Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

reply to post by pteridine


Once again you overlook the criteria for the iron spheres to form and
what they are ATTACHED to (chips). I'm done with this for now.

I have received a reply from 911 Scholars and they will be finding a volunteer
with experience and qualifications in this topic to help explain this further.

This is their response:

Hi Tino,

Thank-you for what you are doing in this important public education work. I hope we can recruit some help on that thread. For now, I just wanted to offer my understanding of XEDS as it relates to multiple peaks, of, for example iron.

When a portion of a sample is bombarded by the electron beam, it excites the electrons of atoms in that portion, and when those electrons shed their energy by dropping down to a lower energy level, they emit X-rays with a frequencies characteristic of their changes in energy levels. Since an iron atom has electrons with different energy levels that can change state, it has several characteristic peaks with different frequencies and different magnitudes. Simpler elements have fewer peaks because of their simpler electron orbital structure.

So sit tight, and hopefully someone that has contributed to the thermite
paper will be here to set the record straight.

reply to post by turbofan


I'll mill about smartly and check in later while you await your assistants, Turbo.

reply to post by turbofan


Where is the backup team that was supposed to help you out, Turbo? Did they abandon you or just get lost in cyberspace?

I'm sure they have better things to do than answer questions I've already covered. Someone will get back to me soon, or show up here...don't worry about that.

On another note:

If the presence of air was such a factor, why/how did the oxide from iron
get used up?

Originally posted by turbofan
On another note:
If the presence of air was such a factor, why/how did the oxide from iron
get used up?

That won't be known until we run the DSC in the absence of air. When the carbonaceous binder ignites in air, heat from the combustion plus the remaining carbon could have reduced it or a thermitic reaction could have formed it. The presence of air complicates the entire analysis and renders it useless for concluding much of anything.
First, one must show reaction in the absence of air to even consider thermite. No reaction, no thermite and everything else is a waste of time. The temperature should be ramped up to 900*C or so to make sure of any ignition and look for the endotherm of aluminum melting at around 660*C. This would show up if elemental aluminum is present; a necessary component of thermite. No aluminum, no thermitic material that could ignite at more elevated temperatures not attained by the DSC.
Should a reaction occur or elemental aluminum be discovered, then the next step would be to disrupt the matrix and isolate components. This could be done by selecting a solvent to disrupt the carbonaceous matrix. MEK is a poor choice; CH2Cl2 is much better as is DMSO or DMF. Once the matrix is removed, other analytical techniques could then be applied to determine what components were in the chip.
There is a long way to go to prove thermite.

Originally posted by turbofan
If the presence of air was such a factor, why/how did the oxide from iron
get used up?

Great, now we'll have to listen to more band-aid theories about how some other reaction must have taken it all away.

reply to post by bsbray11


I try to answer questions about science. You should stick to "eutectic logical fallacies" or whatever your latest catchphrase is.

Wouldn't of been really nice if NIST could have just tested for any and all explosives in the dust.

Would it have really been that much of a waste of time? Especially, considering there timely releases of their investigative results years after the fact.

At the very least it "might" have saved us from this 62 page post and a whole bunch of questions.

(Meanwhile, I can't get a single reply to a couple of lousy questions, go figure.)

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


Of course NIST could have tested for everything in every place on the planet, just in case someone had a feeling about a conspiracy somewhere. As to this thread, if the experiments had been done correctly in the first place, it wouldn't be here. If you aren't interested in reality, visit your favorite truther sites.

reply to post by pteridine


That is the equivalent of having someone shot to death in a shootout with police, then having the coroner test the deceased for stab wounds, poison, heart attacks, etc etc etc, as other causes for the death, rather than the obvious bullet to the head and heart.

Seems after all someone has found the material so hotly debated. It's an iron-containing paint with the physical and chemical characteristics.

forums.randi.org...

I've identified what the grey layer is likely to be. This stuff looks awfully similar and would certainly fit the bill. [link below]

Look at the SEM photo in that link. Notice the scale? Yep 10 microns. Now look at how thick each piece is. Around 10 microns. Now go back to figures 4 and 5 in the Jones paper. Compare the thickness of the grey layer.

Compare the SEM photographs and look for similar or different characteristics. The Fe2O3 morphology or structure is identical. You can clearly see the similarities. We know from the EDS that this part is only Fe and O.

A quick googling for "Micaceous Iron Oxide" and it throws up hundreds of sites and low and behold it's primary use is guess what? Yep, protection of structural steel and has been used for more than 100 years.

www.cmmp-france.com...

IRONOR is a natural Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO). Its excellent platelet structure and high chemical resistance make it an ideal pigment in many anticorrosion paint formulations. IRONOR paints provide longlife corrosion protection for metallic structures in touch with very aggressive environments, such as marine and industrial ones.

When an IRONOR based paint is applied to a surface, the flaky pigment particles orientate themselves in multiple layers roughly parallel to the substrate in such a way that interleaving and overlapping take place. This barrier effect will reduce the diffusion of moisture and pollutants such as NaCl and SO2 through the medium, thus decreasing the chances of corrosion and blistering

Mike



[edit on 29-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Come on Pt, the oxide from the iron oxide was used up.

Does this not indicate an aluminothermic reaction?

Once again, if air was so readily available, why did the reaction need to
use energy to take from iron oxide?

Answer that, and then I'll post the reply I received from Scholars.
We'll see how well you know your stuff.

Hint: Keep in mind all of the other tests which support each other before
responding. IE: DSC, XEDS, Backscatter, etc.

reply to post by turbofan


Oxygen being stripped from the iron is exactly what creates the energy and melts the iron/steel in the first place. This is exactly a eutectic reaction. Just like the one described in the FEMA report. It boggles my mind how allergic people are to making this simple and obvious connection.

Originally posted by turbofan
Come on Pt, the oxide from the iron oxide was used up.

Does this not indicate an aluminothermic reaction?

Once again, if air was so readily available, why did the reaction need to
use energy to take from iron oxide?

Answer that, and then I'll post the reply I received from Scholars.
We'll see how well you know your stuff.

Hint: Keep in mind all of the other tests which support each other before
responding. IE: DSC, XEDS, Backscatter, etc.

Reduction of iron oxide does not require aluminum. The production of energy in excess of the theoretical maximum for thermite indicates combustion. The DSC in air was an error by the experimenters as was choice of solvent.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by turbofan

 

Oxygen being stripped from the iron is exactly what creates the energy and melts the iron/steel in the first place. This is exactly a eutectic reaction. Just like the one described in the FEMA report. It boggles my mind how allergic people are to making this simple and obvious connection.

This is "exactly a eutectic reaction?" You really like that word, don't you? It isn't and you are wrong yet again. It is an oxidation-reduction reaction. The aluminum is being oxidized as it reduces the iron oxide. The heat is the result of the energy differences between the oxides. Take a chemistry course.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by turbofan
Come on Pt, the oxide from the iron oxide was used up.

Does this not indicate an aluminothermic reaction?

Once again, if air was so readily available, why did the reaction need to
use energy to take from iron oxide?

Answer that, and then I'll post the reply I received from Scholars.
We'll see how well you know your stuff.

Hint: Keep in mind all of the other tests which support each other before
responding. IE: DSC, XEDS, Backscatter, etc.

Reduction of iron oxide does not require aluminum. The production of energy in excess of the theoretical maximum for thermite indicates combustion. The DSC in air was an error by the experimenters as was choice of solvent.

you are WRONG!

YOu are ASSUMING they are equating the theoretical maximum of CONVENTIONAL THERMITE to the nano-thermite.

I've ALREADY explained this to you a page ago.

Here's further proof you don't know what you're talking about (from Scholars):

I think yours is an excellent list of points to address the argument that air could have contaminated the DSC results. Another point you might add is that the narrowness of the exotherm is not indicative of an air-oxidized reaction.

Perhaps oxygen in the air could have participated in some reactions and contributed to the energy density measurements, but, based on your arguments, any such effect would be slight, and none of the paper's conclusions hinge on whether that occurred.

One point I like to make that's slightly off the immediate subject is that the reaction of the material seen in the DSC and when heated by a torch is likely one of two or more reaction modes, where another, yet-to-be-verified mode in which the material detonates requires very specific conditions to be triggered. In either case, the very high temperatures producing iron- and silicon-rich spheroids are reached.

Now read-up everyone. I'm not a chemist and I never claimed to be,
however with my highschool level chemistry and research, as well as
e-mailing Dr. Jones I was able to crush Pteridine in a debate about
nano-thermite.

It is clear "Pteridine" know absolutely nothing after 60 pages of circular
run-around, and a very likely case he will not put his REAL NAME to his
claims.

Please reference this post any time "Pteridine" tries to steer you wrong.

reply to post by turbofan


@Scholars, Please explain some basic thermodynamics to Turbo so he understands that nanosizing anything cannot result in reactions exceeding the energy of reaction and that nano only changes the kinetics of the reaction. Then explain to him that a carbonaceous binder burns in air and regardless of how narrow a peak you think it exhibits, it is the only explanation for the excess energy in the air which you erroneously used in your DSC.
If you still believe this stuff you are spouting, explain how nanothermite shows almost twice the energy that it should. Explain that had you run the DSC under inert, a thermitic reaction would have been seen, had it occurred, and confess that you completely screwed up the analysis.

@Turbofan,
Now read-up everyone. Turb is certainly not a chemist and neither is Scholars unless he comes clean about the thermodynamics. With Turb not being a scientist or an engineer, he counted on Scholars to tell him what to say. He e-mailed Jones and either misinterpreted what Jones said or what Jones told him was just wrong. He didn’t make his argument but only repeated what he said previously which, as we have seen, is incorrect. It is clear "Turbo" has learned absolutely nothing after 60 pages of circular run-around and only crushed his own weak arguments. Please reference this post any time the Jones crew and its sycophants try to steer you wrong.

@the thermite believers in general please look over the information found here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And finally a slideshow by a truly independent researcher who believes that the WTC fell from CD but did make an interesting discovery that shows the uncertainty in the conclusion that the chips are thermitic.

www.darksideofgravity.com...

One slide contains the following:

"These chips don’t react even when heated up to 900°C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion.
Photos, spectra and analyses:
www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf
●Remark: A photo from an independent searcher shows the red layer from a red/gray chip separating from the gray layer: possible origin of red chips. www.darksideofgravity.com/1RedGray2.pdf
●Eventually the presence of nanothermite could NOT be confirmed. There was a deception and confusion generated either to prevent an independent corroboration of a crucial proof (fake chips introduced in my samples?) or nanothermite is only a diversion in order to keep secret another technology used to destroy the WTC."

"These chips don’t react even when heated up to 900°C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion."

A question I have is, is this guy claiming that the organic binder combusted yet the chip did not react like Jones' chip? That the organic binder combusted yet did not form the iron rich microspheres in Jones' chips? That the carbon combusted under air and still did not form these microspheres?

Doesn't this prove that a reaction other than combustion did in fact take place in Jones'chips? Doesn't this go against what's been argued in this thread about what may have happened, i.e. simple combustion?

As for the gray layer being "Micaceous Iron Oxide" it's not much of an arguement to say it's 10 microns thick and it looks like it, but I took his suggestion and googled it. I found this page: www.enviroprotectcoatings.com...

I don't see any layered plates like I find on this page. I don't see them in Jones' paper or Henry-Couannier's paper. So I'm going to need more than "it's 10 microns and it looks like this one photo."

Also not included in the quote from randi.org is this "It contains Kaolin and red iron oxide pigment - paint!" So he's still maintaining what we're looking at is Kaolin, but I still don't see how this can be if there's very little silicon in figure 17 and absolutely no aluminum in figure 16.

Originally posted by pteridinehe understands that nanosizing anything cannot result in reactions exceeding the energy of reaction

Please teach Pteridine some basic English. He thinks conventional thermite
and some mixture found in the chips (possibly thermate, or some other
type of nano-sized incendiary/explosive) must have the same energy output.

and that nano only changes the kinetics of the reaction.

Please teach Pteridine some basic English. He thinks conventional thermite
and some mixture found in the chips (possibly thermate, or some other
type of nano-sized incendiary/explosive) must have the same energy output.

He also believes smaller particles (highly atomized) should exhibit the
same energy release as larger particles which will not react as efficiently,
or thoroughly due to the change in surface area and their ability to utilitze
the oxides present.

Then explain to him that a carbonaceous binder burns in air and regardless of how narrow a peak you think it exhibits, it is the only explanation for the excess energy in the air which you erroneously used in your DSC.

Explain to Pt that a substance that burns in air, especially in an uncontrolled
open environment cannot reach temperatures high enough to form spheres,
or melt iron.

If you still believe this stuff you are spouting, explain how nanothermite shows almost twice the energy that it should. Explain that had you run the DSC under inert, a thermitic reaction would have been seen, had it occurred, and confess that you completely screwed up the analysis.

Please teach Pteridine some basic English. He thinks conventional thermite
and some mixture found in the chips (possibly thermate, or some other
type of nano-sized incendiary/explosive) must have the same energy output.

Also, explain to Pteridine that oxides with the iron were used. Tell him
this is called an aluminothermic reaction due to the elements present.

THen tell Pteridine to source his claims about the double output speculation
he makes about nano-thermite.

After that tell him we don't believe nameless people with Googling
abilities over several Ph.D. scientist, ofwhom have had their experiments
verified by two independent scientists.

reply to post by turbofan

Your post is very confused and repititious but I will respond in the order received. You should give serious consideration to reading Jones' paper before you provide any more evidence of your ignorance. In order, with redundancies removed:

“He also believes smaller particles (highly atomized) should exhibit the same energy release as larger particles which will not react as efficiently,
or thoroughly due to the change in surface area and their ability to utilitze
the oxides present.”
The red chips exceed the theoretical energy release for the reaction. It doesn’t matter how small they are, they can’t exceed the theoretical maximum. Smallness only makes the reaction faster, it can’t change the thermodynamics.

“Explain to Pt that a substance that burns in air, especially in an uncontrolled open environment cannot reach temperatures high enough to form spheres, or melt iron.”
Since we don’t know what the spheres are, you have no way of knowing if they can be formed or not. Do you think a DSC is uncontrolled, Turbo?

“Please teach Pteridine some basic English. He thinks conventional thermite and some mixture found in the chips (possibly thermate, or some other type of nano-sized incendiary/explosive) must have the same energy output.”
Your knowledge of chemistry is zero. No barium nitrate, sulfur, molybdenum, copper, titanium or other elements were found. Only aluminum [in some form] and iron oxide. Explain what unconventional thermite you believe was discovered. Until other elements are discovered, you are stuck with the conventional thermite reaction and its maximum energy output.

“Also, explain to Pteridine that oxides with the iron were used. Tell him this is called an aluminothermic reaction due to the elements present.”
It is oxides of iron, not with the iron. Basic chemistry still eludes you, Turbo. Maybe Scholars should give you a better script. There is still a question that elemental aluminum was present, so we don’t know if it was a combustion or a reaction. How to tell? DSC under inert, as I have been explaining to you, all along.

“Then tell Pteridine to source his claims about the double output speculation he makes about nano-thermite.”
This is too good. Not only don’t you read posts, you haven’t even read Jones’ paper! You can’t always count on them to tell you what to say, Turbo. Once again, Jones’ paper shows this. Look at figure 30. Energy per unit mass; the blue bars. Note that two of the chips have energies between 1.5 and 2 times the theoretical maximum of iron oxide+ aluminum. Nano doesn't explain it, only combustion, and Jones makes such a statement in th epaper.

“After that tell him we don't believe nameless people with Googling
abilities over several Ph.D. scientist, of whom have had their experiments
verified by two independent scientists.”
What “independent verifications?” Basile is not independent and he verified the elemental composition of the red chips and nothing else. The link I provided showed that a true believer couldn't repeat Jones experiment. this is hardly a verification or a "crushing" argument for you to parrot.
The “several PhD scientists” made serious errors in their experiments and have proved nothing.
As to google, I rarely use search engines for this entertainment. I just use memory and training. I added the links from other boards that I read so people who only believe what is on the net can see the errors inherent in the Jones paper.



[edit on 8/30/2009 by pteridine]