DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
[Merged] Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper
- Thread starter The Big Dog
- Start date
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
MM, it seems to me that you and the Truther Remnant are, so to speak, stuck in no-man's land. You're getting no support, nada, from Harrit et al. You can't go forward until Harrit publishes the FTIR data. XRD data would be a big help, too, along with a DSC done under an inert atmosphere.
You should be demanding that they publish their data. There's no reason not to publish if they've really found nanothermite. (Hint, hint!)
The worst that can happen now is that Harrit publishes the data, and it reveals that they are charlatans and/or boobs. If so, you and the Truther Remnant can pack it in, and get on with the rest of your lives.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 493
The problem is that I see the same thing that Sunstealer and others see when I read "the selection methods described by Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit et al in the 2009 Bentham Paper": they do not include resistivity testing. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the paper reports a test of one chip; there is no hint that any other chips were tested, with similar or dissimilar results.
So when you suggest that Millette should have "expedite[d] the isolation process by using the described resistivity findings clearly described in the Bentham paper," it is hard to understand what you could possibly mean. Again, I find no hint in the paper that resistivity testing was part of an "isolation process."
I have little idea what you are doing, but it seems that you aren't supporting your assault on Millette by referring to the Bentham paper. Perhaps you are relying on Jones to tell you what the paper really says, or really means.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
So you refuse to acknowledge that Harrit et al have not presented their FTIR data elsewhere even though that is true. Harrit has a website, why couldn't he simply put the datat there?
You also refuse to acknowledge that the red layer of samples a. b. c and d are the same material. It's interesting to see that you won't even back that conclusion in the paper when everyone, including myself, are in agreement with that particular aspect of the paper.
You agree with the paper's conclusions, but you will not agree with the data. Instead you hand wave away an in-depth post that challenges your own thinking and rips apart your position. You have seen the evidence from the paper's authors regarding the use of a resistivity test, yet you still contradict the very people you claim to support.
You do not have the courage to admit that samples a-d have are the same material because you know that the criteria and logic for doing so will ultimately undermine your refusal to acknowledge that Dr Millette has isolated the same material.
You know this, which is why you categorically refuse to agree with the very paper you support! It's hilarious. Your position is completely untenable. You won't even back the data in the paper you champion!
You have been shown time after time that the very authors of the paper do not agree with you and your made up notion of using resistivity to isolate chips. You are grasping at ever more desperate straws.
There were two very easy and simple questions that I asked you to answer , which would have taken 20 seconds, but instead you refuse to do so. Why do you refuse to answer these questions?
This is what the truth "movement" have come to and it's pathetic. Amusing but pathetic.
Last edited:
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
I still see that no truther has managed to get anywhere near close to challenging my analysis. How long is that now? 4 years? Yep, I called it right 4 years ago by analysing the data in the paper and showing definitively that the material was red paint containing iron oxide pigment and kaolin in an epoxy matrix adhered to oxidised steel. Dr Millette's study supports these conclusions.
No truther will dare go near the analysis. Instead they try to nit pick. The data in Harrit et al proves the red/gray chips are paint.
No truther will dare go near the analysis. Instead they try to nit pick. The data in Harrit et al proves the red/gray chips are paint.
Last edited:
The Almond
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,015
Your analysis is what would be done during the properly supervised peer review process. It would have been invisible to the 9/11 crowd in general, and would have prevented the work from being published at all. Of course, the 9/11 crowd in general has not done the required reading to understand the nature of your critique. Even though they've had 4 years to do it, they couldn't be bothered? Ahh well.
I recently looked over the Bentham paper again (and the Millette paper), and I have a question about interpreting the XEDS results. I seem to recall members here claiming that the chip soaked in MEK is a different material from chips (a) - (d), and that this could be determined from XEDS.
However, looking at the various spectra across the two papers, it seems that there is a great degree of variability in the relative heights of peaks between the samples, with no clear tendency to group into two readily identifiable sub-groups (as far as these lay eyes can tell). Also, this is apparently not a good method of identifying materials, since Millette went on to do a great deal more. What is the basis for claiming that (a) - (d) is different from the MEK chip?
Finally, does anything significant hang on this issue?
However, looking at the various spectra across the two papers, it seems that there is a great degree of variability in the relative heights of peaks between the samples, with no clear tendency to group into two readily identifiable sub-groups (as far as these lay eyes can tell). Also, this is apparently not a good method of identifying materials, since Millette went on to do a great deal more. What is the basis for claiming that (a) - (d) is different from the MEK chip?
Finally, does anything significant hang on this issue?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
Benjamin,
I will address your points in reverse order:
This claim has several distinct elements:
#1 There is iron oxide
#2 There is elemental Al
#3 These come in nano-sized bits
#4 They react, resulting in elemental (or at least reduced) Fe
Now, #1 is uncontroversial - there is good evidence for iron oxide whatever way you look at the red stuffs.
But:
#2 has only been shown (and dubiously so) for one chips, the MEK-soaked one, by virtue of Fig. 17
#3 has only been shown for chips a-d, by virtue of SEM-images showing Al-rich platelets and Fe-rich faceted grains
#4 has been shown for chips that are neither the MEK-soaked one nor chips a-d
To form the conclusion, one can only conflate #2 to #4 if one assumes, or proves, that all these chips are essentially the same material.
Once you allow that some may really be just paint and contain no thermite, then the conclusion becomes invalid.
Red layer a-d
Gray layer a+b, Gray layer c+d
These spectra, plus the identical visual appearance of the microstructure under SEM, are good evidence that these four chips are indeed the same material: They show basically only five elements: C, O, Al, Si and Fe; and only tiny traces of other stuff. An important hint is that in all four red layers, the peaks for Al and Si are almost identical in height, which does in fact mean nearly identical mass- and atomic proportions. This is particularly important when one looks at Fig. 10, in which we can see that the spacial distributions of Al and Si are practically identical, and they coincide with the platelets in 10a. Which means these platelets are made of something that has equal Al and Si, and there is no significant Al or Si elsewhere in these red layers.
Contrast this with Figure 14:
Here you have very significant Ca, very significant S - both are absent from Chips a-d. The peaks for Zn and Cr are pretty significant, too, and, perhaps most importantly, there is very little Al compared to Si.
Harrit et al fail to show the microstructure of this red layer.
So there is zero evidence that this MEK-soaked chip is the same material as chips a-d, but there are several indications that it probably is different.
The burden of evidence is on Harrit et al: Remember, the whole point of showing this MEK-soak is to "prove" that there is Al separate from Si, and in fact elemental. This finding of elemental Al can only be applied to the other chips - those that burn vigorously; those that have nano-sized pigments - if you show that it's the same material. But they haven't shown that. We don't have to prove it's a different material (although we are very certain).
In isolation, it wouldn't be sufficient to identify.
But it does help a lot positively - much better than DSC. A large peak around 3.69 keV in an XEDS spectrum when there is none at 3.44 keV is positive proof for significant Ca (the 3.44 controls for Sn, which has a signal very near the 3.69 Ca-peak, but would also have a larger signal at 3.44).
This in contrast to DSC, where an exotherm at 430 °C could mean a thousand things.
I will address your points in reverse order:
Harrit's conclusion is that the red layer of certain red-gray chips contains nano-thermite of the Al+Fe2O3 persuasion that's still active and reacts to form tiny iron balls.
This claim has several distinct elements:
#1 There is iron oxide
#2 There is elemental Al
#3 These come in nano-sized bits
#4 They react, resulting in elemental (or at least reduced) Fe
Now, #1 is uncontroversial - there is good evidence for iron oxide whatever way you look at the red stuffs.
But:
#2 has only been shown (and dubiously so) for one chips, the MEK-soaked one, by virtue of Fig. 17
#3 has only been shown for chips a-d, by virtue of SEM-images showing Al-rich platelets and Fe-rich faceted grains
#4 has been shown for chips that are neither the MEK-soaked one nor chips a-d
To form the conclusion, one can only conflate #2 to #4 if one assumes, or proves, that all these chips are essentially the same material.
Once you allow that some may really be just paint and contain no thermite, then the conclusion becomes invalid.
Here are the EDS-spectra for the red and gray layers of chips a-d:
Red layer a-d
Gray layer a+b, Gray layer c+d
These spectra, plus the identical visual appearance of the microstructure under SEM, are good evidence that these four chips are indeed the same material: They show basically only five elements: C, O, Al, Si and Fe; and only tiny traces of other stuff. An important hint is that in all four red layers, the peaks for Al and Si are almost identical in height, which does in fact mean nearly identical mass- and atomic proportions. This is particularly important when one looks at Fig. 10, in which we can see that the spacial distributions of Al and Si are practically identical, and they coincide with the platelets in 10a. Which means these platelets are made of something that has equal Al and Si, and there is no significant Al or Si elsewhere in these red layers.
Contrast this with Figure 14:
Here you have very significant Ca, very significant S - both are absent from Chips a-d. The peaks for Zn and Cr are pretty significant, too, and, perhaps most importantly, there is very little Al compared to Si.
Harrit et al fail to show the microstructure of this red layer.
So there is zero evidence that this MEK-soaked chip is the same material as chips a-d, but there are several indications that it probably is different.
The burden of evidence is on Harrit et al: Remember, the whole point of showing this MEK-soak is to "prove" that there is Al separate from Si, and in fact elemental. This finding of elemental Al can only be applied to the other chips - those that burn vigorously; those that have nano-sized pigments - if you show that it's the same material. But they haven't shown that. We don't have to prove it's a different material (although we are very certain).
Half true.
In isolation, it wouldn't be sufficient to identify.
But it does help a lot positively - much better than DSC. A large peak around 3.69 keV in an XEDS spectrum when there is none at 3.44 keV is positive proof for significant Ca (the 3.44 controls for Sn, which has a signal very near the 3.69 Ca-peak, but would also have a larger signal at 3.44).
This in contrast to DSC, where an exotherm at 430 °C could mean a thousand things.
Looking at Millette's data, you are absolutely right - but why limit this to just two readily identifiable sub-groups? We already know that the twin towers had their steel primed with at least two different red primers, but there may have been more. And we can be pretty sure that Building 7, having been built 15 years later or so, had a another primer still. There are thousands of other things painted red in those collapsed buildings.
Do you see now how this can indeed be done, but that the reverse question - "are they the same?" - is implicitly claimed, but unproven, by Harrit et al?
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
I understand with regard to seeing a degree of variability.
In the Harrit et al a paper there are 5 spectra for the red layer namely samples:
a,b,c and d
and the chip soaked in MEK.
The authors without a shadow of a doubt had more, but there are space constraints when publishing.
In contrast and because he has no restraints, Dr Millette has put out a progress report that has EDX spectra for the red layer in a number of the samples he was able to separate from the dust using a magnet, although I expect that there is a degree of common sense applied with regard to this.
For example he shows photographs taken from an optical microscope of red/gray chips isolated from the dust using the same method as Harrit et al and then labels each red chip that has been analysed by EDX numerically. However, optical sample M3451 (page28) with 16 EDX spectra isn't labelled in the report.
What Dr Millette has then done is to look at these EDX spectra and take the ones that match samples a-d in Harrit et al and perform a more thorough analysis using three techniques (detailed SEM, FTIR and TEM-SAED) to determine composition of those samples.
It is not unreasonable to expect a range of EDX spectra in the samples because the isolation method as detailed in Harrit et al will isolate any magnetic material. (Que MM with the resistivity bollocks)
To continue, Millette's red/gray chips whose red layer matched samples a-d in Fig 7 of Harrit et al where further subjected to a more detailed SEM examination. What Dr Millette found was that the same particles with the same shape/morphology where found in his samples as that in Harrit et al. Those particles (hexagonal platelets and rhomboids) also shared the same EDX spectrum of those found in Harrit et al's samples a-d.
Therefore it's safe to conclude he has analysed the same material found in samples a-d.
With regard to the MEK sample then we only have the EDX spectrum of it's red layer as found in Fig 14 (Harrit et al) to go on. This spectrum is radically different to those found in Fig 7 so no one can conclude that the red layer in this chip is the same as those found in samples a-d even with the explanation that this spectrum contains contamination.
There are no detailed SEM pictures of the particles and any matrix for this MEK soaked chip available.
When you take into account the fact that Dr Jones shows in one of his talks an EDX spectrum of Tnemec Red primer paint that is very close match to that of Fig 14 in Harrit et al (MEK soaked chip), then there is very good reason to determine that the spectrum in Fig 14 is a different material to that in Fig 7 of the Harrit et al paper.
In the other thread I picked out a number of EDX spectra from Millette's progress report that had similar characteristics to those found in Fig 14 and suspected to be Tnemec red primer paint.
Considering the isolation method as detailed in Harrit et al then it's not surprising that both Millette and Harrit/Jones etc separated rust with different red paints attached.
Yes, Harrit et al claimed they had evidence of thermite even though it's apparent that they had isolated two different red paints.
The fact that they could not characterize their samples properly shows their paper is nonsense.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
I am currently browsing Henryco's work on darksideofgravity.com and came across the following news item and graphs:
- Open http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11 Septembre 2001.html
- Search for "9/11/2008"
Henryco was in the process of translating Richard Gage's big PowerPoint presentation, and noticed that a couple of graphics showing XEDS spectra had been replace - and he saved them for posteriority. Here is a Google-Translate translation of the interesting part:
Another "by the way":
http://911blogger.com/news/2007-12-...gray-bi-layered-chips-wtc-dust#comment-172358
-> SE Jones confirms that he got together with Richard Gage as early as December 2007 to discuss efforts to continue the research on "thermite" that. apparently, Jones had largely done by himself.
- Open http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11 Septembre 2001.html
- Search for "9/11/2008"
Henryco was in the process of translating Richard Gage's big PowerPoint presentation, and noticed that a couple of graphics showing XEDS spectra had been replace - and he saved them for posteriority. Here is a Google-Translate translation of the interesting part:
"It was during the translation ppt Richard Gage I noted a number of changes to the document of architects and engineers who lead me to conclude that the heroes of September 11, undergoing pressures and threats are forced to falsify their own publications. The details of my exchanges emails or I expose my arguments is on this forum but can also be downloaded here (. Txt).
Slides were replaced
Spectrum of microspheres vs. thermite: Old New
Spectrum vs. thermite red chips: Old1, Old2, New
..."
Now I don't care what Henryco is bitching about there. Just open the graphs and take note:Slides were replaced
Spectrum of microspheres vs. thermite: Old New
Spectrum vs. thermite red chips: Old1, Old2, New
..."
- XEDS spectra apparently were taken over quite a span of time; the five images bear dates from March to December 2007
- They show microsphere XEDS from a thermite experiment by someone named Parulis - that contained no Si!
- One spectrum, the "Old1" one from "Bridge" (that would be Sample 2 in the Bentham paper, as the Delessio/Breidenbach dust was collected from a handrail on Brooklyn Bridge) labeled "tomb red 2" and bearing the filename "E:\Jones\12_10_07\tomb red 2.spc", has a bit of Ti (so much for Jones not finding Ti in red layer!) - and it comes with a (standardless) quantification: atomic proportions are 44% O, 33% Fe, 7.7% Si, 7.0% Al, and bits of other stuff (strange that there is only a small C-peak, and no quantity of C given)
- And here comes the bummer: This "Bridge" spectrum of a red chip side, from an older version of Gage's presentation, is shown in the New slied as: "X-EDS of Traditional Thermite"! (Caution: A possible explanation is that the caption below the "Old1" image on the right is simply misplaced)
Another "by the way":
http://911blogger.com/news/2007-12-...gray-bi-layered-chips-wtc-dust#comment-172358
-> SE Jones confirms that he got together with Richard Gage as early as December 2007 to discuss efforts to continue the research on "thermite" that. apparently, Jones had largely done by himself.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
McCrone particle atlas is available for free online now.
http://www.mccrone.com/press/2012/09/11
Looks like you have to register to get all the goodies, but it's a very useful tool.
http://www.mccrone.com/press/2012/09/11
Looks like you have to register to get all the goodies, but it's a very useful tool.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
Excellent, dude!
Without registration, you get a simple search only (by keyword), and only an overview on particles (description of elemental composition, morphology and such, plus a couple of photo light microscopy images). With registration, you get more advanced search options (by elements; shapes; etc), plus more PLM, SEM, EDS, FTIR; Raman, TEM data (not all of these for every search result; just what they have).
*bookmarked and registered*
Then why is it also in the "Old2" image on the left side, with caption "Fragment rouge (échantillon 4)" and with the same label "tomb red 2"?
Last edited:
A higher resolution version of the first New is in the ever changing stream of slides in Gage's site: http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2hour/slides/jpg_960x720/Slide177.PNG.jpg
So it was Actual ThermAte before but it is Actual ThermIte now.
*facepalm*
So it was Actual ThermAte before but it is Actual ThermIte now.
*facepalm*
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
Oops I should have said that the caption on the right of the "New" image may be misplaced. (ETA: The same slide is currently still available from the AE911T presentation as slide 185: http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2hour/slides/jpg_960x720/Slide185.PNG.jpg )
On the left in that slide, the caption refers to two samples ("Liberty Apt", ie. MacKinlay, and "Bridge", i.e. Delession/Breidenbach), but only one EDS is shown on the left, while the image on the right shows that which was labeled as the "bridge" sample in the "Old" version of the ppt. So perhaps they simply put the caption on the right on the wrong slide.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
Hehe. Right. Also:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2hour/slides/jpg_960x720/Slide181.PNG.jpg "Manganese was also found"
http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2hour/slides/jpg_960x720/Slide182.PNG.jpg "...significant aluminothermit reactions occurred, with likely ingredients to include ... copper oxide, zinc nitrate, and potassium permanganate".
Now in their supposed "active thermitic material", the red layers, they didn't find copper or manganese, they explicitly deny that zinc is part of the red layer itself, and potassium is spotted only in a minority of the samples, each times in trace amounts much too tiny to make any sense at all as potassium permanganate. So all those findings on those slides are refuted - right? Strange we never heard any retractions from Jones or Gage!
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
Where did the Harrit paper and its journal go??
Where did the Harrit paper and its journal go?? I had not looked at the paper and the whole issue in over a year until some days ago, and now find that the paper - is gone? Here is the original link to this online publication:
The link to bentham-open.org is dead, i.e. you get a message that the domain is for sale.
However, there still is the domain http://benthamopen.com
The Harrit paper was published in a journal called "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" (hence "TOCPJ" in the URL), that's how I always cite it, but I can't find that Journal any more on the Bentham Publishers website, and a search for "Harrit" in that domain comes up empty.
What happened??
Does anyone have an alternative download link?
Where did the Harrit paper and its journal go?? I had not looked at the paper and the whole issue in over a year until some days ago, and now find that the paper - is gone? Here is the original link to this online publication:
...
I also think it's essential that a link to Jones' ... paper is in order otherwise we won't know what we are talking about, eh 16.5?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
I suggest people download it and open it whenever they wish to comment because it's going to get referenced alot. When people quote from the paper it helps immensely if the page number, the chip sample (*see below) and/or the diagram or graph (Fig #) is also stated so that it can be referenced quickly. ...
The link to bentham-open.org is dead, i.e. you get a message that the domain is for sale.
However, there still is the domain http://benthamopen.com
The Harrit paper was published in a journal called "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" (hence "TOCPJ" in the URL), that's how I always cite it, but I can't find that Journal any more on the Bentham Publishers website, and a search for "Harrit" in that domain comes up empty.
What happened??
Does anyone have an alternative download link?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
This seems to work. If not, let me know and I'll e-mail it to you.
This seems to work. If not, let me know and I'll e-mail it to you.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
Ah thanks! Your link re-directs to http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf on my browser.
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which Bentham lists neither under "Journals A-Z" nor under "Journals by subject", has no articles in 2014 so far, only 1 in all of 2013, 3 in 2012, 3 in 2011, none in 2010, 4 in 2009, 10 in its inaugural year 2008. A total of 21 in 7 years, and 11 in the past 6 years.
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which Bentham lists neither under "Journals A-Z" nor under "Journals by subject", has no articles in 2014 so far, only 1 in all of 2013, 3 in 2012, 3 in 2011, none in 2010, 4 in 2009, 10 in its inaugural year 2008. A total of 21 in 7 years, and 11 in the past 6 years.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
To beat a dead horse even deader, and accuse it of crime on top of it, I have upon re-reading the Harrit e.al. paper discovered a detail of semantics worth mentioning:
As far as I can see, there are only three observations that Harrit's team ascribes to all the chips they studied:
Here's how they word this:
1.+2.: "All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet." (Page 10)
3.: "The BSE images illustrate the finding that all of the red layers studied contained small bright particles or grains characterized by a high average atomic number. The size and presence of the particles was found to be consistent throughout the layers, but the concentration of the particles was found to vary locally, as can be seen from the images."
Searching for the word "all" as a qualifier applied to "chips" yields two more sentences:
4. Page 19: "The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C."
-> As this references Fig. 19, ot is not clear whether "all" means "all of those four (but possible not all of those we tested with DSC)" or "all the chips we tested in the DSC (including, but not limited to, those four)".
5. Page 11: "These four cross sections are representative of all the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples."
-> Here, the main reference is to four cross sections of four specimens shown in Fig. 5, but the findings in Fig. 5 are said to be only "representative" of "all" chips. What does "being representative" mean? Have all chips all the characteristics revealed in Fig 5? Or some have all, all have some?
Three more uses of the "representative" ploy:
- Page 12: "X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7)."
- Page 12: "At still higher magnifications, BSE imaging of the red layer illustrates the similarity between the different dust samples. BSE images of small but representative portions of each red-layer cross section are shown in Fig. (8)."
- Page 25: "We show spheres found in the WTC dust (Fig. 27) and a representative XEDS spectrum from such a sphere (Fig. 28); we invite the reader to compare these results with those found for ignition of commercial thermite and for ignition of red/gray chips (above)."
I can't help it, but it seems to me that Harrit e.al. chose their wording very carefully and deliberately. They boldly speak of "all chips studied" when they really mean "all chips studied", i.e. "there is no exception", but present examples of chips or data "representative for all" when they do NOT mean "strictly all, no exception".
Hence, they say that the red layers of all chips contain 100 nm iron oxide grains aka red iron oxide pigment. We perfectly understand why: They are obviously all red because of red pigment.
But they do NOT say that "all" contain Al/Si platelets, or any of the other properties truther like to belabor. It isn't even explicitly stated that all ignited chips showed iron-rich spheroids in the residue!
This is not to say that no further property applies to all chips - just that Harrit e.al. were quite careful about what to attribute to all.
If my reading is true, then I further can't help feeling that they chose their wording very carefully with an intent to deceive readers into believing that all chips contain Al/Si-plates, all ignite around 425 °C, all produce iron-rich spheres, in all of them Al can be separated from Si, etc., even though they state none of this explicitly.
(The other day I had spotted another such detail of semantics, but can't recall now what it was; hope I will later)
As far as I can see, there are only three observations that Harrit's team ascribes to all the chips they studied:
- Attracted to a magnet
- Overall appearance of being red-gray chips
- Containing small (100 nm order of magnitude) grains with high average atomic number - iron oxide crystals, it turns out
Here's how they word this:
1.+2.: "All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet." (Page 10)
3.: "The BSE images illustrate the finding that all of the red layers studied contained small bright particles or grains characterized by a high average atomic number. The size and presence of the particles was found to be consistent throughout the layers, but the concentration of the particles was found to vary locally, as can be seen from the images."
Searching for the word "all" as a qualifier applied to "chips" yields two more sentences:
4. Page 19: "The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C."
-> As this references Fig. 19, ot is not clear whether "all" means "all of those four (but possible not all of those we tested with DSC)" or "all the chips we tested in the DSC (including, but not limited to, those four)".
5. Page 11: "These four cross sections are representative of all the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples."
-> Here, the main reference is to four cross sections of four specimens shown in Fig. 5, but the findings in Fig. 5 are said to be only "representative" of "all" chips. What does "being representative" mean? Have all chips all the characteristics revealed in Fig 5? Or some have all, all have some?
Three more uses of the "representative" ploy:
- Page 12: "X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7)."
- Page 12: "At still higher magnifications, BSE imaging of the red layer illustrates the similarity between the different dust samples. BSE images of small but representative portions of each red-layer cross section are shown in Fig. (8)."
- Page 25: "We show spheres found in the WTC dust (Fig. 27) and a representative XEDS spectrum from such a sphere (Fig. 28); we invite the reader to compare these results with those found for ignition of commercial thermite and for ignition of red/gray chips (above)."
I can't help it, but it seems to me that Harrit e.al. chose their wording very carefully and deliberately. They boldly speak of "all chips studied" when they really mean "all chips studied", i.e. "there is no exception", but present examples of chips or data "representative for all" when they do NOT mean "strictly all, no exception".
Hence, they say that the red layers of all chips contain 100 nm iron oxide grains aka red iron oxide pigment. We perfectly understand why: They are obviously all red because of red pigment.
But they do NOT say that "all" contain Al/Si platelets, or any of the other properties truther like to belabor. It isn't even explicitly stated that all ignited chips showed iron-rich spheroids in the residue!
This is not to say that no further property applies to all chips - just that Harrit e.al. were quite careful about what to attribute to all.
If my reading is true, then I further can't help feeling that they chose their wording very carefully with an intent to deceive readers into believing that all chips contain Al/Si-plates, all ignite around 425 °C, all produce iron-rich spheres, in all of them Al can be separated from Si, etc., even though they state none of this explicitly.
(The other day I had spotted another such detail of semantics, but can't recall now what it was; hope I will later)
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Agree 100%!
Harrit and his group separated out their chips of interest using the magnet and red/gray layer criteria. They then tested these separated chips and deliberately decided to publish ONLY the results that supported their preconceived notions of demolition and thermite.
Furthermore, they DID NOT perform all tests in the paper on any single chip, but instead performed a few (in some cases, just one test) random tests per chip, and then applied these single chip test results as a whole to the entire pile of chips separated per above. With some clever writing, this gives the impression that all the chips they separated were some form of thermite.
This is why certain folks here in this forum who support the thermite and demolition nonsense have never come up with a concrete list of tests from Harrit's paper that anyone could use to positively identify a thermitic chip out of the dust.
A perfect example of this is the chip (single) used in the paper that had the resitivity test done on it. That chip is not shown to have been tested any other way, yet that resistivity test result is deceptively used to decieve the reader to think that it applies to ALL of the magnetically attracted red/gray chips of interest and that ALL chips studied in the paper had that test performed on it. This is why the resistivity test was picked out by some to be an important test in determining a thermtic chip even though it was performed on only one chip in according to Harrit's paper.
For the reasons stated above, this is why both Harrit and Jones refused to answer my email questions asking if they found any chips in their separated pile that were NOT thermitic or if they performed all tests in the paper on every chip.
They balked at both questions.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
That is the same method that he.used in
The microspheres debate.
Convince the ignorant that all micro spheres
Are of thermitic origin.
Remember he has to prove malace and intent
He will want people believing that all his
Chips are energetic not just a few.
He is on a witch hunt.and calling it science.
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster., Tagger
The next time someone says Jones' paper was published in a "peer reviewed journal", show them this.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam
Click for the lulz.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam
Click for the lulz.
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster., Tagger
And did anyone notice that the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (where Jones was published) is now defunct?
http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/
"The Open Chemical Physics Journal (Discontinued Title)"
(ETA: oops, I see that was back in 2011)
http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/
"The Open Chemical Physics Journal (Discontinued Title)"
(ETA: oops, I see that was back in 2011)
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
Orphia,
1. Bentham Publishers may be in the same class of "predatory" open access journals as the one that accepted the "get me off your splendid mailing list" paper, but it isn't the same publisher!
2. "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" and Betham sure had no proper peer-review process - but you can't claim the Harrit paper wasn't peer-reviewed. I actually read the review by David Griscom, it was 12 pages long and had lots of brief comments, many of them concerning figures and images that didn't make it into the final paper, so the Harrit team apparently did pay heed to some of Griscom's hints. Griscom claims (I asked him directly via e-mail) he doesn't know who chose him to be peer-reviewer, and I had the impression from his responses that he was communicating with someone on the publisher's side. The problem of course is the choice of Griscom - "Chemical Physics" doesn't seem to be his main field, he is more into geology. He had previously published at Steven Jones's own "journal" and is a truther. So Griscom really is a "peer" - and wasn't anonymous to the authors, and therein lies the problem.
3. Yes, I had noticed that the journal is discontinued - a strange thing indeed!
1. Bentham Publishers may be in the same class of "predatory" open access journals as the one that accepted the "get me off your splendid mailing list" paper, but it isn't the same publisher!
2. "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" and Betham sure had no proper peer-review process - but you can't claim the Harrit paper wasn't peer-reviewed. I actually read the review by David Griscom, it was 12 pages long and had lots of brief comments, many of them concerning figures and images that didn't make it into the final paper, so the Harrit team apparently did pay heed to some of Griscom's hints. Griscom claims (I asked him directly via e-mail) he doesn't know who chose him to be peer-reviewer, and I had the impression from his responses that he was communicating with someone on the publisher's side. The problem of course is the choice of Griscom - "Chemical Physics" doesn't seem to be his main field, he is more into geology. He had previously published at Steven Jones's own "journal" and is a truther. So Griscom really is a "peer" - and wasn't anonymous to the authors, and therein lies the problem.
3. Yes, I had noticed that the journal is discontinued - a strange thing indeed!
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Oystein
I just tested nano thermites with ceramic binder,
and organic binder.
Anything with a carbon based binder
Will not work if Finely divided and ignited in air.
The resulting carbon dust explosion ignites prior
To the nanothermites.
Below the oxidation ignition temperature
Of the nano thermites.
True nano thermites with inorganic binder
Are almost ten time more energetic when the material
Is used to heat a gas generating compound.
Fe 3O4 plasma vaporized works best as the oxidant.
I just tested nano thermites with ceramic binder,
and organic binder.
Anything with a carbon based binder
Will not work if Finely divided and ignited in air.
The resulting carbon dust explosion ignites prior
To the nanothermites.
Below the oxidation ignition temperature
Of the nano thermites.
True nano thermites with inorganic binder
Are almost ten time more energetic when the material
Is used to heat a gas generating compound.
Fe 3O4 plasma vaporized works best as the oxidant.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
A few years ago I collected $1000 and got an excellent but nonpublished study of the red-grey chips from Jim Millette. Gosh, if someone had $150 or so, they could put out an excellent peer-reviewed paper reviewing the Harrit/Jones paper point by point, summarizing experiments done by Ivan, Crazy Chainsaw, Jim Millette and Dave Thomas, to name a few. Throw in some of Oystein and Sunstealer's analyses. It would need to be well-written, not one of those bizarre cancer-treatments-from-Mars type papers. Preferably by a chemist. Anyone want to give it a try? We'd want to be sure it is as peer reviewed as the Harrit/Jones paper. For example, Dave Thomas could co-write it with a chemist and Oystein could peer review it. I'd do it myself but I'm pretty broke these days!
911 truth fail part n+1...
This is where we can discuss the fantasy of Jones' folly. Thermite did 911.
Fact; no steel on 911 showed signs of damage from thermite.
end of thermite being used on 911, it is was a silly lie mad up by Jones out of the blue. Not sure if this is as insane as his claiming the Haiti earthquake was caused by the USA, and his current BS about over unity circuits. Looks like insane claims are a continuing trend in Jones life and BS artist nature.
Why did Jones have to pay to have a fake conclusion paper published? ...
A lie, it was iron oxide. Why list lies to support the fantasy of thermite.
For all those who want evidence for thermite...
***** No steel found at the WTC showed signs of thermite damage. That is zero evidence of damage by thermite. *****
Jones made up thermite out of the blue and fooled a fringe few. With no evidence Jones faked a conclusion of thermite in a paper which presents evidence they did not find thermite.
Not a single sample of the fake thermite had the heat energy of thermite, some had more, some had less. How do you get less heat from the fake thermite; why put proof of not thermite in the paper which claims to find thermite.
Then they take DSC from the dust and claim it is thermite, and it does not match thermite, and they include more proof it was not thermite in the paper.
This is why they had to pay to have the paper published.
In addition, conspiracy theorist were the peer reviewers; one of them says the passengers are still alive.
The thermite lie is debunked because no steel had damage from thermite. Thus the Gish Gallop of fake evidence from 911 truth is silly, and only dumbed down claptrap to fool people; now used by Gage to earn 500k in donations each year, which is not used for more than travel, suit, gadgets, and other BS. I would not be surprised if AE911T was a front for tax fraud, which some non-profits are. A scam which refunds most donations, to beat the tax on large portions of income.
Not sure how you can support lies, except how you are doing it, with the more lies.
BTW, you can ignore posts, and post your BS, you can use the ignore button, do it, and don't worry about the evidence of no steel damaged by thermite, you can't debunk the fact no steel was damaged by thermite, so ignore it.
This is where we can discuss the fantasy of Jones' folly. Thermite did 911.
Fact; no steel on 911 showed signs of damage from thermite.
end of thermite being used on 911, it is was a silly lie mad up by Jones out of the blue. Not sure if this is as insane as his claiming the Haiti earthquake was caused by the USA, and his current BS about over unity circuits. Looks like insane claims are a continuing trend in Jones life and BS artist nature.
Why did Jones have to pay to have a fake conclusion paper published? ...
A lie, it was iron oxide. Why list lies to support the fantasy of thermite.
For all those who want evidence for thermite...
***** No steel found at the WTC showed signs of thermite damage. That is zero evidence of damage by thermite. *****
Jones made up thermite out of the blue and fooled a fringe few. With no evidence Jones faked a conclusion of thermite in a paper which presents evidence they did not find thermite.
Not a single sample of the fake thermite had the heat energy of thermite, some had more, some had less. How do you get less heat from the fake thermite; why put proof of not thermite in the paper which claims to find thermite.
Then they take DSC from the dust and claim it is thermite, and it does not match thermite, and they include more proof it was not thermite in the paper.
This is why they had to pay to have the paper published.
In addition, conspiracy theorist were the peer reviewers; one of them says the passengers are still alive.
The thermite lie is debunked because no steel had damage from thermite. Thus the Gish Gallop of fake evidence from 911 truth is silly, and only dumbed down claptrap to fool people; now used by Gage to earn 500k in donations each year, which is not used for more than travel, suit, gadgets, and other BS. I would not be surprised if AE911T was a front for tax fraud, which some non-profits are. A scam which refunds most donations, to beat the tax on large portions of income.
Not sure how you can support lies, except how you are doing it, with the more lies.
BTW, you can ignore posts, and post your BS, you can use the ignore button, do it, and don't worry about the evidence of no steel damaged by thermite, you can't debunk the fact no steel was damaged by thermite, so ignore it.
Last edited:
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
just found some interesting pieces of research a few days ago:
Abstract:
Aluminum (Al) has an energy density (-31.05 kJ/g) nearly three times higher than most molecular high explosives and its combustion yields an exothermic release of energy ("'Hf (Al2O3) = -1676.8 kJ/mol) but is limited by surface diffusion, therefore an increase in surface area yields a direct increase on the reaction rate. Aluminum nanopowders (nano-Al) possess surface areas on the order of 20-40 m2/g and have attracted interest throughout the energetics community for propellant and metallization applications. Unpassivated nano-Al powders are highly pyrophoric and require stabilization through formation of a nascent oxide layer (2-6 nm), however, this process accounts for a 14-38% loss of reactive aluminum. To optimize the reactive Al content in nano-Al powders, UES proposes the use of silicon, deposited through a modified chemical vapor deposition process, as an innovative passivation strategy for stabilizing nano-Al. Silicon has an energy density (-32.42 kJ/g) essentially equivalent to Al and also expresses high reactivity on the nano-scale, although passivation of silicon is achieved through a 34% less dense, 1-2 nm nascent oxide, or the use of organic coatings. Therefore, passivation of nano-Al through deposition of silicon has the potential to eliminate undesirable Sdead weight and replace it with additional reactive fuel.
Passivation of Aluminum Particles with Silicon
UES is currently working with the US Army to develop new passivation technologies for aluminum nanoparticles, which serve as fuel in energetic materials. As produced, aluminum nanoparticles are pyrophoric and will combust upon exposure to air. To enhance their stability, the particles are passivated by the use of a thin aluminum oxide layer at the particle surface. This approach, however, leads to significant losses in the amount of reactive aluminum. To optimize the amount of reactive aluminum, UES is investigating the use of silicon, an additional reactive fuel, to passivate aluminum nanoparticles. Silicon passivation has the potential to eliminate any nonreactive material, such as an inert aluminum oxide, and replace it with additional reactive material thereby improving the total energy content. UES was notified June 7, 2012 of our Phase II win.
Abstract:
Aluminum (Al) has an energy density (-31.05 kJ/g) nearly three times higher than most molecular high explosives and its combustion yields an exothermic release of energy ("'Hf (Al2O3) = -1676.8 kJ/mol) but is limited by surface diffusion, therefore an increase in surface area yields a direct increase on the reaction rate. Aluminum nanopowders (nano-Al) possess surface areas on the order of 20-40 m2/g and have attracted interest throughout the energetics community for propellant and metallization applications. Unpassivated nano-Al powders are highly pyrophoric and require stabilization through formation of a nascent oxide layer (2-6 nm), however, this process accounts for a 14-38% loss of reactive aluminum. To optimize the reactive Al content in nano-Al powders, UES proposes the use of silicon, deposited through a modified chemical vapor deposition process, as an innovative passivation strategy for stabilizing nano-Al. Silicon has an energy density (-32.42 kJ/g) essentially equivalent to Al and also expresses high reactivity on the nano-scale, although passivation of silicon is achieved through a 34% less dense, 1-2 nm nascent oxide, or the use of organic coatings. Therefore, passivation of nano-Al through deposition of silicon has the potential to eliminate undesirable Sdead weight and replace it with additional reactive fuel.
Passivation of Aluminum Particles with Silicon
UES is currently working with the US Army to develop new passivation technologies for aluminum nanoparticles, which serve as fuel in energetic materials. As produced, aluminum nanoparticles are pyrophoric and will combust upon exposure to air. To enhance their stability, the particles are passivated by the use of a thin aluminum oxide layer at the particle surface. This approach, however, leads to significant losses in the amount of reactive aluminum. To optimize the amount of reactive aluminum, UES is investigating the use of silicon, an additional reactive fuel, to passivate aluminum nanoparticles. Silicon passivation has the potential to eliminate any nonreactive material, such as an inert aluminum oxide, and replace it with additional reactive material thereby improving the total energy content. UES was notified June 7, 2012 of our Phase II win.
Why is no steel from the WTC damaged by thermite? 13 years and no evidence for 911 truth failed CD claims, and super secret inside job. Who planted the explosives in 911 truth fantasy CD, who murdered thousands on 911 with magical thermite and silent explosives? What, you got nothing? As expected, zero evidence from 911 truth. 13 years of zero evidence.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Wow, you're making progress in uncovering new fuels research. I'm glad that you've come to see it is useless for painted on controlled demolition or in any case without containment vessels, especially back in 2001 without a time machine.
If you want, the Air Force has a fuels lab at Wright Pat that has been working on this very thing. Just make contact with the AFRL in Dayton, I'm sure their willing to talk to you about serious, non-fantasy applications of their work.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Small nano spheres of Aluminum embedded in silicon chips, the big advantage is reduced wear on nano particle fuel injection components, aluminum oxide is almost as hard as diamond, causes a lot of wear on the fuel injectors.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Oystein,
You wouldn't happen to have that video interview saved somewhere or know another location of it would you?
Thanks.