Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?

[Gamolon]

Here is why Mark is having an issue. Here is a section of his proposal to the independent labs:

2 samples each of red chips of suspected primer from WTC dust

5 sample each of red/gray chips or red layer only from red/gray chips

He's finding that the red/gray chips ARE paint and can't differentiate between the two.

 

[Gamolon]

I found this, posted by SnowCrash, on 911Blogger.
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-27/chemical-engineer-mark-basile-discusses-911-wtc-dust

It's important to note that not all red/gray chips found in the dust actually ignite, and some dust samples only contain "inactive" material. It has been stated before by prof. Harrit that the quality of the red/gray chips apparently deteriorates over time. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly difficult for these researchers to obtain WTC dust samples.

I though ignition of chips was a priority in determining if chips where thermite or not? What criteria was used to determine that there were DEAD/INACTIVE thermitic chips?

 

[MicahJava]

Once again, you have proven that you are not up-to-speed on the facts. You can find microsperes in a few places that have nothing to do with thermite and in fact, microspheres can be created in the kitchen using a lighter and steel wool and even produced by burning wood in a barrel of steel beams.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

No. Those particles are neither iron nor spheres. Those were iron-oxide and had at least two pointed ends stemming from the wool material. Even if that was true, what on earth was that much steel wool doing in the WTC? We have to account for 10 tons worth, the equivalent of one of the less larger beams. Remember that we must account for the fact that many of these spheres are chemically similar to to iron spheres produced by common thermitic materials.

Just to let you know you can also find microspheres in fly ash from coal-fired power plants.

https://books.google.com/books?id=n...pheres in fly ash coal-fired furnaces&f=false

First, read above. Also, I think only a fraction of the spheres in the WTC dust are hollow, in which case Steven Jones reported that he found a pore of sulfur. These are not the stuffs you find from mostly cold building collapses.

I also notice you didn't acknowledge the existence of other particles in the dust which require unnaturally high temperatures, like previously molten Molybdenum droplets and vaporized lead.

 

[skyeagle409]

No. Those particles are neither iron nor spheres..

Of course they are and that means you have no case and lost the game.

 

[skyeagle409]

Fly ash would not have been a valid source, grinding sparks, welding sparks, disc brakes,
Engine clutches, and people would be.

I wanted to show him that microspheres can be created without thermite.

 

[skyeagle409]

Here is why Mark is having an issue. Here is a section of his proposal to the independent labs:

He's finding that the red/gray chips ARE paint and can't differentiate between the two.

I am not surprised at all. He could have saved himself a lot of time, money and effort if he had done his own reserch homework and used common sense.

 

[jaydeehess]

I wanted to show him that microspheres can be created without thermite.

Several hundred tons of steel structural components bashing against each other creates a few sparks, which in turn then cool and are..... spherical.

MJ complains that they are iron oxide, not elemental (I assume) iron.

ANY elemental iron sphere will very soon have a layer of iron oxide after being doused with water or simply left in the elements for a few days. If its a "microsphere" then that iron oxide layer could very well extend to take up a sizable % of the entire volume of the sphere.

just my humble opinion, I don't recall the palaver that was had on this subject several years ago.

 

[jaydeehess]

......
I also notice you didn't acknowledge the existence of other particles in the dust which require unnaturally high temperatures, like previously molten Molybdenum droplets and vaporized lead.

Find a power grinder Mich, then take a steel kitchen knife and apply it to the powered grinder. describe the effect.

Its a shower of bright sparks. Now venture a guess at the temperature and composition of those glowing sparks, and where the energy for that came from.

skip to:
a large number of steel objects falling and bashing and skidding against each other.

Now skip ahead skip ahead and take a look at the photos of the clean up and note the number of metal saws, grinders and torches being used to cut steel components up.

No try again to tell me that iron spheres are somehow unusual.


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and then once that is settled, as it was here years ago,,,, let's get back to today and discuss the actual thread topic and why Mark Basile has thus far utterly failed to carry out the promised actions.

 

[beachnut]

evidence free forever, the truth movement lies about thermite

...
I also notice you didn't acknowledge the existence of other particles in the dust which require unnaturally high temperatures, like previously molten Molybdenum droplets and vaporized lead.

Do you know what molybdenum is used for? Why would office fires not create this? You don't understand fire science, and have fallen for the delusional lie of thermite. What is the vapor pressure of lead and moly? Why do you post BS without references? Do you look up stuff before believing the fantasy of thermite? no
Moly? From what? There were office fires and 1000C is a high temperature, and there were no unnaturally high temperatures due to to Jones fantasy thermite which only exists in his delusional mind which got him fired for being a nut on 9/11.

Vaporized lead? Are you spreading lies, in a normal office fire temperatures are high enough to create dangerous levels of lead vapors - did you look up this stuff before spreading lies?

You cherry pick stuff you don't understand and make no conclusions. Big failure for thermite fantasy.

Show some steel with thermite damage, or melted steel. You offer opinion, you need evidence. You will never have evidence for thermite, you will post old nonsense from failed 9/11 truth fired guys who lie about 9/11. Copy and paste, no research, 9/11 truth believers refuse to think for themselves. 15 years of failure.

 

[LSSBB]

Iron spheres already stomped on, kicked around, buried, dug back up, and hacked to pieces on another thread (link). Please do not weary us with it on a totally unrelated thread.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No. Those particles are neither iron nor spheres. Those were iron-oxide and had at least two pointed ends stemming from the wool material. Even if that was true, what on earth was that much steel wool doing in the WTC? We have to account for 10 tons worth, the equivalent of one of the less larger beams. Remember that we must account for the fact that many of these spheres are chemically similar to to iron spheres produced by common thermitic materials.



First, read above. Also, I think only a fraction of the spheres in the WTC dust are hollow, in which case Steven Jones reported that he found a pore of sulfur. These are not the stuffs you find from mostly cold building collapses.

I also notice you didn't acknowledge the existence of other particles in the dust which require unnaturally high temperatures, like previously molten Molybdenum droplets and vaporized lead.

Glass microspheres are not iron microspheres, and fly ash as I have said is not a likely source, for microspheres, years of smokers lighting zippo lighters in the buildings would be lighters themselves produce microspheres.

 

[Criteria]

Glass microspheres are not iron microspheres, and fly ash as I have said is not a likely source, for microspheres, years of smokers lighting zippo lighters in the buildings would be lighters themselves produce microspheres.

I suggest you take the time to learn the difference between oxidation and reduction.

 

[Gamolon]

You make such a fuss about how difficult it would be to reproduce the work of Dr. Harrit et al.

It is really quite easy.

1. Place a legitimate sample of 9/11 WTC dust into a plastic bag.
2. Draw a magnetic slowly across the outside of the bag and collect the attracted chips into a small pile.
3. Separate visible red/gray chips from the pile.
*4. Take a multimeter and obtain a rough resistance reading across the red layer of any chips suitable for this purpose. Any chips that produce a low reading ~10 ohms or less should be kept as POTENTIAL candidate chips. Any chips with high resistance readings ~100 ohms or higher should be rejected.
5. At this point you need to be a legitimate scientist with the necessary apparatus to not only do an appropriate heat test but also evaluated the results.

Candidate chips are selected chips which ignite at ~430C and among other things, produce iron-rich microspheroids in the resulting residue.

that the red material would ignite at around 430C,

Criteria,

Based on all your quotes above regarding the importance of the DSC ignition tests being important in determining a chip as being thermitic, can you tell us about this quote?

It's important to note that not all red/gray chips found in the dust actually ignite, and some dust samples only contain "inactive" material. It has been stated before by prof. Harrit that the quality of the red/gray chips apparently deteriorates over time

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-27/chemical-engineer-mark-basile-discusses-911-wtc-dust

How did Harrit determine a chip as "inactive thermite" if it didn't ignite? I thought that was important characteristic?

I have an email from Harrit where he states that they couldn't find active chips in some samples and that they may have been stored under unfavorable conditions. He also states that stability of nanoaluminum has been studied and it definitely deteriorates.

How does one determine a red/gray chip as deteriorated thermite if it didn't ignite? I guess bullet point 5 in your first quote above is not needed to determine that a red/gray chip is thermite?

 

[Criteria]

”How does one determine a red/gray chip as deteriorated thermite if it didn't ignite?”

This has been explained before, but for those firmly entrenched in their beliefs, people like yourself, no explanation is good enough.

Scientists, having microscopically studied the red chips over a long period of time became so familiar with the appearance of “candidate chips” that it became easy to visually recognize them amongst other red chips.

For those researchers with no such familiarity and starting from scratch, I described the procedure required to find “candidate chips”.

I really do not see any problem. If, say, ten “candidate” chips are selected and maybe 2 of them fail to ignite. That does not detract from the findings made from the 8 that did ignite.

 

[benthamitemetric]

This has been explained before, but for those firmly entrenched in their beliefs, people like yourself, no explanation is good enough.

Scientists, having microscopically studied the red chips over a long period of time became so familiar with the appearance of “candidate chips” that it became easy to visually recognize them amongst other red chips.

For those researchers with no such familiarity and starting from scratch, I described the procedure required to find “candidate chips”.

I really do not see any problem. If, say, ten “candidate” chips are selected and maybe 2 of them fail to ignite. That does not detract from the findings made from the 8 that did ignite.

And the visual cues that prompt these scientists who are familiar with the appearance of “candidate chips” to recognize them cannot be reduced to words because... ?

 

[Gamolon]

I really do not see any problem. If, say, ten “candidate” chips are selected and maybe 2 of them fail to ignite. That does not detract from the findings made from the 8 that did ignite.

You clearly are not comprehending the problem here. Read the highlighted part again. Harrit is saying, per your example, that the 2 chips that didn't ignite and the 8 chips that did ignite ARE ALL THERMITE! The 2 that didn't ignite are dead/inactive/deteriorated THERMITE chips. The 8 that did ignite are active THERMITE chips.

According to you and how you interpret Harrit's thermite paper, CANDIDATE chips (being put through all the other testing) are not yet determined as being thermite until they have ignited and the remnants looked at for microspheres.

My question to you is, if ignition of a chip and resultant microspheres seals the deal and turns a red/gray CANDIDATE chip into a THERMITE chip, how in the hell did Harrit determine that there were DEAD/INACTIVE thermitic chips that supposedly deteriorated over time?

He made the determination that the chips that didn't ignite (therefore, no ashes/residue/leftovers to examine) were DEAD THERMITE CHIPS. What criteria did he use to determine that?. He didn't use the DSC ignition test to make that determination because the chip DIDN'T ignite.

The bottom line here is that, based on you are saying, the DSC test is not needed because the other tests are enough to determine if a chip is thermite or not.

What is that criteria?

 

[Gamolon]

Scientists, having microscopically studied the red chips over a long period of time became so familiar with the appearance of “candidate chips” that it became easy to visually recognize them amongst other red chips.

The main question that you keep missing is:

What criteria or test result pushes a CANDIDATE CHIP over the threshold to become a THERMITE chip?

 

[Gamolon]

I suggest you take the time to learn the difference between oxidation and reduction.

I suggest you learn the difference between candidate chip and thermite chip and tell us what test result is used to make a candidate chip into thermite chip.

 

[Gamolon]

This has been explained before,

Explain this Criteria...

So in summation, I have yet to see anyone on the other side (pro Millette’s findings), explain why Dr. Harrit et al’s proof of iron-rich microspheres found in the red chip post ignition residue should not trump the fact Millette must have tested false candidate red chips, because it is well known, that primer paint exposed to a temperature of ~430 °C will not produce iron-rich microspheres.

The fact that this subject is repeatedly ignored, acts as proof by silence, that there is no effective rebuttal to be offered!

Are you suggesting that Harrit made a huge mistake when he claimed unignited/false candidate chips were in fact thermite?!

 

[beachnut]

This has been expl ...

There is no damage to WTC steel from thermite. 15 years and 9/11 truth continues to fool those who can't think for themselves.



This has to be BS, to see how many replies the fantasy claims get, some fraternity internet drinking game