Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Osama Confession Video [View all]William Seger
(11,047 posts)... or can't comprehend what they say. I gave you a link to a report by someone who tested samples received from Harrit and was unable to duplicate the results reported in the paper. He is a materials scientist, so you can't claim he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he is a "truther" so you can't claim that he's a biased debunker.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html
You say I can't back up a "gawd damned thing," completely oblivious to the fact that Manieri's report substantiates virtually everything I claimed. To wit:
I claimed that the paper did not do the type of testing that would have conclusively proved the presence of elemental aluminum. Speaking of the MEK testing that the report uses to infer elemental aluminum, Manieri says:
I claimed that the paper also did not do the testing that would be necessary to conclusively demonstrate a thermitic reaction, and that it in fact ignored the contradictory evidence of the low ignition temperature and high energy density. Manieri says:
- Thermal DSC analysis conducted in air -
The authors analyze the behavior of the samples when heated in air in a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The result is that all the samples begin to burn in the temperature range between 415 and 435°C. In some cases, the heat generated by the exothermic reaction reaches 7.5 kJ/g. After combustion, spheroidal particles are found in the porous burned residues. Some of these particles are rich in iron and other are rich in silicon (which is transparent and translucent). These particles indicate that high temperatures were reached as a result of an unspecified chemical reaction (which begins at 430°C!). According to the authors, this reaction can only be thermitic. In particular, therefore, the authors claim (page 22 of the paper) that a highly exothermic reaction, such as to generate temperatures of approximately 1400°C, needed to melt iron and iron oxide, was triggered at only 430°C. What this thermitic reaction that is triggered at 430°C might be is not known, since the ignition temperature of commercial thermite is higher than 900°C. The authors seem to have failed to consider that the matrix of the red layer is highly abundant in carbon and that carbon has a lower heating value (or net calorific value) of 34.03 kJ/g, whereas thermite releases 3.9 kJ/g in combustion. In other words, one gram of carbon releases, in combustion at constant pressure, more than eight times the energy released by one gram of thermite. Since the measurement was performed in air (why? Is this another rather embarrassing error in methodology, after the MEK blunder?), one cannot exclude the combustion of carbon, which is instead highly probable. In order to obtain reliable results, since thermite does not require an oxidizer from the external environment, the DSC measurement should have been conducted in an inert gas environment (with nitrogen or argon).
I claimed that the paper's paint testing was absurdly inadequate, and in another post gave you a link to Jones' email saying they tested paint from the BYU stadium rather than paint similar to that used in the WTC. Manieri writes:
These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples.
In short, I claimed that the paper's conclusion are not supported by the paper's own data, and this materials scientist says:
Let's recap: You say I "can't back up a gawd damned thing" I claim about that paper and demand links, even though I had already given you a link that does indeed back up my claims. In a deleted post below, you called me a "lying sack of crap," yet you have the unmitigated gall to say this:
> Lucky for me I don't put myself in indefensible positions.
No, what's "lucky" for you is that you apparently can't even comprehend the "position" you've put yourself in. What's "lucky" for me is that I stopped taking you seriously after your second post on this thread, and now I'm just enjoying the humor value.
Wanna play again? Your move.