The sad case of Niels Harrit

[Justin39640]

Could you explain how steel cutting explosives could cause ejection of steel girders?

...without the entire eastern half of Connecticut hearing it.

 

[ozeco41]

Could you explain how steel cutting explosives could cause ejection of steel girders?

...without the entire eastern half of Connecticut hearing it.

Actually the challenge is even more basic than the need for "hush-a-boom" explosives.

Steel cutting explosives - the so-called "high explosives" - are not good a lifting and throwing things. The "lower explosives" such as ANFO can lift and throw things BUT.....lets see if cicorp can work out a way to do it in the WTC Tower setting 'coz he is the one making the claim and I don't think I can.

 

[Sunstealer]

Actually the challenge is even more basic than the need for "hush-a-boom" explosives.

Steel cutting explosives - the so-called "high explosives" - are not good a lifting and throwing things. The "lower explosives" such as ANFO can lift and throw things BUT.....lets see if cicorp can work out a way to do it in the WTC Tower setting 'coz he is the one making the claim and I don't think I can.

Bit of info here - this is what a cutter charge does to steel beams

BBC Explosions How We Shook the World 4:30 mins

Notice the clean cut and how the cut surface is covered in copper. Truthers - also note that the beam didn't fly hundreds of meters. It also made a loud BANG like all explosives.

 

[George 152]

Bit of info here - this is what a cutter charge does to steel beams

BBC Explosions How We Shook the World 4:30 mins

Notice the clean cut and how the cut surface is covered in copper. Truthers - also note that the beam didn't fly hundreds of meters. It also made a loud BANG like all explosives.

Ah but the truthers have their hushaboom, the nonexplosive explosive to explain the lack of BANG..
Is there an icon for irony ?
I could sure use one about now

 

[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.

Hey Sunstealer,
I wasted a day off to write up your finding in my modest blog, for posteriority:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html

 

[Sunstealer]

Hey Sunstealer,
I wasted a day off to write up your finding in my modest blog, for posteriority:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html

Nice, well put. Just one thing.

3.65keV: keV: both have a high peak; for sample a-d it is labelled "Ca", for the primer paint it is labled "C". I propose that one of the two lables is in error. Should be C in either place

This peak should be labelled Calcium (Ca). There is a K-alpha at 3.69 and K-beta at 4.01Kev http://csrri.iit.edu/cgi-bin/period-form?ener=10&name=Ca

From this handy tool - http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html

 

[Oystein]

Nice, well put. Just one thing.

This peak should be labelled Calcium (Ca). There is a K-alpha at 3.69 and K-beta at 4.01Kev http://csrri.iit.edu/cgi-bin/period-form?ener=10&name=Ca

From this handy tool - http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html

Ah, thanks! I was lazy and worked from memory.
Correction will be done promptly, and I'll include that link

 

[Oystein]

I found a funny gem from the German blogosphere:

http://www.911-archiv.net/blog/sittingbull/neuigkeiten-in-sachen-wtc-staub.html

This is a year old, but I think worth reporting. Under the title "News concerning WTC dust", the blogger, Dirk Gerhardt (a truther) tells of his efforts in getting a dust sample from the Harrit teams, and the obstacles he faces. Plug the URL into Google-translate, if you want to read it all, but the conditions Harrit sets up for anyone wanting to analyse his dust are given in English:

• all conversation and publishing will be done in English
• primer paint analysis will be performed before actually handing out the dust probe, so that we can countercheck the methods used and to facilitate the differentiation of red/gray chips from paint chips
• information regarding what analysis the GRT will perform (SEM/XEDS? DSC?)
• task description of how to proceed to find right chips and fresh surfaces -- to be followed for the dust sample
• review and knowing where to publish beforehand
• no publishing on JREF

While the last bullet has me giggling heartily, the second is curious: Why would they want anyone to work with primer paint? It i s already clear that the red-grey chips are not primer paint!


This post also talks about a mineralogist named Dr. Gunnar Ries, a debunker, who has critiqued the Harrit paper, and truthers who believe it.
Here: http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/bl...zwischen-den-tr-mmern-des-world-trade-centers (criticizes methods)
and here: http://amphibol.blogspot.com/2010/02/wie-sich-verschworer-selbst.html (polemicizes against truthers)

ETA: Dr. Ries doubts if the elements C and O were really detected: Usually, EDS detectors have a window made of Beryllium that is 8 microns thin. This window absorbs any X-rays under 1keV - including the C and O lines. If Harrit e.al. had used a detector with an ultra-thin window, or without window, they would likely have mentioned it, as both are rare, and difficult to handle.
Ries, too, suspects that the plate-like structure are aluminium silicates (clay).

 

[The Almond]

ETA: Dr. Ries doubts if the elements C and O were really detected: Usually, EDS detectors have a window made of Beryllium that is 8 microns thin. This window absorbs any X-rays under 1keV - including the C and O lines. If Harrit e.al. had used a detector with an ultra-thin window, or without window, they would likely have mentioned it, as both are rare, and difficult to handle.
Ries, too, suspects that the plate-like structure are aluminium silicates (clay).

Hey Ostein, good information in your links. I have to say, though, atmosphere supporting ultra thin windows are now the norm, not the exception. The Moxtek UTW is supported by a cu grid, and it has transmission of X-rays down to 100 eV (Be, if you're good). Most manufacturers are using UTWs because they don't have the same toxicity considerations that Be windows have. The new European standards for handling Be are quite draconian, and ultra thin windows, because they're more friable and prone to oxidation, are the biggest problem.

I can still get 125 um Be windows for my X-ray tubes and 25 um Be windows for my high energy detectors, but those are pretty rare.

Some people still want UTWs because they have a system flooded with light, which will make your X-ray detector go nuts. The Be is opaque, so that solves the problem. But now they're putting 10 nm coatings of Al on the surface of the UTWs to make them opaque too. You lose the 100 eV photons, but you can keep the lights on when you're working.

Anyway, blah blah blah. Far be it for me to defend Harrit, but looking at his spectra, I think it's pretty clear that he was using a UTW.

 

[Sunstealer]

snip

Ries, too, suspects that the plate-like structure are aluminium silicates (clay).

Not the only one, cough, nudge.

Would be nice to get a translation. "Wurst mit frites, bitter" is about as good as my German gets! I'll use a web-translator to have a look. I'm not sure what they want to do with the sample before handing it over. Are they saying they want to analyse all the red/gray chips and primer paint in the sample or are they talking about separation. Odd that they seem to elude to their being primer paint chips present in the dust or have I got that wrong.

The "no to JREF" cracks me up. What are they scared of?

 

[The Almond]

Not the only one, cough, nudge.

Would be nice to get a translation. "Wurst mit frites, bitter" is about as good as my German gets! I'll use a web-translator to have a look. I'm not sure what they want to do with the sample before handing it over. Are they saying they want to analyse all the red/gray chips and primer paint in the sample or are they talking about separation. Odd that they seem to elude to their being primer paint chips present in the dust or have I got that wrong.

I'm confused on that as well. And are they assuming there is only one primer paint in existence? I have 2 different cans in my garage!

The "no to JREF" cracks me up. What are they scared of?

You.

Duh.

 

[Oystein]

Not the only one, cough, nudge.

I had you in mind when I wrote "Ries, too, ..."

Would be nice to get a translation. "Wurst mit frites, bitter" is about as good as my German gets! I'll use a web-translator to have a look. I'm not sure what they want to do with the sample before handing it over. Are they saying they want to analyse all the red/gray chips and primer paint in the sample or are they talking about separation. Odd that they seem to elude to their being primer paint chips present in the dust or have I got that wrong.

I think the German blogger is merely interpreting and commenting on Harrit's conditions, and didn't do a translation. He says that they want to check if you will use methods that they agree with. In reality, I think they want to make sure you won't use the methods that will unequivocally prove them wrong.

Google translate is often surprisingly good. If you need help with some phrases, feel free to get back to me.

The "no to JREF" cracks me up. What are they scared of?

The Almond said it: You. Well, and Ryan, Dave, and all the others.

 

[Oystein]

I'm confused on that as well. And are they assuming there is only one primer paint in existence? I have 2 different cans in my garage!...

Since they already analysed original WTC steel primer, and found it isn't the same material as the red layer from the red-grey chips, they want other researchers to do the same.
Of course we KNOW already that these chips are not WTC steel primer. They are a different red paint. The MEK-soaked chip on the other hand was WTC steel primer.
But really, it doesn't matter what primer or paint you compare this to, or if you compare at all. Valid methods will show that the red layer contains hematite and kaolinite in a carbon matrix, possibly resin, and does not contain elemental Al, and also no Al2O3. Therefore, without comparison, any competent researcher will determine that NO thermite is present, nor the residues of a thermite reaction. Finding the exact paint that this layer is would be a bonus, but quite unnecessary.

 

[Oystein]

Hey Ostein, good information in your links. I have to say, though, atmosphere supporting ultra thin windows are now the norm, not the exception. The Moxtek UTW is supported by a cu grid, and it has transmission of X-rays down to 100 eV (Be, if you're good). Most manufacturers are using UTWs because they don't have the same toxicity considerations that Be windows have. The new European standards for handling Be are quite draconian, and ultra thin windows, because they're more friable and prone to oxidation, are the biggest problem.

I can still get 125 um Be windows for my X-ray tubes and 25 um Be windows for my high energy detectors, but those are pretty rare.

Some people still want UTWs because they have a system flooded with light, which will make your X-ray detector go nuts. The Be is opaque, so that solves the problem. But now they're putting 10 nm coatings of Al on the surface of the UTWs to make them opaque too. You lose the 100 eV photons, but you can keep the lights on when you're working.

Anyway, blah blah blah. Far be it for me to defend Harrit, but looking at his spectra, I think it's pretty clear that he was using a UTW.

Ah, okay, thanks a lot! I'll relay that back to Gunnar Ries

 

[Sunstealer]

I'm confused on that as well. And are they assuming there is only one primer paint in existence? I have 2 different cans in my garage!

Well exactly. Their samples a-d (which ended up in the DSC) could be any kind of paint adhered to Iron oxide. Who knows exactly where it's from. I've been doing some decorating over the last few months and there's potentially paint from 100 years ago under the modern stuff and guess what? There are different colours and types in different rooms! Maybe, just maybe, Tnemec red primer paint wasn't the only paint or type used at the WTC.

I've read, rather tried to piece together Gunnar Ries's argument(s) using google translate so I may not be exactly right, but there seem to be two issues for him.

1. Window type/material (specifically Beryllium- Be) used in the SiLi detector and how that has issues detecting elements with Z<=11 (Sodium - Na). Sorry Z is atomic number - see periodic table.

2. He's effectively saying that it's easy to determine whether a clay is present using powder diffraction (XRD) which is a standard geological test. Also seems to think that chemists should have recognised the appearance and elemental make up as being a clay mineral for the observed platelets.

On 1 - The Almond has addressed that. I can't see any issue but I've just had to go for a quick crash course on the state of detector technology courtesy of the interweb (getting down towards Be now!). I'm fairly sure that even 10 years ago Oxygen was not a problem for detectors due to the change in material (polycarbonate??) or thickness of detector windows. Carbon conductive tabs (for holding the sample down) could potentially be an issue but I assume they knew what they are doing. This could all get highly technical very quickly and I doubt a lot of readers have got a scooby what we are jabbering on about anyway!

On 2 - I agree. Although his argument sort of contradicts his first with regard to whether Oxygen in the spectra is accurate, but I think his initial reaction (if I'm reading the translation correctly) was more to do with particle shape rather than looking at spectra. I was the same; saw the shape and clustering and immediately thought of kaolin clay because it's distinctive - It actually reminded me of the lecture I first encountered it in at the time. Sad.

 

[Sunstealer]

I think the German blogger is merely interpreting and commenting on Harrit's conditions, and didn't do a translation. He says that they want to check if you will use methods that they agree with. In reality, I think they want to make sure you won't use the methods that will unequivocally prove them wrong.

I agree. I think they know their game is up.

I was trying to find a hammer hitting a nail smilie, but I think this is just as apt - nothing seems to suit them. It would also explain why they aren't pushing for truthers to donate so they can get a fully independent lab analysis for around $1000 performed.

Google translate is often surprisingly good. If you need help with some phrases, feel free to get back to me.

Sure, Ta.

 

[Oystein]

...
I've read, rather tried to piece together Gunnar Ries's argument(s) using google translate so I may not be exactly right, but there seem to be two issues for him.

1. Window type/material (specifically Beryllium- Be) used in the SiLi detector and how that has issues detecting elements with Z<=11 (Sodium - Na). Sorry Z is atomic number - see periodic table.

2. He's effectively saying that it's easy to determine whether a clay is present using powder diffraction (XRD) which is a standard geological test. Also seems to think that chemists should have recognised the appearance and elemental make up as being a clay mineral for the observed platelets.

On 1 - The Almond has addressed that. I can't see any issue but I've just had to go for a quick crash course on the state of detector technology courtesy of the interweb (getting down towards Be now!). I'm fairly sure that even 10 years ago Oxygen was not a problem for detectors due to the change in material (polycarbonate??) or thickness of detector windows. Carbon conductive tabs (for holding the sample down) could potentially be an issue but I assume they knew what they are doing. This could all get highly technical very quickly and I doubt a lot of readers have got a scooby what we are jabbering on about anyway!

On 2 - I agree. Although his argument sort of contradicts his first with regard to whether Oxygen in the spectra is accurate, but I think his initial reaction (if I'm reading the translation correctly) was more to do with particle shape rather than looking at spectra. I was the same; saw the shape and clustering and immediately thought of kaolin clay because it's distinctive - It actually reminded me of the lecture I first encountered it in at the time. Sad.

Yep, you are paraphrasing it correctly so far.
I just added Gunnar to my Facebook account, and also replied to one of his blog posts. Going to alert him about this window issue, and ask what became of this struggle to get a dust sample from the Harrit group. I'll show him our discussion here, too.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Let me further things right along. As far as I can tell, these are the latest objections from the Jones camp, paraphrased;

1) You're only focusing on the one sample.

2) The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the post-MEK XEDS spectra, Figs 16, 17 and 18

Harrit, in his eponymous paper, claims that the sample could not be primer paint...

In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).

3) There's no Magnesium in their samples, but there is in the Paint XDS

4) Regardless of the similar appearance under a microscope, the samples soaked in MEK behaved differently from the soaked primer paint samples. The chip samples retained their structure, where the paint chips became soaked.

5) Mark Basile confirmed their results in an independant analysis.

All these objections were sourced from THIS blog.

 

[Oystein]

Let me further things right along. As far as I can tell, these are the latest objections from Jones, paraphrased;

1) You're only focusing on the one sample.

WRONG.
We are focussing on ALL samples that Harrit e.al. provide data for. All that data shows that one sample is different from the others. It follows that whatever results Harrit gathered for this different sample, can not be applied to the other samples. When the authors claim that the red-grey chips contain elemental Al and release so and so much energy in the calorimeter, then it must be pointed out that they are in ERROR.

2) The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the post-MEK XEDS spectra, Figs 16, 17 and 18

a) What would this disappearance of Zn and Ca prove? Did the MEK magically remove these?
b) They didn't do a proper before/after soak comparison. The one before graph (Fig. 14) shows one thing, the 3 after graphs (Fig. 16-18) show another.
c) For Fig. 17, they used a weak (10 kV) electron ray that would not yield any results above 3 or 4 keV, and would thus miss the Ca and Zn peaks at 4.01 and 8.64keV
d) The broad, low peak near 1 keV in Fig. 18 is quite possibly the same as the one in Fig 14, and may well represent Zn (1.01-1.04keV) instead of Na (1.04-1.07keV)

Harrit, in his eponymous paper, claims that the sample could not be primer paint...

In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).

Harrit is guessing there, however the XEDS spectra for primer paint and the pre-MEK sample are so stricingly similar, it is irresponsible to dismiss it with mere speculation.

3) There's no Magnesium in their samples, but there is in the Paint XDS

WRONG
Fig. 14 (pre-MEK sample) shows an unlabelled peak at 1.25keV. That is the K-alpha level of magnesium.
It wasn't us who flunked here, it was Harrit who failed to label that peak.

4) Regardless of the similar appearance under a microscope, the samples soaked in MEK behaved differently from the soaked primer paint samples. The chip samples retained their structure, where the paint chips became soaked.

a) There was only one chip that they soaked in MEK.
b) In Harrit (2009), the soaked a totally different paint or primer (scratched from the BYU football stadium, iirc), not WTC steel primer
c) Or do you have any documentation of them soaking WTC steel primer in MEK? Where is it?

5) Mark Basile confirmed their results in an independant analysis.

a) You can't call Mark Basile "independent". He is mentioned second in the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (page 30), right after David Griscom (who later revealed that he was one of the "peer reviewers". Mark Basile collaborated on he Harrit paper
b) Where is Basile's paper? URL?
c) He used the same incompetent methods. Of course he got the same results, if he didn't manage to differentiate between the different kinds of red chips.

All these objections were sourced from THIS blog.

Aha.

 

[Oystein]

...
All these objections were sourced from THIS blog.

For some reason, I can't post a comment there. So I'll paste it here:

Several things are wrong or problematic in this blog post:

1. "Sunstealer is apparently focusing on one chip in particular" - this is false. You quote Sunstealer as follows: "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". The important point of this whole topic is that the MEK-soaked chip is of a different material than the DSC-treated chips a-d.

2. You quote Jones: "I am certain that if we had done this, there would have been no zinc on the inside...". He is merely guessing, or engaging in wishful thinking. You let this pass, when in fact he admits flatly that they worked sloppily, and that the alleged "peer-review" didn't catch a serious methodological flaw.

c) Fig. 16-18 do NOT show measurements equivalent to Fig. 14. There is no proper before/after comparison.

d) Fig. 17 shows results from a weak, 10kV only, electron ray. This would not yield any peaks beyond 3 or 4 keV. Consequently, the graph is flat on the right, and misses possible (probably) peaks of Ca (4.01keV) and Zn (8.64keV).

e) Fig. 18 shows a peak near 1keV - where there is a peak in Fig. 14 as well. In 14, that peak is labelled "Zn", in 18, it is labelled "Na". Strange, eh?

f) "Furthermore, Dr. Harrit goes on to point out that: Magnesium was never observed"
This is patently false. It is in the data, Harrit simply failed to notice it. Figures 14 and 18 have a peak at 1.25keV, which is Magnesium (K-alpha level). These peaks are just not labelled in the graphs. Interestingly, Fig. 17 does contain the same 1.25keV peak, and it IS labelled "Mg"!

g) Jones: "After soaking in MEK, the red/gray chips (still wet with MEK) remained very hard"
Duh. The red-grey chips are different from the chip described in Fig. 14-18. The latter is described in the paper as having swollen considerably due to MEK treatment. It wouldn't be "very hard" in that state. I'd choose not to trust Jones too much here. I am missing independent confirmation of his claims. Too little of what he speaks of here is actually in the content of the paper.

h) "independent confirmation from chemical engineer Mark Basile".
WHAT? Basile is acknowledged in Harrit (2009) for his contribution to that paper. His is the second name, right after "peer-reviewer" David Griscom (is it possible that Basile, too, was a hand-picked "peer-reviewer"? Since when are anonymous peer reviewers acknowledged in a paper?). His work is hardly "independent".

i) "The red/gray chips discovered do not act like paint, do not have the same ingredients as paint, and do not look like paint."
WRONG. The plate-like structures look a whole lot like aluminosilicates (clay), and contain the same elements (Si, Al, O); the "rhombic-shaped, ... iron-rich grains" look a whole lot like hematite (pigment), and they are found in a C-rich matrix (resin?). Even Harrit (2009) finds on page 7 "Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint
chips", so they definitely looked like paint! And "the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or
even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films”" (page 26)