9/11 Conspiracy

[Gamolon]

Watch the Toronto Hearings video you posted (from 13:03-21:07), where Harrit describes the methodology for determining the elemental composition of the red layer (iron, silicon, aluminum, oxygen, and carbon), their relative positions within the plastic matrix (indicating iron-oxide and aluminum-silicate formations), and the proof that the aluminum and silicon weren't molecularly bound (via the MEK bath). Now, that's not to say the positive identification of thermitic components is sufficient to determine whether a given chip is active or not. In Harrit's own word's regarding in part the elemental tests, again from the video you posted (between 20:50 and 20:57), "...it's not the strongest evidence we have [for the presence of "active thermitic material" in the dust samples]; the strongest evidence we have comes from the reactivity of these chips", which may imply a trial-and-error approach, assuming only that the 'shelf-life' might have run out on some of the heat-tested chips.

So, to answer your question more directly, since most of the proofs used to show that Harrit's group had found thermitic chips dealt with the determination of their elemental compositions; and the "strongest" (if not only) proof that they'd found active thermitic chips was in the reactivity-ignition testing, I'd say a trial and error approach to heat-testing may be the only manner of testing available for determining a chip's response to the proper temperature, and by extension, whether that particular thermitic chip is still active or not.

Next question...

You're not actually answering my question Capstone. All you've provided is word salad. This was supposedly a peer reviewed, scientific paper. One that should be able to be replicated by other scientists if they so choose to see if they come up with the same conclusions as Harrit did.

So I will ask you yet again. Based on Harrit's paper, what criteria/tests listed within does one need to absolutely perform on a chip in order to determine that it is an active thermitic chip? Just list them from the paper.

 

[daws101]

Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)

Massive fire in downtown LA RT USA

sorry shit head it did collapse due to fire!

 

[daws101]

Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)

Massive fire in downtown LA RT USA

Scene from this morning... it collapsed.

Nice try.

Nice slllloooowwww PARTIAL collapse, like a box of melting Crayolas. Not a sudden collapse at free fall speed. Also note that the ENTIRE structure here is CONSUMED by the inferno. Not just a few patchy office fires.

wrong as always wtc7 burned for 7 hours and was not patchy at all
The story...WTC7 only had small, limited fires.

Our take...

This is one commonly-shown picture of the WTC7 fires.

WTC7 Fire

 

[Jackinthebox]

Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)

Massive fire in downtown LA RT USA

sorry shit head it did collapse due to fire!

That is NOT instantaneous global collapse.

 

[Jackinthebox]

wrong as always wtc7 burned for 7 hours and was not patchy at all
The story...WTC7 only had small, limited fires.

Our take...

This is one commonly-shown picture of the WTC7 fires.

WTC7 Fire

Comparatively small fires burning slow at low temp. That is NOT a fully involved structure fire.

I am a firefighter. I serve with firefighters who were there that day. There is no way in hell that fire brought down all 3 buildings and certainly not 7.

 

[Capstone]

...This was supposedly a peer reviewed, scientific paper. One that should be able to be replicated by other scientists if they so choose to see if they come up with the same conclusions as Harrit did.

So I will ask you yet again. Based on Harrit's paper, what criteria/tests listed within does one need to absolutely perform on a chip in order to determine that it is an active thermitic chip? Just list them from the paper.

Heads up, Gams: there's another word-salad coming your way.

The only aspect of the experimentation portion of the study that wasn't briefly mentioned in the paper's Abstract was the method of collecting and separating the chips from other particles in the dust.

So, directly from the paper, under the subheading "2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination", we read:

"The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). ..."

From there, we need only consult an excerpt from the Abstract to see the remaining necessary steps:

"The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.[Bold emphasis mine]"

In case you missed the significance of the highlighted phrase "when ignited", it's ambiguous enough to account for any unreported instances in which positively identified thermitic chips failed to ignite in the DSC device, which would have shown those particular chips to have been inactive (whether because of expired shelf-lives or some other means of degradation) and thereby irrelevant to the findings that served as the basis for the title of the paper.

Follow the steps listed above, and "when ignited" (not a second before), the red/gray chips can rightfully be characterized as "Active Thermitic Material", which is pretty much what I said in my previous word-salad.

 

[Gamolon]

The failure to mention in the paper that any dead magnetic red/gray chips were found doesn't justify the conclusion you've apparently pinned on Harrit's group, namely that "ANY red/gray chips [extracted] with a magnet from a pile of WTC dust [...] are without a doubt, thermitic", much less dead or alive. Such a conclusion would, in fact, be an appeal to silence.

Read the below excerpt you posted. I even made certain parts red to help out. Tell me how ANYONE reading that can come up with any other conclusion other than "The red layer of red/gray chips extracted from piles of WTC dust using a magnet is an active thermitic material". There is no other criteria for further separation of red/gray chips chosen for testing. That's a fact. They separated their chips, ran the series of tests listed in the paper on those separated chips, and concluded that the red layer was thermitic.

So, directly from the paper, under the subheading "2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination", we read:

"The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). ..."

From there, we need only consult an excerpt from the Abstract to see the remaining necessary steps:

"The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.[Bold emphasis mine]"

Furthermore, if the DSC test was so damn important in determining that chips from each dust pile sample contained an active thermitic material, why were the Delassio DSC test results left out of the paper? Let me guess. Just because Harrit left it out, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

 

[Gamolon]

In case you missed the significance of the highlighted phrase "when ignited", it's ambiguous enough to account for any unreported instances in which positively identified thermitic chips failed to ignite in the DSC device, which would have shown those particular chips to have been inactive (whether because of expired shelf-lives or some other means of degradation) and thereby irrelevant to the findings that served as the basis for the title of the paper.

So let me get this straight. Prior to doing a DSC test, you think they positively identified a thermitic material? Can you explain why you think that? If they had proof that there was thermitic material present, why would proving the existence ACTIVE thermitic material be more convincing?

 

[Gamolon]

In case you missed the significance of the highlighted phrase "when ignited", it's ambiguous enough to account for any unreported instances in which positively identified thermitic chips failed to ignite in the DSC device,

Sorry, but you're wrong.

An excerpt from Harrit's paper regarding the DSC testing.

3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.

Notice that he says that ALL ignited in the range of 415-435 °C. So your assumption that some chips may have failed to ignite and that Harrit just didn't report has been proven false.

 

[daws101]

Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)

Massive fire in downtown LA RT USA

sorry shit head it did collapse due to fire!

That is NOT instantaneous global collapse.

neither were the twin tower or wtc7 ....next!

 

[daws101]

wrong as always wtc7 burned for 7 hours and was not patchy at all
The story...WTC7 only had small, limited fires.

Our take...

This is one commonly-shown picture of the WTC7 fires.

WTC7 Fire

Comparatively small fires burning slow at low temp. That is NOT a fully involved structure fire.

I am a firefighter. I serve with firefighters who were there that day. There is no way in hell that fire brought down all 3 buildings and certainly not 7.

as I stated before you are in no way other than in your wildest fantasy A FIRE FIGHTER.
MY GUESS IS, YOU WANTED TO BE A FIRE FIGHTER but failed the psychological evaluation.

 

[irosie91]

I have conceived of a brilliant way to test the various hypotheses regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center towers

 

[daws101]

I have conceived of a brilliant way to test the various hypotheses regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center towers

and?

 

[irosie91]

DAWS----the WTC did not burn for seven hours-----I watched it
from the start to the downfall-------I did not time it----but it
was more like 1 1/2 hours. The EXPLOSION when the plane hit was ENORMOUS (I missed the first one---but the
second was mindboggling). No doubt that impact played
a very considerable role in damaging the supporting structures---big fires are not just fires in places filled with all kinds of
machines and motors and STUFF----OTHER stuff explodes.
once it reaches Uhm (?) FLASH POINT ---especially
weird combinations of plastics---------some little fire on an erector set structure is no comparison. Gee----you guys
seem to have missed high school chemistry in physics----
when I did my chem labs------even my stuff managed
to EXPLODE (sometimes-----don't tell-----I pretended
it did not happen----)

 

[irosie91]

I make no apologies if you consider yourself a Republican. I am a registered Independent and have voted Republican at various levels of government, but the current crop of Republicans at the national level are off the reservation. To call them bat shit crazy would be an insult to bat shit.

I have never voted republican in my life-----when Kerry ran----
I simply refused to vote. I went to the polls-----but as a reached
out to pass the lever RIGHT------I got a sharp pain in my right
shoulder------so I left

 

[daws101]

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update)
What was WTC 7?
The original World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was a 47-story office building located immediately to the north of the main World Trade Center (WTC) complex. Completed in 1987, it was built on top of an existing Con Edison substation and located on land owned by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
When did WTC 7 collapse?
On Sept. 11, 2001, WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 552 p.m., when WTC 7 collapsed.
What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.
How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Diagram 1-Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures.


What is progressive collapse?
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse.
Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers, for two reasons. First, the collapse of each tower was not triggered by a local damage or a single initiating event. Second, the structures were able to redistribute loads from the impact and fire-damaged structural components and subsystems to undamaged components and to keep the building standing until a sudden, global collapse occurred. Had a hat truss that connected the core columns to the exterior frame not been installed to support a TV antenna atop each WTC tower after the structure had been fully designed, it is likely that the core of the WTC towers would have collapsed sooner, triggering a global collapse. Such a collapse would have some features similar to that of a progressive collapse.
How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.
Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

DAWS----the WTC did not burn for seven hours-----I watched it
from the start to the downfall-------I did not time it----but it
was more like 1 1/2 hours. The EXPLOSION when the plane hit was ENORMOUS (I missed the first one---but the
second was mindboggling). No doubt that impact played
a very considerable role in damaging the supporting structures---big fires are not just fires in places filled with all kinds of
machines and motors and STUFF----OTHER stuff explodes.
once it reaches Uhm (?) FLASH POINT ---especially
weird combinations of plastics---------some little fire on an erector set structure is no comparison. Gee----you guys
seem to have missed high school chemistry in physics----
when I did my chem labs------even my stuff managed
to EXPLODE (sometimes-----don't tell-----I pretended
it did not happen----)

bullshit !
north tower 102 minutes
south tower 56 minutes ,102min +56 min = 158 minutes
total time in hours 2 hours 38mins..

 

[daws101]

I make no apologies if you consider yourself a Republican. I am a registered Independent and have voted Republican at various levels of government, but the current crop of Republicans at the national level are off the reservation. To call them bat shit crazy would be an insult to bat shit.

I have never voted republican in my life-----when Kerry ran----
I simply refused to vote. I went to the polls-----but as a reached
out to pass the lever RIGHT------I got a sharp pain in my right
shoulder------so I left

I could give a shit what political party you're in..

 

[irosie91]

I make no apologies if you consider yourself a Republican. I am a registered Independent and have voted Republican at various levels of government, but the current crop of Republicans at the national level are off the reservation. To call them bat shit crazy would be an insult to bat shit.

I have never voted republican in my life-----when Kerry ran----
I simply refused to vote. I went to the polls-----but as a reached
out to pass the lever RIGHT------I got a sharp pain in my right
shoulder------so I left

I could give a shit what political party you're in..

you could? who would want your shit?

 

[Gamolon]

I am a firefighter. I serve with firefighters who were there that day.

How long have you been a firefighter?

 

[Capstone]

Read the below excerpt you posted. I even made certain parts red to help out. Tell me how ANYONE reading that can come up with any other conclusion other than "The red layer of red/gray chips extracted from piles of WTC dust using a magnet is an active thermitic material".

There is no other criteria for further separation of red/gray chips chosen for testing. That's a fact. They separated their chips, ran the series of tests listed in the paper on those separated chips, and concluded that the red layer was thermitic.

So, directly from the paper, under the subheading "2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination", we read:

"The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). ..."

From there, we need only consult an excerpt from the Abstract to see the remaining necessary steps:

"The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.[Bold emphasis mine]"

Furthermore, if the DSC test was so damn important in determining that chips from each dust pile sample contained an active thermitic material, why were the Delassio DSC test results left out of the paper? Let me guess. Just because Harrit left it out, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

I've seen plenty of speculation and innuendo as to why the DSC results from the four chips reported in the paper came from only 3 of the 4 dust samples, but my guess is that the results from the Delassio/Breidenbach sample were indicative of that particular chip's inactivity.

Having said that, there's really no need for me to justify the Harrit group's decisions as to what they reported and what they may have withheld, because what they reported suffienctly proves the premise of their paper, namely that active thermitic material was found in the WTC dust, yes, even if only 3 of the 4 samples yielded active thermitic chips for testing in the DSC device.

...Prior to doing a DSC test, you think they positively identified a thermitic material? Can you explain why you think that? ...

They'd observed and identified known thermitic components, as well as the uniformity of their relative positions within their common matrix, and had further proven the presence of elemental aluminum. The only thing left to test at that point would have been the question as to whether any the thermitic chips were still active.

...If they had proof that there was thermitic material present, why would proving the existence ACTIVE thermitic material be more convincing?

People like to see explosions?

In any case, such testing would have been necessary to support both the paper's conclusion and its title.

An excerpt from Harrit's paper regarding the DSC testing.

3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.

Notice that he says that ALL ignited in the range of 415-435 °C. So your assumption that some chips may have failed to ignite and that Harrit just didn't report has been proven false.

The phrase "all ignited" is clearly in reference to the red/gray chips on which the data in Fig. (19) was based, more specifically, to the reported DSC results on those particular chips. In no way does the statement entail the conclusion that all of the group's DSC testing results were reported in the paper.

In fact, given Harrit's statement in one of the videos you posted earlier - something to the effect that dead chips had been found in the samples, possibly indicating a 'shelf-life' or some other means of degradation (he mentioned the torrential rainfall in the days that followed 9/11), it's reasonable to conclude that not quite all of the heat-testing results were reported in the paper.