9/11 Poll

[Trippy]

Response to Trippy: -


"You mean the same dust that according to Truthers contained pulverized concrete?

It was basic? Really? Wow, who would have seen that one coming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement#Safety
"When cement is mixed with water a highly alkaline solution (pH ~13) is produced by the dissolution of calcium, sodium and potassium hydroxides."

So, tell me how that was the only point I was making? And also how you can get concrete pulverized to hair-width dust with no concrete floors left? Nobody has made cement with these dust samples.

You claimed that the composition and the pH were unique.
You only provided actual information about the pH so I addressed the part of your point that you actually backed up with facts.

You want me to address the composition? Provide some actual information and evidence regading the composition.

And as for the no floors BS?

Really, are you sure of that?

"Zinc in the form of Zinc Oxides, which react with Linseed Oil, which formed the base of the paint, to form Zinc Soaps, which are soluble in MEK.
Your point is what precisely?"

Where is the linseed oil here? How is this at all relevant? There is NO zinc here at all. Even if there were trace elements of zinc, then that still doesn't support zinc oxide paint-theory which you are suggesting. So stop stating irrelvant information.

Because before Harrit soaks the red chip in an unspecified amount of MEK for 50-something hours, Zinc is present, but, after soaking the chip Zinc is absent, so Harrit assumes that it's surface contamination without attempting to prove it or consider alternatives.

"Right, Harrit soaked an unspecified mass of an unspecified paint, that may or may not have been dried in an unspecified manner, in an unspecified amount of MEK, and then comments on the difference of behaviour.

Am I the only person that sees the problem there?"

You are the one who still denies telling me that you admitted the material is nano-thermitic paint lol.

Still persisting with this Lie?

Even Tony and Scott have dropped this stupidity.

Quote me, link to a post where I state "This is nanothermitic paint".

"The ratio of Al peak heights are the same as in an XEDS aluminium oxide reference spectrum. QED."

The ratio of Al peak heights, if you bothered to actually read the paper, are NOT enough to oxidize all of the aluminium or even the majority of it. As I said, Jeffery Farrer is an expert in X-EDS and experienced in this and his analysis is much more trustworthy than some disinfo merchant like yourself.

Right.
I haven't read Harrit's paper, but some how, I seem to know more about the specifics of Harrit's method then you do.
The point is, that I can produce a reference spectrum with Al peak height ratios identical to Harrits, taken at the same, or very similar beam energies, and you can not produce one single reference spectrum that resembles it.

"Right, consistent with the Ferric Oxide that was used as a pigment in the paint."

Eh? At nano-sized grain particles interspersed with aluminium plates? What nonsense. This is an engineered material, and its not paint. Your continued persistence in arguing that it is, shows that you lack knowledge.

This is pure BS, and wasn't what I said.
It's easy to produce nanometer scale grains of ferric oxide, even Tony has accepted this (in fact, I believe that Tony never questioned this).
All you need to do is precipitate the Ferric Oxide under the right conditions. Encouraging rapid crystal growth causes small grains (a very fine powder) to form. Anybody who has studied at least highschool chemistry should no this. That you don't appear to does nto bode well for the continuation of this conversation (especially when one considers that you, who clearly barely grasps highschool chemistry keep insulting my level of knowledge).

"Didn't say they did, Harrit however says that the chip contains silica rich areas that were able to be seperated from the ALuminium rich plates, consistent with the decomposition by dehydration of Kaolinite."

No, you need to realise that the aluminium and silicon are not bound chemically. I quoted from the paper too, as proof. The nano-particles are bound within a medium at close proximity.

QUOTE FROM PAPER: -
'Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon, located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration and separation of the components. This is a significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
bound chemically.'

Listen to what i'm saying you incomparable idiot.

I'm not claiming that the silica was chemically bound to the alumina at the time Harrit examined them. I'm saying they were chemically bound when they were mixed into the paint in the 60's, but at some point between the paint being applied to the steel and being examined by Harrit the paint was subjected to temperatures sufficient to cause the Kaolinite to dehydrate, and split into alumina and silica. This could have been as a result of the baking process the steel was subjected to after being painted, or it could have been as a result of the fires that occured on 9/11.

"Not a claim I have made, I have however siad that MEK oxidizes Aluminium, which is why the lack of a reaction between the MEK and the red chips tells us there was no metallic aluminium in the"

Nonsense. It is evident that there WAS elemental aluminium and hardly enough oxygen to oxidize it. You are continuing to tell lies.

Speaking of nonsense, this makes precisely zero sense whatsoever.
I'm talking about the known chemistry between Metallic ALuminium and MEK. What are you blubbering about?

"Easily.
Kaolinite (note the spelling) contains a high proportion of water, and is formed of (essentially) paralell layers of alumina and silica. The application of heat causes the kaolinite to dehydrate, and seperate into plates of Alumina and Silica, which can then be seperated by the MEK."

First of all, who mentioned heat? They did not heat the red-chips to the over 900C required to separate the aluminium bound to the silicate. They didn't heat anything!

Strawman argument (one of many you've presented) I didn't claim that Harrit did heat anything.

"This contradicts nothing I have said. Once the Kaolinite has dehydrated, and seperated, the Alumina and Silica are no longer chemically bound."

Well, the material was never chemically bound as kaolonite in the first place.

Stop spreading your lies and disinfo.

Only if you stop spreading your stupidity and nonsense. :/

 

[Trippy]

You are the one claiming the 9/11 event was not unusual in being called "pyroclastic" so you explain your statement.

psik

Pyroclastic has a specific meaning, definition, and usage.
The debris flows from WTC fail to meet the definition of even a 'cold' pyroclastic flow, therefore they were not pyroclastic in any sense of the words.

By the logic being expoused in the sentiment that they were pyroclastic flows, clouds are also pyroclastic flows.

 

[Trippy]

WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT...

You're aware of the existence of copyright laws...

Right..?

 

[Trippy]

I am not going to play a game Trippy. If you don't want to take the effort to convey your thoughts properly then they won't be understood. Most people, if they think somebody isn't understanding what they are saying, would have simply tried to reiterate their point in a little different language to ensure the other person understood.

It really sounds like you can't show a basis for your claim that not enough nanothermite could have been manufactured to be used in demolitions of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.

FOr fucks sake Tony.

The paper I was addressing didn't address the preperation of the nanometer scale pieces of aluminium, it addressed teh preperation of the experimental solgels.

Therefore your bringing up the preperation of the nanometer sized pieces of ALuminium is a strawman/redherring, because that wasn't the point I was addressing.

But since you mention it. Such aluminium is typically produced by sputtering which produces spherical aluminium particles, not hexagonal platelets, that are typically bigger than what Harrit has claimed to have found, and have a substantially less uniform size distribution than what Harrit claims. I believe that there has been a paper linked to previously that discusses an experimental method using something along the lines of vacuum condensation, but it's also my understanding that this method takes longer and produces smaller quantities than sputtering.

 

[Hoz_Turner]

Trippy...

"Zinc is present, but, after soaking the chip Zinc is absent, so Harrit assumes that it's surface contamination without attempting to prove it or consider alternatives."

It is surface contamination. The zinc proportion on the chip is tiny in proportion to the silicon and aluminium. This is contrast to the actual primer paint used in the WTC buildings. The absence of magnesium in the red-gray chips is also important (this was part of a significant component of the WTC primer paint). Also notice the platelets present are of a consistent arrangement and size-range within the solgel matrix.

"that I can produce a reference spectrum with Al peak height ratios identical to Harrits"

Only when YOU take it out of context.


"All you need to do is precipitate the Ferric Oxide under the right conditions. Encouraging rapid crystal growth causes small grains (a very fine powder) to form"

No, my whole point was why nanometer sized iron-oxide grains are closely interspersed with elemental aluminium and silicon platelets in consistent sizes. This is clearly a thermitic arrangement. This would not be the sort of arrangement of ferric oxide that occurs in paint!

"..the paint was subjected to temperatures sufficient to cause the Kaolinite to dehydrate, and split into alumina and silica"

After application, the paint was baked at 120C - temperatures that are not high enough to cause elemental separation: -

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

You are assuming that fires caused this paint to be baked and aluminium oxide and silicates to form, but you forget the fact that the primer paint used in the WTC buildings did NOT have the chemical composition of the red-gray chips. Particularly, with respect to the proportion of oxygen and elemental metals. The dominant presence of Zinc in the primer paint, is notable in this comparison between the two.

"Strawman argument (one of many you've presented) I didn't claim that Harrit did heat anything."

You implied it. But very well then, your hypothesis is that of fire-heating. That has been disproved by the presence of elemental aluminium and silicon in far higher levels than the Zinc in the primer paint.

 

[Hoz_Turner]

I quote from page 12 of the paper, you need to read this and learn: -

"The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a
region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using
a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the
aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately
a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account
for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result."

As for your claims of reproducing X-EDS spectrums; you need to be very careful with this given the context which it is used in the paper, the type of beam used, and where it is focused, etc.

 

[scott3x]

You're aware of the existence of copyright laws...

Right..?

In Hoz's defense, the article is available online and he didn't post that large an excerpt. I frequently quote large excerpts of online articles myself, especially since some here don't want to visit truth movement web sites.

 

[Trippy]

Trippy...

"Zinc is present, but, after soaking the chip Zinc is absent, so Harrit assumes that it's surface contamination without attempting to prove it or consider alternatives."

It is surface contamination. The zinc proportion on the chip is tiny in proportion to the silicon and aluminium. This is contrast to the actual primer paint used in the WTC buildings. The absence of magnesium in the red-gray chips is also important (this was part of a significant component of the WTC primer paint). Also notice the platelets present are of a consistent arrangement and size-range within the solgel matrix.

"that I can produce a reference spectrum with Al peak height ratios identical to Harrits"

Only when YOU take it out of context.

I'm taking nothing out of context, and I've been precisely clear on what the reference spectrum is, and where it came from. I've taken nothing out of context, and misrepresented nothing.

"All you need to do is precipitate the Ferric Oxide under the right conditions. Encouraging rapid crystal growth causes small grains (a very fine powder) to form"

No, my whole point was why nanometer sized iron-oxide grains are closely interspersed with elemental aluminium and silicon platelets in consistent sizes. This is clearly a thermitic arrangement. This would not be the sort of arrangement of ferric oxide that occurs in paint!

Wrong.
The only thing it indicates is that the ferric oxide, and whatever gave rise to the aluminium rich grains, and the silica were well mixed.

Paint tends to be well mixed, other wise it tends to be poor quality.

"..the paint was subjected to temperatures sufficient to cause the Kaolinite to dehydrate, and split into alumina and silica"

After application, the paint was baked at 120C - temperatures that are not high enough to cause elemental separation: -

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

As you later point out, the baking process isn't neccessarily the source of high temperatures the paint was subjected to.

You are assuming that fires caused this paint to be baked and aluminium oxide and silicates to form, but you forget the fact that the primer paint used in the WTC buildings did NOT have the chemical composition of the red-gray chips. Particularly, with respect to the proportion of oxygen and elemental metals. The dominant presence of Zinc in the primer paint, is notable in this comparison between the two.

Something which I have already presented one possible explanation for - the solubility of Zinc soaps in MEK,

"Strawman argument (one of many you've presented) I didn't claim that Harrit did heat anything."

You implied it. But very well then, your hypothesis is that of fire-heating. That has been disproved by the presence of elemental aluminium and silicon in far higher levels than the Zinc in the primer paint.

I implied no such thing, and if you infered this from my words, then your interpretation of them is simply wrong.

And I repeat, the XEDS spectra presented by Harrit do not indicate the presence of metallic aluminium. If they did, you would be able to produce one reference spectra that shows this.

You have not, so I am forced to conclude that you can not.

 

[Trippy]

In Hoz's defense, the article is available online and he didn't post that large an excerpt. I frequently quote large excerpts of online articles myself, especially since some here don't want to visit truth movement web sites.

Both points are irrelevant.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Pyroclastic has a specific meaning, definition, and usage.
The debris flows from WTC fail to meet the definition of even a 'cold' pyroclastic flow, therefore they were not pyroclastic in any sense of the words.

By the logic being expoused in the sentiment that they were pyroclastic flows, clouds are also pyroclastic flows.

.
You just think you can talk reality in and out of existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO_Tz3FhkMo

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

And as for the no floors BS?

Really, are you sure of that?

.
We have two building with more than 100 floors in each that supposedly collapse straight down due to gravity and we just get this one blob called a Moon rock.

Just like finding only one filing cabinet frot two of the biggest office buildings ever constructed.

And we are supposed to believe there weren't any other energy sources that caused these weird phenomenon. Like pyroclastic flows.

psik

 

[Hoz_Turner]

*sigh*

Trippy.....


"I'm taking nothing out of context, and I've been precisely clear on what the reference spectrum is, and where it came from. I've taken nothing out of context, and misrepresented nothing."

Oh really? I and quite a few other scientists think you are wrong.

"Wrong.
The only thing it indicates is that the ferric oxide, and whatever gave rise to the aluminium rich grains, and the silica were well mixed."

Do you really think that ordinary paint has iron-oxide closely mixed at nano-scales with elemental aluminium and silica plates in the solgel that is clearly referenced to the nano-thermitic material from Laurence Livermore Labs? You are being very silly.

"Paint tends to be well mixed, other wise it tends to be poor quality."

Erm...general statement that is irrelevant with respect of what I've been saying.

"As you later point out, the baking process isn't neccessarily the source of high temperatures the paint was subjected to.

Something which I have already presented one possible explanation for - the solubility of Zinc soaps in MEK"

Ahh...but you haven't you see. The presence of Zinc was very very small in comparison to the amount of aluminium and silica. This is in direct contrast to the chemical constitutents of the WTC primer paint. Also notice the absence of magnesium (which was also present in the WTC primer paint). You can't evade these facts, and your argument does not hold water.


"I implied no such thing, and if you infered this from my words, then your interpretation of them is simply wrong.

And I repeat, the XEDS spectra presented by Harrit do not indicate the presence of metallic aluminium. If they did, you would be able to produce one reference spectra that shows this."

You are wrong, as they have gone into considerable effort to distinguish elemental aluminium from oxidized aluminium.

 

[leopold]

If I say...
Every morning I eat breakfast and shower. This morning I was unable to do that.

What do you think I mean?

exactly.
was you unable to eat breakfast or was you unable to shower or was you unable to do both.
just like the guy in the video you do not say exactly what you was unable to do.

 

[scott3x]

You're aware of the existence of copyright laws...

Right..?

In Hoz's defense, the article is available online and he didn't post that large an excerpt. I frequently quote large excerpts of online articles myself, especially since some here don't want to visit truth movement web sites.

Both points are irrelevant.

My point is that, considering the fact that it's online and the fact that it's speaking of such an important issue as well as the fact that some here don't want to visit truth movement sites, I don't think the author of the paper would mind; I believe Hoz left a link to the original and he certainly stated that it's not his own work, so he certainly isn't plagiarizing.

 

[scott3x]

If I say...
Every morning I eat breakfast and shower. This morning I was unable to do that.

What do you think I mean?

exactly. was you unable to eat breakfast or was you unable to shower or was you unable to do both. just like the guy in the video you do not say exactly what you was unable to do.

If the person is sloppy with language, yes, it could mean that it was one or the other. However, if I were to say the above with a clear head, it would mean that I was unable to do all of the above. I have certainly seen no evidence that any of the things that he mentioned before his "we were unable to do that" comment were done. Have you discovered any such evidence? We all know that all the WTC 7 steel was destroyed. Why do you think this was done? leopold, I thank you for your asking me to think of the government as my mother, thus apparently implying that this is the way you see the government. I believe it helps me understand your reluctance to believe that even a small group of people in the High Circle Policy Elites (HCPE), labelled the Global Domination Group or GDG, by certain authors which I have mentioned in the past, could have done such a thing.

In the past, I have linked to you articles wherein many people who have worked in the government and probably some that still do question or outright disbelieve the official story. I know for a fact that for some, if not most, of these individuals, it was hell when they realized that the official story didn't hold water. It seems to me that for a while you have wrestled with the possibility that WTC 7 was indeed taken down by controlled demolition and you realize that if that building was taken down by CD, then it weakens the story that the Twin Towers weren't taken down by CD as well. If the picture I'm painting of your state of mind has some bearing to reality, then I would like to say that I sympathize with you.

 

[Trippy]

.
You just think you can talk reality in and out of existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO_Tz3FhkMo

psik

If it fails to meet the definition of a pyroclastic flow, then it isn't a pyroclastic flow.

Did people survive being involved by the debris cloud?

Yes? Then it was too cold to be even a cold debris flow. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

By the logice you're espousing, clouds are pyroclastic flows.

 

[Trippy]

.
We have two building with more than 100 floors in each that supposedly collapse straight down due to gravity and we just get this one blob called a Moon rock.

Just like finding only one filing cabinet frot two of the biggest office buildings ever constructed.

And we are supposed to believe there weren't any other energy sources that caused these weird phenomenon. Like pyroclastic flows.

psik

So then you're comfortable assuming this was the only piece like it they found?

And you have the timerity to make comments about my grasp on reality?

 

[shaman_]

Personally I think it could be your loss too, if you were to miss out on some interesting information. However, I fully understand your dislike of comments like the one Hoz made there. Hopefully Hoz won't use such language in the future. shaman and Kenny have been making a fair amount of insulting comments at me

I am merely asking you, repeatedly, to back up some of your claims. You can’t. When pressed you just make pathetic excuses. After your constant ducking and dodging some of my comments become rather scathing and you just use that as another excuse not to respond.

recently as well and I've decided to take a break from such posts for now.

You mean posts where people refute what you say? Yes keep avoiding those Scott..

 

[Trippy]

*sigh*

Trippy.....


"I'm taking nothing out of context, and I've been precisely clear on what the reference spectrum is, and where it came from. I've taken nothing out of context, and misrepresented nothing."

Oh really? I and quite a few other scientists think you are wrong.

This is laughable at best.
Your grasp on chemistry barely meets high school standards, why should I believe you're qualified as a scientest?

Still no reference spectrum then?

"Wrong.
The only thing it indicates is that the ferric oxide, and whatever gave rise to the aluminium rich grains, and the silica were well mixed."

Do you really think that ordinary paint has iron-oxide closely mixed at nano-scales with elemental aluminium and silica plates in the solgel that is clearly referenced to the nano-thermitic material from Laurence Livermore Labs? You are being very silly.

Strawman argument, appeal to ridicule.
I have stated repeatedly, I do not believe that the aluminium rich platelets present in the sample were metallic aluminium, therefore I can not possibly believe that ordinary paint has ferric oxide (you know that Iron has more than one oxidation state right?) and aluminium platelets in it.

"Paint tends to be well mixed, other wise it tends to be poor quality."

Erm...general statement that is irrelevant with respect of what I've been saying.

Just because you fail to grasp the relevance of the statement, does not make the statement irrelevant.

"As you later point out, the baking process isn't neccessarily the source of high temperatures the paint was subjected to.

Something which I have already presented one possible explanation for - the solubility of Zinc soaps in MEK"

Ahh...but you haven't you see. The presence of Zinc was very very small in comparison to the amount of aluminium and silica. This is in direct contrast to the chemical constitutents of the WTC primer paint. Also notice the absence of magnesium (which was also present in the WTC primer paint). You can't evade these facts, and your argument does not hold water.

WTF are you on about?

How many times have I stated that I haven't had the time to examine Harrits 'analysis' of the paints composition? That hasn't changed, and just because you posted a chunk of it in the thread doesn't mean i'm going to take the time to stop and read it.

Besides which, if it's more of the same low quality garbage that his initial analysis was...

"I implied no such thing, and if you infered this from my words, then your interpretation of them is simply wrong.

And I repeat, the XEDS spectra presented by Harrit do not indicate the presence of metallic aluminium. If they did, you would be able to produce one reference spectra that shows this."

You are wrong, as they have gone into considerable effort to distinguish elemental aluminium from oxidized aluminium.

No they haven't.
They've made no effort whatsoever.
No effort to measure the oxidation state directly.
No effort to compare it to a XEDS spectrum of metallic aluminium - speaking of which, you manage to find one that looks like ALumina yet? No?

 

[Hoz_Turner]

"This is laughable at best.
Your grasp on chemistry barely meets high school standards, why should I believe you're qualified as a scientest?

Still no reference spectrum then?"

The respective spectra are in the report. I'm not going to quote any of Jeffery's work out of context or misrepresent them, unlike you.


"Strawman argument, appeal to ridicule.
I have stated repeatedly, I do not believe that the aluminium rich platelets present in the sample were metallic aluminium, therefore I can not possibly believe that ordinary paint has ferric oxide (you know that Iron has more than one oxidation state right?) and aluminium platelets in it."

What you "believe" is quite frankly irrelevant. The facts show the presence of aluminium, and not simply alumina (aluminium oxide). The report is clear.


"WTF are you on about?

How many times have I stated that I haven't had the time to examine Harrits 'analysis' of the paints composition? That hasn't changed, and just because you posted a chunk of it in the thread doesn't mean i'm going to take the time to stop and read it."

Oh dear. That doesn't help your "paint" argument does it?

"Besides which, if it's more of the same low quality garbage that his initial analysis was..."

Hmm...you are digging a bigger hole for yourself further with that.


"No they haven't.
They've made no effort whatsoever.
No effort to measure the oxidation state directly.
No effort to compare it to a XEDS spectrum of metallic aluminium - speaking of which, you manage to find one that looks like ALumina yet? No?"

Oh dear.

Pages 17-19 of the paper make it clear that one of the intentions of the authors are to test for the presence of elemental aluminium. You need to realise, that even after 900C+ heating, kaolonite is still composed of partially bound alumina (aluminium oxide). X-EDS focussed on a region with high aluminium ratio disproves that this is derived from kaolonite and\or is alumina.

I quote AGAIN: -

"The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a
region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using
a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the
aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately
a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account
for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material."


So. Your argument that it was primer paint is totally refuted and rejected. Because the amount of Zinc on the samples was very negligible in comparison to the aluminium and silica. This is in direct contrast with the chemical composition of the primer paint used in the WTC buildings as documented by NIST (and also checked by other external sources). There is also lack of magnesium, which was also present in the WTC primer paint. And finally, primer paint does not have the physical structure observed in the red\gray chips with nano-sized platelets (a curious shape) interspersed and intimately mixed with iron-oxide grains. If you tried to take your arguments to a journal, then it would simply not pass peer-review.

Now, stop polluting the internet with your deception.