Friday, March 14, 2014

Matching Peaks Part 2: Dave Thomas

Article updated on March 15, 2014.

On February 9, 2014 Chris Mohr says on the JREF 9/11 forum that:
"We all know the DSC images comparing and superimposing known nanothermite to the red-grey chips, how they are off by over 100 degrees C and off by a factor of two to five re energy release."
The above quote and the argument Rev. Mohr presents in it has already been refuted, in Part 1 of this article. That article addresses the erroneous notion that Harrit´s nano-thermite cannot be nano-thermite because it ignites at a lower temperature than one known variant of a nano-thermite, and releases more energy. This article addresses a much dumber variation of the debunked "the peaks don´t match" argument, presented by CSI´s Dave Thomas on February 9, 2014 on the JREF forum. Mr. Thomas responds to Chris Mohr with the following comment:
"Chris, have you seen this DSC of thermite itself on my Thermite page?"
When one inspects the Dave Thomas thermite link he refers to above, it leads to the (nano-thermite) DSC graph that Rev. Mohr  previously referred to, and the following statement by Dave Thomas which is accompanied on his website by a DSC graph for std. thermite (not nano-thermite). Mr. Thomas claims in his statement that Harrit´s material is not nano-thermite because Harrit´s DSC graph does not match std. thermite:
"Whatever Harrit and Jones thought they were measuring, it is clearly not thermite! ...note how the peak of the "Active Thermitic Material" reaction is about 420 o Centigrade... 
In contrast, here's the exact same type of measurement - with a differential scanning calorimeter - on real thermite...The peaks at 650 o C are from the aluminum melting (endothermic). The exothermic ("thermitic") reaction occurs at 850 o C to 950 o C, at least 400 o C higher than the supposed "thermite" measured by Harrit and Jones."
As I review in Part 1, the above argument is non-sense because nano-thermite/super-thermite materials have completely different characteristics than traditional thermite! And Mr. Thomas should of course notice that neither sample of nano-thermite in Harrit´s paper matches the std. thermite! For crying out loud, when Chris Mohr makes the argument that figure 29 in Harrit´s paper does not match nano-thermite, he does so because Harrit´s sample ignites at about 430C while the compared sample ignites at about 530C. 

Mohr´s argument is that Harrit´s material cannot be a nano-thermite material because it does not ignite at 530C like that particular sample of nano-thermite from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - Mohr is erroneously assuming that all types of nano-thermite must ignite at 530C! 

Obviously 430C does not equal 530C, and neither equals 850C to 950C! But, as anyone who has read and understood Harrit´s paper knows, one advantage of nano-thermite formulations is that it is possible to achieve much lower ignition temperatures; for example, the tinier the nano-scale ingredients, the lower the ignition temperature.

In order to make Dave Thomas realize how incredibly moronic his comment is, someone should ask him to write a letter to the scientists at the LLNL and attempt to tell them that their sample cannot be a thermite because it ignites at 530C instead of 850C to 950C! Anyone want to volunteer to co-sign that letter with Dave Thomas?

Readers unfamiliar with CSI´s Dave Thomas and the flatulent JREF forum may find it odd that Mr. Thomas is so confused about such a simple thing, despite having spent nearly five years debating Harrit´s paper. It may also surprise them that Mr. Thomas can display such blatant ignorance on the forum without a peep from any of his fellow "debunkers," but the dishonesty and incompetence of Mr. Thomas and his friends is actually why the best known proponent of the official 9/11 narrative left the forum in disgust in 2007.