Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You trying to change the subject while we are still working on your list?

Then by all means quote where you answer this:
What you need to cite. Cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 C, and under what circumstances / conditions.

Then by all means quote where you addressed this:
The chips Harrit burnt where never positively found to have free Al2 by an actual analysis. If so. Please cite the analysis that positively confirmed free Al2?

Then by all means quote where you addressed this:
Two of the chips burnt had less energy per gram than thermite which is strange for a reaction that is self sustaining. And we are only getting started on your list.

So? That brings us up to the two chips Harrit burnt that had more energy per gram than what is possible for a thermite reaction. So the XEDs peaks for aluminum iron oxide would be only aluminum, iron, and oxygen? So none of the XEDs conclusively shows aluminum iron oxide thermite because of the numerous other elements. So by XED and by energy per gram what was burning was no aluminum iron oxide thermite. Gee. Only if Harrit conducted some analysis like tying to ignite his paint chips in an inert atmosphere.

You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite.

Do I need to continue pointing this out for you? FEMA metallography studies convincingly showed the steel was oxidized and attacked further by sulfation.
They even found evidence for these attacks within the microstructure of the steel, and they declared a liquid blend mixture of iron, oxygen and Sulfur formed.
Remember the debunkers claim there is no evidence of melted steel and the liquid people thought they saw was just aluminum or other minerals!
They conveniently just forget FEMA said the steel Iron melted in an analysis report ( liquid form it's melted) Debunkers never will inquire why did NIST state no steel melted? NIST overlooked this discovery when they took over from FEMA in 2002.

By  the way, FEMA theory doesn't rule out high temps of 2000c to 3000c inside the construction before a collapse.
They just committed to a modest heat temp of 1000c and the sulfur started a disintegrating process.  
1000c heat inside WTC7 building and outside the construction makes zero sense, anyway.

The mainstream chemical work gives a significant clue to what really happened. Finding the red/gray chips explains how it transpired. Red / gray chips, when burned, would start a melting process of connection fittings and perhaps provoke the connections to buckle and give way and break. 
You again ignore most of the WTC7 steel was taken away and never seen again!

Regards the towers. I have doubts it was floors trusses that moved first. I speculate the main steel core gave way and pulled in the perimeter box columns, perimeter facade and spandrels.  There evidence for this at tower one the antenna on the roof dropped before the bowing in. Bowing in was caused by a downward torque owing to the hat truss failure at the upper floors.
You did not watch your own video. There only cutting tiny pieces off for sampling. 

Inert atmosphere test is a red herring. Harrit admits there likely other volatile elements in the red/gray chips. He never believed there wasn't. You repeat and paste debunkers talking points so that not recognized by you.
You nevertheless have not realized it yet the debunkers claim the aluminum is bonded with silicon. The XEDs spectrum beam actually established the there no Alumium bonded with the silicon. If it was a bound material, there be peaks of Alumium side by side with the silicon. Dr. Milette in my view found Paint chips and its reason his results are noticeably distinct. The chemical arrangement is also very different.

Debunkers think it just paint chip. Yet still decline to do any tests to confirm it.
If paint chips can flare up at 430c and make Iron Microspheres, then the Harrit research has a dilemma.
Debunkers babble all day on forums it just a paint chip and still not shown that's true.
Laclede paint not some mystery paint nobody can make. The formula is provided by NIST and everybody can make it and test it.
I have seen and showed Dr Milette paint chips and they look like paint flakes. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You posted no evidence of columns cut by thermite.

You falsely pushed a photo of a column cut during cleanup or sampling as cut by thermite.

You said this.

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

What does that even mean?


Let’s not forget this gem
You

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......

Back to your list

You trying to change the subject while we are still working on your list?

Then by all means quote where you answer this:
What you need to cite. Cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 C, and under what circumstances / conditions.

Then by all means quote where you addressed this:
The chips Harrit burnt where never positively found to have free Al2 by an actual analysis. If so. Please cite the analysis that positively confirmed free Al2?

Then by all means quote where you addressed this:
Two of the chips burnt had less energy per gram than thermite which is strange for a reaction that is self sustaining. And we are only getting started on your list.

So? That brings us up to the two chips Harrit burnt that had more energy per gram than what is possible for a thermite reaction. So the XEDs peaks for aluminum iron oxide would be only aluminum, iron, and oxygen? So none of the XEDs conclusively shows aluminum iron oxide thermite because of the numerous other elements. So by XED and by energy per gram what was burning was no aluminum iron oxide thermite. Gee. Only if Harrit conducted some analysis like tying to ignite his paint chips in an inert atmosphere.

You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite.

You managed not notice this steel piece connections failed and was exposed to high temp.  The steel scrap has turned black from the heat. It a sample from the upper floors of the towers. 
You claim they cut it it at ground zero but whereas you evidence? You giving an opinion recognize that. I expressed a point of view something else cut it.  Show me a welder cutting the steel like that on 9/11, show me the same system of cutting? I have seen thermite cut steel and cut steel in a jagged shape similar fashion like we see here. The even requested it saved because they identified it steel that was exposed to fire inside the towers. Most of the steel untouched below by fire. You can see the difference as the primer paint is not stained, black or damaged as much.

Are you trying to hold on to the theory it was paint after heating caused the steel to melt and created a large accumulation of iron Microspheres ( commonsense completely lacking then)  And your accepted expert did not confirm his paint chips can produce iron Molten spheres ( another fail)  Nanothermite far more convincing to me than there was this magical paint in the dust igniting at 430c and created Molten Iron spheres
Debunkers ignore the particles grains are 100nm  Paint pigment that's 100nm Silicon, Aluminum and Iron Oxide?  Paint the volumes are never Nano.  Another failure by debunkers to follow this study.  Again if you suspect there paint with 100nm Iron Oxide crack the can open and do the investigation?

Debunkers are trying to assert that some other thing combusted in DSC. It's the sole reason the demand the inert test. Harrit and his team already confirmed extra intensity in red/gray chips.  What would be point of inert test then? Must Isolate what else producing the chips to release energy and inert test would not be the action to go about it. Either way it was settled before the burning the red/gray chips are nanothermite. 

The debunker's case was over when the silicon and aluminum were separated in a MEK paint solution.  This is a positive test for separation. Bound Silicon and Aluminum can not split in a paint solution. Red/gray chips are not Leclele paint. I going to just reject this statement from you from now on- no anyasis was carried out here to establish elemental aluminum in the red/gray layer!

 They positively affirmed it a second time, by the XED test, that rich area of Silicon had no Aluminum present.  That rules out Kaolin.  Millette XED test does show Kaolin because he analysed paint flakes. If you finding paint flakes and not nanothermite you analysis is going to be very different. Millette samples were assembled in a different part of New York, on his report he registered the addresses where the samples got collected. That an obstacle when Harrit and Milette samples were secured a mile half distance from each other. Milette had no ground zero chip samples. Harrit two samples were collected from ground zero collapse scene.

What do still claim its thermite? Clearly it not. Performs nothing like thermite and particles are completely different.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You not making any sense.

You

To melt (FE) iron, you need 1700 celsius temp. It bears a greater melting point than Steel 1500c ( as its a human processed alloy)

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Iron

Melting point
1811 K ​(1538 °C, ​2800 °F)

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.[15]

So. Your way off on your numbers.

You

Iron Microspheres not going to develop in a a fire that 600c or 800c. And there no substantial documentation fires were hot as 1500c at ground zero.

I guess that rules out thermite burning. Thank you.

Any way.

Are you saying a fire needs to be 1700C to make iron spheres? Then how did Harrit’s paint chips only burning at 1500C make iron spheres?

a reply to: Hulseyreport


You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite. true or false?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You managed not notice this steel piece connections failed and was exposed to high temp.

Then specifically post that picture separately to see if your argument has merit?

But it’s been cited repeatedly you do post proven falsehoods and blatant falsehoods. A person with credibility would have either apologize or walked away out of shame by now.

Depends on the type of Iron. Wrought Iron and Cast Iron have various melting points and liquid stages. I have gathered over the years it often takess 1600c to 1700 to melt Wrought Iron? Cast iron slightly lower. Either way, it only 100c difference if the information i read wrong.

A36 steel is used at the towers. Melting point typically 1483c to 1530c ( so that 1500c) Steel is 95 per cent Iron.

The fires have to be at temp to start the melting point of A36 steel and then turn into liquid form. 
If you believe Molten Spheres of Iron can be created in a fire of 600 to 800c I like you to provide a source?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You managed not notice this steel piece connections failed and was exposed to high temp.

Then specifically post that picture separately to see if your argument has merit?

But it’s been cited repeatedly you do post proven falsehoods and blatant falsehoods. A person with credibility would have either apologize or walked away out of shame by now.

You lost this debate days ago. Your opinion of me is irrelevant. 
You only make an excuse the connection failed due to buckling so there no point. You still in denial about the Harrit study. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I just cited an F’n source

you

I have gathered over the years it often takess 1600c to 1700 to melt Wrought Iron?

Melting point [°F (°C)][54] 2,800 (1,540)

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Maybe you should actually look items up instead of making crap up.

You

The fires have to be at temp to start the melting point of A36 steel and then turn into liquid form.
If you believe Molten Spheres of Iron can be created in a fire of 600 to 800c I like you to provide a source?

I am not saying the towers collapse because of melted steel.

There is no evidence of molten steel on the vertical columns during collapse





This was the argument

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You not making any sense.

You

To melt (FE) iron, you need 1700 celsius temp. It bears a greater melting point than Steel 1500c ( as its a human processed alloy)

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Iron

Melting point
1811 K ​(1538 °C, ​2800 °F)

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.[15]

So. Your way off on your numbers.

You

Iron Microspheres not going to develop in a a fire that 600c or 800c. And there no substantial documentation fires were hot as 1500c at ground zero.

I guess that rules out thermite burning. Thank you.

Any way.

Are you saying a fire needs to be 1700C to make iron spheres? Then how did Harrit’s paint chips only burning at 1500C make iron spheres?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You managed not notice this steel piece connections failed and was exposed to high temp.

Then specifically post that picture separately to see if your argument has merit?

But it’s been cited repeatedly you do post proven falsehoods and blatant falsehoods. A person with credibility would have either apologize or walked away out of shame by now.

You lost this debate days ago. Your opinion of me is irrelevant. 
You only make an excuse the connection failed due to buckling so there no point. You still in denial about the Harrit study. 

Really? Just making more crap up?

Like posting pictures of steel obviously cut by cutting torch as proof of thermite?

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You posted no evidence of columns cut by thermite.

You falsely pushed a photo of a column cut during cleanup or sampling as cut by thermite.

You said this.

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

What does that even mean?


Let’s not forget this gem
You

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......

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again

You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite. true or false?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You managed not notice this steel piece connections failed and was exposed to high temp.

Then specifically post that picture separately to see if your argument has merit?

But it’s been cited repeatedly you do post proven falsehoods and blatant falsehoods. A person with credibility would have either apologize or walked away out of shame by now.

You lost this debate days ago. Your opinion of me is irrelevant. 
You only make an excuse the connection failed due to buckling so there no point. You still in denial about the Harrit study. 

How? Your claiming thermite? Thermite burns over 2000 degrees Celsius. Is that false?

You explicitly just stated

Iron Microspheres not going to develop in a a fire that 600c or 800c. And there no substantial documentation fires were hot as 1500c at ground zero.

So there was no thermite fires at the WTC?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

The steel scrap has turned black from the heat.

How does steel turn black from heat. Care to elaborate. Or you referring to soot and ash deposits from burning material? As pointed out, a cutting torch running oxygen lean moons lots of soot.

You

connections failed and was exposed to high temp

You mean like as witnessed in WTC 5

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

They conveniently just forget FEMA said the steel Iron melted in an analysis report ( liquid form it's melted) Debunkers never will inquire why did NIST state no steel melted? NIST overlooked this discovery when they took over from FEMA in 2002.

By all means, quote the FEMA report.

Please cite where pools of frozen steel were recovered from the WTC.

The WTC was sprayed with water and exposed to wet weather. Molten steel creates violent steam explosions when hit with water. Please give where such steam eruptions occurred.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Show me a welder cutting the steel like that on 9/11

Still don’t know what your referring to?

I have repeatedly posted a backyard do it yourselfer that made a clearer cut than the column you posted.

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

You

Iron Microspheres not going to develop in a a fire that 600c or 800c. And there no substantial documentation fires were hot as 1500c at ground zero.

Again.

New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

a reply to: Hulseyreport

New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

For the record, I still contend that burning the steel wool did indeed produce iron-rich microspheres. I have no problem with the fact that the iron might be in the form of iron oxide. If Zugam thinks my iron-rich microspheres "don't count" because of their oxygen content, then he should immediately contact Harrit, et. al., and inform them that their own "iron-rich microspheres" ARE ALSO IRON OXIDES! These images from my experiments, and from the Bentham Open paper prove this point! If the WTC spheres were themselves pure iron, they would not exhibit the large Oxygen spike in Harrit's XEDS spectrum.

Harrit established there was elementary aluminum present in the red/layer. You declare there isn't it. But I Can see from the XED test slides there is!
So this argument is just misuse of time for me.
You can declare the slides are fake, that fine.
Why we need now is a mediator (a middleman) a chemist or two who possesses no agenda to compose a report about the red/gray layer that will finish this debate once and for all.
Harrit mentioned he had no more red/gray chips after experiments. I don't know if Jones has more samples?
Debunkers and truthers should have worked out their arguments and disputes with this and set up a blog where they assemble some money together to undertake an impartial research project..
If this is positively nano-thermite its world changing discovery. And we missed an opportunity here to truly solve 9/11 controlled demolition debate.