Is Mark Basile's WTC Dust Study Pointless?

[Georgio]

I thought this would probably be better in a separate thread although I'm prepared for it to be merged.

Please could you clarify, referencing the individual experiments by the number in the list, why you think that the particular test (or group of tests) is pointless or not pointless for ascertaining what the red/gray material is in the WTC dust. The following is from markbasile.org but my numbering.

1. - Red/gray chip separation using optical microscopy and magnetic attraction to assist in isolation of particles of interest.

2. - Optical images of collected particulates as collected at appropriate magnifications to record condition as collected.

3. - SEM/EDX with elemental quantification of red/gray chips, both red and gray layers.

4. FTIR analysis of organic components of red/gray chips, both red and gray layers.

5. ESCA small spot technique with argon ion sputter for depth profiling to definitively establish the presence of elemental aluminum within the red layer of the red/gray chips. Scans of gray layer also to be taken to add to information base.

6. DSC analysis of red/gray chips focusing on exothermic/endothermic reactions near 400 degrees C. Some chips to be scanned in inert atmosphere and some in air or oxygen containing gas stream.

7. SEM/EDX with elemental quantification of residual products of DSC analysis of red/gray chips.

8. Optical images of reaction products after DSC experiments.

 

[Spanx]

I'd say from number 6 on is a waste of time unless the find aluminium. If the is no Al they will know it is not Thermite and will be wasting their time.

If they do carry out these tests either way we can expect to see results similar to the results in the following link. I expect we will see similar results to the Bentham paper which do not match known Nano/micro thermite.

http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf

Just to add, I was under the impression they were also testing different paints ? This would be a complete waste of time but possibly useful if they don't find Al and they want to check if the chips are paint.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I'd say from number 6 on is a waste of time unless the find aluminium. If the is no Al they will know it is not Thermite and will be wasting their time.

If they do carry out these tests either way we can expect to see results similar to the results in the following link. I expect we will see similar results to the Bentham paper which do not match known Nano/micro thermite.

http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf

Just to add, I was under the impression they were also testing different paints ? This would be a complete waste of time but possibly useful if they don't find Al and they want to check if the chips are paint.

Testing any paint will be a waste of time unless they apply it to rusty steel and then scrape it off after it has hardened, giving a similar comparison between it and the WTC chips. If all they do is dry some paint chips out and test them, the comparison is invalid, but at least it will give the Twoofers their talking point.

 

[NoahFence]

Is Mark Basile's WTC Dust Study Pointless?


Yes. A person would have to be clinically brain-dead, or had to have suffered a severe head injury at some point in their life in order to make a dust study their criteria for determining what happened at the WTC site.

 

[Spanx]

Testing any paint will be a waste of time unless they apply it to rusty steel and then scrape it off after it has hardened, giving a similar comparison between it and the WTC chips. If all they do is dry some paint chips out and test them, the comparison is invalid, but at least it will give the Twoofers their talking point.

Plus they would need to find left over paint from the towers. I think they will find today's paints are a bit different.

 

[beachnut]

Pointless is an understatement

There was no damage to any WTC steel from thermite. STUDY is Pointless, as in insanity and super stupid...

No damage to WTC steel from thermite :- Study complete.

Insane, pointless, delusional, and worse to look for something that did not damage anything on 911.

At least Richard Gage has a fringe following worth 500k/yr and the excess funds for this fake study will help him travel and eat the best food, as 911 truth followers continue to be winners in their own minds stuck in fantasy.

911 truth followers fall for lies, and never act on the massive evidence they don't have. lol - you can't make up a dumber movement.

What is the OP authors job in 911 truth?

ALL the test are pointless, no thermite was used on 911. Go ahead present evidence 911 truth faith based followers, present your evidence.

What a dumb movement.

I can't believe there is an OP asking which test are pointless for a fantasy. Now that is funny, we have a 911 truth believer who covertly spreads woo by asking questions.

13th year of dumb claims on 911 by a movement of lies.

Mark Basile can't figure out 911 after 13 years, how can he conduct a test of WTC dust?

 

[Redwood]

In the sense of having anything to do with the collapse of the Twin Towers, yes, it's pointless. Truthers who allege it's "nanothermite" could have done a simple ignition test under an inert atmosphere years ago, but refused to.

If it fails to ignite under an inert atmosphere, you know it's not thermite. Precisely what it is, you don't know. (But it sure looks like primer paint spalled off of steel! )

Millette went the opposite, though equally valid and more rigorous route. He determined the contents: mostly iron (III) oxide and aluminum silicate in an organic binder, adhering to a layer of oxidized iron. Since it contains no elemental aluminum, it's not thermite. Since its composition is consistent with that of primer paint adhering to a layer of oxidized iron, it's almost surely spalled primer paint.

Basile isn't going either route. He's going in circles, accomplishing nothing. Either Basile is completely incompetent or this is just one last effort to relieve Truther suckers of some of their cash.

 

[Miragememories]

Everyone is doing the usual 'denial' dance by NOT addressing the opening post.

In the sense of having anything to do with the collapse of the Twin Towers, yes, it's pointless.

How could proving the presence of tons of nano-thermite at WTC on 9/11 possibly be pointless?

Truthers who allege it's "nanothermite" could have done a simple ignition test under an inert atmosphere years ago, but refused to.

If it fails to ignite under an inert atmosphere, you know it's not thermite. Precisely what it is, you don't know. (But it sure looks like primer paint spalled off of steel! )

Fortunately, item 6., "Some chips to be scanned in inert atmosphere", covers that issue. I can't wait to hear what your fallback argument is if ignition is successful.

If it fails to ignite, that is encouraging news for those "truthers" like myself who sincerely hope that Mark Basile's research will invalidate the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper.

Millette went the opposite, though equally valid and more rigorous route. He determined the contents: mostly iron (III) oxide and aluminum silicate in an organic binder, adhering to a layer of oxidized iron.

Since it contains no elemental aluminum, it's not thermite. Since its composition is consistent with that of primer paint adhering to a layer of oxidized iron, it's almost surely spalled primer paint.

It has been shown that Millette's samples were not a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper or the hundreds of chips Mark Basile has previously ignited.

Therefore it is not at all surprising that Millette did not find elemental aluminum, unlike Dr. Harrit et al.

Millette has proven that primer paint existed at the WTC. Awesome.

In a strange contradiction, Millette declared his sample was not a formulation of the most common steel primer paints used in the WTC, Tnemec and LeClede.

 

[DGM]

I thought this would probably be better in a separate thread although I'm prepared for it to be merged.

Please could you clarify, referencing the individual experiments by the number in the list, why you think that the particular test (or group of tests) is pointless or not pointless for ascertaining what the red/gray material is in the WTC dust. The following is from markbasile.org but my numbering.

1. - Red/gray chip separation using optical microscopy and magnetic attraction to assist in isolation of particles of interest.

Not all that specific and leaves too much wiggle room for "you got the wrong chips".

2. - Optical images of collected particulates as collected at appropriate magnifications to record condition as collected.

Not really all that useful in identifying what the chip actually is but, they also did this in the original.

3. - SEM/EDX with elemental quantification of red/gray chips, both red and gray layers.

Works for me and is useful.

4. FTIR analysis of organic components of red/gray chips, both red and gray layers.

Useful as long as who is doing the work knows what they're doing.


5. ESCA small spot technique with argon ion sputter for depth profiling to definitively establish the presence of elemental aluminum within the red layer of the red/gray chips. Scans of gray layer also to be taken to add to information base.

Could be useful but, not really needed

6. DSC analysis of red/gray chips focusing on exothermic/endothermic reactions near 400 degrees C. Some chips to be scanned in inert atmosphere and some in air or oxygen containing gas stream.

Drop the "some" because it's too vague. There should be a criteria specified and followed for all chips of interest.

7. SEM/EDX with elemental quantification of residual products of DSC analysis of red/gray chips.

Sort of pointless,

8. Optical images of reaction products after DSC experiments.

Useful.

I would add complete documentation of all tests. This was a problem in the first study. I suspect because it would be an independent lab, this really wouldn't need mention.

 

[The Big Dog]

Worthless.

The lack of provenance and no chain of custody of the sample renders any test utterly worthless.

 

[Dog Town]

Everyone is doing the usual 'denial' dance by NOT addressing the opening post.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Truthers who allege it's "nanothermite" could have done a simple ignition test under an inert atmosphere years ago, but refused to.

If it fails to ignite under an inert atmosphere, you know it's not thermite. Precisely what it is, you don't know. (But it sure looks like primer paint spalled off of steel!

Fortunately, item 6., "Some chips to be scanned in inert atmosphere", covers that issue. I can't wait to hear what your fallback argument is if ignition is successful.

A competent chemist could start in the morning, complete the test, take a long lunch, write-up and send a communication to multiple journals by dinner time (assuming it did ignite under an inert atmosphere), and within days chemists all over the world would be studying these mysteriously-acting red-gray chips. (You wouldn't even need to tell them their origin at first.) They really would want to know what's going on with those seeming paint chips!

Instead, we've had years of running around in circles from Truthers. We all know the reason for this.

If it fails to ignite, that is encouraging news for those "truthers" like myself who sincerely hope that Mark Basile's research will invalidate the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper.

Wha?

 

[beachnut]

No nano-thermite used on 911. It is simple evidence. No damage to any steel. Thus a study for a fantasy nano-thermite is pointless.


13th year of fantasy for 911 truth faith based followers

 

[tsig]

No nano-thermite used on 911. It is simple evidence. No damage to any steel. Thus a study for a fantasy nano-thermite is pointless.


13th year of fantasy for 911 truth faith based followers

These thermite studies are just dust in the wind.

 

[ozeco41]

Is Mark Basile's WTC Dust Study Pointless?


Yes. A person would have to be clinically brain-dead, or had to have suffered a severe head injury at some point in their life in order to make a dust study their criteria for determining what happened at the WTC site.

Well - overlooking the "slight hyperbole" - from any legitimate 9/11 perspective all of these studies in isolation are worthless.

The only legitimate 9/11 related "point" is that existence of thermXte or residues could be part of an explanation of CD if there was a prima facie case for CD. There isn't any such case. And study of thermXte residues stand alone free of any such prima facie hypothesis have zero relevance to 9/11.

They are matters of scientific interest but who is interested for pure science reasons? So confused thinking all round.

Come back when you have a viable pro-CD hypothesis folks THEN there may be reason for thermXte related studies.

It's simply a consequence of following truthers arse about logic and their inevitable reversal of burden of proof.

 

[ozeco41]

No nano-thermite used on 911. It is simple evidence. No damage to any steel. Thus a study for a fantasy nano-thermite is pointless...

Precisely. It is chasing "truthers arse about logic"!

IF there was any evidence of explosive or incendiary cut steel then there may be a point is looking for "thermXte".

No such evidence so my "Santa's Custard" hypothesis is just as valid. Basile should be looking for residues of custard so we can indict Santa.


Ooops - I forgot to "reverse the burden of proof" - here goes:

"Prove me wrong! Prove it wasn't Santa's Custard."

 

[ozeco41]

Everyone is doing the usual 'denial' dance by NOT addressing the opening post.

False. The OP is:
"Is Mark Basile's WTC Dust Study Pointless?" padded out with some technical details. The Study is pointless in reference to 9/11 UNLESS there is a 9/11 "point" that dust would support. The only valid 9/11 related point is a viable, prima facie standard, hypothesis or explanation that makes use of the evidential fact of presence of thermXte or its residues. There is no such hypothesis or explanation.

The "technical details" do not even need addressing until the claimant establishes that the the study has a point or purpose i.e. it is not "pointless".

...How could proving the presence of tons of nano-thermite at WTC on 9/11 possibly be pointless?

Such comments deserve only ridicule. YOU are the one acting as proxy-claimant. YOU prove that it has a "point". Post either:
1) The pro-CD hypothesis; OR
2) A valid claim showing why thermXte dust is relevant to 9/11 discussion for reasons other than support of CD.

 

[Miragememories]

Everyone is doing the usual 'denial' dance by NOT addressing the opening post.

False. The OP is:
"Is Mark Basile's WTC Dust Study Pointless?" padded out with some technical details.

For those of us who patiently read, the original post embodies far more than just that simple question.

Georgio asks for a specific response to the validity of each of the tests listed from Mark Basile's research into the 9/11 WTC dust.

The Study is pointless in reference to 9/11 UNLESS there is a 9/11 "point" that dust would support.

The only valid 9/11 related point is a viable, prima facie standard, hypothesis or explanation that makes use of the evidential fact of presence of thermite or its residues.

There is no such hypothesis or explanation.

You do hate to speak clearly.

The bottom line is that in spite of how blinded you are by incredulity, strong evidence supporting a finding of nano-thermite at the WTC on 9/11 is extremely important.

Because you are unable to fathom how it was engineered into the destruction that occurred at the WTC, you arrogantly continue to dismiss the importance behind the on site existence of nano-thermite.

This is a high tech material capable of rapidly cutting through structural steel.

A finding of tons of this stuff in the remains of rapidly demolished NYC civilian office towers is not something a sane person would dismiss out of hand just because they could not understand why it was there.

 

[NoahFence]

The bottom line is that in spite of how blinded you are by incredulity, strong evidence supporting a finding of nano-thermite at the WTC on 9/11 is extremely important. a fantasy.

FTFY kiddo.

Because you are unable to fathom how it was engineered into the destruction that occurred at the WTC, you arrogantly continue to dismiss the importance behind the on site existence of nano-thermite.

Its very easy to dismiss that which doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, I'm dismissing the nude supermodel in my bed as we speak. She's just not doing it for me. To frail.

Why don't you go ahead and fathom how nanothermite at the WTC site is connected with the other crime scenes that day? You do remember this was beyond NYC, right?

This is a high tech material capable of rapidly cutting through structural steel.

And yet for all intents and purposes, it seems this magic pixie crap hasn't been used since 9/11. Was it created specifically FOR 9/11? And then only the two buildings? One would think such material would have found its way into mainstream use by now. Was 9/11 its coming out party? If so, what is its use now?

A finding of tons of this stuff in the remains of rapidly demolished NYC civilian office towers is not something a sane person would dismiss out of hand just because they could not understand why it was there.

No sane person thinks it was there.

 

[tsig]

For those of us who patiently read, the original post embodies far more than just that simple question.

Georgio asks for a specific response to the validity of each of the tests listed from Mark Basile's research into the 9/11 WTC dust.



You do hate to speak clearly.

The bottom line is that in spite of how blinded you are by incredulity, strong evidence supporting a finding of nano-thermite at the WTC on 9/11 is extremely important.

Because you are unable to fathom how it was engineered into the destruction that occurred at the WTC, you arrogantly continue to dismiss the importance behind the on site existence of nano-thermite.

This is a high tech material capable of rapidly cutting through structural steel.

A finding of tons of this stuff in the remains of rapidly demolished NYC civilian office towers is not something a sane person would dismiss out of hand just because they could not understand why it was there.

A sane person would ask why there was tons of thermite left over if the purpose of it was to bring down the building.


Seems as if this thermite is remarkably inefficient.