• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well, I was told that the findings and/or methodologies of the title paper had already been somehow refuted at RF, but was not given even the slightest hint of the nature of this alleged refutation, and my brief search of the threads here does not show where any errors in the paper have been identified. I was invited to start a new thread on the paper, so that’s what’s happening here.

The following is from the Conclusions section of the Harrit et al. paper:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small- scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:

1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.

2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.

3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.

4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.

5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.

6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.

7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.

8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].

10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.​

http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

I do realize that there are many Americans who possess an unwavering and adamant belief in the official government story about the events of 9/11. Assuming no one identifies any errors in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper, it would be interesting to learn how such people deal with this (and other) conflicting evidence. Is there anything admirable about having faith that is impervious to evidence?
 
Assuming no one identifies any errors in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper, it would be interesting to learn how such people deal with this (and other) conflicting evidence.

How do you propose that government spooks wired up the WTC with many tons of explosives without anyone noticing and managed to collapse the building pretty much where the plane hit yet the plane strike and consequent towering inferno didn't set off the many tons of explosives that said spooks had surreptitiously wired right in that place?

Also how do you propose that a conspiracy involving many thousands of people can be kept secret knowing the porous nature of the government system and the fact that most people would probably not be au fait with killing thousands of innocent civilians?

Answer these and I'll start thinking about red/grey chips...
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Suppose, generously, that this is true. Now, an important question: why is this at all relevant (aka, who cares)? Supposing it is true, what are you going to do about it? Stage a revolt? Start a civil war?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The paper has a 2009 date. Not sure why you find it so shocking.

Also, what does it mean that the material "incorporates nanotechnology"?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Anyway, the weight of the floors above the impact of the planes was enough, along with the impact of the planes and the heat, to cause complete destruction. If the planes had hit the top floors things might have been different.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I do realize that there are many Americans who possess an unwavering and adamant belief in the official government story about the events of 9/11. Assuming no one identifies any errors in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper, it would be interesting to learn how such people deal with this (and other) conflicting evidence. Is there anything admirable about having faith that is impervious to evidence?

The greatest cover up in US history is that the majority of American citizens are largely ignorant as to their nations history or the inner workings of the political system. If you think whether the government was involved in 9/11 actually matters, you're asking entirely the wrong question. Why waste your time trying to argue something you can't prove when there is plenty that can be proven but nobody wants to hear about? its a wild goose chase. you could call it a "false flag" but its the product of sheer ignorance rather than design. there's alot of things that we already know are true that the government doesn't want you to know.

here's an example.

What form of Capital punishment is still legal In six states, (Arizona, California, Maryland, Missisipi, Missouri and Wynoming)?


Don't let the media fool you. A tin foil hat is just a fashion statement. Turn off the TV and open a history book. its what all the cool, dangerous people are doing when the governments not looking. ;)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, I was told that the findings and/or methodologies of the title paper had already been somehow refuted at RF, but was not given even the slightest hint of the nature of this alleged refutation, and my brief search of the threads here does not show where any errors in the paper have been identified. I was invited to start a new thread on the paper, so that’s what’s happening here.

The following is from the Conclusions section of the Harrit et al. paper:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small- scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:

1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.

2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.

3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.

4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.

5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.

6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.

7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.

8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].

10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.​

http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

I do realize that there are many Americans who possess an unwavering and adamant belief in the official government story about the events of 9/11. Assuming no one identifies any errors in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper, it would be interesting to learn how such people deal with this (and other) conflicting evidence. Is there anything admirable about having faith that is impervious to evidence?
It's been around awhile.
Is there any peer review which might help us avoid reading a long technical paper?
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
It's been around awhile.
Is there any peer review which might help us avoid reading a long technical paper?
Here's an article I found in Google Scholar.

The following is two excerpts from a paper outlining an effort to replicate the findings of the Harrit et al 2009 study.

The paper is found at: http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/Millette/paper/ and apparently at other sites as well.

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust
Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com

C:\Users\Jeffrey\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg
February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.mvainc.com/2012/01/13/fe...of-forensic-science-aafs-2012-annual-meeting/

“Progress Report of Results: MVA9119
Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Introduction


This report summarizes the results to date of the analyses of red/gray chips found in samples of dust generated by the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster of 11 September 2001. MVA Scientific Consultants was requested by Mr. Chris Mohr of Classical Guide to scientifically study red/gray chips from WTC dust that matched those presented in a paper by Harrit et al., 2009,1 which concluded that thermitic material was present in the WTC dust. Mr. Mohr was unable to gain access to any samples used in the Harrit study so four samples were chosen from the archives of MVA Scientific Consultants.”

Body of the article describes how the equivalent samples were obtained and tested.

“Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.”

Notice that Harrit et al apparently did not share any samples for a replication study, so the author had to find equivalent samples from their own resources. And notice that the author finds no evidence of thermite.

Nous will now protest that this article isn't from a peer-reviewed journal. No, it isn't, but it was a paper presented before an appropriate professional organization. And, as I pointed out in the other thread, the Harrit et al article is suspect because the "peer-reviewed" journal it appeared in is basically a vanity press outlet (author pays to have article published in journal) that has been demonstrated to not peer review its articles.

I also saw a handful of articles by a small group of authors who published with Harrit, but I did not find (but then, I don't care enough to read through dozens of articles on this; this is sufficient for my point) any other reliable sources addressing this idea of thermite in the rubble of the WTC. What I did find was dozens of other papers and books about thermite and other explosives, debris analysis, and conspiracy theories.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How do you propose that government spooks wired up the WTC with many tons of explosives without anyone noticing and managed to collapse the building pretty much where the plane hit yet the plane strike and consequent towering inferno didn't set off the many tons of explosives that said spooks had surreptitiously wired right in that place?
Hypotheses non fingo (I. Newton). I was only seeking a refutation of (demonstration of errors in) the Harrit et al. paper. No one's speculations on other matters will refute the methodologies or conclusions of that study. Right?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Suppose, generously, that this is true. Now, an important question: why is this at all relevant (aka, who cares)?
Is it not just good general policy to try to know the truth, to try to acquaint oneself with reality?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The paper has a 2009 date. Not sure why you find it so shocking.
I was not around here in 2009, and presumably whatever I found shocking about the findings wore off years ago after I first read the paper. As I noted in the OP, I presented the paper here because I was told the methodologies and/or conclusions had already been refuted here, and was invited to start a thread so that I could learn of this refutation.

Also, what does it mean that the material "incorporates nanotechnology"?
This:
2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.​
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Anyway, the weight of the floors above the impact of the planes was enough, along with the impact of the planes and the heat, to cause complete destruction.
If you believe that you are referring to something that demonstrates any error in the methodologies and/or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper, please provide a link.

Even using unrealistically severe assumptions, NIST was unable to provide a model showing the symmetrical, near-free-fall collapse of the twin towers or building 7 that was observed.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The greatest cover up in US history is that the majority of American citizens are largely ignorant as to their nations history or the inner workings of the political system. If you think whether the government was involved in 9/11 actually matters, you're asking entirely the wrong question.
That is the "wrong question" for this thread. The question of this thread is the supposed refutation of the methodologies and/or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Hypotheses non fingo (I. Newton). I was only seeking a refutation of (demonstration of errors in) the Harrit et al. paper. No one's speculations on other matters will refute the methodologies or conclusions of that study. Right?
An attempted replication of methods and findings, conducted by an appropriate peer in the field, that does not support the conclusions of the Harrit et al paper, is a refutation of the Harrit et al paper.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Is there any peer review which might help us avoid reading a long technical paper?
Evidently not. The Harrit et al. paper isn't long (compared to, say, judicial opinions or scholarly legal papers)--there are lots of good pictures.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Assuming no one identifies any errors in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper, it would be interesting to learn how such people deal with this (and other) conflicting evidence. Is there anything admirable about having faith that is impervious to evidence?
What did we see on that day? I was 15 and I remembered I watched two steel skyscrapers turn into dust and debris in mid-air, a process that defies logic, physics, common sense, etc, etc.
When Dr. Judy Wood wrote a book about this process, that is, dustification, I was relieved. I thought: "I am not a crazy person. Someone else has realized that the scientific evidence and the NIST report don't match".
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
What did we see on that day? I was 15 and I remembered I watched two steel skyscrapers turn into dust and debris in mid-air, a process that defies logic, physics, common sense, etc, etc.
When Dr. Judy Wood wrote a book about this process, that is, dustification, I was relieved. I thought: "I am not a crazy person. Someone else has realized that the scientific evidence and the NIST report don't match".

If a 15 year old thought something was off, something was probably off. Who is more qualified in technical and engineering matters than 15 year olds?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Here's an article I found in Google Scholar.

The following is two excerpts from a paper outlining an effort to replicate the findings of the Harrit et al 2009 study.
False. Millette did not attempt to replicate the methods or findings of the Harrit et al. study.

Millette, a NIST contractor, was one of the authors of a 2002 paper for EPA whose purpose was to characterize the dust of the WTC destruction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240917/ That paper makes absolutely no mention of any red/gray chips in the dust, nor of any of the iron-rich microspheres subsequently found in abundance in independent studies conducted by RJ Lee company, United States Geological Survey and Jones et al., and produced in the DSC test in the Harrit et al. study, spheres whose formation require temperatures far higher than temperatures achieved by burning jet fuel and office materials: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

It was a couple of years after the publication of the Harrit et al. paper that Millette discovered the red/gray chips in samples of dust that had been in his possession more than a decade. He still did not find any of the well-documented iron-rich microspheres in his samples. He also did not attempt to replicate the Harrit et al. study, notably failing to perform the all-important differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) to determine the chips’ exotherm, as well as the electrical resistivity test. He engaged in various other methods differing from Harrit et al. (e.g., Millette washed his chips). Nevertheless, Millette clearly did not examine the same material as Harrit et al. did, nor did Millette’s chips match the formula of the primer paint used on the WTC columns, as Millette acknowledged:

The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study . . . does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.​

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

Millette did not speculate about the origin of the red/gray chips in his samples.

From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

Some defenders of the official 9/11 story have claimed that the red-gray chips of thermitic material identified in the WTC dust by chemist Dr. Niels Harrit, Ph.D., Dr Steven Jones, Ph.D., and other scientists are simply remnants of the rust-proofing primer paint that was applied to the steel structure of the WTC skyscrapers during their construction. However, scientific evidence gathered by both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Harrit’s team of scientists clearly shows that this claim is false, since the properties of the primer paint are strikingly different from those of the red-gray chips.

First of all, several key ingredients of the primer paint are not present in the composition of the red-gray chips. According to NIST, the type of primer paint used on the WTC steel columns contains substantial levels of zinc, chromium, and magnesium. However, the X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) analysis of the red-gray chips performed by Harrit and others showed no significant amounts of zinc, chromium, or magnesium.

Based on this data alone, we can already conclude that the red-gray chips are not primer paint. Furthermore, there are other important differences that reinforce the fact that these two materials are not the same.

[. . .]

In addition, the thermal tests on the red-gray chips revealed that when they are ignited at around 430º C, they create molten iron microspheres as a byproduct. Since iron does not melt until it reaches approximately 1538º C, this means a high-temperature chemical reaction occurred. This volatile reactivity makes this type of material extremely dangerous, disqualifying it from ever being used as primer paint.​

http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-sec...t-from-the-wtc-steel-structural-elements.html

Continue reading at link.

At one point, soon after Millette’s initial findings, he agreed to collaborate with Steven Jones on a study on the chips, in order to reconcile their differences. It was to include (inter alia) a DSC test. Jones was “excited about this” (http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses#comment-257499), but after his “revised progress report,” Millette apparently backed out.

In short, Millette failed to refute the Harrit et al. findings, and does not claim to have refuted the Harrit et al. findings or to have shown any error in the Harrit et al. methodologies or conclusions.

And while Millette's findings have not been replicated by anyone, one critical aspect of the Harrit et al. findings has:

Nous will now protest that this article isn't from a peer-reviewed journal.
Apparently your stupid comments are about yourself. It was you who brought up the issue of peer-review on another thread. Here is what I said:
(3) A study and the published paper on it should be assessed on the merits of the study, not according to whether one believes the paper was peer-reviewed. After all, as already noted, the NIST reports on the collapse of the WTC buildings were not peer-reviewed.

And, as I pointed out in the other thread, the Harrit et al article is suspect because the "peer-reviewed" journal it appeared in is basically a vanity press outlet (author pays to have article published in journal) that has been demonstrated to not peer review its articles.
False. As I pointed out:

In fact, there is no reason to doubt that the paper was peer-reviewed.

(1) Bentham Science publishes more than 100 journals, each with their own editorial boards. The Open Chemical Physics Journal was not the one found to have offered to publish the nonsense paper. At least one other Bentham Science journal (the Open Software Engineering Journal) had earlier rejected a paper submitted by the same hoaxer (Philip Davis) after peer-review. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal/ Thus, to claim or assume that the Active Thermitic Material paper was not peer-reviewed is to engage in guilt by association.

(2) Physicist Steven Jones, one of the authors of the paper on the discovery of active thermitic material in the 9/11 dust, said that the “paper was reviewed prior to publication by the Physics dept. chair at BYU--and he approved it for publication.” The BYU Physics department Chair at that time was Ross L. Spencer. If you do not believe professor Jones, then you should ask professor Spencer: [email protected]

And I asked you why you have concluded that the Harrit et al. paper is "suspect":

The authors of the NIST reports were well paid to conduct a $20 million investigation in which they did not even comply with standard scientific guidelines specified in the National Fire Protection Association Manual when confronted with “high order damage” to 3 buildings, and in the end were unable to account for the destruction of these 3 buildings on the basis of empirically derived assumptions. In contrast, Harrit et al. had nothing to gain and everything to lose from conducting the study and publishing their results, apparently paid for conducting the study from their own pockets, paid to have the results published, and made an essential contribution to understanding the destruction of those buildings (at least for people who are unafraid of the truth).​
 
Hypotheses non fingo (I. Newton). I was only seeking a refutation of (demonstration of errors in) the Harrit et al. paper. No one's speculations on other matters will refute the methodologies or conclusions of that study. Right?

It won't specifically refute them but in terms of probabilities it has a significant impact on the likelihood that the hypothesis is incorrect.

Odds of heads or tails are 50/50. If you flip a coin and it lands heads 20 times in a row, the odds on the next flip being tails are not 50/50; the odds are that the coin is rigged.

The odds on this paper being flawed are significantly higher given the unlikelihood of the towers being brought down in a controlled explosion.

You said: "Assuming no one identifies any errors in the methodologies or conclusions of the Harrit et al. paper, it would be interesting to learn how such people deal with this (and other) conflicting evidence. Is there anything admirable about having faith that is impervious to evidence?"

There is plenty of evidence against a controlled explosion that are very relevant as regards your question.
 
Top