Now try listening for a minute ####wit.
1. The material is clearly nano-engineered with extremely small aluminium platelets intimately mixed with iron oxide held together within a solgel matrix with carbon and silicon, in a consistent arrangement and size.
ANY well mixed paint that contains chemically precipitated ferric oxide is going to have the apperance of being a nanoengineered composite of some kind.
2. BSE images show the clear profile of the elements in the red-chip: -
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/docs/soaked_XEDSmaps_s.png
Notice the presence of aluminium relative to oxygen too.
Yes, i've linked to this very image previously, or were you too busy with the whole Shill rehtoric to notice?
It clearly shows that there is almost nowhere on the chip where Silicon occurs without Aluminium, and it clearly shows that there is nowhere on the chip where aluminium occurs without oxygen.
Harrit himself implicitly aknowledges the second point when he dismisses the fact that aluminium does not occur without oxygen as being the ever present layer of alumina that aluminium always have.
If you think you've proven that the Aluminium exists anywhere without Oxygen you're contradicting your own ####ing source!
3. I have demonstrated clearly that X-EDS profiles of the red-chip have been significantly different depending on cross-sectional focus, focus on the surface (designed to pick up contaminants), and post-MEK separation which allowed more accurate analysis of individual elements independent of the binding matrix. Tests have been done, and by conventional methods of identification through X-EDS (remember, the same methods that I posted in the criminal forensics of identifying thermite) they found aluminium exceeding oxygen 3:1.
The link you posted was devoid of actual details.
It gave no exampels of reference spectra, made no mention of relative peak heights, and doesn't ptove what you're claiming it does.
You have demonstrated one thing and one thing only - that you're ignorant of the short comings of EDS spectra, and the effects that sample geometry and morphology can have on peak height due to the xrays being absorbed by the sample being analyzed.
4.Your idea that the properietary element of the primer paint may have changed, is a fair point. However, the presence of Zinc is clearly one of the main components and it barely registers above the baseline noise in the X-EDS tests on the red-chips. Another problem is that chromate barely registers above the baseline too.
This is simply wrong.
The most dominant elements are Carbon and Oxygen, followed by Iron and Silicon, and then maybe Zinc.
5. You continue to talk about hydrocarbon peaks and ignore the fact that tests have been done on the WTC paint where it did not react violently - unlike the red-chips which reacted violently at below 500C and produced molten iron spheres. This is lower than conventional thermite. Now, you can argue all you want but paint compositions are NOT thermitic and are designed expressly to be chemically stable under fire and heat.
I've already addressed this point you ####### #####.
First off, i'm not the one making claims about Thermitic paints.
YOU ARE.
I have made
NO SUCH CLAIM.
I've challeneged you to link to me making this claim before, and you haven't because you can't.
The point that you have overlooked and dismissed completely is the fact that the paint that was heated and lacked the properties you described was on steel that
hadn't already been exposed to fire.
The reason this is important, seeing as how you obviously don't understand it, is that as the paint peels, in places scales of iron oxide adhere to the paint. This Iron Oxide can act as an Oxidant, as it does in the friggin thermite , to react with the carbon and cause ignition. A reaction that otherwise
wouldn't happen in the paint because there isn't enough iron oxide in the frigging pigment to initiate this reaction.
Do you understand yet the difference, or what I'm saying?
Heating steel that has not been exposed to a fire, or previously heated, and has no peeled paint with iron oxide scales, to heating a small chip of paint that has an equivalent mass of iron oxide scale on it?
Have you figured out yet that should the situation arise where structural steel is exposed to a fire for a second time that the fact that the chips that harrit examined ignited doesn't mean the whole dam building is going to go up in flames? It simply implies that there might be a few localized 'ignitions', but the paint as a whole will fail to ignite.
I wish you would drop this bullshit about it being primer paint. You have no evidence to back up your assertions, and you scoff at these scientists who have actually tested the material to see if they are thermitic. Your continuing obfuscations and deceptions are doing damage to good science and the truth movement, and making newcomers assume that the basic findings are contested. In reality, they are only contested by people who have no scientific argument to stand on.
You're the one lacking evidence.
You have yet to even produce ONE SINGLE reference spectrum that resembles ANY of the spectra that Harrit collected.
Tell me something, if the material is genuinely thermitic, why didn't Harrit heat it in an inert atmosphere?
If it's geuinely Thermite, why can't you produce a single EDS that confirms this?
If it genuinely has plates of Aluminium in it, why didn't it react with the MEK?
The list goes on and on and on.
The
ONLY person guilty of obfuscation, deception, and damaging basic science is you.
Harrit's paper
FAILS to display good basic science, and good basic scientific experimental design, and fails to prove what he claims it does.
Why don't you give this nanothermite bullshit up? It's clearly dead in the water.