Miragememories
Banned
The key is "iron rich".
The percentage of iron in those spheres is what tells the tale.
MM
Need Help with Iron Microsphere Quotes
- Thread starter DaveThomasNMSR
- Start date
The key is "iron rich".
The percentage of iron in those spheres is what tells the tale.
MM
The iron rich sphere after burning the sample, is rust, iron oxide, which is not a product of thermite burning. Case closed = you support idiots who can't do chemistry. Not news since you can't do chemistry (if you could, you would know Jones is nuts on this claim) and reality based research. You don't check the lies you support; why? Got that Pulitzer yet? When?
Get a clue, guess what is in the top four elements in the earth's crust? Fe, means your crack team of paranoid conspiracy theorist nuts discovered the 4th most abundant element combined with Oxygen, iron rust; Not a product of thermite, they burned their dust and got liberated some iron oxide, mixed with cement and gypsum dust. It this was thermite dust which burned, they would have Fe, nothing more. You are in the 11th years of perpetual failure for 911 truth; it only takes 6 to 8 years to get a PhD in chemistry, what is stopping you from gaining the knowledge to challenge your hero's on 911 issues, or prove your claim of thermite?
Have you taken the paper, the thermite paper to your local University to get a Chemistry PhD Professor to explain why you were fooled?
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm
Not very skeptical of you to blindly support liars, unable to prove one point they made.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Welcome Steen.
If you do need to enter into discussions with truthers take care to not lose the context.
Two key points:
1) The reason thermXte is raised in discussions about WTC collapses on 9/11 is that it is used to imply that there was some form of demolition involved in the collapses.
2) It is a common ploy of truthers to take discussion down long winding side tracks into irrelevant detail. The truther's goal is to prevent discussion progressing - and never ending disputes about thermXte (or iron micro spheres) has been a favoured means of achieving that diversion.
The reality of the context is that there was no demolition. Restate that claim in scientific language if you wish. "There has never been a plausible claim made for demolition." Arguing about thermXte is an attempt to introduce CD via the back door and so has some pseudo legitimacy. If you need to enter the thermxte debate (or microspheres, or any other of the truther preferred details) then remember that the truthers goal is to keep discussion going round in circles. I prefer to stand firm on the reality of "no CD therefore thermXte discussion is a waste of time in the context of 9/11 conspiracies".
Since there was no CD -- and it is up to the truthers to make and support a claim that there was CD -- the questions about thermXte are irrelevant. I have said several times on this forum that it wouldn't matter if there was a 100tonne stockpile of thermxte on site - it wasn't used in CD because there was no CD.
Somewhat surprising even many debunkers will not accept that simple situation. Probably because they find that disagreeing with "truthers" is fun.
Last edited:
You fail to put forth any effort to verify Jones' work, and fail to see it is fraud, bad science, moronic nonsense from what is a personable madman on 911.
Iron oxide -
Jones' iron sphere, is a sphere of iron oxide.
Iron oxide, not a product of thermite. Jones proves it is iron oxide right next to the photo of his iron oxide sphere.
In world where iron is 4.5 percent of the crust, why would it be strange to Jones and his morons on 911 that the WTC dust from a steel building is 5.87 percent for Fe? What logic does Jones use to make up his fantasy? 10 years of gullibility. For most people, there are short burst of gullibility, a few seconds, or minutes when we are teased by friends and family. Yet you let total strangers pull the wool over your eyes and you religiously spread their lies and delusions. Why are we skeptical of people we know, but trust total idiots like Jones? Why do 911 truth followers trust crazy ideas they google?
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What part did he get wrong and why. It's not beyond your comprehension, is it?
Miragememories
Banned
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Nope. What did he get wrong?
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 62
Thanks for your prompt responses, Beachnut and The Almond.
Although, I am new in here, posting, I am however quite familiar with the issues and with Harrit. We met several times. And recently, my collegue and I challenged him at a mutual lecture. He later forbade that we showed his part publically.
Anyway, he claims that his process with the red/grey chips is basically different from mine when I burnt steel wool. And I just want to clear that up, being a novice within chemistry.
He says that the process of the chips is a reduction and that the steel wool undergoes an oxidation. And when I read his paper, "Actibe Thermitic Material...", I notice this:
"Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide."
So, could he have a point? Is his process significantly different to mine?
And:
He also points to the fact that the (residue) spheres in his experiment contains aluminum and that my spheres do not.
Is that prove or indication of a reduction?
cheers
Steen
Although, I am new in here, posting, I am however quite familiar with the issues and with Harrit. We met several times. And recently, my collegue and I challenged him at a mutual lecture. He later forbade that we showed his part publically.
Anyway, he claims that his process with the red/grey chips is basically different from mine when I burnt steel wool. And I just want to clear that up, being a novice within chemistry.
He says that the process of the chips is a reduction and that the steel wool undergoes an oxidation. And when I read his paper, "Actibe Thermitic Material...", I notice this:
"Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide."
So, could he have a point? Is his process significantly different to mine?
And:
He also points to the fact that the (residue) spheres in his experiment contains aluminum and that my spheres do not.
Is that prove or indication of a reduction?
cheers
Steen
Oops, your delusion is busted. Need some cheese with that post?
Most likely I have one more chem engr course than you do. The iron rich spheres have iron oxide and evidence of concrete dust and gypsum dust, no evidence of themite. Never seen thermite with carbon, Ca, Si, et al. Not sure why you fall for lies from people who are identified as conspiracy nuts and paranoid lunatics. When you have the Pulitzer, come back and rub my nose in it; but that is a fantasy that will never happen. Take your fantasy of thermite add 10 dollars, and you have a nice tip for the person loading your groceries. good luck with your tons of thermite dust, you have all the elements, you don't have thermite. It is amazing you don't protest salt.
Iron is 5 percent of the earth's crust. For > (math symbol for greater than) 50 years I have been able to take a magnet and gather iron rich spheres and particles from Atlanta Ga, to Diego Garcia, to Perth, Saudi Arabia, Italy, UK, Japan, all around the earth. To find iron in the dust of the WTC at 5.87 percent is not unusual. Only 911 truth can take reality and turn it into delusional conspiracies of thermite, and the inside job they can't define.
You have nothing. You failed to refute, you have to post nothing. If you had something you could put me on ignore and gather that Pulitzer.
There was concrete dust in the dust from the WTC. Al is in the concrete, Al is also 8 percent of the earth's crust, guess what you might find in dust.
Welcome to JREF. Take a look at his paper again, and study the spectrum they have. Their Iron stuff looks like iron oxide and other compounds.
He is nuts on 911. There should not be Al in your sample if you used steel wool. He has not made a point, a kid in grade school could figure out what he told you.
The samples they have, if they are real WTC dust, have a chance to have concrete dust, gypsum dust, and other things already studied, with reports available.
Last edited:
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 62
Guys, thanks again for your fast responses.
Perhaps I should just make it clear to ozeco41 and others that I am hardly a newbie in 911-matters. My collegue and I launched our Danish website w-w-w.911facts.dk in July 2011, the first website in Denmark to scrutinize various conspiracy claims. So far we wrote more than 60 articles, each comparing the individual claim to the corresponding facts and primary sources. We focus mostly on claims made by the Danish version of the Truth Movement, aka i11time.dk (In the 11th hour) where Harrit is a VIP-member.
So you do not have to explain everything from the beginning, although I appreciate your willingness to do so.
Chemistry, however, is perhaps not my most developed skill, so please forgive me for asking banale questions, and any lecture here would be welcomed.
I have, of course, read and reread Harrit et als paper, Jones' paper, and also Harrits paint-denying paper.
I get your points about iron oxide which is all over and that you may find most anything in the chaotic dust of wtc, e.g. Al.
Still, none of you commented directly on the reduction/oxidation issue? Is Harrit right that my experiment is an oxidation and his experiment is a reduction?
And reading your answer, Beachnut, another thing puzzles me: Al is in the gypsum, all right, but (and I may miss a clue or two here) I understood the Harrit paper the way that they did not do spectral analysis on the dust but only on the chips and the residue of the chips. So the gypsum should not be part of it, right? Still, they find Al in the chips and the iron oxide spheres residue. Plese correct me, if I am wrong here.
Cheers,
Steen
Perhaps I should just make it clear to ozeco41 and others that I am hardly a newbie in 911-matters. My collegue and I launched our Danish website w-w-w.911facts.dk in July 2011, the first website in Denmark to scrutinize various conspiracy claims. So far we wrote more than 60 articles, each comparing the individual claim to the corresponding facts and primary sources. We focus mostly on claims made by the Danish version of the Truth Movement, aka i11time.dk (In the 11th hour) where Harrit is a VIP-member.
So you do not have to explain everything from the beginning, although I appreciate your willingness to do so.
Chemistry, however, is perhaps not my most developed skill, so please forgive me for asking banale questions, and any lecture here would be welcomed.
I have, of course, read and reread Harrit et als paper, Jones' paper, and also Harrits paint-denying paper.
I get your points about iron oxide which is all over and that you may find most anything in the chaotic dust of wtc, e.g. Al.
Still, none of you commented directly on the reduction/oxidation issue? Is Harrit right that my experiment is an oxidation and his experiment is a reduction?
And reading your answer, Beachnut, another thing puzzles me: Al is in the gypsum, all right, but (and I may miss a clue or two here) I understood the Harrit paper the way that they did not do spectral analysis on the dust but only on the chips and the residue of the chips. So the gypsum should not be part of it, right? Still, they find Al in the chips and the iron oxide spheres residue. Plese correct me, if I am wrong here.
Cheers,
Steen
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Hey Steen,
Good job looking into this stuff, and welcome to the forums!
Dave posted his results here which show that PURE iron microspheres can indeed be formed by an ordinary Bic lighter and steel wool.
This puts the lie to the truther claim that ONLY extremely high temperatures can produce iron microspheres - it just isn't true!
Now, Harrit may well be trying to bamboozle you into thinking that Dave Thomas' evidence doesn't exist or isn't valid, but he's not going to succeed by complaining that the 'process' is different!!! That's the whole point - that there are a number of proposed sources for these microspheres, whereas Harrit et al. are claiming there are not.
Don't forget that eutectic mixtures allow melting at lower temperatures than found with pure metals. Harrit knows this but he's not going to volunteer that info to you.
That's my two cents anyway. I'm not a chemist, btw.
Good job looking into this stuff, and welcome to the forums!
Dave posted his results here which show that PURE iron microspheres can indeed be formed by an ordinary Bic lighter and steel wool.
This puts the lie to the truther claim that ONLY extremely high temperatures can produce iron microspheres - it just isn't true!
Now, Harrit may well be trying to bamboozle you into thinking that Dave Thomas' evidence doesn't exist or isn't valid, but he's not going to succeed by complaining that the 'process' is different!!! That's the whole point - that there are a number of proposed sources for these microspheres, whereas Harrit et al. are claiming there are not.
Don't forget that eutectic mixtures allow melting at lower temperatures than found with pure metals. Harrit knows this but he's not going to volunteer that info to you.
That's my two cents anyway. I'm not a chemist, btw.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Still waiting for your non-insulting response to a very detailed scientific debunking of your main point.
Welcome to the Forum.
Your reaction is different than an actual thermite reaction. But that doesn't mean that it's different than what Dr. Harrit had with his chips -- since, as we all have figured out by now, he's not actually reacting thermite.
What you did is simple oxidation. Iron burns, provided it's sufficiently treated to react with oxygen. Normal blocks of iron don't burn easily because they have a "passivating" layer of iron oxide (i.e., rust) on the outside which protects the raw iron underneath, and what little oxygen gets through this layer doesn't cause enough of a reaction that you notice. Steel wool, however, can burn, because the greater surface area exposes much more iron to the oxygen, and thus it burns quickly, essentially "rusting" so fast that it causes a noticeable increase in temperature.
In thermite we have a "redox" reaction. This is simultaneous oxidation of elemental aluminum (that's the "ox") and reduction of iron oxide (that's the "re"). In short, the iron gives up its oxygen, at a cost in energy, which then reacts with the aluminum for a net release of energy. This kind of reaction is indeed different than what you did. But it's not so easy to tell.
Both of these reactions can create "iron rich microspheres." Looking for these is not a good way to tell what kind of reaction actually took place, which is why the Truthers have been barking up the wrong tree for almost a decade.
You see, if you have actual thermite, iron oxide + aluminum ==> iron + aluminum oxide + heat, in real life it doesn't stop there. You then have hot elemental iron in the atmosphere, which oxidizes on its own almost immediately. There's no reason at all to expect the iron to stay elementally pure, unless you carried out the reaction in a neutral atmosphere, or a vacuum.
Truthers like Steven Jones also make the extraordinary assumption that the shape of the resultants was significant. The argument was that you'd only see microspheres as a result of surface tension acting on droplets of the material, i.e. you'd need an actual pool of molten, pure iron to get any microspheres splashing out of it. As it turns out, this is nonsense, since "iron rich microspheres" can be created in many processes that don't involve melting a large volume of iron -- like burning steel wool, as Dave Thomas showed some time ago.
So, in conclusion, there is a difference between your reaction and a thermite reaction, but it isn't clear that there is one between what you did and what Dr. Harrit did. He has never provided any evidence that he indeed was reacting thermite. He just thinks he did.
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
The whole question of oxidation or reduction is just a diversion from the Main Point of Truthiness, which goes as follows:
This chain of logic fails completely because, as the experiments show, one can make iron microspheres with a lighter and steel wool; iron microspheres are also common in ash, as was mentioned.
Moreover, Iron Oxide melts at an even higher temperature, 1566 °C., so both need high temperatures to melt.
The simple thing the Truthers are required to ignore is that fires can heat filaments and small globs of iron or iron oxide to annealing temperatures, lower than melting, but where the particles can form energy-minimizing shapes like spheres.
Iron microspheres do not prove 9/11 was an Inside Job. The End.
- Iron melts at 1538 °C, 2800 °F, which is "way too hot for jet fuel or office fires." The very presence of the iron-rich microspheres supposedly proves that thermite was used.
Here's the video in question:
- Then, the presence of ThermiteTM supposedly proves the Inside Job Controlled Demolition. They needed Thermite to do the job quietly, which it did, except for those high explosives required to eject heavy steel beams hundreds of feet.
This chain of logic fails completely because, as the experiments show, one can make iron microspheres with a lighter and steel wool; iron microspheres are also common in ash, as was mentioned.
Moreover, Iron Oxide melts at an even higher temperature, 1566 °C., so both need high temperatures to melt.
The simple thing the Truthers are required to ignore is that fires can heat filaments and small globs of iron or iron oxide to annealing temperatures, lower than melting, but where the particles can form energy-minimizing shapes like spheres.
Iron microspheres do not prove 9/11 was an Inside Job. The End.
See above post(s).
Tons of gypsum, it is in wallboard, 3 inches of wallboard were used to insulate the core columns from fire, the reason the insulation fell off easy during impact.
gypsum - CaSO4.2H2O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum
Cement has Al and Fe in it. Fly ash is used in cement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
This is iron oxide in a bone, looks like, the iron oxide Jones found; but Jones ignores the oxygen.
All the elements Jones found, are elements you would find in WTC due to a collapse and fire in the WTC.
This is what Jones calls an iron sphere from WTC dust, which he says is a product of thermite. Iron oxide is not a product of thermite. Al, CA, S, are found in cement and wall board. Dust from the WTC.
There is no thermite product found, no iron, fused to the steel of the WTC. Anyone using RJ Lee reports fails, the dust samples in the RJ Lee report were taken after WTC clean up.
Al is found in paper, glossy paper, kaolinite is used, in magazines etc, like National Geographic.
kaolinite - Al2Si2O5(OH)4
There are many sources for Al, and Fe.
Tons of gypsum, it is in wallboard, 3 inches of wallboard were used to insulate the core columns from fire, the reason the insulation fell off easy during impact.
gypsum - CaSO4.2H2O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum
Cement has Al and Fe in it. Fly ash is used in cement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
This is iron oxide in a bone, looks like, the iron oxide Jones found; but Jones ignores the oxygen.
All the elements Jones found, are elements you would find in WTC due to a collapse and fire in the WTC.
This is what Jones calls an iron sphere from WTC dust, which he says is a product of thermite. Iron oxide is not a product of thermite. Al, CA, S, are found in cement and wall board. Dust from the WTC.
There is no thermite product found, no iron, fused to the steel of the WTC. Anyone using RJ Lee reports fails, the dust samples in the RJ Lee report were taken after WTC clean up.
Al is found in paper, glossy paper, kaolinite is used, in magazines etc, like National Geographic.
kaolinite - Al2Si2O5(OH)4
There are many sources for Al, and Fe.
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
The whole question of oxidation or reduction is just a diversion from the Main Point of Truthiness, which goes as follows:
- Iron melts at 1538 °C, 2800 °F, which is "way too hot for jet fuel or office fires." The very presence of the iron-rich microspheres supposedly proves that thermite was used.
Here's the video in question:
- Then, the presence of ThermiteTM supposedly proves the Inside Job Controlled Demolition. They needed Thermite to do the job quietly, which it did, except for those high explosives required to eject heavy steel beams hundreds of feet.
This chain of logic fails completely because, as the experiments show, one can make iron microspheres with a lighter and steel wool; iron microspheres are also common in ash, as was mentioned.
Moreover, Iron Oxide melts at an even higher temperature, 1566 °C., so both need high temperatures to melt.
The simple thing the Truthers are required to ignore is that fires can heat filaments and small globs of iron or iron oxide to annealing temperatures, lower than melting, but where the particles can form energy-minimizing shapes like spheres.
Iron microspheres do not prove 9/11 was an Inside Job. The End.
Hey Dave! I've favorited the video, etc... but can you please give the thing a proper title? May I suggest something attractive to truther moths, such as 'Iron microspheres prove Thermite?'
thx
AE
ps just realized I've neglected to change my avatar. Must put on to-do list
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 62
Really appreciate your thourough comments, guys.
As mentioned earlier, I repeated Dave Thomas' BIC-lighter-steel-wool-burning on Dansih TV (local network) as may be seen here at 4:00
h-t-t-p://webtv.fjordtv.dk/index_2.aspx?poditemid=15703&tagsid=398
(Due to forums regulations I cannot post URLs just yet, therefore the hyphens in h-t-t-p)
R. Mackey, your explanation here was very helpful:
"So, in conclusion, there is a difference between your reaction and a thermite reaction, but it isn't clear that there is one between what you did and what Dr. Harrit did. He has never provided any evidence that he indeed was reacting thermite. He just thinks he did."
So do I understand it correctly when I say that Harrit et al. are wrong mainly because of two things?:
1. They ignite the chips at a good 400 C. (too low for thermite that ignites at 900 C).
2. They do it in "open air". (Should have been done in an inert atmosphere).
So I did not make thermite residue and Harrit et al. did not make thermite residue. And the reason why he finds Al and Si in his residue (mine was not scanned but it was in principle pure Iron oxide, right?) is because the samples were already mixed with gypsym and other ingredients from the chaos that day, correct?
Still, Harrit et al. cleans the samples before igniting, so if there was gypsum and other things in the dust to begin with, it would be gone after the cleaning, would it not?
Or does the chips (within) themselves contain traces of gypsum and other ingredients?
That would sound a bit strange to me if we, on the other hand, assume that the chips might be red primer paint on steel. The wallboards would not be mounted between the paint and the steel, right?
Or perhaps the Al in the chips inherit from the paint itself?
Again, I may miss a point or two, so your are welcome to lecture and mock me, all you like. I need to understand this correctly.
As mentioned earlier, I repeated Dave Thomas' BIC-lighter-steel-wool-burning on Dansih TV (local network) as may be seen here at 4:00
h-t-t-p://webtv.fjordtv.dk/index_2.aspx?poditemid=15703&tagsid=398
(Due to forums regulations I cannot post URLs just yet, therefore the hyphens in h-t-t-p)
R. Mackey, your explanation here was very helpful:
"So, in conclusion, there is a difference between your reaction and a thermite reaction, but it isn't clear that there is one between what you did and what Dr. Harrit did. He has never provided any evidence that he indeed was reacting thermite. He just thinks he did."
So do I understand it correctly when I say that Harrit et al. are wrong mainly because of two things?:
1. They ignite the chips at a good 400 C. (too low for thermite that ignites at 900 C).
2. They do it in "open air". (Should have been done in an inert atmosphere).
So I did not make thermite residue and Harrit et al. did not make thermite residue. And the reason why he finds Al and Si in his residue (mine was not scanned but it was in principle pure Iron oxide, right?) is because the samples were already mixed with gypsym and other ingredients from the chaos that day, correct?
Still, Harrit et al. cleans the samples before igniting, so if there was gypsum and other things in the dust to begin with, it would be gone after the cleaning, would it not?
Or does the chips (within) themselves contain traces of gypsum and other ingredients?
That would sound a bit strange to me if we, on the other hand, assume that the chips might be red primer paint on steel. The wallboards would not be mounted between the paint and the steel, right?
Or perhaps the Al in the chips inherit from the paint itself?
Again, I may miss a point or two, so your are welcome to lecture and mock me, all you like. I need to understand this correctly.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Those plate-like structures in the bottom picture look like kaolinite. Paint residue or ash from burning self-copying paper. (Iron powder and kaolin that can be pressed out of one piece of paper to form an image on another.)
Regarding your first point: Ordinary thermite is rather difficult to ignite. There may be some way to process thermite or pack it with some other chemical so that it ignites at a much lower temperature. However, LOTS of things will ignite at about 400oC, so what Harrit did here is not conclusive at all. He could have a mystery substance that he can't even define. Or he could have paint. Guess which one is more likely.
The second point is more important. Thermite will react without needing any air at all, because its redox reaction supplies its own oxygen. Normal combustion, however, will not progress in an inert atmosphere (although there are combustion-like processes, such as pyrolysis, which can still happen in an inert atmosphere, so be careful). Anyway, there is no excuse for Dr. Harrit never trying his reaction in an inert atmosphere. If he had and he got the same kind of reaction, it would be a much more compelling story.
It's hard to say, and that's one thing that Chris Mohr's experiment may help solve. I believe the aluminum in Dr. Harrit's sample was already in the form of an aluminum silicate, i.e. of mineral origin as a component in paint. But there are lots of possibilities. Contamination of the sample is one of them.
Depends on how he cleaned it. Based on his other mistakes I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's also a lot easier to know how to clean something when you know what it is... and he doesn't appear to know that.
At the end of the day, Dr. Harrit leaves us with several observations that he says are evidence of nanothermite, but all of those observations can also be explained without nanothermite. His paper also includes observations that are totally inconsistent with nanothermite -- the energy content, the stunningly high carbon content, the morphology, the magnetic nature, and the total lack of an explanation for what exactly it was supposed to do.
We may never know exactly what he has, but what he found doesn't impress me at all. I could easily take a pinch of dust from an old automobile, analyze the heck out of it, and find enough "anomalies" to make an equally compelling nonsense story.