...

This is the funny bit (too funny?).

Precious little welding goes into the manufacture of a steel barrel (the lid and base are crimped on).

Then it's painted. Then it gets used for years. Then a barrel like this sits, full of holes, in all weathers, for years more.

"likely heavily contaminated with ..." Dear FSM :rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by Josarhus
Since Harrit claims that ONLY thermite can produce these spheres, does it then really matter, if they are formed from the steel barrel or the piece being burned?
Click to expand...


Ivan Kminek said:
Agreed:cool: Dave simply found and documented these microspheres definitely not originating from any thermitic reaction, which was the basic goal. They are as good as any other found iron-rich microspheres, as proofs.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Iron-rich microspheres are a common product of fires. That's why R.J. Lee looked for them in the dust samples they examined for Deutsche Bank; to distinguish dust from the Twin Towers from ordinary background dust.

Hilarious that debunkers did an experiment in only a few days that truthers haven't done in over a decade. Once again, truthers have egg on their faces.
 
Miragememories said:
Take an old steel barrel (likely heavily contaminated with welding-created iron-rich microspheres)

MM
Click to expand...

Lol.

Yeah that's not too bloody likely. The end users of those barrels ( motor oils, solvents, corn syrup, etc ) wouldn't use them if they were contaminated from the manufacturing process.

Do truthers ever recognize the silliness of their statements?
 
As I said under Dave's YouTube post:

Less than 10 seconds into this video, Niels Harrit is quoted as saying that iron-rich microspheres "are observed after a thermite reaction... spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction." This little experiment proves him wrong. It seems extremely highly likely that the spheres came from the beam after burning, not before. Even if there were contamination from the barrel, there was no thermite contamination for crying out loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom