Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite results

[Oystein]

In my blog, Oystein's 9/11 debates, I just posted a lengthy article that exlains Basile's quantification of his XEDS data and why that proves his lucky chip #13 is not thermitic by nature:

How Mark Basile confirms that red-gray chips are not thermitic

Beware: It contains a lot of math

A discussion of this:

I fine-tuned the numbers from previous posts. For example, the elements add up to 100% there, but hydrogen is missing, because it can't be detected by XEDS. Hydrocarbons have typically at least 1 H-atom per C-atom, or 1 part by weight hydrogen for 12 parts carbon. So since there is 72% carbon, you'd have to add at least 6% hydrogen, bringing the total up to 106% or more. Conversely, adding an appropriate amount of H has the effect of reducing all other weight-%s by a factor of 100/106.

The low amount of 2.63% iron in Basile's samples means that at most 4.74% of his red layer could possibly thermite. Since most hydrocarbons have an energy density of at least 15 kJ/g, almost four times that of thermite, and since there is more than 18 times as much hydrocarbon in the chips than thermite, this results in at most 1.4% (but more realistally less than 1%^(*)) of the heat of reaction coming from thermite when you burn the chip.

In other words: almost all^(*) the heat comes from hydrocarbon combustion^(**) - Basile proves it.

If, as the thread title claims, "Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite results", then all he does is confirm that Harrit's red-gray chips, too, are not thermitic.

We knew that all along, but it's nice to have it confirmed



ETA Footnote:
(*) "<1%" of course includes the possibility of "=0%". Similarly, "almost all" is meant to imply the possibility of "fully all".
(**) And possibly further reactions other than the thermite reaction

 

[fourtoe]

Since when do hand-waving pronouncements count as refutation? Wake me when debunkers actually publish a scientific response (paper or even a letter) to Harrit's paper.

Hey guy, it's pretty much happening now. You said to let you know so, well, here we are.

 

[dc1971]

Since when do hand-waving pronouncements count as refutation? Wake me when debunkers actually publish a scientific response (paper or even a letter) to Harrit's paper.

Ummmmmmmm, let me know when this so-called GRAND Revolution of yours is going to start?

I want to load up on popcorn!

 

[dc1971]

JREF debunkers don't need anything more substantial than someone that is apparently an expert telling them what they want to hear as is the case with the NIST WTC 7 report despite it having absolutely no scientific evidence to support it whatsoever.

So we should listen to you?

 

[atavisms]

How amazing that the events would have numerous of the characteristics of the use of aluminothermics and it's chemical signature found in the dust and air samples only to then have then high-tech us military grade nano-engineered themitic material turn up in every sample of dust tested by scientists from numerous universities.
what shock...
Dust that came from where, deniers??
I mean???? explain: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/surroundings.html

From the gravitational potential of the building?? You have to be living in lala land to believe that. And what of the 100 day fires. The evidence just goes on and on.. So I wont go over it again..hit the link to the page in my signature and do your own research.

Sorry to the deniers (You are not half the 'skeptics' you imagine yourselves to be, obviously. As you are ignoring mountain of evidence.. all in favor of personal incredulity or willful ignorance.) The evidence for demolition in lower Manhattan on 9-11 was conclusively proven beyond all reasonable doubt, long before the results of the Harrit study were released. It just reconfirmed the obvious and added yet another layer of scientific evidence.

However much it is denied is not going to change the sick sad reality. I have yet to hear a denier explain away wtc7's symmetrical implosion or any of the long list of facts that show wtc 1 2 & 7 were destroyed with explosives.
best.

 

[atavisms]

(*Yawn*). Jones and Harrit's results were already refuted.

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017

Someone wake me when this guy actually publishes his results.

Keep dreaming if you think any of that psuedo-scientific nonsense debunks the fact that those chips are, a: aluminothermic in nature, and b: an advance engineered material that has no business being there. Besides, the presence of aluminomthermics was very well established long before the harrit report came around.

What the heck do you think happened to the steel structures (inside and outside the towers) below the point of the plane impacts? Office fires?? for 56 and 102 m minutes??... and wtc 7 >>>?and the dust and 10 other well established facts all pointing in one direction: Explosives. The white smoke that poured from the piles, the molten metal pouring from the south tower just below here it comes part moments later,,, the spheres... the insane temps and 100 day fires. It's beyond irrefutable.
Deny all you wish. People deny the holocaust too despite all the evidence there is for that, so nothing surprises me.. and this youre being fed by the mass media.. so its hard to believe..and the whole thing is so unlikely, impossible, seeming, right out of james bond..(even the official story is out of james bond)
But you cant pick your own facts and the facts in this case are overwhelmingly conclusive.

 

[beachnut]

Keep dreaming if you think any of that psuedo-scientific nonsense debunks the fact that those chips are, a: aluminothermic in nature, and b: an advance engineered material that has no business being there. Besides, the presence of aluminomthermics was very well established long before the harrit report came around.

What the heck do you think happened to the steel structures (inside and outside the towers) below the point of the plane impacts? Office fires?? for 56 and 102 m minutes??... and wtc 7 >>>?and the dust and 10 other well established facts all pointing in one direction: Explosives. The white smoke that poured from the piles, the molten metal pouring from the south tower just below here it comes part moments later,,, the spheres... the insane temps and 100 day fires. It's beyond irrefutable.
Deny all you wish. People deny the holocaust too despite all the evidence there is for that, so nothing surprises me.. and this youre being fed by the mass media.. so its hard to believe..and the whole thing is so unlikely, impossible, seeming, right out of james bond..(even the official story is out of james bond)
But you cant pick your own facts and the facts in this case are overwhelmingly conclusive.

and your evidence? lol

wowey, zowee!

You must know all! Wow!

Why do you NOT have a Pulitzer Prize oh great one? Hello?

You don't do chemistry, there is no thermite. If you had any chemistry at all, you would see Jones' paper proves no thermite, but since you have no Pulitzer, and you never took chemistry, you lost this one; BIG time!, extra credit BIG TIME!'

The stuff you think you have, would be BIG TIME Pulitzer STUFF. One in a life time super famous, you broke the big story TIME! BIG TIME! They write songs about this stuff. But, alas, you have no evidence, you have delusions. Nothing.

lol, you show pictures from a meth nut. good job super researcher, 911 research shows pictures of wall board and insulation dust, and you have nothing.

You have delusions, nothing more, or you and a news paper would be sharing the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate! You have nothing.

BTW, holocuast denier normally are 911 truth believes, double fail! Better clean your house up.

19 terrorist did 911. The fires in the WTC were greater than the heat energy of 2,100 TONS of thermite; you dismiss fire as if it was negligible. You ignore the heat energy of the jet fuel, which had more heat energy than 315 TONS of thermite, and even NIST said the jet fuel did not make a difference. (because the office fires were so BIG)

How much thermite is your fantasy. Do you have numbers? Math? Anything? NO, you come by and post nonsensical claptrap and run away. You have no substance, you have no evidence, you just get spun up and post crap! Cool.

Harrit is an idiot, a full blown nut case on 911 issues. And you, you have no knowledge of chemistry or you would see the paper is a fraud and Harrit and Jones found at best dust, mixed with wallboard, insulation and coatings, like paint, and clay!

Since you have no knowledge of chemistry, you have been fooled by a few nuts. Good luck next time.

The office fire, in one tower, more heat energy than 2,100 TONS of thermite. Too bad math and 911 truth don't mix. If 911 truth used math, there would be no 911 truth. You should study fire science and steel, structural engineering, math and physics.

E=mgh, a value you failed to calculate; so you spread lies.

Next life, take chemistry and pay attention. You sure are gullible.

 

[Oystein]

How amazing that the events would have numerous of the characteristics of the use of aluminothermics

Which characteristics are these?

and it's chemical signature found in the dust

What would the chemical signature be? Who found it where? (Remember: You wrote to me that you give a "rat's ass" about the Harrit paper and the details therein. I take it this still holds and you won't use that crap paper. If you DO want to use it, then you lied in your mail to me, obviously in an attempt to avoid discussion of things you don't understand).

and air samples

Can you link us to an analysis of air samples that showed the chemical signature of aluminothermics?

only to then have then high-tech us military grade nano-engineered themitic material turn up in every sample of dust tested by scientists from numerous universities.

Oh - you are alluding to the Harrit paper after all - and I thought you gaver a rat's ass about it!

Well read my most recent post above. Mark Basile confirmed these scientists from numerous universities when he showed that 99-100% of the energy of this "high-tech us military grade nano-engineered themitic material" comes from ordinary organic combustion, and only 0-1% from "aluminothermics"

what shock...
Dust that came from where, deniers??

Red-gray chips that several scientists mistake for weapons: Paint.
Other dust: Gypsum wall bord, mineral fiber insulation, crushed concrete.

I mean???? explain: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/surroundings.html

From the gravitational potential of the building??

Yes. From what other energy?
I already explained to you, complete with numbers, how much energy was available from the gravitational potential of the building.
Do you remember how much that was?
You seem to be asserting that this energy from the gravitational potential was not sufficient to create all the dust. Well, how much energy was needed then? Twice as much? Ten times as much? Please provide an estimate.
When we have your numbers, we can go on and compute how much aluminothermic material we'd need, or how much explosives.

You have to be living in lala land to believe that. And what of the 100 day fires.

Furniture, carpets, piping, humans, computers, ...
What's your suggestion?
Can you estimate how much energy was available from office contents in the towers?
You seen to be asserting that these office contents are not enough to feed fires for 100 days.
So how much energy do you need to feed fires that long? Twice as much? Ten times as much?
When we have your figures, we can compute how much aluminothermics you'd need in the rubble pile.

The evidence just goes on and on.. So I wont go over it again..hit the link to the page in my signature and do your own research.

Let's not tackle all of this at once, and not in this thread.

Remember, this thread is about Mark Basile's "confirmation" of Harrit e.al., and I just wrote this lengthy blog post that explains that from Basile's data it follows inevitably that 99-100% of the heat and energy and power of these chips comes from simple organic combustion, no different from burning paper.

So in light of this result, can you please explain this thing about the "chemical signature" of aluminothermics, and also how these chips would help you explain the collapses and why the rubble piles burned so long. Do not forget to actually use the evidence presented by Basile or Harrit!

I think of you try this and do it intelligently and well informed, you will find that nothing in their work supports any of your (only hinted at) claims. Because organic combustion of office contents explains it all so much better, and Basile and Harrit really studied a mundane organic material: Paint.

 

[Oystein]

Keep dreaming if you think any of that psuedo-scientific nonsense debunks the fact that those chips are, a: aluminothermic in nature...

This is the chemical signature of a red-gray chip (the "thermitic" red layer, to be precise):

I got two questions:

1. Do you agree that this is indeed the chemical signature of the red-gray chips?
2. Can you explain that signature, and why you think it is aluminothermic in nature?

Thanks.

 

[Oystein]

Ivan found a paper with lots of thermal data on many types of polymers. This allows me now to show why the burning chip, which Mark Basile shows in his video, can't get its "punch" (which presumably is demomnstrated by the rapid ejection of gas) from thermite. Reason: There is too little thermite (if any at all) and too much matrix; the little bit of thermite could not even heat the matrix by more than 125°C, let alone turn it to gas - or perform any destructive work on anything.

Oystein: For the record, here is a document Polymer Flammability

E.g., in Appendix A, there are these values tabulated for epoxy resin:

T_d (onset of decomposition) 427 degrees C
T_p (peak mass loss rate) 462 degrees C
T_ign (autoignition temperature) 427 degrees C

Btw, I have heard about some red chips from WTC dust, which perhaps autoignited at ca 430 degrees C.... But indeed, we should not take these data as something ultimate or valid for all epoxies...

Cool! -> # oysteinbookmark

I might add, for epoxy (EP):

Table A2:
LATENT HEAT OF GASIFICATION: 1.6 kJ/g
ENTHALPY OF GASIFICATION OF POLYMERS: 1.5 kJ/g
CHAR YIELD: 4%

Table A3:
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY: 0.19 W/(m*K)
DENSITY: 1.2 g/ml
HEAT CAPACITY: 1.7 J/(g*K)

Table A5:
EFFECTIVE HEAT OF COMBUSTION: 20.4 kJ/g
HEAT OF COMPLETE COMBUSTION OF FUEL GASES: 27.1 kJ/g
Efficiency: 75%



Might come in handy at some point

I wrote a blog post where that data came in handy:

Too little thermite to blow up Mark Basile's chip


What I say there is true for all allegedly "thermitic" red-gray chips for which we have quantifiable data on the elemental composition - their ratios thermite : organic matrix are roughly:

• 1:19 for Mark Basile's chip 13
• 1:7 for the LaCledeoform chips a-d
• 1: >23 for the MEK-soaked chip

It takes about 0.68 kJ to heat one g of epoxy by 400 °C to get it to decompose or ignite; and 1.5 kJ/g more to completely turn the epoxy to gas.

Thermite might, under great conditions, react with 80% efficiency and release 3.2 kJ/g.

So if your thermite:epoxy ratio is worse than 1:4.7 (=3.2/0.68), then the thermite couldn't even START to break down the epoxy, it would simply lose heat that can then not be used to wreak havoc on anything else.
It would take a mix better than 1: 1.5 (=3.2/(0.68+1.5)) to also crack the epoxy matrix and turn it to gas in order to do "explosive" volume work. Of course you'd need to add more thermite to go more than "pfffff".

None of the chips are close in Al- and Fe-content to allow for such ratios, and so even if these chips contained nanothermite, its energy would get entirely soaked up by the organic matrix. It could do nothing at all to anything around it! So in order for these "energetic chips" to blow up, the organic matrix has to burn conventionally, with ambient oxygen, which is the same slow process that limits attainable temperatures to what you get in any hgydrocarbon fire.

 

[Senenmut]

oystein-
do you happen to know what liquid he mixed with his "super thermite" to make it a paint form? it looks as though he did not put much liquid in with the powder. he also did not "cure" the thermitic paint as far as the video shows. i just was wondering if the liquid was an epoxy or not. i know its a tough question b/c he does not say what he put in there. but maybe someone knows...
from the jesse ventura episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As

 

[Oystein]

oystein-
do you happen to know what liquid he mixed with his "super thermite" to make it a paint form? it looks as though he did not put much liquid in with the powder. he also did not "cure" the thermitic paint as far as the video shows. i just was wondering if the liquid was an epoxy or not. i know its a tough question b/c he does not say what he put in there. but maybe someone knows...
from the jesse ventura episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As

I have no idea. Why should I care? What has this got to do with Mark Basile's experiments on paint?

 

[Robrob]

I have no idea. Why should I care? What has this got to do with Mark Basile's experiments on paint?

I'm fascinated with the truthers' claim the building was painted decades ago with a magic thermite paint (that doesn't exist today, much less back then) juuuuuust in case they wanted to destroy it some time in the future!?

 

[leftysergeant]

oystein-
do you happen to know what liquid he mixed with his "super thermite" to make it a paint form? it looks as though he did not put much liquid in with the powder. he also did not "cure" the thermitic paint as far as the video shows. i just was wondering if the liquid was an epoxy or not. i know its a tough question b/c he does not say what he put in there.

It was cured enough to flare like real thermitic paint would have. It was cured enough.

 

[pgimeno]

None of the chips are close in Al- and Fe-content to allow for such ratios, and so even if these chips contained nanothermite, its energy would get entirely soaked up by the organic matrix. It could do nothing at all to anything around it! So in order for these "energetic chips" to blow up, the organic matrix has to burn conventionally, with ambient oxygen, which is the same slow process that limits attainable temperatures to what you get in any hgydrocarbon fire.

I got it. They used the nanothermite to further fuel the fires. Clever!

 

[leftysergeant]

Keep dreaming if you think any of that psuedo-scientific nonsense debunks the fact that those chips are, a: aluminothermic in nature, and b: an advance engineered material that has no business being there. Besides, the presence of aluminomthermics was very well established long before the harrit report came around.

Has butt head Harrit ever shown how his samples differ from paint? His stuff has kaolin and iron oxide and an epoxy resin just like paint. What do they have that paint does not have? What does paint have that they do not have?

What does that vapid twit think he has between his ears that possum does not have?

What the heck do you think happened to the steel structures (inside and outside the towers) below the point of the plane impacts? Office fires??

Actually, it was several hundred thousand tons of **** that the floors were not built to support falling on them.

The fact is that the floors could only support a few times their own weight as a static load, but they got taht much and more as a dynamic load. You cant pick your own facts and the facts in this case are overwhelmingly conclusive.

 

[Senenmut]

I have no idea. Why should I care? What has this got to do with Mark Basile's experiments on paint?

on paint or a thermitic material well, considering that it was a known super thermite, it would be interesting to know what he put in there and what % compostion was.

 

[Oystein]

on paint or a thermitic material well, considering that it was a known super thermite, it would be interesting to know what he put in there and what % compostion was.

Just paint

It would have been interesting to know what Farrer put in his DSC device and what % compostion was. Do you know?

 

[Oystein]

In december 2012, Mark Basile was interviewed by Bernie Suarez and Andrew Steele of the internet radio format "9/11 Free Fall", about his past studies of red-gray chips, and about his planned new and independent study.

I am happy to announced that Mark has realized a few facts that we have been preaching for a long time, and is an honest enough chap to acknowledge them openly and without hesitation. Mainly:

1. There are two, not just one, different known WTC steel primers to be considered
2. The vast majority of red chips that one pulls out of the dust is in fact primer paint (and only some show this exotherm behaviour that make him think they are thermitic)
3. He thinks that even Steven Jones had "definitely" some praimer paint chips in his study (presumably Harrit e.al.).

I'll transcribe Basile's full uninterupted texts from the moment the host stops speaking till Basile stops speaking, so as not give the likes of MM or ergo cause to accuse me of quote mining. And yes, I am fully aware that Basile also states clearly he thinks there is nano-thermite in there. That's not the point of this post.

Money quotes in bold:

1. starting 25:50

"I've been supplied with a sample of – from what I understand there may have been actually two different primers used with the construction of the World Trade Center, I have been supplied with one of them^[1]. And I put it through the exact same test^[2] and it didn't produce iron spheres. Basically all it does is it turns into, in large part, glass fibers and a bunch of minerals and so on, but there's no iron spheres or iron films or anything that gets produced from the one primer that I've put through the exact same experiment. And I wouldn't expect any paint to do that. I also put a number of different paints that I basically have just in my house, they're not World Trade Center primer paint or anything, but they are just paints. And just seeing for myself, again, you know, run another experiment, and I didn't expect them to produce molten iron, and they didn't. You wouldn't expect any paints that you paint onto any building […?...] caught on fire to produce molten iron. If it did, you wouldn't use it to paint your building. You just wouldn't do it – I wouldn't, anyway. Nobody in their right mind would insure your building if it did."​

I would like to comment that Basile didn't know about a second primer when I talked with him on the phone the day before Thanksgiving. I supplied him with links to some of my blog posts, including the one about LaClede primer. Although he never responded to my mails, it seems he still took notice and accepts, with some legitimate caution, the information I provided. So thumbs up to him


2. starting 27:26

"There are a lot of paint chips in the dust! You should make that perfectly clear! Just when you, if anybody in the audience, let's say, would get out there and get a World Trade Center dust sample, and they pull out red chips from this, I'm not telling anybody in the world that every red chip you're gonna pull out of there is one of these nano-thermite chips. The vast majority of them actually are primer paint, from what I […?...], but that doesn't mean they all are. And they are not all, because […?...] pulled out ones where I've seen the reaction, I've seen the product, so I know you're in there. But there is also a lot of primer paint chips in there, too."​

3. starting 28:28

"I think some of the chips that, you know, Jones and all looked at were definitely, you know, primer paint chips, too, so not everything in there was nano-thermite chips. But there were chips that gave this exotherm, and that's where the real key thing is. You get those extreme exotherm at just a little off 400 °C and it produces molten iron as a reaction product."​

This raises a few questions that I would like Basile, as well as Jones and collaborators, to answer:

A) How do you tell primer chips apart from "thermitic" chips before doing any thermal testing, i.e. without destructing them?
B) Were Jones, Farrer, Harrit aware that the vast majority of the chips are primer paint?
B1) If so, how exactly did they select the chips which to experiment on?
B2) In particular, how did Farrer select the chips he tested in the DSC? Did all chips he tested there show this exotherm behaviour?
C) Which chips in the Jones study are probably paint chips, in Basile's opinion, and in the opinion of Jones, Farrer, Legge, Ryan, Harrit?
D) Will any of these men acknowledge that they didn't disprove "paint" when they compared just one type of red-gray chips with one type of WTC primer paint?


Footnotes:
[1] I am 99% certain that he was supplied with a paint sample from WTC columns, so that would most probably be Tnemec 99 or 69, and not LaClede paint from the floor trusses, but I can't prove it, and I am not sure that Basile himself is clear about the source of his primer sample.
[2] That test is heating the sample on a thin strip of steel that he runs a controlled electrical current through, observing the ensuing reactions visually, and looking at the residue through a photomicroscope.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Thanks, Oystein

Well, we see some progress in truthers' thinking...
Now, Basile is willing to admit that they were more red primers in the dust, and Farrer and Jones are at least able to reconsider somehow their previous claims as for paints, thanks to our joint effort.
Only Harrit seems to be still convinced that there had to be only one red primer used in WTC...

I don't understand these Basile's sentences: "And I put it (authentic WTC paint?) through the exact same test and it didn't produce iron spheres. Basically all it does is it turns into, in large part, glass fibers and a bunch of minerals." What does it mean? How heating of paint chip(s) can be produce glass fibers?