9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[booNyzarC]

fig 14 is an XEDS spectrum grpah of a chip, "his image" is a NIST photograph of primer paint, can you clarify the confusion?

what about the questions?

I've already clarified the initial part of this, or at least I hope that I have. Now that I have a bit more time I'll answer your questions.

did you watch the video i just posted in post#175?

Yes.

did you pause the video at 2:44?

Yes, and at various other points too.

do you accept now that the material is not the primer paint?

No, though I don't think it has been established that it was either.

do you accept there is no zinc in the red chips?

No, clearly figure 14 contained zinc.

After listening to the debate between Harrit and Rancourt I'm convinced that Harrit isn't qualified to use the equipment he used and correctly analyze the results of those tests. He deferred credit in certain points to Jeffrey Farrer regarding the criticisms raised by Rancourt. I'm watching an interview with him right now. It is here for anyone else that wants to watch it.

[booNyzarC]

Another thing that struck me in that debate were these statements by Rancourt (starting around 1:17):

The main point here that's being made is that Niels is proposing that the chips should not be there [...]

This building is unique in many ways. There were two million kilograms of cladding aluminum involved in this building. And a lot of steel. And steel [...] when it is standing there for a long time under atmospheric conditions [...] is going to rust. And it will always rust [...] It always has a crust of rust on it.

And I'm an expert in what that crust of rust is.

And let me tell you what that crust of rust is nano particles of various iron oxides [...] So there would have been that material there. And there would have been aluminum.

So here's a situation where you have millions of tons of steel, two million tons of aluminum, and you're destroying all of that material. You have access to 100 tons of TNT energy to completely destroy that material

(this is from the potential energy merely present by the collapse of the building itself)

as we said earlier in the show. All that steel and aluminum has to go somewhere. You can't expect it to be vaporized and disappear off the planet of the Earth. When you look at the dust you're going to see aluminum and iron and Si and all these things. You have to see them [...]

And I'm saying, this is what the remnants would look like.

Sounds like what many people have been saying all along. The materials were there. To not find them would be impossible. Of course they will be present in the dust.

Rancourt has sufficiently shown that this would be true and he has sufficiently shown that this paper by Harrit et. al. should have undergone more vigorous review. As far as I'm concerned, the paper is clearly not the Holy Grail of the 911 Truth Movement as many seem to want it to be. The methodologies utilized and conclusions drawn are severely flawed.

[booNyzarC]

I realize this was addressed to Czero, but I had some thoughts about it that I thought I'd share. I'm sure that Cz's response will be much more complete and prettier than mine, if he decides to take the time.

the primer paint sample was scraped off a wtc monument. it is explained in the video I posted in post#175, please watch it.

Yes, and that monument was built from materials directly from the WTC. But it was also transported to Clarkson University, handled by many people, undoubtedly cleaned to some degree before construction of the monument, and has been exposed to the elements after it was erected.

if the red chips and the primer paint are the same material they will have the same properties. you need to propose something substantive as to why the same material would behave differently, otherwise we'll have to throw away all the scientific literature on everything.

As far as I can tell the graph of the material from the monument and the graph in Harrit's figure 14 are very similar. There are some variations, but then the materials have been exposed to completely different conditions haven't they?

it has been shown that :

1. the primer paint survives temperatures greater than 650, the thermitic chips ignite at 420C

2. the primer paint reduces to ash at ~800C, the thermitic chips produce molten iron at 420C

3. the primer paint contains substantial zinc inside the chip, the thermitic chips contain no zinc inside the chip.

4. the primer paint softens when soaked in MEK, the thermitic chips remain hard in MEK.

5. the primer paint and thermitic chips are slightly different colour.

6. the primer paint remains dull after soaking in MEK, the thermitic chips are glossy after MEK soaking.

7. the primer paint does not swell when soaked in MEK, the thermitic chips swell after soaking in MEK.

I disagree with this list.

1. the primer paint survives temperatures greater than 650, the thermitic chips ignite at 420C

No. The primer paint, while it was still applied to the beams, survived temperatures greater than 650C. In other words, heat was applied directly to the beams with the paint coating. This test does not compare to the tests performed by Harrit et. al.

In the case of Harrit's test we are dealing with a completely different scenario. Two very important differences in my eyes are:

It is not attached to a steal beam.

It has been submerged within other dust particles for years.

So we see that in the NIST test that heat was applied to the fire retardant side. Of course it will react differently, as it should. Do we know when that test was done? I'm sure it is somewhere, but I haven't looked it up. Surely it was done before Harrit's testing though.

And in Harrit's test we see that the material was recovered from dust containing a multitude of other elements, not the least of which is carbon, which will ignite much more rapidly as expected.

Essentially, your comparison is inaccurate in this case. It would be like comparing the force of resistance by punching a plate of glass mounted directly to a wall with the force of resistance by punching a plate of glass in an open frame with no backing.

2. the primer paint reduces to ash at ~800C, the thermitic chips produce molten iron at 420C

Perhaps, but we aren't talking about the same primer paint now. The primer paint that was reduced to ash wasn't shown in Harrit's paper. We see no photos of it, no graphs of its chemical composition, no provenance for where it came from. I doubt highly if this paint that was tested for the paper was from the WTC at all. And if it was, they should have included more details about it in the paper. This is another indicator to me that the paper is inadequate in methodology.

3. the primer paint contains substantial zinc inside the chip, the thermitic chips contain no zinc inside the chip.

Again, we see nothing regarding testing of the primer paint in Harrit's paper that can substantiate this. He didn't include photographs, graphs, etc... Was it even the same kind of paint? Besides, zinc is definitely present in figure 14. And considering that this was Harrit's first attempt with the equipment in question, I don't think that we can rely on the accuracy of the graphs or the assumptions from the analysis.

4. the primer paint softens when soaked in MEK, the thermitic chips remain hard in MEK.

Again, same arguments.

5. the primer paint and thermitic chips are slightly different colour.

Which primer paint are you talking about here? The photos of the beams? Try flaking that paint off and mixing it around in WTC dust for several years to let natural oxidization occur universally around the chips. Then tell me that there is a difference in colour.

6. the primer paint remains dull after soaking in MEK, the thermitic chips are glossy after MEK soaking.

And? Same arguments again.

7. the primer paint does not swell when soaked in MEK, the thermitic chips swell after soaking in MEK.

And of course I must again state the same arguments. Harrit does not give us any details about the primer paint in his paper. Or if he did, I completely missed it.

The bottom line in all of this is that Harrit's paper would not have survived adequate peer review. That much is obvious. This was shown very early after people started to become aware that it even existed. The methodologies used, the conclusions reached, and the expertise of Harrit in applying the testing itself is all in question. Tack onto this the fact that the editor in chief of the journal resigned after the paper was published and Niels Harrits superior, Nils O. Andersen, resigned from the journals Editorial Advisory Board. (source)

What does that tell us?

(Edit: According to Jeff Farrer's interview, they did test the paint from Clarkson University, though he doesn't specify if this was the paint referenced in the paper. He does say that it had a different chemical composition, but aside from the previously referenced video still at 2:44, I've not seen the source of this study and any additional information about it anywhere. But supposing that it was the same paint in the paper, it is still different for the previously noted reasons; i.e. it wasn't saturated all around with the other elements present in the dust for several years before analysis and testing.)

Edited September 27, 2011 by booNyzarC

[Czero 101]

The Great Demolition Debate, Pt. 2: Niels Harrit vs. Denis Rancourt _on The Kevin Barrett Show

http://noliesradio.org/archives/25022

Thanks for the link, booNy...

Ok, so I'm listening to this radio show and I have to say that it is very difficult to listen to, not because of the inherent delays and over talking - although that is very distracting - but I'm at the part about 40 or so minutes in where Rancourt is describing a thought experiment to illustrate elastic forces involving dropping a steel beam on an imaginary perfectly hard surface in a vacuum and observing that the beam will bounce back up to the exact height it was dropped from. Its a beautiful illustration, but Harrit (and Barrett, too) just keeps on missing the point and droning on about "What is the up force? What is the up force?"...

I mean really... I'm no scientist. I never went to university or anything much beyond a community college to learn a trade ( that was almost entirely replaced by computers shortly after my graduation ) and even I get what he's talking about, yet Harrit, a scientist, physicist and a professor at a University, can't understand the basic physics involved in this example...?

Its almost as if he is purposely doing it to frustrate Rancourt...

Ok... break over... time to go listen to them argue about the "nano-thermite"...

Cz

Edited September 27, 2011 by Czero 101

[booNyzarC]

That is why I asked for clarification. I am involved in several different conversations. you try it sometime

--

One more thing... I appreciate the fact that you've been so cordial throughout these recent discussions Little Fish. My hat is off to you for that.

[booNyzarC]

Thanks for the link, booNy...

Ok, so I'm listening to this radio show and I have to say that it is very difficult to listen to, not because of the inherent delays and over talking - although that is very distracting - but I'm at the part about 40 or so minutes in where Rancourt is describing a thought experiment to illustrate elastic forces involving dropping a steel beam on an imaginary perfectly hard surface in a vacuum and observing that the beam will bounce back up to the exact height it was dropped from. Its a beautiful illustration, but Harrit (and Barrett, too) just keeps on missing the point and droning on about "What is the up force? What is the up force?"...

I mean really... I'm no scientist. I never went to university or anything much beyond a community college to learn a trade ( that was almost entirely replaced by computers shortly after my graduation ) and I get what he's talking about, yet Harrit, this scientist, a physicist and a professor at a University, can't understand the basic physics involved in this example...?

Its almost as if he is purposely doing it to frustrate Rancourt...

Ok... break over... time to got listen to them argue about the "nano-thermite"...

Cz

Oh yes, I found myself getting agitated by it as well. And Barrett seems to have no problem letting Harrit walk all over Rancourt, but when Rancourt tries to just answer questions he's told to let Harrit finish talking. Quite infuriating from the standpoint of an onlooker. For me at least.

I'll let you finish listening, but while I'm here I'll communicate another frustration of mine regarding that debate... In my research I found something by Barrett (I think--I should have bookmarked it, but I just closed the window in disgust...) which essentially accused Rancourt of Ad Hominem attacks because he asked Harrit about what he has been doing since 1990. It was a very direct, very simple question (which you should be coming up to soon...) and not at all Ad Hom in my opinion.

/end.rant.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who picked up on the one-sided nature of the debate. Barrett doesn't really act like a moderator in this in my opinion.

But on the bright side... both Harrit and Barrett appear to have lost the debate in this instance.

[booNyzarC]

--

After listening to the debate between Harrit and Rancourt I'm convinced that Harrit isn't qualified to use the equipment he used and correctly analyze the results of those tests. He deferred credit in certain points to Jeffrey Farrer regarding the criticisms raised by Rancourt. I'm watching an interview with him right now. It is here for anyone else that wants to watch it.

Just a follow up regarding this interview with Jeff Farrer. I'm only on video two of the interview, but he is now describing how he became interested in the red/gray chips.

Surprisingly, as he is describing the history of this... he talks about how he tested the chips with a calorimeter. And... he was apparently not familiar with how to use this piece of equipment. He relied on someone else to help him with these tests, someone who is unnamed as far as I can tell.

So let's follow this. Harrit doesn't have experience with this equipment and gives credit (or possibly blame?) to Jeff Farrer. We look to Farrer and... oh drat, he doesn't have experience with it either.

How in the world did this get published in a peer reviewed journal? I have a guess... perhaps it wasn't actually adequately reviewed? Just a guess on my part.

[Little Fish]

Just a follow up regarding this interview with Jeff Farrer. I'm only on video two of the interview, but he is now describing how he became interested in the red/gray chips.

Surprisingly, as he is describing the history of this... he talks about how he tested the chips with a calorimeter. And... he was apparently not familiar with how to use this piece of equipment. He relied on someone else to help him with these tests, someone who is unnamed as far as I can tell.

So let's follow this. Harrit doesn't have experience with this equipment and gives credit (or possibly blame?) to Jeff Farrer. We look to Farrer and... oh drat, he doesn't have experience with it either.

How in the world did this get published in a peer reviewed journal? I have a guess... perhaps it wasn't actually adequately reviewed? Just a guess on my part.

this is all incorrect.

in the rancourt interview with harrit - harrit is talking about the XEDS, this is the machine that fires an electron beam at a spot on the chip and measures the X-rays that come off to determine what atomic elements exist at the spot on the sample.

in the Farrer interview, farrer is referring to the DSC - this is the machine that heats up the chip and measures the ignition temperature and the energy of the reaction.

two different pieces of equipment.

[Little Fish]

essentially accused Rancourt of Ad Hominem attacks because he asked Harrit about what he has been doing since 1990. It was a very direct, very simple question (which you should be coming up to soon...) and not at all Ad Hom in my opinion.

Rancourt behaved very badly, he spent the first 15 minutes of the debate trying to discredit Harrit (amusingly when a critical technical issue is brought up he says "i wish we had more time to go over that"), for instance implying that Harrit has not published anything recently, it is clear rancourt is trying to discredit Harrit rather than addressing the data and the paper, that is precisely what an ad hominem argument is - against the man, rather than against the argument, and here is the proof - rancourt had plenty of time to prepare for the debate (he states it), he says he searched google scholar and could not find much published by Harrit. All Rancourt had to do was email Harrit before the debate and ask him for a list of his published papers. This is not a man who is objectively looking at the data but someone who's motive is simply to win, this is a man that is using political methods, not the scientific method unacceptable in a scientific debate. Harrit has every right to be outraged.

But on the bright side... both Harrit and Barrett appear to have lost the debate in this instance

I do not see it that way at all. Harrit has the facts, observations and experiments, Rancourt appeals to his imagination. Rancourt avoids the most pertinent and critical findings (such as the observation of molten iron produced from the unreacted nanothermite) but prefers to indulge in speculative imaginations for which he has no experiments or precedent.

Rancourt even perversely suggests that the authorities have little interest in publishing a scientific rebuttal to Harrit's paper because they are not concerned with the 911 researchers. This is a remarkable statement. Cass Sustein is on record saying the authorites need to "cognitively infiltrate" the 911 truth movement with COINTELPRO dirty tactics. it is known that many bloggers are paid to put out disinformation by the authorities. the evidence for authorities putting out disinformation is overwhelming from PNAC to Rendon to Rumsfeld to Sustein and many things in between, but Rancourt says the authorities have little interest in the 911 researchers so they can't be bothered to rebut the findings scientifcally. there is no question about it, if the authorities had a scientific rebuttal it would be published!

Rancourt embarrassed himself.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Little Fish

[GunXpatriot]

All of this was probably mentioned already... Anyway, what do we know about 9/11? We know that obviously the two towers fell. They were plane-proofed on purpose. The thermite is the only thing that had brought them down. So we wonder, who painted the thermite on the walls? Terrorists? The government? If not them, perhaps owners of the buildings who wanted to collect on insurance? We also know that people made a lot of money when those towers fell. The black boxes were said to have never been recovered when there were eye-witnesses who seen the FBI taking them from the site. Why did WTC 7 fall? It's the key to the "attack". I don't want to say that the government did it necessarily, but you have to be a total moron to even consider the official story to be true...

[booNyzarC]

Rancourt behaved very badly, he spent the first 15 minutes of the debate trying to discredit Harrit (amusingly when a critical technical issue is brought up he says "i wish we had more time to go over that"), for instance implying that Harrit has not published anything recently, it is clear rancourt is trying to discredit Harrit rather than addressing the data and the paper, that is precisely what an ad hominem argument is - against the man, rather than against the argument, and here is the proof - rancourt had plenty of time to prepare for the debate (he states it), he says he searched google scholar and could not find much published by Harrit. All Rancourt had to do was email Harrit before the debate and ask him for a list of his published papers. This is not a man who is objectively looking at the data but someone who's motive is simply to win, this is a man that is using political methods, not the scientific method unacceptable in a scientific debate. Harrit has every right to be outraged.

Rancourt didn't behave badly at all. He explained why he was going to ask the question and then asked the question. Nothing more, nothing less. It was a valid question to ask considering that he was unable to track down recent work from Harrit.

When you consider how the first hour of discussion in the interview went, Rancourt had ample reason for the question just because of that first hour. Harrit couldn't even seem to wrap his head around the fact that Rancourt was trying to illustrate a physics principle using a simple analogy to help understand the complexity of modeling the collapse of the towers. Or did you just brush the first hour's poor behavior from Harrit and Barrett under the rug?

He won the debate because of how he showed that the paper shouldn't have been published in its current state. Adequate peer review would have pushed back harder, asked more questions, suggested more tests, and required modification of the conclusions unless the data could back those conclusions up. That is hardly a political method. He's applying the scientific method that Harrit and his puppet peer reviewers should have used in the first place.

I do not see it that way at all. Harrit has the facts, observations and experiments, Rancourt appeals to his imagination. Rancourt avoids the most pertinent and critical findings (such as the observation of molten iron produced from the unreacted nanothermite) but prefers to indulge in speculative imaginations for which he has no experiments or precedent.

Of course you don't see it that way. I get the impression that you view this paper as your most prized Gospel. As your Holy Grail.

But the problem is that Rancourt explained in great detail why the methodologies of the paper were inadequate which could easily lead to misinterpretation of the incomplete data. And when the data is suspect the conclusions reached are equally suspect. Why can't you see that?

In regards to Rancourt's supposed "speculative imaginations" he is talking about a subject in which he specializes. He fully expects materials like the red/gray chips to be present in the dust simply because of the composition of the buildings' materials and the nature of the collapse itself.

Rancourt even perversely suggests that the authorities have little interest in publishing a scientific rebuttal to Harrit's paper because they are not concerned with the 911 researchers. This is a remarkable statement. Cass Sustein is on record saying the authorites need to "cognitively infiltrate" the 911 truth movement with COINTELPRO dirty tactics. it is known that many bloggers are paid to put out disinformation by the authorities. the evidence for authorities putting out disinformation is overwhelming from PNAC to Rendon to Rumsfeld to Sustein and many things in between, but Rancourt says the authorities have little interest in the 911 researchers so they can't be bothered to rebut the findings scientifcally. there is no question about it, if the authorities had a scientific rebuttal it would be published!

There is no question about it? The NIST report, even if it has minor flaws here and there, adequately describes the collapse scenarios. Why would "the authorities" waste any time or energy on refuting a small scientific paper that by all rights never should have survived peer review in the first place?

Why would they even entertain such a thing when by Harrit's own admission there would have to have been several tons of this supposed thermite in the dust alone, not to mention however many tons of it were purportedly consumed in the collapse. And he also suggests that conventional explosives would have been required as well. The idea itself is preposterous. "The authorities" would be just as likely to entertain the "Rainbow Sprinkler Conspiracy" as this one.

Rancourt embarrassed himself.

I disagree. If anyone should be embarrassed it is Harrit et. al. after being shown that the paper wouldn't have survived adequate peer review.

[Little Fish]

where is Rancourts empirical based discussion?

his response is all conjecture, speculation, opinion, but no data to back it up, he provided nothing empirical regarding the Harrit paper in that debate.

where is the data and fact based discussion that falsifies Harrit's paper? if it's there then present it, give me a pointer to where it is, otherwise it is just rhetoric and speculation based on nothing but appeal to his own authority. anyone who talks so much but says nothing is not worth listening to, he's just another blowhard windbag (in a long line). Rancourt has never addressed the critical points. the molten iron, the elemental aluminium, and the thermitic reaction, all empirically measured.

all Rancourt's nonsense is addressed here:

*****************

QUESTION: The Al slugs would give inhomogeneous background Al signals in the EDXA spectra. This was not considered or discussed in the paper. There could be no or little Al in the red-layer.

ANSWER: When doing a scientific, instrumental investigation, there always is a great number of control experiments, which are implicit to every serious worker in the field. It is understood by the experienced reader, that these tests have been done, since you cannot put every basic control test image or report every bit of supporting data in a journal article. The articles would be so enormous that no one would bother reading them and no journal would possibly care to print them. There are some things that are implied.

Thus, numerous background studies were carried out which were not reported in the red/grey chips paper. Among them, we performed a background study where the SEM beam hit the pedestal directly. We found that the pedestal was not pure aluminum (as you somehow(?) anticipate), but rather an Al-Mg alloy.

Therefore, if we were picking up aluminum signal from the pedestal then we also would have seen Mg.

We did not.

As the controls also showed, the electron beam couldn’t even penetrate the carbon conductive tab used as substratum for the chip samples during measurement. That is, the Al/Mg scaffold was never hit in any of the spectral recordings published in the article.

These circumstances are illustrated by Figs. 6 and 7 in the article. Fig. 6 shows the EDS spectra of the grey layers of four chips from each of the four dust samples. Thus, these data served as kind-of internal standard for the emissions obtained from the corresponding red layers (Fig. 7). In principle, the target areas for the electron beam on the two phases could be in a distance of microns only. It is immediately seen, that there is:

1. No aluminum in the grey layer (and only traces of carbon – no magnesium), and

2. Plenty aluminum in the red layer (and plenty of carbon – no magnesium).

Taken together, Figs. 6 and 7 prove unambiguously, that the aluminum signal is specific for the red layer. That is, there is NO background contribution!

TEM wide-field studies aimed at determination of stoichiometric compositions of the red and the grey layers were carried out after publication article (and therefore should not go into this discussion). However, the samples were mounted on a copper holder and these measurements also confirm the presence of aluminum in the red material (in the platelets). If money and time permit, the TEM studies may be completed and published.

The spread of the electron beam inside the samples was tested and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to get an idea of the interaction volume of the electron beam within the sample. There was NO aluminum signal when the beam was not on the red layer.

To suggest that there is no aluminum in the red layer is ludicrous.

.

QUESTION: The carbon adhesive tape will give inhomogeneous background C signals in the EDXA spectra. This was not considered or discussed in the paper. There could be no or little C in the red-layer.

ANSWER: Referring to the previous answer, it stands to reason that we acquired control spectra of the carbon tape on the Al stub, as well as on samples NOT mounted to carbon tape.

Again, comparison of figs. 6 and 7 reveals that the carbon signal almost exclusively originates from the red layer.

True, there seems to be carbon everywhere, which is exactly why some spectra were acquired from samples that were NOT mounted to carbon tape to ensure that the C was from the sample and not spurious X-rays from the carbon tape. In fact, one sample was mounted so that the X-ray signal could only possibly originate from within the red layer, and the measurement verified that there is carbon in the red layer.

The amount of carbon in the red layer had not been accurately determined at the time of writing and therefore we only reported qualitatively the presence of the C in the red layer.

Independently, the observation that the red layer swells in methyl ethyl ketone is an unambiguous proof that an organic matrix is present!

.

QUESTION: There is as much or more Si (silicon) in the EDXA results than Al in all the red-layer results and Si and Al are closely correlated in their spatial distributions (e.g., their Figure 10). No probable explanation is given for this. This is not consistent with the presence of metallic Al.

ANSWER: Fig. 10 shows the elemental mapping BEFORE soaking the chip in methyl ethyl ketone. Please, compare with Fig. 15.

.

QUESTION: Oxygen (O) is more closely spatially correlated with Al and Si than with Fe (e.g., their Figure 10). No probable explanation is given for this. This contradicts the conclusion of the presence of metallic Al.

ANSWER: Fig. 10 shows the elemental mapping BEFORE soaking the chip in methyl ethyl ketone. Please, compare with Fig. 15.

.

QUESTION: No effort was made to estimate the Fe:Al elemental ratio in the red-layer. Synthetic thermite or nanothermite would have a ratio of 1:1. The point is never discussed.

ANSWER: This ratio is not decisive. According to stoichiometry it should be 1:1. However, in real life there is always more aluminum. One reason is, that every aluminum item exposed to the atmosphere is covered by aluminum oxide. The relative fraction of Al2O3 increases as particles get smaller as a simple mathematical consequence.

Wonder where Dr. Rancourt got this information on nanothermite? Please provide a reference next time.

And what on earth is “synthetic thermite”?

In contrast, from the recipe provided in ref. 25 in our paper, one can derive an Fe/Al ratio of 0.17. But be sure that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would never publish a preparation of “the real stuff”.

.

QUESTION: The exothermic peak in the DSC traces occurs at a temperature (420 C) approximately 90 C below the temperature for the thermite reaction. No explanation is proposed for this. Chemical activation energies of known reactions cannot be so sample dependent, whether nano-sized or not. This is not the thermite reaction.

ANSWER: We do not claim that the red/grey chips are the same material as Tillotson et al. described. Actually, we are pretty sure it is NOT for the same – for reasons given above.

Your statement about activation energies is nonsense. An activation energy is a thermodynamic quantity referring to standard conditions in solution or in the gas phase. That some people take this lightly is another matter. But to postulate a unique correlation between ignition temperature and activation energy in a two-phase solid reaction is ridiculous. Well, maybe you can expect a lower ignition temperature the smaller the particles – as observed.

Of course, all samples have a different ignition temperature (Fig. 19), and of course, different preparations with different compositions will have different ignition temperatures.

And what do you mean by “the temperature for the thermite reaction”? You are going to have a very hard time if you try to search the literature for a well-defined ignition temperature of conventional thermite mixtures. Please, provide a reference next time you come up with such a statement.

Furthermore, in the paper we hypothesize that the organic matrix (plus atmospheric oxygen) is decisive for the low ignition temperature and the overall energy output.

.

QUESTION: In the reacted product (after heating in DSC), no Al-oxide is observed as a residue, as required by the thermite reaction. No explanation is given for this.

ANSWER: Obviously, you have never done the experiment. In a conventional thermite reaction, you can observe the aluminum oxide as a white dust cloud (plume) leaving the reaction site. And if you care to watch the videos of the collapse of the WTC towers, you may also observe, that the rocket-projectile fragments, which were ejected up-and-out from the towers, drew white smoke-trails after them. Gypsum from wallboard CANNOT account for this. Take a look!

.

QUESTION: The obvious needed measurement of X-ray diffraction was not used to confirm the solid mineral species (oxides or metals). This is unacceptable in a materials chemistry paper. This is not considered by the authors.

ANSWER: X-ray diffraction studies on samples as small as these are very far from being a trivial matter. We did not have access to specialized X-ray sources (like synchrotrons) for this study.

.

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but there is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids. Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous.

ANSWER: A scientific paper is a set of data and the best hypothesis rationalizing the observations. Fe-rich spheroids are observed after a thermite reaction. Fe-rich spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction.

“Tenuous”?

.

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: Here is an alternative explanation for the observations reported by Harrit et al.

Steel rusts. Rust crusts crack and blow off the steel when physically disrupted.

Rusting steel is one of the most studied materials science problems in engineering.

When steel rusts in a humid building environment it grows a crust composed of layers of different Fe-oxides and Fe-oxyhydroxides. These are stratified micro-layers with successive layers of different Fe-oxides species (wustite, maghemite, hematite, etc.). In a humid atmosphere the outer layers will be Fe-oxyhydroxides such as goethite, lepidocrocite and akaganeite. The latter three Fe-oxyhydroxides have the same chemical formula: FeOOH, and differ only in their crystal structures.

These Fe-oxyhydroxides typically form as nanoparticles and have the same needle and nanoflake-like morphologies as observed here.

When these Fe-oxyhydroxides are heated in a DSC they undergo a solid to solid exothermic reaction of dehydroxilation (loss of OH) and transform from FeOOH to Fe2O3 (hematite) at a temperature of approximately 400 C. The temperature of the transformation can vary depending on exact chemical composition, and on the crystal structure, but it is always at approximately 400 C.

Looks like our boys may have been discovering the properties of rusted steel. Steel contains C and Si which would end up in its oxidation products, especially in the oxyhydroxides.

ANSWER: Sensational.

According to your suggestion, when you heat rust, elemental iron is formed.

I look forward to the publication of this hypothesis in – say – Journal of Inorganic Chemistry (an ACS publication). If supported by observation(!) – be sure it will be accepted promptly and be widely recognized.

Next time you present this hypothesis, the least you can do is to provide it with proper references and observations.

.

Yours sincerely

Niels Harrit

*****************

let Rancourt publish or shut up.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Little Fish

[skyeagle409]

On only this can the world agree: On Sept. 11, 2001, two planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. A short time later, both fell.

http://www.cbsnews.c...n20104377.shtml

That is correct and it is not conceivable for someone to plant explosives after the fact and at the points of impact. Doesn't make any sense at all.

Don't be surprised later when someone comes along and claims that no aircraft struck the builidngs.

Edited September 27, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Missile Punch]

You all should consider watching the South Park episode that focuses on this subject. It will really open your eyes!

[Kataliac]

I ment reincarnation Spid3rCyd3.

[booNyzarC]

where is Rancourts empirical based discussion?

his response is all conjecture, speculation, opinion, but no data to back it up, he provided nothing empirical regarding the Harrit paper in that debate.

where is the data and fact based discussion that falsifies Harrit's paper? if it's there then present it, give me a pointer to where it is, otherwise it is just rhetoric and speculation based on nothing but appeal to his own authority. anyone who talks so much but says nothing is not worth listening to, he's just another blowhard windbag (in a long line). Rancourt has never addressed the critical points. the molten iron, the elemental aluminium, and the thermitic reaction, all empirically measured.

all Rancourt's nonsense is addressed here:

--

let Rancourt publish or shut up.

You've already seen the reasons that Harrit's paper is inadequate. They've been put forward to you many times, from multiple sources. Dredimus provided a link in another thread which you've read. This one.

It isn't just Rancourt that has pointed out flaws in the paper. If you can't acknowledge the flaws by now, I'm not sure what else to say.

Will you accept the fact that this paper wasn't adequately peer reviewed? Probably not. And that's alright.

I've wasted enough time on this nonsense already.

Cheers.

[Little Fish]

You've already seen the reasons that Harrit's paper is inadequate.

i have not seen anything that disputes the findings and experiments of the Harrit paper.

smears and allegations against the journal that published the paper do not dispute the findings.

They've been put forward to you many times, from multiple sources. Dredimus provided a link in another thread which you've read. This one.

there's nothing there that disputes the findings. kaolinite? are you serious?

where's the iron that was in the chips?

Al2Si2O5(OH)4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaolinite

where's the experiment that shows heating kaolinite produces molten iron at 420C?

you believe that nonsense? a lot of noise about peer review and focus on the journal, yet unquestioned faith in assertions by anonymous internet posters that are provably ludicrous.

It isn't just Rancourt that has pointed out flaws in the paper. If you can't acknowledge the flaws by now, I'm not sure what else to say.

Will you accept the fact that this paper wasn't adequately peer reviewed?

All rancourts speculations have been addressed in the post above.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=214226&st=210&p=4068738entry4068738

do you disagree with the rebuttals to Rancourt?

Rancourt claims the chips are rust. since when did rust produce molten iron at 420C?

if the bar is peer review then Rancourt should publish a rebuttal and get it peer reviewed, if he doesn't then he is being hypocritical.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Little Fish

[Stundie]

I would like to an answer to these questions.

When does rust produce molten iron at 420C?

At what temperature can you heat a piece of steel and aluminium to create thermite?

Edited September 28, 2011 by Stundie

[Stundie]

You are absolutely correct!

In that video, not anything to do with explosives. They need to understand that.

Well the person recording the video seems to think it was an explosion.

Nothing to do with air pressure from falling ceilings or walls.

[MadMike740]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/28/al-qaeda-in-yemen-call-ahmadinejad-11-truther/

I bet the moron whacko conspiracy theorists will still claim "INSIDE JOB BY CIA"...lol

If I ever meet one of these people they WILL need facial reconstructive surgery.

[skyeagle409]

Well the person recording the video seems to think it was an explosion.

Nothing to do with air pressure from falling ceilings or walls.

Looking at the video again at the time of the collapse, there was no explosion. And, no one planted explosives after impact at the floors where the aircraft struck the buildings.

Edited September 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Little Fish]

I would like to an answer to these questions.

When does rust produce molten iron at 420C?

rust does not produce molten iron at 420C

At what temperature can you heat a piece of steel and aluminium to create thermite?

you cannot heat a piece of steel and aluminium to create unreacted thermite.

nor can you heat a piece of steel and aluminium to create reacted thermite residue.

[Stundie]

Looking at the video again at the time of the collapse, there was no explosion.

Well the person who recorded the video and witnessed it disagrees with your opinion.

And no disrespect, but you weren't there, the person recording it was. So I hope you don't mind if I take his opinion over yours.

And, no one planted explosives after impact at the floors where the aircraft struck the buildings.

Skyeagle, I was warned by a moderator about a rule breach in one of my posts and I feel that you are in breach of this same rule.

I have never argued or even suggested that someone planted the explosives after the impact, in fact I have twice refuted this claim, both here and here.

Yet here you are continuing with this frankly ridiculous and absurd point that nobody but yourself has made. If you continue again, I will report you to the moderators.

[Scott G]

Skyeagle, I was warned by a moderator about a rule breach in one of my posts and I feel that you are in breach of this same rule.

I have never argued or even suggested that someone planted the explosives after the impact, in fact I have twice refuted this claim, both here and here.

Yet here you are continuing with this frankly ridiculous and absurd point that nobody but yourself has made. If you continue again, I will report you to the moderators.

Maybe he just didn't see us make that point at the time that he wrote the post you're responding to.

[Stundie]

rust does not produce molten iron at 420C

you cannot heat a piece of steel and aluminium to create unreacted thermite.

nor can you heat a piece of steel and aluminium to create reacted thermite residue.

Don't worry Little Fish, I know that this is the case but I wanted to see how this is suppose to be possible from a debunker point of view.

As I said, you don't chuck flour, butter, eggs and sugar into the oven and expect a sponge cake.

Cheers

Stundie