• 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!

Indeed, we have that "proof" of allegedly thermitic reaction in the form of shiny iron-rich microspheres, which were products of heating red/gray "nanothermite" chips from WTC dust up to 700 degrees C under air, in the Fig. 20, Bentham paper:

picture.php


Ca two weeks ago, I heated four common red paints on rust flakes up to 700 degrees as well (heating rate was 10 degrees/minute in both cases), and here are again some micrographs (look at posts 1 and 2):

picture.php


picture.php


album.php


picture.php


Although these micrographs could be better/more convincing, some shiny objects similar to those on Fig. 20 are created in some of my "red/gray paint chips".

Therefore, Fig. 20 is no better "proof" of CD of WTC than e.g. this banknote from 1948 (at least to me):

picture.php


And all "suspicious" red/gray chips from WTC dust are of course some paint chips on rust, as has been correctly claimed here for years by debunkers:cool:
 
Last edited:
Now how in the world can that happen Ivan? You didn't use thermite????? Lol!! Epic fail is epic in the truther world.
 
Ivan I'd like to use your pictures in my upcoming YouTube video, with credit to the great Czech researcher of course. Amazing how we now have two simple experiments where you and Dave both burned paint chips on steel and found these little microspheres! Fancy that!
 
chrismohr said:
Ivan I'd like to use your pictures in my upcoming YouTube video, with credit to the great Czech researcher of course. Amazing how we now have two simple experiments where you and Dave both burned paint chips on steel and found these little microspheres! Fancy that!
Click to expand...

Yes, you can use them, my honor:cool: They are anyway some real pictures of some heated red paints on rust.
 
Fonebone said:
Dave advances a pawn

Fonebone advances a pawn

Dave declares CHECKMATE !

Fonebone is vanquished before the third move ?

Two predictions Dave
1 you will prevail over every future Chess opponent
2 Draughts
Click to expand...

The Harrit paper says only thermite can produce iron rich spheres. You just helped prove the Bentham paper wrong in your effort to prove it right. Game over. :rolleyes:
 
Fonebone said:
interesting stratagy !

Dave advances a pawn

Fonebone advances a pawn

Dave declares CHECKMATE !

Fonebone is vanquished before the third move ?

Two predictions Dave
1 you will prevail over every future Chess opponent
2 Draughts
Click to expand...

That's Strategy. Where I'm from, grammar/spelling is a pretty good "tell."
 
GlennB said:
Yeah, it's called Fool's mateWP. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Hot Damn - I didn't know about the Fool'smate gambit.
Thank you for that.
Now -regardless of the misleading name "two move checkmate"
the checkmate is accomplished in four moves not two moves.
Perhaps the composer of the Wiki page meant two rounds of moves.
Dave is declaring Checkmate in exactly two moves of two pawns.
Got a name for that style of gambit ? Just saying -Fonebone

PS I discovered in further reading the clarification two moves of black
can create a fool's mate.

I guess the analogy is weak but the declaration of checkmate by Dave after
each opponent moves a pawn typifies the arrogance that the truth deniers
display towards all Truthers and their evidence in general. Bic ?
 
Fonebone said:
I guess the analogy is weak but the declaration of checkmate by Dave after
each opponent moves a pawn typifies the arrogance that the truth deniers
display towards all Truthers and their evidence in general. Bic ?
Click to expand...

And yet Dave's evidence stands unrebutted, his question stands unanswered, and you are completely off topic. Metaphorically, you just resigned -- or, rather, tried to overturn the playing board.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
That's Strategy. Where I'm from, grammar/spelling is a pretty good "tell."
Click to expand...

My apologies Dave - I typed the word stratagy instead of the word I intended to type ---
Stratagem . I do hope that stratagem is a word where you come from.
Are you able to glean any "pretty good tell" from my egregious error ?
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
Hot Damn - I didn't know about the Fool'smate gambit.
Thank you for that.
Now -regardless of the misleading name "two move checkmate"
the checkmate is accomplished in four moves not two moves.
Perhaps the composer of the Wiki page meant two rounds of moves.
Dave is declaring Checkmate in exactly two moves of two pawns.
Got a name for that style of gambit ? Just saying -Fonebone

PS I discovered in further reading the clarification two moves of black can create a fool's mate.

I guess the analogy is weak but the declaration of checkmate by Dave after each opponent moves a pawn typifies the arrogance that the truth deniers display towards all Truthers and their evidence in general. Bic ?
Click to expand...

:words: :words: :words:

You are dodging (and badly, I might add) the only relevant question here: do you agree with me that Niels Harrit was wrong when he said the following?

Fe-rich spheroids are observed after a thermite reaction. Fe-rich spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction.
Click to expand...
 
Fonebone said:
Hot Damn - I didn't know about the Fool'smate gambit.
Thank you for that.
Now -regardless of the misleading name "two move checkmate"
the checkmate is accomplished in four moves not two moves.
Perhaps the composer of the Wiki page meant two rounds of moves.
Dave is declaring Checkmate in exactly two moves of two pawns.
Got a name for that style of gambit ? Just saying -Fonebone

PS I discovered in further reading the clarification two moves of black
can create a fool's mate.

I guess the analogy is weak but the declaration of checkmate by Dave after
each opponent moves a pawn typifies the arrogance that the truth deniers
display towards all Truthers and their evidence in general. Bic ?
Click to expand...

The first move was made by Harrit in claiming that only thermite could have produced the iron-rich microspheres. You made the mistake of following it up. Who's the fool, the fool or the fool that follows?
 
LSSBB said:
The first move was made by Harrit in claiming that only thermite could have produced the iron-rich microspheres. You made the mistake of following it up. Who's the fool, the fool or the fool that follows?
Click to expand...



:D
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
:words: :words: :words:

You are dodging (and badly, I might add) the only relevant question here: do you agree with me that Niels Harrit was wrong when he said the following?
Click to expand...

The fact that you found Fe-rich iron microspheres could be produced in a way other than through a thermite reaction is far from a proof that the mechanism you show is how they were produced in the WTC dust.

We know they were abundant in the WTC dust from more than one source. They were also found in that same dust with a abundant substance that produces iron microspheres in abundance.

I am reminded of an analogy where a man is found dead with birdshot all through his body and a shotgun is found nearby. Someone then mentions that birdshot is the same size as a BB. That might be true, but there is no logic to say the man was shot with a BB gun and it is much more likely he was shot with the shotgun found near the scene.
 
Last edited:
Tony and Fonebone,
Dave accomplished one thing with his little experiment: disproving Harrit's assertion that iron-rich microspheres come only from thermite. What's that book, I think it's something like the Crone Atlas of Marterials, a large reference book with many examples of the same thing. Dave may not have disproven the entire CD theory, but he did disprove something Harrit said and that materials scientists and chemists commonly know all about. Do you agree that Dave disproved Harrit's one assertion? This isn't hide and seek, this is an honest question.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Tony and Fonebone,
Dave accomplished one thing with his little experiment: disproving Harrit's assertion that iron-rich microspheres come only from thermite. What's that book, I think it's something like the Crone Atlas of Marterials, a large reference book with many examples of the same thing. Dave may not have disproven the entire CD theory, but he did disprove something Harrit said and that materials scientists and chemists commonly know all about. Do you agree that Dave disproved Harrit's one assertion? This isn't hide and seek, this is an honest question.
Click to expand...

If Dave's experiment actually generated iron microspheres he has certainly shown they can be generated in ways other than by thermite.

However, I don't think this is a revelation as it is known that all one needs to do is melt the iron and cause some velocity to get it to form into a small sphere. This is probably why the barrel was open on the side to create a draft.

We know it can be done with steel wool also, and someone here mentioned the burrs on the steel box beams in Dave's test being more readily melted. Apparently when the surface area to mass ratio is high enough, such as in burrs or steel wool, steel/iron will melt at temperatures significantly lower than the normal melting point of steel, which is much higher than what would be achievable in a barrel in air without oxygen being infused such as in a blast furnace.

I think the chances of anything shown in Dave's test being what caused the iron microspheres found in the WTC dust to be slim to none. So it really is a moot point.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The fact that you found Fe-rich iron microspheres could be produced in a way other than through a thermite reaction is far from a proof that the mechanism you show is how they were produced in the WTC dust.
Click to expand...

Of course that's not the point is it?

The point is those truthers claiming "Fe-rich iron microspheres" could only be produced by thermite are wrong.

Again.
 
Robrob said:
Of course that's not the point is it?

The point is those truthers claiming "Fe-rich iron microspheres" could only be produced by thermite are wrong.

Again.
Click to expand...

Your logic is poor. Pointing out that there are other ways to produce something when that has no chance of being the culprit is insignificant. It is a moot point.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom