Merged So there was melted steel

[Miragememories]

Probably lots of red chips in the dust as the primer paint on all the steel was red. Why would anyone blindly accept that there was no paint? Jones proved it wasn't thermite (nice of him, don't you think)) so why do you feel the red chips are of interest at all?

Who do you believe will accept your empty lies about thermitic material?

I credit the average visitor here with requiring greater proof than boastful claims by sheeple.

The idiots claiming it was primer paint appear to have no other proof than wishful thinking.

That and a couple of bucks will get them a cup of coffee.

MM

 

[Oystein]

...
The idiots claiming it was primer paint appear to have no other proof than wishful thinking.
...

I am claiming it was primer paint, as you know very well from my "Origin of the paint chips" thread in which you are currently participating.

Are you calling me an idiot? Yes or No will do.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Who do you believe will accept your empty lies about thermitic material?

Ok where did I lie???? Show me just one of my statements that is factually incorrect. Just one..........I'll wait..............chirp...............chirp.

I credit the average visitor here with requiring greater proof than boastful claims by sheeple.

What visitors? I don't se any one lining up to support your utter tosh.

The idiots claiming it was primer paint appear to have no other proof than wishful thinking.

Irony at its best. Even Jones showed it was paint

That and a couple of bucks will get them a cup of coffee.

More than you will ever get.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes "idiots" who believe it was paint, based on evidence and the known chemistry of surface preperation paint. Very different from not"idiots" who believe it was thermite based on... well... based on their superior intellect that requires no evidence!

 

[000063]

I can only assume you are talking to your mirror.

If I understood the point of what what he was actually asking, I might attempt answering.

Yet another nonsense question.

And you still think you're winning the debate.

 

[000063]

Glad to hear you are comfortable Glenn.

Based on your current favorite comfort stats, I guess you can blindly accept there were no red chips at all in the dust, especially since Lioy et al as you say, "didn't go looking...".

MM

Would you care to make a point about what actually is, instead of thinly veiled personal attacks based on hypotheticals?

 

[tfk]

It is difficult to find things you are not looking for.

MM

Not in the slightest.

You simply have to use the right tests. The ones that are definitive for thermite. The tests that are used all the time when competent chemists are analyzing samples for thermite.

You know, the one that Harrit & Jones chose not to use.

Have tou got any suggestion, MM, as to why Harrit chose to use a bunch of tests that they themselves acknowledged were not conclusive?

Harrit, Jones et al just demonstrated what happens when incompetents decide ahead of time what they want to find...

... they find it. In spite of the evidence.

They just have to get REALLY creative in explaining the discrepancies between what they should have seen & what they did see.

You know, like "it's magic nanothermite, with ignition temps that are too low & energy contents that are too high."

You know... Like that.

Meanwhile, have you got any suggestions as to why, in the three years since the paper was published, and people have trashed it as incompetent, they have not submitted their samples to an independent test lab to shut all those people up & regain a measure of their reputations?

I know the answers to that question. Would you like me to explain it to you?

 

[NoahFence]

Meanwhile, have you got any suggestions as to why, in the three years since the paper was published, and people have trashed it as incompetent, they have not submitted their samples to an independent test lab to shut all those people up & regain a measure of their reputations?

I'm thumbing through my leaflet, and it doesn't appear that the above question is on the list of ones truthers will answer. It's right between "Give me a theory on the entire day" and "how did the explosives survive over an hour"?

 

[Miragememories]

I am claiming it was primer paint, as you know very well from my "Origin of the paint chips" thread in which you are currently participating.

Are you calling me an idiot? Yes or No will do.

I need more word choices.

Are you trying to bait me into making a personal attack?

You can claim primer paint, cake pastry, whatever, but until you show that the chemistry matches what has been found in the chips, you have n o t h i n g.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

I need more word choices.

Are you trying to bait me into making a personal attack?

You can claim primer paint, cake pastry, whatever, but until you show that the chemistry matches what has been found in the chips, you have n o t h i n g.

MM

...and until you people can prove that the explosives can even survive a minute in the conditions in the towers, you have less than n o t h i n g

 

[Oystein]

I need more word choices.

Are you trying to bait me into making a personal attack?
...

No, I am trying to find out if you already made a personal attack.

So which word choices are you missing?


Or let me rephrase this:

In your opinion, am I among the "idiots claiming it was primer paint", or am I more among the "non-idiots claiming it was primer paint"?

Or differently still:
Do you think that all people who are "claiming it was primer paint" are "idiots", or only some?

 

[NoahFence]

What is this silly primer paint argument anyway?

Is putting primer paint on steel a common construction method? As a person who has no clue, I'd venture a guess that it is for obvious reasons (protecton from the elements) but I'd like an expert to confirm this.

I dunno. I just think that painted on thermite is right up there with Space Beams.

 

[DGM]

What is this silly primer paint argument anyway?

Is putting primer paint on steel a common construction method? As a person who has no clue, I'd venture a guess that it is for obvious reasons (protecton from the elements) but I'd like an expert to confirm this.

I dunno. I just think that painted on thermite is right up there with Space Beams.

Structural steel is primed (by the manufacturer) to resist corrosion. Raw steel starts to rust almost instantly. The "chips" Jones/Harret found were these primers

 

[NoahFence]

Structural steel is primed (by the manufacturer) to resist corrosion. Raw steel starts to rust almost instantly. The "chips" Jones/Harret found were these primers

Pretty much what I figured. Thanks!

Now how come I get it dead right the first try, with zero experience?

 

[DGM]

Pretty much what I figured. Thanks!

Now how come I get it dead right the first try, with zero experience?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214739

This is the thread Oystein was talking about. By far the best technical thread in this subforum. Well worth the time it takes to read.

 

[MIKILLINI]

And you still think you're winning the debate.

He's a legend in his own mind.

 

[Sunstealer]

Not in the slightest.

You simply have to use the right tests. The ones that are definitive for thermite. The tests that are used all the time when competent chemists are analyzing samples for thermite.

It's far, far worse than that. They destroyed samples through destructive testing before they used non-destructive methods available to test the material and came up with results that oppose their conclusions.

Harrit et al subjected multiple materials to DSC, raising the temp (iirc) 10°C per minute up to 700°C in air.

The multiple materials are;

The unknown carbon material.
The 100nm Fe₂O₃ particles.
The 68nm x ??? aluminosilicate platelets. (??? - because it's difficult to ascertain the hexagonal width as opposed to the 68nm thickness - it's easy to ascertain thickness via measuring methods. Metamars came up with this figure shown on JREF and I have done the same using a different technique)
The gray layer comprised of oxidised iron (most likely oxidised steel)
Any other particle that has not been shown (EDX etc show other elements)

Because the DSC measurements work by giving an energy output by weight (energy per gram or Kj/g) then you need to know BEFORE the experiment what the weight of the reacting material is in order to give a meaningful result.

If we read the Harrit et al paper then they suppose that the reactant material is the The 100nm Fe₂O₃ particles and the 68nm x ??? aluminosilicate platelets.

However, we know that there are at least two other materials in the sample. These additional materials add weight - they cannot be ignored if the only reaction is the thermite reaction.

If we look at the following slide (which is sourced from truther video) then it's quite clear that 70+ % by weight of the material is carbon.

If carbon is not reacting because after all the thermite reaction is:

Fe₂O₃ + 2Al --> Al₂O₃ +2 Fe

Then this additional weight; some 70% should be ignored.

Any additional weight added by non-reacting material is going to reduce the energy output of the reaction per gram.

Therefore the true energy output per gram MUST be higher because there is non-reactrive material in the sample.

Imagine conducting a DSC experiment of 1g of material that totally reacts at 500°C. The energy output will give you a result per gram.

Now imagine mixing that gram with 999g of an inert substance that does not react. You now have the same energy output but at a much lower output per gram.

Therefore, if the thermite reaction is the only reaction occurring then we expect the samples to exhibit far lower output per gram than the theoretical maximum of 3.9KJ/gram due to the added weight of non-reactant material.

In two of the samples we observe a greater output per gram than the theoretical maximum per gram. And that's without the non-reative material that is contributing to the mass of the sample.

In order for the DSC to make any sense at all you have to ascertain what reaction is occurring and which materials are reacting.

This was not done. Therefore no conclusion can be reacted - the DSC experiment cannot be used to confirm thermite, infact it detracts from such a conclusion massively.

Infact the Harrit et al paper admits that a different reaction other than the thermite reaction is occurring.

6. What is the Energy Release of Super-Thermite Compared
to Conventional Explosives? Page 27, paragraph 2.

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure

So they already acknowledge the problem with their inappropriate DSC experiment.

They in affect acknowledged they had an unknown organic carbon material, but instead of investigating this further using non-destructive methods such as FTIR, they chose to use DSC (a destructive analysis) and then acknowledge results conflicting with the "thermite theory". What's worse is they now try to twist this with nonsense about "providing explosive pressure" without evidence.

There is absolutely no way any materials engineer is going to use a destructive technique ahead of destructive techniques when trying to characterise a material. The reason is simple:

Once you destroy a sample you no longer have anything to analyse.

The DSC experiment is meaningless for Harrit et al and their purpose.

It clearly shows that thermite couldn't be the reaction seen because the output per gram is far greater than possible with thermite yet they ignore this and continue with wild conjecture rather than analysis and science.

 

[tfk]

SS,

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

The sample you discuss here, is it allegedly post-ignition, pre-ignition or a mix?

I presume that the "freshly broken" comment implies that the surface is unoxidized or minimally oxidized.

If I can (unlikely) reconstruct my Chemistry 101 on the fly...
Comparing the mass ratios of iron/aluminum & iron/oxygen, even if all the iron were from thermite, only about 70% of the Al and about 10% of the oxygen could be.

This would put an upper bound on the mass % of the sample that could be thermite at about 5%.

[Would you check this. Been a long time since I've done any chemistry, and the ratio sounds way too low to me.]

But if correct, this would apply a 20x multiplier on the energy / unit mass to their results.

[again, this one sounds way high.]

I'd be curious what you got for the same calculation.


Tom

PS. I remember that you & Oystein (I believe) mentioned a second test (in addition to Xray diffraction) that would be definitive for thermite. I went looking for it, but couldn't find it. Could you remind me, please.

 

[Oystein]

I realize that this debate of the Bentham paper is off-topic, but since this thread is past its last hope of usefulness, we might as well say something substantive...

...
If we look at the following slide (which is sourced from truther video) then it's quite clear that 70+ % by weight of the material is carbon.

...

This is from Marc Basile's presentation and, iirc, studies, which he didn't publish in any proper way, afaik.
I'd be careful with that. We know that there are at least 2 different kinds of red-gray particles in the dust samples, and we know there were at least 2 different kinds of steel primer in the towers. There could easily be more of either. Can we be certain that Basile picked the right kind of flake?

A carbon content of 70%+ is a problem, as are K and Ca contents of 0.4%+ (more than Cr), if that chip is the same material as chips a-d from Bentham.
LaClede primer contains 71.5% organic matrix - so the carbon content should be significantly lower than that. I calculated slightly less than 50% C total in the paint, with the balance being mostly O, H and N (amine epoxy should contain N...).
Also, the most likely source of traces of K and Ca would be impure kaolinite; but aluminiumsilicate is only 11.7% by weight of the primer; with Ca making up about 0.9% of Basile's sample, that would mean that the kaolinite is contaminated with nearly 8% Ca - sounds too much to me.

Conclusion: I think Basile didn't look at the same material as chips a-d; or he worked sloppily; or our LaClede hypothesis is in trouble.

...
The sample you discuss here, is it allegedly post-ignition, pre-ignition or a mix?

Ah! Ok... interesting question, I don't know the answer.
But would be very surprised if it isn't pre-ignition, with 70%+ C still in place.

I presume that the "freshly broken" comment implies that the surface is unoxidized or minimally oxidized.

Yes, that, but more importantly the fresh surface is not or only minimally contaminated.

If I can (unlikely) reconstruct my Chemistry 101 on the fly...
Comparing the mass ratios of iron/aluminum & iron/oxygen, even if all the iron were from thermite, only about 70% of the Al and about 10% of the oxygen could be.

This would put an upper bound on the mass % of the sample that could be thermite at about 5%.

[Would you check this. Been a long time since I've done any chemistry, and the ratio sounds way too low to me.]

But if correct, this would apply a 20x multiplier on the energy / unit mass to their results.

[again, this one sounds way high.]

I'd be curious what you got for the same calculation.

Let's see...

Ideal thermite is, by atom count

2 Fe
2 Al
3 O​

Atomic weights are

Fe: 55,85 g/mol
Al: 26,98 g/mol
O: 16 g/mol​

Inserting that into the atom count, we get the following mass ratios

Fe: 111,69g
Al: 53,96g
O: 48g​

Normalizing to 1 unit of Fe, that's

1 part Fe
0.48 parts Al
0.43 parts O​

In Basile's graph, we have by weight

Sample 1:
Fe: 2.63%
Al: 1.68%
O: plenty
​

and

Sample 2:
Fe: 1,73%
Al: 1,29&​

Which translates to Fe:Al ratios of 1:0.64 and 1:0.76, respectively.

This means we are short on Fe - Fe is the bottleneck that provides us with an upper bound of possible ideal thermite in the mix. Since Fe is 52.3% by weight in ideal thermite, and 2.63% and 1.73% in Basile's two samples, we get maxima of

Sample 1: 5.01% thermite
Sample 2: 3.31% thermite​

Tom, you were spot on with your calculation. Indeed, from this we'd expect to get an energy density in the DSC of at most 0,195kJ/g (3.9kJ/g * 5%) from a thermitic reaction, and the balance from organic combustion, thermal degradation of the organic matrix, and possibly other reactions, all of which are totally unevaluated by Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Basile and the bunch.

PS. I remember that you & Oystein (I believe) mentioned a second test (in addition to Xray diffraction) that would be definitive for thermite. I went looking for it, but couldn't find it. Could you remind me, please.

Uhm don't know what you are talking about

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, I am trying to find out if you already made a personal attack.

So which word choices are you missing?


Or let me rephrase this:

In your opinion, am I among the "idiots claiming it was primer paint", or am I more among the "non-idiots claiming it was primer paint"?

Or differently still:
Do you think that all people who are "claiming it was primer paint" are "idiots", or only some?

I would have thought it was more idiotic to claim it was anything other than surface preperation paint with out supporting evidence. Let alone calling it thermite given the amounts of chemical components and the composition of them being utterly useless for any kind of thermatic reaction.

And that is before we consider where the alleged "thermite" was found. In concrete and rubble, away fromt he steel, molten or otherwise.