The Great Thermate Debate

[TruthersLie]

Have red/gray chips been found in every WTC dust sample to date? Yes.

In what "legitimate" peer reviewed article? Oh there isn't one.
But lets play along. We have to take the word of S. Jones et al that they found these chips in the dust. Ok. No hu hu. What about Henri C, who was given samples by Jones and couldn't find any? Wow... so we have conflicting data there.

Why hasn't Jones sent this to an independent lab with the $50 necessary to have a real analysis done?

Does the red layer exhibit thermitic properties? Yes.

Um... no they don't. The test was conducted in the open air. Things burn when they are in air. Thermitic would have reacted in an inert environment. Why didn't your boys use an inert environment? are they that incompetent?

When ignited in the DSC, do the red chips exhibit more energy than would be found in normal office materials? Yes.

and they exhibited more (and less) energy than what you would find in thermite. In fact the 4 chips are all over the place. Truely amazing that such a "tailored" "nano" thermite would be all over the *********** place. Whoever did quality control really ********** up there didn't they?

Has anyone come forth with a study showing matching characteristics with paint? No.

just as soon as you get a real peer reviewed paper published. Not a pay to publish vanity journal.

And there is an excellent analysis of the errors by jones here by sunstealer. As Bentham is a pay to publish vanity journal (and you know it), Sunstealers excellent analysis and demolition of Jones stands.

Did paint samples taken from known WTC steel samples show a comparable composition to the red chip? No.

did the sample used in this "test" match any of the paint from wtc steel? No. It was taken from the BYU stadium. Tell me how that is related to the paint at wtc. Please... pretty please. I'd love to hear the rationale behind that.

When ignited in the DSC, did the WTC steel paint sample reveal iron microspheres in its residue? No.

Which test is this from? It wasn't in the original "paper." The paint used wasn't from the WTC steel. Now if you have a "paper' which ignites wtc paint chips, I'd love to see it.

When ignited in the DSC, did the the red chip reveal iron microspheres in its residue? Yes.

And? or better yet. So what?
When ignited, plastic can form iron microspheres.
what was the composition of those microspheres again? They weren't solid iron. What was the chemical composition?

Did temperatures in WTC Towers reach as high as 1100 C from the jet fuel or office cubicle fires? No.

Ah datamined quotes from NIST coming in 5 .... 4..... 3..... 2....
And there are papers showing that the fires in the towers could have reached 1100C (IIRC).

Did the analysis of steel samples from WTC reveal phases that indicated exposure minimum temperatures of 1100 C? Yes.

See above. Nice attempt to dodge though.

Could those phases have been created with an oxyacetylene torch or whatever torch you used to cut the steel? No.

You have no idea what is used to cut the steel beams? things like thermic lances. You might want to look those up.

Did randomly collected dust samples from different area in Manhattan were analyzed, did they show a matching composition? Yes.

MM

According to who? S Jones? What about Henri C? his dust doesn't match. No red/grey chips.

Bad science is bad science.
Go back and take some basic science courses, make sure you have one couse in experimental design.

 

[9/11-investigator]

- Very interesting speculation about setting up WTC for demolition after 1993 bombing.

- And a brand new video from the FOIA released NIST collection, WTC7 with this time explosion sounds not removed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=783mtK_0zhE&feature=player_embedded

- And 9 years after the fact KSM still will get no trial. Reason: they have no case against him. They did not torture him hard enough, like they did in Nuremberg. America is ready for some thorough cleaning up operations and regime change in Washington.

Remember guys, those who run for the exit last, will enjoy a post-1989-STASI-like-career in post 9/11 crash America.

 

[Edx]

So again are all the other scientists and engineers are stupid, incompetent, delusional, or lying?

Please do pick one...

Why do you insist I only pick one, is a combination of all four too much for you to grasp?

Oh no please do pick more than one if thats what you think.

I just want to know why you think 99.9% of scientists and engineers in the world are either too stupid, too incompetent, too lazy, too brainwashed or in on a conspiracy to be able to know what you know or see what you see when its apparently so unbelievably simple to understand.

So you gonna explain it or not?

While you're at it you can explain why the 911 firefighters are either brainwashed, incompetent, stupid or in on a conspiracy (or a combination if you prefer) to agree with a single damn thing you guys claim about WTC7 and in fact directly contradict what you guys claim about it (ie. No one would think it would collapse, small fires, minor damage, the collapse was obviously strange etc)

 

[twinstead]

kylebisme, anybody who thinks that every scientist who disagrees with him is stupid, incompetent, delusional, AND lying has no business conducting an investigation into where they left their car keys, much less 9-11.

 

[Edx]

Very interesting speculation about setting up WTC for demolition after 1993 bombing:

I quote:

-

"i think the 93 WTC bombing was organised to justify an anti-topple self-destruct system being installed in some buildings."

-

hahahahahahahahahahaaa!!!!! oh my you'll believe anything.

So you and this guy believe that its rational to think that after the 1993 bombing, a bombing that didn't even damage a core column, they installed a "anti-topple self-destruct system" that would cause the entire building to rain down damage in a wide radius and cause billions of dollars of damage to everything surrounding it.

Well done for pointing out a very good contender for a Stundie.

 

[Africanus]

btw, IIRC the Jones/Harrit spheres varied considerably in composition and contain variously O,Si,Al,Ti,S,Mg C,K,Ca. And Iron isn't the main element present in most cases!!!

This is a good point. And there is another point we should pay attention to. There are two EDX spectra of "post DSC products" published in Harrit's paper (Fig. 21 and Fig. 25). If we compare both spectra to the EDX spectrum of the flame test (Fig. 26) we detect the following:

Fig. 21 differs a lot from Fig. 26 while Fig. 25 is very similar to Fig. 26. In Fig. 21 the elements Fe, O and C are present in abundance while Si, Al and Ca are hardly present. In Fig. 25 and Fig. 26 there are large amounts of Si, Al and Ca present.

Conclusion: Fig. 26 shows the elemental composition of flame test residue. We know that the test was carried out at very high temperatures. Harrit used an oxyacetylene flame for his flame test. The temperature of this flame exceeds 3000°C. Because of the similarity of Fig. 25 and Fig. 26 we can conclude that Fig. 25 shows the residue of another high temperature process. Fig. 21 shows the product of a "low" temperature process as the composition of the sphere differs considerably from Fig. 26. At least one of those samples was not generated during the DSC analysis.

 

[kylebisme]

The white paper can only refer to Robertson's 180 mph study.

No again, Robertson referred to the original design considerations while the white paper refers to an analysis done after the design was completed.

Why do fail to understand models? Attacking Bazant's work only exposes your ignorance, your lack of engineer skills.

There's no model to substantiate Bazant's crush-down before crush-up crackpottry, why do you fail to understand that?

Do the microspheres have a unique chemical signature, or a unique method of being created?

Yeah, the composition of the microspheres reported by the USGS rule out all your suggestions of other sources, leaving a thermitic reaction involving the elements present in the spheres as their only plausible source.

That's not what Bazant shows with his math.

Separate phases of crush-down before crush-up is not only what Bazant shows in his math, it's what he describes in words through his papers, and even goes so far as to depict in diagrams such as this one from his 2007 paper:

Again, you'll never see a simulation or real world example to substantiate such nonsense, because it stands in flagrant violation to in violation of Newton's third law. Put simply; your emperor wears no clothes.

Do the microspheres have a unique chemical signature, or a unique method of being created?

Yeah, the composition of the microspheres reported by the USGS rule out all your suggestions of other sources, leaving a thermitic reaction involving the elements present in the spheres as their only plausible source.

 

[Edx]

Answer me this kylebisme...

You claim that a ratio of 3/10 is absolutely fine, right?

So then, if the WTC had a ratio of 3/10 would you have no problem with it? if you would still say its impossible, why do you say 3/10 is fine?

 

[A W Smith]

Sure, which applies more force to the bottom portion, but it doesn't result in crush up before crush down that Bazant claims.

Yes it does, How do you think the initial debris front got there? You are funny Kyle, You claim that Newtons third law was violated. When shown that yes, Newtons third law is in fact demonstrated by the initial crush up and crush down event, You hand wave it away. Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you that stupid?
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25 WTC Discussions Replies.pdf

4. Can Crush-Up Proceed Simultaneously with Crush
Down? It can, but only briefly at the beginning of collapse,

When the compacted layer attains a sufficient
mass, which occurs after the collapse of only a few stories,
this difference becomes very large.

 

[kylebisme]

You claim that a ratio of 3/10 is absolutely fine, right?

No, as I explained to previously, it depends on the circumstances.

When shown that yes, Newtons third law is in fact demonstrated by the initial crush up and crush down event, You hand wave it away.

Rather, I've been saying from the start that his claims of a period of crush-down before one of crush-up is where his argument violates Neton's third law, while you're handwaving it away by changing the topic to his claims about the initial event.

 

[Miragememories]

"Have red/gray chips been found in every WTC dust sample to date? Yes."

"Wrong. Off the bat, RJ Lee Group, USGS, EPA do not report these."

Since the term "red/gray chip" has no specific place in any technical glossary, there is no significance in the absence of such a material description in the those reports.

It, "red/gray chips" is descriptive terminology with no precise technical meaning.

Given the presence of this material in all five of the random samples, all from quite different Manhattan locations, thoroughly mixed in a huge debris cloud, it is reasonable to accept that they are pervasive in any obtained WTC dust samples.

"Does the red layer exhibit thermitic properties? Yes."

"Wrong. This has not been shown, since the incompetent method of doing the DSC trace under 21% oxygene atmophere was used."

It has not been shown that the legitimacy of the findings were compromised by presence of airborne oxygen.

"When ignited in the DSC, do the red chips exhibit more energy than would be found in normal office materials? Yes."

"Wrong. They exhibit more energy than thermite, but less than most office combustibles, like paper or plastics."

I require more proof than just your say so.

"The calorimeter can't lie to you. If you get a sharp peak in the calorimeter, that material is energetic. The degree of its energy is determined by the height of the peak and the power at which it goes off is the width of the peak. We were finding that this very small chip had a lot of energy packed into it, more than you would find in everyday materials at the office."

"Has anyone come forth with a study showing matching characteristics with paint? No."

"True. So what"

So at issue is the frequent refrain from OCTers that the red chips are from the paint originally used on the WTC steel.

"Did paint samples taken from known WTC steel samples show a comparable composition to the red chip? No."

"Hearsay. Inconclusive. The paper failed to mention this. Also, there was more than one kind of paint in the WTC complex."

Hearsay? The chain of custody to the WTC steel that was the source of the paint tested, is intact and therefore this finding can be reproduced independently and is not hearsay.

I am sure there are lots of minor details that the paper did not mention. Like a minute-by-minute chart of the ambient room temperature in the lab or what the researchers had for breakfast. Maybe you think they might have been in a bad mood and it skewed their findings as well?

The WTC steel primer paint they analyzed and tested, was the best paint source possibility for a source of the red chips.

"When ignited in the DSC, did the WTC steel paint sample reveal iron microspheres in its residue? No."

"Hearsay. Inconclusive. The paper failed to mention this. Also, there was more than one kind of paint in the WTC complex."

The paper clearly refers to this.

"Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust. "

Then, in the same chapter, the results of a comparison test with a red chip.

" In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semi- spherical shapes shows that the residue had been melted, "

"When ignited in the DSC, did the the red chip reveal iron microspheres in its residue? Yes."

"Hearsay. Inconclusive. The paper failed to mention this. Also, there was more than one kind of paint in the WTC complex."

Where does that statement say anything about paint?

"Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section)."

"Did temperatures in WTC Towers reach as high as 1100 C from the jet fuel or office cubicle fires? No."

"Irrelevant. Strawman."

How so?

If temperatures are shown to have existed that could not be created by fires fueled by the contents that were supposed to exist, then it is reasonable and logical to assume something that should not have been there, created those high temperatures.

"Did the analysis of steel samples from WTC reveal phases that indicated exposure minimum temperatures of 1100 C? Yes."

"Yes. So what"

See previous reply above.

"Could those phases have been created with an oxyacetylene torch or whatever torch you used to cut the steel? No."

"Irrelevant. Strawman."

More support for the contention the extreme heat that caused these phases occurred by some means other than any that should have been available in the WTC, and prior to any post collapse cleanup.

"When randomly collected dust samples, taken from different areas in Manhattan were analyzed, did they show a matching composition? Yes."

"Vague. Ungrammatical. You fail."

You wish!

But I will concede the grammar in that statement did require correcting.

MM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Since the term "red/gray chip" has no specific place in any technical glossary, there is no significance in the absence of such a material description in the those reports.

It, "red/gray chips" is descriptive terminology with no precise technical meaning.

Given the presence of this material in all five of the random samples, all from quite different Manhattan locations, thoroughly mixed in a huge debris cloud, it is reasonable to accept that they are pervasive in any obtained WTC dust samples.



It has not been shown that the legitimacy of the findings were compromised by presence of airborne oxygen.



I require more proof than just your say so.





So at issue is the frequent refrain from OCTers that the red chips are from the paint originally used on the WTC steel.



Hearsay? The chain of custody to the WTC steel that was the source of the paint tested, is intact and therefore this finding can be reproduced independently and is not hearsay.

I am sure there are lots of minor details that the paper did not mention. Like a minute-by-minute chart of the ambient room temperature in the lab or what the researchers had for breakfast. Maybe you think they might have been in a bad mood and it skewed their findings as well?

The WTC steel primer paint they analyzed and tested, was the best paint source possibility for a source of the red chips.



The paper clearly refers to this.



Then, in the same chapter, the results of a comparison test with a red chip.







Where does that statement say anything about paint?







How so?

If temperatures are shown to have existed that could not be created by fires fueled by the contents that were supposed to exist, then it is reasonable and logical to assume something that should not have been there, created those high temperatures.



See previous reply above.



More support for the contention the extreme heat that caused these phases occurred by some means other than any that should have been available in the WTC, and prior to any post collapse cleanup.



You wish!

But I will concede the grammar in that statement did require correcting.

MM

MM, you lost, just live with that fact!

Also, it was paint chips! Live knowing that too!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Even if I was to accept what you say as true, would not the existence of a single exotherm recording a release more than the theoretical maximum possible energy available from any thermite reaction, including a nanothermite reaction, be of even greater scientific interest?

mirage, you really don't comprehend anything do you? You have been shown repeatedly that even paper is multiples as energy rich as Thermite/Thermate/nanothermite/sooper duper nanny thermpoop.

Thermites power comes from its rapid reaction time, not its energy output. If the output from the chip burning was more than that which is chemically possible it is definitive proof that whatever the material was it certainly cannot possibly have been Thermite/thermate etc etc. It can however have been paint..........and why would that be of interest to the scientific community????

 

[W.D.Clinger]

"Does the red layer exhibit thermitic properties? Yes."

"Wrong. This has not been shown, since the incompetent method of doing the DSC trace under 21% oxygene atmophere was used."

It has not been shown that the legitimacy of the findings were compromised by presence of airborne oxygen.

I'm sorry, Miragememories, but using thoroughly incompetent methods to test for thermite would have compromised their findings, had their findings been compatible with thermite. It turned out that their measurements were incompatible with thermite, however, so we know (despite their incompetence) that it wasn't thermite.

"When ignited in the DSC, do the red chips exhibit more energy than would be found in normal office materials? Yes."

"Wrong. They exhibit more energy than thermite, but less than most office combustibles, like paper or plastics."

I require more proof than just your say so.

That proof has been provided:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6558800&postcount=279

You're having a lot of trouble coming to grips with the fact that 17 MJ/kg is greater than 4 MJ/kg. Perhaps this picture will help:

================= (MJ per kg of paper)
==== (MJ per kg of thermite, theoretical limit)

Each of the equals signs in that picture represents 1 MJ/kg. If you look closely, you may be able to determine that the sequence of equals signs for paper is longer than the sequence of equals signs for thermite. That's a visual presentation of how much more energy is released when you burn a kilogram of paper than is released when you set off a kilogram of thermite.

@Oystein: Yes, I know that the picture above is comparing the theoretical maximum for thermite against an eminently achievable value for paper, but Miragememories is having enough trouble with 17 and 4. Please don't confuse him with decimal points or fractions.

 

[beachnut]

No again, Robertson referred to the original design considerations while the white paper refers to an analysis done after the design was completed. ...

The white paper is hearsay. The impact study was done by Robertson, it was at 180 mph. No 600 mph study. An impact at 600 mph would do what you see on 911. But go ahead make up lies and back them up with hearsay, it is what 911 truth does to ensure 10 years of solid failure.

The study was 180 mph, to say otherwise is a lie. You have hearsay, I have the chief structural engineer.
http://www.members.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement
You have a delusion built on failed research.

There's no model to substantiate Bazant's crush-down before crush-up crackpottry, why do you fail to understand that? ...

Like 911 truth you call thinks you can't comprehend crack-pottery, to you differential equations, math and engineering are crack-pottery. Your post is proof you have no clue.

Does this mean you will not be supporting your claims with differential equations and engineering?

Why would you bring thermite to a real fire.

What has more heat energy?

Stop repeating your lies, next time bring evidence and the engineering to back up you failed claims.

 

[The Almond]

Since the term "red/gray chip" has no specific place in any technical glossary, there is no significance in the absence of such a material description in the those reports.

It, "red/gray chips" is descriptive terminology with no precise technical meaning.

Interestingly enough, paint chips are actually a part of the McCrone Particle Atlas (MPA), which would be the technical glossary for particle and dust analysis. RJ Lee has made extremely good use of the MPA over the last 25 years or so. Such material would have been reported, if it were found.

FYI:
Dual layered (one gray, one colored) chips are identified in the MPA in sections 12:001100 and 28:011100. Interestingly, MPA notes, "Throughout the sample, individually dispersed and attached to the primer layer, is rust (see iron oxide). The sample came from a newly painted steel bridge from which the paint was flaking off." It goes on further to state, "[...] the paint particles are seen to be composed of tiny (less than 1 um) [...] rounded pigment particles." McCrone Particle Atlas, volume 2 (1973), page 529.

That's it, MM, you're done. In dust, as a component of ordinary, non-thermite induced activities, paint chips (distinguished by a gray layer adhered to a colored layer) are often found. Said paint chips contain not only iron oxide (when they're applied to steel), but are also composed of micron sized particles making up the pigments. The production of so called "iron rich microspheres" is no more proof of thermite than the presence of unicorn dung.

Now then, having watched you on this forum, I can accurately predict the responses you're going to make. I've taken the liberty of showing your response, and giving my answer. This will save a tremendous amount of time.

Objection 1: "That proves nothing! The paint chips that were tested exhibited none of the properties that the mysterious red/grey chips had."

Answer 1: In truth, the extremely limited number of paint samples tested against the mystery samples does not provide enough evidence to substantiate this claim. The BYU stadium paint, which was tested for the Harrit et al paper, indeed did not exhibit the same properties as the red/gray chips. Since that sample was not taken from the WTC, the test is, at best irrelevant. The idea of taking a paint sample and using it to represent the properties of all known paints so as to EXCLUDE them from consideration as a parent material is, beyond idiotic, but perfectly in line with the mental capacities of all Truthers.

Farrer's claim that a sample of the WTC anti corrosion coating was tested and found to be quantitatively different is interesting. However, since no data are published, this claim cannot be evaluated. Further, since the sample was supposedly scraped from the parent steel, it can be shown that it did not undergo any of the processes that the chips in question went under. Those processes must have included exposure to heat and abrasion during the collapse process, in addition to intimate mixing with other ejecta. Comparison of the same materials, when the materials are prepared, transported, collected and analyzed differently is not a basis for useful conclusions about the composition or nature of the materials.

Objection 2: "Just because paint chips are found does not mean that the material in question is a paint chip!"

Answer 2: Entirely correct. However, it is a legitimate source of contamination, known to exist in ordinary dust. It is up to the researcher to eliminate confounding variables from consideration. Failure to do so makes the results meaningless.

 

[Clarrisani]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have the chemical breakdown for rust? Annotated in layman's terms, please, for those of us who are not educated in that area.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have the chemical breakdown for rust? Annotated in layman's terms, please, for those of us who are not educated in that area.

Good question. If only we knew the chemical composition of the aluminium cladding that covered the outer surface of every WTC perimeter column too, we might be able to get somewhere.

Dave

 

[leftysergeant]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have the chemical breakdown for rust? Annotated in layman's terms, please, for those of us who are not educated in that area.

Rust is a red oxide of iron. THus it is composed of only iron and oxygen. This is the iron oxide that I used in making thermite. There are other forms of iron oxide, varying by the number of oxygen atoms.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have the chemical breakdown for rust? Annotated in layman's terms, please, for those of us who are not educated in that area.

Rust^WP is iron oxide^WP, which is a compound of iron and oxygen. There are several different oxides of iron. The oxide we're talking about here (because it's the iron oxide used in the kind of thermite assumed (and I do mean "assumed") by Harrit et al) is iron(III) oxide, whose chemical formula is Fe₂O₃. That's two atoms of iron for every three atoms of oxygen.

Fe₂O₃ itself can be in any of several phases, but that doesn't really matter here. The thermite equation, as given by Harrit et al on page 23, is

2 Al + Fe₂O₃ → Al₂O₃ + 2 Fe

Note that the reaction above does not require any oxygen beyond the oxygen that is already present within the rust. That means the thermite reaction goes to completion even without exposure to air or any other source of oxygen.

That in turn means that it takes considerable incompetence to ignite a flake in air for the purpose of arguing that the flake is thermite. If it were thermite, and you really wanted to demonstrate that it's thermite, you'd ignite it in a vacuum or in an inert atmosphere (without oxygen) to show that you aren't just burning some random flake of paint or something similar. Although the authors of Harrit et al included several PhDs, including a couple of PhDs in chemistry, we're supposed to believe they didn't know any better than to run their calorimetric tests in an oxygen atmosphere.

Fortunately, their calorimetric tests revealed that two of their four flakes, when burned, released far more energy than the thermite reaction shown above can possibly release. If their measurements were accurate, then their measurements prove that those flakes weren't thermite.

If their measurements weren't accurate, or if the excess energy came from contamination (as they suggest), then the inaccuracy of their tests and/or the contamination of their samples present an insurmountable barrier to any credible claim that those flakes were thermite. Harrit et al made the claim anyway.

(Insert laughing dogs here.)