A reputable chemist would have conducted experiments to disprove the thermite hypothesis, as proper scientific methodology requires. Harrit et al. did not test their samples for elemental aluminum; they did not test to see if the samples would burn in an inert atmosphere (without oxygen); they did not test for the production of aluminum oxide; they studiously avoided any test that would disprove thermite. If any of those those tests disproved thermite, then no further testing would have been necessary.
Instead, Harrit et al. (and now Basil) only attempted to find tests that they could use to claim that the chips were some kind of thermite. In the end, their own data showed that the chips neither looked like nor behaved like any known form of thermite, so they "concluded" that it must be some unknown form of thermite, based only on extremely dubious inferences rather than proper tests.
As they admit in the paper, the chips look like paint chips, but what would a comparative analysis show? Who knows, from that paper anyway, since they didn't even bother to find out what kind of rust-proofing paint was used on the WTC towers. Instead, they did superficial and totally irrelevant testing on some paint Steven Jones scraped off the BYU stadium bleachers. Are the iron microspheres in the dust really a "signature" of thermite? Who knows, since they don't even acknowledge the myriad ways that such spheres can be produced, much less do any comparative analysis with any of them.
It isn't just the unfounded conclusions that would prevent their paper from ever being published in a real peer-reviewed scientific journal; it's the lack of proper hypothesis testing required by the scientific method, which isn't well hidden by wrapping the report in technical-sounding jargon.
On the other hand, here is what a reputable (and experienced) chemist found:
In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental
spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust
samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray
side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si,
and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared
absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical
and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of
crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates
that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental
aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the
analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing,
thin sectioning or following MEK treatment. (Emphasis added.)
No elemental aluminum means no thermitic reaction is possible. Period. Find a reputable chemist who says otherwise, and we'll see how well his reputation holds up. The finding that the chips are a match for the rust-proofing paint actually used on the WTC floor joists wouldn't stop "truthers" from claiming, "So what, it still could be thermitic." But the lack of elemental aluminum settles that question conclusively. Some parts of "trutherville" have caught on to that and have abandoned the "thermite chips" nonsense; others probably never will, but who cares.
>
Again Seger I think we'll go with a reputable chemist rather than some anonymous internet poster!
No, you won't. You'll ignore this study just as you ignore established experts in all other fields if they don't tell you what you want to hear. Instead, you'll support hucksters and frauds who clearly don't know what they're talking about, and then call anyone who challenges them an "anti-truther."
If what we've seen on this board in recent years is any indication of the current state of the "Truth Movement," wildbill -- and I believe it is -- then it's past time to find a new hobby.
= new reply since forum marked as read