Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

 Debunkers may have missed this important fact from Figure 17 ( Harrit study)

And you missed the important fact that graph has almost no iron in it. That is not thermite.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I just covered this can you read?
That quote is straight from the Harrit paper.
100nm is Nano- He shows the Iron oxide is 100nm plus the AI.

The paper still doesn’t state a specific size for the Al2 particles, does it. You have to infer the size. Is that false. Good why to imply without actually stating a falsehood.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

That you don't recognize it not my problem.

Can you be anymore vague.

You referring to you posting the blatant falsehood that you stated the chips were tested in an inert atmosphere. When the whole argument is Harrit and Jones could have prevented this whole crap storm if they just did the testing in an inert atmosphere to begin with?

You

Steve Jones told people online they checked the chips in the air, inert atmosphere.

Then quote, cite, and link to the source.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I just covered this can you read?
That quote is straight from the Harrit paper.
100nm is Nano- He shows the Iron oxide is 100nm plus the AI.

The paper still doesn’t state a specific size for the Al2 particles, does it. You have to infer the size. Is that false. Good why to imply without actually stating a falsehood.

Yes it does state it- NM is SI unit symbol for Nano. 
The micron symbol is μm. The red chips size was Micron. The particles were Nano. 

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

 Debunkers may have missed this important fact from Figure 17 ( Harrit study)

And you missed the important fact that graph has almost no iron in it. That is not thermite.

FE symbol is Iron. Open the Harrit study and look at page 19 this will be explained if you read the captions underneath the three graphs.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

FE symbol is Iron.

Very good. Now compare the hight of the fe to the hight of the al. By comparison it has almost no iron. That is not thermite.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

That you don't recognize it not my problem.

Can you be anymore vague.

You referring to you posting the blatant falsehood that you stated the chips were tested in an inert atmosphere. When the whole argument is Harrit and Jones could have prevented this whole crap storm if they just did the testing in an inert atmosphere to begin with?

You

Steve Jones told people online they checked the chips in the air, inert atmosphere.

Then quote, cite, and link to the source.

It only references I can find online a letter by Steven Jones. I sure there different responses from them online, but have got all day to look for this.
911blogger.com...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

The organic blend of the red/ gray layers seems to be essential for to ignite at a low temp of 430c.

But the chips they burnt was never found to have free Al2. Is that false. So what was ignored was no thermite. Is that false.

Again

So? What is the composition of nano thermite gel? Is it aluminum iron oxide thermite? And what does the gel do? Can you cite the igniting temperature?

You

Who the hell make paint with Nano Iron oxide and Nano Aluminum?

False argument by you.

This has been posted for you. And you wander why I have to repeat crap

www.ssnano.com...

Aluminum （Al) Nanopowder Applications
Combustive catalyst: When combined with other substances, aluminum powder serves as an excellent catalyst for combustion, greatly improving the speed, heat, and stability of combustion in rocket fuel and other fuels. Burn rates can be increased by as much as 20 times with the application of the right nanopowder.
Drug delivery:As with many nanoparticles, aluminum nanopowder plays a role in a variety of new drug delivery systems, including dry aerosol and transdermal delivery.
Wear and corrosion resistance:Aluminum powders can be added to a number of coatings or included in compounds to increase resistence to general wear and corrosion. In particular, it can be used to produce transparent wear-resistant coatings.
Chemical applications:Aluminum nanopowder is widely used for its chemical properties to produce controlled reaction rates for manufacturing aluminum-based chemicals, alcohols, and other substances. Deodorants and antiperspirants are one key product group utilizing this application.
Metallic pigments:Aluminum powder can be added to any number of coatings, paints, textiles, inks, plastics, and other materials to add a silver metallic sheen, making it a popular aesthetic addition in automotives, electronics, and other industries.
3D printing:Building upon the base usage of aluminum in metalworking to produce useful alloys, some industrial 3D printing solutions can utilize aluminum nanopowders to fabricate alloy components directly.

If you missed it, “ Metallic pigments:Aluminum powder can be added to any number of coatings, paints, textiles, inks, plastics, and other materials to add a silver metallic sheen, making it a popular aesthetic addition in automotives, electronics, and other industries.“


And Kaolinite clay used in coatings has nano structures.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
Kaolinite (/ˈkeɪəlɪnaɪt/)[4][5] is a clay mineral, part of the group of industrial minerals with the chemical composition Al2Si2O5(OH)4.

pubs.geoscienceworld.org...

TEM images of the nanostructures prepared by Method 1 at various magnifications.

FTIR spectra of kaolins with variable structural order and their nanostructures in the OH and Si–O spectral ranges (Method 2).

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

FE symbol is Iron.

Very good. Now compare the hight of the fe to the hight of the al. By comparison it has almost no iron. That is not thermite.

Look at page 19 you not understand it till you do There three graphs provided!

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

That you don't recognize it not my problem.

Can you be anymore vague.

You referring to you posting the blatant falsehood that you stated the chips were tested in an inert atmosphere. When the whole argument is Harrit and Jones could have prevented this whole crap storm if they just did the testing in an inert atmosphere to begin with?

You

Steve Jones told people online they checked the chips in the air, inert atmosphere.

Then quote, cite, and link to the source.

It only references I can find online a letter by Steven Jones. I sure there different responses from them online, but have got all day to look for this.
911blogger.com...

The argument was why didn’t Harrit / Jones try to ignite their WTC dust in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction. You claimed they had.

Quote or cite where Harrit / Jones ever published results of burning their WTC chips in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I just covered this can you read?
That quote is straight from the Harrit paper.
100nm is Nano- He shows the Iron oxide is 100nm plus the AI.

The paper still doesn’t state a specific size for the Al2 particles, does it. You have to infer the size. Is that false. Good why to imply without actually stating a falsehood.

Yes it does state it- NM is SI unit symbol for Nano. 
The micron symbol is μm. The red chips size was Micron. The particles were Nano. 

Then quote the study where it states the size of the aluminum particles they found. I am going with 1 micro unless you can quote a different size for the aluminum particles from the study. Posting a picture and having a scale bar you hope is right and having a person infer size is not a published statement on the actual size of particles found.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

That you don't recognize it not my problem.

Can you be anymore vague.

You referring to you posting the blatant falsehood that you stated the chips were tested in an inert atmosphere. When the whole argument is Harrit and Jones could have prevented this whole crap storm if they just did the testing in an inert atmosphere to begin with?

You

Steve Jones told people online they checked the chips in the air, inert atmosphere.

Then quote, cite, and link to the source.

It only references I can find online a letter by Steven Jones. I sure there different responses from them online, but have got all day to look for this.
911blogger.com...

The argument was why didn’t Harrit / Jones try to ignite their WTC dust in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction. You claimed they had.

Quote or cite where Harrit / Jones ever published results of burning their WTC chips in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction.

You have no clue what you speaking about.
The inert atmosphere does not show thermite is there or not.
An inert atmosphere is just a clean area that chemically inactive. We use an inert air environment to avoid contamination from Oxygen and Carbon dioxide.  
You proof thermite by the tests Harrit listed ( XEDs and MEK soak test and DSC test) Jones plainly says they did an air test (so I assume it was inert)  Tilliston carried out an air inert atmosphere test. Oystein claims Tilleston completed a gas inert atmosphere test,  that's the test he demanded Jones and company to do I believe?
Either way, the inert atmosphere is not going to diminish the findings of the study, it just something to carry out will satisfy debunkers nonsense. This info from 2012, this maybe already done by others like Farrer or Basille. 
I'm already satisfied there work is good.

a reply to: kwakakev


Resolution to 9/11 Event . Conclusion ? Believe what you Personally WANT to Believe , and just Let TIME Resolved the Deceptions and Truth's to It . AMEN .

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I just covered this can you read?
That quote is straight from the Harrit paper.
100nm is Nano- He shows the Iron oxide is 100nm plus the AI.

The paper still doesn’t state a specific size for the Al2 particles, does it. You have to infer the size. Is that false. Good why to imply without actually stating a falsehood.

Yes it does state it- NM is SI unit symbol for Nano. 
The micron symbol is μm. The red chips size was Micron. The particles were Nano. 

Then quote the study where it states the size of the aluminum particles they found. I am going with 1 micro unless you can quote a different size for the aluminum particles from the study. Posting a picture and having a scale bar you hope is right and having a person infer size is not a published statement on the actual size of particles found.

100nm is a nanoparticle size.

Page 18 and 19 of Harrit study prove 100 percent the silicon and aluminum are not bonded. Open and read the study.

Here it is and when you reading it look at the graphs on same page!
benthamopen.com...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You have no clue what you speaking about.
The inert atmosphere does not show thermite is there or not.

Shame on you. Very false argument.

If it was an oxygen free inert atmosphere, the paint chips would not burn. The only thing that would burn would be a self sustaining reaction like thermite.

An inert atmosphere is just a clean area that chemically inactive.

No. An inert atmosphere would deprive an oxygen based combustion. It would show if a reaction was self sustaining.

You

We use an inert air environment to avoid contamination from Oxygen and Carbon dioxide.

Or show a reaction other than oxygen based combustion took place.

You

air test (so I assume it was inert)

An air test uses atmosphere air. You could say a internal combustion engine runs an an air test. An air test is not free of oxygen. It’s not inert as 100 percent nitrogen or argon.

You

Either way, the inert atmosphere is not going to diminish the findings of the study, it just something to carry out will satisfy debunkers nonsense.

False argument by you. A test in 100 percent argon would rule out the combustion of paint chips, and show the WTC dust could support the self sustaining reaction of thermite.

Let’s sum up.

No tests were conducted in an inert atmosphere to show the chips contained self sustaining reactions.

The tests were burning paint chips.

Many processes make micro iron spheres, and micro iron spheres are not exclusive to thermite.

Many items with oxygen ignite at 430 Celsius and burn at 1500 Celsius.

Thermite burns at over 2000 Celsius.

Can you cite what temperature nano aluminum iron oxide thermite ignites.

What is the difference between supper gel thermite and regular aluminum iron oxide thermite. And how are they ignited?

Two of Harrit’s chips released less energy per gram than aluminum iron oxide thermite which is really strange for a material that supports its own reaction.

Two of Harrit’s chips had more energy than is possible for an aluminum iron oxide reaction.

And....

The argument was why didn’t Harrit / Jones try to ignite their WTC dust in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction. You claimed they had.

Quote or cite where Harrit / Jones ever published results of burning their WTC chips in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

100nm is a nanoparticle size.

Then cite what page 100nm is written out as the size of the aluminum particles.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Page 18 and 19 of Harrit study prove 100 percent the silicon and aluminum are not bonded. Open and read the study.

Then state the results of a test that conclusively proves there was unbounded aluminum free for a thermite reaction to show the assumption based on ratio was correct.

Show / cite were it was stated the four chips that were burnt contained free aluminum by analysis.

a reply to: Salander So engineers can't be wrong? Because....it seems like it. Maybe you can share some secret knowledge with us. I mean, it's pretty clear what happened. Funny how you selectively believe experts when it suits your narrative, verses believing an obvious chain of events; perfectly clear to 1000s of people.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Page 18 and 19 of Harrit study prove 100 percent the silicon and aluminum are not bonded. Open and read the study.

Then state the results of a test that conclusively proves there was unbounded aluminum free for a thermite reaction to show the assumption based on ratio was correct.

Show / cite were it was stated the four chips that were burnt contained free aluminum by analysis.

The Red/grey chips have oxygen (Harrit XEDs slides!)
Thermite has its own oxygen supply so realize that's wrong it would not burn. 
Starving the air of Oxygen (dismissing it completely make no sense here) Nanothermite would have been adopted in an open air environment on 9/11. Removing the oxygen might not ignite the Nano-thermite at the same temp and reaction may be different- but it's an analysis test that doesn't take into account the history and the conditions on 9/11.

Thermite requires a lot of heat to burn above 900c- the  red/grey chips ignite at 430c there a substantial disparity between them. 
Harrit and team believe the organic layer of the red/gray chips plays a fundamental role leading to the ignition of the Nano-thermite when burned!

You again forget the XEDs show the chemical configuration of the red/grey layer. Harrit found low levels of Sulfur, lead, potassium, copper, barium. He got stronger signals for Aluminum, Iron oxide, Carbon, Oxygen and Silicon.  Inert tests again is an unproductive exercise, when Harrit has previously identified the chemical ingredidents of nano-thermite embeeded in the red layer.

They're not a known paint when burned creates iron Microspheres. Remember the debunkers claim this is just Leclede paint. The entire theory red/gray chips are painted chips depends on this being right!!!!!!!!!!!!. They ignore though the elements of this paint is Aluminum oxide Iron oxide+ strontium chromate. Water, and other non flammable materials.  None of these chemicals can behave to make Molten Iron spheres. If they felt otherwise, why have they not dropped their experiments? Where can I discover this video?

Debunkers go from one theory to the next to explain away this discovery.  I never said Iron Microspheres means thermite was present. However the Debunkers just want to forget or ignore the red/gray chips discovered in WTC7 dust samples produce Iron Molten spheres when heated.  It's mental that debunkers go to outrageous lengths to divert attention away from this discovery. 

Since you appeared to have not opened the report and read it.
Here, the XEDS disprove the silicon and Al are bonded. The spectrum found no AI when the silicon was examined by Xray.  
Debunkers have not viewed this study accurately. 
So there really no point pursuing this argument with debunkers who claim it just Kaolin clay. 



Read the very first page Harrit said the Iron oxide and Aluminium were 100nm. NM is the SI unit symbol of the nanoparticle.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

The Red/grey chips have oxygen (Harrit XEDs slides!)
Thermite has its own oxygen supply so realize that's wrong it would not burn.
Starving the air of Oxygen (dismissing it completely make no sense here) Nanothermite would have been adopted in an open air environment on 9/11. Removing the oxygen might not ignite the Nano-thermite at the same temp and reaction may be different- but it's an analysis test that doesn't take into account the history and the conditions on 9/11.

What?

Thermite is a self sustaining reaction. If the WTC dust was unreacted thermite, the dust should burn in an inert atmosphere. It would have been an easy go / no go test for thermite who’s results were never published.

You claimed Harrit burnt the WTC chips in an inert atmosphere. Cite, and link to a source where such results were published.

You

Thermite requires a lot of heat to burn above 900c- the red/grey chips ignite at 430c there a substantial disparity between them.
Harrit and team believe the organic layer of the red/gray chips plays a fundamental role leading to the ignition of the Nano-thermite when burned!

Lots of things ignite at 430 c when exposed to oxygen. I asked you to cite a source that shows aluminum iron oxide thermite can ignite at 430 c. But it’s still not a property of thermite.

Again...

Let’s sum up.

No tests were conducted in an inert atmosphere to show the chips contained self sustaining reactions.

The tests were burning paint chips.

Many processes make micro iron spheres, and micro iron spheres are not exclusive to thermite.

Many items with oxygen ignite at 430 Celsius and burn at 1500 Celsius.

Thermite burns at over 2000 Celsius.

Can you cite what temperature nano aluminum iron oxide thermite ignites.

What is the difference between supper gel thermite and regular aluminum iron oxide thermite. And how are they ignited?

Two of Harrit’s chips released less energy per gram than aluminum iron oxide thermite which is really strange for a material that supports its own reaction.

Two of Harrit’s chips had more energy than is possible for an aluminum iron oxide reaction.

And....

The argument was why didn’t Harrit / Jones try to ignite their WTC dust in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction. You claimed they had.

Quote or cite where Harrit / Jones ever published results of burning their WTC chips in an inert atmosphere to prove it could support a thermite reaction.


Harrit only proved there was something in the chips that burn in an oxygen atmosphere.