Questions about nano-thermite

[twinstead]

Or perhaps history vs crazy, as the rapid rise and fall of this particular thread has indicated.

Well, yea, there's that too.

 

[dafydd]

No. I dislike the idea that the debate is characterized as "debunker" vs "truther" because we (the debunkers) are stating the truth about what happened on 9/11. We are advocating for a historical interpretation of events based on facts, logic and a rational interpretation of the data. We don't need a name for that.

I'm assuming that's what you're referring to. Was it something else?

Who are "we"?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Who are "we"?

Dafydd, take it easy. I've seen The Almond's posts in other threads, and he's definitely not a truther. In fact, he's one of the people here who can post about issues like the analytic chemistry ones we're seeing here from actual experience (I forgot, The Almond, what you said your experience was in, so forgive me for not actually listing it). Anyway, he's one person who, when he corrects the rest of us, I listen to.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't know how you can suggest it's a "myth" when all the dust from the World Trade Center that's been analyzed contains these "chips" of material that have the identical chemical signature of thermiate and are explosive. That's some myth, it's so hypnotically powerful it can apparently remake reality in its own image. Either that or you are wrong and it never was a myth.


I've read through those threads you just posted. I don't find the "refutations" convincing. In fact I don't find them to be refutations at all, but mere contradictions. I see a lot of comments that contradict the findings of the research, but no plausible reason for why the contradictory statements are valid, no plausible reason to reject the conclusion of the findings.

In one case the author tries to claim an oxygen-aluminum-silicon correlation in the data. No such correlation is present, but what is visible is a clear correlation between oxygen and iron, as well as a clear and strong correlation between oxygen and silicon, but no strong correlation between aluminum and oxygen. The aluminum in these samples was only minimually oxidized, as one might expect from elemental aluminum suitable for pyrotechnics. The author is seeing faces in clouds when imagining the correlation (not observed in the images) between oxygen and aluminum. And this is just one of the major flaws in this "refutation".

The second thread you reference trots out the contention that the material is "kaolinite", and shows a picture of "kaolinite" wafers stacked up neatly, presumably before they are mixed with clay or gypsum or some other material and then mixed (in trace amounts) into paint compounds. Never mind that the chemical signatures (elemental abundances) of "kaolinite" are not the same as the chemical signatures of the nanothermate from the World Trade Center dust. Never mind that the nanothermate sample shown alongside the "kaolinite" chips had been treated with MEK to get that appearance of "stacked" wafers as the hexagonal bits of aluminum migrated in their softening matrix. The "dry" nanothermate from the World Trade Center dust exhibited a much more homogeneous mixture of material (ironically shown in the first thread you referenced). So not only do these "refutations" merely contradict (in defiance of obvious evidence), they also serve to help refute each other.


I have no doubt that's been stated many times here. Repetition doesn't make it factual.


I've just addressed the two threads you mention. One ignores the data and simply invents conclusions about oxidized aluminum, the other ignores the chemical signature of "kaolinite" and announces it identical to thermate (and presumably just as explosive). Both serve to help refute each other, owing both to the pictures they used and the text they contained.


How peculiar, I was just about to say the same thing, to you, about your sources...


Luckily for me I'm not trying to argue. I'm just stating facts and correcting errors.


Again, how strange, but I was just about to say the same thing...to you...about your "refutations"...

I was composing a response to you, but Sunstealer and The Almond did it better than I ever could, given their far superior knowledge (thank you, Gentlemen). Just a couple of things:

The fact remains the elemental abundances of "kaolinite" are not the same as in thermate.

Be careful about trying to sound like you know what you're talking about when you don't. If by "elemental abundances", you meant the actual relative amounts of each of the components, then you have zero to base that on, given what X-EDS reveals, as Sunstealer has told you.

Two, as Glenn B, Sunstealer, and others have pointed out, the morphology as seen in the micrographs (that platelet like structure; remember that?) argues against elemental aluminum.

Three: We haven't even unloaded any of the other refutations, among which was the fact that their claimed energy densities exceeded an iron/aluminum thermite redox's heat of formation. That isn't something simply engineered away, that is an actual chemical limit. It also doesn't help that you make claims about nanothermite's energy density characteristics that are contradicted by researchers like John Joseph Granier ("Combustion Characteristics Of A1 Nanoparticles And Nanocomposite A1+Moo3 Thermites") and Sridhar Patibandla ("Ignition Studies of Al-Fe2O3 Energetic Nanocomposites"). Or in short, it's bad when you make up characteristics to suit your argument, rather than state actually observed characteristics.

But I'll stop there. Sunstealer's and The Almond's arguments are far more intelligent than anything I can come up with, and I'll leave you to deal with that on your own.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Dr. Jones is a fraud of the highest order. I would dearly like to know if he realizes this, and is simply stringing along the rubes, or if he's just plain nuts.

Oh hes nuts alright.....he believes in Pre-Columbian Horses.......

 

[A W Smith]

There has already been an abundance of independent analysis of this material.

Guess we will have to wait a month to see the "abundance of independent analysis" you claim exists, Not a problem, We have only been waiting almost two years.

I really think you should review the membership agreement. I'll quote it for you:
"Truth is not necessarily a defence against a breach of Rule 0 or Rule 12, for example a Member may well be proven to have lied, but that does not mean it is civil and polite to call them a liar in every subsequent response to them, especially in responses not directly related to their original lie."

Even if you were right, which you're not, you're still wrong. Pay more attention to the rules you've agreed to follow.


are you deliberately trying to be insulting or is it accidental? I'll thank you to keep your opinions about me to yourself. If you can't, save it for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.

Again you're violating the rules by suggesting I'm lying. You may disagree with what I've said, but that does not give you the right to violate the membership agreement governing use of this web site. You will remain civil when you discuss this with me or there will surely be consequences. For starters you can stop saying that I (or anyone) is "lying", just because you disagree with them. Even if you could somehow prove somebody was "lying", it's still a violation of the rules to call somebody a liar (even by implication). I've asked you twice now to stop this kind of behaviour. All it does is inflame the discussion and raise the emotional temperature of the thread. Kindly knock it off. (It's worth noting this behaviour of yours is widely considered to be trolling.)

You sure showed us!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

To try and get this back on a more educational and scientific mode:

Question for Sunstealer, The Almond, or anyone else who knows analytical chemistry:

I had once read an excuse made in passing by Jones (I think...) somewhere (don't recall where) that a couple of the reasons he elected to use X-EDS was 1. Because he didn't want the samples to be destroyed in the test (laughable, I know, given the DSC test they performed), and 2. Because he didn't have a whole lot of material to begin with. So the questions I have about this are probably obvious, but here they are anyway:

1. Is it the case where running an X-EDS analysis on a sample doesn't consume it? I'd imagine not, but it's been so long since I took chemistry (and I never, ever did any X-ray spectroscopy in my labs) that I simply don't know.
2. How much material would be needed to conduct an X-EDS analysis?
3. Are there any tests which clearly show bonding and do not consume the material?

If anyone asks where I read this: Please don't, because I don't remember, and I'm not even certain it was Steven Jones who said that; I only remember the statement being in context and conjunction with the Bentham paper. However, the questions above are still valid ones that can lead to informative answers.

 

[carlitos]

Another question for the scientists...

This is the first time I've seen "nano-thermate" referenced. I know that we sometimes joke about Therm*te due to the inconsistent and contradictory theories posited by the truthy people, but is there such a thing as nanothermate? Why would such a substance be employed?

ETA - Google web search only delivers truth sites, and Google scholar delivers no results.

 

[The Almond]

Question for Sunstealer, The Almond, or anyone else who knows analytical chemistry:

I had once read an excuse made in passing by Jones (I think...) somewhere (don't recall where) that a couple of the reasons he elected to use X-EDS was 1. Because he didn't want the samples to be destroyed in the test (laughable, I know, given the DSC test they performed), and 2. Because he didn't have a whole lot of material to begin with. So the questions I have about this are probably obvious, but here they are anyway:

1. Is it the case where running an X-EDS analysis on a sample doesn't consume it? I'd imagine not, but it's been so long since I took chemistry (and I never, ever did any X-ray spectroscopy in my labs) that I simply don't know.
2. How much material would be needed to conduct an X-EDS analysis?
3. Are there any tests which clearly show bonding and do not consume the material?

If anyone asks where I read this: Please don't, because I don't remember, and I'm not even certain it was Steven Jones who said that; I only remember the statement being in context and conjunction with the Bentham paper. However, the questions above are still valid ones that can lead to informative answers.

I'll take a stab at your questions. They have non-trivial answers, but I think there are a few interesting ideas.

1) It depends on how you're doing the X-ray microanalysis. Generally speaking, SEM-EDX is non destructive. At low accelerating voltages (< 25 keV) and low probe currents (< 20 nA), the damage to the surface from the incident electron beam is very small. However, with a modern electron microprobe, it's very easy to melt large chunks of your sample and visibly disturb the surface. You get the same X-rays in the end, but you can't beat the sense of accomplishment you get from destroying a small chunk of a very valuable mineral. Of course, if you're doing X-ray fluorescence (irradiation with a photon beam instead of an electron beam), the sample is very rarely disturbed.​

• Most people tend to think of SEM-EDX as destructive because of mounting and sample size requirements. To get good, reproducible data, you need to mount a portion of the sample in epoxy, polish it, clean it and then coat it with carbon. That process will consume some of the sample, and may make it unusable for other techniques.

2) Since SEM-EDX is a surface analysis technique, you only need an incredibly small amount of material to get compositional information. I did some work early on with gold nanoparticles measuring only 10 nm in diameter. With an appropriately tuned system, I was able to get reliable, reproducible information on their composition. Of course, you'll also need some mighty small tweezers to be able to mount the little particles.

3) X-ray diffraction would very clearly show the bonding without destroying the sample. Again, though, preparing the sample for XRD would likely require grinding, and possibly mixing in an internal standard like LaB₆. That would make the sample unusable for other techniques, but not "destroyed". Of course, other labs could take the prepared sample and run a replicate test very easily.
​

I hope that answers your questions. It's worth noting that, with a modicum of experience doing compositional analysis, it's pretty easy to see where Harrit et al went wrong. Harrit, Jones, Farrer and Basile may be competent researchers in other fields, but they've utterly failed in their analysis of dust and in their understanding of X-ray analysis. They failed because they assumed that they already knew everything, and none of them had the humility to spend 2 hours at the library looking up the relevant methods and information.

 

[Sunstealer]

Question for Sunstealer, The Almond, or anyone else who knows analytical chemistry:

I had once read an excuse made in passing by Jones (I think...) somewhere (don't recall where) that a couple of the reasons he elected to use X-EDS was 1. Because he didn't want the samples to be destroyed in the test (laughable, I know, given the DSC test they performed), and 2. Because he didn't have a whole lot of material to begin with.

Jones managed to separate out 84 samples. We don't know how many had the distinctive red/gray bi-layering so there would be a reasonable amount of material to work with.

In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the
fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen
small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted
from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable
glass and concrete fragments had been removed by
hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately
0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling
showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated
dust.

Don't forget that they also set about some of these samples with a flame torch, which always makes me laugh because they were destroying their samples willy-nilly. At least the DSC would produce data. So I don't think they were too concerned about destroying samples. Typically you perform every non-destructive test you can before the destructive ones. Even grinding up 3 or 4 chips for a XRD wouldn't destroy the sample as such because you could always do a DSC afterwards.

So the questions I have about this are probably obvious, but here they are anyway:

1. Is it the case where running an X-EDS analysis on a sample doesn't consume it? I'd imagine not, but it's been so long since I took chemistry (and I never, ever did any X-ray spectroscopy in my labs) that I simply don't know.

1. No the sample isn't consumed - effectively the SEM and EDS analyses the surface of the sample. The x-ray beam effectively causes electrons from the samples surface to be "ejected" and these electron vacancies are then filled by electrons from a higher state thus releasing an x-ray and it's these x-rays that are measured. High voltages can damage the surface but I've never known anyone to use such high voltages. With backscatter electron imaging the samples don't need to be coated with a conductive material such as gold or carbon if they are non-conductive.
   
   
   

   [*]How much material would be needed to conduct an X-EDS analysis?

   Very little. Typical resolutions for modern SEMs are 100k magnification and there are varying methods for how tight the electron beam can be focused for analysing the surface. Some of the smallest materials I've worked on have been fine wire gold bonds for the electronics industry measuring 12.5µm in diameter. It's more of a pain making sure the sample is secured properly and not dropped (using conductive tape) than anything else - oh and not sneezing.
   
   
   

   [*]Are there any tests which clearly show bonding and do not consume the material?

   Yes. As well as XRD there is Fourier Transmission Infra Red (FTIR) Spectroscopy. This is more typically used for organic material but is often used for far more. The unknown IR spectrum is compared with known spectra from a database or library. In the Forensic Examination of Glass and Paint there are numerous spectra and case studies that include spectra for common materials found in paint including many of the following.
   
   

   Paint resins commonly encountered in forensic laboratories include alkyd, amino, acrylic, polyurethane, epoxy, nitrocellulose and vinyl acetate polymers, while the most commonly encountered pigments are titanium dioxide, talc, kaolin, barium sulphate, calcium carbonate, silica and iron oxide.

   
   Bearing in mind that Harrit et al considered paint to be a possibility then FTIR would have comprehensively ruled that conclusion out. Dr Niels H. Harrit not knowing about the capabilities of FTIR or being able to access one is nigh on impossible.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I sent a copy of Harrit’s paper to an analytical chemist I’ve worked with for over 25 years. His initial comment:

This is what you get when people misuse the little knowledge that they have. I hate to tell them this but, it’s paint.

When I asked him to expand on his comment above and also asked permission to publish his comments on this forum he said:

I don’t mind if you forward my comments, but you’re right, you cannot convince anyone who has decided to ignore any contradictory evidence. Adding to my comments:

The authors compare to “paint”. What kind of paint? They are ignoring the literally thousands of types and formulations of paints and primers - not just in the pigments or fillers but the organic basis (epoxy, urethane, alkyd, etc) of the paints (which makes their MEK comparison meaningless). They explain away the high C and O as contaminants rather than consider the most likely explanation – paint. Additionally, they did not analyze the samples by the two most likely methods to confirm or refute the possibility that the chips are paint, FTIR and Mass Spec. Given an hour in my lab with a few of these chips and my FTIR, I could tell with a high degree of certainty whether these chips are paint or not.
Re: the Fe/Si spheres. I have analyzed the residues from numerous fires and these types of spheres are actually fairly common. Not much can be concluded from their presence.
Final comment: Conscientious analytical chemists, whether they work for the gov’t or private labs, don’t care what the results indicate. All that they are concerned with is that the results are accurate. This is meant absolutely literally. I have run tens of thousands of analyses over the years for people I liked, didn’t like and everything in between and it never mattered to me if their pet theories or assumptions were upheld or went down in flames. These considerations are simply not part of the analytical process.

I'm not sure why he mentions Mass Spec. I know he's experienced in XRD and XRF analysis. Sunstealer/Almond - do you think he misspoke, or is Mass Spec. another acceptable analytical method of this in your opinion(s)?

 

[Sunstealer]

I'm not sure why he mentions Mass Spec. I know he's experienced in XRD and XRF analysis. Sunstealer/Almond - do you think he misspoke, or is Mass Spec. another acceptable analytical method of this in your opinion(s)?

Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time.

No he didn't miss-speak, mass spectrometry is another analytical technique. I think I can actually remember using one in 1992 during a practical when I was at university. Iirc the machine vaporizes/ionises the material (in this case a stainless steel) and the resulting ions are analysed. This machine was pretty big approx 3ft wide by 5ft long by 4 1/2ft tall. You put the sample in, closed it up, pressed a few buttons, waited a bit, then there was a funny smell and then a little print out like a receipt from a supermarket would emerge from a hole with chemical elements and a percentage on. Magic!

 

[triforcharity]

Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time.

No he didn't miss-speak, mass spectrometry is another analytical technique. I think I can actually remember using one in 1992 during a practical when I was at university. Iirc the machine vaporizes/ionises the material (in this case a stainless steel) and the resulting ions are analysed. This machine was pretty big approx 3ft wide by 5ft long by 4 1/2ft tall. You put the sample in, closed it up, pressed a few buttons, waited a bit, then there was a funny smell and then a little print out like a receipt from a supermarket would emerge from a hole with chemical elements and a percentage on. Magic!

Yeah, that's a mass spec. I've seen them used in arson investigations to identify an accelerant.

Just out of curiosity, how accurate are these machines?

 

[dafydd]

Dafydd, take it easy. I've seen The Almond's posts in other threads, and he's definitely not a truther. In fact, he's one of the people here who can post about issues like the analytic chemistry ones we're seeing here from actual experience (I forgot, The Almond, what you said your experience was in, so forgive me for not actually listing it). Anyway, he's one person who, when he corrects the rest of us, I listen to.

If he doesn't believe what truthers call ''the official story'' then what is he? And who are ''we''?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time.

No he didn't miss-speak, mass spectrometry is another analytical technique. I think I can actually remember using one in 1992 during a practical when I was at university. Iirc the machine vaporizes/ionises the material (in this case a stainless steel) and the resulting ions are analysed. This machine was pretty big approx 3ft wide by 5ft long by 4 1/2ft tall. You put the sample in, closed it up, pressed a few buttons, waited a bit, then there was a funny smell and then a little print out like a receipt from a supermarket would emerge from a hole with chemical elements and a percentage on. Magic!

We've had a Gas Chromotagraph/Mass Spec. for years. I assumed they were fairly common. We also had XRD, XRF, FTIR, HPLC, so kinda Carbon/Nitrogen analytical instrument, and a wet chemisty area to do, well, wet chemistry (digestions, etc.).

And your description of the size is right on. The PhD that runs the thing always gives me these reports showing the molecular structure of the compound, and then I have to go back to him and say " OK, now tell me, what is this ******"

Oh, and I think we have at least a dozen SEM's.

 

[The Almond]

Yeah, that's a mass spec. I've seen them used in arson investigations to identify an accelerant.

Just out of curiosity, how accurate are these machines?

Note that there are perhaps a dozen different types of mass spectrometers. The basic principle is the same for all of them, ions are attracted to a magnet with different accelerations based on their mass. How you make those ions is a matter of personal choice. For instance, you can shoot a high powered laser at your sample, ablate the material, and analyze that. Throw in a bit of inductively coupled plasma, and you've got yourself a Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer. Telling the ladies you work with one is a sure-fire way to get their numbers at the end of the night.

One principle advantage of mass spectrometery is that it is sensitive to isotopic ratios, not just atomic number. Isotopic ratios can tell you a lot about the age of a material, its source and a few other interesting things. Detection limits for mass spectrometery is in the parts per billion range, or 3 to 5 orders of magnitude better than SEM based X-ray microanalysis.

Here's the point with all of this: People like Mr. Sunstealer and your analytical chemist friend are worth their weight in gold not because they can push buttons on an instrument and get numbers to pop out on the other side. Rather, experience and knowledge are required to design the experiment properly, and then to interpret the data correctly. That experience keeps people from living in the land of quackery, coming up with outlandish hypotheses to explain banal results. Had Harrit et al spent just 2 hours at the library, ANY LIBRARY, they would have learned about appropriate methodologies and experimental design.

That being said, the accuracy of the technique is largely based on the knowledge and experience of the person operating it. Geophysicists studying rare minerals can routinely get their results to agree within a few parts per million or 0.00001%. Again, by comparison, I'm happy with SEM-EDS results agreeing among laboratories (with highly competent researchers) to about 0.2%.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

I don't need it, thanks, you can keep it.

The research has been published in a peer reviewed journal, what more could you ask for? This would be the "gold standard" for you if you agreed with the paper. Since you disagree with the paper, you now reject this standard. You can't have it both ways. I haven't made any mistake here, you've made the mistake thinking you can bully me into reversing myself.

The unreacted nanothermate found in the World Trade Center dust is not paint chips. It is highly explosive, has a high energy density and could only have been produced by or on behalf of the US military (through its exclusive contractor "Technanogy"). There's no mistake there. This research has gone through the peer review process and been published in a peer reviewed journal. If you think you know of some errors in the paper or in the methods used to do the research, I'd be more than happy to entertain the notion before handily refuting you. If your only critique of the research is "nobody else has done it!", you're standing on shaky ground under a castle of sand.

Benthem doesn't qualify as an independent peer reviewed journal. Surely if this is a quality paper it could make it into the Journal of Analytical Chemistry published by the American Chemical Society.

The results of the paper are, irregardless of your or the authors claims, inconclusive because the chips were not tested in an inert atmosphere. As the chips had an organic substrate, there was nothing to prevent the organic substrate from reacting with atmospheric oxygen. Can you provide a reason why this isn't so?

 

[catsmate]

The World Trade Center was demolished by explosives inside it. How anyone can still be in denial about that is beyond me.

Because they've looked at the facts and found evidence of demolition to be utterly absent? Or because they're not irrationally wedded to a conspiracy theory and unable to accept reality? Or because they know more about structural engineering/mechanics/demolitions/chemistry than you and your fellow conspiracy theorists do?

 

[twinstead]

Because they've looked at the facts and found evidence of demolition to be utterly absent? Or because they're not irrationally wedded to a conspiracy theory and unable to accept reality? Or because they know more about structural engineering/mechanics/demolitions/chemistry than you and your fellow conspiracy theorists do?

False dilemma. Replace all your 'ORs' with 'ANDs'.

 

[catsmate]

What is it about the Interwebs that make totally ignorant people try to lecture everyone else?

A corollary to the Dunning–Kruger effect perhaps?