Gage's next debate

[Oystein]

...the thermitic materials allegedly found in the World Trade Center dust in 2008 is the strongest argument I have seen yet, and I hope we all have a chance to see this matter resolved.

I wish we could convince you that that paper is not a strong argument at all, but in fact contains most of what is needed to refute itself completely.

At any rate, here are some comments about things I found imprecise in your text:

...
In 2008,

No. Published in (March, iirc) 2009.

...an allegedly peer-reviewed scientific article appeared in Bentham’s Open Chemical Physics Journal purporting to have found that about 0.1% of the WTC dust had nanothermite explosives in it. That’s tons of high-grade explosives.

A very careful reading of the paper will reveal that they do not conclude they found "explosives", nanothermitic or otherwise, in the dust. They only ever hint at it, but make it explicit that they have not tested whether, or what kind, of explosive the chips are.

The experiments included ... various chemical processes to isolate the chemical compounds in the dust

No. They only used physical methods/processes.

...
The paper, "Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies", was publised in the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids in May 2001. Harritt and Jones used the results of this paper to compare their findings with those of a known nanothermite. Tillotson discovered that nanothermites burn faster with an energy density nearly two times as great as thermites

Incorrect. On page 339 Tillotsom writes "The energy density of these composite systems can be nearly twice that of the best monomolecular energetic materials." He is not comparing nano-thermite to regular (non-nano) thermites here, but the entire class of thermites (including those made of other metal oxides than iron oxide) with monomolecular substances; many conventional explosives such as TNT are monomolecular.

The measured energy density is descrubed on page 343: "...a heat of reaction value of 1.5kJ/g. This is significantly lower than the theoretical value of 3.9 kJ/g. One potential explanation involves the aluminium fuel itself. ... the UFG aluminium used is actually 70% Al2O3 weight." (my italics).

...
Reason # SLIDE OF NANOCHART 4: Harritt and Jones burned four samples of World Trade Center dust and carefully measured the energy output of each, plotting them on this graph with four different colored lines. The blue line shows the lowest energy output of the four, and the highest temperature for the heat energy to be released.

No, not the highest temperature from heat energy, but highest ignition point (that is externally applied temperature). The temperature reached in the reaction is never measured, and would not mean anything, really.

...
SECOND SLIDE OF KNOWN NANOTHERMITE. Then they superimposed the blue line, the least energetic dust sample, to the known nanothermite sample from the Tillotson paper, claiming the energy reaction was close to a match. But it is not. The World Trade Center dust sample had to be heated 100 degrees Centigrade higher to generate the reaction, and then the reaction itself was stronger by a factor of two.

No no no It's the other way round: The ignition point for the WTC samples was nearly 100 °C lower (but yielding higher power outputs).

...
The most likely conclusion is that Harrit's samples had some carbon-based material in them that simply burned in the surrounding air,

Yes, and this is a point the authors themselves make in the paper - but then they completely fail to follow this up by analysing that "carbon based" (organic) matrix. This alone should have been reason for any hypothetical peer reviewer to reject the paper.

...
3.) Aluminum and iron oxide were found in the dust in Jones’s original study but not aluminum oxide (aluminum with three oxygen molecules attached to it, so it would have its own supply of oxygen). Aluminum oxide would be evidence of thermitic material since thermate is over one-third aluminum oxide.

No, you got yourself confused here. Elemental aluminium is the key ingredient of (unreacted) thermite. Aluminium oxide is an undesired but hard to avoid collateral. Only AFTER the reaction do you have Al-oxide.
The problem is that they did NOT show that elemental Al was found, although that convoluted part with the MEK-soaked sample supposedly did that. This MEK-soaked sample however was most likely a different material than the 4 other samples!

...
9. All the ingredients in the dust were also in the towers: The “suspicious” sulfur found in the dust could have been evidence of thermitic material,

The four samples contained practically no sulphur. I think you should not discuss sulphur in the context of the Bentham paper. It's a different issue (and one that is actually contradicted by the Bentham paper).

...
As Richard said, “sol gel uses 1,3 diphenylpropane,”

Have you checked whether this is even correct?

...Our paper gives a number of other reasons why the chips match with nanothermite (e.g. intimate nanoscale mixed aluminum and iron oxide, formation of metallic spheres which match the composition of thermitic spheres).”

No, they did not show any nanoscale aluminium. They only found crystals that contain Aluminium, plus silicium and oxygene - aluminium silicates! Tillotson on the other hand showed Aluminium microspheres in his nano-thermite. These are totally absent from Harrit's chips.

...So while the high energy released in the burning of the chips is used as evidence against nanothermites by other chemists I’ve talked with, Kevin Ryan sees it as evidence in favor of them!

Confirmation bias.

Kevin Ryan has also told me that “The red-gray chips tested do not withstand 650 C, do not have Zinc, and don't dissolve in an organic solvent (but known paint chips do). Other analyses, not yet published, also indicate that the red chips are not paint. I have WTC paint samples and can tell you that, in addition to these facts, the paint looks nothing like the red-gray chips.”

That is correct, because the red-grey chips are not WTC promer paint. They are a different kind of paint, as of yet unidentified.
The MEK-soaked chip was WTC primer paint. Looks and behaves like it.

...
Kevin reminded me that their study claimed to find unignited thermitic material, saying, “aluminum oxide is a product, not a component, of the thermite reaction. If the red-gray chips contained aluminum oxide, instead of aluminum, they would not be thermitic materials. The source of oxygen as a reactant in the thermite reaction is not aluminum oxide as suggested here but iron oxide (typically). Thermate is not "41% aluminum oxide" or any percent aluminum oxide. The products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and (typically) molten iron. This backwards claim is another reason for you to suspect that you are not dealing with real scientists.”

Tillotson finds that in his nano-thermite, the Al-spheres are 70% oxide by weight. Ryan shoulkd read the references of his own paper sometime.




I have to stop here, my girl friend is bugging me to go to the market today.

One thing you should include: Tillotson used a method called PXRD to identify the chemical make up of the reaction products. This is indeed the method of choice to identify chemical bounds and compounds. Harrit shoukd have used it both on the unreacted chips and the reaction products. He did not. That weas either a deliberate choice in order to obfuscate, or pure incompetence.

 

[twinstead]

I have to stop here, my girl friend is bugging me to go to the market today.

Is that what you kids are calling it now days?

 

[triforcharity]

The fires you posted are no comparison. Firefighters did not leave the ground zero fire and a great deal of water was being constantly being applied.

Here, let me break it down for you.

There were literally dozens and dozens of pockets of fire in the rubble pile, some upwards of 60 feet below the surface where our hoses were.

To get water on the fires, we need a pretty direct course for the water to go. This was a challenge because if we poured water at point A, the water would flow down different pieces and end up at point R due to the amount of debris in the way. Or, in some case, we could get some water to the fires,
but it was such a small amount, the effects were negligable.

Here's a little experiment for you.

Build a fire under a tree. Now, take your garden hose, and spray water to the top of the tree, so that the water is falling on the fire through the tree. Doesn't work so well, does it?

ETA: Do you really think that cars can burn for months?

Ever seen how long rubber from tires and mangnesium from engines will burn?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Bull.

Anyone seeing a silvery molten metal would not describe it as molten steel and these people were not uninformed observers.

We don't know it was silvery. As several photos posted on this forum have shown, molten aluminium can glow orange. As for these people not being uninformed observers, how many people are actually familiar with the appearance of molten iron or steel? It's a very rare thing to have seen close up. Newspaper reporters don't qualify as informed observers. And, in fact, how many firemen are familiar with the appearance of molten steel? As truthers never tire of telling us, ordinary building fires aren't hot enough to melt steel, so firefighters wouldn't be expected to know what molten steel looks like. And, of course, there's the fact, now well established, that at least some of these accounts were misquoted.

All in all, there is no conclusive proof that there were significant quantities of molten iron or steel in the rubble pile.

You ask for what you know does not exist in a lame attempt to deny the obvious.

So, when you make claims of specific temperatures from the RJ Lee report, you're drawing your own inferences. Thanks for admitting that.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Speak for yourself. If you did not know that millions of gallons of water were applied then you haven't done any research at all.

Don't be so arrogant. It's perfectly reasonable to ask you to give a source.

"Therefore, a total of 4 million gallons of water percolated through the debris in the first 10 days and collected at the bottom of the Bathtub."

A good start. Now, how much of the rubble pile would actually have been wet as a result of this, and how much energy would be required to boil off that water? And can you not see that parts of the rubble pile wouldn't be wet at all, and others would easily boil off water that got close to them? If you assume, as you seem to, that the water was uniformly distributed through the pile, not missing any part of it, you're making an absurd and unwarranted assumption; and if you don't assume that, then you have to concede that parts of the fire may not have been reached by the water at all.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

We don't know it was silvery. As several photos posted on this forum have shown, molten aluminium can glow orange.

In a dark room but not in daylight or any strong light. You will say anything. Molten aluminum is silvery. NIST admitted that. Why do you keep lying about it?

As for these people not being uninformed observers, how many people are actually familiar with the appearance of molten iron or steel? It's a very rare thing to have seen close up.

Give it up. We have all seen photos and/or videos of molten steel or iron. No one is going to mistake a silvery molten metal for molten steel.

So, when you make claims of specific temperatures from the RJ Lee report, you're drawing your own inferences.

You are absurd in the extreme. Who do you think you are kidding?

iron melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.
Iron melts at 2800^oF
lead . . . . .vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.
Lead vaporizes at 3180^oF

 

[Dave Rogers]

In a dark room but not in daylight or any strong light. You will say anything. Molten aluminum is silvery. NIST admitted that. Why do you keep lying about it?

You've said in the same paragraph that molten aluminium is silvery - no qualifiers - and admitted in the same paragraph that it can be orange. Those can't both be true. I can accept that you're rather confused, but it's a bit rich to accuse me of lying in a paragraph that contains a known falsehood of your own.

Anyway, your qualifier is absurd. The colour of molten aluminium doesn't depend on the lighting, and you have no evidence or experience on which to claim it does. It simply needs to be hot enough. And how do you divine that the witness reports were in good lighting, given that they were made in a pile of smoking rubble? As usual, you make up what you want to believe then insist it has to be true.

iron melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.
Iron melts at 2800^oF
lead . . . . .vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.
Lead vaporizes at 3180^oF

So, as you admit, the temperatures are your inference. Now, let's go a stage further. What volume of material experienced these temperatures, and what is the highest temperature than can be generated over these volumes by processes known to have taken place in the fires and subsequent collapses? You're claiming that microscopic particles are evidence of macroscopic regions of high temperature, but you have no support for that claim.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

That is correct, because the red-grey chips are not WTC promer paint. They are a different kind of paint, as of yet unidentified.

You guys are over the top.

The red side of the chips are intimately mixed nano particles that can only be created in high tech labs. They don't make paint out of extremely expensive nano particles.

 

[Christopher7]

You've said in the same paragraph that molten aluminium is silvery - no qualifiers - and admitted in the same paragraph that it can be orange. Those can't both be true. I can accept that you're rather confused, but it's a bit rich to accuse me of lying in a paragraph that contains a known falsehood of your own.

You are blowing smoke and you know it.

Anyway, your qualifier is absurd. The colour of molten aluminium doesn't depend on the lighting,

Yes it does. All metals glow at about the same colors but molten aluminum appears silvery in daylight because of its reflectivity. You are either dumber than a rock or . . . . .

So, as you admit, the temperatures are your inference.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You are blowing smoke and you know it.

Okay, let's see who's lying. I said that under certain conditions molten aluminium can be orange. You admitted it can be orange under certain conditions, then accused me of lying for saying exactly what you'd just admitted was true. So were you lying too?

Yes it does. All metals glow at about the same colors but molten aluminum appears silvery in daylight because of its reflectivity.

Please give me a source for this assertion, which it appears you've just pulled out of your ******. Steel, you might have noticed, is also very reflective, as are most other metals. How come they don't look silvery as well? Because, if they're hot enough, the emitted light is more intense than the reflected light. So, if molten aluminium is hot enough... well, since you're not dumber than a rock, I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

You are either dumber than a rock or . . . .

Please finish the sentence. I'm sure it won't violate the MA. There's no reason for you to address the question of microscopic/macroscopic volumes experiencing a given temperature, though; you can just gracefully concede that you have no idea what I'm talking about. After all, if I'm dumber than a rock, it can't be important, can it?

Dave

 

[000063]

You are blowing smoke and you know it.

That's not actually an answer.

Yes it does. All metals glow at about the same colors but molten aluminum appears silvery in daylight because of its reflectivity. You are either dumber than a rock or . . . . .

Which would only be relevant if it was just aluminium, instead of several materials, like NIST claims. You persist in this straw man.

That's not actually an answer.



Looks orange to me. I know, I know, "daylight".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Looks orange to me. I know, I know, "daylight".

Funny how all the photos and/or videos I've seen of molten iron look quite a lot like that stuff they're pouring. Almost as if you could mistake one for the other.

Dave

 

[chrismohr]

Oystein: I wish we could convince you that that paper is not a strong argument at all, but in fact contains most of what is needed to refute itself completely.

Well, here's the thing. Bottom line is this: deeply flawed though it is, this was an experiment attempting to positively prove the presence of explosives. Most of what Gage et al do is create suspicion around anomalies. Like sulfidized steel. I said the experiment is "the strongest argument I have seen yet," and that is technically true: I consider it to have a very tiny chance of being correct, vs a near-zero probability that a handful of pieces of sulfidized steel can be taken as evidence of global CD. I also consider it to be a better direction in general, to prove your case with experiments rather than stir up suspicions.

While not lying, I am purposely being as generous as I can to Harritt and Jones et al, because what I really want is for them to take the next step and submit their dust samples to RJ Lee or whoever. Like Ryan Mackey, I don't think they will. No matter how good or bad their experimental technique, the next step is clear: replicate the results independently. And that will make every sincere reader wonder, well, why won't they? Two thousand bucks to prove the crime of the century?

Way sorry about the major zinger re temperatures. I knew that and wrote it wrong. Your proofreading efforts are greatly appreciated, and sometimes I blush at my own gaffes. I'm using your stuff to polish up my rebuttal next.

Thanks again all,
Chris

 

[NoahFence]

Nano-thermite is a military incendiary/explosive

Aren't those two different?

 

[NoahFence]

Burning cars would burn out in a matter of hours.

And tires have been known to burn for a matter of weeks and months. I'm fairly sure the drivers don't remove their tires after they park.

 

[Jono]

In a dark room but not in daylight or any strong light. You will say anything. Molten aluminum is silvery. NIST admitted that. Why do you keep lying about it?

No, I showed you molten aluminum at different places of its emission-spectra. When it showed something you didn't like you just said the photo was faked or showing something else. Aluminum, at least when it's pure, is silvery at its melting point yes. But like metals in general it does have an emission-spectra.

 

[NoahFence]

All this hand-wringing about nanocompositehushaboomthermiteexplosiveincindiaries is USELESS without the answer to this question, POSED AT CHRISTOPHER7:

How the (bleep) do you suspect these explosives survived the impact, fireball and massive fire for ~1 Hour?

 

[NoahFence]

I predict the preceeding question goes totally unanswered.

 

[000063]

All this hand-wringing about nanocompositehushaboomthermiteexplosiveincindiaries is USELESS without the answer to this question, POSED AT CHRISTOPHER7:

How the (bleep) do you suspect these explosives survived the impact, fireball and massive fire for ~1 Hour?

And when were they planted?

And why weren't they or any wiring or detonators found in the rubble?

And if they were protected enough to withstand the impacts and fire, why didn't anyone notice them before the attack?

How did They know which columns were and weren't damaged in order to detonate the charges with split-second precision?

 

[Oystein]

You guys are over the top.

The red side of the chips are intimately mixed nano particles that can only be created in high tech labs. They don't make paint out of extremely expensive nano particles.

Incorrect.


Coloured minerals containing mineral pigments, such as red ochre containing nano-sized hematite (a mineral of Fe2O3), have been found in nature and used as paint since the stone age. There is nothing high-tech about that.
Here a paper that describes traditional (18th century) Japanese hematite pigments:
http://72.22.18.215/s_mrs/bin.asp?CID=2523&DID=57587&DOC=FILE.PDF

Since the beginning of the 18th century A.D., an artificial iron oxide pigment (hematite, called “bengara” in Japanese) and having a beautiful yellowish red color, has been produced in Japan and applied to pottery, textiles and paintings. ... Traditional “bengara” has been characterized as hematite containing a small amount of Al. The average size of the “bengara” particles is approximately 100 nm.

Fine clays such as kaolinite likewise have had uses since prehistoric times, for example "in paint to ... modify gloss levels".
Here is an image of "authigenic" (that means: it formed in situ, where it was found in nature) kaolinite:
http://www.webmineral.com/specimens/picshow.php?id=1283&target=Kaolinite
Compare this to the stacks of plate-like crystals in the top left corner of Fig. 8c in the Harrit paper: Same appearance, size is same order of magnitude. This stuff forms naturally in nature. It is NOT high tech stuff.


But what does high tech nano-thermite REALLY look like? Let's download the Tillotson paper that Harrit and the bunch refer to...
http://www.doeal.gov/FOIADOCS/DOC00329.pdf
...and look at Fig. 1a, and how Tillotson describes what he sees there (page 341):

The larger spehrical particles in the TEM photo are the UFG aluminium

What is missing in Harrit's "nanothermitic material"? You guessed right if you said "aluminium spheres". Or show me where they are!