Gå til innhold

Government bak 9/11?

b-real

Av b-real
i Oppslagstavlen

Anbefalte innlegg

Videoannonse

Videoannonse
Annonse
Shruggie

Shruggie

Skrevet
Skrevet
Things are not always what they seem at first glance.

Helt enig. Men tror du selv på det du selv skrev der? ;)

 

Huh? Tror jeg på dette?

Jeg har litt mer tro på at bygningen tilfeldigvis faller ned på en måte som ser ut som om det blir gjort med vilje enn at et hemmelig team har plantet usynlige, UHØRBARE bomber gjennom hele bygningen som går av 8-9 timer etter selve flykræsjene.

Selvsagt, det står jo uthevet.

Lenke til kommentar
Leviath

Leviath

Skrevet
Skrevet
At jern og aluminium og svovel er kokt sammen i partikler på nanostørrelse er med på at det er avgjørende at thermite/thermate i støvet.

Svovel er knapt nok nevnt i artikkelen. Kun observert i enkelte prøver og avfeid av Harrit/Jones som forurensning. Du viser med dette at du ikke har lest artikkelen. Jeg er på ingen måte overrasket.

Lenke til kommentar
Ballemannen

Ballemannen

Skrevet
Skrevet (endret)
At jern og aluminium og svovel er kokt sammen i partikler på nanostørrelse er med på at det er avgjørende at thermite/thermate i støvet.

Svovel er knapt nok nevnt i artikkelen. Kun observert i enkelte prøver og avfeid av Harrit/Jones som forurensning. Du viser med dette at du ikke har lest artikkelen. Jeg er på ingen måte overrasket.

Jeg har lest artikkelen thank you very much, men siden jeg ikke er kjemiker forvekslet jeg nok svovel med silisium. Ingen grunn til å være kjepphøy! Jones har nemlig snakket om svovel tidligere, da det kan brukes for å få til en raskere thermitereaksjon. Dette kalles da Thermate. Det vet du sikkert. Min kjemi stoppet på 3KJ og 1.år på ingeniørhøyskolen. Uansett er det disse røde bitene av "udetonert" materiale som er spesielt interessant. "The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in that it contains aluminum, iron and oxygen components which are intimately mixed at a scale of approximately 100 nanometers (nm) or less." Du mener det er maling? Ok. Er det noe du har lest på SLC bloggen eller noe? Harrit/Jones går igjennom en rekke tester som utelukker maling. De to som utmerker seg er:

  • Uoppløselig i sterkt malingsløsemiddel MEK (mens fliser av maling derimot, viste oppløsing)
  • Dannelsen av kuler med høyt jerninnhold når materialet ble varmet opp til 700 grader i DSC-prøvene (Differensiell scanning kalorimetri). Jern og jernoksider smelter først ved temperaturer over 1200 grader, og slike kuler er påvist i store mengder som produkter av kontrollerte termittiske reaksjoner. Uten disse tremittiske reaksjonene; hvordan kan slike ‘jern+oksygen’-kuler ha blitt dannet av de røde og grå flisene?

Jeg velger i alle fall å stole på Harrrit's resultater, og jeg går dermed god for Bentham Open og deres peer review prosess (uten at jeg har noen som helst kompetanse i den retning). Jeg tror ikke disse folka farer med løgner og prøver å tilpasse resultater til teori. Dermed sagt blir jeg ikke overbevist om annet uten at en uavhengig gruppe publiserer annet i en vitenskapelig journal.

 

Jeg mener at en uavhengig kommisjon skal undersøke dette nærmere, og hundrevis av andre ubesvarte spørsmål relatert til hendelsene rundt 911. Hvorfor kunne ikke NIST, som har spesifikk kompetanse på nettopp nano-materiale og -vitenskap gjøre den jobben istedenfor å gjøre alt for å ikke gjøre det? Det blir det samme som at 911-commission mente det var unødvendig å etterforske oppkjøp av salgsopsjoner før 911 fordi det kunne se ut som at kjøperne ikke kunne spores til Saudi Arabia eller Afghanistan.

 

Hvis du virkelig er interessert i hvorfor DSC analysene er gjort i oksygenholdig atmosfære og hva poenget med resistensmålingene er så kan jeg bare referere til Steven Jones selv. Uansett har jeg registrert at mange etterlyser presisering av dette. Jeg skulle ønske man kunne ha en åpen debatt om nettopp sånne ting.

 

Jeg fant en korrespondanse med Jones som lyder som følger:

Dr. Jones,

 

I read through your thermite dust study and found it quite fascinating.

You, and the other scientists have ruffled many feathers in the loyalist

community.

 

The most popular excuse is that the experiments are invalid because

oxygen was present during the DSC testing.

 

Aside from other proof such as the chemical signature, mircoscopic images

and energy release compared to the control sample, what is the proper

response to those who use the 'oxygen' excuse in a debate?

 

My thought thus far is that the control sample was also tested in air, yet

the "chip samples" were able to produce a higher energy peak over a shorter

duration of time - proving explosive, and energetic material is present in the dust.

 

Is this accurate?

 

Thanks again for your quick reply!

Your answer is a good start -- more importantly, we find that iron oxide has been reduced to iron in the process, as we find spheres in the ignition residue which have more iron than oxygen.

 

The formation of these iron-rich spheres shows the thermite reaction because:

1. elemental iron is produced, and

2. very high temperatures were reached, beyond that which can be reached by burning hydrocarbons, to produce molten iron and iron oxide -- as shown by the formation of spheres.

 

 

We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite -- see Fig. 29 in our paper.

 

Utdrag fra diskusjon mellom nanoforsker Ola Nilsen og Steven Jones:

(Jones i rødt)

Endret av Ballemannen
Lenke til kommentar
Ballemannen

Ballemannen

Skrevet
Skrevet

I wish to thank you for a careful reading of the paper. I will answer and comment point by point after initial comments.

 

You write: “If one first assumes that the red scales are of paint, and on metallic iron. Then it is easy to assume that the paint may be some sort of corrosion inhibition layer.”

 

  1. We have learned the composition of the “corrosion inhibition” or primer paint actually used on the WTC towers from a NIST document; see attached paper by Prof. Niels Harrit (Univ. of Copenhagen and first author on the paper). We find that zinc, chromium and magnesium are significant components of the paint used – yet these elements are ABSENT from the red material, as demonstrated in Figure 7 of our paper. Thus, the red chips cannot be the primer paint used.
  2. On the other hand, the elements which are present in the red chips, namely aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon (Fig. 7) – are precisely those expected in formulations of nano-thermite as described in the literature and delineated in the paper.
  3. Furthermore, iron oxide is found in grains approximately 100 nm across and aluminum in plate-like structures about 40 nm thick – and these particles appear quite uniform and intimately mixed across the four separate samples. It is this ultra-fine, nano-scale structure of the Al and iron oxide in the red material that is emphasized in the paper, which we expect for nanothermite, and that we ask Prof. Nilsen to address. (The term “nano” does not yet appear in your comments to us, perhaps an oversight.)
  4. The composition of any other paint used in the WTC must address the absence of common paint ingredients as well as the presence of those elements observed, and the nano-scale structure of the ingredients observed.
  5. And if ordinary paint, what is the red material painted onto? When we examine the gray layer closely as in Figure 6, we find a significant carbon peak along with iron and oxygen, while any manganese is insignificant. However, the nominal composition of the A36 steel used in the WTC Towers is: 0.29% C maximum, 0.80-1.2% Mn, 0.04%P, 0.05%S, 0.15-0.3%Si, balance Fe. There is too much carbon and too little Mn for this to be structural steel used in the WTC. Comment?

Your explanation for the red/gray chips is thus demolished; can you rescue it or concede that we have something interesting here? In your response, please address also the thermal behavior of the red/gray chips as shown in Figure 29 and discussed in more detail below.

 

At the same time, thank you for your comments and note that FTIR, XRD and TEM studies are underway to check/confirm our conclusions.

 

Now I provide point-by-point comments to your admirable letter.

 

Dear,

 

After commenting on the published article Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe1 on Norwegian radio May 20th 20092, I have been asked by one of the authors, Steven Jones, to elaborate on two points3. The first is the claim that paint is excluded by the applied test with organic solvent, the other the presence of iron-rich spheres after heating the red flakes.

 

The short version of my reply to this is:

I am not satisfied with the experimental “proof” that the red particles are not paint. That other particles of paint (of unspecified manufacture) do dissolve in methyl ethyl ketone does not prove that the red particles in this work are not paint. I feel this is a major weakness in the argument put forward in the article.

 

I do not dispute the fact that a strong exothermal reaction occurred when the samples were heated, and that iron rich spheres has been formed by reduction of iron oxide. I will not even argue against using the term thermitic reaction to describe the process. However, I will argue that the authors have not tried to rule out the possibility that the red material is paint in a satisfactory way.

 

I did not mean that these were the most important tests; I said that there were two that “stand out to me” as I wrote a brief email. It should be noted that the clean-surface red material showed the absence of zinc, magnesium, titanium and other elements commonly found in ordinary paint. (Please see Fig. 7.) In particular, the primer paint used for steel beams in the WTC steel contained significant zinc, chromium and magnesium (according to Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 433 – 438.)

 

The paper itself notes that nanothermite can be sprayed or painted onto surfaces (such as steel):

 

“Thus, the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of “hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”. Indeed, the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips which survived the WTC destruction.”

 

However, what you have not yet commented on are the characteristics of this “thermitic paint” that are NANOthermitic in nature. It is these nano-scale characteristics (along with the other tests in the paper e.g. Fig. 29) that give rise to our questions about why such a material is found in the WTC buildings and its dust. These points about the nano-scale composition of the material I hope he will comment on; I will provide more detail in following discussion. Indeed, a word search discloses that the term “nano” does not appear in your comments to date, whereas it appears many times in our paper and is a key point raised – on which I hope you will comment.

 

I will elaborate on this later in this text, but I will also make comments on other aspects with the article that I find troublesome or weakly supported.

 

Likewise I will answer.

 

The major part of the article is a thorough presentation of the analytical work on red/grey chips collected after the collapse of the buildings of the Word Trade Center (WTC). Thorough as it seems to be, there are aspects I feel should have been considered. This will be presented below. The remaining part of the article have the heading Discussion. Some more experimental results are presented here, but a lot of the discussion is a merely literature work on thermitic materials. This part of the article will also be addressed.

 

Thank you.

 

The collection of the red/grey chips

 

The description of the four dust samples is well described and it seems to be no reason to have doubt about the connection to the collapse of WTC. However, it could be argued that the origin of the dust is not solely from the buildings themselves. Enormous amount of dust in the surroundings would also be hurled up by the air wave after the collapse. I will, however, not dispute here that the origin of the red/gray chips are from the buildings of WTC themselves.

 

I agree with you here.

 

The collected particles are reported to be flakes with dimension 0.2 to 3 mm. Every particle consists of two layers, one red and one grey. The thickness of each layer is 10 to 100 µm (p. 9, 2nd column). The collection is done with a handheld magnet.

 

What I lack in this description is an estimate of the amount of these particles in the material. Some information about this is actually given, but in the discussion part of the article (p. 23, 1st column). The concentration is estimated as 0.1 wt-%, but this is in material already enhanced by removing fragments identified as concrete and glass. There is no information about how much of the sample that was removed in this process, so the amount of red/grey flakes in the debris is unknown.

 

To answer, approximately 70% of the weight of the material was removed in the removal of concrete and glass fragments. If we then consider the total mass of the dust generated during the destruction of the WTC buildings, we can roughly estimate the total mass of red material extant in the dust; I estimate this at about ten tons (order of magnitude estimate).

 

Since the chips are attracted to a magnet, there has to be a ferromagnetic material present. Given the results obtained by elemental analysis in the scanning electron microscope (SEM), this seems to rule out the red layer (to be discussed further). This would imply that it is the grey material that is attracted to the magnet. The particles are seemingly big enough that a least a partial separation should be possible, so that this can be tested.

 

Two things I feel should have been done in order to better understand the investigated material:

  • Are there particles of the same composition and visual characteristics as the gray part of the red/grey chips found in the material collected on the magnet? In other words, grey chips without red layer?
  • Since the color of the red material is so distinct, it should be possible at least to spend a little time looking for red particles with a stereo microscope. Are red particles similar to the red layer abundant in the collected dust?

I know it would be a difficult task, but this would possibly tell whether any significance should be read into the fact that the ships consists of two layers, or if this is just a consequence of the sampling procedure.

 

Yes, difficult, but work along these lines is proceeding. Note that SEM/XEDS analysis as seen in Figures 7 through 9 is important to confirm the nano-scale characteristics of the red material.

 

Analyzes with optical and scanning electron microscope

 

This is a thorough and well presented part of the article. The rich use of illustrations should make it comprehensive also for the non-scientific community.

 

Thank you.

 

I have some comments, but that is to be expected when you read any experimental section of an article. It is mostly the conclusions drawn upon the results that I find troublesome.

 

More work on the gray layer would have been valuable. As stated earlier, this seems to be the most likely candidate behind the attraction of the chips toward the magnet. The XEDS spectra in Fig. 6 show iron, oxygen an a little carbon. As mentioned earlier, the most likely phases making them attractive to a magnet are magnetite (Fe3O4) or metallic iron. There has been no attempt to quantify the iron to oxygen ratio, but if they are compared with Fig. 21, where iron to oxygen is reported to be two to one, it seems that the oxygen content is much lower in the grey layer. It therefore seems likely that the grey layer is a low-alloyed steel. This could have been confirmed by XRD analyses.

 

XRD and TEM analyses are underway. I agree that these are important further tests.

 

I feel that knowledge of the nature of the gray layer can be vital in an understanding of the nature and origin of the red/grey chips.

 

The work on the red layer seems adequate. As the authors point out, analysis of very small particles give signals from the matrix. Analysis of samples with topography will also give rise to stray radiation besides that the quantification algorithms for flat surface will not be correct. The qualitative information seems to be rather well extracted.

 

 

The struggle to prove the nature of the aluminum-rich platelets could possibly be solved by powder XRD or most likely by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

 

Thank you – and again, XRD and TEM analyses are underway and I agree that these are important further tests.

 

Spectroscopic techniques are often used in examination of the organic components in paint. That would have been a natural extension of this work, but is not presented in the experimental in the article. However, on page 26 1st columns they tell us that Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) has been applied. No information on the findings is given, and it seems a little sad to leave out that part given the struggle that has been put into examination of the red material.

 

You are right that considerable “struggle that has been put into examination of the red material” — motivated in part by a very diligent peer-reviewer. As we stated:

 

“The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere.”

 

This paper is nearing completion and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. I am more involved in the TEM and XRD studies which are also being vigorously pursued. Note that this research is essentially pro-bono; we do not have a grant for these studies.

 

The use of Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)

 

It seems that only one particle is examined in this section. MEK is known to be a powerful solvent of organic material, but will leave inorganic material intact. From the presented work it is clear that things have happened to the red layer. It is reported to swell up to five times the original thickness and a significant migration and segregation of aluminum is reported. There is no indication in the article that this test has been applied to more than one of the red/gray chips.

 

It was applied to two chips.

 

As a method to facilitate the analysis of the inorganic part of the red layer, I can only applaud the experiment. Minor points in the execution and interpretation can be questioned, but I see no point in doubting the conclusions about the red layer in the red/grey chips. (A little puzzling observation about the gray layer is the lack of contrast in the BSE picture in Fig. 12. This could be interpreted as if the mean atomic number of the red layer after removal of the organic components is roughly the same as in the grey layer.)

 

Fig. 12 represents SE images (not BSE), as stated in the Figure caption.

 

In this section (p. 17, 1st column) we also find this sentence: In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.

 

This is the only information given on the difference in behavior of the red layer in the red/grey chips as opposed to red paint! This is one of the two key findings according to Steven Jones that the discussion in the article is based on: Until someone can explain these results in terms of ordinary paint (which is highly unlikely), our case remains strong (see endnote 3).

 

I feel this is the major weak point in the article. Remember that it is not a task for me to prove that the red layer in the red/gray chips is paint. I am looking for convincing evidence in the article that the possibility of it being paint is ruled out. As Steven Jones points out, the authors feel they have a case, and that case stands as long as it is shown that the red layer is not paint.

 

Sorry, I did not mean to overemphasize the importance of the MEK tests in my brief email; this non-dissolving by itself is not a “key” finding (I did not use that term for the MEK tests) – rather the nano-stucture of the materials and elemental contents (e.g., Figures 7 through 9) are key findings, along with Fig. 29 and discussion, which I ask you to address.

 

As mentioned in the opening, I was making comments on the article in a radio program. The issue was then about the scientific qualities of the article. One essential criterion when it comes to scientific communication is that enough information must be given for other members of the scientific community to reproduce and verify the experiments. Since no information is given to the nature of the paint used for comparison, this criterion is clearly not fulfilled.

 

We make comparisons with known nano-thermite in Fig. 29, which I consider a key result – and I ask Prof. Nilsen to comment, for again these data point to a nanothermitic behavior. I should add that when Dr. Farrer tested a sample of epoxy paint in the DSC, the trace was an order of magnitude broader than for the red/gray chip chip shown in Fig. 29 (blue trace). The paint also began ignition at a much lower temperature.

 

As stated in the article (p. 17, 1st column), MEK is known to soften and dissolved paint. The authors then describe the behavior of one of the red/gray chips in MEK. The red layer swells, but they claims there is no apparent dissolution. Then they describe a significant migration and segregation of aluminum. At p. 18, 1st column, they point out that the matrix holding the various particles in the red layer must have been disrupted. A comparison of Fig. 10 and Fig. 15 may indicate a loss of carbon.

 

An organic solvent such as MEK are potent for dissolving organic materials, which is material based on carbon containing molecules. It will not dissolve inorganic materials, such as aluminum, iron oxide and silicon oxide. This seems to be exactly what has happened here, it seems strange that this process is not acknowledged as a (partial) dissolution. I also feel confident that the treatment with MEK has softened the paint, as the authors say they would expect it to do if the red layer was paint.

 

No, the MEK treatments have left a very hard material; we did not observe any “softening”. However, it is fair to say that there was a migration of organic material as we did state in the paper.

 

Many paints consist of an organic binder with inorganic particles dispersed in it. It would be expected that paint with a relative low content of inorganic particles would disintegrate if the organic binder is dissolved. Paint with a high content of inorganic material would possibly behave the way that is described for the red layer in the article. Without any information about the paint samples used for reference, there is no way to judge whether they are suitable for the comparison or not.

 

My arguments are not supposed to prove that the red layer in the chips is paint. That is not for me to do. It is the task of the authors to bring convincing evidence that the red layer is not paint. Especially in light of the importance the authors themselves put to this conclusion, cf. the quotations by Steven Jones. I find it rather surprising that they have attempted this task without consulting a specialist on paint or at least conferred with literature on the topic.

 

We did consult with specialists on paint; that is how we came up with the MEK test. Again, the question is whether or not this is thermitic or even nano-thermitic paint, as opposed to ordinary paint. We address the issue in the paper – for example, here:

 

“Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Fig. (29). The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction. If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use. To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as [ordinary] paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.“

 

The examination of the red layer after treatment with MEK is of the same standard as the previous experimental work in this article. I see no reason to doubt the finding of aluminum plates and iron oxide in the form Fe2O3.

 

The formation of iron-rich spheres

 

Again the experimental work seems to be of adequate quality. I see no reason to doubt the formation of iron-rich spheres. I miss a comment on what is happening to the gray layer, but that seems to be of minor importance. The effect on heating the organic binder in air seems not to be considered. The conclusion that heating a material containing intimately mixed particles of aluminum and iron oxide give rice to a thermitic reaction (Fe2O3 + Al → Al2O3 + Fe) is not unreasonable.

 

Thank you… we do say in the paper:

 

“One possibility is that the organic material in the

red layer is itself energetic.”

 

The discussion

 

The discussion is a mixture of new experimental results and literature study of thermitic materials. Since I do not think the article has ruled out paint as the origin of the red layer, I see no point in addressing most of the information about different types of thermites. I will only comment on a few points.

 

Fig. 27 shows a sphere found in the WTC dust. Findings of such spheres should not come as a surprise, as they are abundant. It has long been a popular activity in science projects for children. I can not resist showing an example that we have collected with a handheld magnet in Oslo. A short discussion is given in endnote 4.

on_p12_590.png?w=590&h=277

Spherical particle collected by strong handheld magnet on dust in Oslo. This is a little unusual in that the surface is very dendrittic. Usually they are smother.

 

Thank you for this interesting example. However, what distinguishes the abundant spherical particles found in the WTC dust is that many show significant aluminum content, along with iron and oxygen as shown in Figure 27 in our paper. Would you claim that micrometeorites or spheroids in ordinary dust often have this combination (including significant aluminum with iron)? Having studied micrometeroites myself, I think not. Moreover, just this combination (Al and Fe) is found in spheroids produced by ignition of the red/gray chips — see Figures 25 and 26. Such spheroids were not present in the chips before ignition. The aluminum and iron combination is also observed in the spherical particles generated by ignition of commericial thermite, as shown in Fig. 24 in the paper.

 

The measurement of resistivity to rule out the possibility of the red flakes being paint is hampered for the same reasons as the discussion of dissolving the flakes in MEK. Is the comparison done with relevant samples of paint?

 

A footnote [31] provides specific resistivity data for a number of paint samples, and if you will look, note that this specific resistivity is several orders of magnitude higher for each of the paint samples – compared with that measured for the red material. (Not that this alone is a key finding; I do not find it so.)

 

It is pointed out that the red/grey chips are highly energetic (measuring up to 7.5 kJ/g with the DSC). Indeed they are, as is many of the things we are surrounded by in our daily life, e.g. gasoline (44.4 kJ/g), ethanol (31.1 kJ/g), coal (15-27 kJ/g) and in fact sugar (16 kJ/g). For a material to be classified as an explosive, it is more important that the burning rate is high, preferably larger than the speed of sound, than that the energy content is large.

 

Again, Prof. Nilsen please observe the comparison in Fig. 29, which is a key finding and shows that the burning rate is high given the narrowness of the trace, especially compared with known nanothermite under the same experimental conditions.

 

Independent confirmation is now available from a scientist in New Hampshire, who has succeeded in acquiring a video clip through a microscope, showing a rapid flash in the red material in less than a second. GAS generation is also observed and recorded; this is expected with nanothermite. The gray/black material is evidently unaffected by the ignition; we also observe this effect in the red/gray chips heated in the DSC. I agree that a precise measurement of the reaction rate will be important as research progresses, but again, we feel that a parallel investigation with subpoena authority should be conducted immediately to determine WHO made this red material and why, and not wait for all the “purely scientific” studies to be conducted that could be contemplated.

 

At page 29, 1st column, they give information that there was no red/grey chips found after the controlled demolition of Stardust Resort & Casino in Las Vegas. This is taken as evidence for the red layer not to be paint.

The problem with negative evidence is of cause that it could be because that kind of paint had not been used, possibly because the need for protection of steel is less in arid Nevada, perhaps a different building technique? This is of cause purely speculation on my behalf. The point is that the article does not give satisfactory arguments.

 

No, we did not take this as “as evidence for the red layer not to be paint.” Rather, I consider this as evidence that such red/gray chips are not produced in collapses of steel-frame buildings; a straightforward control. You have not yet commented on the nano-scale structure of the red material as shown in figure 9 (for example), nor on the DSC findings in Fig. 29.

 

Do there exist paint with metallic aluminum and iron oxide?

 

If one first assumes that the red scales are of paint, and on metallic iron. Then it is easy to assume that the paint may be some sort of corrosion inhibition layer.

 

Again, such a “corrosion inhibition layer” will be expected to contain ZINC and chromium, which is not the case for the clean-surface studies of the red material (Fig. 7) – not the case at all. See discussion by Prof. Harrit (attached), who also discusses Fig. 14 and related studies.

One method to slow down corrosion is to include flaky material into a paint, since this will increase the diffusion length of oxygen. It is in fact common to use aluminum flakes or mica flakes for such purpose5. In addition to this, a common red color pigment is iron oxides. A few telephone calls brings us the name of protective paints that is supposed to contain both flakes of aluminum and iron oxide; Intershield 300 EN302, and Interbond 808. I have not obtained samples of this paints nor performed tests on it. My point is that this is what the authors should have done. They should look for paint of similar composition as what they observe in the red/grey chips, and do the comparison tests on such paint. Another obvious lead would be to contact the companies responsible for building and maintaining of the larger steel structures in WTC, and ask what sort of paint they have used. As the article is now, it is just a decent amount of experimental work that do not allow any sound conclusion to be drawn.

 

What other elements are found in these paints? And again, it is the nano-structure of the red material which is so unusual along with the aluminum and iron-oxide contents – the fact that the grains of these are found to have dimensions of 100 nanometers or less. You have not commented on this nano-structure yet or on Fig. 29 (comparative DSC traces); please do.

 

And remember that we have checked on the composition of the corrosion-inhibiting primer actually used in the WTC – and it has significant zinc and chromium contents, absent in Figure 7.

 

I look forward to hearing your responses, Prof. Nilsen, and thank you again for your care in reading the paper.

Lenke til kommentar
Betroz

Betroz

Skrevet
Skrevet

Bra jobba Ballemannen, selv om jeg skjønner lite av det der.

 

Tviler President Obama vil etterforske 911. Han har sagt for ikke lenge siden at den offesielle versonen er sann. Klart at han frykter for jobben sin, så skjønner jo det på en måte. Frykt for å miste jobben eller bli truet på livet stopper de fleste.

Lenke til kommentar
Ballemannen

Ballemannen

Skrevet
Skrevet

Det er ikke publisert på forsiden til Washington Post, så da teller det vel ikke som pålitelig kilde(?) Men den første mailen var en kar som sendte spørsmål til Steven Jones på privat initiativ. Den lange disputten var en forlengelse av radioprogrammet "Her og Nå" på Nrk P1 20.mai 2009. Noen linket til en mp3 fil tidligere i denne tråden. Ola Nilsen ved UiO virket interessert i artikkelen og etterlyste tilleggsinformasjon fra forfatterne.

 

Transcript fra "Her og Nå" og Nilsen's uttallelser:

«Artikkelen den kan ved første øyekast virke som en seriøs, flott, fin vitenskapelig artikkel, men når man ser litt på hvordan de trekker slutningene så har nok det gått litt fort i svingene og er nok antagelig litt mer påvikret av hva de ønsker å få ut av artikkelen selv.»

 

(Reporter: «Ola Nilsen, som er nanoforsker ved Universitetet i Oslo, tror likevel at det kan være nanotermitt forskerne har funnet.)

 

«De har vel egentlig bevist at de har fått noe som i prinsippet er potent, men om dette er et eksplosiv laget med vilje, det vil jeg ikke helt gå god for.»

 

(Reporter: «Hvorfor ikke det?»)

 

«Fordi, i prinsippet så kan dette være så veldig mye annet rart. Du har mange ting som da kan brenne og gi en veldig ekstrem reaksjon rundt deg, selv om du egentlig ikke tenker over det.»

 

(Reporter: «Nilsen har nemlig en egen teori om hva forskerne har funnet.»)

 

«Mitt første inntrykk er sånn, en ting som de da prøver å utelukke, det er maling. Det ser ut som maling. Det, holdt på å si, nesten lukter som maling også. Og det de beskriver av pigmenter, altså det de finner inni her sånn, det er også ting man faktisk kan finne i maling. Man kan finne alle bestanddelene som består her sånn i en maling, så jeg vil ikke si de har utelukket det godt nok.»

 

Du trenger ikke svare så mye mer på dette du Leviath, hvis du ikke er forsker selv vel å merke. Men vi kan jo vente på at Nilsen vil komme med et svar til Jones igjen, eller om han er fornøyd med redegjørelsen han allerede har fått. Jeg regner med at han venter til XRD og TEM analysene er klare, siden det virket som han var spesielt interessert i disse.

Lenke til kommentar
Ballemannen

Ballemannen

Skrevet
Skrevet

29 Engineers: Only Explosives Can Explain 9/11 World Trade Center Destruction

 

Richard Gage og hans Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth publiserte i forgårs en liten blekke der 29 av deres bygningsingeniører med spesifikk kompetanse på høyhus som WTC-komplekset uttaler seg om saken:

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11.

Lenke til kommentar
Shruggie

Shruggie

Skrevet
Skrevet

Fordi jeg ikke er kjemiker. Jeg vet ikke opp og ned på en forskningsrapport, men jeg vet at hans rapport har null kredibilitet fordi folk jeg stoler på sier det. I motsetning til mange andre her gidder jeg ikke uttale meg på noe jeg ikke har grunnlag for å uttale meg om.

Lenke til kommentar
Gjest
Dette emnet er stengt for flere svar.
Gå til emneliste
×
×
  • Opprett ny...