9/11 Poll

No we don't.
We know that Harrit alleges that iron rich spheres were left behind when the paint ignited.
The temperature the paint ignites at is not neccessarily the temperature the paint burns with.
Peice of history - allegedly the ancient greeks discovered the smelting process (blooming) through forest fires. Bloomeries operate at temperatures as low as 1100°C.
According to this source Linseed Oil ignites at 343°C.

I haven't found any direct sources for adiabatic flame temperatures yet (I've found a ocuple of references to it, but they say it's currently unavailable), however, This source describes Linseed oil reacting with Magnesium Carbonate to generate temperatures high enough that the magnesium carbonate was glowing red.

Name calling only serves to make you look desperate - 'conspiracy theorist' is not a perjorative, it's a description of a position. Are you suggesting there is no conspiracy involved in your position?

As for the Iron you're referring to, that was the iron nodules that were present in the dust from the world trade center, not the ones produced by the ignition of the paint chips. It's those very iron nodules that Harrit claims to have been looking for when he found the paint chips.

Technically, and realistically, you have proven no such thing.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how it's *thermite without nanometer sized pieces of aluminium in it?

 

Where's your proof they were ever molten?

You think that *thermite burns at 430°C?

Do you have an explanation as to why the *thermite had no pieces of Aluminium in it?

 

Harrit doesn't prove that the Spheres are Iron, he assumes they're Iron, just like he assumed that the Kalonite was aluminium.
He describes metallic spheres, and translucent blue spheres.
He then examines the metallic spheres, predetermining that they're Iron, while completely ignoring the translucent blue spheres - once again, he's examining the evidence in accordance with his beliefs.

Hematite is also metallic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And forms spheres:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you going to suggest that the blueberries found on mars by spirit and opportunity were caused by Thermite?

Also.

According to this source
in this image:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We have, according to the page:

And take a look at the category that the photo occurs under:

Get it? We can expect metallic iron rich spheres to form when we burn hydrocarbons that are contaminated with iron.

Also note that this explanation has the advantage of being able to naturally explain the varying ratios of Iron

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

xygen found in the spheres that Harrit examined (their composition was highly variable, and only one or two of them came close to resembling the ratios of Fe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

found in the byproducts of the Thermite he examined.

Also, may I reccomend you take note of the following chemistry:

\(3Fe_2O_3 + C -> 2Fe_3O_4 + CO\)
\(Fe_3O_4 + C -> 3FeO + CO\) (or Carbon Monoxide can substitute for Carbon.

The production of Iron doesn't neccessarily require high temperatures, it can be done naturally, it requires a strongly reducing environment.

Veins of native Iron, although unusual to be found, because of how quickly Iron oxidizes, can be despoited hydrothermally.

So no, i'm not neccessarily suggesting that the Linseed oil ignited and caused molten Iron to form.
I am, however, suggesting that the Linseed oil did play a role in setting the conditions neccessary, and played a role in the production of the of the spheres, which Harrit failed to demonstrate were anything more than spheres of Iron Oxide produced as a combustion by-product.

 

No, it proves nothing of the sort - again, are you going to assert that Thermite has been used on Mars?

In as much that 'iron rich' does not automatically imply that they are composed primarily of metallic iron (as Harrit assumes) yes.

Circular logic - first you assume that the spheres are Iron, then you assume that they must have been hot, but if they aren't Iron (but i've demonstrated in this post that this isn't neccessarily true - Iron Oxides also form Iron rich spheres, which can include metallic iron, as a by product of burning stuff that's contaminated with iron oxides (which is precisely what has happened here - linseed oil contaminated with iron oxide burned).

You presume wrongly, I was referring to the red chips themselves which I demonstrated here produce comparable peak height ratios with comparable electron beam energies (thus demonstrating that Harrits aluminium rich areas are consistent with being alumina, which is produced when you heat kaolinite).

 

Wholly irrelevant.
The spheres in the fly ash were produced by the combustion of Oil.

At least make an effort to pretend to understand what i'm saying.
Some spheres had high ratios of Fe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

most didn't.

Your assumption that the Iron oxide has to be molten to form aggregate spheres is erroneous.

Really? I thought it was quite clear, although I can understand why you might wish it to be ambiguous.

You almost have a valid point here - in the context of the paper, he is referring to the seperation of the silicon rich component from the aluminium rich component - it was an attempt to prove that what was present wasn't an alumino silicate, but he failed to account for the fact that:

1. Kaolinite is one of the registered ingredients in Tnmec Red 99
2. Kaolinite decomposes into Alumina and Silica (which are not chemically bound and can be seperated) upon heating to the temperatures that must have been present in all scenarios.

Had he successfully managed to seperate the aluminium from the oxygen, it would promptly have blown up on him, as per the MSDS I have previously linked to.

The fact that there was no energetic reaction observed between the aluminium rich platelets, and the MEK he used as a solvent proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Oxygen that is associated aluminium in his samples, is chemically bound to that aluminium.

And you're completely ignoring the fact that I have provided a spectrum, from a peer reviewed paper, that uses a comparable energy electron beam, that demonstrates that there is no significant difference in the spectrum between the nanometer scale Alumina that was being examined in the paper, and Harrits Aluminium rich areas.

More to the point, your argument is a red herring (at best, at worst it's outright dishonest).

In the post I linked to, the spectrum of Harrits that I was comparing the spectrum of the Alumina to is figure 17, which is the spectrum of the Aluminium rich area AFTER the chip had been soaked in MEK for 55 hours.

 

Really?

Are you sure about that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Because that's not what Harrit seems to think.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pay attention to his phraseology in Fig 25.

In other words - the Iron poor spheres are unusual. They're atypical. They're not representative of the majority of the spheres, however he obfuscates this, and misleads the reader in doing so.

 

Easily :/

Yes, i'm giving you an unimformative answer, because:
1. I'm tired of doing your research for you.
2. I don't have the time to provide a definitive answer at this juncture.

How about you answer a question:

How did somebody manage to plant several tons of thermite in Buildings 1&2 with noone noticing?

How did somebody manage to get a demolitions team into Building 7 without the fire crews that were watching it in case it collapsed noticing?

 

My short (and initial) response to this is this (I may look into it more when I have more time):

He cocked up the investigation he did, he screwed up his DSC scans, he screwed up the conclusions he drew from his XEDS, he made no attempt to prove any of the oxidation states present, he used in-appropriate, and potentially dangerous experimental techniques, he published the article without the editors knowledge, he doesn't appear to understand the significance of DSC spectra, he doesn't list what this standard method is. Why should I assume that this is anything more than another error in a littany of errors and deceitfully worded prose?

 

If you're going to resort to tactics like this, the conversation is over, and the obvious conclusion (especially with your side stepping of direct questions) is that you've lost, and you've got nothing left but political agenda.

Harrit did mess up his investigation, he himself admits he messed up in some areas.
I've outlined some other short comings in his paper.

Being Iron rich doesn't contradict anything that I've said.
I haven't said that the spheres were exclusively Iron Oxide, in fact, i've repeatedly pointed out that the fly ash ESM that I posted earlier contains Iron particles in it (in it's metallic form). In fact a 2:1 ratio of Fe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

can be trivially accounted for by the formula Fe.FeO

The closest i've come is stating that Iron Rich does not automatically imply metallic Iron. I've also said that high temperatures are not the only way of producing Iron, all that is required is a sufficiently reducing environment.

Well, here's a patent issued in 2000 that uses additives to create a strongly reducing environment that enables the extraction of Iron from Iron oxides with an optimal operating range of temperatures 650-790°C easily within the range of hydrocarbons.

Flames can be a strongly reducing environment, they tend to produce lots of thick, black smoke, which is primarily carbon.

Hmm, and what's one of the reactions listed on the patent?

FeO + C -> Fe + CO

Hmmm, oops, looks like I forgot to list that reaction in my list of reactions a couple of posts back.

All.
Questions.
Answered.

 

In so far as my comment about Harrit not understanding what the DSC results mean, my understanding of DSC spectra is that the width of peak doesn't actually reflect reaction rates - what the DSC spectrum shows is the difference in energy require to keep the two pans at the same temperature.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So where the peak occurs in Harrits what that means is that at that time, the sample pan is (or would be) having to apply 22 w/g less energy to continue raising the temperature, compared to the blank sample (or if you like, the blank pan has to put 22 w/g more energy into keeping the same temperature as the sample pan.

DSC's measure heat capacity, the width of the peak, IIRC is dependent on the mass of the sample, and it's composition, not the reaction rate (Phase changes show up on DSC's as peaks - the process of melting water in a DSC would produce a peak because while the ice melts, the temperature of the sample tray will not change, and so more energy has to be put into the sample tray to try and keep its temperature increasing at the same rate as the blank, once the melting is complete, the temperature of sample tray will begin to increase - the peak will curve downards, until the sample tray and the blank tray are at the same temperature again).

At least that is (part of) my (limited) understanding of DSC spectra - the only thing that the width of the spectra really tells us is that it took about ten minutes from when the sample first began smouldering or combusting (at 370°C) to when the sample pan had cooled to the same temperature as the reference pan. This information tells us little, if anything about the rate of the reaction occuring (5 minutes to incinerate a miligram sample?).