Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!

[Robrob]

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.

So I guess you're calling him a liar?

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

 

[DGM]

So I guess you're calling him a liar?

I don't think he's calling him a liar, just not knowledgeable on the subject.

I'm not sure which is worse for their leading authority on the subject.

 

[pgimeno]

It's all still a moot point. Let's not forget that whatever the chips were, they were not thermite, as evidenced by the complete lack of aluminium oxide in the residue.

 

[JSanderO]

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.

Rubbish... all this experiment did was disprove Harrit's statement that ONLY thermite or nanothermite could produce iron micro spheres. Lots of things produce them and he showed one.

I suppose he could have done some welding and sampled the welds and the residue and found micro spheres there too.

Nanothermite cannot account for the destruction of the WTC. What Harrit et al could begin with is acknowledging the ROOSD process was what accounted for the post initiation destruction.... but his associates harp on the building being exploded in mid air and so on and explosions hurling "girders" 600 feet and they come off like irresponsible science deniers... or peddlers of junk science.

They are only fooling those who WANT to be fooled.

 

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.

Pointing out there are other ways to collapse a building when your cute little theory is even more impossible is a moot point too, kiddo.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Oh yes, iron spheres from fires are reality, the idiotic claim of thermite is the no chance of being the culprit. Logic in 911 truth world is absent.

 

[Spanx]

Lol, no truthers touching this or the Millette thread now

 

[Orphia Nay]

Dave, you trickster, you contaminated the steel with paint!

 

[DGM]

I see Tony has shifted everyone away from the topic.

Nice job Tony.

BTW,(Tony) why do you suppose Harrit is so clueless about iron (rich) mirospheres? Why would he claim they could only come from a "thermite reaction"? You would think he would know atleast as much as you, considering he authored a paper based on his knowledge of these things.

 

[chrismohr]

Wow, this thread is about a little experiment showing the creation of iron-rich spheres with normal burning of paint on metal. It uses a simple technique to demonstrate what every expert in the field from RJ Lee to chemists worldwide know, that iron-rich spheres are created in ordinary fires. How can this experiment NOT demonstrate this, and what do moly-spheres have to do with what Dave Thomas so eloquently and simply proved (except as an example of how other metals besides iron create microspheres in ordinary fires)?

 

[ozeco41]

I see Tony has shifted everyone away from the topic....

Strictly speaking Tony has not done the shifting. Those who choose to follow Tony's evasive derails have made their own choice. They are free to:
A) Not fall for the childish trick;
B) Note the trick and then ignore it;
C) Ignore it without comment -- my preference because it denies Tony the ego kick of being noticed.
D) etc
E) etc.....

However:

Nice job Tony. ...

whatever the location of the decision making Tony has achieved his two goals - got people deflected away from the issue and got his own ego boost.

So if I choose "Option B" and put it into practice with your final comment:

...You would think he would know at least as much as you,...

I will NOTE and then IGNORE the obvious temptation.

 

[ozeco41]

Wow, this thread is about a little experiment showing the creation of iron-rich spheres with normal burning of paint on metal. It uses a simple technique to demonstrate what every expert in the field from RJ Lee to chemists worldwide know, that iron-rich spheres are created in ordinary fires. ...

Agreed.

With the comment that it is four degrees remote from relevance to WTC collapse - five if we fall for Tony's evasions and derails.

Relevance to WTC collapse discussion is --- over there>>>>>>>>>

 

[Spanx]

Still no response from any truthers on Dave or Ivan's microspheres

It's a shame non registered truthers can't see Ivan's images

 

[Spanx]

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:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1128&pictureid=8140[/qimg]

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):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1134&pictureid=8147[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1130&pictureid=8143[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/album.php?albumid=1134&pictureid=8147[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1126&pictureid=8133[/qimg]

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):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1147&pictureid=8160[/qimg]

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

I thought I would put this up for Georgio to see as he is showing an interest in the red gray chips.

Perhaps it will Jog MM's memory as to why the iron-rich microspheres claim is horse poo

 

[jaydeehess]

I thought I would put this up for Georgio to see as he is showing an interest in the red gray chips.

Perhaps it will Jog MM's memory as to why the iron-rich microspheres claim is horse poo

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.

MM

Spanx, may I remind you of the ironic paragraph I hilited.

Its almost as if MM believes that the towers were not capable of "contaminating" the samples with iron spheres from sources other than the steel structure of the building.

Oh the irony(pun intended)

 

[thedopefishlives]

Spanx, may I remind you of the ironic paragraph I hilited.

Its almost as if MM believes that the towers were not capable of "contaminating" the samples with iron spheres from sources other than the steel structure of the building.

Oh the irony(pun intended)

I had to re-read the thread after it was resurrected. Chris Mohr made an excellent point - even if it was contamination from the barrel, the point of the matter is that the iron microspheres were formed at temperatures much lower than the melting point of steel, from a non-thermite reaction, in direct contradiction to Dr. Harrit's assertion. But we still need to do a DSC on our paint chips to verify that they're not thermite.

 

[chrismohr]

Another reminder: the DSC tests performed by Harrit et al prove they are NOT a match for known nanothermite because the temperature of ignition is over 100 degrees C off and the energy release is 2 to 5 times higher than the energy release of nanothermite!

 

[jaydeehess]

Another reminder: the DSC tests performed by Harrit et al prove they are NOT a match for known nanothermite because the temperature of ignition is over 100 degrees C off and the energy release is 2 to 5 times higher than the energy release of nanothermite!

Well yeah, then there IS all that sciency stuff too.

 

[ozeco41]

Well yeah, then there IS all that sciency stuff too.

And it is of science interest because it is scarcely relevant to 9/11 - there was no CD and all the thermXte or microspheres stuff is only relevant to 9/11 if part of a CD hypothesis.

OR if we like chasing truthers down ever deeper and never ending rabbit burrows. Bad metaphor actually - rabbits have to surface to feed. Truthers don't.

 

[jaydeehess]

And it is of science interest because it is scarcely relevant to 9/11 - there was no CD and all the thermXte or microspheres stuff is only relevant to 9/11 if part of a CD hypothesis.

OR if we like chasing truthers down ever deeper and never ending rabbit burrows. Bad metaphor actually - rabbits have to surface to feed. Truthers don't.

Naked Mole Rats then perhaps?