Trying to resolve 9/11

Harrit burned chips, that had molten spheres?


Milette found no molten Irons after burning the chips to ash.

Visually the chips look like nothing alike.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Then it should be easy to cite the study.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

And it doesn’t look like thermite either.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You often show your ignorance. You still deny Harrit found free elemental AI even though his SEM- XED slides show the opposite. You just copying and pasting silly debunker talk points that's all.

False argument by you. Quote from Harrit what analysis positively confirmed free Al2 was present to support a thermite reaction.

a reply to: Hulseyreport


Again. You post blatant falsehoods. It’s been repeatedly cited and proven.

You have questions you need to answer.

You

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!

How? When Harrit had to assume Al2 based on aluminum to oxygen ratio, had to assume the aluminum was not bound to anything else, and ignored the aluminum may have been original produced with a layer of oxidation.

Harrit never published results that positively showed the aluminum was free to create a thermite reaction.

Now your turn...

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 thermite 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 not 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. Is that false?

]originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Ok? For what nano particle size? Compared to the quoted particle size in the Harrit samples. There is a reason why I wanted you to quote a specific iron oxide and aluminum particle size from the Harrit report. And you never addressed what thermite gel was, and if Harrit had particles from thermite gel.

And how can you find anything by Harrit credible?

www.internationalskeptics.com...

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.

What lab verified Harrit’s results?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Ok? For what nano particle size? Compared to the quoted particle size in the Harrit samples. There is a reason why I wanted you to quote a specific iron oxide and aluminum particle size from the Harrit report. And you never addressed what thermite gel was, and if Harrit had particles from thermite gel.

And how can you find anything by Harrit credible?

www.internationalskeptics.com...

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.

What lab verified Harrit’s results?

Here


Nanoparticles.


Can you read?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

This is an easy true and false. Individuals sympathetic to Harrit have tried to verify Harrit’s results and failed.


You other list by the way.

What’s the other list? Your list of falsehoods and contradictions?

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

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?

Posting pictures of steel cut by cutting torch as steel 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?

originally posted by: neutronflux
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

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You often show your ignorance. You still deny Harrit found free elemental AI even though his SEM- XED slides show the opposite. You just copying and pasting silly debunker talk points that's all.

False argument by you. Quote from Harrit what analysis positively confirmed free Al2 was present to support a thermite reaction.

Amazing you have not received a warning for this behaviour from the mods? You just derailing the thread now.

Hi all, coming back to the subject after being away for while so if i have said these comments before forgive me.

As an infantry veteran I just have to laugh, literally, at anyone who thinks that planes took down skyscrapers with so much steel and concrete in them... Yea, jet fuel can burn hot enough to eventually melt steel but that is eventually and not all of the beams. Also, it burns incredibly quickly, it has to. What is left simply would not burn hot enough or long enough to melt the beams and or allow for a complete building collapse...

there is literally hundreds of films of building demo's... every single one looks exactly like what you see on 9/11. As a veteran i also laugh at anyone thinking a plane is going to bring down the whole building like this... put it this way, we could hit it straight down the pipe with a missile and it is not coming down like that lol... the top will blow off, the building will sheer and a large portion will be left standing... go look at footage from every war on the planet and you will see this...

a plane, simply is not, i say again, not, going to bring down a building this way.... if you still believe this I have a bridge to sell you... this was planned building demo all the way... and the only way these buildings collapse this way...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

It’s should be easy to cite and quote the particle size for the aluminum particles and the iron oxide particles from Harrit’s study and quote the cited particle size from the study “ Ignition studies of AlÕFe2O3 energetic nanocomposites” to produce a comparison out of intellectual honesty?

a reply to: dlbott

Than you for your service.

Now

steel and concrete in them.

The towers had no concrete load bearing members above the foundations. One reason the towers failed.

a reply to: dlbott

You

there is literally hundreds of films of building demo's... every single one looks exactly like what you see on 9/11

So does this Demolition with hydraulic jacks.

Demolition by hydraulic jacks
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You often show your ignorance. You still deny Harrit found free elemental AI even though his SEM- XED slides show the opposite. You just copying and pasting silly debunker talk points that's all.

False argument by you. Quote from Harrit what analysis positively confirmed free Al2 was present to support a thermite reaction.

Amazing you have not received a warning for this behaviour from the mods? You just derailing the thread now.

Because I can cite examples of your falsehood, and when I ask for proof they are not falsehoods all you can post is “ Amazing you have not received a warning for this behavior from the mods? You just derailing the thread now”?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

It’s should be easy to cite and quote the particle size for the aluminum particles and the iron oxide particles from Harrit’s study and quote the cited particle size from the study “ Ignition studies of AlÕFe2O3 energetic nanocomposites” to produce a comparison out of intellectual honesty?

see the 100nm that a nanometer. Read the Harrit quote I posted.

originally posted by: dlbott
Hi all, coming back to the subject after being away for while so if i have said these comments before forgive me.

As an infantry veteran I just have to laugh, literally, at anyone who thinks that planes took down skyscrapers with so much steel and concrete in them... Yea, jet fuel can burn hot enough to eventually melt steel but that is eventually and not all of the beams. Also, it burns incredibly quickly, it has to. What is left simply would not burn hot enough or long enough to melt the beams and or allow for a complete building collapse...

there is literally hundreds of films of building demo's... every single one looks exactly like what you see on 9/11. As a veteran i also laugh at anyone thinking a plane is going to bring down the whole building like this... put it this way, we could hit it straight down the pipe with a missile and it is not coming down like that lol... the top will blow off, the building will sheer and a large portion will be left standing... go look at footage from every war on the planet and you will see this...

a plane, simply is not, i say again, not, going to bring down a building this way.... if you still believe this I have a bridge to sell you... this was planned building demo all the way... and the only way these buildings collapse this way...

NIST established during their own fire tests- the columns would not buckle with the same SFRM fireproofing in the towers. 
The fireproofing is indispensable as the floor trusses had SFRM Fireproofing. Steel would be protected for hours and hours and would not get hot above 600c. So going around that obstacle they claim the airplanes removed the SFRM fireproofing!

Why my piece of steel that cut is interesting , the fireproofing is not removed at all. You see it here between the screws.  The steel was definitely very hot you can see black patches, but something happened that caused this steel piece to give way. There practically no evidence the fireproofing was removed on upper floors but NIST believes it and theory only works if fireproofing is removed from the steel!

Fireproofing insulation.


Same steel piece.



Remember tower 2 collapsed in about 40+ minutes after impact. So the fireproofing had to be removed by NIST no matter what!

We also have a clue that no steel melted in the WTC7 rubble. The heat is too low days after 9/11. Debunkers claim it was sitting in hot soup for weeks.


WTC7 thermal image- 500c to 600c. About 900c less than was required to melt steel.


This image is area A at WTC7.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

So. The Harrit report doesn’t actually state an actual size for their particles. So? How much larger or smaller were the Harrit particles compared to the particles in the study “ Ignition studies of AlÕFe2O3 energetic nanocomposites”

I think the Harrit Particles were ten to twenty times larger, And would not have the same characteristics of the particles in the study “ Ignition studies of AlÕFe2O3 energetic nanocomposites”. Prove me wrong.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

NIST established during their own fire tests- the columns would not buckle with the same SFRM fireproofing in the towers.

Good thing my argument for the towers is deformed floor trusses, with know insulation deficiencies and had insulation knocked of by the jets, pulled in the vertical columns. This caused them to bow to the point they buckled

www.metabunk.org/the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

The fire in WTC 5 showed the buildings were susceptible to floor connection failures.



For WTC 7, if a column lost enough lateral support from failed floor connections, it would buckle.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Why my piece of steel that cut is interesting , the fireproofing is not removed at all. You see it

You realize your picture shows steel and bolting with no insulation?