• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!

MM:

Do you have a reference to what samples in the "scientists" paper actually did produce "micro-spheres"?

This must be documented somewhere, right? :rolleyes:
 
As I said under Dave's YouTube post:
Less than 10 seconds into this video, Niels Harrit is quoted as saying that iron-rich microspheres "are observed after a thermite reaction... spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction." This little experiment proves him wrong.
Not to mention the fabled "Iron-rich microspheres" can be easily replicated at relatively low temperatures (use a lighter to set fire to some steel wool and see what you get).

(Skip to about 1:30)
Starting a Fire with Steel Wool
 
Last edited:
Lol.


Do truthers ever recognize the silliness of their statements?

Judging by the comments on YouTube, I would guess not.

Ziggi
Mohr, no sphere formation has been demonstrated. The max theoretical temp of that fire is about 1000 degrees C, which would be enough to create molten led-chro spheres which need only about 850, but not at all enough to create iron spheres which need about 1500. Dave would be up to his ears in led-chro spheres if the fire had actually melted anything, but it was not able to melt even led-chro, so we can be 100% sure that this fire did not melt steel/iron and create those spheres.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I was under the impression that Basile & co were raising money to demonstrate that iron rich microspheres materialise from chips at the low temperature of 430c.
 
Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I was under the impression that Basile & co were raising money to demonstrate that iron rich microspheres materialise from chips at the low temperature of 430c.

I think that would be the ignition temp of the supposed nanothermite, which itself would burn a lot hotter.
 
Judging by the comments on YouTube, I would guess not.



Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I was under the impression that Basile & co were raising money to demonstrate that iron rich microspheres materialise from chips at the low temperature of 430c.
My understanding is that they are looking for a full replication of the Bentham study plus other tests such as FTIR to an independent lab to determine if there is therm*te in the WTC dust.
 
My understanding is that they are looking for a full replication of the Bentham study plus other tests such as FTIR to an independent lab to determine if there is therm*te in the WTC dust.
They can't fully replicate the Bentham study. There isn't enough data to allow replication.
 
My understanding is that they are looking for a full replication of the Bentham study plus other tests such as FTIR to an independent lab to determine if there is therm*te in the WTC dust.

Chris,

What tests, in your opinion, would fulfill "replication" of the Bentham study?

I ask this because there are truthers crying about certain tests not being done in Millette's paper that would determine the correct chips.

Resistivity tests were not done on all chips, only one.
DSC tests were not done on all chips, only chips from three of the four samples.

Basically what the Bentham paper supposedly proves is that if you extract chips with a magent and they have red/gray layers, they are thermite.

The randomness of the test performed on random chips implies that ALL test results are stamped to every chip extracted using the two criteria above even if they weren't subjected to certain tests in the paper.

Hence my questions that no truther will answer.

1. The Delassio sample was not DSC tested. How can Harrit and his group claim that chips from this sample are thermitic?
2. If the resisitivity test was so important in determining paint vs. thermtic chips, why was only one chip tested for the paper? How do they know they didn't test any paint chips and get "thermitic" results?

Isn't it strange that people from Harrit's group say they had paint chips, but had to use results regarding paint chips from OUTSIDE sources? If they had them in their hands, why weren't those chips tested and the results published?

Again, what test/tests aside from the magnet extraction and red/gray layer criteria is a determining factor for supposed thermite?
 
Last edited:
Dr. Harrit has never claimed that thermitic reactions were the sole method of melting steel.

He does not believe that an ordinary wood fire in a steel barrel is going to heat primer paint to the point that iron oxide will melt into iron-rich microspheres.

Dave's test is a mess just like is infamous steel wool hand waving.

Take an old steel barrel (likely heavily contaminated with welding-created iron-rich microspheres), dump in a pile of wood fuel, burn off the primer paint from steel, extract steel from debris sludge at the bottom of the barrel, scrap off residue and examine.

Two iron-rich microspheres are found and are immediately attributed to the burned primer paint.

The possibility of contamination being the source of Dave's discovery of a couple of microspheres is never acknowledged or considered.

Why only two?

Why not a myriad of various microspheres, spheroids etc?

How strange that in all the heat experiments previously reported on primer paints, iron-rich microspheres were not discovered.

Who knew it was so easy.

Dr. Harrit replied to me that Dave's test was rubbish and that when Dave publishes his work, Dr. Harrit will gladly respond.

MM

I rarely come in this dead zone nowadays, but it is still worth it now and again to see epic fails like these.
 
"Nice attempted dodge from the real issue, which is the formation of iron-rich microspheres without thermite.

Here's what Harrit says about that...

Dr. Rancourt said:
QUESTION:"ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS: Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but their is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids.

Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous."

Dr. Harrit said:
"ANSWER"A scientific paper is a set of data and the best hypothesis rationalizing the observations.

Fe-rich spheroids are observed after a thermite reaction.

Fe-rich spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction.

"Tenuous"?"

You are not seriously suggesting that Dr. Harrit literally believes only thermitic reactions can create molten iron in the form of microspheroids?

You are intentionally taking Dr. Harrit's reply out of context.

Dr. Harrit is discussing a question raised by Dr. Rancourt specifically about the 9/11 WTC dust red/gray chips highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Referring to the subject of their discussion, the 9/11 WTC dust red/gray chips, Dr. Harrit stated, in reference to those chips, that they only observed the creation of iron-rich microspheroids after observing a thermitic reaction.

If they had found such evidence in the paint chips they combusted, I am sure Dr. Harrit et al would have reported it.

Getting back to your paint burning;

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you fail to properly shield your samples from being publicly contaminated by the very objects you are seeking?

theFire.jpg


And don't you find it odd that given all that raw material, only two microspheres were supposedly created?


beams-after.jpg




The 2009 Bentham paper examined and ignited barely visible 9/11 WTC dust chips.

From such small samples and ~430C ignition, they produced numerous iron-rich, and silicon, microspheroids.


ljcr.png


Yet with your well-fired much larger sampling, all you discovered, besides ashes, were two microspheres that were
easily the result of contamination from the old barrel that you used to contain the fire and debris.

You might want to "scrape the bottom" and take a good look for microspheres remaining from the barrel's earlier history.

MM
 
How can you expect to be taken seriously when you fail to properly shield your samples from being publicly contaminated by the very objects you are seeking?

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/theFire.jpg[/qimg]
Oh my noodly!

You're aware that the red/gray chips had a gray layer, right?

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you fail to properly consider that the samples were not shielded from being publicly contaminated by the very objects they were seeking?

In other words, they red/gray chips were contaminated by oxidized iron from the gray layer, so your very objection is blowing on your face.

Not to mention that they found no aluminium oxide at all in the residue, thus failing to replicate the Tillotson-Gash experiment (besides the lack of an inert atmosphere, which is just another fail that piles up). They only found the very element that was present as contaminant (gray layer).

Or, as Noah put it more succinctly:
More fail.

Too funny!
 
If they had found such evidence in the paint chips they combusted, I am sure Dr. Harrit et al would have reported it.

Did Harrit combust paint chips from the 4 samples they collected/recieved?

No?

They had to go outside the samples to get paint chips for testing. Why? They had paint chips in their hands already according to you and others in Harrit's group.
 
More fail.

Too funny!

Actually MM is winning hands down.

...the goal of trolling it to get people biting no matter what the nonsense.

Look at how many are biting on MM's goading.

And the whole topic is a red herring derail. Trying to prove something that:
a) Doesn't need proving; AND
b) is of no consequence to any relevant and meaningful claim.
 
Actually MM is winning hands down.

...the goal of trolling it to get people biting no matter what the nonsense.

Look at how many are biting on MM's goading.

And the whole topic is a red herring derail. Trying to prove something that:
a) Doesn't need proving; AND
b) is of no consequence to any relevant and meaningful claim.

I think he is trolling on behalf of Neills Harrit ? Or at least he was implying that earlier.
 
You are not seriously suggesting that Dr. Harrit literally believes only thermitic reactions can create molten iron in the form of microspheroids?

You are intentionally taking Dr. Harrit's reply out of context.

... You might want to "scrape the bottom" and take a good look for microspheres remaining from the barrel's earlier history.

MM
You may want to study the WTC and take a good look for micro-spheres remaining from the WTC earlier history? lol, the logic used debunks your fantasy.

First we have only thermite can do it, now only Harrit knows it was thermite. Using the logic method of Fetzer, "it is true because I say so", Harrit has fooled a few.

If I knew it was thermite I would be taking action - but I know it is a fantasy. You can't say who, or when, or what happen on 911, and thermite becomes a silly sideline claim as Flt 77 and Flt 93 don't fit the planted thermite by NWO goons story.

iron spheres occur in fire from iron being substances

Harrit/Jones fantasy conclusion paper shows the dust is not thermite, the paper does not prove they found thermite. Show the paper to a real scientist in the field, and learn how to laugh at sloppy silly science. Ask them how carefully they had to aim to hit the elements they wanted to present to the world to make their claim of thermite look good? They had to selectively pick what photos of spectrum they presented, and they fooled a few who can't do chemistry. What is next in the gish gallop of supporting fraud? The waving hands and talking about noise, was funny, as you hit on how Jones and Harrit did their fraud, but ignore the possibility; is this a skeptic forum? or what?

Next time you or Harrit, or Jones use RJ Lee you are debunking thermite...
The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. From RJ Lee

Anyone can build a fire and get iron rich spheres from iron bearing substances. This is not news. Dave did a demo of the same. Why do Jones and Harrit spread the lie of thermite? Why do they lie about an event that was done by 19 terrorists? When you study why, you find out these guys believe the ends justify the means, they don't care if they mislead you or the entire world. Jones was willing to loose his job to spread lies. What makes old men so darn stubborn, and willing to lie? Why are they able to fool you?

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you fail to properly shield your samples from being publicly contaminated by the very objects you are seeking?
This is cool. You are saying it is possible the iron spheres in the WTC dust were already there?

WTCcollapsecantseecollapsemechnism.jpg


How can you expect to be taken seriously when Harrit and Jones fail to properly shield their samples from being publicly contaminated by the very objects you are seeking? Is see rusty steel from the WTC, I see tons of it... This can't be a better self-debunking post, or can you do better?

I see the laboratory conditions for the dust, lower Manhattan. No contamination there from car fires, office fires, plastic fires, UPS fires, electrical fires, carpet fires, curtain fires, paper fires, wood fires (like desks), paint fires; yep, no chance the iron spheres in the WTC dust are from anything but thermite. Oh my.
 
Last edited:
Several of you have asked what Mark Basile wants to do in his new bentham replkicatipon study, so rather than try to answer your questions to me, here is exactly what they are saying:

"This is why we are helping to spearhead a fundraising effort for Mark Basile, a chemical engineer who has already replicated and confirmed the most important results by Harrit et al. in a separate study of the red/gray chips. Basile has about thirty years of experience as a chemical engineer, and even Oystein seems to trust him. Basile has not published peer-reviewed results yet, but he is willing to complete a true replication study using "an independent lab that has no idea that the dust is from the WTC or from 9/11." We need your help to cover the cost of the independent lab and the publication of the paper in a reviewed journal. From Basile's Proposal of Analytical Work:

- Red/gray chip separation using optical microscopy and magnetic attraction to assist in isolation of particles of interest.
- Optical images of collected particulates as collected at appropriate magnifications to record condition as collected.
Sample Analysis:
- SEM/EDX with elemental quantification of red/gray chips, both red and gray layers.
- FTIR analysis of organic components of red/gray chips, both red and gray layers.
- ESCA small spot technique with argon ion sputter for depth profiling to definitively establish the presence of elemental aluminum within the red layer of the red/gray chips. Scans of gray layer also to be taken to add to information base.
- DSC analysis of red/gray chips focusing on exothermic/endothermic reactions near 400 degrees C. Some chips to be scanned in inert atmosphere and some in air or oxygen containing gas stream.
- SEM/EDX with elemental quantification of residual products of DSC analysis of red/gray chips.
- Optical images of reaction products after DSC experiments.
Analytical Costs:
The following work is in need of funding to be run at independent facilities.

- DSC costs are $190 per scan and an estimated 5 to 20 scans are desired, to look at the following materials in both air and inert atmospheres;

2 samples each of known building primer paint

2 samples each of red chips of suspected primer from building dust

5 sample each of red/gray chips or red layer only from red/gray chips

-ESCA costs are $330 per hour and a total of 4 to 8 hours is desired. This should allow for evaluation of at least two known thermitic red/gray chips with some sputtering for depth profile information as well.

This is the definitive study we need to settle this debate, so please donate at www.MarkBasile.org/donate. We have added a PayPal option that goes directly to Mark Basile, as demonstrated in a screen shot of a test donation. We did this for anyone that was perhaps weary to donate to a third party collecting the funds. We thank Adam Taylor for providing all the graphs in this paper and the ignition-video summary in part III. Scarcity of dust is making it difficult to perform and repeat all the required tests, so if you know someone who collected some of the dust that covered New York City after 9/11, please get them in contact with John-Michael Talboo at jtalboo@ae911truth.org"

If I understand all this correctly, it looks like they want to replicate the Bentham study and add some more tests like FTIR. I have asked Mark three times or so if he would consider working with me and a knowledgeable person from JREF to come up with a mutually agreeable protocol but there is now a wall of silence around me.
 
This is the definitive study we need to settle this debate,

Yea, right. It's just another plea for cash from dishonest and quite frankly, evil people. The debate was settled before the 2nd building even collapsed. Only idiots think otherwise. Total, complete, and massive idiots.
 

Back
Top Bottom