Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

The whole paper is junk science, get over it.

Only if Harrit would have published the results of trying to ignite the dust in an inert atmosphere. That would prove one way or another a self sustaining reaction was present. The only thing Harrit has proven is paint chips burin in oxygen.

I requested you interpret the slides I showed and you decline to answer. Everyone can see how deceitful you are and you acting like a clown now. 
I provided the evidence for your question. 

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
I requested you interpret the slides I showed and you decline to answer. Everyone can see how deceitful you are and you acting like a clown now. 
I provided the evidence for your question. 

Assuming one has free aluminum based on a ratio with other elements than oxygen present, and other compounds present, is not science.

This is how science should work.

Holy cow. We might have free aluminum by ratio to oxygen even though that doesn’t prove the aluminum is bound to something else. What could we do to prove there might be free aluminum that could support a thermite reaction. How about we actually isolate the particles and conduct further analysis. Or we could try to ignite the dust in an argon atmosphere to show the dust supports a thermite reaction.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
I requested you interpret the slides I showed and you decline to answer. Everyone can see how deceitful you are and you acting like a clown now. 
I provided the evidence for your question. 

Really? After you posted this picture of steel cut by cutting torch as proof of nano thermite?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
I requested you interpret the slides I showed and you decline to answer. Everyone can see how deceitful you are and you acting like a clown now. 
I provided the evidence for your question. 

Assuming one has free aluminum based on a ratio with other elements than oxygen present, and other compounds present, is not science.

This is how science should work.

Holy cow. We might have free aluminum by ratio to oxygen even though that doesn’t prove the aluminum is bound to something else. What could we do to prove there might be free aluminum that could support a thermite reaction. How about we actually isolate the particles and conduct further analysis. Or we could try to ignite the dust in an argon atmosphere to show the dust supports a thermite reaction.

The aluminium silicate can't separate in an MEK solution.
You don't understand the two XED slides show the aluminum content too high compared to silicon. That's means there elemental aluminum there 100 percent.
The second slide proves it even more because when they used the XED beam to analysis the silicon there was no Aluminum at all present.  
So that 100 percent proof the silicon and Alumium is not a bonded mixture. It proves there a thermite mixture in red/gray chips. When you have free Alumium and Iron oxide- you have main ingredients of thermite. 
X-ray spectroscopy can't lie, it doesn't care if you are a debunker or truther.

Harrit proved it was nanothermite 110 per cent, by burning it then and iron spheres were created.
This paper is solid. I see no errors with it.
It probably the reason it got published in the first place- they did all the corrects tests.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again. What test was conducted to positively identify there was free aluminum for a thermite reaction. Assuming and hoping is not positively identifying. For example; If the matrix was made with aluminum with a coating of oxidation, it’s no thermite.

What test was conducted to show positively the WTC dust could support a thermite reaction.

Again. The only thing Harrit proved was paint chips burn in air.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again. What test was conducted to positively identify there was free aluminum for a thermite reaction. Assuming and hoping is not positively identifying. For example; If the matrix was made with aluminum with a coating of oxidation, it’s no thermite.

What test was conducted to show positively the WTC dust could support a thermite reaction.

Again. The only thing Harrit proved was paint chips burn in air.

What tests? I just informed you.
This to get you started- but I have a feeling you still not understand it, unfortunately. 

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I am supposed to find you credible after you posted this picture as proof of thermite?


Let’s not forget this gem

Stop repeating things I have previously answered.
Harrit chips were analyzed in inert atmosphere.

Still waiting on you to cite where Harrit analyzed the WTC chips in an inert atmosphere?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again. What test was conducted to positively identify there was free aluminum for a thermite reaction. Assuming and hoping is not positively identifying. For example; If the matrix was made with aluminum with a coating of oxidation, it’s no thermite.

What test was conducted to show positively the WTC dust could support a thermite reaction.

Again. The only thing Harrit proved was paint chips burn in air.

What tests? I just informed you.
This to get you started- but I have a feeling you still not understand it, unfortunately. 

en.wikipedia.org...

No. Your referring to that Harrit assumed there was free aluminum based on the ratio to oxygen.

Please cite where Harrit actually conducted an analysis that positively shows there was free aluminum, or an analysis there was free aluminum to support a thermite reaction.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again. This is how real science works.

This is how science should work.

Holy cow. We might have free aluminum by ratio to oxygen even though that doesn’t prove the aluminum is bound to something else. What could we do to prove there might be free aluminum that could support a thermite reaction. How about we actually isolate the particles and conduct further analysis. Or we could try to ignite the dust in an argon atmosphere to show the dust supports a thermite reaction.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again. The only thing proven by Harrit is he had paint chips that will burn in the presence of oxygen.

Please cite what analysis Harrit conducted to prove his WTC dust could support a thermite reaction?

You don't understand what i showed you. That obvious.
Regards the cut piece,. Here more images someone requested it saved too. 







I have doubts human hands cut this. The piece below is also cut, its look like it melted away. We never know the truth.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You showing pieces cut by cutting torch. You are ridiculous.

You

I have doubts human hands cut this. The piece below is also cut, its look like it melted away. We never know the truth.

It’s actually kind of a sloppy cut

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

I give up. Just post rubbish all day if you want

Your the one posting falsehoods.
You

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.

This is steel cut by a cutting torch

m.youtube.com...
Oxy/acetylene torch cutting tips

This is NIST taking samples with a cutting torch as far as I can tell. It is the Internet.

Steel Samples from WTC Towers after 9/11 (Clip 1, part
m.youtube.com...

This is thin steel worked on by thermite

1/2 ton of thermite VS SUV mythbusters
www.dailymotion.com...

The picture below posted by you is not steel cut by thermite. It is steel cut by torch during cleanup or sampling.

That does look like evidence of a hand held cutting torch but that's not the interesting feature that prompted the marking of the piece for further analysis. It's that dark discolouration patch on the surface that merits investigation for residue of whatever hit it at that spot so the area of interest has been cut out of the surrounding metal.

If it was an explosive then positive proof would be found right there.

a reply to: Pilgrum

It's that dark discolouration patch on the surface that merits investigation for residue of whatever hit it at that spot so the area of interest has been cut out of the surrounding metal.

If you are talking about that dark area a few inches about the letter "V" in the picture just above your post;
That is soot from an oxy/acetylene torch.
When you first light a torch it's always oxy starved.
The flame is yellow and gives off tons of soot.
If you have the flame pointed at the steel it will coat it like a spray paint.
Then you add oxy to get the flame to the proper temp and size.

I light torches every day inside customers homes and that soot can get all over everything.
I try to have oxy running before I light the acetylene just to keep the soot down to a minimum.
But outside I just light the acetylene first because I don't care about soot.
Just go to YT and watch a few vids on how to light an oxy/acetylene torch.

When you don't understand the workings of the real world you start thinking you see conspiracies.

a reply to: samkent

Probably didn't express my view well enough which is that the sample was cut post-collapse in order to preserve some interesting anomaly worthy of further investigation. The area with the soot looks to have some odd markings.

Basically, the actual torch cuts are not what's deemed to be interesting.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
That does look like evidence of a hand held cutting torch but that's not the interesting feature that prompted the marking of the piece for further analysis. It's that dark discolouration patch on the surface that merits investigation for residue of whatever hit it at that spot so the area of interest has been cut out of the surrounding metal.

If it was an explosive then positive proof would be found right there.

I have genuine doubts any welder would slice steel like that like that. You can even view the steel section below is torn way like it melted? They typically only cut large massive columns to reduce the weight for loading to take away.  They possibly set up in the middle and work there way down? You people are entitled to your opinion.
There no doubt these steel pieces experienced melting from high temperatures.  These pictures show WTC7 steel on back of a lorry. We just fortunate one of the engineers at the site took some photographs. 




Steel at the dump


The camera began having interference when he looked at this.



All we know the steel got very hot, their evidence of a blast. We never know truly what caused it.



I have no clue what caused this.


There lot of steel that looks like this, but I just posted a few examples.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Funny. I see steel that sat in a hot smoldering toxic soup of building waste for months with no columns failed as outlined by Hulsey? I see steel worked on mechanical by overloading or smashed in a 500,000 ton building collapse. As in you posted no pictures of columns actually cut to the point they would fail. Especially you posting pictures of thin floors pans as proof of what?

And we know for then videos of the twin towers the collapse was not through the path of greatest resistance. After collapse initiation from contracting floor trusses causing the vertical columns to bow inward to the the point they buckled , the falling mass broke floor connections. Then the vertical columns toppled in the wake of the falling mass.

You you never want to post about the actual collapse, the actual collapse video, audio, or seismic evidence. That you post no evidence of actual cut columns.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

I have genuine doubts any welder would slice steel like that like that.

What does that even mean?

You are posting steel cut by cutting torch as proof of thermite, and you want to be taken seriously. Utterly ridiculous that is killing your credibility.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You showing pieces cut by cutting torch. You are ridiculous.

You

I have doubts human hands cut this. The piece below is also cut, its look like it melted away. We never know the truth.

It’s actually kind of a sloppy cut

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

I give up. Just post rubbish all day if you want

Your the one posting falsehoods.
You

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.

This is steel cut by a cutting torch

m.youtube.com...
Oxy/acetylene torch cutting tips

This is NIST taking samples with a cutting torch as far as I can tell. It is the Internet.

Steel Samples from WTC Towers after 9/11 (Clip 1, part
m.youtube.com...

This is thin steel worked on by thermite

1/2 ton of thermite VS SUV mythbusters
www.dailymotion.com...

The picture below posted by you is not steel cut by thermite. It is steel cut by torch during cleanup or sampling.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Let’s not forget this gem

Stop repeating things I have previously answered.
Harrit chips were analyzed in inert atmosphere.

Still waiting on you to cite where Harrit analyzed the WTC chips in an inert atmosphere?

So you are willing to post blatant falsehoods......