Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!
- Thread starter DaveThomasNMSR
- Start date
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Pandering to idiots and con men never works out well. All these tests do is lend a spurious credibility to the Bentham paper.
Josarhus
Thinker
Why do FTIR? Harrit says FTIR is completely irrelevant, and that is also why they will not release the FTIR data from the Bentham report.
I actually think Harrit claims that FTIR is as relevant as his shoe size.
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
Oh, one more thing...
Ziggi Zugam posted the following on the YouTube link some 9 hours ago:
Hmm, seems I did not include all of the examinations in my brief initial report. Here is the SEM and five EDX scans for another sample of unburned material.
Well, so more for the paint samples not containing any iron. (See points 2 and 3).
Next?
Ziggi Zugam posted the following on the YouTube link some 9 hours ago:
Hmm, seems I did not include all of the examinations in my brief initial report. Here is the SEM and five EDX scans for another sample of unburned material.
Well, so more for the paint samples not containing any iron. (See points 2 and 3).
Next?
No, there can't be Fe in paint; it can't be... oops
Wait till 911 truth faith based followers find out Al is in paint. And clay is in paint, and...
With the same skepticism applied to 911 truth claims, there would be no 911 truth followers.
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
"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. ..."
After the paint burning fiasco, and Dr. Millette's FTIR data failing to agree with currently provided FTIR data, I don't understand why you are not supportive of the study Mark Basile has proposed?
If you have reason to question Mark Basile's honesty and integrity, I would certainly like to hear about it?
Currently he is the best choice available for both sides of this discussion.
MM
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Wait! So if all the ingredients of thermite are commonly found in paint (as well as in a million other day to day items), that means the truthers' claims are...
ozeco41
Philosopher
"replkicatipon"
Chris - a small wager that you cannot replicate that word...
[/joking
However this is the real issue of concern with this thread and ones of similarly confused "purpose":
What debate?
I challenge all those who are following and supporting this red herring derail of trolling to state:
1) The objective of these proposed tests; AND
2) What purpose the tests legitimately serve in 9/11 discussion.
So many people are busily chasing the details down the rabbit burrow of technical scientific research that they have forgotten or never defined "Why we are doing it".
Hence Noah's correct interpretation:
Noah's claim is obviously directed at the big picture. But his comments are legitimate. And a more legitimate reflection on the issue than all the scientific detail chasing which lacks a clear objective.
Let's not forget the alligators/swamp trap.
Last edited:
Gage takes in over 300k/year, Gage can fund the study.
How will 911 truth back in thermite for flights 77 and 93? Was the thermite in the terrorists luggage?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Could but won't. The two last things Gage wants are:
A) A new investigation; AND
B) Any science which disproves his claims of CD.
What he does need is:
C) Keeping the pot on simmer by ongoing discussions as if there was something to discus; AND
D) Those discussions going round in circles.
So "trolling" helps to keep Gage's money making scam alive.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
If the nimrods had actually managed to ignite thermite, the sample cup would of had a hole burned in it.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
His entire testing matrix is deeply flawed. What he is proposing cannot in any way settle any debate because it simply isn't designed to positively identify the material. Hell it's not even designed to identify which materials should be tested or any difference in material separated from the dust using a magnet. lol.
No DSC is required at this stage. And his DSC proposals are flawed too.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Ziggi Zugam is a moron who has zero understanding of chemistry. How does he think your paint obtains it's colour without iron oxide pigment? Ask him whether there is any iron present in his blood.
You see this is the problem with debating truthers, not a single one of them has any knowledge pertaining to the subject at hand.
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Well, more specifically... Dave's beams are orange, and since lead chromate (which seems to be proven by XEDS) should be vividly yellow, there should be some other pigment/colorant in this primer which should be red, e.g. hematite - therefore the mixed color is orange. Or isn't it so?
It would be perhaps better to use some primer with well-known composition, but you know, "After a battle, everyone is a general"
Ziggi "complains" that this experiment is not any real science, but nobody here thinks that it is really a science. I follow all this stuff just as a weird hobby, as many others, I think.
Last edited:
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
Well, more specifically... Dave's beams are orange, and since lead chromate (which seems to be proven by XEDS) should be vividly yellow, there should be some other pigment/colorant in this primer which should be red, e.g. hematite - therefore the mixed color is orange. Or isn't it so?
It would be perhaps better to use some primer with well-known composition, but you know, "After a battle, everyone is a general"
Ziggi "complains" that this experiment is not any real science, but nobody here thinks that it is really a science. I follow all this stuff just as a weird hobby, as many others, I think.
It's not "real science" in the sense of being perfectly repeatable - not knowing what the primer was, among other variables - but it proves the point: That iron-rich microspheres are not, in and of themselves, proof of a thermite reaction. It is certainly sufficient evidence for this case, no matter how far the Truthers may try to move the goalposts. It has the secondary effect of proving that no experiment can be perfect enough to disprove 9/11 Truth to a true believer; there will always be something for them to nitpick about. Unless it confirms their beliefs, of course.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Seymour, I actually followd this through a while back, and I believe the Bentham authors used a special crucible that can withstand higher temperatures. And Sunstealer, I agree with you about DSC, but some of the other tests (like FTIR) whose absence we have all been complaining about are going to be inluded in this test. Pgimeno good catch on the resistivity test and the optical preselection.
MM at this point I wouldn't support any test whose protocol wasn't signed off on in advance by a knowledgeable JREFer as well as Mark Basile. I would say the same if Dave Thomas started to try raising money for a new full-blown study if he couldn't get buyin from someone like Mark Basile or Kevin Ryan. It's a complete waste of time as long as no one is talking to each other anywhere except "after the fact" here and on some 9/11 Truth blogs.
And Ozeco41 and others I am coming around to your way of thinking about the big picture issues.
I have just read his comments on yt, LMFAO, what a plank.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Noted.
Recall that way back at the start of your two initiatives viz:
1) The video responses; and
2) Dust studies.
I identified two strategic issues:
A) I comprehended and admired your willingness to meet truthers on their own ground; BUT
B) Foreshadowed a looming problem as to how you would draw a line in the sand and withdraw from pointless discussion.
Despite my personal reservations I respected your position (and still do) and I supported those to initiatives "1" in editorial contributions and "2" financially.
However the dust studies have now developed a strong body of support from those who are intrigued by the pure science aspects. There is nothing wrong with that except it has long lost any relevance to 9/11 discussion.
And, from my perspective of genuine 9/11 discussion, it has a major downside in that is merely serving to feed trolls. And, whilst I am well aware that I am in the minority, I disagree with feeding trolling egos.
The trolling objective is clear and partially overlaps the truther objective. It has two main parts:
(i) Get debunkers wasting energy responding to points that the trolls and dishonest truthers make; AND
(ii) Ensuring that discussion goes round in circles and does not progress.
It is a long time since we saw a genuine honest truther on this or any other forum that I frequent.
So the question remains "When do I cut the losses?" - no doubt each of us will have a different opinion. And some no doubt will not even recognise the question.
Personally I'm past that point. Have been for a couple of years.
Miragememories
Banned
bolding is mine
So walk away and don't forget to close the door behind you.
How can a finding of nanothermite in all the 9/11 WTC dust have "long lost any relevance to 9/11 discussion"?
MM