Trying to resolve 9/11

Jesus, it was pointed out to you already and that we nevertheless have to continue to explain it multiple times is annoying.  You need to stop posting about 9/11 if you can't follow along. 
XEDs confirmed the Aluminium/ red/gray chips.  
MEK test established that Aluminium was not bonded with the Silicon or any other chemical material seen by man. So it was 100 percent elemental Aluminium in the red/gray chips.
The DSC test - when the red/gray chips are heated a reaction occurred and release of energy was recorded. Molten Iron left behind as a byproduct.
The high-tech medical machinery ignores what people believe happened on 9/11. 

That three scientific experimental tests that proved Aluminum in the red layer is free.

XEDS determined the chemical arrangement of the red/gray chips. We see what it's made of.  There carbon--- silicon ( nano) Oxygen, Aluminum (nano), and Iron (nano)  The fact the Aluminum Nano-sized particle and carbon matrix mixture that not something anyone can make at home and definitely not a thing that would form with chemicals coming together when a building collapsed. The size is absolutely another clue this was an engineered substance manufactured in a sophisticated laboratory somewhere.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

So have you seen the video of them setting off one of these chips yet. DUDE IT IS AWSOME. If you have a welding mask you should probably wear it wile viewing. The amount of ultraviolet light it puts out in comparison to normal thermite is just...Beyond belief. And the damage it does to that thin element strip it is sitting on....Wow.

Watch this. This is impressive.




Dude. It's a paint chip.

originally posted by: waypastvne
a reply to: Hulseyreport

So have you seen the video of them setting off one of these chips yet. DUDE IT IS AWSOME. If you have a welding mask you should probably wear it wile viewing. The amount of ultraviolet light it puts out in comparison to normal thermite is just...Beyond belief. And the damage it does to that thin element strip it is sitting on....Wow.

Watch this. This is impressive.

Dude. It's a paint chip.

The chips are tiny. They're not like big chunk pieces.. 
Aluminum within the chips are Nano sized. We talking about nano-technology here
One chip in the video, of course will not show much. All attempting to do here is to show you a reaction happened.
We possibly talking about hundreds of chips used. Maybe even thousands to eradicate the steel? Since the red/gray chips are solid they can be very easy to transport and move to the Twin Towers and place inside the buildings.

Flame is also White Hot- it's above 1500c after it ignites. Debunkers, of course, don't know what they're looking at so they think it's unimpressive video. Flame that shots out the most interesting part of the experiment.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

MEK test established that Aluminium was not bonded with the Silicon or any other chemical material seen by man

How.

MEK is used to dissolve Epoxy Resin. Cite where MEK dissolves silica?

Chemical reactions

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Silica is converted to silicon by reduction with carbon.

Fluorine reacts with silicon dioxide to form SiF4 and O2 whereas the other halogen gases (Cl2, Br2, I2) are essentially unreactive.[10]

Silicon dioxide is attacked by hydrofluoric acid (HF) to produce hexafluorosilicic acid:[9]

SiO
2
+
6
HF
⟶
H
2
SiF
6
+
2
H
2
O
[displaystyle [ce [SiO2 + 6 HF -> H2SiF6 + 2 H2O]]]
HF is used to remove or pattern silicon dioxide in the semiconductor industry.

Under normal conditions, silicon does not react with most acids but is dissolved by hydrofluoric acid.

Si
(
s
)
+
6
HF
(
aq
)
⟶
[
SiF
6
]
2
−
(
aq
)
+
2
H
+
(
aq
)
+
2
H
2
(
g
)
[displaystyle [ce [Si(s) + 6HF(aq) -> [SiF6]^[2-](aq) + 2H+(aq) + 2H2(g)]]]
Silicon is attacked by bases such as aqueous sodium hydroxide to give silicates.

Si
(
s
)
+
4
NaOH
(
aq
)
⟶
[
SiO
4
]
4
−
(
aq
)
+
4
Na
+
(
aq
)
+
2
H
2
(
g
)
[displaystyle [ce [Si(s) + 4NaOH(aq) -> [SiO4]^[4-](aq) + 4Na+(aq) + 2H2(g)]]]
Silicon dioxide acts as a Lux–Flood acid, being able to react with bases under certain conditions. As it does not contain any hydrogen, it cannot act as a Brønsted–Lowry acid. While not soluble in water, some strong bases will react with glass and have to be stored in plastic bottles as a result.[40]

Silicon dioxide dissolves in hot concentrated alkali or fused hydroxide, as described in this idealized equation:[10]

SiO
2
+
2
NaOH
⟶
Na
2
SiO
3
+
H
2
O
[displaystyle [ce [SiO2 + 2 NaOH -> Na2SiO3 + H2O]]]
Silicon dioxide will neutralise basic metal oxides (e.g. sodium oxide, potassium oxide, lead(II) oxide, zinc oxide, or mixtures of oxides, forming silicates and glasses as the Si-O-Si bonds in silica are broken successively).[9] As an example the reaction of sodium oxide and SiO2 can produce sodium orthosilicate, sodium silicate, and glasses, dependent on the proportions of reactants:[10]

2
Na
2
O
+
SiO
2
⟶
Na
4
SiO
4
;
[displaystyle [ce [2 Na2O + SiO2 -> Na4SiO4;]]]
Na
2
O
+
SiO
2
⟶
Na
2
SiO
3
;
[displaystyle [ce [Na2O + SiO2 -> Na2SiO3;]]]
(0.25–0.8)
Na
2
O
+
SiO
2
⟶
glass
[displaystyle [ce [Na2O + SiO2 -> glass]]].
Examples of such glasses have commercial significance, e.g. soda-lime glass, borosilicate glass, lead glass. In these glasses, silica is termed the network former or lattice former.[9] The reaction is also used in blast furnaces to remove sand impurities in the ore by neutralisation with calcium oxide, forming calcium silicate slag.

Silicon dioxide reacts in heated reflux under dinitrogen with ethylene glycol and an alkali metal base to produce highly reactive, pentacoordinate silicates which provide access to a wide variety of new silicon compounds.[41] The silicates are essentially insoluble in all polar solvent except methanol.

Silicon dioxide reacts with elemental silicon at high temperatures to produce SiO:[9]

SiO
2
+
Si
⟶
2
SiO
[displaystyle [ce [SiO2 + Si -> 2 SiO]

Db post

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Please cite a source that MEK will dissolve silica?

I cannot find that MEK would provide any mechanism to carry Silica away from aluminum.

Quartz is a type of silica

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Silicon dioxide, also known as silica, is an oxide of silicon with the chemical formula SiO2, most commonly found in nature as quartz and in various living organisms.

Uses for MEK

en.m.wikipedia.org...

As a solvent Edit
Butanone is an effective and common solvent[8] and is used in processes involving gums, resins, cellulose acetate and nitrocellulose coatings and in vinyl films.[11] For this reason it finds use in the manufacture of plastics, textiles, in the production of paraffin wax, and in household products such as lacquer, varnishes, paint remover, a denaturing agent for denatured alcohol, glues, and as a cleaning agent. It has similar solvent properties to acetone but boils at a higher temperature and has a significantly slower evaporation rate.[12] Unlike acetone, it forms an azeotrope with water,[13][14] making it useful for azeotropic distillation of moisture in certain applications. Butanone is also used in dry erase markers as the solvent of the erasable dye.

As a plastic welding agent Edit
As butanone dissolves polystyrene and many other plastics, it is sold as "model cement" for use in connecting parts of scale model kits. Though often considered an adhesive, it is actually functioning as a welding agent in this context.

Other uses Edit
Butanone is the precursor to methyl ethyl ketone peroxide, which is a catalyst for some polymerization reactions such as crosslinking of unsaturated polyester resins. Dimethylglyoxime can be prepared from butanone first by reaction with ethyl nitrite to give diacetyl monoxime followed by conversion to the dioxime:[15]

Preparation of dimethylglyoxime.png
In the Peroxide process on producing hydrazine, the starting chemical ammonia is bonded to butanone, oxidized by hydrogen peroxide, bonded to another ammonia molecule.

Pechiney-Ugine-Kuhlmann process.png
In the final step of the process, a hydrolysis produces the desired product hydrazine and regenerates the butanone.

Me(Et)C=NN=C(Et)Me + 2 H2O → 2 Me(Et)C=O + N2H4

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Flame is also White Hot- it's above 1500c after it ignites. Debunkers, of course, don't know what they're looking at so they think it's unimpressive video. Flame that shots out the most interesting part of the experiment.

You mean like how you can added enough oxygen to make it white hot? Like how you can add a little oxygen to a cutting torch flame to turn it from orange to white hot?

So. Where did Harrit and Jones conduct their calorimeter test in an inert atmosphere to prove the chips were thermite?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Back to this

MEK test established that Aluminium was not bonded with the Silicon or any other chemical material seen by man.

Do you understand what MEK is?

MEK

Butanone is an effective and common solvent[8] and is used in processes involving gums, resins, cellulose acetate and nitrocellulose coatings and in vinyl films.[11] For this reason it finds use in the manufacture of plastics, textiles, in the production of paraffin wax, and in household products such as lacquer, varnishes, paint remover, a denaturing agent for denatured alcohol, glues, and as a cleaning agent. It has similar solvent properties to acetone but boils at a higher temperature and has a significantly slower evaporation rate.[12] Unlike acetone, it forms an azeotrope with water,[13][14] making it useful for azeotropic distillation of moisture in certain applications. Butanone is also used in dry erase markers as the solvent of the erasable dye.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Aluminum is a metal. Is that false?

Silica

A hard, unreactive, colourless compound which occurs as the mineral quartz and as a principal constituent of sandstone and other rocks.
Alternative name: silicon dioxide; chemical formula: SiO₂

MEK, or Butanone,” Butanone is an effective and common solvent[8] and is used in processes involving gums, resins, cellulose acetate and nitrocellulose.”

Is Silica, quartz rock, a ”gums, resins, cellulose acetate or nitrocellulose”?

No. So how can MEK established that “Aluminum was not bonded with the Silicon or any other chemical material seen by man.”

You understand that MEK is a chemical, not a test. And MEK has no properties that would separate Silica particles from Aluminum since neither are a ” gums, resins, cellulose acetate or nitrocellulose”?

Your confusion that MEK was used to dissolve away the epoxy resin. The only purpose of the MEK was to remove “ gums, resins, cellulose acetate or nitrocellulose“.

How would MEK draw away Silica from the aluminum to make areas of higher concentration of aluminum and areas of higher concentration of silica? If the two items were uniformly mixed before hand in the epoxy resin to make specific XED peeks, then they should remain uniformly mixed after being exposed to MEK. The only thing the MEK would do is remove the epoxy resin. MEK does not have any property to migrate aluminum away from Silica. Unless you can cite and source the mechanism.


And XED doesn’t mean what you think it means if Harrit / Jones can only assume Al2 by the ratio of aluminum atoms to oxygen atoms from the XED peaks. I also noticed that every XED graph that has an Al peek also had a Si peek somewhere on the graphic. Is that false? How did the separation out the aluminum from the silica workout?

So. Can you cite what analysis Harrit / Jones conducted to positively prove there was Al2 to support a thermite reaction instead of assuming the presence of free Al2 by ratio of oxygen to aluminum on a XED graph that still had a Si peak?


You

That false also - independents have analysed the chips and affirmed there was thermite materials embedded in the skin of the chips.

Still waiting on you to cite, quote, and link to those independent sources? Or do you admit that is a blatant falsehood?

So Harrit’s / Jones research is junk. Nobody can reproduce their results.

You again

Debunkers claim it paint chips based on nothing but opinion.

Another blatantly false argument by you

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com

February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
www.mvainc.com...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

Let’s see? The results of a professional lab with certifications they would lose if the messed something up. Along with money and business. Vs Harrit / Jones conducting test that should have been sent to a forensic lab, have not had their analysis confirmed by an independent lab, and producing a “paper” for a target audience.

When did Harrit / Jones publish results of a simple test to see if their dust could support a thermite reaction in an inert atmosphere?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Read this part carefully

The initial objective was to compare the behav- ior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong or- ganic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days.

benthamopen.com...

Did you see the “ soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days.”

When you mix things, you make them uniform. Is that false?

Next part

It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form.

benthamopen.com...

When? During the air drying process? During the “frequent agitation”? If the Silica and Aluminum were throughly mixed before the MEK, why would the “frequent agitation” cause the aluminum and silica to migrate and form areas of concentration aluminum and Silica. Agitation mixes items together. Letting liquids settle is what allows layers to settle out.

So Harrit and Jones got there chips to make concentrated areas of aluminum and silica by “frequently agitation” with no mention of letting the mixture settle? And no recording of solids layering?

The red chips had the aluminum and silica?

Note that the chip fractured during the MEK treatment and handling.

benthamopen.com...

If the samples were being constantly agitated and handle where chips were fracturing, how the hell did areas of concentrated aluminum and silica form?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Another great thread

So did they find thermite or not?
www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203271

www.internationalskeptics.com...

By Oystein

The most basic debunking points are as followed:
They ignited 4 similar looking "chips" and measured the energy release per weight unit. The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe. This data alone disproves unequivocally that the material cannot possibly be the kind of thermite they claim to have found (aluminium + Fe2O3)
They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite
They compared the exothermic behaviour of their 4 ignition samples with that of real (nano-?) thermite found in literature, and claimed that the graphs are very similar. They are not: Compare figure 19 with figure 29 and note how the position of the peak differs significantly both on the X-axis (by more than 100°C) and the Y-axis (by a factor of 2 to 4.5). This result proves that their samples are not the kind of thermite known to science. (Note too how in figure 29 they only repeat the lowest of the 4 peaks from fig. 19 to make it not quite so apparent that their samples released waaay too much energy/power.)
Sunstealer has identified in insightful posts back in april 2009 that the crystaline structures we see in figures 8-10 resemble kaolinite (aluminiumsilicate) and hematite (iron oxide, Fe2O3). Their elemental composition as per the Harrit paper too points to kaolinite (Al, So Edit: Si, O) and hematite (Fe, O). Since Harrit found all of this embedded in an organic matrix, and since both kaolinite and hematite have been used throughout the ages and still used today as key ingredients to red paint, there can be no dount that the 4 red-grey chips from the ignition experiments is simply a red paint.
Sunstealer just the other day found that in a newer presentation, co-author Steven Jones showed XEDS spectra of primer paint they had scratched from original WTC structural steel. This spectrum resembles the spectrum in figure 14 nearly to a t! Hence, the fifth chip (which they soaked in MEK to find elemental Al) is thus proven to be primer paint from WTC steel

These are the main points where Harrit. Jones e.al. debunk themselves.

Much earned criticism also goes to the choice of Bentham as publishing house (zero impact in the scientific community, bad reputation for accepting even total junk as long as the pay-to-publish 800$ check clears. It has been establiched that not the journal and its editor-in-chief controlled the peer-review process, but instead the authors themselves were in control of their own "peer-review".

www.internationalskeptics.com...

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: turbonium1

The physics cannot be removed in any scenario - it either holds up, or if it cannot hold up, it's cartoon physics.

I'm going to explain Scale Gravity to you in a way that is simple enough for even you to understand........(maybe)

We are going to have one tower 1,000' tall with 10' in between each floor.

And a 10% exact scale model of that tower 100' tall with 1' in between each floor.

We will start a cascade floor system failure near the top of the towers.

The floors in the 1000' tower will have 10' to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second.

The floors in the 100' model will have only 1' to accelerate also 9.8 meters per second per second.

The floors in the 1000' tower WILL be going faster and impact the floor below harder than the floors in the 100' model.

To demonstrate this in the real world Find something 1' tall and jump off it. Next find something 10' tall and jump off it.

You should notice a difference in speed and impact force between the two.

The fact that I am having to explain this to you, because you don't already know it, is the reason why your opinion doesn't matter.

Thanks for explaining how a one foot fall isn't as fast, or has equal force, to a 10 foot fall, because I never knew that, until now!



It's totally irrelevant to this issue, but we know that, already!


You could have a floor 30 feet high, it wouldn't make any difference. Nothing would make it collapse like that, and never will.


Nothing can collapse like that, without loss of all support, in specific sequence, floor by floor, going downward, right to the ground.

You've tried to avoid the whole problem - suggesting that these collapses are so unique, it's not possible to replicate them in any way. You simply leave it out of the argument, as if it wasn't relevant.

It is the main problem, so you avoid it, at all costs.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact they built models of the towers, which showed what would happen to the towers in that exact same event, and far worse, than what actually happened on 9/11?

It proved the buildings would withstand such events, and nothing you say will change that fact. Ignoring it won't help you, either.

When a structural failure occurs, no matter what structure, no matter what caused the failure, it can always be replicated with physical demonstrations, which is why they modeled the towers - BEFORE they were ever builtl! To know if the towers would withstand such events, and found out that they WOULD withstand such events!

Do you even realize what you're claiming? It's not simply about the towers, or three buildings, which collapsed on the very same day. You've claimed so much more than that, in fact.

You've claimed that a structure can completely collapse within seconds, completely going through the whole structure, below the failure point....that's what you're actually claiming, here..


This inherently absurd claim hopes their well-paid 'experts' will fool people into accepting this sinister lie as being the truth!

a reply to: turbonium1

which is why they modeled the towers - BEFORE they were ever builtl! To know if the towers would withstand such events, and found out that they WOULD withstand such events!

They did? Can you provide a link to those models? The ones which simulated an aircraft full of fuel colliding with the building.

But are you saying that gravity actually exists?

a reply to: kwakakev

Let me give you some advice. You will never be fully able to understand 9/11, not now and not ever. The reason for that is that things happened leading up to that day and the day in question that you, I and the rest of the nation and world will never be able to understand because they don't make rational sense.

That said, they don't because things didn't happen the way the official narrative wants you to believe. The fact is, is that it was a "springboard" event that changed everything. Changing everything in a country like America isn't easy......... It would take decades, hundreds of millions of dollars and endless campaigning for support to change anything even remotely approaching the changes and laws after 9/11.

You do the math, I don't need to spell it out for you. I am a big advocate on people being interested enough to use their own time and critical thinking to come to the conclusion at the end of their rainbow. I sure have and know what I believe but that was a very long and ultimately depressing path I went down. Very sad we sunk to that level. I won't perpetuate any myths here.

Do you're own research.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

which is why they modeled the towers - BEFORE they were ever builtl! To know if the towers would withstand such events, and found out that they WOULD withstand such events!

They did? Can you provide a link to those models? The ones which simulated an aircraft full of fuel colliding with the building.

But are you saying that gravity actually exists?

No, gravity is nonsense.

At least one of the main engineers involved in the project said they modeled it, and tested for plane impacts on the towers. And that's how I know about it - because they said so.

a reply to: Helious

While conducting your research did you, per chance, happen to notice the solar storm occurring throughout that day as the Sun's 11-year cycle was peaking?

At least one of the main engineers involved in the project said they modeled it, and tested for plane impacts on the towers. And that's how I know about it - because they said so.

a reply to: turbonium1

Engineers calculated the impact forces on the building from an aircraft impact

Object was to determine if building would topple over from the impact

Determined impact would generate 13 million pound of force against building

Would take at least 17 million to knock building down , so would survive the impact

WTC towers did survive the initial impact . What doomed building were the fires acting against the unprotected steel supports

How did the Aluminum oxide ignite with Iron oxide?
You have not worked out that one yet, maybe someday?
 Remember the claim by debunkers is the red/gray chips are Leclede paint ie Aluminum silicate (Aluminum oxide) and Silica that already an oxide of Silicon!
The debunkers can't just ignore this small chip released a significant energy flare up and vapor of gas when ignited to 430c. The chip puffed out and discharged a white hot flash and white smoke trail above 1500c!
There no paint that will produce that when ignited to 430c. 
It laughable Debunkers keep whining and still have not yet shown their paint can discharge a white hot flash when ignited. 

It nonsense any paint company would use a primer finish that's energetic that can flare up and release 1500c heat.
Harrit did DSC of the red/primer paint and it changed to ash and there was no discharge of Iron molten spheres.  We will await the debunker video of burning paint heated at 430c and later releasing Iron Molten spheres after the flash!!

So nothing the debunkers have done disproves Harrit and the other ten people work.  With the evidence known, the debunk is dull from the get go how can an Oxide mix with another oxide- release a white hot flash of heat- then produce Iron rich molten spheres?
Aluminum and Silicon were not mixed as a Kaolin, end of story many of their scientific tests show it. MEK test clearly established the silicon and Aluminum spread in the solution after the red/gray layer swelled after 55 hours. It can't be a  chemically bonded compound.  There had to be elemental AI for the Iron oxide to flare up ( it basic science)
Like it another dilemma- the Paint chips dissolve and soften. The red/gray chip only swelled after a long period of time. Right there we got clues the red/gray chips are not paint.
Dr Millete never presented a DSC test so his work is unfinished plus he published nothing significant after he asserted there was no Elemental Aluminum. 

Red/gray chips explains why there were gaps, cracks, fractures in the steel that FEMA found. It's a valid explanation why enormous amounts of Iron molten Microspheres are found in dust powder samples often gathered up far away from where workers started cutting the steel in the cleaning up process..  It clarifies why the rubble remains heat intense for months there was unignited nanothermite in the dust. To people on the ground it would just appear to be small red fragments of debris. It clarifies why there yellow liquid spilling out of the towers and recorded by many people to be flowing like a river in the rubble. You put it all together, the discoveries you have a compelling case that they used a exotic chemical explosive to take down the towers.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

How did the Aluminum oxide ignite with Iron oxide?
You have not worked out that one yet, maybe someday?

What are going on about. Nothing ignited nothing. They are additives to industrial coatings.

You

Aluminum silicate (Aluminum oxide) and Silica that already an oxide of Silicon!
The debunkers can't just ignore this small chip released a significant energy flare up and vapor of gas when ignited to 430c. The chip puffed out and discharged a white hot flash and white smoke trail above 1500c!

Ok?

I guess you missed that you can control how fast and hot something can burn by the rate it is exposed to pure oxygen. There’s lots of stuff that burns at 1500 c if enough oxygen is provided.

Read the below very carefully.

www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203271
www.internationalskeptics.com...

By Oystein

The most basic debunking points are as followed:
They ignited 4 similar looking "chips" and measured the energy release per weight unit. The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe. This data alone disproves unequivocally that the material cannot possibly be the kind of thermite they claim to have found (aluminium + Fe2O3)

Snip

They compared the exothermic behaviour of their 4 ignition samples with that of real (nano-?) thermite found in literature, and claimed that the graphs are very similar. They are not: Compare figure 19 with figure 29 and note how the position of the peak differs significantly both on the X-axis (by more than 100°C) and the Y-axis (by a factor of 2 to 4.5). This result proves that their samples are not the kind of thermite known to science. (Note too how in figure 29 they only repeat the lowest of the 4 peaks from fig. 19 to make it not quite so apparent that their samples released waaay too much energy/power.)
Sunstealer has identified in insightful posts back in april 2009 that the crystaline structures we see in fi

Harrit and Jones were doing nothing than burning paint chips.

You

There no paint that will produce that when ignited to 430c.
It laughable Debunkers keep whining and still have not yet shown their paint can discharge a white hot flash when ignited.

Based on what? The rate at which oxygen is introduce? The temperature thing is a false argument. The real argument is kJ/g. That does not change by how slow or fast oxygen is added. That is how the energy contained in a substance defined. I can heat a whole house with a 1200 gal tank of propane for a winter, or make one damn hot explosion with force pure oxygen provided. But the KJ/g of propane will always be the same.

You

So nothing the debunkers have done disproves Harrit and the other ten people work.

False argument my you. Name a person or independent lab that was able to reproduce Harrit’s and Jones’ work. Their study never completed the discovery process. They never published were they submitted their samples for independent verification. On samples any certified forensic lab could analyze.

With the evidence known, the debunk is dull from the get go how can an Oxide mix with another oxide- release a white hot flash of heat- then produce Iron rich molten spheres?

There are many ways to create iron rich molten spheres.

www.metabunk.org/making-iron-microspheres-grinding-impacts-welding-burning.t9533/
www.metabunk.org...

By MickWest

Burning Methods (external ignition)

Burning Paint Chips #1. www.metabunk.org...
Steel Wool #1: www.metabunk.org...
Iron Filings #1: www.metabunk.org...
Toner: www.metabunk.org...
Steel Wool #2: www.metabunk.org...
Burning Paint Chips #2: www.metabunk.org...
Iron Powder 320 Mesh: www.metabunk.org...
Iron Filings 50 Mesh: www.metabunk.org...
*Pyrophoric iron: www.metabunk.org...

Sparking methods (Spark from solid objects

Steel on steel impact. www.metabunk.org...
Angle Grinder: www.metabunk.org...
Bic Lighter: www.metabunk.org...
Flint Striker: www.metabunk.org...
Rust on aluminum impact: www.metabunk.org...
1600's Flint: www.metabunk.org...
Melting Methods (External Energy/Heat Melts)
Arc Welding #1 (Magnet capture): www.metabunk.org...
Arc Welding #2 (Water capture): www.metabunk.org...
Thermite (Al + Fe2O3): www.metabunk.org...
*Oxy cutting
*Thermal lance cutting
* = Methods I've not personally tried
www.metabunk.org...

Did you notice burning pain chips is a way to make iron rich microspheres.

You

Aluminum and Silicon were not mixed as a Kaolin, end of story many of their scientific tests show it.

False argument by you

One

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com
February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
www.mvainc.com...

Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

Two

By Oystein
www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203271

This result proves that their samples are not the kind of thermite known to science. (Note too how in figure 29 they only repeat the lowest of the 4 peaks from fig. 19 to make it not quite so apparent that their samples released waaay too much energy/power.)
Sunstealer has identified in insightful posts back in april 2009 that the crystaline structures we see in figures 8-10 resemble kaolinite (aluminiumsilicate) and hematite (iron oxide, Fe2O3). Their elemental composition as per the Harrit paper too points to kaolinite (Al, So Edit: Si, O) and hematite (Fe, O). Since Harrit found all of this embedded in an organic matrix, and since both kaolinite and hematite have been used throughout the ages and still used today as key ingredients to red paint, there can be no dount that the 4 red-grey chips from the ignition experiments is simply a red paint.
Sunstealer just the other day found that in a newer presentation, co-author Steven Jones showed XEDS spectra of primer paint they had scratched from original WTC structural steel. This spectrum resembles the spectrum in figure 14 nearly to a t! Hence, the fifth chip (which they soaked in MEK to find elemental Al) is thus proven to be primer paint from WTC steel

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

MEK test clearly established the silicon and Aluminum spread in the solution after the red/gray layer swelled after 55 hours.

How?

You understand that MEK is a chemical, and not a test. And MEK has no properties that would separate Silica particles from Aluminum since neither are a ” gums, resins, cellulose acetate or nitrocellulose”? MEK was only used to dissolve the epoxy resin. And I didn’t know epoxy resin is part of the recipe for thermite? A common additive to industrial coatings. The Harrit / Jones study stated the samples in MEK were constantly agitated. And also claimed the chip broke part while handling. Can you cite how and link to a source that shows MEK would cause aluminum and Silica to separate and concentrate in their own areas? Then add to the fact the paper never states the sample was given time to settle and layer out. The sample was constantly agitated and the chip broke upon handling.

And I guess you missed the “free aluminum” was found in a chip that was unlike the others Harrit / Jones reference.

www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203271
By Oystein

They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite

Snip

Sunstealer has identified in insightful posts back in april 2009 that the crystaline structures we see in figures 8-10 resemble kaolinite (aluminiumsilicate) and hematite (iron oxide, Fe2O3). Their elemental composition as per the Harrit paper too points to kaolinite (Al, So Edit: Si, O) and hematite (Fe, O). Since Harrit found all of this embedded in an organic matrix, and since both kaolinite and hematite have been used throughout the ages and still used today as key ingredients to red paint, there can be no dount that the 4 red-grey chips from the ignition experiments is simply a red paint.
Sunstealer just the other day found that in a newer presentation, co-author Steven Jones showed XEDS spectra of primer paint they had scratched from original WTC structural steel. This spectrum resembles the spectrum in figure 14 nearly to a t! Hence, the fifth chip (which they soaked in MEK to find elemental Al) is thus proven to be primer paint from WTC steel

You

There had to be elemental AI for the Iron oxide to flare up ( it basic science)

Please cite were the study states that. The items flared up because there was enough heat and oxygen.

And I guess you missed By Oystein:

They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite

www.internationalskeptics.com...

You

Like it another dilemma- the Paint chips dissolve and soften. The red/gray chip only swelled after a long period of time. Right there we got clues the red/gray chips are not paint.

They “swelled” up because they had epoxy resin in them because they were paint chips. If there was no epoxy, there would be no need for the MEK. Right from the Harrit / Jones paper.

The initial objective was to compare the behav- ior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong or- ganic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution.
benthamopen.com...

Again.

MEK, or Butanone,” Butanone is an effective and common solvent[8] and is used in processes involving gums, resins, cellulose acetate and nitrocellulose.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...

If the chips were free of ” gums, resins, cellulose acetate and nitrocellulose“ there would be no “swelling”.

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

aneta.org...

In forensic studies, paints and coatings often must be broken down so that the components of the entire coating product can be studied individually. Epoxy resins are formed from the reaction of two different chemicals which produces a polymer that is heavily cross-linked. Epoxy resins can be especially difficult to dissolve. Organic solvents, including those sold commercially for epoxy paint/coating stripping, were found to soften the red layer of the red/gray chips but did not dissolve the epoxy resin sufficiently so particles within the coating could be dispersed for direct examination. In this study no organic solvent was found to release particles from within the epoxy resin and it was necessary to use low temperature ashing to eliminate the epoxy resin matrix and extract the component parts of the coating. The other procedures generally used to examine component particles within a coating without extraction (cross-sections and thin sections) were also applied in this study.