Saturday, May 10, 2014

NMSR´s Dave Thomas Concedes Errors: The Iron Sphere Evidence

The importance of the iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust is slowly, but surely, becoming apparent to even the most ardent "debunkers". To put it another way, as a recent article noted: "The JREF 9/11 forum is in a bit of a crisis these days, as the old excuses for the iron spheres found in the WTC dust have become increasingly transparent and ineffective as the years have gone by."

Even Dave Thomas has posted an update on stating that:
Ziggi Zugam is Really, Really Upset with Dave Thomas!
While it's entirely possible that some of my initial statements regarding formation of iron-rich microspheres with thermite may need to be revisited, I still contend that the presence of such spheres in WTC dust in no way confirms "thermite."
Please check out these vigorous rebuttals by Ziggi Zugam - if anyone is really bothered by his accusations, drop me a line.
While the DSC of thermite I cited is indeed hotter (at over 800 deg. C) than some reported formulations of nano-thermite (over 500 deg. C), it is useful to remember that the supposed "ignition temperature" in Harrit et. al.'s DSC readings were much less than the "nanothermite" scans!
Meanwhile, let's not forget about the elephant in the room - the Millette study showed NEGLIGIBLE ALUMINUM! And that means NO Thermite!!
Dave Thomas´s most important discovery is that the iron-rich spheres discovered in the WTC dust are indeed rich in iron, not iron-oxide, and that the same is true for the spheres that Dr. Harrit´s red/gray chips form when ignited at only 430C. Mr. Thomas has also realized that previous efforts to debunk this evidence have been invalid, even though he still believes this issue has not been conclusively resolved.

Regarding Mr. Thomas´s comments:

1. The formation of spheres rich in elemental iron confirm Dr. Harrit´s "active thermitic material" hypothesis, so if you want to debunk the paper you have to address and refute this evidence.

2. The fact that the "red/gray chips" form the iron-rich spheres observed in the dust means they are one confirmed source for those spheres.

3. The low 430C ignition temperature of the chips has never been a valid refutation against the nano-thermite hypothesis. The ability to tailor the characteristics of "super-thermite" materials via the manipulation of the mixture, morphology, and the sizes of the ingredients was made clear by the cited references in the Harrit et al. report. I recently posted an article about a paper on a nano-thermite that ignites at 410C in air:

4. The Millette study has been criticized by us and even some of Harrit´s co-authors, as I and Talboo summed up in our fundraising essay for Mark Basile, so how about informing NMSR readers about some of those points? We have questioned whether or not Dr. Millette actually studied the same chips, and that alone puts those claims about "negligible aluminum" in doubt. The main evidence presented by the NMSR website is Millette´s FTIR, but EVEN IF Millette is right about lack of aluminum in the chips HE STUDIED, why does his FTIR data not match Kevin Ryan´s FTIR data for Harrit´s chips? Is this consistent with both parties studying the same material?

5. Millette´s report does not actually address or refute Dr. Harrit´s data revealing that the chips he studied do have aluminum - there is no response to figure 17. Is this why Dr. Millette refused to replicate the ignition tests and address the iron sphere evidence? Why do Harrit´s chips work if there is not enough aluminum?

Talking about elephants in the room: Why has Dr. Millette not yet published his study in a reviewed journal? And why is Dave Thomas "The Skeptic" still promoting a report that has remained unpublished for more than two years?