tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post713229266985719533..comments2023-07-25T12:58:42.623+02:00Comments on Oystein's 9/11 debates: Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard PrimerOysteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.comBlogger274125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-18942457856686068692021-02-10T04:37:36.806+01:002021-02-10T04:37:36.806+01:00Simply wish to say your article is as astonishing....Simply wish to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is simply great, and I could assume you are an expert on this subject. Same as your blog i found another one <a href="https://sohman.com/epoxy/" rel="nofollow">Sohman Epoxy </a>.Actually I was looking for the same information on internet for <a href="https://sohman.com/epoxy/product/hardener/aradur-hy951/" rel="nofollow"><br />Aradur HY 951 </a> and came across your blog. I am impressed by the information that you have on this blog. Thanks a million and please keep up the gratifying workNitibha kapoorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16437213350327104623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-30926614688284494662021-02-10T04:37:19.720+01:002021-02-10T04:37:19.720+01:00Simply wish to say your article is as astonishing....Simply wish to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is simply great, and I could assume you are an expert on this subject. Same as your blog i found another one <a href="https://sohman.com/epoxy/" rel="nofollow">Sohman Epoxy </a>.Actually I was looking for the same information on internet for <a href="https://sohman.com/epoxy/product/hardener/aradur-hy951/" rel="nofollow"><br />Aradur HY 951 </a> and came across your blog. I am impressed by the information that you have on this blog. Thanks a million and please keep up the gratifying workNitibha kapoorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16437213350327104623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-50930408704527026712017-12-08T00:31:28.866+01:002017-12-08T00:31:28.866+01:00Explosive means to destroy are self evident when t...Explosive means to destroy are self evident when the speed of successive destruction is comparable and even equal to that of falling debris albeit delayed. It is especially there among other artifacts that debunkers suffer from mental blind spots. I call it synaptic inhibition caused by cognitive dissonance.<br /><br />Do not forget that in no way any debris can suddenly change direction or speed mid air neither can it go any faster during its natural drop than gravity alone can allow.<br /><br />So Branchard can do as much nicely as he wants, it is moot when we look at the speed of destruction and other impossible observations if it were a natural disintegration of the towers. And while we are at it, 8 floors freefall also indicate overall and instant removal of all support in and about a building over all these 8 floors. Anything else is fraud for people who cannot deal with what humans are capable of.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17482709116761763193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-12450633667277331332017-12-08T00:08:02.297+01:002017-12-08T00:08:02.297+01:00I agree with that because no time domain graph was...I agree with that because no time domain graph was offered by Harrit et al (2009) to demonstrate explosive characteristics. Niels Harrit literally vocalizes a 'BOOM!' as he points to the 430°C on the 'proving' DSC graph and I'm thinking what the heck this guy for real confuses the peak in the DSC graph for a pulse in the time domain.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17482709116761763193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-88629860288366250192017-12-08T00:00:36.725+01:002017-12-08T00:00:36.725+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17482709116761763193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-39719187259635625172017-12-07T20:20:52.012+01:002017-12-07T20:20:52.012+01:00Explosives being out of the questio when line of ...Explosives being out of the questio when line of destruction moves downward at comparable speeds albeit delayed as falling debris. Incredible. I am truly amazed. Really.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17482709116761763193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-37491761791904782902017-12-06T14:46:50.693+01:002017-12-06T14:46:50.693+01:00Oystein,
Where did you get the idea of the exist...Oystein, <br /><br />Where did you get the idea of the existance of LaClede paint?<br /><br />Show where it is said LaClede made paint for the WTC trusses along with the fabrication of these trusses.<br /><br />Where did you get the composition of the assumed existing LaClede paint? Source?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17482709116761763193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-82238547643616415092012-06-17T13:48:08.998+02:002012-06-17T13:48:08.998+02:00Poseidon,
thanks for the thorough yet concise des...Poseidon,<br /><br />thanks for the thorough yet concise description of your sim'ed experiments. Make sense and are in line with my experiences.<br /><br />It is somewhat unfortunate, and also strange, that they don't show those spectra that reveal "Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1". Also, I'd like to know how common such spheres with ratios high enough to warrant the conclusion "some elemental Fe" were.<br /><br />One problem common to all XEDS spectra shown in Harrit e.al., that I find more and more onerous, is that they never indicate in the SEM-images which spot or region they scanned for the spetcrum. It seems to be common practice. Unfortunately, I don't remember if David Griscom's peer review of the paper mentioned this (I was shown this peer review in printed form in april, but wasn't given a copy). <br /><br />Another problem, that I have hinted at time and again, is that there isn't any chip on which they have before - during - after observations. <br /><br />Both problems together leave us unable to assess and provide alternative explanations for the data. For example: Fig. 23 and 26 show the same chip after flame test, which has a roundish, grey, shiny blob on one side which looks like previously partially molten. Since there is still red material, I suspect (following Sunstealer's suggestion) that the blob ("microsphere") is actually not a reaction product, but simply from the gray layer. The flame certainly was hot enough to quickly and extremely heat the gray layer - why not to a point where rapid phase transitions occur and make that area pull itself in to a more spherical shape? Similar things might be said for the 4:1 spheres - we just have no clue where they came from, have to trust Harrit e.al. that they are reaction products from the red layer, but Fig. 23 and 26 indicate that we should not trust them so easily in that regard. I don't suspect deliberate misrepresentation, mere bias would suffice.<br /><br /><br /><br />As it is, we just have to let their claims stand as they are, including the assumption of <i>some</i> elemental iron in <i>some</i> spheres, AND <i>some</i> elemental Al in <i>some</i> chips. Neither observation comes close to proving thermite, as both elements aren't exactly exotic. Harrit e.al. really should have done, and shown, experiments on individual chips where they show, using competent methods (FTIR, TEM-SAED, XRD...)<br /><br />- before ignition: that they contain both elemental Al and Fe2O3 - both in proportions sufficient "to make sense" as a thermitic material (<a href="http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/06/too-little-thermite-to-blow-up-mark.html" rel="nofollow">my latest blog post suggests</a> that at least perhaps half of the material ought to be just thermite, or else too much of the thermitic energy is swallowed and diffused by the organic matrix before it can do work on anything external)<br />- during ignition: that some strong exotherm reaction occurse without the help of ambient oxygen<br />- after ignition: That most of the iron oxide has turned to elemental iron, and most of the Al to Al-oxide<br /><br />(In fact, if properly done, the first step, showing at least 39% iron oxide, 13% elemental Al, would go a very long way of convincing me this is thermite, while everything under 5% total Al convinces me that this can't be thermitic by nature)Oysteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-41953910941313291512012-06-16T20:55:21.131+02:002012-06-16T20:55:21.131+02:00Oystein,
Here's the details of my latest sim ...Oystein,<br /><br />Here's the details of my latest sim for Harrit Figure 14. We are now in quite good agreement on the composition; you have a little more oxygen. There seems to be too much O rather than too little...<br /><br />The mass ratios for your sim are shown in parentheses.<br /><br />This was for a bulk, homogeneous material, a 20 keV beam, with the elemental mass composition at C 38.39% (38%), O 36.21% (39%), Fe 13.2% (12%), Ca 6.56% (6.4%), Zn 1.78% (1.8%), Si 1.37% (1.4%), S 1.04% (1.0%), Al 0.61% (0.62%), Cr 0.45% (0.45%), Mg 0.21% (0.3%), K 0.18% (not stated). The atomic proportions, rounded to total 1,000, are C 531.7 atoms, O 376.4, Fe 39.3, Ca 27.2, Si 8.1, S 5.4, Zn 4.5, Al 3.8, Mg 1.4, Cr 1.4, K 0.8.<br /><br />The simulation gave a count (or peak height), averaged over ten instances, for each element of C 1900, O 3050, Fe l-alpha 300, Zn l-alpha 255, Mg 225, Al 430, Si 820, S 650, K 195, Ca 1975, Cr 140, Fe k-alpha 1275, Zn k-alpha 112. The ratio of the other elements compared to O are, with Harrit's in parentheses, C 0.62 (0.62), Fe l-alpha 0.10 (0.18), Zn l-alpha 0.08 (0.09), Mg 0.07 (0.07), Al 0.14 (0.14), Si 0.27 (0.27), S 0.21 (0.20), K 0.06 (0.05), Ca 0.65 (0.64), Cr 0.05 (0.04), Fe k-alpha 0.42 (0.39), Zn k-alpha 0.04 (0.02).<br /><br />Your sim (20 keV) has the Fe k-a/l-a ratio at 3.80; Harrit's spectrum is at 2.17, and my older sim at the incorrect 15 keV beam got 1.47. Similarly, the respective Zn k/l ratios are 0.34, 0.22 and 0.15. Together with the fact that assuming too low a beam intensity underestimates the O content, that suggests that the sim might be better by assuming 17 keV (maybe by compensating for other differences), and at least would improve the k/l ratios. However, putting in the wrong values cannot be right, and a look at Harrit Fig. 6 shows that the Fe k/l ratios can be all over the place: (a) 3.22, (b) 2.60, (c) 1.48, and (d) 2.20.<br /><br />When I simulated a 25 micron sphere, the proportion of C and O decreased a little. I got C 37.1%, O 35.0%, Fe 14.5%, Ca 7.2%, Zn 1.96%, Si 1.51%, S 1.14%, Al 0.67%, Cr 0.49%, Mg 0.23%, K 0.2%. At a higher incident angle, the lighter elements' peaks are relatively high, e.g. a lower Al/O ratio. So for a given spectrum obtained at zero incident angle, when you incorrectly input a high incident angle, you predict too little O (same as assuming too low a beam intensity, and the opposite of looking at a high incident angle and forgetting to allow for it). This effect is apparent, albeit diluted, when assuming a sphere on a bulk instead of a bulk, as the adjustment for a sphere integrates over a range of incident angles.<br /><br />Conversely, when Harrit et al were examining their spheres "with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1", if they'd entered as a bulk rather than a sphere on a bulk, their quantitative analysis routine would have concluded too much O, i.e., underestimated the Fe:O ratios. (Tbc)Poseidonhttp://www.takeourworldback.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-33016620306583766352012-06-13T03:46:27.405+02:002012-06-13T03:46:27.405+02:00Basile going to confirm again that organics based ...Basile going to confirm again that organics based paint burns? ;)Oysteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-74501315692811454142012-06-12T16:04:55.832+02:002012-06-12T16:04:55.832+02:00New "truther" paper in the works...a lit...New "truther" paper in the works...a little bird told me..<br /><br />"new tests" my dear Oystein...deal with "debunker" nit-pick and confirm yet again chips are thermitic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-3022815852490679332012-06-12T14:51:29.791+02:002012-06-12T14:51:29.791+02:00Poseidon, Oystein: Finally, I found the "chea...Poseidon, Oystein: Finally, I found the "cheap trick" how to see everything. <br /><br />All I have to do if I don't see the last posts, is to click on the blue words "Weitere laden" below:o) <br /><br />Sorry for my dullness, I'm definitely not a kind of IT man:o)Ivan Kmineknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-37264648779896137392012-06-12T13:28:34.445+02:002012-06-12T13:28:34.445+02:00"I know something you don´t"
Then tell..."I know something you don´t" <br /><br />Then tell us and don't play childrens' games ;)Oysteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-80696535725109019802012-06-12T11:29:40.659+02:002012-06-12T11:29:40.659+02:00Oh for God´s sake Oystein, if you were really conc...Oh for God´s sake Oystein, if you were really concerned about insulting language you would not have patience for JREF, and anyone can see your own "twoofer" language there.<br /><br />As far as new tests go and new verifications of chips...forget about Milette, he is done and probably wont even publish...others have done new tests, some you have heard of before..<br /><br />I know something you don´t...<br /><br />The game really is over. Deal with it.<br /><br />Have a nice dayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-55090302622095371722012-06-12T00:37:36.615+02:002012-06-12T00:37:36.615+02:00@ Anonym
"Like I said before, perhaps Harrit ...@ Anonym<br />"Like I said before, perhaps Harrit et al have superhuman patience, but I dont."<br />Neither have I. You stop the insults and condecending directed at us right now. I already started deleting those of your posts that are insulting AND off-topic. From now on I will also delete, without comment, uncivil posts.<br /><br />Is that thoroughly understood? Please acknowledge! Verbosely and in your own words!<br /><br /><br />"It is blatantly obvious that you/Milette have not been able to get your paints to ignite at 430 and produce molten spheres...not surprising since that is unheard of for paints."<br />Bullshit.<br />It is blatantly obvious that it isn't necessary to reproduce any of that bad "science". There is no way to know what materials to heat up, because it is unknown what kinds of chips Harrit e.al. tested. Please ask Harrit to give you information that allows us to identify the types of paint they put in the DSC. It took rational people only days after the publication to show that chips a-d are paint and list the reasons why the DSC test was incompetent and nonsense. Harrit e.al. have not been able to respond adequately in three years no. They are ducking, hiding, evading, obfuscating, lying and running away. They are scared shit to release any of their red-gray chips for independent testing, and they have not been able to properly respond to Millette in more than 3 months now. I guess they know all too well they have been found out!Oysteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07389945793486175214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-87180376889896386752012-06-11T17:24:47.295+02:002012-06-11T17:24:47.295+02:00Like I said before, perhaps Harrit et al have supe...Like I said before, perhaps Harrit et al have superhuman patience, but I dont.<br /><br />It is blatantly obvious that you/Milette have not been able to get your paints to ignite at 430 and produce molten spheres...not surprising since that is unheard of for paints.<br /><br />Therefore, it is impossible that chips are paint<br /><br />3 yrs amigo, times up, I am sure you and Milette would have reported success by now<br /><br />Game OverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-80465356514760284082012-06-11T17:16:26.751+02:002012-06-11T17:16:26.751+02:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-61725265378759523472012-06-11T15:01:32.130+02:002012-06-11T15:01:32.130+02:00Ziggy: what's your point here? It is quite obv...Ziggy: what's your point here? It is quite obvious that I have informed "JREF-buddies" exactly in this way, since you quoted here my contribution originally posted just in JREF. Try to read Oystein's response there.<br /><br />Anyway, it is not a "heat content" what makes thermites good for e.g. welding. It is a rate of exothermic rection, which is important in this regard. <br />And since I do not see any proof of any extremely rapid exothermic reaction in Bentham paper, why I should consider thermites? <br />In Bentham paper, I do not see even any proof that any red chip was really "ignited" in DSC device, btw.:o))Ivan Kmineknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-41659029043867683202012-06-11T14:13:34.908+02:002012-06-11T14:13:34.908+02:00Ziggy: aha (still considering multilayer system): ...Ziggy: aha (still considering multilayer system): according to your new bold idea, the most of this multilayer system explodes as a "unit", but just the nanothermite layer (containing a lot of some flammable polymer among others) directly attached to steel is miraculously undamaged, although this evil nanothermite multisystem was intended for cutting steel below:o))<br /><br />We have here two hypotheses: one is very plausible: red-gray chips are paint layers on oxidized steel. Such paints were provably and massively applied in WTC, no problem. <br /><br />The second hypothesis is the multilayered system of nanothermite; <br />here: <br />- we have no idea how to prepare it in any reasonable and economical manner (at least I have no idea how to prepare this particular alternating system of layers).<br />- we have absolutely no explanation why anybody should bother with diluting nanothermite effect using extremely elaborate preparation of such multilayers. Iron oxide layers can act only as heat sinks here and can only deteriorate the stochiometric ratio between Al and Fe2O3, I think:o)Ivan Kmineknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-63968602138046863712012-06-11T13:19:41.784+02:002012-06-11T13:19:41.784+02:00Ivan Kminek9. Juni 2012 09:15:
"when some org...Ivan Kminek9. Juni 2012 09:15:<br />"when some organic polymer is present..the overall energy output during heating in air can be of course higher than in pure thermite. As for “Bentham chips”...energy released in DSC device was higher than belongs to thermite...<br /> It only means that it cannot be pure thermite, without added organics/polymers."<br /><br />Ivan, i challenge you to inform your JREF-buddies of your discovery, including Sunstealer...the "duh the chips release more than 3.9" is getting really old...and it seems that even kids should be able to understand the "hybrid" part of superthermite<br /><br />http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314&page=22<br /><br />Really Ivan, demonstrate that JREF members are able to understand!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-43509691976008638102012-06-11T12:52:11.140+02:002012-06-11T12:52:11.140+02:00"Sadly, no experiments followed, since it was..."Sadly, no experiments followed, since it was apparently much more convenient to make some easy money on nanothermite tours around the world:o)" Ivan<br /><br />Really? Debunkers have been claiming that chips are paint, even without any tests, without references to paints that ignite at 420 and produce molten spheres....<br /><br />Too bad debunkers have no experiments to back up their claims, apparently it is much easier to attack Harrit et al and Bentham with ad-hominem attacks...<br /><br />Put up or shut up...3 years amigoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-67350458445835427442012-06-11T12:45:02.127+02:002012-06-11T12:45:02.127+02:00"As Oystein noted many times, there were perh..."As Oystein noted many times, there were perhaps hundreds of various red paints used in WTC." Ivan<br /><br />So what? What Oystein speculates and assumes is his business...and has nothing to do with reality, actual results from research, tests etc. Again, do not confuse your/Oysteins speculations with observed results.<br /><br />"Bentham team forgot to tell us more about their composition"<br /><br />They did not forget anything, the paper focuses on only one kind chips found, but they mention in discussion section of paper that other kinds of chips were also discovered....including chips in multiple layers, copper chips...etc.<br /><br />"the probability that this system can be separated somehow almost solely to bilayers is clearly a plain ZERO:o)"<br /><br />Common, this "system" explodes as a unit, and only tiny fragments of material next to steel remains, along with tiny fragment of steel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-77945300530577963982012-06-11T12:05:27.963+02:002012-06-11T12:05:27.963+02:00Ziggy: as for your post from 10:41:
Gray layers a...Ziggy: as for your post from 10:41:<br /><br />Gray layers are no more steel, they should be layers of "black rust" (FeO.Fe3O4), but anyway they can be separated from the steel itself in the form of flakes (as we see in any rusted steel anywhere).<br /><br />On the other hand, red layers should be particles of composites with heavily crosslinked polymer binder (they are not soluble in MEK), therefore I do not see any way how they can be separated from some bigger piece of the same material in the form of layers with a quite homogeneous thickness (very typical for paints).<br /><br />And back for the hypothetical multilayered system red-gray-red-gray-red-gray-red-gray etc. layers (truthers speculated about hundreds of such adjacent layers): the probability that this system can be separated somehow almost solely to bilayers is clearly a plain ZERO:o)Ivan Kmineknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-55358559082283275942012-06-11T11:48:30.813+02:002012-06-11T11:48:30.813+02:00Ziggy: Strange "multilayered" chips depi...Ziggy: Strange "multilayered" chips depicted in Fig. 32 can be just another paints, or perhaps even defects in paints, who knows? As Oystein noted many times, there were perhaps hundreds of various red paints used in WTC.<br /><br />Bentham team forgot to tell us more about their composition and Harrit et al can be right that the carbon layer "may be a type of adhesive". Anyway, Harrit et al were definitely right that "These hypotheses invite further experiments." <br />Sadly, no experiments followed, since it was apparently much more convenient to make some easy money on nanothermite tours around the world:o)Ivan Kmineknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1598848421183829451.post-49895312085930602312012-06-11T10:56:54.377+02:002012-06-11T10:56:54.377+02:00"speculated that nanothermite was applied in ..."speculated that nanothermite was applied in multilayers composed of these bilayers (in a fashion red-gray-red-gray-red-gray etc.), but this is a very apparent nonsense as well..gray layers of iron oxides would only deteriorate the effect of the red layers (considering they are thermitic)." Ivan<br /><br />PS<br /><br />NEWSFLASH: gray layer sandwiched in multi-layer chip not iron oxide, but hydrobarbon. Try reading the paper for once, preferably BEFORE you accuse others of non-sense.<br /><br />PS AGAIN: there is absolutely no reason to believe that multiple layers would be preserved in general..those kind of statements are not based on any tests/obserations at all, not even any kind of reasoning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com