Questions about nano-thermite

[leftysergeant]

Scientists don't care about my attitude. Speaking of "convince", I'm not convinced you know what a scientist is. A scientist isn't somebody who rejects information because they find the person giving it to them to be annoying or for whatever reason behaving differently than they think they should.

By the same token, if the stupid sack of fail does not perform the one definitive test that would prove one way or another that his specimen is what he claims it is, which, in this case, would be to heat it to its combustion point in an inert atmosphere, then anyone with two working synapses should turn their backs on him not let him see their faces contort hideously with laughter.

I know there's at least one scientist in this forum, me. Beyond that I don't feel confident postulating even a single other scientist. What most people consider to be science is nothing more than a collection of fables based on wishful thinking and flights of fancy. It's always been this way, the majority is always wrong.

Delusional.

The frontier is the domain of the loner.

Or of sociopaths.

 

[D'rok]

Full blown melt down in progress. Catch it while it's hot:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6628038#post6628038

 

[twinstead]

Scientists don't care about my attitude. Speaking of "convince", I'm not convinced you know what a scientist is. A scientist isn't somebody who rejects information because they find the person giving it to them to be annoying or for whatever reason behaving differently than they think they should.

I'm simply telling you that you have a bad attitude. I didn't bring your information into the mix at all.

I know there's at least one scientist in this forum, me. Beyond that I don't feel confident postulating even a single other scientist. What most people consider to be science is nothing more than a collection of fables based on wishful thinking and flights of fancy. It's always been this way, the majority is always wrong. The frontier is the domain of the loner. Pioneers can neither be timid nor boastful. All factual knowledge goes through these stages of resistance, violent opposition, acceptance, then the certainty that it is and always has been self-evident. It wasn't the 99 that looked through a polished piece of glass and overruled centuries of religious and academic dogma known only through a glass darkly, it was the 1 who saw clearly where everyone else was (to a certain extent willfully) blind.

This is the most eloquent rationalization for being a jerk that I have ever read.

Again I think you're confusing scientists with people who are easily led around by their emotions or the "attitudes" of other people.

I am confusing NOTHING.

I haven't tried to or sought to enter debate in this forum at all. I didn't come here to debate, only to present facts and correct errors.

I await these facts and corrections with baited breath. When will they be forthcoming?

I'm not the least bit interested in petty personal political squabbles.

Holy implications, Batman! Will evidence that Jones' detractors are interested in petty personal political squabbles be coming soon?


Misplaced arrogance ROCKS!

 

[The Almond]

Regardless of what you have heard, paint chips are not highly explosive, and don't contain nanoaluminum, sulfur or even iron oxide in anything other than trace amounts. We have irrefutable evidence that the World Trade Center was demolished with nano thermate, not exploding paint.

Paint chips contain iron oxide as a colorant. It is perhaps the oldest, most common colorant in existence. In addition, paint chips are:
1) A common component of dust
2) Bi-layered
3) Often contain rust/iron oxide on the primer layer
4) Composed of <1 um rounded pigment particles

I've referenced it before, but here it is again, for the 10th time:
Dual layered (one gray, one colored) chips are identified in the McCrone Particle Atlas (MPA) in sections 12:001100 and 28:011100. Interestingly, MPA notes, "Throughout the sample, individually dispersed and attached to the primer layer, is rust (see iron oxide). The sample came from a newly painted steel bridge from which the paint was flaking off." It goes on further to state, "[...] the paint particles are seen to be composed of tiny (less than 1 um) [...] rounded pigment particles." McCrone Particle Atlas, volume 2 (1973), page 529.

In dust, as a component of ordinary, non-thermite induced activities, paint chips (distinguished by a gray layer adhered to a colored layer) are often found. Said paint chips contain not only iron oxide (when they're applied to steel), but are also composed of micron sized particles making up the pigments. The production of so called "iron rich microspheres" is no more proof of thermite than the presence of unicorn dung.

 

[uke2se]

Has this twoofer cited any independent verification of Jones' work that he said existed?

A note to our twoofer friend: citing the Harrit/Jones paper as independent verification for the work of Jones (and Harrit) isn't going to fly.

 

[D'rok]

Has this twoofer cited any independent verification of Jones' work that he said existed?

A note to our twoofer friend: citing the Harrit/Jones paper as independent verification for the work of Jones (and Harrit) isn't going to fly.

Nope. He preferred to commit suicide-by-mod.

 

[Sunstealer]

No, that's not what was found. "Kaolinite" has drastically different ratios of carbon and oxygen. Look at the spectrum of it next to thermite and you'll quickly see the difference.

The kaolnite EDX spectra matches very closely to that found in the hexagonal platelets - combine that data with the fact that the SEM photos show the same morphology and bunching or sandwiching that is seen in natural kaolinite then it's a pretty damn good bet.

Also not present in "kaolinnite" (or paint) is sulfur, and elemental aluminum. These products exist in thermate.

Elemental eh Dr Watson? No test that Harrit et al performed shows elemental aluminium - the MEK test is highly dubious. If elemental aluminium was suspected to be present then the certifiable way of identifying it is XRD because XRD will identify the crystal structure. This was not done either because the authors were unaware of the technique (highly unlikely) or they don't want a definitive answer.

This may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant. The material found in the World Trade Center dust is not "kaolinite", it is thermite. It doesn't have the chemical signature of "kaolinite" (or paint for that matter), it has the chemical signature of thermite.

Kaolinite is part of the material, it's not all of it - just the hexagonal platelets. Please show me this chemical signature. Are you talking about FTIR traces or XRD diffractogram?

What you're calling "kaolinite crystals" are in fact elemental aluminum.

No - there is no proof in the paper that this is the case. Secondly the ratio of Al to Si and O strongly suggests an aluminosilicate. Pissing about with MEK and a SEM is amateurish - if they wanted to know what material it was then another technique is required.

You'll find all of this info in the moderated thread. You'll also find that I show that the gray layer of this mysterious superdupa nanomarmite is actually A36 surface layer rust. This is something Harrit et al failed to do using their own data! They still think it's some kind of mysterious layer.

That's just it, it's not paint chips, it's nanothermate, as evidenced by its chemical signature AND its morphology. The cosmetic resemblance of parts of this material to "kaolinite" is outweighed by the fact that the material has the chemical signature of THERMITE, it burns like THERMITE, its products are identical to the products of THERMITE, not pain.

You don't know what the word morphology means in this context. Please stop using "chemical signature" without showing what you mean. EDX is qualitative not quantitative - learn the difference.

I showed in the moderated thread that kaolinite isn't just a "cosmetic resemblance" - I suggest you read that thread.

2 of the DSC readings are above the theoretical output for thermite therefore the material does not burn like thermite.

Again, there's no shame in admitting your ignorance. That's the first step to learning something new, admitting you didn't know it.

Wise, I very much suggest you heed your own words.

The simple fact of the matter is if I had analysed the Harrit et al paper using 15 years of materials engineering experience that I have and thought that they might actually have something then I'd be shouting that out here, backing up my statements with data. Secondly if I were performing the experiments I'd quickly realise that a definitive answer could not be obtained using SEM/DSC etc and the samples within a matter of days would have gone to an independent lab for analysis.

Why didn't they do that instead of publishing far too early in a vanity journal? They reached the conclusion before they "analysed" the chips and truthers do the same.

 

[Papermache]

I think claiming the mods were too cowardly to ban him was ill-advised, but then I don't claim to be a scientist.

 

[Sunstealer]

The addition of a bit of sulfur into this material causes the reaction to liberate energy much more rapidly, with the ensuing possibility of achieving otherwise inaccessible reactions. Thermite with a bit of sulfur in it is known as "thermate". Thermate formulations have existed since the forties.

Quantify "a bit of" Sulphur please. I want ratios.

Also it would seem that 3 out of 4 of the samples that Jones analysed didn't contain any any significant Sulphur at all.!!!

So before you keep rabiting on about Sulphur, would you kindly point out to us where it is and secondly how much of it is there.

Wot no Sulphur.

N.B. Harrit et al dismiss Sulphur as contamination from gypsum -

Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice
the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red
layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination
with wallboard material.

 

[uke2se]

Nope. He preferred to commit suicide-by-mod.

Aww, can't see the post. Always fun watching a break down.

 

[dafydd]

I know there's at least one scientist in this forum, me.

Now that did make me laugh.

 

[Sunstealer]

It may or may not be the case that "kaolinite" used as a pigment in paint...

Sigh. Kaolinite is used as an extender not a pigment. The devil is in the detail.

 

[Sunstealer]

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,

I'd be very interested to see your methodology in determining what has or has not been oxidised using EDX spectra.

You do know that the chip that had the MEK test performed on it wasn't of the same composition as samples a-d don't you?

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.

Mixed with clay or gypsum eh? It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Kaolin/kaolinite is China clay. I find it hilarious that you say "trace amounts". You don't know what this term means. In analytical chemistry it is used to say that a compound/element/species was found but in quantities approaching the limit of detection of the analytical method and therefore considered too small to be accurately measured hence no actual quantitative figure is used (cos there isn't one).

Extenders (fillers) and pigments in paint are not "trace amounts" because they are often described as a percentage of the paints' weight.

Not having a good day are you mate? Keep getting lots wrong.

 

[Sunstealer]

And how is this in any way different than any other published journals? it isn't. Fortunately peer review is not part of the scientific method, and therefore not part of science, otherwise we might have to take all of it seriously. Deliberate fraud like that described in this "experiment" is extremely difficult to combat. Deliberate fraud carried out against Bentham also in no way casts Bentham in a poor light.

Oh that is Stundie gold right there. You seem to have a very rich vein of the stuff.

Anyone who has half a brain knows what phrenology is. (they have a lopsided and lumpy head It's obvious. Perhaps Bentham shouldn't have solicited in the way they did if they didn't want to be treated in the same way.

 

[The Almond]

Thought I might jump in here and provide some extremely accurate, well researched information.

First, you, along with some of the "debunkers" appear to be mixing up composition with chemistry. While on the surface, the terms appear to be synonymous, composition refers to relative weight percent of constituent elements. Chemistry, meanwhile, very specifically refers to bonding, orientation and chemical state as well as composition.

The images you've presented below contain compositional information only. Relative intensities in electron induced X-ray fluorescence are sensitive only to the number of atoms within the excitation area, not to their bonding state. Rutile, Brookite and Anatase will all appear the same in an SEM-EDS spectrum (since they're all TiO₂), but chemically, they are all distinctly different materials.

This is an important point because the test that would have provided chemical information about the aluminum was not actually performed. X-ray diffractograms for Al vs Al₂O₃ are very distinctly different. With a well controlled experiment, a quantitative mathematical process known as Rietveld refinement could determine the amount of elemental Al with respect to the amount of oxidized Al. So, the $50,000,000 question is: Why didn't Harrit et al perform this test? Why are they relying on compositional information to provide chemical bonding? Get back to me when you have an answer to that one.

known "thermate" spectrum (note the sulfur):
http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/oo332/subedei11/Slide160_PNG.jpg
As you can see, little carbon, lots of oxygen. This is "slag residue", so very little aluminum is present, it's solidified iron slag with a "crust", essentially.

Wikipedia states that Thermate contains 2% sulfur and 29% Barium Nitrate. You should see a barium L-alpha peak at about 4.5 keV, along with about 10 minor L lines. Why is that absent in your spectrum? Also, you do realize that the sulfur present in the image above would be trace-at-detection-limit at best, right? We're looking at a material that is, at best, a dozen counts above the Bremsstrahlung, right?

unreacted thermate from World Trade Center dust (note sulfur):
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/docs/xeds_chips_s.png
As you can see, little carbon, lots of oxygen. This is unreacted so the aluminum is still present.

Help me out here, there are different levels of sulfur and aluminum in the two spectra above, and you want me to believe that they're the same material?

"kaolinite with gypsum" spectrum (note: sulfur comes from the sulfates in the gypsum)
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/spectra.jpg
As you can see, lots of carbon, little oxygen, drastically different than thermite, thermite is not in paint chips. It's a near miss, but it's still a miss. Kaolinite is not the material in these red chips from the World Trade Center dust. Kaolinite doesn't explode and has a different chemical signature.

This is perhaps something you don't understand about X-ray microanalysis. You don't just compare the relative intensities and determine that they're different. If you want to compare the materials, you need to correct for morphology, composition (matrix effects), particle shape and size effects. Slapping up spectra collected by different people, using different instruments and detectors is no way to make a valid comparison.

Why would they use aluminothermic compounds as paint? it makes no sense.

Your question could be more accurately stated: Why would someone use kaolinite as part of an anti-corrosive paint applied to the WTC center steel during its construction? The answer to that question is contained in perhaps 75 years of steel corrosion protection research. Would you like me to point you to some references?

So it's proprietary, but you know what's in it. Make up your mind. Why would a "talc pigment" be used on steel? I don't follow this at all. You're saying that the steel in the World Trade Center was colored with some kind of "talc pigment"? I'm lost.

Had you read the NCSTAR, you would have noted that NIST did numerous tests on the anti-corrosion paint. The composition and thermal properties are listed in the report. Would you like me to provide you the reference?

 

[dafydd]

Thought I might jump in here and provide some extremely accurate, well researched information.

First, you, along with some of the "debunkers" appear to be mixing up composition with chemistry. While on the surface, the terms appear to be synonymous, composition refers to relative weight percent of constituent elements. Chemistry, meanwhile, very specifically refers to bonding, orientation and chemical state as well as composition.

The images you've presented below contain compositional information only. Relative intensities in electron induced X-ray fluorescence are sensitive only to the number of atoms within the excitation area, not to their bonding state. Rutile, Brookite and Anatase will all appear the same in an SEM-EDS spectrum (since they're all TiO₂), but chemically, they are all distinctly different materials.

This is an important point because the test that would have provided chemical information about the aluminum was not actually performed. X-ray diffractograms for Al vs Al₂O₃ are very distinctly different. With a well controlled experiment, a quantitative mathematical process known as Rietveld refinement could determine the amount of elemental Al with respect to the amount of oxidized Al. So, the $50,000,000 question is: Why didn't Harrit et al perform this test? Why are they relying on compositional information to provide chemical bonding? Get back to me when you have an answer to that one.
Wikipedia states that Thermate contains 2% sulfur and 29% Barium Nitrate. You should see a barium L-alpha peak at about 4.5 keV, along with about 10 minor L lines. Why is that absent in your spectrum? Also, you do realize that the sulfur present in the image above would be trace-at-detection-limit at best, right? We're looking at a material that is, at best, a dozen counts above the Bremsstrahlung, right?
Help me out here, there are different levels of sulfur and aluminum in the two spectra above, and you want me to believe that they're the same material?
This is perhaps something you don't understand about X-ray microanalysis. You don't just compare the relative intensities and determine that they're different. If you want to compare the materials, you need to correct for morphology, composition (matrix effects), particle shape and size effects. Slapping up spectra collected by different people, using different instruments and detectors is no way to make a valid comparison.
Your question could be more accurately stated: Why would someone use kaolinite as part of an anti-corrosive paint applied to the WTC center steel during its construction? The answer to that question is contained in perhaps 75 years of steel corrosion protection research. Would you like me to point you to some references?
Had you read the NCSTAR, you would have noted that NIST did numerous tests on the anti-corrosion paint. The composition and thermal properties are listed in the report. Would you like me to provide you the reference?

Are you a truther?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Christ on a bike - iron oxide pigments have been used for thousands of years and that's what we predominantly use to colour something red. Please define trace amounts using data from the Harrit et al paper that you haven't read.

Well, technically, he is correct. Certain paints would contain way more iron oxide than any amount that can be reasonably described as "trace".

Of course, that's almost certainly not what he meant, but hey! We ought to be fair and give him credit for getting something right, even if it was entirely accidental.

ETA: Oops, reading comprehension fail on my part . He was trying to say that there could not be anything above trace amounts. I thought at first he was saying that there weren't even trace amounts present, and based my snark on that. Blech... need to read closer next time.

 

[The Almond]

Are you a truther?

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?

 

[twinstead]

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?

Yes, when it's characterized as 'truther' V 'debunker' it appears like it's a real debate when after all it's simply a debate of history V historical revisionism.

 

[The Almond]

Yes, when it's characterized as 'truther' V 'debunker' it appears like it's a real debate when after all it's simply a debate of history V historical revisionism.

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