The sad case of Niels Harrit

[carlitos]

They tested paints (youtube link).

Plus I've know a chemist for 19 years and I let her read the paper and she said it couldn't of been paint.

I would guess that a chemist has some level of education that would make them more likely to have said "couldn't have." Maybe you mis-heard the chemist.

Seems neither of us will convince each other then (my chemist vs. your chemist).

LOL

A critical question is "Why are people interested in the thermXte at WTC issue?"

Thermite was the magic thingie that explained the lack of bangs from explosions. Explosives are the magic thingie that explains why onlookers weren't blinded by the white-hot glow of tons of thermite igniting. It's almost like circular logic.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I would guess that a chemist has some level of education that would make them more likely to have said "couldn't have." Maybe you mis-heard the chemist.

Er....what? Did you mean "could have"?

 

[carlitos]

No, even assuming that P4T's chemist exists and would disagree with your chemist, I just cannot imagine that a chemist would be unaware of the helping verb "have," and would have replaced it with "of." That sounds more like an uneducated person to me.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm getting jealous. All I have on my e-mail list are nuclear engineers and physicists.

 

[Telltale Tom]

What surprises me about the nano-thermite argument is how come there was so much of it. There must have been a helluva production run immediately before 9/11

Looking at the excellent paper by Harrit et al, they reported volumes on two of the four samples but the unexploded nano-thermite was 0.11% to 0.16%. i wonder why they didn't report it on the other samples, I expect they didn't like the answer.

Now the paper below estimates that there was about 100,000 tons of dust, which means that there was 110 to 160 tons of unexploded thermite.!

So considering that first the thermite survived the fires for an hour and then only a fraction of it exploded; it appears to have been a pretty useless demolition explosive. I expect that whoever came up with the idea got into trouble.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

Perhaps the real plan was to blow up the whole of downtown.!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

No, even assuming that P4T's chemist exists and would disagree with your chemist, I just cannot imagine that a chemist would be unaware of the helping verb "have," and would have replaced it with "of." That sounds more like an uneducated person to me.

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. Agree with the "of/have" issue, but P4T probably wasn't going for an exact quote, so I let that kind of stuff slide most of the time.

 

[ozeco41]

No, even assuming that P4T's chemist exists and would disagree with your chemist, I just cannot imagine that a chemist would be unaware of the helping verb "have," and would have replaced it with "of." That sounds more like an uneducated person to me.

I have watched the spread of the misuse of "of" for a few years. At first I thought it was only Australian teenagers who did not know better. However from evidence mostly derived from two internet forums it appears that is spreading in US and UK usage as well as AU. Not pronouncing correctly is one thing, but not even knowing what word is being mispronounced so that it goes into written form is an order of magnitude worse.

The derivation from the lazy contraction "...would've/could've..." seems obvious.

But surely "You would of thought that people would of known better."

 

[ozeco41]

What surprises me about the nano-thermite argument is how come there was so much of it. There must have been a helluva production run immediately before 9/11

Looking at the excellent paper by Harrit et al, they reported volumes on two of the four samples but the unexploded nano-thermite was 0.11% to 0.16%. i wonder why they didn't report it on the other samples, I expect they didn't like the answer.

Now the paper below estimates that there was about 100,000 tons of dust, which means that there was 110 to 160 tons of unexploded thermite.!

You are making the error which many non-truthers make. You are thinking.

It's not allowed.

 

[ozeco41]

A critical question is "Why are people interested in the thermXte at WTC issue?"

Thermite was the magic thingie that explained the lack of bangs from explosions. Explosives are the magic thingie that explains why onlookers weren't blinded by the white-hot glow of tons of thermite igniting. It's almost like circular logic.

Fortunately for truthers there is no need for bits of logic to fit together. So using thermite to do the cutting part without its bright glow is quite OK in "truther rationality". Compare with the alternate of silent explosives which are also acceptable in trutherdom - despite the base premise of how explosives work.

BUT neither of those claims have been published in a peer reviewed journal by someone with two doctorates and a string of published papers so they must be biased claims or.....now where was I heading

Clearly I am not cut out to be a truther.

I prefer that the two ends of my sentences can co-exist.

 

[Sunstealer]

This picture is taken from Sunstealer's analysis on the thread you linked and in his signature link. Sunstealer believes that Graph A (kaolinite with gypsum) = Graph B or C (the dual-layered chips from WTC dust)
[qimg]http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/spectra.jpg[/qimg]

What's wrong with Graph A? Well for starters:
-The iron peaks are missing (3 different oxidation states); also the Sodium and Potassium peaks are missing LOL
-The spike on the far left is cropped off at the top. It could be much taller..
-No evidence to suggest the same Y-scale

Oh the ignorance. It's wonderful. People who've never seen an EDS spectra commenting on it and getting it horribly wrong.

1. Of course there is going to be Fe in the Red Layer of the chip sample and none in the Kaolinite with Gypsum because the former contains rhombohedral Fe2O3, which is in close proximity to the platelets so you aren't going to get an exact spectra even from a spot beam

"It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles" - Niels et All, Active Thermitic Material

and the latter contains very little or no Iron.

So truthers don't understand the significance of the spectra - quell surprise.

2. Na, K are often found in Kaolinite - it's a natural mineral and trace elements are often found. Kaolinite deposits have slightly different compositions depending on geography. See 3 for why this isn't important.

3. The main reason for posting the graphs is to look at peak hight ratios between O, Si and Al.

That's why truthers don't understand and just look for similarities in spectra shape and elements present - they don't know what they are looking at.

I'll respond to other parts when I have time. Lunch for me now.

 

[Sunstealer]

"The chemical composition of these two materials is similar. Notice that "kaolinite" has quite a bit of carbon and very little oxygen. In thermite you see the REVERSE, very little carbon and quite a bit of oxygen. Abundances of aluminum, silicon and iron are also WAY OFF in the "kaolinite". That's one reason it's so energetic. You don't expect this sort of energetic material to form spontaneously in a building collapse, just as you don't expect a box of matches to be the result of a forest fire." (prisonplanet forums)

Sorry I just can't resist. So he's just debunked the Harrit et al paper hasn't he? P4T can you work out why he has debunked it? No you can't you'll just open the spoiler.

In thermite you see the REVERSE, very little carbon and quite a bit of oxygen. Now look at the spectra in the paper Fig 7 - wow!

"The fact that the red/gray chips are magnetic is further evidence that it is not primer paint." - Stephen Jones

Go Stevy go!

Lets answer that one with P4T's very own words and quote from Niels shall we.

Iron is part of the gray layer

"the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount
of carbon." - Niels et All, Active Thermitic Material

"It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich
grains and Al/Si plate-like particles" - Niels et All, Active Thermitic Material

So why are you quoting Jones' nonsense and then posting quotes from Niels with your own words that clearly show how stupid Jones' comment is??

I have already shown you twice that the gray layer is likely to be oxidised steel. Do you think this could be magnetic?

Stop just cross posting from other forums willy nilly and think for yourself.

 

[Sunstealer]

I agree that the element spectrum is less damning than the electron microscope images that show nano-technology.

"What's absent in the "kaolinite" is the presence of tiny nano-scale granules mixed in with it. Those size particles are generally not spontaneous, they're made only in labs." link
[qimg]http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/9265/nanoparticles.jpg[/qimg]

Oh for the love of god please stop posting other people's nonsense. There are two distinct particles. Hexagonal thin platelets - that's the Kaolinite. Then rhombohedral Fe2O3 - the whiter particles. These particles have been mixed together before the binder is added. That's how paint is made - the whole point is to mix the two as much as possible!

You can buy all of the material found in the sem photos off the net. They are mined or produced in industrial quantities.

There is nothing special or magical about the word nano, it simply describes size. It's a shock to ignorant truthers who don't understand - go look at some minerology web sites and learn about crystal formation, crystallography and geometry. Mother nature is quite awesome.

 

[KDLarsen]

Kind of amusing, it seems that Harrit has now moved away from the conventional explosives claim.

At least it hasn't made it into this blurb.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Until Harrit specifically takes back the 440,000+ pounds of explosives claim, then we must treat it as an integral part of his theory when discussing his claims, lest we leave ourselves open to a charge of withholding information.

 

[alienentity]

Kind of amusing, it seems that Harrit has now moved away from the conventional explosives claim.

At least it hasn't made it into this blurb.

'Fire, says Dr. Harrit, cannot do that to a building. “All of these columns had to be cut at the same time for this phenomenon to happen,” he says.'

Groan...
Suddenly Harrit is an expert on fire science, controlled demolition, and hushaboom silent cutter charges (aka magic substance which is invoked to support this silly theory).

Wow. No wonder he retired, he's got a new career as a leading expert on, well, everything 9/11!!

Go Niels Go!

 

[Sunstealer]

I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!

I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.

Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.

Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below

with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120

This is one and the same material!

Note how in the paper they say

Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice
the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red
layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination
with wallboard material.

The bolded part is their own bias.

Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.

Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.

 

[Oystein]

I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!

I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.

Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.

Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=876[/qimg]

with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120

This is one and the same material!

Note how in the paper they say

The bolded part is their own bias.

Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.

Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.

# oysteinbookmark

 

[The Almond]

I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!

I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.

Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.

Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=876

with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120

This is one and the same material!

Note how in the paper they say

The bolded part is their own bias.

Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.

Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.

Good catch on this. I've often suggested that the material in question was the anti-corrosive coating applied to the steel structure during construction. NIST describes the anti corrosion coating applied to the steel beams (also used to do the infamous 600 C temperature test) in 1-3C appendix D (check around page 433). Not shockingly, the pigments listed have iron, zinc, silicon and a proprietary pigment known as Tnemec. What's further, if you compare figure D4 to the ones shown in Harrit et al, you can't even begin to think it's anything else.

 

[moorea34]

...

Once again, an excellent job!

 

[Sunstealer]

This discovery that the chip soaked in MEK is WTC primer paint also describes why they claim to see a separation of Al and Si. What is happening is the MEK is dissolving or disrupting the "vehicle" or agents that the paint particulates are fixed in. This will allow particles of silica/quartz/talc to move away from particles of alumina or aluminates.

What they don't understand is they actually have two different red materials (red paints) and are applying the separation of individual Al/O and Si/O particulate in one material to the aluminosilicate (kaolinite) in the other!

It's lulz tastic. Just goes to show how important materials characterisation is - I've been banging on about how the MEK sample is not the same as the DSC samples a-d and this has proved me right.

How can they be so incompetent to claim that all the chips in their sample are the same and therefore thermite when they clearly analysed two distinct and different sets of sample?

They had red tnemec primer paint all along but didn't recognise it! Muppets.



And the truthers lap it up!