# 9/11 Poll

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Feb 7, 2009.

?

## Who was responsible for 9/11?

2.2%

43.3%

20.0%

2.2%

6.7%

17.8%
7. ### 7- Other

7.8%
Not open for further replies.
1. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
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?

Messages:
496
so do you think igniting chips of tnemec primer paint at 420 celcius will produce molten iron spheres?

5. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
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?

7. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
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

And forms spheres:

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:

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

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

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.

Messages:
496
The spherical nature of the iron microspheres proves it was previously molten due to surface tension like raindrops.

do you you think that burning Tnemec primer paint can produce iron rich spheres?

the chips ignite at 430 celcius, the temperature given off when the chips ignite is greater than 1500 celcius in order to produce molten iron.

I presume you are talking about the residue from igniting the red chips, it was found.

"A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe

ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section).
"

9. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
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).

Messages:
496
the iron spheres produced from igniting the red chips did not have milllions of years to form and were not subjected to erosion processes involving water.

From the paper:
"A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe

ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section)."

FeO, iron(II) oxide, (wüstite)
Fe3O4, iron(II,III) oxide, (magnetite)
Fe2O3, iron(III) oxide
α-Fe2O3, hematite
β-Fe2O3
γ-Fe2O3, maghemite
ε-Fe2O3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_oxide

there isn't enough oxygen in the sample for it all to be iron oxide.

the melting point of iron oxide is virtually the same as elemental iron, the argument doesn't change with regard to the heat generated from igniting the red chips even if the iron spheres were entirely iron oxide. the spherical nature indicates the temperature passed its melting point.

"Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present."

Last edited: May 28, 2009
11. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
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

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.

12. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
Really?

Because that's not what Harrit seems to think.

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.

Messages:
496
ok, so how would a spherical iron-rich microsphere form without melting?

14. ### MacGyver1968Fixin' Shit that Ain't BrokeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,028

LOL!! When I first read this, my eyes saw "Oli" instead of "Oil". I was like..."Don't combust Oli! He's one of my favorite posters."

Messages:
496
"A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe

ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section)."

16. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
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 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?

Messages:
496
how?

18. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
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?

Messages:
496
what a bunch of bullshit

20. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
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

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.

Last edited: May 28, 2009
21. ### Tony SzambotiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
634
I agree that the white substance emanating from the sides of the buildings during collapse is dust.

I would also agree with what I have seen you say on here concerning the dust, that most of it was gypsum and sfrm. It can be estimated from the percentages of the various constituents in the dust and weight and volume of materials originally in the buildings, that about 15% of the concrete was pulverized to dust. Most of the concrete was broken up pretty well, but wound up in the sublevels, not in the dust cloud.

However, the lack of deceleration of the falling upper portions of these buildings points to something other than natural forces removing the strength of the columns.

Last edited: May 28, 2009
22. ### scott3xBannedBanned

Messages:
3,785
I'd just like to say something that I've said to Headspin in private. That is, when people start going on the way Headspin and Tony and Trippy and stereologist do, I'm just lost. This is how it works for me:
Headspin says one thing and it sounds great. Then Trippy says another and that sounds great too.

Now obviously I trust Headspin more because of many other things that I've heard. However, if this was strictly a matter of chemistry or what not, it would frequently be a toss up for me as to who to believe. I've essentially told Headspin, and this applies to people like Trippy and others:

While something may be (or atleast seem) obvious to you, for some of us (I include myself here), we just don't get it. So if one party or another says that this or that view is bad (or more derogatory terms of this nature) all it does for me is show that this is what you believe. I'm still as mystified as ever. I have asked Headspin to consider the fact that not everyone knows what he does. Not everyone knows what Tripply does either. And the list goes on. This doesn't mean that the rest of us are idiots. It just means we haven't studied up on some of these things and so for us it's latin. I think what is frequently needed is patience here.

I've told this to Headspin and I share it with everyone here now: if you believe that you know the truth and the opponent doesn't, I think it helps to think of your opponents as children. Children are frequently wrong. Does this mean they are inherently bad, spies, idiots, dishonest or what not? Generally, no. It just means that they're wrong. Now if you get mad at the child and tell them that what they think is dumb (or worse words), I really don't think that you'll endear yourself to the child. The child may respond in kind or decide to say less; both possibilities are generally counterproductive to a good exchange of information. If, on the other hand, you attempt to explain why you disagree with the child politely, then it's a lot different.

Sometimes you may get frustrated; the child may dismiss your beliefs, so sure that they are right. And certainly, this can cause frustration. But should you respond with inflamatory words? Or perhaps take some time to cool down and, when cooled down, once again try to explain things in a calm manner? I have tried as much as I'm able for the latter option. I hope that we can do things more this way in the future.

23. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
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.