In another thread, Jay Howard brought up the 2009 Harrit et al "nanothermite" paper (Harrit NH et al: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31) in several posts, which I considered off-topic there.
Someone suggested a dedicated debate thread between Jay Howard and myself, which Jay indicated he'd be "all for".
So this is the "dedicated thread". I suggest that we try to focus quite strictly on the Harrit paper, augmented by additional studies done on red-gray chips, and I would kindly ask you all to reign in your fingers and let Jay and me have the floor. Perhaps, of you want to throw in your opinions and arguments, you try to do so in one of the existing threads about the topic.
I realize that I can't demand and enforce such restraint, and won't ask you again after this opening post.
I now invite Jay Howard to open the debate. Perhaps by repeating some of the claims he made in the other thread. I suggest we first try to find where we have common ground. Some things I agree with right out of the box:
The latter two I would not agree with without qualifications:
a) I don't see any data that indicates elemental Fe has been searched for, or that none was found. So I tend to disagree with this
b) The quantification of EDX-data is tricky. I'd agree to some reduced iron oxide (FeO or Fe3O4 instead of Fe2O3), and the possibility of traces of elemental Fe. The bigger problem however is that Harrit et al have failed to quantify the amount of reduced Fe after reaction. Basically, the bulk of Fe should be elemental. Claim is not made out.
Someone suggested a dedicated debate thread between Jay Howard and myself, which Jay indicated he'd be "all for".
So this is the "dedicated thread". I suggest that we try to focus quite strictly on the Harrit paper, augmented by additional studies done on red-gray chips, and I would kindly ask you all to reign in your fingers and let Jay and me have the floor. Perhaps, of you want to throw in your opinions and arguments, you try to do so in one of the existing threads about the topic.
I realize that I can't demand and enforce such restraint, and won't ask you again after this opening post.
I now invite Jay Howard to open the debate. Perhaps by repeating some of the claims he made in the other thread. I suggest we first try to find where we have common ground. Some things I agree with right out of the box:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay howard (Post 10501059) Here is a list of facts that are not in dispute (as far as I know):
|
- Red-gray chips found in WTC dust - AGREED
- Red portion composed of relatively uniform 100 nm iron oxide particles - AGREED
- Ignition occurs at about 430C - AGREED
- No ELEMENTAL IRON in red-gray chips BEFORE IGNITION - UNPROVEN
- Elemental iron found AFTER IGNITION - AMBIGUOUS
The latter two I would not agree with without qualifications:
a) I don't see any data that indicates elemental Fe has been searched for, or that none was found. So I tend to disagree with this
b) The quantification of EDX-data is tricky. I'd agree to some reduced iron oxide (FeO or Fe3O4 instead of Fe2O3), and the possibility of traces of elemental Fe. The bigger problem however is that Harrit et al have failed to quantify the amount of reduced Fe after reaction. Basically, the bulk of Fe should be elemental. Claim is not made out.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1G2i1o1
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire