9/11 Poll

[Trippy]

This, I believe, is a point that even someone who doesn't know all that much concerning chemistry can easily understand. Unless Trippy is claiming that paint explodes at less than 500C, I think you've got something that even a layman can understand. I am definitely interested to see how Trippy responds to this bit.

Simple, two words.

Paint.
Burns.

If you don't believe me, put some in a fire place (or something).
and no, I'm not claiming that paint explodes at less than 500C.

I am, however, claiming that Harrit misrepresents the significance of the Exotherm.

 

[scott3x]

This, I believe, is a point that even someone who doesn't know all that much concerning chemistry can easily understand. Unless Trippy is claiming that paint explodes at less than 500C, I think you've got something that even a layman can understand. I am definitely interested to see how Trippy responds to this bit.

Simple, two words.

Paint.
Burns.

Burning is not the same thing as exploding.

If you don't believe me, put some in a fire place (or something).
and no, I'm not claiming that paint explodes at less than 500C.

That's my point. If the chips exploded at less than 500C, don't you think that would be evidence that it couldn't have been paint?

I am, however, claiming that Harrit misrepresents the significance of the Exotherm.

How so? You just admitted that paint doesn't explode below 500C. It seems to me that it's you who is misrepresenting its significance.

 

[MGMkZERO]

How comes it's always "The Government" that is responsible? Crooks, Conmen and other assorted navvies know full well that the ones that manage to get away with it the most are those that "Infiltrate the System". This means you can have such crooks in the Government and the Police that aren't actually working on the authority of the Government but as their own Crime Gang.

Then select "Other" If you don't like the choices. Or just not vote. What is presented is presented. And don't be a skeptic of skeptics. It hurts my brain thinking about it and it probably pisses off a lot more skeptics who think so much more faster than they type.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I asked you this several pages ago and you didn't respond.

What do you mean by "pyroclastic cloud"?

.
I did not make up the use of the word in relation to what happened at the WTC.

I believe I provided a link to a video earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ2AeScXGHc

psik

 

[Trippy]

Burning is not the same thing as exploding.

Burning is absolutely the same thing as burning.
Look up the meaning or Brisance, then realize that 'Exploding' is just another way of saying 'Burns really really really fast'.

Coal dust is the perfect example of this.

Besides which, where's your proof that it exploded? As I recall, that's not what Harrit said, he said it generated a narro exotherm, which is to be expected in a small burning sample becaus eof the way DSC works.

That's my point. If the chips exploded at less than 500C, don't you think that would be evidence that it couldn't have been paint?

No, because I have seen no evidence of the chips exploding.
Besides which, consider the larger scale structure of the chips. A Carbon rich (red) layer attached to an Oxygen rich (gray) layer.

How so? You just admitted that paint doesn't explode below 500C. It seems to me that it's you who is misrepresenting its significance.

I've explained previously how DSC's work, and that Harrit's DSC doesn't say anything about the chip exploding.

Narrow exotherm does NOT imply explosion.

Here's a DSC of engine oil that shows a comparably narrow exotherm.

Are you going to insist that this means the Engine oil contained thermite, or exploded?

 

[scott3x]

Your calculations are irrelevant and a nonsense.

How would you know when I haven't posted them.

Can you show us those calculations?

It is clear that you are playing a game of deception.

That would be you - who can't even back up his own assertions with sources independent of conspiracy theorists.

I wish all this talk of everyone trying to deceive everyone else could just stop. Let's imagine for a second that both you and Hoz are correct and you are both playing games of deception against each other (which is impossible, but never mind that for one second). How does it help someone like me figure things out? I can't make heads or tails of some of the stuff you guys say so at the end I can say, ok, fine, perhaps both of you are just super chemists or what not, but unless you actually get us mere mortals to your level, only you guys will 'know' what a deceiver the other is. With this in mind, I ask that there be less talk of what big deceivers the other is and just explain why the other is mistaken. I'm going to respond to everything, even the stuff I have no real clue about, just so you can both see where I and probably many more lose you guys...

You contradict even the official data here. Zinc and magnesium are dominant over aluminium and silicates in the WTC paint, and this is a fact. Stop spreading lies and disinfo.

Are you so sure of that?
My calculations are based on the official sources.

Again, can you show us your calculations?

As for X-EDS, it is clear that you have already taken spectra out of context and you are doing so again here with an irrelevant example. You need to realise that X-EDS is used in different ways, as well as the fact that it wasn't the only testing mechanism used by Harrit et al.

So comparing the spectrum of an unknown to the spectra of samples of Aluminium Oxide is irrelevant now?

The point you have clearly missed is that the spectrum of aluminium oxide is the same irrespective of the size of the particles involved - something which i've demonstrated by showing that the relative peak heights in a sample of corundum are the same as the relative peak heights of alumina nanotubes.

And I've lost you...

Some quotes from the paper regarding application of XEDS pre-MEK material separation: -

"In order to learn more from these findings, a focused
electron beam was placed directly onto the different particles,
and the XEDS data were collected."
P.6

And? This refutes nothing I've said, in fact it confirms it.

It confirms nothing whatsoever for me, though ;-).

"Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen, which may be
partially due to the beam spreading and receiving an overlapping
X-ray signal from the matrix material as well as particles
below the surface. The beam energy (20 keV) is such
that the volume of material from which the X-ray signal is
generated is larger than the particles. Hence, some Al and Si
are seen in Fig. (11b) which may not be inherent in the faceted
grains, and some Fe is seen in Fig. (11a), which may
not be inherent in the plate-like particles."
P.9

Again, this contradicts nothing I said.
The region may have been bigger than the particles, but it was smaller than the body of the chip, which causes peak extinction.

Ah yes, peak extinction, how could I have forgotten? I'm joking by the way, I have no clue what that means ;-).

The carbon-matrix had a factor on this pre-MEK soaking.

Another randomly generated sentence perhaps?

I'm sure he meant something by it, but I've been lost a while now and this pre-MEK soaking certainly isn't bringing me back ;-).

Post-MEK showed separation of the aluminium plates and iron oxide from the carbon matrix, and allowed the direct electron beam to be focussed on particular areas rich in certain elements. Thus, the X-EDS spectra results for determining aluminium\oxygen present for given particles could be more accurately produced and the spectra generated were very different.

Which generally aren't significantly different in terms of relative peak heights from the spectra before soaking, the difference is in the trace elements present and their detecability.

Ah yes, ofcourse, can't forget those trace elements (yes, I'm still lost ;-)).

Its funny how you also continue to deny that Harrit et al tested the red-chips and they reacted violently at less than 500C and produced molten iron.

I've denied no such thing.
What I have questioned, however, is the significance of this finding and Harrits spin on it. Do you understand the difference?

Finally something I understand. How could you find this finding anything but very significant?

They tested red-chips and they did not produce the steep characteristic thermal spike of thermite.

Right. Chips of an unspecified paint. :/ Even Harrit doesn't state that they're samples of Tnemec 99.

And I'm lost again .

NIST also tested the red primer paint of the WTC and also found the paint to be stable at much higher temperatures and hardly thermitic.

But wait a minute, I thought you were busy saying NIST were part of the coverup.

You don't trust NIST's findings, so why are you citing them again? :/

He doesn't trust NIST, but that doesn't mean that all that many of them are bent on covering up the truth. I believe it was in David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" that I heard of a NIST whistleblower, in fact. The top positions in the NIST investigation were fairly suspect and Kevin Ryan made a very good case for that, but coverups this massive are bound to have a few things get past them.

Got that reference spectrum for aluminium yet?

Is this something that you believe is missing from Harrit's article?

 

[scott3x]

Burning is not the same thing as exploding.

Burning is absolutely the same thing as burning.
Look up the meaning or Brisance, then realize that 'Exploding' is just another way of saying 'Burns really really really fast'.

Alright, but I think it's fairly established here that paint burns nowhere near the speed of nano thermite.

Besides which, where's your proof that it exploded?

I was relying on Hoz here. Perhaps he'll comment.

As I recall, that's not what Harrit said, he said it generated a narro exotherm, which is to be expected in a small burning sample because of the way DSC works.

Out of my depth- I'll have to wait for Hoz.

That's my point. If the chips exploded at less than 500C, don't you think that would be evidence that it couldn't have been paint?

No, because I have seen no evidence of the chips exploding.

And if you did? Would that persuade you that perhaps there really is something to this demolition theory?

Besides which, consider the larger scale structure of the chips. A Carbon rich (red) layer attached to an Oxygen rich (gray) layer.

Is that natural in paint?

How so? You just admitted that paint doesn't explode below 500C. It seems to me that it's you who is misrepresenting its significance.

I've explained previously how DSC's work, and that Harrit's DSC doesn't say anything about the chip exploding.

Narrow exotherm does NOT imply explosion.

Again, out of my depth.

Here's a DSC of engine oil that shows a comparably narrow exotherm.

Are you going to insist that this means the Engine oil contained thermite, or exploded?

Out of my depth . Although I do think that gasoline does kind of 'explode'... though not at the speed of an explosive.

 

[Hoz_Turner]

How would you know when I haven't posted them.
That would be you - who can't even back up his own assertions with sources independent of conspiracy theorists.

Are you so sure of that?
My calculations are based on the official sources.

So comparing the spectrum of an unknown to the spectra of samples of Aluminium Oxide is irrelevant now?

The point you have clearly missed is that the psectrum of aluminium oxide is the same irrespective of the size of teh particles involved - something which i've demonstrated by showing that the relative peak heights in a sample of corundum are the same as teh relative peak hieghts of alumina nanotubes.

And? This refutes nothing I've said, in fact it confirms it.

Again, this contradicts nothing I said.
The region may have been bigegr than the particles, nbut it was smaller than the body of the chip, which causes peak extinction.

Another randomly generated sentence perhaps?

Which generally aren't significantly different in terms of relative peak heights from the spectra before soaking, the difference is in the trace elements present and their detecability.

I've denied no such thing.
What I have questioned, however, is the significance of this finding and Harrits spin on it. Do you understand the difference?

Right. Chips of an unspecified paint. :/ Even Harrit doesn't state that they're samples of Tnemec 99.

Onto the next fallacy.

But wait a minute, I thought you were busy saying NIST were part of the coverup.

You don't trust NIST's findings, so why are you citing them again? :/

So in summary, from you, again, we have a post completely devoid of meaningful content, laden with insults, and concluded with an accusation of participation in illegal activities.

Care to back that accusation up?

No, of course not, because you can't.

Got that reference spectrum for aluminium yet?

Neils Harrit's calculations are detailed here, and yes they are based from official sources too: -

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

It is clear that there is much much more Zinc and Magnesium than there is aluminium and thus if this was WTC primer paint, then the two former elements would be showing strong noticable peaks in all of the samples. They clearly don't. BSE images also show no dominant or significant presence of the aforementioned elements. This is a big problem for the "debunkers".

"So comparing the spectrum of an unknown to the spectra of samples of Aluminium Oxide is irrelevant now?

The point you have clearly missed is that the spectrum of aluminium oxide is the same irrespective of the size of teh particles involved - something which i've demonstrated by showing that the relative peak heights in a sample of corundum are the same as teh relative peak hieghts of alumina nanotubes."

I quote from this semiconductor manufacturing resource: -

"The higher a peak in a spectrum, the more concentrated the element is in the specimen."

http://www.siliconfareast.com/edxwdx.htm

The point that you are avoiding is exactly what I showed to you in my post, i.e. the clearly different peaks in elements from the pre-MEK cross-sectional X-EDS analysis and the post MEK soaking (which allowed some separation of material from the matrix). I also quoted the explanation of how the matrix structure influenced the pre-MEK peaks. How oxygen shows up within a general medium of a sample, the location and strength of the electron beam, degree of surface contaminants, etc are inter-related factors to take into account.


"The region may have been bigegr than the particles, nbut it was smaller than the body of the chip, which causes peak extinction."

Way to misrepresent what Harrit says, congratulations.


"Which generally aren't significantly different in terms of relative peak heights from the spectra before soaking"

Oh really? Are you blind?


"What I have questioned, however, is the significance of this finding and Harrits spin on it"

Its not spin. The reaction was even more thermitic than conventional thermite, with reactions at an appreciably lower temperature with molten iron produced.


"Even Harrit doesn't state that they're samples of Tnemec 99."

In the link I quoted we have a quote from tests performed by NIST and they release the methodology of how they heated the primer paint to various temperatures and show the respective pictures. However, NIST did not release the methodology of their tower-collapse computer model or their data set and this is the very problematic aspect of their report. Nobody has said that EVERY bit of information coming from the reports is false: -

From NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2

Notice, that the primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 °C.

COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF RED/GRAY CHIPS

In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 °C. The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 °C, since the residues of molten iron are clearly seen in the optical microscope (Figure 9).

 

[Hoz_Turner]

X-EDS is an important method to identify thermite, and it has been used by forensics at crime scenes: -

MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes.

http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html

 

[KennyJC]

.
I did not make up the use of the word in relation to what happened at the WTC.

I believe I provided a link to a video earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ2AeScXGHc

psik

Yes, I'm fully aware that Sofia Shafquat tried to compare the dust clouds to that of a volcano.. but I want to know why YOU are using the term "pyroclastic clouds".

Are you trying to say that if a building collapses without explosives that it wouldn't give off a large dust cloud?

I have never understood troofers trying to say that the dust cloud is evidence for explosives. Even in controlled demolitions, the large dust clouds are not a result of the explosives, but due to gravity smashing the building apart, which also happens when a building collapses like on 9/11.

 

[Trippy]

Out of my depth . Although I do think that gasoline does kind of 'explode'... though not at the speed of an explosive.

You fill your car up with WD40 instead of Unleaded 91 then?

Engine oil has very different properties from gasoline.

 

[Trippy]

Can you show us those calculations?

Here's one example.

Magnesium.
Talc has the composition $$Mg_3Si_4O_{10}(OH)_2$$
This can be written as $$3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O$$
$$M_{Mg}=24.305 gmol^{-1}$$
$$M_{Si}=28.0855 gmol^{-1}$$
$$M_O=15.9994 gmol^{-1}$$
$$M_H=1.00794 gmol^{-1}$$
So, $$M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}$$=(24.305*3)+(28.0855*4)+(15.9994*12)+(1.00794*2)

$$M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}$$= 72.915+112.342+191.9928+2.01588
$$M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}$$= 379.26568

The percentage of Magnesium in Talc can be calculated by $$\frac{M_{Mg}*3}{M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}}*100$$
$$\frac{72.915}{379.26568}*100$$
Which is 19.23% by weight Magnesium in Talc.

According to Hoz Post #2279
Talc constitutes 21%-30% of the Tnemec Proprietary Pigment.
And the Tnemec Proprietary Pigment constitutes 33.7% of the Pigment.

Talc is 19.23% Magnesium by weight, and the pigment is 21%-30% Talc by weight, therefore the Pigment must be (19.23%*21%) - (19.23%*30%) Magnesium by weight, or 4.04% - 5.77% Magnesium, by weight.

The Pigment component of the Primer used on the WTC steel is 33.7% by weight (or at least that's what Harrit assumes) Tnemec Proprietary Pigment, so the Pigment component of the primer must be (4.04%*33.7%) - (5.77%*33.7%) or 1.4% - 1.9% by weight Magnesium.

And that's as far as I'm willing to take it at this point, as I have yet to come across any information as to the ratio of Pigment:Vehicle (remember, the above is for the pigment only).

Incidentally, I seem to recall in one of Hoz's posts, him saying that Harrit in his response estimates that the paint contained up to 40% volatiles, but according to this information, it's more likely to be in the range of 24%-29% volatiles, meaning Harrit over estimates his compositions in the dired paint.

Is this something that you believe is missing from Harrit's article?

Yes, i've already outlined several points in this thread that detail what I consider to be failings of basic good science in Harrits paper. Personally, If I wa sin the editors position, I probably would have resigned as well.

 

[Trippy]

Neils Harrit's calculations are detailed here, and yes they are based from official sources too: -

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

The same ones that I have yet to have the time to waste going through in any detail?

It is clear that there is much much more Zinc and Magnesium than there is aluminium and thus if this was WTC primer paint, then the two former elements would be showing strong noticable peaks in all of the samples. They clearly don't. BSE images also show no dominant or significant presence of the aforementioned elements. This is a big problem for the "debunkers".

Assuming Harrit's calculations are accurate.

"So comparing the spectrum of an unknown to the spectra of samples of Aluminium Oxide is irrelevant now?

The point you have clearly missed is that the spectrum of aluminium oxide is the same irrespective of the size of teh particles involved - something which i've demonstrated by showing that the relative peak heights in a sample of corundum are the same as teh relative peak hieghts of alumina nanotubes."

I quote from this semiconductor manufacturing resource: -

"The higher a peak in a spectrum, the more concentrated the element is in the specimen."

http://www.siliconfareast.com/edxwdx.htm

Contradicts nothing i've said, and certainly doesn't contradict what you're replying to.

I'm talking about the relative heights of the Oxygen and ALuminium peaks in any EDS spectra of Aluminium Oxide, you're talking about the absolute height of the aluminium peak.

The point that you are avoiding is exactly what I showed to you in my post, i.e. the clearly different peaks in elements from the pre-MEK cross-sectional X-EDS analysis and the post MEK soaking (which allowed some separation of material from the matrix). I also quoted the explanation of how the matrix structure influenced the pre-MEK peaks. How oxygen shows up within a general medium of a sample, the location and strength of the electron beam, degree of surface contaminants, etc are inter-related factors to take into account.

Figure 7 is the EDS from the red side of the chip.
Figure 17 is the EDS from the aluminium rich platelets.
Learn the difference, you're grasping at straws.
If you're trying to assert that the Oxygen showing up in the spectra is simply a coincidence, and background contamination from the carbon rich matrix, and that it's just a big coincidence (or an apologist lie) that the Al peak ratios so closely match that of any form of Aluminium Oxide... That's just laughably desperate at best, and NOT the explanation that Harrit offers (Not one he even considers).

"The region may have been bigegr than the particles, nbut it was smaller than the body of the chip, which causes peak extinction."

Way to misrepresent what Harrit says, congratulations.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, the spectrum I was refering to is Figure 17 from Harrits paper. Read your own sources, Harrit is talking about the platelets, not the chip as a whole.

"Which generally aren't significantly different in terms of relative peak heights from the spectra before soaking"

Oh really? Are you blind?

Well, obviously you can't read, so....


"

What I have questioned, however, is the significance of this finding and Harrits spin on it"

Its not spin. The reaction was even more thermitic than conventional thermite, with reactions at an appreciably lower temperature with molten iron produced.

It's precisely Spin.
Hydrocarbons are more enmergetic.
And molten Iron can be produced at temperatures as low as 800°C.

"Even Harrit doesn't state that they're samples of Tnemec 99."

In the link I quoted we have a quote from tests performed by NIST and they release the methodology of how they heated the primer paint to various temperatures and show the respective pictures. However, NIST did not release the methodology of their tower-collapse computer model or their data set and this is the very problematic aspect of their report. Nobody has said that EVERY bit of information coming from the reports is false: -

Right, but you were talking about Harrit, not NIST.

 

[Trippy]

I was relying on Hoz here. Perhaps he'll comment.

Out of my depth- I'll have to wait for Hoz.

Why?
Hoz clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
He can't even keep track of what a Reducing agent does.

 

[scott3x]

Out of my depth . Although I do think that gasoline does kind of 'explode'... though not at the speed of an explosive.

You fill your car up with WD40 instead of Unleaded 91 then?

Engine oil has very different properties from gasoline.

Ah right.

 

[scott3x]

Can you show us those calculations?

Here's one example...

Thanks. Hopefully Hoz can make use of it, again, out of my depth

Is this something that you believe is missing from Harrit's article?

Yes, i've already outlined several points in this thread that detail what I consider to be failings of basic good science in Harrit's paper. Personally, If I was in the editors position, I probably would have resigned as well.

Are you implying that an editor resigned because of Neils' paper? Anyway, you have indeed said many things. My real problem with much of this stuff is that I still can't follow a lot of it.

 

[scott3x]

I was relying on Hoz here. Perhaps he'll comment.

Out of my depth- I'll have to wait for Hoz.

Why?
Hoz clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
He can't even keep track of what a Reducing agent does.

Trippy, I think you've fallen into the same trap as Hoz; you both think that it's so obvious that the other is wrong; I will grant that maybe it's obvious for you and Hoz (or atleast you both know enough to find ways to believe this), but from where I stand, and I don't think I'm alone here, it's definitely not. I frequently can't make heads or tails of what you guys are saying. I made that crystal clear when I responded to one of your large posts.

 

[Trippy]

Are you implying that an editor resigned because of Neils' paper? Anyway, you have indeed said many things. My real problem with much of this stuff is that I still can't follow a lot of it.

No, I'm not implying it.
I'm outright stating it, and it's the reason that the editor herself gave, i'm fairly sure i've linked to a couple of articles about this previously.

 

[scott3x]

Are you implying that an editor resigned because of Neils' paper? Anyway, you have indeed said many things. My real problem with much of this stuff is that I still can't follow a lot of it.

No, I'm not implying it.
I'm outright stating it, and it's the reason that the editor herself gave, i'm fairly sure i've linked to a couple of articles about this previously.

Could you relink to such an article? I may have heard this story before (an editor resigning sounds familiar), but just wanted to double check.

 

[scott3x]

X-EDS is an important method to identify thermite, and it has been used by forensics at crime scenes: -

MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes.​

http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html

Good to know. What do you think of this Trippy?