Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Now I know, why steel-framed building collapse all the time due to office fires.

Well I can think of two that did after being severely damaged by having two large aircraft full of jet fuel crashing into them and a third after being severely damaged by huge chunks of debris falling on it.

Do you need a hint? Or should I bring out the clue-by-four?

 

[TruthersLie]

Explain to me, why iron spheres were produced after ignition. Maybe elemental aluminium is an ingredient of primer paint?
I would not use this brand of paint. But they might have used it when building the WTC.

No, but aluminum was. As was iron oxide for the color.

10 minutes of research. it isn't that hard.

 

[TruthersLie]

care to back that up? You do know that during construction, with all the welding that had to be done, those spheres could have been there from the beginning.

and of course that is not counting all of the steel welding/cutting and thermic lances used in the clean up at GZ... no iron microspheres would be created there...

 

[A W Smith]

The irony of finding iron in paint.

Iron spheres were produced after igniting the red-gray chips. The WTC was not present.

You mean like from red iron oxide paint?

the WTC was not present. but the paint wuzzzzz

 

[TruthersLie]

You mean like from red iron oxide paint?

the WTC was not present. but the paint wuzzzzz

Hey now, that isn't fair bringing in things from real life...

 

[TruthersLie]

Explain to me, why iron spheres were produced after ignition. Maybe elemental aluminium is an ingredient of primer paint?
I would not use this brand of paint. But they might have used it when building the WTC.

and if you want another analysis there is this one

 

[KJC]

If Jones & Harrit REALLY believed that they had nanothermite in their posession, they would want to shout it from the hills. They would give away samples to non-twoofer experts to have it verified and it would rapidly gain real credibility in science.

But they don't do this, because they know any honest scientists will emphatically claim it's paint or that it's NOT nanothermite.

Instead, they will only show it to other twoofers. It's a sure sign that they are lying rather than being delusional.

 

[alienentity]

Iron spheres were produced after igniting the red-gray chips. The WTC was not present.

To be precise, some were 'iron-rich' spheres, and others were rich in Silicon. Both Iron Oxide and various forms of Si are present in various paint coatings, so paint is still not eliminated as the source for those chips.

You really should read thru some of the comprehensive criticisms before posting here, since none of your assertions is a new idea. You seem quite unaware of the many point against Jones' conclusions.

You might also be interested to read some of the comments about 'elemental aluminum' and how the red chips did in fact seem to dissolve, contrary to Jones' claims.

And you have failed to prove that the structural steel in the WTC towers (or any of the WTC buildings, for that matter) wasn't weakened by fire. Did you look at the picture of building 5? Are you going to deny the evidence that fire investigators found, and if so on what grounds?

You're just running away from the arguments, it's very weak.

btw, you should also look at the Purdue university models of the plane impacts to get a good idea of the forces exerted on surfaces which had loose fire-resistant coating sprayed on.

Surely you're not going to deny that exposed steel wasn't generally present where the fires started (ie at the impact zones)?

 

[alienentity]

Iron spheres were produced after igniting the red-gray chips. The WTC was not present.

You also ought to read about what happens when you create very fine aluminum, and what MEK does to elemental aluminum.

'Methyl ethyl ketone reacts with light metals, such as aluminum, and with strong oxidizers'
'it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum. This appears to be a rather important methodological error by the researchers, since such a test might yield inconsistent results depending on whether the temperatures are suitable for the triggering of chemical reactions. The logical conclusion is that one should therefore hypothesize the very opposite of what is claimed in the study, i.e., that there is no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds, or that elemental aluminum is present but in highly oxidized conditions and therefore scarcely reactive'

Does this make sense to you? I hope you wont' dismiss it for emotional reasons.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

ps is there any reason you've not responded to my post #40?

If you don't, I'll assume you've conceded those points.

 

[cmatrix]

We believe that because it has been debunked... [u r l removed due to idiotic JREF policy]

I have some questions for you, Cmatrix:

How do you explain no one hearing the conventional explosives described by Dr. Harrit?

How do you explain the complete lack of seismic signatures that would have been created by the conventional explosives Dr. Harrit desribes?

How do you explain the complete lack of copper residues that would have been left by the conventional explosives that Dr. Harrit posits?

My guess is Harrit is referring to nano-thermite not conventional explosives. I think it was a mistake for him to talk about conventional explosives as it leads to annoying misdirections like this. The fact is, the paper shows compelling evidence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust. So far, none of the hand-waving ultra-irrational crackpots on this forum have presented anything substantive to dispute this fact. If they did they would have published their own papers.

 

[alienentity]

My guess is Harrit is referring to nano-thermite not conventional explosives. I think it was a mistake for him to talk about conventional explosives as it leads to annoying misdirections like this. The fact is, the paper shows compelling evidence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust. So far, none of the hand-waving ultra-irrational crackpots on this forum have presented anything substantive to dispute this fact. If they did they would have published their own papers.

No, Harrit explicitly states that many tons of conventional explosives had to be used, brought in on 'pallets'.

Also Dr. Jones has backed away from the nanothermite-as-explosive-cutter to nanothermite as a trigger for conventionals.

The reason I think is that they both realize (they're not dumb) that the energy contained in a thin coating of nanothermite is totally insufficient to do anything to a thick steel beam. They realize that conventional cutter charges would be needed.

Must go, can easily verify the harrit and jones info later. Quotes are on the web.

 

[alienentity]

I think the Harrit comment is on this interview:

http://cdn2.libsyn.com/visibility91...51&nva=20090913010851&t=05a47a78805ccaba47005

 

[cmatrix]

I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology.

The only flaw is in your overly simplistic analysis. The chips have the chemical signature of nano-thermite. The chips have ultra fine highly engineered components embedded in an organic matrix. That's it, they're done. The fact that the chips contain a massive amount of oxygen, that is its own oxygen source, is sufficient for anyone with an understanding of elementary chemistry that it would ignite in an oxygen-poor environment.

 

[A W Smith]

The only flaw is in your overly simplistic analysis. The chips have the chemical signature of nano-thermite. The chips have ultra fine highly engineered components embedded in an organic matrix. That's it, they're done. The fact that the chips contain a massive amount of oxygen, that is its own oxygen source, is sufficient for anyone with an understanding of elementary chemistry that it would ignite in an oxygen-poor environment.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

 

[kookbreaker]

By your moronic "arguments" all open journals are vanity publications and all journals should be suspected of not being peer-reviewed.

That resembles nothing of what TruthersLie said. He pointed out properly that the journal was a pay-to-print journal with horrifically low standards. This has been played out be resignations on the editor board and the journal's willingness to print a paper of randomly generated nonsense.

JC! is there a "debunker" here with an IQ higher than a rotting turnip?

If there isn't it says a lot that you are being destroyed by that rotting turnip intelligence. But then again, when it comes to intelligence, I would bet on a bag of hammers before I would bet on the truther.

 

[Macgyver1968]

I admit that. But my problem is the loudness of the collapses of the WTC. They might have been loud enough to conceal BOOMs after initiation. But you are right before collapse initiation.

I will agree the collapse could have masked the sound...however, if you claim that demolition devices were used to initiate the collapse, then by definition, at least some of the devices would have had to been activated before the start of the collapse in order to cause the collapse. Anything that produces enough energy to either cut through or heat the columns or trusses to failure would create byproducts...light, sound, smoke, etc.

By the time the towers collapsed, there were hundreds of cameras pointed at them. There is a wealth of video and audio documents that clearly show the events that happened immediately before the collapse initiated. At no time during the last 30 seconds before the collapse do we see or hear anything that would indicate a high energy device going off. There are no flashes of light before the collapse...no extra sounds...no new sources of smoke of a different color...nothing. If a device caused the collapse, there would be evidence of some sort of it going off before the collapse started. We just don't see or hear it.

 

[triforcharity]

Unfortunately this energy was not present anymore 10 minutes after impact.

But, by that time, the chain of events had already been put into motion. You see, jet fuels fires ignited all the other crap in the building, and it was bound to fall at that point. BTW, as we can see from the NG special, in as little a 4 minutes, steel would have reached its failure point. Not to mention that this experiment was in open air, where the heat could have disapated. Now, imagine this heat having very little (in comparison) place to go, what the temps would have possibly been. Google, "Flashover fire" and you will understand.

 

[triforcharity]

I admit that. But my problem is the loudness of the collapses of the WTC. They might have been loud enough to conceal BOOMs after initiation. But you are right before collapse initiation.

Wrong, You could hear the sound of sirens over the collapse. Sirens average about 120 db. Do you understand decibels?? I bet not.

BTW, an explosive with enough velocity would be around 220 decibels.
This would be noticed by everyone in Manhattan and even accross the river in NJ. This didn't happen. I was there. Here are some linkeys for you to peruse.

http://www.deafness-and-hearingaids...-is-too-loud-decibel-levels-of-common-sounds/
http://www.makeitlouder.com/Decibel Level Chart.txt
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/sound/u11l2b.html

PS, 160 db is almost instant hearing damage. Imagine the pain everyone would have felt and reported to people. Oh, wait, we didn't hear of massive reports of hearing daamage??? Right.

 

[triforcharity]

Oh yeah, here is a good analogy.

On a good night, the front row of the Twisted Sister concert would surely result in a 120 dB sound level. An IPod produces 100 dB. How many IPods would be needed to produce the same intensity as the front row of the Twisted Sister concert?

Since 120 db is 102 times or 100 times more intense than 100 dB. It is necessary to wear 100 IPods to produce the same sound level.

See what I mean??? Sound is amazing.

 

[triforcharity]

Now I know, why steel-framed building collapse all the time due to office fires.

Why else would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on spraying fire-resistant foam on steel framed buildings?? Because its fun to waaste money?? Right......