Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure
Ha, ha. No - anyone with a pair of eyes and a brain can see that the two layers do not share the same structure. However, I can confirm that yes, indeed these two layers are 3 dimensional! Wow! If you don't believe that these two structures are 3 dimensional just look at this!
Advisory Warning - No you do not require 3D glasses to observe the following image.
Yes, the gray side which doesn't contribute to the reaction as Harrit et al confirm, which
has a completely different morphology and chemical composition to the other layer, because it's oxidised steel and the red layer is paint. Who'da thunk it eh? Someone painted some steel and a little insy- winsy bit spalled off and was found in some dust. Halle <rule 10> lujah!
The basis and validity of this identification can [be] grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conlusion (sic), [uneeded comma] and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples.
So guess what folks, if you only have a working knowledge of Chemistry and Physics, which lets face it means sweet felicity arkwright, not only are you advised not to look at the data, but to go straight to the conclusions!
Yo buddy! Got physics? Yeah! Ok, just forget about everything else and read the conclusions!
The chips, whose structure is consistent from one sample to the next, are clearly an un-natural, manufactured material.
Which they aren't. Samples a,b,c,d are different to the chip subjected to MEK (MEK chip) and again are different to the chip in Fig 31. See the moderated thread where I prove this is not the case.
The red layer is a nano-engineered composite, containing two types of nano-particles, each highly consistent in size and shape.
No there is no nano-engineering involved, because none of the particles observed are 100nm or below - the estimates from the SEM photos are approximately 0.2µm or 200nm.
A thin red layer is supported by a gray layer of homogenous material. Zooming in on the red layer shows it to be composed of two different types of particles embedded in a porous matrix: thin plates typically hexagonal in shape, and faceted grains.
Well <rule 10> me! They actually describe something correctly!
* The particles are very small: the plates being only about 40 nanometers thick, and the grains are only about 100 nanometers in diameter.
* The particles are highly uniform in size and shape.
This isn't too far off either.
* The particles are intimately mixed in a highly consistent composition throughout the material.
Balls. Just looking at the pictures shows random mixing. There is nothing consistent on a micro scale and no-one would expect them to be.
These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Nope, no nano-noona engineering here just good old fashioned rust spalling from a steel surface and taking the paint with it. Wow, who would have thought that paint might contain small particles of things that make up paint.
The red layers contain abundant aluminum, iron, and oxygen, where the iron is associated with oxygen, and the aluminum is mostly in a pure, elemental, form.
Utter bollocks. They cannot tell this from the XEDS data and this is a pure lie. Where is the silicon? Why no mention of the silicon? Look it's right here in the paper!
Wow! Who would have thought that these people would lie about what the paper says. Have they no idea that the analysis method used cannot determine what they are saying, let alone the fact that the platelets containing Aluminium also have significant amounts of Si and O showing that they are likely to be aluminosilicates and not pure aluminium (with an oxide layer)?
Note: "MEK chip" has a red layer that is a different material to those other chips so the MEK test cannot confirm commercial pure Al @ 99% pure in the sample. (See moderated thread for further details).
The relative quantities of aluminum, iron, and oxygen match those of the most common thermite formulation: Fe2O3 + 2 Al .
No they don't! Even the paper shows that this is not the case. Stoichiometry anyone? FFS!
The flat plates are mostly aluminum. Because the other elements are present in much smaller quantities, most of the aluminum must be in its (unstable) elemental form, unbound to oxygen and ready to react.
Rubbish! Look at the graph!
Show me where Al dominates! We see Si, O and C all of which have peaks equal or above the Al. (And yes I'm aware that peak ratios aren't everything but in this case it's taking the <rule 10>. This is either complete and utter unfamiliarity with SEM and EDS or a bare faced lie. FFS we can see with our own eyes that this is incorrect. Do people now understand why this severely <rule 10>'s me off? It's the bold faced lies that masquerade as some sort of scientific truth in the hope it traps the unaware. This isn't truth it's bollocks.
They aren't even trying to quote from the MEK sample, which has a red layer that is of a different composition to that of samples a,b,c,d. They are telling a lie that even someone without knowledge of chemistry or physics can tell simply by looking at the data they refer to - namely Fig 11a (as above).
The faceted grains are mostly iron and oxygen in the ratio of the Fe2O3 form of iron oxide, a compound that readily gives up its oxygen to aluminum once the reaction is started.
True - the "faceted grains" are indeed rhomboidal or rhombohedral in nature and comprise of mostly Fe and O therefore one can safely say that they are Fe
2O
3, which is well known for this crystal structure.
Thus, the two types of nano-particles in the red layer contain the two ingredients of thermite: pure aluminum and iron oxide. Furthermore, the red-layer matrix in which the particles are embedded in a highly uniform manner is mostly silicon and oxygen -- similar in composition to known variants of nano-thermite optimized for high explosive pressure.
No they don't contain pure aluminium. The paper expressly shows that in Figs 5,7,8,9,10, 11 and 15. The platelets observed contain Si, O and C in significant quantities that cannot be over looked - there is no pure Al in these platelets.
Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Correct. One thing is missing. The samples do not show a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite - unless you mean paint attached to rust.
I just couldn't read anymore - I've got to go to work in the morning and actually deal with the real world and real engineering problems.
"working knowledge of Chemistry and Physics" - and mathematics (and I define working as passed to a level an 18 year old is expected)
is enough to be able to start your journey on a metallurgy/materials engineering degree course, however, it doesn't allow you to be knowledgeable before you take the course.
You may have an understanding of flight and you may have flown a light aeroplane for a good few hours, but that does not make you qualified to comment on what the co-pilot is doing when he presses switches in a 747. Even worse is someone telling the co-pilot that he's doing it all wrong when that person has zero experience.
I've no idea who Jim Hoffman is, but he hasn't had any experience in materials analysis or metallurgy/materials engineering. He gets the majority of things wrong - and this is supposed to be for anyone to understand? Well I guess if you tell people that 2+2 = 76.4 then those who don't know any better will think it's true.
It's this level of BS that really annoys me as I suspect most sane readers can tell. The truth movement is made up of gullible unknowledgable fools who fall for this type of "crap analysis". Thank christ they are spending their time with this nonsense rather than being let loose in the real world designing things that millions of people rely upon daily.
Edit: And why the <rule 10> do they not bother to read what an article says and then compare it to the paper. I don't expect a truther has actually read the paper twice in it's entirety let alone understand what it is saying. Goodnight.
