Chris Mohr's YouTube Part 23 Epilogue: WTC Dust Update; Saying Goodbye to 9/11 Truth

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Your capacity for self-delusion is enormous. You can shout "no spheres were formed" with all your might, yet those of us not blinded by ideology know a sphere when we see it.

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/Burned1-2.jpg[/qimg]

Because no such spheres could be found in the unburned beam, and because I took care to not let the portion of burned beam that was tested come into direct contact with the barrel itself, nor with ashes from the wood, I am reasonably confident that this iron-rich microsphere was indeed formed from the burning of a painted steel beam.

However, you have yet to say anything sensible about the very simple fact that, even had this sphere been present beforehand (as Ivan said it might), it was NOT created by thermite, and therefore topples the Harrit/Jones/Gage hypothesis.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content in quote

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove response to moderated content

if Iron can oxidize in the fires it can trigger natural Aluminothermic reactions
Reaching the ignition temp with enough highly mixed components is all you need to induce them.
Reduced Iron oxide, re oxidizing in air can do that, Jones and Harrit have proven the conditions probably exist for natural thermitic reactions.

Ziggi & Basile now have no choice, show an inert gas test, or drop the claim of nano thermites!

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's not bullying, it's fraudulent intelligentual dishonesty at this point

It's not exactly an either/or proposal.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It's not exactly an either/or proposal.

Dave

I know, I think Dave T, should test painted red steel in a reducing environment with Moliy grease, or molly steels as in piston rings.

Interesting results would found there from what I have seen.

 

[Myriad]

Here are some other suggested ways to generate iron-rich ferromagnetic microspheres:

- Burn some coal.
- Burn some wood.
- Burn some photocopied or laser-printed documents.
- Scorch some soil in a fire.

For a real-eye opener, check out the well-established usage of magnetometry in archaeology. Hearths, burned structures, burned soil, and cremations all show up strongly in magnetic surveys because they contain iron particles of high magnetic susceptibility. (One example source.) Gosh, were did those iron particles come from? Did past cultures use a lot of thermite, or habitually toss magnets into fires?

 

[Oystein]

For a real-eye opener, check out the well-established usage of magnetometry in archaeology. Hearths, burned structures, burned soil, and cremations all show up strongly in magnetic surveys because they contain iron particles of high magnetic susceptibility. (One example source.) Gosh, were did those iron particles come from? Did past cultures use a lot of thermite, or habitually toss magnets into fires?

Cool!
"cremations are very magnetic"
Well go figure - burning humans not only is more energetic than nano-thermite, it also creates magnetic, iron-rich ash particels. Which Truther would of thunk?

 

[Oystein]

Sorry about this delayed response, but I have been dealing with some overwhelming health issues.

No problem, I am not forgetting that you have yet to respond to BenjaminTR's post #1188 and/or my post #1193, both originally posted more than two weeks ago.

Also, in my post #1370 (5 days ago), I had asked you:

Mark Basile is hiding behind a gatekeeper, Ziggi, who protects and defends his doing NOTHING AT ALL for 3 years to the tune of $5000.
Are you cool with that, Criteria?
You know what the deal was:
Mark would select a few suitable chips (magnetic attraction; red-gray) (1 week)
Send them to an independent lab, perhaps more than one (1 day)
Wait for results to return (2 weeks)
Report the results (3 days)

Could have taken 3 weeks. Why are you not asking Ziggi to kick Mark's ass hard and repeatedly?


And, lest you forget to click the first links above, a quick reminder what BenjaminTR was all about:

Based on Harrit's paper "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT" and its sources, I conclude that every item on Oystein's list is correct. Here's why.

First:
In "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT," Harrit only mentions one primer paint: Tnemec red. Figures 3 and 4 give information about its composition. Harrit does not name or list a single property of any other paint. All of his arguments refer to the properties of Tnemec red. Either his argument is fallacious, or he is assuming Tnemec red is the only primer paint that could have been present.

This assumption is false, not just because there could have been paint from other sources, but also because we know a LaClede primer paint was also use in WTC.

Second:
Harrit's paper is about whether "the red/gray chips" are paint. We can take "the red/gray chips" to mean "the red/gray chips studied in the Bentham paper." Addressing this assumption then requires analysis of the Bentham paper, which others in this thread and related threads have already done. For now, I will simply refer back to their arguments about this assumption and its falsity.

Third:
Harrit says (page 3), "Even though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the content of this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is reproduced in Figure 4." (emphasis added) He explicitly states that the data sheet gives the composition of the proprietary pigment. I don't see another way to interpret this.

This assumption is false, as the data sheet (http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf) is for Tnemec Primer Red, not pigment.

Fourth:
In Table 1, there is a column labeled "Composition in wet paint." The value given for zinc chromate is 20.3%, which is the value for zinc chromate given in Sramek 1967. Thus, Harrit treats Sramek 1967 as if the wet paint mass is 100%.

This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Zinc chromate is this 20.3% of the pigment alone, not of the wet paint.

Fifth:
On page 3 Harrit says, "After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) ~ 40 %. If we subtract these from the composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint." (emphasis added) The value of 32.3% for thinners is taken from Sramek 1967. In order for subtracting this (along with the extra assumed pigment spirits) from 100% to give the hardened composition, we must assume Sramek 1967 treats wet paint mass as 100%.

This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Thinners are 32.3% of the vehicle alone, not of the wet paint.

Sixth: The conclusion follows from the above. Harrit overestimates how much of each pigment is present in the wet paint, and he overestimates how much of the wet paint mass evaporates away. These errors combine to produce an even greater overestimation of how much of each pigment is in the dry paint.

It is easy to verify each of these (especially the fourth and fifth, which alone justify Oystein's conclusion); it does not require specialist knowledge of chemistry.

(But click back to his post for context - my explanation of Harrit's screwed-up assumptions and failed reasoning, which you could not refute, and still need to acknowledge as being spot-on)

 

[beachnut]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

Iron spheres happen in fire. Jones lied. Why can't 911 truth followers figure out Jones and Harrit made up the conclusion in their vanity paper. There is no proof of thermite in the paper, just a BS conclusion based on waving hands to achieve LEO and fool gullible followers. Reading comprehension and logic expose the paper as BS.
You offer nothing but BS about others, and fail to explain why no steel at the WTC has damage from thermite. Zero iron fused to the steel.

14 years, and all 911 truth can do is quibble about others, while they fail to produce evidence to support the delusional inside job CD fantasy.

Iron spheres form in fire from iron bearing substances. They are found all over the world... As I have said before, Jones and Harriet could study eastern USA soil and find thermite. With nearly 6 percent iron and Al in the soil, they could do better than their fantasy thermite conclusion paper.

Fighting and quibbling about iron micro-spheres is a sign of no evidence.

 

[Agatha]

This thread has been overtaken by personalisation, accusations of lying and/or bullying and general incivility.

I will be reviewing the last few pages, and there may well be moves to AAH, with decorations of yellow for the worst breaches.

Will you please all immediately review your Membership Agreements and temper your posting accordingly. Please do not continue with this behaviour following this modbox, or more persuasive measures will be applied to remind people of the MA.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Criteria]

”If you were thinking about disagreements voiced on the "steel wool" thread, I am willing to admit that was not representative of materials to be expected in the Twin Towers. That's why I did a whole new experiment on painted beams, for crying out loud.”

Even now you cannot bring yourself to admit the real truth behind abandoning your steel wool burning results.

The true reason why you tried a new experiment, was not because the Twin Towers lacked a lot of steel wool, but because it was repeatedly brought to your attention that burning steel wool produces iron oxide.

You were desperate to prove that a simple fire could produce iron-rich residue instead of only iron-oxide residue.

”Seriously, the people critical of burning beams to make microspheres have been truthers…

Typical objections include (A) I only found two iron-rich spheres, there should have been "more" (which fails, because the truther claim I was testing is that ONLY thermite can create such microspheres!!), and (B) my burn barrel was "contaminated" (which fails, because the Twin Towers themselves were "contaminated" by cutting, welding, grinding and other activities occurring in skyscrapers!).

In fact, we're still waiting for Criteria to respond to questions on this very topic. But you and Criteria are too busy being "offended" to actually bother answering the inconvenient questions, aren't you? Like who made you the boss of the Basile study?

Exactly as I predicted.”

Your belief was that subjecting an abundant source of iron oxide (steel primer paint) to a regular wood fire would be sufficient to produce iron-rich residue.

In terms of sample volume, you subjected a huge amount of iron-oxide rich material to a level of heat that you believed to be sufficient to produce iron-rich residue.

As we know, the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper performed their heat testing on individual dust chips which were a few square mm in size.

I believe you said you spent in the neighbourhood of an hour studying under an electron microscope, the residue riches from burning all that steel primer paint. Surprisingly, given the amount of rich source material, given that the volume of residue represented a greatly reduced sample, and given that you deemed there to be abundant heat to prove your hypothesis, you discovered only two lone iron-rich microspheres.

Very strange, given that the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper found numerous iron-rich microspheres in the residue of their tiny chip samplings.

Yet surprisingly you scoff at legitimate ridicule of your results. If your hypothesis had any merit whatsoever, burning an abundant sampling should have provided you with abundant observables!

It’s funny how members here constantly harp about the scientists not heat testing their 9/11 WTC dust red chips in an environment free of oxygen yet the same group have no problem with you performing your experiment in an old trash barrel. In spite of the criticism you have received over your sloppy testing protocol, you have never taken the time to retry your experiment in laboratory conditions free from the possibility of external contamination.

To be valid, experimental results must be reproducible. Scientists like Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, Mark Basile etc., have had no difficulty reproducing their results. You cannot make a claim of doing even one repetition.

Just like Dr. Millette fears the results of heating his samples another 30 °C higher, you appear to fear that in a clean laboratory environment you will discover the ugly truth. No iron-rich microspheres will be produced.

When discussing comparable microspheres, you oddly claim the contamination argument fails because similar microspheres would have existed in the Twin Towers as a result of “cutting, welding, grinding and other activities occurring in skyscrapers!”

As Ziggi pointed out, could not the spheres have already been present as filler material in the paint, did you not cut the steel used in your experiment at some point, did you not grind the painted steel when you scraped off your sample, or you partially carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the contaminated barrel before you lit the fire, and/or possibly you simply did not properly record or report the oxygen content.

The same science standards hold true for you as they do for the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.

You need to show your experiment can be ‘cleanly’ reproduced and achieve the same results.

 

[DGM]

The same science standards hold true for you as they do for the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.

Where have they shown that their conclusion of thermite based on iron micro-spheres alone actually holds water?

Can you show where Farrer actually shows he found elemental aluminum?

We'll wait............................................................

 

[BasqueArch]

Even now you cannot bring yourself to admit the real truth behind abandoning your steel wool burning results.

The true reason why you tried a new experiment, was not because the Twin Towers lacked a lot of steel wool, but because it was repeatedly brought to your attention that burning steel wool produces iron oxide.

You were desperate to prove that a simple fire could produce iron-rich residue instead of only iron-oxide residue.



Your belief was that subjecting an abundant source of iron oxide (steel primer paint) to a regular wood fire would be sufficient to produce iron-rich residue.

In terms of sample volume, you subjected a huge amount of iron-oxide rich material to a level of heat that you believed to be sufficient to produce iron-rich residue.

As we know, the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper performed their heat testing on individual dust chips which were a few square mm in size.

I believe you said you spent in the neighbourhood of an hour studying under an electron microscope, the residue riches from burning all that steel primer paint. Surprisingly, given the amount of rich source material, given that the volume of residue represented a greatly reduced sample, and given that you deemed there to be abundant heat to prove your hypothesis, you discovered only two lone iron-rich microspheres.

Very strange, given that the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper found numerous iron-rich microspheres in the residue of their tiny chip samplings.

Yet surprisingly you scoff at legitimate ridicule of your results. If your hypothesis had any merit whatsoever, burning an abundant sampling should have provided you with abundant observables!

It’s funny how members here constantly harp about the scientists not heat testing their 9/11 WTC dust red chips in an environment free of oxygen yet the same group have no problem with you performing your experiment in an old trash barrel. In spite of the criticism you have received over your sloppy testing protocol, you have never taken the time to retry your experiment in laboratory conditions free from the possibility of external contamination.

To be valid, experimental results must be reproducible. Scientists like Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, Mark Basile etc., have had no difficulty reproducing their results. You cannot make a claim of doing even one repetition.

Just like Dr. Millette fears the results of heating his samples another 30 °C higher, you appear to fear that in a clean laboratory environment you will discover the ugly truth. No iron-rich microspheres will be produced.

When discussing comparable microspheres, you oddly claim the contamination argument fails because similar microspheres would have existed in the Twin Towers as a result of “cutting, welding, grinding and other activities occurring in skyscrapers!”

As Ziggi pointed out, could not the spheres have already been present as filler material in the paint, did you not cut the steel used in your experiment at some point, did you not grind the painted steel when you scraped off your sample, or you partially carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the contaminated barrel before you lit the fire, and/or possibly you simply did not properly record or report the oxygen content.

The same science standards hold true for you as they do for the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.

You need to show your experiment can be ‘cleanly’ reproduced and achieve the same results.

So now you claim that there are other means besides thermite that can produce iron microspheres?

Gage, Harrit and you guys need to hire a script supervisor:

In the most basic description, the script supervisor is the editor's and writer's representative on set, as well as being the right hand aide to the director and the director of photography. It is the script supervisor's job to make sure that at the end of the day the film can be cut together. In that sense, they back up every department, monitor the script during shooting and make sure that errors in continuity do not occur that would prevent the film from being able to be compiled smoothly in the editing room....
The supervisor is responsible for working with all departments (camera, lighting, sound, wardrobe, make-up, properties and sets) to make sure that continuity errors do not happen.....Wiki​

 

[GlennB]

So now you claim that there are other means besides thermite that can produce iron microspheres?

If the hypothesis under test is "Only thermitic reactions can produce iron-rich microspheres" then a single counter-example is all it takes to reject the hypothesis.

 

[Ziggi]

Your capacity for self-delusion is enormous. You can shout "no spheres were formed" with all your might, yet those of us not blinded by ideology know a sphere when we see it

...even had this sphere been present beforehand (as Ivan said it might

Dave, let´s get straight to the point. You finally acknowledge that Ivan said sphere might have been present before you even ignited that barrel burn which means you could not prove that sphere was formed in your fire, which was my point:

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
...No matter how many other comments you post you cannot change the fact that Ivan confirmed what I said. You could not prove those spheres were formed in your barrel burn..

 

[DGM]

Dave, let´s get straight to the point. .....

Let's get more to the point. Is "thermite" the only possibly explanation for iron micro-spheres? That is the basis for your belief after all.

 

[jaydeehess]

Dave, let´s get straight to the point. You finally acknowledge that Ivan said sphere might have been present before you even ignited that barrel burn which means you could not prove that sphere was formed in your fire, which was my point:

So you are saying that in an uncontrolled mix of materials that there are sources of iron microspheres. Either present before combustion or created during combustion.
Right?

 

[GlennB]

So you are saying that in an uncontrolled mix of materials that there are sources of iron microspheres. Either present before combustion or created during combustion.
Right?

Let's get more to the point. Is "thermite" the only possibly explanation for iron micro-spheres? That is the basis for your belief after all.

If the hypothesis under test is "Only thermitic reactions can produce iron-rich microspheres" then a single counter-example is all it takes to reject the hypothesis.

I wonder how Ziggi will wriggle out of this? For he surely will ...

 

[jaydeehess]

I wonder how Ziggi will wriggle out of this? For he surely will ...

Paint/corner

 

[DGM]

I wonder how Ziggi will wriggle out of this? For he surely will ...

.......keep digging, surely there has to be an out at the bottom.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I wonder how Ziggi will wriggle out of this? For he surely will ...

Isn't that how he got that nickname?

ETA: But seriously, Ziggy, why do you suppose Basile can't find any thermite to send to the lab?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Even now you cannot bring yourself to admit the real truth behind abandoning your steel wool burning results.

The true reason why you tried a new experiment, was not because the Twin Towers lacked a lot of steel wool, but because it was repeatedly brought to your attention that burning steel wool produces iron oxide.

You were desperate to prove that a simple fire could produce iron-rich residue instead of only iron-oxide residue.



Your belief was that subjecting an abundant source of iron oxide (steel primer paint) to a regular wood fire would be sufficient to produce iron-rich residue.

In terms of sample volume, you subjected a huge amount of iron-oxide rich material to a level of heat that you believed to be sufficient to produce iron-rich residue.

As we know, the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper performed their heat testing on individual dust chips which were a few square mm in size.

I believe you said you spent in the neighbourhood of an hour studying under an electron microscope, the residue riches from burning all that steel primer paint. Surprisingly, given the amount of rich source material, given that the volume of residue represented a greatly reduced sample, and given that you deemed there to be abundant heat to prove your hypothesis, you discovered only two lone iron-rich microspheres.

Very strange, given that the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper found numerous iron-rich microspheres in the residue of their tiny chip samplings.

Yet surprisingly you scoff at legitimate ridicule of your results. If your hypothesis had any merit whatsoever, burning an abundant sampling should have provided you with abundant observables!

It’s funny how members here constantly harp about the scientists not heat testing their 9/11 WTC dust red chips in an environment free of oxygen yet the same group have no problem with you performing your experiment in an old trash barrel. In spite of the criticism you have received over your sloppy testing protocol, you have never taken the time to retry your experiment in laboratory conditions free from the possibility of external contamination.

To be valid, experimental results must be reproducible. Scientists like Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, Mark Basile etc., have had no difficulty reproducing their results. You cannot make a claim of doing even one repetition.

Just like Dr. Millette fears the results of heating his samples another 30 °C higher, you appear to fear that in a clean laboratory environment you will discover the ugly truth. No iron-rich microspheres will be produced.

When discussing comparable microspheres, you oddly claim the contamination argument fails because similar microspheres would have existed in the Twin Towers as a result of “cutting, welding, grinding and other activities occurring in skyscrapers!”

As Ziggi pointed out, could not the spheres have already been present as filler material in the paint, did you not cut the steel used in your experiment at some point, did you not grind the painted steel when you scraped off your sample, or you partially carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the contaminated barrel before you lit the fire, and/or possibly you simply did not properly record or report the oxygen content.

The same science standards hold true for you as they do for the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.

You need to show your experiment can be ‘cleanly’ reproduced and achieve the same results.

Hydrocarbon rubber, brass box controlled Electrical heating element, rust and red paint.
300C or higher temperature.

Been there done that the reaction is fe 2O3 heat + 3 CO=2Fe 3 CO2.

A piece of old car tire works well as the hydrocarbon.

You can also place the sealed box in a wood fire.

Or you can use a chimney effect.

True Dave's experiment was not well conceived, he mostly produced Fe O, Fe 3O4, not pure
Fe. Now if you really want to see something reduce some micro particles of iron and some with sulfur, then use those to ignite Aluminum with red paint and drywall mixed into the molt.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Dave, let´s get straight to the point. You finally acknowledge that Ivan said sphere might have been present before you even ignited that barrel burn which means you could not prove that sphere was formed in your fire, which was my point:

How about I send him a 2 inch brass pipe, with 2 caps, drywall dust, hydrocarbon plastics,
and red paint.
Have him toss it into a wood fire, then when finished, ignite a thermite effect of Aluminum and drywall dust.

 

[GlennB]

To be valid, experimental results must be reproducible. Scientists like Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, Mark Basile etc., have had no difficulty reproducing their results. You cannot make a claim of doing even one repetition.

This is deeply ironic as it puts the Bentham tests into the realm of the unscientific by your own definition. You claim that Harrit et al learnt how to differentiate between thermitic and non-thermitic chips by eye, yet they didn't document that process. Other scientists are therefore unable to replicate the Bentham tests.

Let's face it, Criteria, you made that stuff up didn't you? Now it comes back to haunt you, as lies often do.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This is deeply ironic as it puts the Bentham tests into the realm of the unscientific by your own definition. You claim that Harrit et al learnt how to differentiate between thermitic and non-thermitic chips by eye, yet they didn't document that process. Other scientists are therefore unable to replicate the Bentham tests.

Let's face it, Criteria, you made that stuff up didn't you? Now it comes back to haunt you, as lies often do.

Paint chips exposed to reduction reactions look different and conduct electrical current better
Than paint chips that have not been reduced.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is deeply ironic as it puts the Bentham tests into the realm of the unscientific by your own definition. You claim that Harrit et al learnt how to differentiate between thermitic and non-thermitic chips by eye, yet they didn't document that process. Other scientists are therefore unable to replicate the Bentham tests.

Let's face it, Criteria, you made that stuff up didn't you? Now it comes back to haunt you, as lies often do.

One needs a 'trained eye', preferably trained by Harrit et al.

 

[beachnut]

Dave, let´s get straight to the point. You finally acknowledge that Ivan said sphere might have been present before you even ignited that barrel burn which means you could not prove that sphere was formed in your fire, which was my point:

Spheres form in fire, it is a fact. Denial of science is what 911 truth does to keep the silly CD inside job nonsense.
Where is the damage to WTC steel from the fantasy thermite? Why are you unable to produce evidence.
There is zero proof of thermite in the Jones/Harrit paper. Is the conclusion a lie, or an opinion based on opinions.

 

[rgsalinger]

Can anyone explain exactly how Millette reached the conclusion that there was no elemental aluminum in the sample chips he tested? Which test ruled it out? I re-read the Harrit paper and I saw that they based the claim of elemental aluminum on the relative amounts of AL and O present - they didn't seem to do a specific test to show whether the AL was elemental or just part of a molecule. If this is too off topic and the answer is obvious, just PM me. Thanks
Rgrds-Ross

 

[Ziggi]

I call Baloney, big-time.

There is an 8-page thread on what you're calling a "dullard barrel burn", "Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!", and I've just perused all 8 pages. There is no sign of a "skeptic" or "debunker" debunking the basic point of this thread, namely that iron-rich microspheres can be created simply by burning painted steel beams in a normal fire.

If I somehow missed the "fellow skeptic" rebuttal you mentioned above, then promptly link to it in a reply, lest we'll all obtain further confirmation of your telling lies....

Originally Posted by Ziggi
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11006021&postcount=1427
You failed to prove that you could CREATE iron-rich spheres by burning painted steel beams and you know that because I pointed that out to you in the comments section by your dullard barrel-burn video, and your fellow JREF "debunker" and scientist, and one of the main supporters of Millette´s paper, Ivan Kminek, acknowledged that in response to me there:

Quote:
Ivan Kmínek 2 years ago in reply to Ziggi Zugam
I agree that the one loosely attached microsphere could basically originate from e.g. steel barrel...

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Your capacity for self-delusion is enormous. You can shout "no spheres were formed" with all your might, yet those of us not blinded by ideology know a sphere when we see it

...even had this sphere been present beforehand (as Ivan said it might

Originally Posted by Ziggi
Dave, let´s get straight to the point. You finally acknowledge that Ivan said sphere might have been present before you even ignited that barrel burn which means you could not prove that sphere was formed in your fire, which was my point..http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11007162&postcount=1453

Mr. Thomas, you did not reply to my last post, but it would be interesting to know if you intend to do another experiment in a lab to try to prove that burning paint can create iron-spheres, or if you are done? Do you still need other points addressed in regards to your barrel burn?

 

[beachnut]

... create iron-spheres, or ... burn?

It is a fact iron sphere are from fires where iron bearing substance burn. Fact,you can't deny with evidence. What is not fact? CD, inside job, thermite, explosives and other nonsense 911 truth created based on BS, lies and opinions.
Debunking the Debunkers has failed to do more than expose failed logic based on zero evidence. Anti-science/anti-intellectual talk failed to do more than expose a lack of knowledge in all areas required to understand 911, to include but not limited to physics, math, fire science, chemistry, flying, flight ops, FAA, NTSB, FBI, ...

Where is 911 truth's overwhelming evidence for CD?
Why was no steel damaged by thermite?
These and may other questions will never be answered by 911 truth, or those who fail to debunk the debunkers...

Why can't the "debunk the debunkers" do science and prove iron sphere can't form in fire from iron bearing substances? The best 911 truth failed claim is about moly... I can't believe the logic put forth with the melted BS, and then zero damage was found to WTC steel from explosives, thermite, nukes, and DEW. A big tent, 911 truth; has to be for all the broad spectrum woo.

Is this thermite damage?

Nope. darn, 14 years, no evidence
The old 911 truth claim, "no one studied the steel", or it was quickly shipped off - 8 months is quickly shipped off. Scientist inspecting unique damage, is not studying, not inspecting. How can 911 truth become more anti-intellectual... proof is showing up as we post

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Mr. Thomas, you did not reply to my last post, but it would be interesting to know if you intend to do another experiment in a lab to try to prove that burning paint can create iron-spheres, or if you are done? Do you still need other points addressed in regards to your barrel burn?

I still think that the spheres I found were most likely from the burned paint, but acknowledge there is some possibility they may have been pre-existing. But even so, you have not responded to the very simple point that Ivan made with his original comment (highlighted for you below):

Ivan Kmínek 2 years ago in reply to Ziggi Zugam
I agree that the one loosely attached microsphere could basically originate from e.g. steel barrel. But, Dave simply found and documented these microspheres definitely not originating from any thermitic reaction, which was the basic goal. They are as good as any other found iron-rich microspheres, as proofs.Your talk about creation of iron-rich spheres from lead chromate is irrelevant. We have repeated many times that these microspheres are probably created from the rust, not from paint)

There is your basic problem. Thermite never came anywhere near that barrel, or the beams, or any part of that experiment. So, while it's marginally possible that the sphere may have been a pre-existing bit of iron, there are many non-thermitic methods for producing such spheres. It is well-known that iron-rich microspheres are generated by grinding, by using flint, by fires, and even by simply smashing two rusty iron balls together, with one of them coated with aluminum foil. The kinetic energy of the colliding balls is more than enought to initiate the thermitic reaction, sparks and noise and all. I have made babies cry with this demonstration - it was too startling, somewhat like firecrackers.

What you and Criteria need to address is the simple fact that there are many ways to make iron microspheres BESIDES thermite, and also that the thermitic reaction itself can be produced simply by having rusty iron pieces impact with aluminum, also producing microspheres. That will probably be the topic of my next experiment. I may try a paint burn under more controlled conditions, but frankly, if I can get iron-rich microspheres simply by smacking cannon balls together to abrade aluminum foil, then that would explain why WTC dust has such microspheres, and would be the death knell for Harrit's botched analysis.

 

[Notconvinced]

Can anyone explain exactly how Millette reached the conclusion that there was no elemental aluminum in the sample chips he tested? Which test ruled it out? I re-read the Harrit paper and I saw that they based the claim of elemental aluminum on the relative amounts of AL and O present - they didn't seem to do a specific test to show whether the AL was elemental or just part of a molecule. If this is too off topic and the answer is obvious, just PM me. Thanks
Rgrds-Ross

Harrit, et al show elemental Al indirectly by noting that it readily separates from the Si it was proximal to after the chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone.

Millette claims that the Al is bound to Si in a kaolin form, but has not proven the aluminum platelets to be such, nor disproven the metal fuel reaction of the chips.

 

[beachnut]

Harrit, et al show elemental Al indirectly by noting that it readily separates from the Si it was proximal to after the chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone.

Harrit did not show anything. This is BS. Those who believe Harrit/Jones found elemental AL, exposes 911 truth followers have no practical knowledge of science. This is complete nonsense, and not supported by data in the paper. In fact, the paper shows Kaolin... lol

Millette claims that the Al is bound to Si in a kaolin form, but has not proven the aluminum platelets to be such, nor disproven the metal fuel reaction of the chips.

He has photos of it, and they match the stuff in Jones/Harrit paper.

Read the paper and look at the pictures this time. Reading comprehension is important; it shows Harrit and Jones found no thermite, and faked their conclusion - the paper does not prove thermite was found. An English teacher can help

 

[rgsalinger]

Still Wondering

I don't think that "read the paper" is really an nice answer to what was intended to be a polite question. So, let me try to phrase it differently. I read Millette's paper. I looked at the diagrams and pictures. I couldn't find any place where he went from a particular test over to a specific result from that test which in turn led to the conclusion he wrote regarding the lack of elemental aluminum. I have not studied physics or chemistry for a long time, but usually I can suss out the essence of an argument from most scientific papers. I can't with this one, and so I was hoping that someone could explain his conclusions with something other than "read the paper" which I already did.
I would just like to be able follow the logic and testing that got him to the conclusion. I thought that there was some way to test not only the elements and percentages present in a sample, but also to identify the molecular constituents of the sample. The only thing that seemed to be on point in that paper was this "The cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin". Is that the basis of his conclusion?

 

[Ziggi]

I still think that the spheres I found were most likely from the burned paint, but acknowledge there is some possibility they may have been pre-existing..

Yes, the formation could not be proven because it was not possible to rule out pre-existing stuff. Thanks Dave, now we can move on. I´ll answer the rest of your post tomorrow.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I don't think that "read the paper" is really an nice answer to what was intended to be a polite question. So, let me try to phrase it differently. I read Millette's paper. I looked at the diagrams and pictures. I couldn't find any place where he went from a particular test over to a specific result from that test which in turn led to the conclusion he wrote regarding the lack of elemental aluminum. I have not studied physics or chemistry for a long time, but usually I can suss out the essence of an argument from most scientific papers. I can't with this one, and so I was hoping that someone could explain his conclusions with something other than "read the paper" which I already did.
I would just like to be able follow the logic and testing that got him to the conclusion. I thought that there was some way to test not only the elements and percentages present in a sample, but also to identify the molecular constituents of the sample. The only thing that seemed to be on point in that paper was this "The cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin". Is that the basis of his conclusion?

If the platelets are consistent with Kaolin, they can not be elemental Aluminum as claimed
By Jones & Harrit, and they can not be nano thermite without aluminum nano spheres.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, the formation could not be proven because it was not possible to rule out pre-existing stuff. Thanks Dave, now we can move on. I´ll answer the rest of your post tomorrow.

Sure we can move on as soon as you acknowledge that the burning towers and WTC7, as well as several other structures and dozens of vehicles in the streets, were an uncontrolled mix of materials representing sources of iron microspheres. Then there is the 110 storey high speed rock crushers that were the collapses of the towers which just might have included some bashing/grinding of steel against steel.

In addition, the clean up used grinders, saws, and thermal cutting tools all of which can also produce iron microspheres.

The claim that these iron microspheres are indicative of Thermite is patently ridiculous. One would think that truthers would have given up on that by now.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Even now you cannot bring yourself to admit the real truth behind abandoning your steel wool burning results.

The true reason why you tried a new experiment, was not because the Twin Towers lacked a lot of steel wool, but because it was repeatedly brought to your attention that burning steel wool produces iron oxide.

You were desperate to prove that a simple fire could produce iron-rich residue instead of only iron-oxide residue.



Your belief was that subjecting an abundant source of iron oxide (steel primer paint) to a regular wood fire would be sufficient to produce iron-rich residue.

In terms of sample volume, you subjected a huge amount of iron-oxide rich material to a level of heat that you believed to be sufficient to produce iron-rich residue.

As we know, the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper performed their heat testing on individual dust chips which were a few square mm in size.

I believe you said you spent in the neighbourhood of an hour studying under an electron microscope, the residue riches from burning all that steel primer paint. Surprisingly, given the amount of rich source material, given that the volume of residue represented a greatly reduced sample, and given that you deemed there to be abundant heat to prove your hypothesis, you discovered only two lone iron-rich microspheres.

Very strange, given that the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper found numerous iron-rich microspheres in the residue of their tiny chip samplings.

Yet surprisingly you scoff at legitimate ridicule of your results. If your hypothesis had any merit whatsoever, burning an abundant sampling should have provided you with abundant observables!

It’s funny how members here constantly harp about the scientists not heat testing their 9/11 WTC dust red chips in an environment free of oxygen yet the same group have no problem with you performing your experiment in an old trash barrel. In spite of the criticism you have received over your sloppy testing protocol, you have never taken the time to retry your experiment in laboratory conditions free from the possibility of external contamination.

To be valid, experimental results must be reproducible. Scientists like Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, Mark Basile etc., have had no difficulty reproducing their results. You cannot make a claim of doing even one repetition.

Just like Dr. Millette fears the results of heating his samples another 30 °C higher, you appear to fear that in a clean laboratory environment you will discover the ugly truth. No iron-rich microspheres will be produced.

When discussing comparable microspheres, you oddly claim the contamination argument fails because similar microspheres would have existed in the Twin Towers as a result of “cutting, welding, grinding and other activities occurring in skyscrapers!”

As Ziggi pointed out, could not the spheres have already been present as filler material in the paint, did you not cut the steel used in your experiment at some point, did you not grind the painted steel when you scraped off your sample, or you partially carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the contaminated barrel before you lit the fire, and/or possibly you simply did not properly record or report the oxygen content.

The same science standards hold true for you as they do for the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.

You need to show your experiment can be ‘cleanly’ reproduced and achieve the same results.

If he partially carbon reduced a microspheres in the barrel, that is enough to prove Carbon epoxy can carbon reduce nano spheres in paint.

You have the burden of proof to show that the fuels in the Jones and Harrit chips are not carbon and iron.

And I don't buy the claim that the chips if thermite will not ignite under argon, because the platelets are in some instances directly in contact with the iron oxide. Via the Jones Harrit data.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Cool!
"cremations are very magnetic"
Well go figure - burning humans not only is more energetic than nano-thermite, it also creates magnetic, iron-rich ash particels. Which Truther would of thunk?

One person already noticed that burnt blood and tissues can produce both Fe 3O4, and Reduced FE.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I don't think that "read the paper" is really an nice answer to what was intended to be a polite question. So, let me try to phrase it differently. I read Millette's paper. I looked at the diagrams and pictures. I couldn't find any place where he went from a particular test over to a specific result from that test which in turn led to the conclusion he wrote regarding the lack of elemental aluminum. I have not studied physics or chemistry for a long time, but usually I can suss out the essence of an argument from most scientific papers. I can't with this one, and so I was hoping that someone could explain his conclusions with something other than "read the paper" which I already did.
I would just like to be able follow the logic and testing that got him to the conclusion. I thought that there was some way to test not only the elements and percentages present in a sample, but also to identify the molecular constituents of the sample. The only thing that seemed to be on point in that paper was this "The cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin". Is that the basis of his conclusion?

Millette did SEM-EDS tests, which is scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive spectroscopy.

Energy-dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy:

The number and energy of the X-rays emitted from a specimen can be measured by an energy-dispersive spectrometer. As the energies of the X-rays are characteristic of the difference in energy between the two shells and of the atomic structure of the emitting element, EDS allows the elemental composition of the specimen to be measured.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Millette did SEM-EDS tests, which is scanning electron microscope with energy-dispersive spectroscopy.

Energy-dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy:

EDX, can miss elemental Aluminum, as Aluminum is covered in an oxide, this is also a fault in the Harrit and Jones study.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=70&MMN_position=186:186"THE PROBLEM WITH MICROSPHERES
The Problem with Microspheres

Steven Jones claims that the discovery of metallic microspheres found within the WTC dust is proof of the use of thermite to destroy the 3 towers. Are microspheres the "smoking gun" Steven Jones claims?

Frank Greening, PhD Chemist, has asked some thought-provoking questions concerning possible multiple origins of these said micro-spheres. The author, among others, attempted to stimulate an open discussion between Steven Jones and Frank Greening on this subject to help get to the bottom of this issue.


Listed below is a summary of possible objections to considering WTC microspheres as a "smoking gun".
When I e-mailed Frank to sum up his objections to the microspheres argument, he wrote me the following reply:


You ask me for a list of objections to the notion that iron-rich microspheres in samples of WTC dust are evidence for the use of thermite to bring down the Twin Towers. I think my main objection is that there appears to be a whole variety of microspheres with different chemical signatures. This suggests that most of the microspheres have a natural, chaotic, origin from many different source materials, all of which have simple explanations for their presence in the WTC remains.

However, I do need to see more X-ray spectra with an indication of how abundant a particular type of sphere is. (I think Jones claims to have analysed "hundreds" of particles!) Right now I think I have seen about 8 spectra and, as I say, these spectra are all quite different - some have Si, some do not; some have S, some do not; some have Ca, some do not; some have Cu, some do not...... and so on.

There ARE certain types of microspheres that would perhaps be hard to explain in the debris of an "ordinary" office fire, but so far I have not seen any in the analytical data on the WTC dust published by Jones or anyone else.

Cheers,

Frank

Frank and Steven's E-mail Exchanges

Frank posted on the JREF forum on 12-26-07

Quote:
Some Recent E-mail Exchanges with Steven Jones

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven,

I would like to contribute to this research, so I will answer your questions
about OXYGEN, etc.......

It is well known that oxygen is not well Characterized by EDX, especially EDX done on old instruments. In fact, if you look in McCrone's book, which was published in 1973, none of the samples show oxygen peaks! Thus we have entry 432 "Zinc Oxide" which only has peaks for zinc! Clearly, the absence of oxygen peaks does not mean the absence of oxygen in the sample! The
spectra in McCrone's book were probably recorded with an electronic "gate" to eliminate low energy X-rays entirely. This was done because so-called
pulse pile-up of low-energy X-rays in first eneration EDX instruments caused detector saturation. Thus the low-energy peaks were not recorded. This is why the lightest element reported in any sample listed in McCrone's
book is Na with an X-ray at 1.04 keV. Nevertheless, McCrone's Particle Atlas
remains a very useful source of X-ray data of dusts, minerals, etc.

Even using a modern EDX instrument I would be very careful about quoting a quantitative oxygen number. Why is this? Well, light elements like carbon, oxygen and nitrogen emit very low energy X-rays ~ 0.5 keV or less. These X-rays are not very penetrating and have trouble escaping from the surface of the sample and passing through the window of the detector. However, oxygen also tends to chemisorb on the surface of many materials, enhancing the oxygen peak. The net result is that oxygen is not reliably measured by
EDX. For this reason I used Auger electron analysis, with a touch of argon-ion sputtering to removed chemisorbed species, to quantify elements
like C, O, N, in fly ash. This technique does not use X-ray emission to detect elements.

Now as for the particular spectrum in McCrones's book I forwarded to you, it was just one example of a combustion-related material that has microspheres and high iron. I will forward the spectrum of the incinerator ash as well.
It shows microspheres and iron is present in significant concentrations too. But please remember McCrone's sample was NOT magnetically separated. I am quite sure a magnetically separated ash sample, such as the one you have for the WTC dust, would show high iron by definition!

And one final point, my good friend Carrol Sanders has reminded me that fly ash is frequently used as aggregate in lightweight concrete, so microspheres may have been present in the Twin Tower's concrete even before the fires of 9/11. Given that so much concrete was pulverized during the collapse of the towers, fly ash debris would be present in large amounts in the rubble pile.

Regards, Frank

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: greening
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Query

Frank,

1. As you read my query, you'll notice that I said I thought some sort of
cooperation could be worked out -- with you. When I made reference to those "hell-bent" on discrediting discoveries I was not thinking about you , but rather two or three others, out of perhaps a couple hundred collaborators I have worked with. I learned to be very careful before forming
collaborations.

At the same time, it is true I would have to get to know you better before
establishing a full collaboration if such were desired.

2. "Al : Si : S : K : Ca : Ti : Fe = 8 : 10 : 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 5"

a. Where is the oxygen? Oxygen is a major component of almost all the
iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust I have studied -- often the PRINCIPAL component.

b. How do these "fly-ash" spheres form, given the high melting point of
iron (about 1530 C)? Do the incinerators use forced-air?

Thanks for your comments, which I will consider more tomorrow.

Steven"

What EDX can do is to show the structure of Aluminum Silicates, I was trying to explain the findings in Layman's terms.

Finding of Kaolin, means the fuel for the chips has to be other than nano Aluminum.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I read Millette's paper. I looked at the diagrams and pictures. I couldn't find any place where he went from a particular test over to a specific result from that test which in turn led to the conclusion he wrote regarding the lack of elemental aluminum.

Having looked over it myself, it seems fairly clear to me that Millette studied all the major constituents of the samples, identified all of them, and found none that were composed of elemental aluminium. If this material were thermite, then elemental aluminium would have to be one of the major constituents and therefore easily identifiable. By analogy, he took a good look round the room and everything he saw wasn't an elephant, though no doubt some truthers will complain that he didn't look in the two-inch gap under the sofa.

Dave