Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite results

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Maybe you might like to explain how "burning" paint generates enough heat to produce iron microspheres?
MM

First, you missed (or chose to ignore) the clear purpose of the "burn in an anoxic atmosphere" test that people proposed: to demonstrate this known capability of thermite.

Second, you appear to not understand something as trivial as the difference between heat & temperature. Rendering your input on the matter irrelevant.

It is patently obvious how "burning paint" could produce enough heat to produce "iron microspheres". Simply burn sufficient paint, which happens to be a very tiny amount. They are, after all, microspheres.

It is not at all likely that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

But nobody (except you & other clueless truthers) has claimed that they produced "iron microspheres". They claim to have produce "iron-rich microspheres". And that is a horse of an entirely different color.

It is very likely that burning paint could produce both enough heat & sufficient temperatures to produce "iron-rich microspheres". (See, for example, Biederman, Barnett, Sisson re: the melting temps of various iron alloys.)

But, once again, you appear to not realize that you are reinforcing MY point.

You have pointed out two additional tests ("production of iron-rich microspheres at DSC & acetylene burning temperatures") that Jones et al have employed that are utterly inconclusive & incompetent to provide "proof of thermite".

When there are readily available conclusive tests.

And around & around we go...


tk

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"Maybe you might like to explain how "burning" paint generates enough heat to produce iron microspheres?"

Originally Posted by tfk

"It is patently obvious how "burning paint" could produce enough heat to produce "iron microspheres". Simply burn sufficient paint, which happens to be a very tiny amount. They are, after all, microspheres.

It is not at all likely that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

But nobody (except you & other clueless truthers) has claimed that they produced "iron microspheres". They claim to have produce "iron-rich microspheres". And that is a horse of an entirely different color.

It is very likely that burning paint could produce both enough heat & sufficient temperatures to produce "iron-rich microspheres". (See, for example, Biederman, Barnett, Sisson re: the melting temps of various iron alloys.)

But, once again, you appear to not realize that you are reinforcing MY point.

You have pointed out two additional tests ("production of iron-rich microspheres at DSC & acetylene burning temperatures") that Jones et al have employed that are utterly inconclusive & incompetent to provide "proof of thermite".

When there are readily available conclusive tests.

And around & around we go..."

Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C.

Originally Posted by Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile

" I created an apparatus where I could basically control energy input to the chips. Heating them resistively on a stainless steel heater strip to an ignition temperature. Not over-heating them but just bringing them up to the ignition temperature and then analyzing the resultant products. And what I can confirm also is that these chips, the red layer is thermitic, it does produce molten iron and I've seen it with a number of chips that Jeanette McKinley supplied to me and I've also seen it in an independent sample which was also supplied to me from a museum in NYC which as asked to remain anonymous at this point in time. But I have independently seen thermitic activity within two separate independent samples of WTC dust."

MM

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C.



MM

With no evidence of thermite damage on WTC steel, if the dust has thermite in it, who planted it?

No steel has fused iron on it. Do you think Jones faked the dust to save his reputation? But why does Jones think the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti, is it a habit spewing idiotic lies? You sure picked a movement guaranteed to fail forever.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C.



MM

No. Wrong.
Which iron? There is no iron in the samples.
Remember I told you about the iron-rich microspheres that form in wood fires? Do wood fires heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C? If you had attempted and succeeded in answering the question about how iron microspheres form in wood fires, you would by now be equipped to answer for yourself how such spheres might form in paint fires.
Hint: It doesn't involve temperature to melt iron.
Hint: Both wood and our paint chips contain iron compounds.
Hint: Both the thermite reaction and wood fires are redox-reactions.

Now either you have some basic education in chemistry, then with those hints, the answer to the above questions might occur to you in a snap.

If you don't have those basics, maybe you should not be debating here with such condescending assuredness.

[leftysergeant]

Okay, let's consider the combbustion of paint with an iron oxide pigment. In reducing the iron oxide, is any additional heat generated, or does the process of reduction absorb and exhaust heat energy?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

Your almost seamless segue from "iron rich" to "iron" nearly worked MM.

[leftysergeant]

Now you got me to thinking about mineral formation. I have seen a lot of petrified wood in my days, and the conditions under which it is formed. Seems to involve trees getting buried under hot lava with a lot of silca-rich water and mud. There seems to me to be a limit as to just how hot the silica jell would be under such conditions. Can iron form a silica mineral of some sort at temperatures below the normal melting point of iron. Given things like carbonless self-copying forms which contain a lot of fine iron particles and powdered kaolin, there might be the ingredients for little beads of something unique. Just off hand, does anyone know at what temperatures kaolin would become vitrified? This might also account for some of the glass sphereules in the dust.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Okay, let's consider the combbustion of paint with an iron oxide pigment. In reducing the iron oxide, is any additional heat generated, or does the process of reduction absorb and exhaust heat energy?

Exact solution at http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/thermite/index.html
Under Comments:

The standard enthalpy of Fe2O3 is -822.2 kJ/mol
Notice the sign: That is a negative value.
This means: In order to crack one mol (about 159.7g) this form of iron oxide into its Elements, Fe and O, you need to expend (absorb, exhaust...) -822.2kJ


A reaction that reduces iron oxide to iron can still be exothermic (release net heat) if the reaction products have a lower total enthalpy than the reactants. One such example is the thermite reaction:
Fe2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2Fe
As the enthalpy of elements is defined as 0, and the enthalpy of Al2O3 is -1669.8kJ/mol and thus lower (more negative) than the enthalpy of rust, net heat will be released: -822.2kJ/mol -(-1669.8kJ/mol) = +847.6kJ/mol (that is per mol of Fe2O3, resulting in 2 mols of Fe).

Are exothermic reactions of Fe2O3 with carbon compounds possible? You betcha! Let's take an easy case and reduce Fe2O3 with CO (carbon monoxide) which has a standard enthalpy of -110.6 kJ/mol. The products are Fe and CO2 with enthalpies of 0 and -393.8 kJ/mol, respectively. The chemical formula is

Fe2O3 + 3CO -> 2Fe + 3CO2

Let's insert the enthalpies, and we get a balance of:

((-822.2) + 3*(-110.6)) - (0 - 3*(-393.8)) kJ/mol =
= (-882,2 + 1181,4)kJ/mol =
= +299,2 kL/mol


I am not claiming that this is the reaction that took place in Farrer's DSC.
Most likely, it was some organic matrix that burned in the DSC experiments. If, for example, the matrix consisted of epoxy resins, that would be complex compounds with many benzene (C6H6) rings. To keep things reasonably simple, let's look at a hypothetical reaction between Benzene and Rust:

C6H6 + 3 Fe2O3 -> 6 CO2 + 3 H2O + 6 Fe
Here are the standard enthalpies of formation of these materials:
C6H6: +49 kJ/mol (liquid)
Fe2O3: -822 kJ/mol
CO2: -394 kJ/mol
H2O: -242 kJ/mol (gaseous)
Fe: 0

Let's substitute those in the chemical formula:
(+49 +3*(-822)) kJ/mol -> (6*(-394) + 3*(-242) + 6*0)kJ/mol <=>
<=> -2417 kJ/mol -> -3090 kJ/mol

So this reaction would give us a net heat of +673 kJ per mol of benzene, or 224 kJ per mol of Fe2O3.

Benzene theoretically could reduce Fe2O3 to elemental Fe!



It is quite a step to deduce from here that old epoxy resin could and would reduce Fe2O3, and I am not claiming that. My calculations above involve a number of simplifications and would probably make any good chemist cringe in pain. I am just pointing out that metals are not the only materials capable of reducing iron oxide to iron. When that happens, iron atoms are freed from chemical bonds and momentarily exist as individual atoms, much like a gas, without having previously melted or vaporized. They will quickly condense into - what? If you guessed "microspheres", you are correct!

[leftysergeant]

I think you answered my question quite well, Oystein. My math kind of sucks, but it does seem clear that it would produce the sphereules. And, if it happened in the presence of kaolin or diatomaceous earth, I would sort of expect it to include a bit of silicon into the sphereules. I'm still looking for the temperatures at which kaolin or silica would become vitrified, but it can't be too terribly high, given what I know about glass and ceramic manufacturing.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I think you answered my question quite well, Oystein. My math kind of sucks, but it does seem clear that it would produce the sphereules....

Actually, I answered your post only very briefly, and then went on with a different, though related, approach.

You asked if the reduction of iron oxide absorps heat energy, and the answer is actually a (qualified) no: In practice, it doesn't absorb heat as such. Though you probably could, in theory, reduce iron oxide by merely applying heat (for example the heat of other combustibles), that would probably need prohibitively high temperatures, way out of range of what we can expect from any fires (even thermite).

Instead, you reduce iron oxide by letting it react with other materials (such as Al, CO or benzene), and it will "suck off" some of their chemical energy. The energy that is expended to sever the chemical bonds within the Fe2O3 molecule is then not available to be converted into heat, and in this indirect way, the reduction "absorbs" heat, by allowing less heat to be released.



Again, I need to stress that the chemistry dicussion in my previous post is probably pretty bad: I can't say if, or under what conditions, benzene would really react with iron oxide. Also, my calculations of the change of enthalpy has not taken into account several factors, such as the extra amounts of enthalpy to the left and right of my formulas associated with heating, melting, vaporising, solidifying or condensing of the chemicals. And lastly, we cannot infere that what ends with a positive heat balance for benzene would also end with a positive balance for the more complex, but unidentifyed, organics that are present in the red-grey chips.

I am merely pointing out that it is at least conceivable, if not likely, that some organic substances, when burning, would reduce some of the present iron oxide to elemental iron, or to iron oxides with less oxygene in them. If this happens, the solid reaction products will condense into iron-rich microspheres.

MirageMemories apparently never considered this possibilty. Maybe he didn't know about it. If he reads this, and my previous, post, he will know. And should consider.


In addition, there may be more processes by which iron-rich microspheres form from material mixes containing organic compounds, iron oxides, and other materials, that don't require temperatures near the melting point of bulk iron.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

...if it happened in the presence of kaolin or diatomaceous earth, I would sort of expect it to include a bit of silicon into the sphereules. I'm still looking for the temperatures at which kaolin or silica would become vitrified, but it can't be too terribly high, given what I know about glass and ceramic manufacturing.

I don't know about that. The silicon doesn't have to be part of the chemical reaction described above, and would not condense along with the iron if it doesn't. I also have no clear idea about the dynamics of spherule formation. Would they tend to form around existing nuclei, such as snippets of silica? I don't know.

[Captain_Swoop]

I can burn wire wool with a match, it leaves behind iron rich microspheres. My match isn't hot enough to heat iron to 1500 degrees.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C."

Originally Posted by Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile

"I created an apparatus where I could basically control energy input to the chips. Heating them resistively on a stainless steel heater strip to an ignition temperature. Not over-heating them but just bringing them up to the ignition temperature and then analyzing the resultant products. And what I can confirm also is that these chips, the red layer is thermitic, it does produce molten iron and I've seen it with a number of chips that Jeanette McKinley supplied to me and I've also seen it in an independent sample which was also supplied to me from a museum in NYC which as asked to remain anonymous at this point in time. But I have independently seen thermitic activity within two separate independent samples of WTC dust."

Originally Posted by Oystein

"No. Wrong.
Which iron? There is no iron in the samples.
Remember I told you about the iron-rich microspheres that form in wood fires? Do wood fires heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C? If you had attempted and succeeded in answering the question about how iron microspheres form in wood fires, you would by now be equipped to answer for yourself how such spheres might form in paint fires.
Hint: It doesn't involve temperature to melt iron.
Hint: Both wood and our paint chips contain iron compounds.
Hint: Both the thermite reaction and wood fires are redox-reactions.

Now either you have some basic education in chemistry, then with those hints, the answer to the above questions might occur to you in a snap.

If you don't have those basics, maybe you should not be debating here with such condescending assuredness."

A chemical redux rather than an exothermic reaction?

Is that why you dropped the quote from Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile when you quoted my response in your reply?

Originally Posted by Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile

"This is a material that is made up of nano-sized particles that are all very uniform, very symmetrical. It is in a silica-based matrix that holds the whole thing together, and when they are ignited, these iron droplets that are formed, basically eat through the silica matrix and form both droplets and actually creates these large relative voids within the residue of the chip that are all coated with iron films inside. If you take these chips and section them, and look at them before you ignite them, there are no iron micro-spheres, there are no iron particles, there are no iron films contained in these chips. It is only after you bring them up to their ignition point and they go through their thermitic reaction, that liquid iron is produced and the energy is released. These chips are not naturally occurring. They are not going to form because some materials fall down in a building and touch each other and get compressed together. That is just not what this material is and again I would say, that anyone who thinks that, should get some, should look at them, should analyze them, and come to their own conclusions after actually doing some work vs. simply guessing that something happened. That is why I did it. I did it because I had questions. I said the only way that I am really going to know is if I get a sample and I do it myself and that is what I did, and I would confirm that this material is thermitic, and it should not be there."

Given his superior credentials as a chemical engineer, I defer to Mark Basile's findings over that of some anonymous person who characterizes their chemistry calculations as;

Originally Posted by Oystein

"My calculations above involve a number of simplifications and would probably make any good chemist cringe in pain."

If I get your drift, you are trying to argue that there was never any molten iron produced?

Now that is a creative dodge.

MM

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

A chemical redux rather than an exothermic reaction?

Stundie (And you probably don't even know why ^^)

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Is that why you dropped the quote from Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile when you quoted my response in your reply?

Given his superior credentials as a chemical engineer, I defer to Mark Basile's findings over that of some anonymous person who characterizes their chemistry calculations as;

Chemical engineer?
Unfortunately, AE911T is currently revamping their petitioner list. They only show the architects and engineers, not the "others". Last time I checked, Basile was listed with a B.S. in chemistry, IIRC. He is not listed among the engineers. I am pretty sure he embellishes his credentials.

Now let's see just ho incompetent he is:
- He did not think to find a lab that has specialized and conclusive tests for thermite
- His only experiment was to just heat the chips till it ignited. At what temperature? We are not told. Under normal air? Probably, but we are not told. So it burned. We knew that already. That's what most organic compounds do if heated under air.
- He didn't even have access to a DSC (which, although incompetent as well, would be a minor improvement to his merely qualitative observations)
- How can he tell by sight if a reaction is "thermitic"? It just burned!
- I doubt that he really so iron in its molten state. Molten microspheres would cool very quickly (I am talking milli- or microseconds). Unfortunately, Basile fails to actually describe his methods and his data.
- He reports iron "films" on silica after the burning, which is much more indicative of the condensation that I described in my previous post than it is of melting.
- Much of his talk is fighting against strawman. No one here claimes the chips are "naturally occurring" or "form during the collapse" (other than crumbling to, well, chips)
- Nano-aluminium? Basile unfortunately fails to tell us why he thinks his chips contained nAl. I am pretty shure he just believes Jones and co.
- He, too, totally misrepresents the Fema 403 App. C, and the patents for "thermitic building demolition". Just repeats the lies he has been fed by the smarter liars at AE911T.

Do you think Basile did a competent analysis of the chips? Can you explain, in your own words, what he did, and what he measured, and how he formed his conclusions from his experiments?

Originally Posted by Miragememories

If I get your drift, you are trying to argue that there was never any molten iron produced?

Now that is a creative dodge...

That's right. Almost certainly never any molten iron produced.
Your appeal to mediocre authority nonwithstanding.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C.

MM

You appear to lack the ability to focus on the task at hand.

The task of the Farrer, Harrit, Jones et al paper was to prove the existence or non-existence of thermite. It was not to explain the presence or source of microspheres.

The production of microspheres is merely ANOTHER incompetent test for the presence of thermite. Since all of the principle sources of iron-rich microspheres (coal fired power plants, forest fires, etc.) do NOT involve thermite.

Thank you for spending all this time pointing out just one more example of utter incompetence by Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et al.

Too bad they didn't, won't, will not run a definitive test, such as XRD, eh? And leave you looking like a fool, trying to clean up after their abysmal mess.

Something on the order of $1000 & 3 weeks for a definitive answer...

Do you think - in your wildest delusions - that they are the slightest bit interested in a definitive answer?


tk

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"Is that why you dropped the quote from Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile when you quoted my response in your reply?"

Originally Posted by Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile

"This is a material that is made up of nano-sized particles that are all very uniform, very symmetrical. It is in a silica-based matrix that holds the whole thing together, and when they are ignited, these iron droplets that are formed, basically eat through the silica matrix and form both droplets and actually creates these large relative voids within the residue of the chip that are all coated with iron films inside. If you take these chips and section them, and look at them before you ignite them, there are no iron micro-spheres, there are no iron particles, there are no iron films contained in these chips. It is only after you bring them up to their ignition point and they go through their thermitic reaction, that liquid iron is produced and the energy is released. These chips are not naturally occurring. They are not going to form because some materials fall down in a building and touch each other and get compressed together. That is just not what this material is and again I would say, that anyone who thinks that, should get some, should look at them, should analyze them, and come to their own conclusions after actually doing some work vs. simply guessing that something happened. That is why I did it. I did it because I had questions. I said the only way that I am really going to know is if I get a sample and I do it myself and that is what I did, and I would confirm that this material is thermitic, and it should not be there."

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"Given his superior credentials as a chemical engineer, I defer to Mark Basile's findings over that of some anonymous person who characterizes their chemistry calculations as; "

Originally Posted by Oystein

"My calculations above involve a number of simplifications and would probably make any good chemist cringe in pain."

Following that not so telling revelation above, you fallback on a favorite JREFian tactic, calling the man a liar.

Originally Posted by Oystein

"Chemical engineer?
Unfortunately, AE911T is currently revamping their petitioner list. They only show the architects and engineers, not the "others". Last time I checked, Basile was listed with a B.S. in chemistry, IIRC. He is not listed among the engineers. I am pretty sure he embellishes his credentials.

...Just repeats the lies he has been fed by the smarter liars at AE911T..."

Originally Posted by Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile

"My name is Mark Basile. I am a chemical engineer. I have a BSc in Chemical Engineering from Whistler Polytechnic Institute.

I've worked for about 25 years in industry and the majority of what I do is analytical work and figuring out what materials are composed of, why they are, why they do what they do. It is basically a lot of material science is what I do."

Extract from an interview that the AE911 Truth site is using in their soon to be released documentary;
"911:Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out"



Apparently Mark Basile and AE911 Truth are calling you a liar!

You are way too prejudiced to carry on what is commonly referred to as a mature discussion.

MM

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Originally Posted by Oystein

"No. Wrong.
Which iron? There is no iron in the samples.
Remember I told you about the iron-rich microspheres that form in wood fires? Do wood fires heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C? If you had attempted and succeeded in answering the question about how iron microspheres form in wood fires, you would by now be equipped to answer for yourself how such spheres might form in paint fires.
Hint: It doesn't involve temperature to melt iron.
Hint: Both wood and our paint chips contain iron compounds.
Hint: Both the thermite reaction and wood fires are redox-reactions.

Now either you have some basic education in chemistry, then with those hints, the answer to the above questions might occur to you in a snap.

If you don't have those basics, maybe you should not be debating here with such condescending assuredness."

A chemical redux rather than an exothermic reaction?

So you truly don't know what Oystein meant by a redox reaction, and you can't even spell it correctly. Maybe you should not be debating chemistry with such condescending assuredness.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Is that why you dropped the quote from Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile when you quoted my response in your reply?

Without any understanding of chemistry, you have to fall back on your argument from authority.

Note, however, that "Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile" is referring to a "thermitic reaction" that was refuted by Harrit et al's calorimetry: We know their flakes weren't thermite, because two of their four flakes released more energy than the theoretical maximum for thermite.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Given his superior credentials as a chemical engineer, I defer to Mark Basile's findings over that of some anonymous person who characterizes their chemistry calculations as;

Why are you trusting a person whose biases prevent him from seeing the obvious problems with Harrit et al's conclusions? If Mr Basile really does have a degree of some kind in chemical engineering, then he should be aware that Harrit et al's speculation about double top secret nano-thermite was nothing but speculation flying in the face of their own measurements.

In science, we defer to anonymous referees who raise valid points over named "authorities" who fail to address those points. It's called peer review.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Following that not so telling revelation above, you fallback on a favorite JREFian tactic, calling the man a liar.

Extract from an interview that the AE911 Truth site is using in their soon to be released documentary;
"911:Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out"

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/300/mbinterview2.jpg

Apparently Mark Basile and AE911 Truth are calling you a liar!

You are way too prejudiced to carry on what is commonly referred to as a mature discussion.

MM

Please go check the list of 1300+ architects and engineers on AE911T.org

Search for "Basile": He is not there.
Search for "chemical engineer": You will find 23

Basile either did not sign the Petition, or AE911T does not consider him an engineer. There is no third option.
We shall see when they bring the "supporters" list back.



(By the way: I checked the list on archive.org, where the latest version unfortunately dates back to 2008. Steven E. Jones back then was listed under "Supporters and A&E Students" as "Retired Professor of Physics". Today, they have promoted him to "Prof. of Physics Emeritus, Senior Engineer" and listed under "Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)". Interesting, huh?)

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

sunstealer quote from another thread:
"Nanothermite is only using a smaller particle size. Nano does not mean magic or super-duper mmmkay.

Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat

The waste product is Fe and Al2O3 - I suggest you learn some basic chemistry."



thanks for showing everyone that this iron microsphere was made from a thermitic reaction!!

you are confusing "could be" with "was".........

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Following that not so telling revelation above, you fallback on a favorite JREFian tactic, calling the man a liar.





Extract from an interview that the AE911 Truth site is using in their soon to be released documentary;
"911:Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out"

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/300/mbinterview2.jpg

Apparently Mark Basile and AE911 Truth are calling you a liar!

You are way too prejudiced to carry on what is commonly referred to as a mature discussion.

MM

LOL what do I care if insane fools call me a liar

And how are we any more prejudiced than, say, you are? We are going with the evidence, you are going with an incompetent lie.

[Oystein]

MM again failed to address a question directed at him. I wonder why. So here it is, bumped for MM:

Originally Posted by Oystein

...
Do you think Basile did a competent analysis of the chips? Can you explain, in your own words, what he did, and what he measured, and how he formed his conclusions from his experiments?
...

Do you think Basile did a competent analysis of the chips? Can you explain, in your own words, what he did, and what he measured, and how he formed his conclusions from his experiments?

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Source of your claim that "there's not a snowball's chance that Jones will let his samples come anywhere near a lab with the right people and instruments to decide the question once and for all".

Put up or shut up.

MM

years and years of nothing? I suspect Jones is trying to get some super dooper nanny thermpoop so that he can mix it into his sample......hard to think of any other reason (other than severe paranoia) why he has waited so long to do what any sane person would have done from the start.
He's blown it. What he should have done is established a chain of evidence for the dust so that someone(s) independent collect and send the dust to various test agencies simply asking for an analysis (no mention of 911) and recorded what came back. By handling the dust himself and having it in his sole custody for periods of time it is worthless as evidence as any defense will simple say he had the motive and means to adulterate it.

[sheeplesnshills]

Quote:

Today, they have promoted him to "Prof. of Physics Emeritus, Senior Engineer" and listed under "Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)". Interesting, huh?)

what grounds does he have to call himself an engineer???

[Africanus]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Again, I need to stress that the chemistry dicussion in my previous post is probably pretty bad: I can't say if, or under what conditions, benzene would really react with iron oxide. Also, my calculations of the change of enthalpy has not taken into account several factors, such as the extra amounts of enthalpy to the left and right of my formulas associated with heating, melting, vaporising, solidifying or condensing of the chemicals.

Don't worry, your calculation fits perfectly. You used standard enthalpies, which refer to a temperature of 298 K. The state of aggregation of a compound refers to that temperature too (e.g. benzene = liquid), so enthalpies for a change of state must only be consideres if the state of aggregation differs from that state of aggregation (e.g. gaseous benzene).

[Edx]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

what grounds does he have to call himself an engineer???

Someone on youtube recently called him a "nuclear physicist" and when I first heard about him I was given the impression he was a "thermite expert"

[grandmastershek]

MM,

As a special educator I often need to explain things in multiple modes for students to fully understand them. Seeing as you are having some sort of break down in grasping the idea of something being iron rich versus being iron consider the following: Human hemoglobin contains 1 iron iron. Even though hemoglobin has iron it doesn't not require a thermite reaction to produce it. Hope that helps.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

MM,

As a special educator I often need to explain things in multiple modes for students to fully understand them. Seeing as you are having some sort of break down in grasping the idea of something being iron rich versus being iron consider the following: Human hemoglobin contains 1 iron iron. Even though hemoglobin has iron it doesn't not require a thermite reaction to produce it. Hope that helps.

Except this is super nano special iron only produced by thermite

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Africanus

Don't worry, your calculation fits perfectly. You used standard enthalpies, which refer to a temperature of 298 K. The state of aggregation of a compound refers to that temperature too (e.g. benzene = liquid), so enthalpies for a change of state must only be consideres if the state of aggregation differs from that state of aggregation (e.g. gaseous benzene).

Yes, but the reaction would not occur at 298K (you don't get a "thermitic explosion" if you drop rust in benzene at room temp ), and anyway, we should be looking not at benzene but some complex solid organic matrix. I picked benzene as that is a major building block of hardened epoxy resins, and its standard enthalpy was easy to find (Wikipedia). The Jones/Basile chips burn somewhere around 710K, so my numbers would have to be adjusted anyway.

The whole point of course was to show that a reduction of Fe2O3 with common organic materials is generally feasible at least from the point of view of reaction enthalpy (I really didn't know that until I did the calculations today, and actually expected/feared to get a negative result), and that Jones, Harrit, Farrer, Basile, buy not ruling out that possibility, can't validly conclude that the iron was the product of a thermite reaction.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

...Human hemoglobin contains 1 iron iron...

Contains what?

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Oystein

(By the way: I checked the list on archive.org, where the latest version unfortunately dates back to 2008. Steven E. Jones back then was listed under "Supporters and A&E Students" as "Retired Professor of Physics". Today, they have promoted him to "Prof. of Physics Emeritus, Senior Engineer" and listed under "Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)". Interesting, huh?)

I've forced myself to listen to the rambling nonsense that Jones blathers to credulous college kids & truther conference attendees.

As far as engineering competence goes, there's only one difference between him & Paris Hilton.

Paris doesn't delude herself that she's an engineer.

If either Jones or Harrit or Farrer or Bastile believed that they had made a real discovery in their respective fields (cold fusion, photochemistry, SEM imaging or chemistry), then each of them would be single-mindedly determined to present their results to the HIGHEST caliber experts in their field. Not the lowest caliber. Not to college kids. Not to internet keyboard kommandos.

The simple fact that none of those bozos will go within a mile of a panel of experienced structural engineers proves how unscrupulous they are and how little faith they have in their own nonsense.


Tom

[ProfJoey223]

Greetings, Debunk-heads!

You guys, sadly, (*sniff*) are running scared. Like a trapped animal you'll scratch and rip and do ANYTHING to escape. And so, you do! To the fantasy world you have created.

Come to the light. Everyone else has!

Please stay on topic.

Posted By:LibraryLady

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by ProfJoey223

Greetings, Debunk-heads!

You guys, sadly, (*sniff*) are running scared. Like a trapped animal you'll scratch and rip and do ANYTHING to escape. And so, you do! To the fantasy world you have created.

Come to the light. Everyone else has!

Please stay on topic.

Posted By:LibraryLady

That's all.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by ProfJoey223

You guys, sadly, (*sniff*) are running scared. Like a trapped animal you'll scratch and rip and do ANYTHING to escape. And so, you do! To the fantasy world you have created.

Come to the light. Everyone else has

Apart from, well, you know, just about everyone.

I don't honestly know why truthers keep on juicing the piglet like this. It's immediately obvious, to anyone who isn't delusional, that developing a fundamentally revised understanding of the events of 9/11 is a complete non-issue for the overwhelming majority of the world's people. It's equally obvious that even those who reject the conventional narrative are, for the most part, simply going through the motions, playing the cool rebel on insignificant internet forums and never bothering to actually try to achieve anything real, probably because they've got too much of an emotional investment to let go of a set of beliefs that they know deep inside are simply unsustainable. And yet, when even they themselves show negligible committment to their pseudo-cause, they insist on pretending that they're one more content-free forum post away from sparking off the revolution.

Sorry, guys, but it's never going to happen. And the reason it's never going to happen is because you're wrong.

Dave

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Please go check the list of 1300+ architects and engineers on AE911T.org

Search for "Basile": He is not there.
Search for "chemical engineer": You will find 23

Basile either did not sign the Petition, or AE911T does not consider him an engineer. There is no third option.
We shall see when they bring the "supporters" list back.



(By the way: I checked the list on archive.org, where the latest version unfortunately dates back to 2008. Steven E. Jones back then was listed under "Supporters and A&E Students" as "Retired Professor of Physics". Today, they have promoted him to "Prof. of Physics Emeritus, Senior Engineer" and listed under "Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)". Interesting, huh?)

Your posts are for the most part, smear the individual and ignore their work.

MM

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Your posts are for the most part, smear the individual and ignore their work.

MM

Your post lack evidence to support your idiotic claims of thermite, thermite with carbon and Si. And of course 911 truth sends in the best it has with all the evidence it has to support you and ensure complete failure.

Originally Posted by ProfJoey223

Greetings, Debunk-heads!

You guys, sadly, (*sniff*) are running scared. Like a trapped animal you'll scratch and rip and do ANYTHING to escape. And so, you do! To the fantasy world you have created.

Come to the light. Everyone else has!

Please stay on topic.

Posted By:LibraryLady

Where is your evidence? What is your excuse to go on for 9 years and never present anything but failed nuts on 911 spewing lies and nonsense and hearsay? You have never presented any evidence for your claims; why?

Quote:

I have independently seen thermitic activity within two independent samples of World Trade Center Dust. [...] I would really like to stress that we need a lot more people involved in this work than just the few of us that are doing it right now.

My work with this has brought me to feel that this material is too big of an unanswered question and it really brings us to demand a new investigation. This is hard evidence that can not be refuted.
Anyone can replicate the work that’s been done and confirm that this material is there.
— Mark Basile, chemical engineer

No paper, no proof, just another paranoid conspiracy theorist with Gage who are nuts on 911. Zero evidence, just talk.

Like Jones' paper, where carbon is in the dust they lie and say is thermite. Why is carbon in Jones' thermite? Hello?

What did 60 minutes say when you guys presented this to the Pulitzer Prize committee? 9 years, and you have more nonsense, no evidence.


This is thermite
Fe₂O₃(s) + 2 Al(s) Al₂O₃(s) + 2 Fe(l)
No carbon, why does Jones have carbon? Because it is not thermite.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Your posts are for the most part, smear the individual and ignore their work.

MM

No, they do not. They expose lies. Lies spewed by Gage, Jones, Farrer, Basile, and MirageMemories.

You see, you try to gain some mileage out of those people's alleged academic credentials. You flaunt their titles, in lieu of arguments. I am merely showing you that you can't objectively describe Farrer's academic credentials as "excellent", and that, when you believe Basile's claim to be an engineer, AE911T themselves prove him and you wrong. I'd be happy not to discuss their academic credentials, but if you introduce them, be prepared for me to engage them.

I have also, for the MOST part, criticized Basile's methods. Stange that you don't address that topic! Seems like the one preoccupied with personals is you, not me! Why did you not answer this question:

Do you think Basile did a competent analysis of the chips? Can you explain, in your own words, what he did, and what he measured, and how he formed his conclusions from his experiments?

Afraid of the dilemma that you must chose between lying, exposing your own incompetence, or admitting that Basile's "analysis" was grossly incompetent?

[9/11-investigator]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

So, when do you expect it to appear in a peer-reviewed, respectable journal??

JO911S and Bentham are not peer-reviewed or respectable.

The reason why we see JO911S and Bentham as not respectable is that we don't like what they publish.

[9/11-investigator]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I figured the little twit for a moron from the get-go, but when he started yammering about the Swiss cheese steel as a thermite artifact I lost all respect I could possibly have had for him as a scientist or a man. What a freaking punk.

The little moron can't even tell us what the chips were made of. The bozo would probably not recognize paint if you read off a list of its components to him.

What the hell does this moron think the silicon in this compound is for?

Has the silly little sack of stupid even bothered to see what paint is made of? I doubt it.

I would like to know from leftysergeant when he would label someone as a 'hater'?
Labelling someone as a hater is a favorite past time in lefty circles.
I was wondering if we could use your little contribution as a benchmark. What do you say?

Thanks in advance.

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

The reason why we see JO911S and Bentham as not respectable is that we don't like what they publish.

More to the point: The reputations of these "journals" is not established, and from what they've published so far, they're certainly not likely to become rising stars.

What tfc has been trying to point out (among others) is that, if what Harrit, Basile, Jones, and Farrer say is true, it would be the biggest scientific news story on the planet. If the science were sound, there are a dozen journals in analytical chemistry, forensics, explosives, fire and materials science research that would be falling over themselves to publish it. The only thing the nano-thermite wonks would have to do in order to submit such an article is format the paper, and submit it to the editorship for review.

As a researcher myself, I can assure you that when I've got important or interesting data to present, I don't first publish it in a vanity journal. If I think the research is good and of broad interest, I'll submit to Nature or Science. If they reject the article, I go to Analytical Chemistry, Nature Methods, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Physical Review, or Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences. Failing those journals, I would probably select a more discipline specific journal like Fire Research, Cement and Concrete Research, X-ray Spectrometry or ACI Materials. Failing acceptance at those journals, I would try a trade magazine like Chemical Engineering News or Engineering News Record. Failing all of those options, I would publish in a pay-to-publish online journal in the hope that my reference would come up in a random Google search.

Jones, Harrit and Farrer have all followed roughly the same strategy for all of their legitimate scientific careers. Why on Earth would they skip steps 1-4 and go straight to an online vanity journal for this one paper?

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

The reason why we see JO911S and Bentham as not respectable is that we don't like what they publish.

Well, careful, because one could one say that about Bazant, the Purdue report, the 911 commission report, and the NIST report for that matter concerning you folks; you simply don't like what they are saying.

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Contains what?

DOH! Iron ion.