WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[Oystein]

Yes.

And while Tillotson knew exactly what he put in his DSC - he describes precisely how he synthesized it, and what it contains (Fe2O3, Al, 10% organic matrix), Farrer forgot to tell us what he put in his DSC. Or do you know what it was? Can you tell me if there was an organic matrix in his stuff, and how many % by weight of the sample that was? Did he tell you privately if he found any Al or Fe or Zn or Mg or kaolin or hematite or lead or copper or barium in his chips before he incinerated them? Because he sure didn't mention any of that in the paper!

So:
- Tillotson DSCed well-desctribed nanothermite.
- Farrer DSCed - something, we don't know what.
Their results were very different from each other.
What the results prove is
1. Farrers stuff was not similar at all to Tillotson's stuff
2. Farrers stuff is mostly, if not entirely, not thermite.



Millette now showed that one kind of chip - the kind Harrit e.al. talked about in the first third of their paper ("a-d") contain no thermite, because there is absolutely no aluminium in them (and also no al2o3, by the way, because all the Al is in the silicate). So why, pray tell, should he do another, costly test, that also would only show that organic stuff burns?

one kind of chip that may not be the same material.
The same material as WHAT other material, Senemut? I have asked you several times now to tell us precisely which material Farrer tested in the DSC.

The same material as chips (a)-(d) which have kaolin and hematite but no Mg, no Zn, no Pb, no Cu, no Ti, no Ba?
The same material as the MEK-soaked chip which has ZN and Mg and Al not bound to Si - i.e. no kaolin?
The same material as the one wose residue in Fig. 25 shows titanium, but no Zn and no Mg and that has too much Si relative to Al to have Si only as kaolin?
The same material as the chips they mention on page 28 which have barium or copper, which none of the other chips have that we talked about so far?
The same material as the multilayered chip in Fig. 31 that contains lead?
The same material as the one they show in Fig. 32 where the gray layer contains no Fe?


Please, Senemut, which of these six or seven different materials did Farrer put in the DSC?

let me spell this out to you. from what i bolded above. farrer and the bentham paper ran dsc's and found similar spikes corresponding to their material. and tillotson ran a dsc and found a spike that corresponded to his material. now if by chance one found some of material laying around from an unknown orgin around a ran a dsc on it and the spike was similar to tillotson's then one could conclude that they are similar (similar makeup of material). and when jones and crew find some material and around a dsc on their stuff, it has a corresponding spike. so we can say that the material they tested is similar in makeup b/c it has a similar spike. regardless if its thermitic or not.
So are the two spikes in Fig 29 similar, or are they different? Please discuss, so we know why you come to your conclusion!

Please do not forget to mention that Tillotson's material is endotherm all the way up to 320°C, while Farrer's material is never endotherm
Please do not forget to mention that Tillotson's material is endotherm above 560°C, while Farrer's material stays exotherm all the to 700°C?

So please explain if two materials are the same, or different, if they have different ignition points, and one is exotherm at a wide range of temperatures at which another material is endotherm!

Please explain quickly in your own words the difference between exotherm and endotherm!

now bring in millette's chips. if he did a dsc on them and see if the corresponding spike was similar, then we can say that it is similar to jones'. the paper says he ashed the chips of interest so i dont know if that was all the chips he found or not. so maybe we will never know if he ashed them all!! how convenient if that is the case!
Is that so?

Ok, Senemut, I must break this to you: If two DSC traces have very roughly the same shape, but peak at different temperatures and different peak heights, and one is endotherm at a wide temp range at which the other is exotherm, then, all superficial similarity ("both have a peak") notwithstanding, these materials are different.

Farrer has proven one thing, and one thing only: That he found something, something that is totally unknown and undescribed otherwise, is not thermite. Cannot possibly be thermite.

But since we don't know what it is, it is pointless and stupid to ask to compare it with something else.

You are currently putting your utter stupidity viz. DSC measurement on public display. It is really a disgrace. But don't worry, you got company: Farrer, Harrit and Jones are also very stupid in that regard.

[twinstead]

This thread frightens and confuses me. Granted, most of it is a little above my head, but it just seems to me that truthers--and Senenmut especially--are hand waving this report away so hard that they are in danger of actually taking flight.

[Oystein]

link that vid of you burning that paint you made and we can see some SLOW burning

I promise I'll ask Ivan to post that vid right after you have answered a few easy question:


Can you please list everything you know about the four chips that Farrer tested in the DSC, resulting in Fig. 19?
Do you realize that the DSC graphs in Fig 19 indicate that tiny amounts of chips material (micrograms) took several minutes to burn, and this is a VERY SLOW reaction rate and very low power density? The answer to this question is short: It's either "yes", or "no", or "sorry Oystein, I am too dumb and don't understand the question"
Do you realize that Harrit e.al. describe at leat six different materials in their bentham paper? A yes or no will do.
If you answered "no" to the previous question, please give us the minimum number of different kinds of materials that you see described in Harrit e.al.' paper, and tell us which ones you can discern!
Do you realize that Millette has found several differernt kinds of materials, judging from the data in his interim report? Yes or no will do
Do you realize that the DSC-graphs of the Tillotson sample and the MacKinlay 1 sample shown in Fig 29 indicate that both materials have fundamentally different properties? Yes or no will do
Are you aware that Tillotson's nanothermite is about 90% actual thermite (fe2o3 and al), whereas Harrit's samples, as far as we have XEDS spectra, all are mainly organic, with al and fe making up a small percentage of the stuff? Yes or no will do
Do you realize that the rough shape of the DSC trace of a composite material of unknown composition is not indicative of what the material is?


If you can't answer these questions, then you should not discuss these matters.
If you can answer them but refuse, we know that you are trolling.

[alienentity]

This thread frightens and confuses me. Granted, most of it is a little above my head, but it just seems to me that truthers--and Senenmut especially--are hand waving this report away so hard that they are in danger of actually taking flight.

:D

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/1935flysuit.jpg

[Oystein]

variation on a common theme. from spot to spot on the chips vary slightly but when heated in a dsc they react at about 430C
Is it a slight variation from chip to chip if one chip has all its Al bound to Si in kaolin, and another chip has no kaolin at all?

Is it a slight variation if one chip contains significant Mg and and Zn but no Ti, while another contains significant Ti but no Mg or Zn?

Senemut, you MUST answer this:

Do you realize that Harrit's chips are not all the same, that some are very different from each other? Yes or No?

which goes back to the variation of ingredients but when placed in a dsc at about 430 they react and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres.
You keep saying this, but - how do you know?
Can you please point out which of the four chips that gave rise to Fig. 19 produced which kind of sphere in the residue? Be specific, and make reference to a page number or figure number in Harrit e.al.!

but the material is consistant in that it reacts at about 430C and produces the corresponding dsc spike
Which material, Senemut? There are at least six to chose from! The kaolin-type (a-d) that Millette also focussed on when he proved that they don't contain any elemental Al whatsoever? Or the Mg- and Zn-rich chips Jones foolishly bathed in MEK? Or some other kind?

along with the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
Where is the aluminium in these chips?

now if millette dosent understand this, he is either ignorant of the fact or intentionally not producing these results by not testing his red gray chips in a dsc.
You continue to prove to all the world that you are stupid wrt DSC, very very stupid. Millette is not stupid. Millette is a million times smarter than you are wrt DSC. That's why he spared us the depressingly stupid things that Farrer did, when Farrer through something in the DSC that he forgot to characterize beforehand. Well, I can forgive Farrer, he was a bloody stupid inexperienced greenhorn with the DSC. He was simply too stuopid to start with, and too stupid to ask someone more intelligent than he is why what he did was so incredibly stupid. But you, Senemut, don't have that excuse. At some point you should show signs that you are slowly learning.

Please understand:

Farrer proved his material is not thermite of any kind
Farrer has no idea which material he put in the DSC
Because Farrer forgot to figure out and tell us what he put in the DSC, it is totally useless to waste time and money on a DSC test to compare something to Farrer's unknown stuff, especially since farrer proved that his something wasn't thermite.
We know already that Millette's chips are not thermite. It would cost time and money to repeat Farrer's stupidity, but if we did it, it too would only prove the chips are not thermite, just as Farrer proved his chips are not thermite


he has to show that his material is in fact the material jones has.
I agree with that. The problem is that Jones and Harrit and Farrer totally forgot in their limitless stupidity that their materials are all the same. In fact, they showed that they had at least six or seven different materials. They are aall just too very stupid to notice even three years later.

Are you, too, this incredibly stupid, Senemut? Or can YOU see that there are several different kinds of chips in Jones's dust?

If you don't see that, then yes, you ARE stupid.

But if you see that, then please tell us which chips of Jones's Millette should compare his chips too? Which kind did dumbhead Farrer put in his DSC? (I told you the answer already: Farrer forgot to look which kind he put in the DSC, or forgot to tell us. That's why the entire section about DSC in "Active Thermitic Matrerial" is stupid and devoid of any usefulness)

it dosent matter if its thermitic or not. he has to show that his material is the same as jones' in that when placed in a dsc it produces a spike at about 430C.
No he dosn't. Because Jones has no clue what material dumbhead Farrer burned. Farrer forgot to look or forgot to tell. Jones should have said "get thee outta here, Farrer, I can't stand your stupid face!", but he didn't. I guess Jones is stupid then, too.

now if his produces iron and silicon microspheres will be the interesting part!
Ah there is another thing you don't know about DSC: With samples so small, temperature never exceeded 700°C, the max temperature to which the samples were heated. Whatever spheres they produced, they never saw a temperature above 700°C. And anyway, there wasn't a thermite reaction, because there wasn't thermite. Farrer proved it (he is just too stupid to understand DSC and interprete the data properly), and Millette proved it, too (Millette is smarter than Farrer, Jones, Harrit, Ryan, Gourley, Larsen, Farnsworth, Roberts, Senemut, Griscom and Basile combined when it comes to all methods professional forensic experts use when doing a forensic study of dust from a crime scene - that's why Millette is a professional forensic scientist who presents his stuff to peers at real professional conferences, whereas the stupid people above all do not know how to do DSC and send dumbhead Farrer, the wet-behind-the-ear beginner, to do tests with a methid he knows crap about).

he probably knows that if he places his "paint" in the dsc, then it will not show a similar spike.
If it doesn't, then it would be because Farrer, the stupid know-nothing, burned the wrong stuff in the DSC.
But why do you assert without evidence that the result would be different?

The paint is epoxy-based. Epoxy is an organic polimer, organized in large molecules. If you heat it, it will first degrade (split into smaller molecules without absorbing oxygen) slowly and slightly exothermically beyond 200 or 250°C, before starting to burn with atmospheric oxygene at maybe 380°C. Incidentally, that is exactly what Farrers chips did: They are all exotherm above roughly 200°C, and they start burning in earnest somewhere between 370 and 420°C. Since pretty much all organic substances have an energy density that is much higher than that of termite, these samples all DO show energy densities above that of real nanothermite. Farrer of course, being the stupid know-nothing that he is, forgot to separate the "highly energetic" red layer from the inert gray layer and has to admit that his measured energy densities are so different from one another because of his stupid omission. If he had removed the inert layer, all chips would have released more than 7.5 kJ/g. Farrer also was stupid when he forgot to ask Tillotson if he should do the DSC test under air, or under an inert gas. Had he asked, then he would have known that Tillotson did his test under inert nitrogen. Unfortunately, Farrer didn't ask, and made the stupid decision to run his tests under air. Stupid, really. Later he lied and claimed he had called Tillotson. Well, Harrit and Jones, and Ryan and Senemut and all the others, made the stupid decision to believe liar Farrer, when instead they should have realized that Tillotson would not be so stupid as Farrer to do their test under air when they knew that 10% of their nanothermite preparation was organic residue. Jones and Harrit are even to stupid to notice that their chips are all mostly organic and that burninng them under air only proves that epoxy or linseed oil can burn. D'uh.

if it is a different material then he confirmed what he has, not what jones has.
That's because Jones was to stupid to confirm what he had. Different kinds of paint, and possibly othger stuff that is not thermite.
You can't blame the stupidity of Jones, Harrit, Farrer on Millette.

millette's chemistry? even if it is a different material?
Different from WHAT material, Senemut? I asked you too many times, you need to answer this sometime. Remember Jones had at least six or seven DIFFERENT materials in his study? Remember that, Senemut?

its not a moot point. its the most important point IMO. different materials have different dsc spikes. i know your smarter than that.
Yes. Just like Farrer's unknown non-thermite has a different spike than Tillotson's thermite.
Yes, alienentity is smarter than "that", with "that" being the combined DSC understanding of Farrer, Jones, Harrit, Ryan, Farnsworth, Legge, Larsen, Gourley, Basile, Griscom and Senemut. All these men understand nothing about DSC.

[Oystein]

And why not testing Jones' chips in FTIR or XRD? It would be more conclusive, as, despite of showing whether they are or not the same kind of chips, it would show what Jones' chips actually are.

Millette did TEM on his chips, and published the results.


Farrer did TEM on Jones's chips more than 2 years ago. Jones and Harrit have said so, but none of them ever published the results.

Maybe Senemut would like to ask Harrit, Jones, Farrer to publish the TEM data they already have, and also do some FTIR and XRD?

Maybe Senemut is unaware of the fact that Ryan, Jones, Harrit are not going to give their dust to a competent lab?

[ozeco41]

This thread frightens and confuses me. Granted, most of it is a little above my head, but it just seems to me that truthers--and Senenmut especially--are hand waving this report away so hard that they are in danger of actually taking flight.

Just hang on to reality and you will be OK. The reality is no CD at WTC on 9/11.

Remember that this whole exercise is a derail red herring. The real issue is that the truthers want to prove demolition. They claim that thermXte was used in CD - or to be pedantically accurate they claim that:
A) ThermXte could have been used in CD; AND
B) It is our responsibility as debunkers to prove that thermXte wasn't used in CD.

(It is more generic than that - truthers/trolls hold the position that it is our responsibility to disprove each and every silly claim they make. And people go along with that path chosen by the truther/trolls. :eusa_doh: Remember - who makes the claim has burden of proof. And not the troll/truthers version which is "Whatever claim I make it is up to the debunkers to disprove." That is a mix of "reverse burden of proof" AND "prove a negative". )

Now the simple fact is that there was no CD - the evidence sufficient to satisfy any honest intelligent person who is not a scientist. To satisfy the scientists we need to play word games that it is "almost certain no CD and no-one has proved otherwise." Well beggar the scientific pedantries --- there was no CD.

And the truthers and more particularly the trolls want us debating on ground that they have chosen so they can keep discussion going round in circles. The objective is the trolls objective. The ground for debate is the ground chosen by the trolls to suit their purpose. And we are silly enough to play their games.

It is even sillier because, not satisfied with either "there is no thermxte" OR "there was no CD", the trolls have taken two paths. In this thread they are disagreeing with the methods of measurement. If they get their way we will next be discussing the credibility of the firms who make all this esoteric measurement gear ... or something equally as irrelevant like the colour of the box the machine was delivered in.

(And, BTW, we have another thread discussing troll chosen irrelevancies called "iron microspheres".)

Both sidelines are equally a waste of time to this thread from the perspective of 9/11 conspiracies - there was no CD and that is the firm bit of reality to hang onto.)

If the trolls/truthers ever decide to argue "CD or no CD?" I may join in. But I won't go down their sidetracks.

and there is no need to be "frightened" or "confused" by the detailed stuff in this thread. Remember -- it is only an excuse to avoid discussing CD and there was no CD. ;)

[Senenmut]

How are Millette's chips different? Please explain this referring to both papers with page numbers.
SEM and EDX are similar but will it react around 430C in a DSC and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres. that is the clincher!! he still could of done many other tests before testing them in the dsc. then the last test could have been the climax...the dsc which he should have done.

If Harrit's chips react at different temperatures and with different outputs, then they are not the same, by definition. The DSC cannot tell you what the chips are made of, but that is precisely what you need to know.

check out this vid. you might have seen it already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

jones says the chip vary from chip to chip and even vary spot to spot on the chip. those variations are probably what causes that.


Millette answered the questions raised by Harrit et al. He does tell you what the chips are made of. You really ought to be thanking Dr Millette and criticizing Harrit et al. for the incomplete work they did.
he tells us what his chips are made of. if at the end of the paper he did a dsc and it produced similar results then that would hold more weight.

But that would require a level of critical thinking which I doubt you are capable of.
and to understand that one needs to do a dsc on millettes chips to prove they are similar to jones' is also critical thinking.

[Senenmut]

Good Lord.

It's painfully obvious Senenmut has No Idea what he is talking about. He has ignored 90% of the points directed at him, and just sat there going 'dsc dsc dsc' with absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about.

Tell you what Senenmut, why don't you raise $1000, or ask Gage to surrender 1% of his annual takings, and organise a DSC for yourself? I mean, it's not going to make any difference, you first need to understand Jones DSC test, but regardless, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and take this on yourself?

or maybe millette could be a BIGGER man than kevin ryan and donate some of his chips that have passed the SEM and EDX criteria!:)

[Senenmut]

:D

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/1935flysuit.jpg

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

[Oystein]

SEM and EDX are similar but will it react around 430C in a DSC and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres. that is the clincher!! he still could of done many other tests before testing them in the dsc. then the last test could have been the climax...the dsc which he should have done avoided as it's a stupid thing to do.
Fixed that for you ;) See my previous few posts with all the questions you are too incompetent to answer.


[QUOTE=Senenmut;8081477]check out this vid. you might have seen it already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

jones says the chip vary from chip to chip and even vary spot to spot on the chip. those variations are probably what causes that.
They vary because they are different materials. D'uh!


he tells us what his chips are made of. if at the end of the paper he did a dsc and it produced similar results then that would hold more weight have been a stupid thing to do.


and to understand that one needs to do a dsc on millettes chips to prove they are similar to jones' is also critical thinking really very very stupid because dumhead Farrer did the most incompetent job with the DSC.
Fixed that for you ;) See my previous few posts with all the questions you are too incompetent to answer.

[Oystein]

or maybe millette could be a BIGGER man than kevin ryan and donate some of his chips that have passed the SEM and EDX criteria!:)

Donate to whom? To the incompetent and imbecile liars that Farrer, Ryan, Harrit Jones are? Why???

[Oystein]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

You are running away from a lot of questions. If you would only answer them competenly and honestly, then you would already have admitted that the DSC tests by Farrer that Harrit published were really terribly incompetently done, they only show that something is not thermite, but no one knows just what the imbecile Farrer tested there, which makes the whole data totally, utterly entirely useless.

But apparently you can't answer any of the questions, which means you are either incompetent, or dishonest, or both.

[triforcharity]

The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!

:deadhorse

Thanks for the new Sig material!!

[BasqueArch]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.


1) Sunstealer and Oystein have repeatedly explained to you (and more) why Harrit et al’s blunder DSC test of two compounds cannot tell you what the properties of one compound are.

2) Their own DSC test shows that the Tillotson thermite sample does not match theirs.

3) Millette has conclusively proven with copious evidence that the red layer is paint and an out of Millette’s lab cost of $300 per DSC test would therefore be unnecessary, wasteful, and out of the $1,000 budget. But Harrit et al can separate the red layer and correctly repeat the DSC test to see how closely their paint chips match Tillotson’s sol-xero-gel superthermite. Or its morphology. They haven’t.

4) Harrit et al didn’t prove elemental aluminum was present, they assumed it was. They wished it was.
Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account
for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf (http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf)

Millette - Conclusions --- The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite -http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf)







Say …

Isn’t your sig quote a proven pus-filled bald faced lie?
Why yes it is.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=207647&highlight=colby (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=207647&highlight=colby)
Which has repeatedly been brought to your attention.

[Julio]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

Is that important determining that both chips are similar? I would say the important thing is to clearly identify what the chips actually are.

Millette used techniques which directly identify his. End of story.

Harrit et al just did not use any technique that allowed a direct identification of theirs, and relied on biased assumptions to indirectly determine their nature.

Now, who do you think should do some more tests?

[LSSBB]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

Here's another example of handwaving for you, in case you are unclear:

i bought the book Derailing Democracy a few weeks ago because people were asking about this quote. the quote is on page 13.
take it up with the author.

[cantonear1968]

Thank you to AlienEntity and Sunstealer for bringing clarity to the Millette study and especially to Oystein for explaining the incompetency of the Harrit et al. paper in a way that I had never read before. I thought Sunstealer had done an excellent job 3 years ago proving that Harrit/Jones' own data proved they had not found thermite, but Oystein's explanations of their shear bumbling and the false conclusions they derived from this data, even to a layman was quite enlightening.

Cheers, gentlemen!

[cantonear1968]

Senemut, it appears that you are attempting to set the criteria that a DSC test is the only way to compare materials without first establishing that this is the case. So please let me ask a direct question:

Are you stating that there is no other way to analyze and compare different materials other than a DSC test? Anticipating your response, are you saying this is the best way to compare different materials? Please explain why?

You seem like an educated person, so I am interested in your response.

[cantonear1968]

Just hang on to reality and you will be OK. The reality is no CD at WTC on 9/11.

Remember that this whole exercise is a derail red herring. The real issue is that the truthers want to prove demolition. They claim that thermXte was used in CD - or to be pedantically accurate they claim that:
A) ThermXte could have been used in CD; AND
B) It is our responsibility as debunkers to prove that thermXte wasn't used in CD.

(It is more generic than that - truthers/trolls hold the position that it is our responsibility to disprove each and every silly claim they make. And people go along with that path chosen by the truther/trolls. :eusa_doh: Remember - who makes the claim has burden of proof. And not the troll/truthers version which is "Whatever claim I make it is up to the debunkers to disprove." That is a mix of "reverse burden of proof" AND "prove a negative". )

Now the simple fact is that there was no CD - the evidence sufficient to satisfy any honest intelligent person who is not a scientist. To satisfy the scientists we need to play word games that it is "almost certain no CD and no-one has proved otherwise." Well beggar the scientific pedantries --- there was no CD.

And the truthers and more particularly the trolls want us debating on ground that they have chosen so they can keep discussion going round in circles. The objective is the trolls objective. The ground for debate is the ground chosen by the trolls to suit their purpose. And we are silly enough to play their games.

It is even sillier because, not satisfied with either "there is no thermxte" OR "there was no CD", the trolls have taken two paths. In this thread they are disagreeing with the methods of measurement. If they get their way we will next be discussing the credibility of the firms who make all this esoteric measurement gear ... or something equally as irrelevant like the colour of the box the machine was delivered in.

(And, BTW, we have another thread discussing troll chosen irrelevancies called "iron microspheres".)

Both sidelines are equally a waste of time to this thread from the perspective of 9/11 conspiracies - there was no CD and that is the firm bit of reality to hang onto.)

If the trolls/truthers ever decide to argue "CD or no CD?" I may join in. But I won't go down their sidetracks.

and there is no need to be "frightened" or "confused" by the detailed stuff in this thread. Remember -- it is only an excuse to avoid discussing CD and there was no CD. ;)

I completely agree with your reasoning, Ozeco; it is irrelevant to discuss why Dr. Millette did not do a DSC test because it is irrelevant if there was thermite in the dust because thermite wasn't used to CD the buildings because the buildings weren't CD'd!

You could uncover a credit card receipt of George Bush ordering a 100 bags of thermite off of Ebay and it still adds no more relevancy to the discussion surrounding the WTCs! Because the buildings weren't CD'd!

I stated as much on Oystein's Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas? thread. And while I admit to a certain amount of cynicism to the need for the Millette study, I have reversed my opinion and feel that it is important to stymie these claims as they come up before they take root. It does nothing to change the mind of truthers and it should not be for that reason these tests and debates are conducted. We see that Senemut has not once tried to discuss what was actually IN the Millette study but has focused on what was NOT in the Millette study. It is easier for them to pretend they have an argument against what does not exist as opposed to acknowledging the reality that eliminates their discussion!:D

Good point Ozeco. Everyone please remember: the WTCs were not CD'd because there is no evidence to suggest they were CD'd.

[Senenmut]

No, that is false. Not even close to 430ºC. About 530ºC in fact or roughly 100º higher. (Flat Earth analogy comes to mind again)

But I guess 'about' is being used in your logic to mean 'the same', just as 'near freefall' is 'the same as freefall' even if it is only 64% - ie, not near, not the same.

So, sure, if not being the same means 'the same', then you are correct. :rolleyes:
from the bentham paper:
3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning
Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.

[Senenmut]

Here's another example of handwaving for you, in case you are unclear:

check it out...

[Senenmut]

Do you realize that the DSC graphs in Fig 19 indicate that tiny amounts of chips material (micrograms) took several minutes to burn, and this is a VERY SLOW reaction rate and very low power density? The answer to this question is short: It's either "yes", or "no", or "sorry Oystein, I am too dumb and don't understand the question"
i dont have a whole lot of time today. ill try and answer some questions later. what would you say to the tillotson graph of a known thermitic material?

[pgimeno]

Farrer did TEM on Jones's chips more than 2 years ago. Jones and Harrit have said so, but none of them ever published the results.
May that be the cause why K.Ryan didn't want to give the samples for further analysis?

[cantonear1968]

i dont have a whole lot of time today. ill try and answer some questions later. what would you say to the tillotson graph of a known thermitic material?

Before you go, I was hoping you could answer this:

Senemut, it appears that you are attempting to set the criteria that a DSC test is the only way to compare materials without first establishing that this is the case. So please let me ask a direct question:

Are you stating that there is no other way to analyze and compare different materials other than a DSC test? Anticipating your response, are you saying this is the best way to compare different materials? Please explain why?

You seem like an educated person, so I am interested in your response.

It shouldn't take you a whole lot of time.

[Senenmut]

1) Sunstealer and Oystein have repeatedly explained to you (and more) why Harrit et al’s blunder DSC test of two compounds cannot tell you what the properties of one compound are.

2) Their own DSC test shows that the Tillotson thermite sample does not match theirs.

3) Millette has conclusively proven with copious evidence that the red layer is paint and an out of Millette’s lab cost of $300 per DSC test would therefore be unnecessary, wasteful, and out of the $1,000 budget. But Harrit et al can separate the red layer and correctly repeat the DSC test to see how closely their paint chips match Tillotson’s sol-xero-gel superthermite. Or its morphology. They haven’t.

4) Harrit et al didn’t prove elemental aluminum was present, they assumed it was. They wished it was.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf (http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf)

Millette - -http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf)


Say …

Isn’t your sig quote a proven pus-filled bald faced lie?
Why yes it is.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=207647&highlight=colby (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=207647&highlight=colby)
Which has repeatedly been brought to your attention.

if its 300$ i could do that to clear this up!! if he accepts ill send 300$ STAT! same criteria millette used to seperate what he thought were particles of interest.....SEM, EDX.

hear that oystein. if he does it then im in.

[Senenmut]

Before you go, I was hoping you could answer this:



It shouldn't take you a whole lot of time.

Senemut, it appears that you are attempting to set the criteria that a DSC test is the only way to compare materials without first establishing that this is the case. So please let me ask a direct question:

Are you stating that there is no other way to analyze and compare different materials other than a DSC test? Anticipating your response, are you saying this is the best way to compare different materials? Please explain why?

what im saying is the sem and edx were similar....OK...and that was his criteria to start testing the chips. in my mind its a rule out scenario. are millettes chips EXACTELY like jones'. what we are most likely talking about here is the almightly elemental AL. usless there is some way to passivate the AL with silicon that i am unaware of and it looks like kaolin under EDX???? ive read where they can do that with flourine i believe. anyway, jones did a dsc on the material in question. the material did not have the exact spikes but did react according to the paper in the 415-435C range to produce iron and silicon rich spheres only after the spike. my reasoning is that millette's chips might be a different material. a material that does have kaolin instead of the alleged elemental AL of jones'. if this is the case, then you would see a vast different dsc spike just like what Farrer said about when he heated a paint chip in the dsc.

IMO, its all about the AL

[LSSBB]

check it out...

Don't you check your sources?

In any case, why aren't you addressing the methodology of Jones DSC and whether it included both layers? You are willing to nitpick on Millette's work, why not question the methods used by Harrit, et al.?

[NoahFence]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

I love it when you truthers try to make it seem like you know what you're talking about. You realize you're not fooling anybody right?

[Ivan Kminek]

link that vid of you burning that paint you made and we can see some SLOW burning

Senenmut, since you have asked twice, here is the link to my video of igniting/burning of my Laclede pain imitation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdzr2CJuxHE&feature=related)(which has a similar composition as real WTC paint).
As you can see, this chip burned slightly over 1 minute, whereas red-gray chips of alleged nanothermite measured in DSC machine in Bentham paper burned 5 to 10 minutes, i.e. substantially longer:cool:
But, my chip had dimensions ca 15x10x0.5 mm, so it was much, much bigger than red-gray chips from the dust, therefore results are incomparable. Moreover, I ignited my chip with the lighter, so results are even more incomparable.
The purpose of my simple test was just to show to non-believers that such chip of epoxy paint is really burning when ignited, nothing else.

You also asked: "what would you say to the tillotson graph of a known thermitic material?" I already wrote you: Tillotson DSC graph by no means "proved" typical very rapid thermitic reaction, since heat was released slowly, during minutes (not during seconds or parts of seconds). Tillotson did not discuss the reason for such slow reaction, but he did not claim that the rate of this exothermic reaction proves thermite! (I just feel that rapid onset of rapid thermitic reaction should be "triggered" by some thermal shock, local overheating, which is not fullfilled in the DSC machine during slow and even heating.) Themitic reaction in Tillotson paper was proven by X-ray analysis of the product, which showed elemental Fe and aluminum oxide. In summary, nor Bentham DSC curves neither Tillotson DSC curve prove thermite and Bentham team chose completely unsuitable curve for comparison in their "crucial proof of nanothermite":cool:

To All, but namely to Oystein: Although it can be a kind of bizzare fun to argue with devoted truthers like Senenmut, we should really try to sort somehow the results of Jim Millette's study. I suspect now that he in fact studied several (at least two) kinds of paint, and it is necessary for me to make some table what chip has what XEDS, FTIR, pigments depicted by TEM/SEM etc. I will try it, but Jim's samples have rather complicated notation. Moreover, I have to admit, some of Jims XEDS spectra have not really good resolution.

[Reactor drone]

from the bentham paper:
3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning
Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.

Right, and do you see how that's different to the Xerogel which reacted at around 530° C?

[Craig4]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

At this point we can safely dismiss you. It's perfectly obvious this has nothing to do with evidence for you and everything to do with you not wanting to give up your myth. While appreciate that it might be hard to give up your cherished belief it's clearly time to do just that.

[Oystein]

from the bentham paper:
3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning
Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.


All four chips from different samples.
What material were these four specimens, Senemut? Wich of the at least six different materials that appear in the same paper, Senemut?

[Oystein]

i dont have a whole lot of time today. ill try and answer some questions later. what would you say to the tillotson graph of a known thermitic material?

Most of the questions required no time, only a "yes", a "no", or a "I am too dumb to understand this".

Everybody can see how scared you are of the questions.

ETA: I talked about Tillotson's graph several times before. Strange that you missed it. Here is a brief summary:


Tillotson new that his stuff is about 90% thermite, 10% organic
Because of the significant organic component, he did his test under inert gas (nitrogen)
Up until over 300°C, his material reacted endothermally. I don't know why
His material peaked at about 530°C
Peak height was about 5.1 W/g
Beyond 560°C, his stuff goes endothermic agaon

Contrast this with Farrer's sample:

Farrer should have known, but was actually too stupid to know, that his stuff was about 0% thermite, >70% organic
Because of the significant organic component, he should habe done his test under inert gas. But because he is really very stupid, he did it under air, guaranteeing that 95-100% of the heat comes from simply burning organic matrix. If that stupid doesn't hurt you, then you don't understand organic chemistry and you don't understand DSC
His material NEVER reacted endothermally
His material peaked much (about 100°C) earlier, around 425°C
Peak heights were much higher, between 2 and 5 times higher than Tillotson's. And this despite the stupid mistake to not remove the gray, inert layer first. Had he removed the gray layer as he should have, then the difference in peak hight would be even more extreme
Beyond the peak, 560°C, his stuff remains exothermic


So really EVERYTHING about Tillotson's graph is fundamentally different from Farrer's graphs.

Farrer proves unequivocally that his chips were NOT thermitic.



But Farrer is dumb, and Harrit is dumb, and Jones is extremely stupid. And so are Ryan, Gourley, Legge, Farnsworth, Basile, Griscom and Senemut: They all believe that the very different graphs are similar.

But when one material reacts endothermally and the other exothermally, that is a fundamental difference. Only stupid people too incompetent to do DSC and read DSC graphs do DSC and read DSC graphs, what can you expect? Stupid results, that's what.

[Oystein]

if its 300$ i could do that to clear this up!! if he accepts ill send 300$ STAT! same criteria millette used to seperate what he thought were particles of interest.....SEM, EDX.

hear that oystein. if he does it then im in.

Yes, I hear that, Senemut. You insist on wasting money to make someone waste his time on something you don't understand and that would be really very extremely foolish to do, nearly as dumb in fact as Farrer, Harrit Jones.



Millette is not that dumb
I am not that dumb.



Answer the questions. Don't waste any more of our time.

[alienentity]

..we should really try to sort somehow the results of Jim Millette's study. I suspect now that he in fact studied several (at least two) kinds of paint, and it is necessary for me to make some table what chip has what XEDS, FTIR, pigments depicted by TEM/SEM etc. I will try it, but Jim's samples have rather complicated notation. Moreover, I have to admit, some of Jims XEDS spectra have not really good resolution.

I noticed this resolution issue on my screen as well. I wonder if Dr Millette can improve those images.

[Sunstealer]

To All, but namely to Oystein: Although it can be a kind of bizzare fun to argue with devoted truthers like Senenmut, we should really try to sort somehow the results of Jim Millette's study. I suspect now that he in fact studied several (at least two) kinds of paint, and it is necessary for me to make some table what chip has what XEDS, FTIR, pigments depicted by TEM/SEM etc. I will try it, but Jim's samples have rather complicated notation. Moreover, I have to admit, some of Jims XEDS spectra have not really good resolution.That's the second thing I tried to do (after looking at the data). A test matrix is very handy but the lettering is too small to read on most graphs so I couldn't do it.

I remember back in Apr '09 doing one for Harrit et al which was a nightmare and that was still wrong as I thought that chips a-d had been the ones subjected to DSC. As Oystein points out we have no idea which chips in Harrit's paper were used in DSC. There's no record which is very poor.

I'm just ignoring Senenmut - there is nothing he can bring to the discussion. Millette has already explained why DSC is not necesary and a waste of time and money. Instead truthers like Senenmut should be directing their fire at Harrit, Jones, Basile, Ryan, Farrer and asking why they didn't carry out a simply definitive test such as FTIR. There is no point fannying about with DSC when a quick, cheap(ish) test will tell you exactly what the material is.

[alienentity]

There is no point fannying about with DSC when a quick, cheap(ish) test will tell you exactly what the material is.

I can't recall reading the whole Tillotson paper but do you know why they did DSC on their nanothermite? What were they trying to demonstrate?

[Ivan Kminek]

I can't recall reading the whole Tillotson paper but do you know why they did DSC on their nanothermite? What were they trying to demonstrate?

It is apparent from Tillotson paper (http://www.scribd.com/doc/80585354/T-M-Tillotson-et-al-Nanostructured-energetic-materials-using-sol-gel-methodologies)that he used DSC to determine the overall heat energy evolved by thermitic reaction (by integration of an area below the curve).
I'm not familiar with analyses on pyrotechnics, but is quite clear that when the heat of reaction is released slowly (like in this case, in DSC machine), it is easier to determine it more precisely:cool:

[Oystein]

what im saying is the sem and edx were similar....
Which SEM and EDX were similar, Senemut? There are SEMs and EDXs in the Bentham paper that are wildly dissimilar from one another (e.g. Fig 7 and Fig 14 are totally, crassly different), and there are SEMs and EDXs in Millette's that are different from one another.

So please be specific! Use page numbers and figure numbers in both reports and tell us which are similar (and more importantly: realize those that are NOT similar!)

OK...and that was his criteria to start testing the chips. in my mind its a rule out scenario. are millettes chips EXACTELY like jones'.
Exactly like WHICH chips from Jones, Senemut? You keep running away from that question! Answer it, for FSM's sake!

what we are most likely talking about here is the almightly elemental AL. usless there is some way to passivate the AL with silicon that i am unaware of and it looks like kaolin under EDX????
Ok, at least this come probably close to the truth of the matter, which is: You are grossly incompetent about chemistry and the physics of chemistry. You must be aware of it, right?

ive read where they can do that with flourine i believe.
Pathetic.
You are grasping at Strawmen.
There is no fluor.

anyway, jones did a dsc on the material in question.
Stop saying that Jones was the stupid dumbhead who did the DSC. Jones was even too stupid to find himself a DSC lab.
Jeff Farrer was the stupid dumbhead who found himself a DSC lab and did all that dumb, stupid stuff there, like forgetting to tell us just WHAT material he put in that thing, or stupidly burning orgnics in air, which is a fool-proof way of ensuring that you won't get any useful results.

You keep saying things like the material in question, but imbecile Farrer forgot to tell you WHICH material, Senemut!

So please: Give as full listing of all the properties of the chips that moron Farrer put in the DSC!
- Did they contain Zn?
- Did they contain Mg?
- Did they contain Ca?
- Did they contain Cr?
- Did they contain Sr?
- Did they contain Ti?
- Did they contain Pb?
- Did they contain Fe?
- Did they contain Ba?
- Did they contain Cu?
- Did they contain Al?
- Did they contain Si?
- What was the ratio Al:Si?
- Did they contain little kaolin plates?
- Did they contain hematite grains?
- Was the organic matrix epoxy or based on linseed oil?
- Did the gray layer contain Fe?
- Did the gray layer contain Mn?
- How thick was the gray layer?
- How thick was the red layer?
- Can you show us any photos of the chips before the DSC test?
- Can you show us any photos of the chips after the DSC test?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain Fe-rich spheres?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain Al-Si-rich spheres?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain C?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain Ti?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain Ca?


Hint: when you start answering these questions competently and honestly, you should notice that a pattern quicly emerges. It looks like that:
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- ...etc

Senemut, do you start to notice something? This: We have not the slightest clue what the stuff was that Farrer put in the DSC!

So why should Millette compare any of his different kinds of chips in the DSC with data of something that is entirely unknown?

the material did not have the exact spikes but did react according to the paper in the 415-435C range to produce iron and silicon rich spheres only after the spike.
Except that you don't know this. Because Farrer did not give you the data.
You should at this point consider the possibility that Farrer simply was WRONG about the residue of the four unknown chips that ignited around 425°C



Oh and by the way: two of the four chips ignited well UNDER 400°C. Farrer, Jones and Harrit are just too stupid to read DSC traces. Can't blame them. They are incompetent dumbheads who have never done this sort of thing before. Farrer even admits this: That he is a bloody absolute beginner at the DSC. That's a case of the blind leading the blind. And Senemut following blindly.

my reasoning is that millette's chips might be a different material.
Millette's chips ARE different materials, Senemut!
Jones's chips also ARE different materials, Senemut!
That's why I keep asking you: WHICH of the six or more different materials did Farrer moronically burn in the DSC?

a material that does have kaolin instead of the alleged elemental AL of jones'.
One material from Jones (chips a-d) does have kaolin. Jones, Harrit, Farrer, Ryan, in their limitless stupidity, think that material is thermite. Millette has proven that it is not thermite, because there is no elemental Al in it. Actually, that much was 99% clear already from the Harrit/Jones/Farrer data. Millette added the remaining 1%.

Another material from Jones (the MEK-soaked chip) is very different from the first, and that's where they allegedly found a little bit (really, a little bit; less than 3%, if you study Fig 14 and are competent to interprete it) of elemental Al. Much too little to make that material "thermitic". With 5% by weight, or less, thermite ingredient in 70% or more organic matrix, that stuff is not thermitic. Thermite provides waaaaay too little energy density to even sustain the reaction, if you dilute it 1:20 like that. You must be really very stupid, as stupid as Harrit, Jones, Farrer (and that would be so stupid it constantly hurts) to think an organic paint with tiny bits of elemental Al could be thermitic.



Now the 300$ question for you, Senemut: Which material was it that had its organic matrix burned by moron Farrer in the DSC? Was it...
...the first material (like chips a-d) with kaolin but zero thermite?
...the second material (like the MEK-soaked chip) with no kaolin but with zinc and magnesium and perhaps (but highly dubious) a liiiiiiitly bit of elemental Al?
...or one of the at least four other different materials they talk about in their study?

(Answer: You don't know. Jones doesn't know. Harrit doesn't know. They stupidly had the moron, the know-nothing Farrer do something that dumbhead Farrer was way to incompetent for, namely a useless DSC test)


if this is the case, then you would see a vast different dsc spike just like what Farrer said about when he heated a paint chip in the dsc.
Wishful thinking.
And you chose to believe a man who has proven himself to be a stupid incompetent. Look at all the stupid mistaked Farrer made when he tried to do the DSC thing that he knows nothing about:

He forgot to identify and characterize the specimen he incinerated, which is reaöy stupid when you want to write a scientific paper, because this failure ensures that your study can't and won't be reproduced. Why? Cause no other researcher can possibly know what material to use. Stupid stupid Farrer!
He forgot to separate the inert (already fully oxidized) gray layer from the "energetic" red layer, which ruins the energy density and power density results. What a stupid blunder! (But Harrit and Jones aggravated the stupidity by including the almost useless energy density values in their stupid paper: At up to 7.5 kJ/g, they proved conclusively that whatever they burned in the DSC was NOT thermite. Then they were all jointly to stupid to notice they just disproved thermite)
He forgot to use inert gas, which is really extremely stupid when you already know that more than 70% of the mass of your samples and more than 95% (but actually 100%) of the heat would come from the organic matrix when it burns in air
He forgot to show us the residues of the DSC test of these four specimens and analyse them chemically. How do we know there even were spheres of any kind? We don't know, cuz the morons forgot to ID the residues. What we DO know for a fact of course is that the only DSC residue image and data they show (in Fig 25) cannot be from a chip that is similar to the first (kaolin) or second (alleged Al, plus Zn and Mg) kind of different materials, because that residue contains significant Ti, which the others don't. So apparently, Farrer tested neither kaolin chips nor the kind of chip they allegedly found Al in. Stupid!
He compared his DSC traces with a trace by Tillotson that is different in every way, and concluded that may it is somehow the same. This is the summit of all their stupidy. This stupid really hurts bad.


See, all these stupid mistakes, just because they had an incompetent imbecile do the unnecessary stupid DSC test.


IMO, its all about the AL
Yes, and Millette did what Jones and his morons failed to show: That there is no elememtal Al.

[Oystein]

I can't recall reading the whole Tillotson paper but do you know why they did DSC on their nanothermite? What were they trying to demonstrate?

They were only interested in the energy density. Perfect stoichiometroic thermite would have close to 4 kJ/g. But this value is theoretical only, because aluminium always develops a layer of inert oxide that is several nanometers thick. This oxide layer adds mass to the thermite, but is not involved in providing energy, so it reduces the maximum attainable energy density. This is no big deal if your Al-particles are micro-sized (i.e. thousands of nanometers large) - you lose only a small percentage of energy due to the passivation layer. But in their nanothermite preparation, where the Al-particles (roughly spheres, not plates, by the way) are only ~30nm across, if the outer 5nm are oxidized, that means that 42% of your Al is already oxidized.

Tillotson and Gash found their n-thermite had only 1.5 kJ/g.

They were apparently uninterested in the shape of the curve and did not discuss it.

Later they admitted (in private conversation) to some faulty thinking and that the DSC result isn't really very interesting.

[Oystein]

@ All:

I'll stop ranting over Senemut. It should be abundantly clear that he doesn't understand crap and is running away from facts and reason just to keep believing in a gospel preached by morons.

It's still good that I went on it. Thanks to pgimeno for showing the DSC graphs with the zero-line. I learned from that just HOW fundamentally different Tillotson's graph is from Farrer's. Not that this changed the overall conclusion. Just one more thing to rub in truthers' faces.

Of course more truthers will latch onto that lack of DSC tests, and we need to be very precise and complete about all the things Farrer and the boys did stupidly wrong there.

[Senenmut]

Yes, I hear that, Senemut. You insist on wasting money to make someone waste his time on something you don't understand and that would be really very extremely foolish to do, nearly as dumb in fact as Farrer, Harrit Jones.



Millette is not that dumb
I am not that dumb.



Answer the questions. Don't waste any more of our time.

its called put up or shut up. im putting money where my mouth is. millette is not dumb either. money is money.

[Senenmut]

@ All:

I'll stop ranting over Senemut. It should be abundantly clear that he doesn't understand crap and is running away from facts and reason just to keep believing in a gospel preached by morons.

It's still good that I went on it. Thanks to pgimeno for showing the DSC graphs with the zero-line. I learned from that just HOW fundamentally different Tillotson's graph is from Farrer's. Not that this changed the overall conclusion. Just one more thing to rub in truthers' faces.

Of course more truthers will latch onto that lack of DSC tests, and we need to be very precise and complete about all the things Farrer and the boys did stupidly wrong there.

we will end this conversation then. i think you are handwaving. im putting my money where my mouth is. ive emailed chris and if he says your in then im sending the money! you have to at least respect that. if im wrong then im wrong. if im right and from what farrer has said about when he burned paint in the dsc, then it is a different material. what would you say if it was a vast different dsc spike?

listen to jones speak about the chips and how they vary from chip to chip and from place to place on the same chips. one thing in commmon, they react to form iron and silicon rich microspheres. and from the bentham paper, they say the react at 415-435C. after the spike is when we see the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

[Oystein]

its called put up or shut up. im putting money where my mouth is. millette is not dumb either. money is money.

I see that you are shutting up, because you are avoiding all my questions like the plague.

What a poor, embarrassing performance, Senemut. Everybody can see how stark naked you are. Everybody can see how you never understood why the Harrit paper is stupid. Everybody can see how you never understood why Farrer's DSC tests are total nonsense and only prove that something is not thermite. Everybody can see how you don't understand the Millette data. Everybody can see how you'll never understand why doing a DSC test on the chips is utter folly. Why can everybody see all that? Because you are utterly, totally, completely unable to answer even one of many many questions correctly. I won't speculate if this is due to fear, stupidity or dishonesty, but it has to be one (or more) of these.

Answer the questions.

[uke2se]

If Senenmut wants to waste his money, why not allow him to fund further tests? Couldn't Chris pass his money over to Millette?

[Senenmut]

If Senenmut wants to waste his money, why not allow him to fund further tests? Couldn't Chris pass his money over to Millette?

exactly.

[Senenmut]

I see that you are shutting up, because you are avoiding all my questions like the plague.

What a poor, embarrassing performance, Senemut. Everybody can see how stark naked you are. Everybody can see how you never understood why the Harrit paper is stupid. Everybody can see how you never understood why Farrer's DSC tests are total nonsense and only prove that something is not thermite. Everybody can see how you don't understand the Millette data. Everybody can see how you'll never understand why doing a DSC test on the chips is utter folly. Why can everybody see all that? Because you are utterly, totally, completely unable to answer even one of many many questions correctly. I won't speculate if this is due to fear, stupidity or dishonesty, but it has to be one (or more) of these.

Answer the questions.
this is off topic but an interesting read
here is where i got the fluorine thing:
http://www.nanotech-now.com/products/nanonewsnow/issues/037/037.htm

"The next step in the process involves exposure of the unpassivated Al nanoparticles to a solution of a perfluorinated carboxylic acid. The -COOH binds to the Al surface forming a covalently bound self assembled monolayer and the result is a passivated, oxide free Al nanocomposite."

[uke2se]

Unless, of course, the particular test you (Senenmut) want to have performed is completely meaningless. I don't think you can expect a scientist to do whatever you want just because you pay him.

As an example, say you asked him to paint the samples pink because you thought that would change the outcome. He'd be right to tell you to take your money and leave, as no respected scientist wants to be treated like a dancing bear.

[Feldspar]

exactly.


So you are going to compare unknown chips with Milette's chips? We don't know what kind of red/gray chips Farrer burned in the DSC you know. And we know that there are several different kinds of red/gray chips in the dust, none of which have been proven as thermitic yet. Can you please tell us what kind of chips Farrer burned as asked of you by Oystein?

[Oystein]

we will end this conversation then.
l. I take that this means your answer to all the querstions I asked is "Sorry, but I, Senemut, am too stupid or too dishonest to even answer one question".
I thought this would be so ;)

i think you are handwaving.
Great. You run away from every single question, but I am handwaving.

What a transparent piece of dishonesty. Hey, Senemut, everybody can see how you run away!

im putting my money where my mouth is.
A fool and his money are easily parted.

ive emailed chris and if he says your in then im sending the money! you have to at least respect that.
No. You should give it to charity instead. I'd suggest some charity that promotes science education.

if im wrong then im wrong.
You are wrong.

if im right and from what farrer has said about when he burned paint in the dsc, then it is a different material. what would you say if it was a vast different dsc spike?
A material different from WHAT, Senemut? I am asking you this in about every post, sometimes more than once per post. Different material from WHAT? You have no freaking clue what materials you are talking about! No one knows what crap Farrer threw in the DSC!

listen to jones speak about the chips and how they vary from chip to chip
Yes. That means that the chips are from various different materials, and if you assume they are all basically the same when they vary from chip to chip, then you are obviously VERY STUPID!

and from place to place on the same chips. one thing in commmon, they react to form iron and silicon rich microspheres.
Yes, if you treat them with oxy-acetylen torch. Such a torch has a flame temperature of up to 3000°C. Of course you get spheres of all kinds with such overkill.

However, the one thing Jones doesn't mention here is - DSC! That talk was december 2007 - more than a year before the Bentham crap paper came out.

and from the bentham paper, they say the react at 415-435C. after the spike is when we see the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4
Yes, except they forgot to tell you which of the various kinds of chips they put in the DSC, so this was a useless excercise. It can't be repeated. Because we don't know which material Farrer used. He forgot to tell us in his stupidity! But nevermind, the DSC test he did was stupid anyway, considering that he stupidly did it under air. The only, very limited, use of his DSC data is that it proves unequivocally that something is NOT thermite.

Now Jones seems to believe otherwise: That Farrer's stupid DSC test proved it was thermite. Well, Jones is either an imbecile, or a liar, or both, when he says such stupid things. Why do you believe Jones? Jones is an imbecile, or a liar, or both. Senemut, do you generally trust imbeciles and liars to tell you scientific facts? If you believe liars and imbeciles like Jones and Farrer, then you must be VERY stupid! Stop being so very stupid on a public forum!



And start answering the many questions you are so frantically and embarrassingly running away from!

[Oystein]

Unless, of course, the particular test you (Senenmut) want to have performed is completely meaningless. I don't think you can expect a scientist to do whatever you want just because you pay him.

As an example, say you asked him to paint the samples pink because you thought that would change the outcome. He'd be right to tell you to take your money and leave, as no respected scientist wants to be treated like a dancing bear.

Haha yes, that fits it perfectly. You are describing exactly the level of stupid that Senemut is currently acting on.

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Just forget Senenmut and stay calm, dude:cool:

Now, for something really on-topic, i.e. Millette's study, before I try to make my own table of results.

As I mentioned during weekend, I see some XEDS spectra taken on the washed surfaces of red layers (Appendix B), which may correspond better to Tnemec than to Laclede paint: they contain little peak of Mg (and Na), medium or small peaks of Ca, some little peaks of S and sometimes even Zn and Cr peaks. All these elements, except sulfur, should be present in Tnemec primer, which contained: Zinc chromate (source of Zn and Cr); talc (source of Mg) and "calcium silicates and aluminates" (some source of few percent of Ca in the dry material). Moreover, in some spectra Si peaks are substantially bigger than Al peaks (in contrast, they should be roughly the same in Laclede paint, since it contained kaolinite). All these "tracks" may indicate that this and this layer can be actually Tnemec.

For comparison, we have two XEDS spectra of red layers which should be Tnemec paint: one from the lecture of S. Jones and second one is just the spectrum of MEK chip from Bentham paper (both available e.g. in your blog (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/)). But in both cases, the main calcium peaks at ca 3.7 KeV are really huge, bigger than everything else except C and O. Partially, this can be attributed to the higher atomic number of Ca (20) in comparison to atomic numbers of e.g. Si (14) and Al (13), but still, there seems to be a substantial discrepancy in the expected and observed peaks of calcium in these samples, if they are Tnemec...
What it could mean? We do not know if Jones washed/cut his Tnemec sample before measurements, but we know very well that MEK chip was not freshly cut before measurements. Therefore, at least in MEK chip, the substantial portion of calcium peak can originate from surface contamination (probably mostly by calcium sulfate, since also sulfur peak is quite distinct in the spectrum of MEK chip.

In short, I think that Tnemec spectra mentioned above are not ideal for comparison when discussing Jim Millette's results. Generally, it seems to me that it would not be really easy to attribute individual XEDS spectra to individual red primer paints we know, namely when they have such a low resolution. But, we have to try it anyway:cool:
Or... we can ask Jim Millette through Chris, if he could send us better spectra (we anyway paid some little money for them, so we should deserve them:o)

[tsig]

i dont have a whole lot of time today. ill try and answer some questions later. what would you say to the tillotson graph of a known thermitic material?

IOW you're backed into a corner and are ready to flee.

[Oystein]

Ok, one final post on the issue of doing a DSC test omn Millette's chips:


1. A very good reason not to do it unless you can show that it will yield useful results that advance a reasonable study objective is that the DSC test destroys the specimens. They are not available for more useful tests later. Millette already destroyed some in his muffler, when he ashed the organic matrix to free the pigments. So in his professional assessment, the destruction of some chips was a reasonable trade-off, but a DSC would not. Certainly not with the kind of stupid non-proposal that Senemut is advancing here.

2. Suppose Millette did test chips in the DSC - what possible outcomes are there, and what would the mean?

Possibility A: The DSC trace is very similar to those of Farrer. In that case, Senemut has been shown wrong, and everybody else, too. So what? We already know they are wrong. It would only be piling up on the proof that the chips are not thermite
Possibility B: The DSC graph is not similar, In that case, we would conclude that Farrer put something else in his DSC that is not thermite. We still wouldn't know what chips he tested, we only know that a) they are not of the kind of chips a-d that Harrit and Millette concentrated on, which isn't thermite, and b) It's not thermite.

In summary, we would either learn what chips put in the DSC or not, but we wouldn't learn anything new wrt thermite. But who really cares what chips Farrer put in the DSC? It wasn't thermite, because it hat waaaaay too much energy density to be thermite.


If Millette is a scientist and professional with integrity, he will advise Senemut that testing the chips in the DSC just for comparison with Farrer's unknown chips is a stupid waste of time, as no conceivable result would teach us anything we don't already know, and reject his money.

[chrismohr]

Two separate items:

I wonder if Millette's dropbox link to the full study is lower-resolution than the original he sent me. I just emailed Ivan and Oystein my original emailed report from Millette. If it has higher resolution and the relevant charts are readable,. I will ask them to re-save the link for maximum clarity.

As for Senenmut, I can see one good reason to go forward with the DSC test: both Tillotson and Harrit/et al both included DSC in their protocols, so for the sake of complete replication, if people are willing to pay for the tests, then why not? As Millette and Oystein have said repeatedly, Millette has already established NO THERMITE in the tests he did, including tests not done by Harrit et al. Millette said he would just be testing the ignition properties of paint chips, which is why he said no.

Now, if we go forward, it will cost way more than $300. Millette estimated over $325 per sample, so four samples would be $1300. Then a professional would need to be hired to properly analyze the raw data. And this does not include the cost of cooking the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. I think we would be looking at $1500-$2000 to do this right. It is not worth money for me to see the results of this, but if someone wants to ante up $1500 or more I will look into it with Millette.

As a pure brainstorm, I also thought of another possibility: an independent analysis of what Farrer/Harrit did and their data. It may be possible to independently analyze that test for $300 or so. Millette has told me a separate person would have to be hired for this because it is not squarely in his area of expertise. People who don't believe Oystein will at least have to deal with the fact that a calm, cool, collected analyst was hired to do an independent report.

[000063]

what im saying is the sem and edx were similar....OK...and that was his criteria to start testing the chips. in my mind its a rule out scenario. are millettes chips EXACTELY like jones'. what we are most likely talking about here is the almightly elemental AL. usless there is some way to passivate the AL with silicon that i am unaware of and it looks like kaolin under EDX???? ive read where they can do that with flourine i believe. anyway, jones did a dsc on the material in question. the material did not have the exact spikes but did react according to the paper in the 415-435C range to produce iron and silicon rich spheres only after the spike. my reasoning is that millette's chips might be a different material. a material that does have kaolin instead of the alleged elemental AL of jones'. if this is the case, then you would see a vast different dsc spike just like what Farrer said about when he heated a paint chip in the dsc.

IMO, its all about the ALWell, that's a clear and direct answer to the question, and totally not word-vomit.

[Julio]

And this does not include the cost of cooking the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere.

This is the reason why doing the DSC test is useless. Farrer did a flawed test in air, which contains oxigen.

What Senemut is asking for, is replicating a flawed test which will yield no useful data. If Millette repeated the test under right conditions (Ar or N atmosphere) the result will be totally different, and the desired comparison would never be possible!!!

[DGM]

This is the reason why doing the DSC test is useless. Farrer did a flawed test in air, which contains oxigen.

What Senemut is asking for, is replicating a flawed test which will yield no useful data. If Millette repeated the test under right conditions (Ar or N atmosphere) the result will be totally different, and the desired comparison would never be possible!!!
Are you saying a test to produce no meaningful data is not worth doing to "debunk" a test that produced no meaningful data?

I say, submit the Harrit/Jones el al paper to the same journal as Millette's. Let them go through the same "peer-review".

Surely the "truthers" wouldn't object to this (or the authors).

:rolleyes:

[Ivan Kminek]

Two separate items:

I wonder if Millette's dropbox link to the full study is lower-resolution than the original he sent me. I just emailed Ivan and Oystein my original emailed report from Millette. If it has higher resolution and the relevant charts are readable,. I will ask them to re-save the link for maximum clarity.

As for Senenmut, I can see one good reason to go forward with the DSC test: both Tillotson and Harrit/et al both included DSC in their protocols, so for the sake of complete replication, if people are willing to pay for the tests, then why not? As Millette and Oystein have said repeatedly, Millette has already established NO THERMITE in the tests he did, including tests not done by Harrit et al. Millette said he would just be testing the ignition properties of paint chips, which is why he said no.

Now, if we go forward, it will cost way more than $300. Millette estimated over $325 per sample, so four samples would be $1300. Then a professional would need to be hired to properly analyze the raw data. And this does not include the cost of cooking the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. I think we would be looking at $1500-$2000 to do this right. It is not worth money for me to see the results of this, but if someone wants to ante up $1500 or more I will look into it with Millette.

As a pure brainstorm, I also thought of another possibility: an independent analysis of what Farrer/Harrit did and their data. It may be possible to independently analyze that test for $300 or so. Millette has told me a separate person would have to be hired for this because it is not squarely in his area of expertise. People who don't believe Oystein will at least have to deal with the fact that a calm, cool, collected analyst was hired to do an independent report.


Hi, Chris:cool:
1) Yes, spectra you have sent to me are much better readable, thanks.

2) I think that with paying additional DSC measurements, we could go simply too far and such research would be never-ending story because of further and further idiotic objections and demands of truthers.
As a typical example, take just "our" Senenmut. Although I have tried to explain him that both DSC curves in Bentham paper and Tillotson paper by no means proved thermitic reaction, he still does not believe me, since he does not understand what I claim (e.g. that burning of very tiny chips lasting 5-10 minutes simply cannot be regarded as "extremely rapid release of heat energy" in any civilized country:cool:)
Why anybody should pay for the proofs that various red paints used in WTC burn? It's just silly:cool: Remember just fresh Jim's experiments with ashing at 400 degrees C for 1 hour (with the aim to get free pigment particles) - what else is this ashing that the degradation/burning/volatilizing of some polymer binder? Paints simply burn and inorganic pigments remain.
Moreover, as Oystein has pointed many times (even rather furiously sometimes:blush:), we don't know what was really burned in DSC device by Farrer.
We should concentrate now to some attempts to analyze closer the results of Jim Millette's study.

[Craig4]

we will end this conversation then. i think you are handwaving. im putting my money where my mouth is. ive emailed chris and if he says your in then im sending the money! you have to at least respect that. if im wrong then im wrong. if im right and from what farrer has said about when he burned paint in the dsc, then it is a different material. what would you say if it was a vast different dsc spike?

listen to jones speak about the chips and how they vary from chip to chip and from place to place on the same chips. one thing in commmon, they react to form iron and silicon rich microspheres. and from the bentham paper, they say the react at 415-435C. after the spike is when we see the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

I take it that you pawned your shift key to help for this.

[chrismohr]

Hi, Chris:cool:
1) Yes, spectra you have sent to me are much better readable, thanks.

2) I think that with paying additional DSC measurements, we could go simply too far and such research would be never-ending story because of further and further idiotic objections and demands of truthers.
As a typical example, take just "our" Senenmut. Although I have tried to explain him that both DSC curves in Bentham paper and Tillotson paper by no means proved thermitic reaction, he still does not believe me, since he does not understand what I claim (e.g. that burning of very tiny chips lasting 5-10 minutes simply cannot be regarded as "extremely rapid release of heat energy" in any civilized country:cool:)
Why anybody should pay for the proofs that various red paints used in WTC burn? It's just silly:cool: Remember just fresh Jim's experiments with ashing at 400 degrees C for 1 hour (with the aim to get free pigment particles) - what else is this ashing that the degradation/burning/volatilizing of some polymer binder? Paints simply burn and inorganic pigments remain.
Moreover, as Oystein has pointed many times (even rather furiously sometimes:blush:), we don't know what was really burned in DSC device by Farrer.
We should concentrate now to some attempts to analyze closer the results of Jim Millette's study.
I agree that you, Oystein and others should work on analyzing all of Millette's new data. Make sure Almond and Sunstealer get the email with the higher-resolution images, and I will ask Millette to post a high-res pdf as well.

I am still taking on the DSC question, for one more reason too: Steven Jones proclaimed awhile back that no replication of the Bentham paper experiments would be complete without them. This is not an endless stream of test after test, it's one test.

What's funny tho is that even I can see that Tillotson did the DSC analysis to delineate some of the properties of known nanothermite, and Harrit et al used the test to try to prove thermitic material.

Millette is much more interested in further research on the iron microspheres right now. If someone is actually willing to commit $1500+ to a thorough DSC study, I'm sure it can be arranged, but Millette has told me at least twice no more new knowledge will be gained from DSC. So far no one has commented on my idea of getting an independent analysis of the Farrer/Harrit DSC data though, which I think would be more affordable.

[chrismohr]

To read the small print and figures in the Millette dust report, please go to this new link:


High Res: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

Low Res: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf (original link....unchanged)

Sunstealer and Almond et al, Ivan and Oystein assure me this is much more clear.

Now get to work!

Thanks,
Chris

[alienentity]

Hi Chris,

I just replied to your PM, btw. I'd like to see the Harrit paper reviewed independently, esp. if the review can be published in an established journal relevant to the topic.

Maybe the Journal of 9/11 Studies? Just kidding! :D

[moorea34]

Perfect Chris!

The new file is perfect!

[Sunstealer]

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

Page 26.

Indeed, the red chips can be ignited using a torch and
they have properties of a pyrotechnic nanocomposite. All the
required ingredients are present – aluminum, iron, oxygen,
silicon, and carbon – and they are incorporated in such a way
that the chip forms (and sometimes ejects) very hot material
when ignited. The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which
characterize this energetic material. We have performed
these same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We
note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption
of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed
[29].

I wonder if Senenmut should perhaps be putting as much effort into getting Harrit et al to release results of their FTIR analysis as he is in asking for Millette to perform DSC.

3 years later and they have not released the results even after promising to do so. Why did they not include such important and conclusive data in their paper? If they did FTIR then they would have definitive proof of thermite so why not publish it? Why publish silly photos and resistance tests when an FTIR spectra would be conclusive and remove all doubt?

There is so much crap in that paper the more important things get missed.

[jaydeehess]

This is the reason why doing the DSC test is useless. Farrer did a flawed test in air, which contains oxigen.

What Senemut is asking for, is replicating a flawed test which will yield no useful data. If Millette repeated the test under right conditions (Ar or N atmosphere) the result will be totally different, and the desired comparison would never be possible!!!

Exactly what struck me about this. If a proper dsc is done, One in which oxidation with surrouding atmospheric oxygen, truthers will cry and wail that it does not replicate Harrit.
Nevermind that flawed as Harrit's dsc method is, his results vary so widely as to make them less than useful.

[alienentity]

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

Page 26.



I wonder if Senenmut should perhaps be putting as much effort into getting Harrit et al to release results of their FTIR analysis as he is in asking for Millette to perform DSC.

3 years later and they have not released the results even after promising to do so. Why did they not include such important and conclusive data in their paper? If they did FTIR then they would have definitive proof of thermite so why not publish it? Why publish silly photos and resistance tests when an FTIR spectra would be conclusive and remove all doubt?

There is so much crap in that paper the more important things get missed.

I'm just gonna come out and say it: I think they did the tests and realized the chips just ain't thermitic, so they've kept their mouths shut about it.

I got suspicious when Dr Jones turned his attention to earthquakes and free energy devices. Let's face it, if they had something which confirmed their earlier claims they'd be shouting about it every day... but all we have is silence.

And they're not sharing their dust with the other scientists in the sandbox. :(

[fourtoe]

Two separate items:

I wonder if Millette's dropbox link to the full study is lower-resolution than the original he sent me. I just emailed Ivan and Oystein my original emailed report from Millette. If it has higher resolution and the relevant charts are readable,. I will ask them to re-save the link for maximum clarity.

As for Senenmut, I can see one good reason to go forward with the DSC test: both Tillotson and Harrit/et al both included DSC in their protocols, so for the sake of complete replication, if people are willing to pay for the tests, then why not? As Millette and Oystein have said repeatedly, Millette has already established NO THERMITE in the tests he did, including tests not done by Harrit et al. Millette said he would just be testing the ignition properties of paint chips, which is why he said no.

Now, if we go forward, it will cost way more than $300. Millette estimated over $325 per sample, so four samples would be $1300. Then a professional would need to be hired to properly analyze the raw data. And this does not include the cost of cooking the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. I think we would be looking at $1500-$2000 to do this right. It is not worth money for me to see the results of this, but if someone wants to ante up $1500 or more I will look into it with Millette.

As a pure brainstorm, I also thought of another possibility: an independent analysis of what Farrer/Harrit did and their data. It may be possible to independently analyze that test for $300 or so. Millette has told me a separate person would have to be hired for this because it is not squarely in his area of expertise. People who don't believe Oystein will at least have to deal with the fact that a calm, cool, collected analyst was hired to do an independent report.

Maybe we could get Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell to fund it?

I'm just gonna come out and say it: I think they did the tests and realized the chips just ain't thermitic, so they've kept their mouths shut about it.

I got suspicious when Dr Jones turned his attention to earthquakes and free energy devices. Let's face it, if they had something which confirmed their earlier claims they'd be shouting about it every day... but all we have is silence.

And they're not sharing their dust with the other scientists in the sandbox. :(

In Brainster's debate with Dylan Avery so many years ago, Dylan mentioned "I think he already has [sent out samples to independent labs]" and Brainster said that Frank Greening has been asking for them for awhile and hasn't gotten them. Was Dylan just pulling that statement out of his ass?

[Senenmut]

im in for 300$$

[Ivan Kminek]

I agree that you, Oystein and others should work on analyzing all of Millette's new data. Make sure Almond and Sunstealer get the email with the higher-resolution images, and I will ask Millette to post a high-res pdf as well.

I am still taking on the DSC question, for one more reason too: Steven Jones proclaimed awhile back that no replication of the Bentham paper experiments would be complete without them. This is not an endless stream of test after test, it's one test.

What's funny tho is that even I can see that Tillotson did the DSC analysis to delineate some of the properties of known nanothermite, and Harrit et al used the test to try to prove thermitic material.

Millette is much more interested in further research on the iron microspheres right now. If someone is actually willing to commit $1500+ to a thorough DSC study, I'm sure it can be arranged, but Millette has told me at least twice no more new knowledge will be gained from DSC. So far no one has commented on my idea of getting an independent analysis of the Farrer/Harrit DSC data though, which I think would be more affordable.

Chris, as for DSC, try to consider how to perform this "one test" to be somehow meaningful.
We do not know what Farrer burned in his DSC machine. Nobody knows it, including Farrer. I expect that in all 4 cases it was one material (one paint), since curves are basically similar in character and they seem to differ e.g. because of the varying portion of attached inactive oxidized steel. But, what kind of paint was really burned? We can only judge that it was one of the most abundant paints in the dust, i.e. Laclede or Tnemec paint, since it was probably easy to find these chips for burning. But, we can still be wrong (although it is not very probable), since it could be some paint (e.g.) from WTC7.

So, for any DSC measurements, several red chips with the composition corresponding to both Laclede and Tnemec paint must be carefully selected (and the portion of gray layer should be estimated, to calculate released energy per mass unit of reactive material). All chips must be burned in the machine to get some representative set of results for comparison with "Bentham curves".

So far for DSC under air, which can only prove that any polymer binder in the red chips indeed burns.
Now, for DSC under inert, which is necessary to exclude oxidation reactions. We know that two polymeric binders were present in the most abundant red primer paints: epoxy resin in Laclede paint and alkyd-linseed based resin in Tnemec paint. In the case of the second binder I am not sure, but for epoxy binder I found a reliable data that even under inert, this polymer can be massively degraded at temperatures ca 350-450 degrees C with exothermic effect! So such measurements under inert on Laclede paint could easily lead to the little "debunking disaster", since truthers will cry (not knowing absolutely anything about the thermal behavior of polymers): "hey, thermite finally proven by debunkers scientists!"

What I'm trying is to say that "one DSC test" and its evaluation could be a quite complicated, lengthy and expensive matter.

Therefore, isn't it better to conclude again: "According to XEDS measurements, carbon based/polymer binder strongly prevails in red-gray chips studied both by Harrit et al and Millette. Such material in principle CANNOT BE THERMITE of any kind, not speaking about the absence of elemental aluminum. Period".
Well, we have still to "face up" to the guys like Senenmut, who tries to suggest: "Could it be so that there are two kinds of very, very similar red-gray chips in the dust, one is some paints and one is nanothermite?"
Actually, we expected such silly reactions several week ago, but the answer is still the same. No, it could not be so. Anything with several tens of polymer binder in it cannot be intentionally prepared evil thermite; the "nanothermite game is over":cool:

As for the interest of Jim Millette on the "microsphere matter" it sounds interesting and I'm again suggesting the same very simple experiment: let's try to crush some WTC concrete and look if it contains iron rich (or any other microspheres), coming from the fly ash. If yes, it could end this endless and tiring debate. Btw, I do not see clearly any microspheres in the nice microphotos of the WTC dust taken by Jim Millette:cool:

[ozeco41]

.... If yes, it could end this endless and tiring debate. Btw, I do not see clearly any microspheres in the nice microphotos of the WTC dust taken by Jim Millette:cool:
Try not to lose the context.

The only reason that thermXte or iron rich microspheres are being discussed is because truthers or trolls have raised them as part of their claim that there was controlled demolition at WTC on 9/11.

There was no demolition so the aim of the truthers or trolls is to keep debate going in ever deeper minutiae and ever more remote and irrelevant topics. Irrelevant to 9/11 conspiracy that is.

I recognise that a number of members are enjoying the scientific aspect of the debate but it is questionable if such debate belongs in the 9/11 sub forum. Especially when the prodders and stirrers who keep the debate circling and not progressing are easily shown to be nothing more than trolls.

Whilst ever members keep responding to trolling there is zero chance of ending what you describe as "...this endless and tiring debate." The trolls will keep moving the goal posts and digging deeper into irrelevancies.

Yes this situation was a risk which was identified before the study was initiated. Yes I support the study. Yes I contributed - out of respect for Chris Mohr and his close supporters.

BUT the test is in knowing when to cut the losses and stop. Because trolling truthers will keep the debate going as long as people keep following them. You, Ivan, Chris himself and Oystein are the three who need to face the challenge "When do we stop chasing truthers down these side tracks."

In part the answer may lie in how much you are interested in the topic for its purely scientific interest. It has done as much as it can for 9/11 discussion. Maybe remove any further work from the 9/11 sub-forum. It may survive on its own scientific merits but I doubt it. But from here on it can add little to 9/11 debate other than serving as a feeding ground for trolls.

[Oystein]

...
In part the answer may lie in how much you are interested in the topic for its purely scientific interest. It has done as much as it can for 9/11 discussion. Maybe remove any further work from the 9/11 sub-forum. It may survive on its own scientific merits but I doubt it. But from here on it can add little to 9/11 debate other than serving as a feeding ground for trolls.

To suggest this does not belong in the 9/11 subforum is bizarre.

The subforum exists not because towers crashed on 9/11, but because there is a 9/11 CT movement.

The study addresses claims of the 9/11 CT movement, and thus debate of the study belongs here. Pretty regardless of whether the outcome of the study furthers the understanding of highrise engineering, demolition methods or collapse dynamics. It doesn't even further much the understanding of dust and paint and nanomaterials. What it does further, by provocing interesting reactions, is understanding of the 9/11 CT movement.

(As a side effect, I learn little random things like what kinds of clues to look for in DSC traces; I learned that because I took some time to try and educate the troll Senemut. I knew from the beginning of course that the troll would refuse to learn. So what? My understanding of physical chemistry in general has improved greatly since I started debating red-gray chips. Yes, I could have taken a class, would have been more efficient, but less fun.)

[ozeco41]

To suggest this does not belong in the 9/11 subforum is bizarre...

Put irony quotes around my suggestion -- then think back a few months. To who made the identical suggestion a few months back. Who supported it. Who was targeted. And my justification at that time for retaining the topic in the 9/11 sub-forum. Then, when you add one plus one .... smile :)

After that sidetrack for amusement we may need to come back to my recent comment ;)

[Oystein]

OK, I missed the irony. Of course I was thinking about the same incident that you are thinking of - after all, it was I who protested a decision to move a technical 9/11 thread to STTM by opening a thread in FM (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212331), and knew you supported the protest, so that's why I thought your statement sounded bizarre.


Sooo with this out of the way... Thanks for the reminder that nanothermite doesn't make or break the case for or against CD. Chris has stated a few times that if significant nanothermite was found that would give him cause to reconsider his stance on CD. And yes, it rightly should; nt is indeed not something that should have mase it out of the laboratory in outrageous masses and into downtown Manhattan. There is no know application for tons of nt relevant to inner city activities in 2001, so it would be quite foolish to dismiss the finding of tons of this stuff in the WTC dust. As it would be foolish to dismiss the finding of tons of C4 or dynamite in the dust as unrelated to the question of CD or not. NIST has looked closely at the possibility that Diesel storage tanks inside WTC7 might have played a significant role in the destruction of that building, even though there is no a priori reason to assume that any of the fires were fed by anything other than office contents. So if it was determined that the towers containes tons of thermite or tons of other explosives at the time of their collapses, then it would obviously raise the question if these peculiar hazards played a role in their destruction - whether by accident or intent.

But none of that is my focus here. My focus is on closing the lid tightly on the case against nanothermite, thereby forcing the TM to either lie, or abandon liars. Eventually, the story should ideally be "nine "researchers", whether through incompetence or deliberate dishonesty, led major portions of the TM to believe nonsense and make it a centerpiece of their belief system. They kept believing nonsense until an outsider, a journalist, undertook the effort to prove them wrong. This illustrates that the TM, by and large, is embracing nonsense. Don't trust them on any technical issue! The TM does not employ a self-correcting epistemology!"
(I realize though that the issue is too technically complex to stand a serious chance of getting communicated clearly to 99% of all truthers :()

[Sunstealer]

When will it stop? People here are just dancing to the truther's tune. It's already been pointed out due to several reasons by several people including Dr Millette why DSC is an invalid and pointless test.

I'll guarantee that if any DSC trace is 10°C out the likes of Senenmut will cry foul even though Harrit's own data shows their sample is 100°C lower than Tillitson's data.

Harrit et al performed FTIR - where are the results? Instead of wasting time with DSC a far more conclusive result will be obtained by the release of Harrit's FTIR data.

This whole exercise has shown how pointless it is to do any further investigation because truthers will never accept it.

[carlitos]

When will it stop? People here are just dancing to the truther's tune.
I, for one, am tuning out after this. It's all pretend arguments in pretend land.

[Edx]

Harrit et al performed FTIR - where are the results? Instead of wasting time with DSC a far more conclusive result will be obtained by the release of Harrit's FTIR data.

This whole exercise has shown how pointless it is to do any further investigation because truthers will never accept it.


Maybe the did do it and it didnt give them the results they wanted.

[Sunstealer]

Maybe the did do it and it didnt give them the results they wanted.;) I think that's exactly what happened. Same reason why the TEM study about a year later showed rhombohedral Fe2O3, but was inconclusive on the hexagonal platelets.

Truthers simply aren't interested in getting all the facts from their masters and prophets.

[Senenmut]

I'll guarantee that if any DSC trace is 10°C out the likes of Senenmut will cry foul even though Harrit's own data shows their sample is 100°C lower than Tillitson's data.

i think there will be a big enough difference to notice. not just 10C out. the whole curve will be much different.
take jones for instance describing what farrer has done:
"Dr. Farrer has ignited a paint sample in a DSC and the paint sample showed a much broader thermal spike, indicating a relatively slow heat-release"
and henryco:
"I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy but certainly not at such rate"

and ill put my money on it!

[LSSBB]

i think there will be a big enough difference to notice. not just 10C out. the whole curve will be much different.
take jones for instance describing what farrer has done:
"Dr. Farrer has ignited a paint sample in a DSC and the paint sample showed a much broader thermal spike, indicating a relatively slow heat-release"
and henryco:
"I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy but certainly not at such rate"

and ill put my money on it!
Senenmut, it appears to me you are purposefully avoiding the issue of the FTIR study results. Answer that, and maybe you will be taken more seriously.

[Oystein]

i think there will be a big enough difference to notice. not just 10C out. the whole curve will be much different.
Please compare the black and the green line with the red and the blue one.
Are they similar based on the criterion that you just outlined (my highlight), or different? Take note of the fact that red and blue have notable dips before and/or after the main peak, while black and green don't.
Also, though I left out the x- and y-axis on purpose, I can tell you that the black and green line go below zero power (endotherm) beyond ~540°C, while red and blue stay above zero (exotherm) all the way.

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig19_orig.jpg

take jones for instance describing what farrer has done:
"Dr. Farrer has ignited a paint sample in a DSC and the paint sample showed a much broader thermal spike, indicating a relatively slow heat-release"

Please compare the black and the green line again with the red and the blue one.
Are they similar based on the criterion that you just outlined (my highlight), or different?
Take note that the red and blue peaks have a fairly well-defined breadth of ~40°C, while the black and green line have an ill-defined breadth of >100°C.

and henryco:
"I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy but certainly not at such rate"
Please compare the black and the green line again with the red and the blue one.
Are they similar based on the criterion that you just outlined (my highlight), or different?
Please note that both black and green both show a higher power density from start till about 520°C than both the red and blue line. Also, green and black peak within 10% of each other, while green is nearly 50% higher than red (and black and blue are even farther away from the other pair).


So, Senemut, based on the criteria you outlines, how different can two curves be, before you conclude two materials might be different? Would you not say that maybe Farrer (unknowingly) tested two different types of materials because
- The shape of black and green are similar, but both are different from the shapes of red and blue
- The broadness of red and blue are similar, but both are much narrower than green and black
- The rate at which energy is released is similar for black and green, but much higher than both red and blue.

Wouldn't you conclude that blue and red could be the same material, and that green and black would be a different material? If not, why not? Both pairs differ in all three criteria that you mentioned in your post!

And don't you sense by now that you have a huge problem here, because Farrer forgot to tell you
- What the black chip and its chemical composition looked like
- What the green chip and its chemical composition looked like
- What the red chip and its chemical composition looked like
- What the blue chip and its chemical composition looked like
so you don't know just what the heck he tested in his DSC?

[Sunstealer]

Senenmut, it appears to me you are purposefully avoiding the issue of the FTIR study results. Answer that, and maybe you will be taken more seriously.I know it's quite telling. Harrit and Jones have data they refuse to release, but for Senenmut it's all about the DSC that isn't required. I bet Harrit's FTIR data shows kaolin in it. ;)

But hey we don't want truthers asking legitimate questions of their truther masters do we, much better for them to disbelieve based on a needless test.

The reason why Senenmut is going along the DSC line is that he knows full well that nobody knows what type of sample Farrer tested in the DSC.

It could be 4 samples of Tnemec or Laclade or another type of primer paint. Could even be paint adhered to electronics. We have no idea because there is no information regarding the samples. There's every reason to suspect that 4 samples of Tnemec were analysed in the DSC and obviously you'd get a different trace from Millette's chips. I suspect that is what Senenmut is aiming for. A silly gotcha.


So it's pointless to analyse the samples Millette has that match samples a-d because we have no idea whether it was those samples a-d that were tested in DSC.

Before any DSC testing is performed I'd ask Harrit et al to give us EDX (and FTIR) data on the 4 samples they put in the DSC. Otherwise you're testing chalk and cheese.

[alienentity]

Before any DSC testing is performed I'd ask Harrit et al to give us EDX (and FTIR) data on the 4 samples they put in the DSC. Otherwise you're testing chalk and cheese.

I agree with you there. I think it's incumbent on the Harrit team to release that data (we all know how truthers hate it when the government withholds anything, so I'm shocked, just shocked, I tell you, that they would do the same thing as the enemy..:rolleyes:) so that we can at least find out how it compares to the Millette samples.

And Senenmut has put himself into a peculiar position here, as he's now trying to set criteria for evaluating DSC. Oystein has asked some necessary and legitimate questions, and if Senenmut cannot respond in a satisfactory way, then there is no reason to take his idea seriously.

Senenmut needs to evaluate the DSC results of Harrit et al. and comment on whether or not those materials are the same or different, and why, according to Oystein's parameters.
If he rejects Oystein's parameters he must explain in detail why.

We have a right to evaluate Senenmut's ability to understand DSC before accepting any of his claims. Period.

[Ivan Kminek]

Ergh... Oystein seems to think that black and green DSC curves in Bentham paper can belong to the same material and red and blue curves belong to something different, whereas Sunstealer seems to think that they are all Tnemec paint... (Why, Sunstealer?)

I do not think that DSC curves on degrading/volatilizing polymers can be seriously compared using such tiny details as in Oystein' post, especially when burning samples attached to unknown amount of inert material (here oxidized steel) with a high heat conductivity/capacity. Reproducibility is low for the sample which evaporates/burns in the open sample pan in DSC device; this is in fact one of the reasons why it is soo difficult to find any DSC on heated/degrading polymers (or e.g. paints) in the scientific literature. (Moreover, almost no polymer chemist -except me:cool: - cares or is interested if the burning of some paint is exothermic, since it is obvious and not really interesting)

Btw, there are also some similarities in black and blue curve (weak exotherm at ca 300 degrees C) or „distinct“ differences between blue and red curve (e.g. red curve has a double peak).
I think that Oystein has some tendency (perhaps as genuine German:rolleyes:) to expect too high precission/reproducibility for some analytical methods. I know from the everyday chemical practice that things are quite often not as clear as expected (and we just clearly face up to this „destiny of all researchers“ looking at the results of the Jim's study, btw).

The main reason why all four „Bentham curves“, although looking differently, can still belong to the same paint is of course the unknown mass ratios between red and gray layers. When gray layer is larger, it absorbs more of exothermic reaction heat, DSC curve (in W per gram of sample) is lower and also narrower. Moreover, larger gray layer as a heat sink can slower the onset of the exothermal oxidative degradation of polymer binder. This can explain why all DCS curves might be measured on the same chips.

Thank you even for your doubtful attention, perhaps I misunderstood something.
We should anyway discuss now more the results of Jim Millette's study, in which no DSC results are given for good reasons:cool:.

[Oystein]

Ivan, I am not really claiming there are two different materials.

I asked Senemut to apply the criteria he apparently deems significant to some curves that we actually have, just to see if he is able to discuss them intelligibly. The reason is that, if he pays 300$ to have one chip DSCed, he will get a curve. No doubt that curve will have a peak and be largely exotherm. No doubt that peak will be somewhere between 300°C and 600°C. No doubt the peak will be at a different hight and different temperature than any of the 5 peaks that Farrer shows. No doubt the curve will be different in other aspects - it will be broader or narrower, it may dip into endotherm territory here or there, it may have more than one peak like the blue and red curves. The question is: Will Senemut be able to tell if the differences are significant or not? What good will it be to show him graphs?

It seems that he believes that the Tillotson curve and the black curve from farrer are "similar" enough that they could be the same material (nanothermite). Will he believe a sesame seed contains nanothermit if sesame shows one peak somewhere between 300 and 600°?

No. If Senemut gets his DSC curve from Millette, someone will have to explain it to him. But who? Will he believe Millette? Unlikely, because he doesn't Millette now when Millette says that a DSC test is not a good idea. Me? Sunstealer? No, he already doesn't believe, or doesn't understand, either of us.

So what will Senemut do with a graph when he gets it for his 300$? That's what I want to know.

The samel logic would apply to the data Millette has published: When someone comments on it, they ought to explain why they come to the opinion they arrive at, and should explain the criteria they use. This holds for truthers as well as for us.

Everyone may please note that I have not yet commented on Millette's data. It's difficult.

[sheeplesnshills]

But none of that is my focus here. My focus is on closing the lid tightly on the case against nanothermite, thereby forcing the TM to either lie, or abandon liars. Eventually, the story should ideally be "nine "researchers", whether through incompetence or deliberate dishonesty, led major portions of the TM to believe nonsense and make it a centerpiece of their belief system. They kept believing nonsense until an outsider, a journalist, undertook the effort to prove them wrong. This illustrates that the TM, by and large, is embracing nonsense. Don't trust them on any technical issue! The TM does not employ a self-correcting epistemology!"
(I realize though that the issue is too technically complex to stand a serious chance of getting communicated clearly to 99% of all truthers :()

Bear in mind few of those named on the report took any part in the "research."
They simply allowed their names to be added for "Effect".
I think this was mainly a Jones effort with Farrer being manipulated into taking part.

[Sunstealer]

And Senenmut has put himself into a peculiar position here, as he's now trying to set criteria for evaluating DSC. Oystein has asked some necessary and legitimate questions, and if Senenmut cannot respond in a satisfactory way, then there is no reason to take his idea seriously.I agree. I think it's important for everyone to know what the criteria is for Millette's samples; is it identical to the blue line or inbetween or what?

Senenmut needs to evaluate the DSC results of Harrit et al. and comment on whether or not those materials are the same or different, and why, according to Oystein's parameters.
If he rejects Oystein's parameters he must explain in detail why. Indeed. I'd also ask for Senenmut, using his DSC expertise, to tell us how the 4 different graphs in the Harrit et al data match that of Tillitsons as part of that criteria.

[Sunstealer]

Ergh... Oystein seems to think that black and green DSC curves in Bentham paper can belong to the same material and red and blue curves belong to something different, whereas Sunstealer seems to think that they are all Tnemec paint... (Why, Sunstealer?)Sorry Ivan. I've no idea which samples Farrer tested so I can't say they are all Tnemec red 99. I was simply pointing out that they could all be Tnemec red 99 and therefore would potentially be different to LaClade primer, Millette's samples or for that matter any other paint.

There could also be 2 samples of one primer and 2 samples of another. We just don't know.

Mostly the concentration on the Harrit DSC has been

1. Higher output than thermite's theoretical maximum.
2. Higher than Tillitson.
3. Ignition about 100°C lower than Tillitson.

I'll have to try and find if I posted the analysis of particle surface area verses volume for Aluminium particles and how that affects ignition temperature of those particles. Tillistson's agrees but the hexagonal platelets and fe2O3 particles found in the Harrit samples a-d do not.

[Sunstealer]

The main reason why all four „Bentham curves“, although looking differently, can still belong to the same paint is of course the unknown mass ratios between red and gray layers. When gray layer is larger, it absorbs more of exothermic reaction heat, DSC curve (in W per gram of sample) is lower and also narrower. Moreover, larger gray layer as a heat sink can slower the onset of the exothermal oxidative degradation of polymer binder. This can explain why all DCS curves might be measured on the same chips.Agreed. This is one of the drawback when testing two materials of unknown weight in the DSC.

[Ivan Kminek]

To Oystein, Chris, Sunstealer, Almond, Basquearch and anybody who may be interested:

(In advance: Sorry for very long contribution)

Yesterday evening, I spent another 3 hours looking at Jim Millette’s results and here are my further remarks. Remember that I am layman in XEDS etc. And it is fully possible that I misunderstood or mismatched something.

My basic assumptions were: according to our discussion in the Paint thread, Laclede paint should prevail in the WTC dust as “red-gray chips”, but Tnemec paint could be also present and other “minor” red paints as well. Problem is that Jim Millette was not informed about the second major WTC red primer we “discovered” in NCSTAR 1-6b report and he basically thinks that all red chips may be the same paint (similarly as Harrit et al thought that all red chips are nanothermite).

Jim Millette does not claim this, but his conclusion is: “The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.” In fact, some chips still can be e.g. Tnemec paint which does not contain epoxy, but alkyd-linseed binder instead.

My main question was: could be the most of red chips found by Jim the chips of Laclede paint (as we basically expected) or are there some clues that some chips can be Tnemec or other paint? The most important here are XEDS spectra, but as I was afraid, their interpretation is not unambiguous, because some peaks can be attributed at least partially to surface contamination, the heights of main peaks can vary for numerous reasons etc.

Initially, I planned some “detective work” in sense: let me choose all chips which contain simultaneously epoxy binder, typical kaolinite stacking platelets and nanosized iron oxide: all such chips must be Laclede paint, no matter how their XEDS look (what minor elements which are not expected in Laclede are detected in the spectra). This could be good beginning for further analysis. But, there are not enough data in the paper to start with such elimination/confirmation of “non-Laclede paint”.

(Btw, I have to complain here that notation of Jim′s samples is quite complex, not really clear and not really unified. )

Lately, I decided to establish something like XEDS “fingerprints” and “markers” of Laclede and Tnemec paints.

XEDS fingerprints:
It’s rather ironic, but I’m forced to regard XEDS spectra of freshly-cut Bentham chips (a) o (d) as a “fingerprint” of Laclede paint, since they very well correspond to the Almond’s Monte Carlo simulation of the spectra and no trace elements attributable to contaminants are present.

As for Tnemec, I have still to consider the XEDS spectra taken by Steven Jones and spectra of MEK chip in Bentham paper (see Oystein’s blog) as a kind of “Tnemec fingerprint”, although they are apparently too big peaks of calcium in them (probably because of quite massive contamination with calcium stuffs).

Looking at the XEDS spectra of red layers it is clear that even the ratios between the main peaks of Fe and Si/Al greatly vary, which is normal in many cases since XEDS probe was intentionally “focused” to very small areas in which some pigment prevails. But, the identification of the paint is even more difficult because of this.

XEDS Markers:
I think that there is one very good “marker” of Laclede paint in the XEDS: Si and Al peaks are roughly the same (because Si and Al with similar atomic numbers are present in equimolar ratio and in the same pigment particles, i.e. kaolinite). I will call this marker “Si/Al”.

On the other hand, Si peak in Tnemec paint should be substantially higher than Al peak, since silicon compounds strongly prevailed in comparison with Al compounds (mostly “calcium silicates and aluminates”, according to specification). Another important Tnemec marker can be seen in any zinc peak (from zinc chromate) and calcium peak should be quite large (but not as so big as in uncleaned “MEK chip”), whereas it should be missing in the clean Laclede paint. Concerning chromium (if any detected), it was present in both Laclede and Tnemec paint, so it is not element good for paint identification. Notably, some magnesium was present in Tnemec (in talc), but not in Laclede. But, just magnesium peaks ”meaning” is rather questionable and unclear for me. I will not consider some trace elements like Ti, since its peaks are always very little or barely visible in XEDS spectra.

Comments on some data, as regards attempts to distinguish between Laclede and Tnemec chips:
In the further text, I will comment what I see in some relevant figures and spectra, starting with Appendices which contain the whole sets of available data.
Here are the notations of dust samples from 4 locations in Manhattan. Chips separated from those samples using magnet have basically the same notations (with the number of particle added), in which I just deleted originally present “pre-numbers” 9119 (number of this project of MVA).

MVA # Date Collected Sample Location Map No.
4808-L1616 28 September 2001 22 Cortlandt St. 1
4795-L1560 22 September 2001 Murray & Church St. 2
5230-M3451 15-16 September 2001 49 Ann St. 3
9119-X0135 07 October 2001 33 Maiden Lane 4

Appendix C
It contains FTIR spectra confirming the presence of epoxy resin and kaolinite for samples:
4795/1560-red-atr-0001
4808/1616-red-atr-0001
5230m3451-red-atr-0001
9119X0135-red-atr-0001
We have only these 4 spectra for further discussion, with no possibility to attribute them to the individual chips (at least I think so). At least we know that epoxy binder was found in chips from all 4 dust samples.

Appendix E
It contains data after low temperature ashing, which released pigment particles. Kaolinite and iron oxide particles, basically consistent with pigments in Bentham chips (a) to (d), were found in samples:
4795/1560-2
4808L1616-2-60KX
4808/1616-2a
5230m3451
F9119x0135

Appendix F
It contains micrographs taken on ultrathin “plates” of red layers cut by microtome on chip(s) (?) from sample F9119x0135. Again, it is a proof of kaolinite and iron oxide in this one sample. Similar results follow from muffle ashing (400 degrees C for 1 h), see Fig. 17, sample 5230m3451.

Appendix D
It contains XEDS taken on cross-sections of red layers. I like this appendix:o) Basically, it shows mostly spectra consistent quite well with Laclede paint. In some cases, tiny calcium peaks are marked. Here is some list with tentative attributions to paint:
9119L1560(1) Laclede
9119L1560(2) Laclede
9119L1560(3) Laclede
9119L1616(3) Laclede
9119L1616(1) Laclede
9119L1616(2) Laclede
9119-5230m3451B can be Laclede, but distinct Ca peak and some S (as contaminants?)
9119X0135(3) Laclede
9119X0135(1) Laclede, some Ti is visible
9119X0135(2) Laclede

Appendix B
It contains XDES spectra on red layer surfaces (mostly washed with water; btw is this procedure good enough for removing surface contaminants? I do not know).
I do not like this appendix, since I cannot make really clear conclusions as regards attributions to some paint.

Main problems I see as a layman (without proper experience):
- There is invariably some little peak of Mg, which should not be in Laclede paint; could it be contaminant?
- There is always little to medium peak of Ca, which does not belong to Laclede. Could it be contaminant?

Since there is a lot of XEDS spectra in this Appendix, just some summary. I will not consider spectra taken on unwashed surfaces of red layers (16 chips from Sample M3451, 49 Ann St.).
- Regarding Ca and Mg as possible contaminants, most of chips could be Laclede paint, namely because of “proper” Si/Al marker.
- There are some chips which can be considered as Tnemec because of proper Si/Al marker, medium Ca peak and visible Zn peak:
Sample L1560, particle 2
Sample X0135, particles 2, 3, 5, 6 (but for particle 5, Si/Al marker does not really correspond).

As concerns the main text:
Fig. 7 shows XEDS of three red layers from sample 5230m345, photographed on Fig. 6. Basically, spectra seem to correspond to Laclede paint, but Ca peaks are quite distinct (contaminant?). It is not clear if chips were washed.

My partial conclusions:
- Especially because of Ca and Mg peaks, which can come from contaminants, it is not possible to attribute many XEDS spectra in Appendix B unambiguously to some paint.

- Some XEDS spectra correspond quite well or very well to Laclede paint (especially in Appendix D), few spectra can be attributed to Tnemec (in Appendix B).

- Jim Millette made me happy:rolleyes:, since he proved epoxy binder in some chips, as well as kaolinite and nanosized iron oxide in some chips, which is an experimental proof of Laclede paint I “discovered”. On the other hand, the results of his study do not allow some clear “distribution” of samples between just Laclede and Tnemec paint:confused:.

- Of course, also some other paints could be analyzed/found in the study, but I am simply not sure at present.

Thanks to anybody who was able to read at least partially this text:cool:

Any comments or help from experts (Sunstealer, Almond) are of course highly welcome.

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: Spending some time in attempts to analyze results, I have two notes now:

1) I think that Jim Millette should be informed about the Laclede red primer used for painting WTC1/2 floor trusses, ("discovered" here in JREF), even before publishing of our "white paper" on this matter.

2) Could you ask Jim if he is willing to discuss his results here or in any other place he may choose for this purpose? I feel that his help could solve some not really clear matters, as for his red chip study:cool: And he can be sure that we are more interested on this topic than any reviewer of his study:rolleyes:

[chrismohr]

Ivan,
Thanks much for your serious look at all this.
Jim Millette is buried in other work this week and will not be able to respond or look at this project till at least March 14 or so. My suggestion is that the experts among us look at your observations and fine-tune them, then give him something in the middle of next week that is boiled down to the best observations and suggestions. I am certain he will appreciate our collective peer-review (with the inaccuracies winnowed out by our collective efforts). This'll be a good use of the time we have as we wait for him to have time to continue working on this project.

[Miragememories]

"Ivan,
Thanks much for your serious look at all this.
Jim Millette is buried in other work this week and will not be able to respond or look at this project till at least March 14 or so. My suggestion is that the experts among us look at your observations and fine-tune them, then give him something in the middle of next week that is boiled down to the best observations and suggestions. I am certain he will appreciate our collective peer-review (with the inaccuracies winnowed out by our collective efforts). This'll be a good use of the time we have as we wait for him to have time to continue working on this project."
bolding is mine

Peer-reviewed by anonymous, highly biased forum members.

That certainly helps explain suspension-gagging the opposition (9/11 Truthers), for supposedly being exceptionally 'uncivil' and 'off topic'.

Too funny.

MM

[16.5]

bolding is mine

Peer-reviewed by anonymous, highly biased forum members.

That certainly helps explain suspension-gagging the opposition (9/11 Truthers), for supposedly being exceptionally 'uncivil' and 'off topic'.

Too funny.

MM

What in the name of god is stopping you now, today, from chiming in with comments?

Answer: NOTHING.

Instead we see that you are going to commit suicide by mod.

And that will be no loss at all, MM, no loss at all....

[DGM]

bolding is mine

Peer-reviewed by anonymous, highly biased forum members.

That certainly helps explain suspension-gagging the opposition (9/11 Truthers), for supposedly being exceptionally 'uncivil' and 'off topic'.

Too funny.

MM
Have you joined the effort to convince Jones/Harrit et al to release their concealed data?

MM: You're tight with Harrit (after the hearings). Maybe you can ask him to address this.



Before any DSC testing is performed I'd ask Harrit et al to give us EDX (and FTIR) data on the 4 samples they put in the DSC. Otherwise you're testing chalk and cheese.

They did say they did these definitive tests but never published the results. Are you not curious why?

[sheeplesnshills]

bolding is mine

Peer-reviewed by anonymous, highly biased forum members.

That certainly helps explain suspension-gagging the opposition (9/11 Truthers), for supposedly being exceptionally 'uncivil' and 'off topic'.

Too funny.

MM

Fully as good as the peer review the Bentham paper got......so you cannot complain about that.
However it I agree it would be better to take the high ground and have it professionally peer reviewed.

[NoahFence]

bolding is mine

Peer-reviewed by anonymous, highly biased forum members.

That certainly helps explain suspension-gagging the opposition (9/11 Truthers), for supposedly being exceptionally 'uncivil' and 'off topic'.

Too funny.

MM

Have anything constructive to add, kiddo?

[grandmastershek]

However it I agree it would be better to take the high ground and have it professionally peer reviewed.

Isn't it going to be (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8069112#post8069112)?

[chrismohr]

The final Millette paper will be professionally peer-reviewed by scientists who have nothing to do with JREF. That's the formal peer review. But Jim Millette no doubt will take a look-see at what people here have to offer as well. That will be a bonus. MM don't think for s minute Jim Millette is going to limit peer-review to just the things Oystein, Ivan, Sunstealer and Almond say! Please stop misinterpreting and accusing me! If you must launch into personal accusations, I have set aside space on my Richard Gage debate thread for that kind of thing so take your accusations there please.

[Justin39640]

MM don't think for s minute Jim Millette is going to limit peer-review to just the things Oystein, Ivan, Sunstealer and Almond say!

The Journal of JREF Studies.
:D

[Tricky]

There's been some off-topic and FM stuff in the above posts, but because they are mixed with legitimate on-topic discussion, I'm going to leave them, but ask you all to stick to the topic, and especially don't bring up forum management stuff.

Next time you get Bad Mod.

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan,
Thanks much for your serious look at all this.
Jim Millette is buried in other work this week and will not be able to respond or look at this project till at least March 14 or so. My suggestion is that the experts among us look at your observations and fine-tune them, then give him something in the middle of next week that is boiled down to the best observations and suggestions. I am certain he will appreciate our collective peer-review (with the inaccuracies winnowed out by our collective efforts). This'll be a good use of the time we have as we wait for him to have time to continue working on this project.

Chris: OK:cool: It's up to you if and when you inform Jim Millette about the existence of Laclede paint, which seems to explain the main results of his study (epoxy binder, kaolinite, iron oxide found). Btw, I have just got an e-mail from Oystein, who sent me revised version of "white paper" on "Laclede paint theory", so this is of course a document Jim should read.

Oystein: Looking again at Appendix B in Jim's study, it is even more apparent how the results of XEDS taken on red layer surfaces can be difficult to explain. And how easily they can show some artifacts.
Take just carbon peak: it is invariably high or very high (as expected since of high polymer binder content in paint) for all samples which were washed with clean water. But it is sometimes low (lower than all inorganics) for unwashed samples (chips from Sample M3451, 49 Ann St.). I think that this can be connected with some absorption by surface contaminant. This "contamination issue" seems to be even more important than I expected. Anyway, unwashed samples are apparently unusable for any discussion on the "origin of this and this chip" in Appendix B.

[Oystein]

Chris: OK:cool: It's up to you if and when you inform Jim Millette about the existence of Laclede paint, which seems to explain the main results of his study (epoxy binder, kaolinite, iron oxide found). Btw, I have just got an e-mail from Oystein, who sent me revised version of "white paper" on "Laclede paint theory", so this is of course a document Jim should read.

Oystein: Looking again at Appendix B in Jim's study, it is even more apparent how the results of XEDS taken on red layer surfaces can be difficult to explain. And how easily they can show some artifacts.
Take just carbon peak: it is invariably high or very high (as expected since of high polymer binder content in paint) for all samples which were washed with clean water. But it is sometimes low (lower than all inorganics) for unwashed samples (chips from Sample M3451, 49 Ann St.). I think that this can be connected with some absorption by surface contaminant. This "contamination issue" seems to be even more important than I expected. Anyway, unwashed samples are apparently unusable for any discussion on the "origin of this and this chip" in Appendix B.

Ivan,
Chris got a copy of our draft, too, and will send it to Jim when he gets feedback that Jim has a time slot for it.

As for contamination - obviously, you and I lack the experience to assess how big of a problem that can be, while Jim should have abundant experience, he does that kind of stuff every day. All we can do is ask "Hey Jim, how much of the XEDS signals in App B could be contamination?"

I'd be careful to label the chips that have equal Si and Al "LaClede" just yet. While certainly a possibilty, and while this is indeed a defining characteristic of chips a-d, we need to keep in mind two things:
1. we don't actually know with certainty that the Al-silicate in LaClede paint is kaolin. It's very likely, but there are other silicates with different Al:Si ratios
2. paints other than LaClede could contain kaolin as the lone source of Si and Al, or the (roughly) equal amounts could be pure coincidence.
Better to label them something like "LaClede-candidate".

[Sunstealer]

Here's the text matrix for the Millette data. (zoom in browser to enlarge)

MVA# - conforms to Page 2 introduction and sample archive.
Sample ID - is each chip ID.
EDX - red layer EDX (outside)
MEK/Phase - soaking of chip in MEK and phase x-ray analysis.
TEM/ASH - Ashing and TEM data.
FTIR - FTIR.
Cross-section EDX / Photos - is EDX and SEM photos for chips that had cross-sections examined. This is split into Red and Gray layers plus EDX for red layers that were examined at higher resolutions.

I had some trouble because it's not clear exactly which individual chips from the 4 samples were subjected to FTIR, Ashing & TEM or MEK & Phase X-ray Mapping so I've simply put the page number for those sections against the (1) chip sample ID with a ?. e.g.

MEK & phase x-ray analysis was carried out on a chip from sample MVA # 5230-M3451, but don't know which out of the 17 individual chips, so the page number is put in against the first chip ID.

FTIR analysis - was carried out on 4 chips, one from each MVA #, but don't know the exact chip ID (sample ID) so the page number is put against the first chip against each MVA #.

Without knowing exactly which chips are subjected to the above then it's impossible to match with EDX. It would be handy to know which individual chip was subjected to which test because some of the EDX spectra for some chips looks different to others.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=5686

[chrismohr]

Sunstealer, Oystein, Ivan:

I just emailed Jim Millette a link to Sunstealer's post #355 above and Oystein/Ivan's White Paper. He's busy today and tomorrow but who knows, he may enjoy reading this instead of the Sunday paper. I told him to keep this material till he has time to look at it. Maybe he can clarify some of the things Sunstealer mentioned.

I just got an email that Harrit, Jones and others are preparing a respectful response to Millette's study. Kevin Ryan's name was not mentioned but who knows he may make a contribution to this. They may catch some things we missed too. Stay tuned.

[Ivan Kminek]

Sunstealer, thanks a lot. It seems to be clear, that we "paint lovers" cannot substantially progress without direct cooperation with Jim Millette. Anyway, he fulfilled his job well (as he denied thermite nonsense).

Chris: Interesting news:cool:

[alienentity]

I just got an email that Harrit, Jones and others are preparing a respectful response to Millette's study. Kevin Ryan's name was not mentioned but who knows he may make a contribution to this. They may catch some things we missed too. Stay tuned.

Although they are not materials scientists per se. If it is accurate to say that their 2008 paper was lacking in expertise, it would not make sense to expect a different result from them in 2012.

One mistake we seem to be making is allowing a small group of dedicated truthers with questionable expertise to dictate the terms of debate and limit the scope of findings. Perhaps it is time to get a critique of their ATM paper from a recognized expert, and they can argue with him or her about it.

[chrismohr]

Although they are not materials scientists per se. If it is accurate to say that their 2008 paper was lacking in expertise, it would not make sense to expect a different result from them in 2012.

One mistake we seem to be making is allowing a small group of dedicated truthers with questionable expertise to dictate the terms of debate and limit the scope of findings. Perhaps it is time to get a critique of their ATM paper from a recognized expert, and they can argue with him or her about it.
Stay tuned. I am actually thinking an independent DSC analysis of their work would be good.

[chrismohr]

Although they are not materials scientists per se. If it is accurate to say that their 2008 paper was lacking in expertise, it would not make sense to expect a different result from them in 2012.

One mistake we seem to be making is allowing a small group of dedicated truthers with questionable expertise to dictate the terms of debate and limit the scope of findings. Perhaps it is time to get a critique of their ATM paper from a recognized expert, and they can argue with him or her about it.
Hey, forgive the bragging but Richard dictated the terms of last year's debate and I still won. if you ignore their terms they give you endless grief about it. Answer their concerns and it makes their bewliefs harder to defend.

That's why I hope Millette looks at the iron microspheres etc. in his final study.

[plague311]

I just got an email that Harrit, Jones and others are preparing a respectful response to Millette's study. Kevin Ryan's name was not mentioned but who knows he may make a contribution to this. They may catch some things we missed too. Stay tuned.

I guess I find it disrespectful to release information that is knowingly false in the first place. I am sure v2.0 will be filled with "sir" and "ma'am" though.

[triforcharity]

<snipped by TFT>
Next time you get Bad Mod.

How will we know the differen.....ce.......

Next day............

Tri found beaten with phone book....no leads......

:D

[tmd2_1]

Hey, forgive the bragging but Richard dictated the terms of last year's debate and I still won. if you ignore their terms they give you endless grief about it. Answer their concerns and it makes their bewliefs harder to defend.

That's why I hope Millette looks at the iron microspheres etc. in his final study.

LOL...yeah you won the debate alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg

[chrismohr]

LOL...yeah you won the debate alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg
I got off track with my little boast, but Chandler's video is beyond off-track, it's a mean-spirited attack which people gleefully pull out whenever they're too lazy to respond to the content of what I said... or in this case, to cut me down to size I guess. Anyway let's get back on track, I've already responded to Chandler's nasty little attack piece on YouTube keyword chrismohr911 video #18. The mistakes he caught on my first version of video 18 have long ago been corrected.

[fourtoe]

LOL...yeah you won the debate alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg
What was the reason why Chandler wouldn't debate Mackey on Hardfire awhile back? He was too busy? Apparently demonstrating evidence for something as important as 911 isn't his priority, but making lame YouTube videos correcting someone who is a layman in the field is something he can find time for.

Laaaaaaaaaaame.

[Oystein]

... The mistakes he caught on my first version of video 18 have long ago been corrected.

Correcting mistakes - a concept entirely alien to truthers since 2001 ;)

[OCaptain]

The final Millette paper will be professionally peer-reviewed by scientists who have nothing to do with JREF. That's the formal peer review. But Jim Millette no doubt will take a look-see at what people here have to offer as well. That will be a bonus. MM don't think for s minute Jim Millette is going to limit peer-review to just the things Oystein, Ivan, Sunstealer and Almond say! Please stop misinterpreting and accusing me! If you must launch into personal accusations, I have set aside space on my Richard Gage debate thread for that kind of thing so take your accusations there please.
Do we have a timeframe for seeing the peer-review process completed for everyone to see?

[Oystein]

Do we have a timeframe for seeing the peer-review process completed for everyone to see?

Weeks in the best case, months more usually.
Of course Millette could find himself a pay-to-publish journal, that would speed things up to he time it takes for a cheque to clear ;)


See, it took him a few weeks to get to preliminary results and some raw data.
Writing the proper report will take some time.
He'll maybe want to have it internally reviewed before submitting to a journal.
Journals will have to read it, understand it, find peer-reviewers.
Peer-reviewers usually don't sit around idle just waiting for something to be peer-reviewed - they will take their time.
If they have recommendations to pass back to Millette, give him a couple of weeks to work them into the report and re-submit.
Once peer-reviewers give the go-ahead, journal editors need to find a slot in their journal; some publish monthly, some bi-monthly, some every quarter. So that may delay it another 1-3 months.

[grandmastershek]

Weeks in the best case, months more usually.
Of course Millette could find himself a pay-to-publish journal, that would speed things up to he time it takes for a cheque to clear ;)


See, it took him a few weeks to get to preliminary results and some raw data.
Writing the proper report will take some time.
He'll maybe want to have it internally reviewed before submitting to a journal.
Journals will have to read it, understand it, find peer-reviewers.
Peer-reviewers usually don't sit around idle just waiting for something to be peer-reviewed - they will take their time.
If they have recommendations to pass back to Millette, give him a couple of weeks to work them into the report and re-submit.
Once peer-reviewers give the go-ahead, journal editors need to find a slot in their journal; some publish monthly, some bi-monthly, some every quarter. So that may delay it another 1-3 months.

Indeed...if we follow truther standards Millette should do the following:

1. Find a pay to print publisher with a track record of no credibility.

2. Suggest someone who already agrees with his conclusions as a peer reviewer; preferably someone he thanks in the paper itself.

3. After being published get people who already agree with his conclusions to confirm his results via Youtube.

[chrismohr]

I don't know the time frame for the final published paper but yes, I expect it to be months, not weeks, away.

[chrismohr]

I'm told that a response may be coming soon from Niels Harrit. I just found out that Steven Jones has indicated he will wait until the final published article is out.

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: What I have read up to now, reactions of S. Jones (in 911Blogger) are more cautious than the responses of other truthers. This seems to be another such reaction of Jones, comparatively reasonable.

Otherwise, I expect two kind of objections (among others):

1) "In fact, James Millette has not identified the material (some particular paint(s)), so this is no real progress or turnaround in the red-gray chip matter."
(And this is partially right, Chris, and it happened since Jim has not been informed about Laclede epoxy paint specification. I do not say this is wrong, it was our agreement here, not to push Jim Millette to any side:cool:

2) "Bentham chips still can be nanothermite, since they formed iron microspheres after heating in DSC device, which proved extremely high temperatures... blahblahblah... you know, this kind of stuff":o)
(Here, there is potentially much easier way to falsify this claim than expensive DSC experiments: Jim can select few chips with XEDS very similar to Bentham chips (a) to (d), with epoxy binder, iron oxide and kaolinite pigment in them, burn them in some oven under air and then look, if the ash contains some ferrospheres or any-spheres... But, perhaps better is not to measure anything, since the sad line of illiterate objections of truthers will never end;))

[tmd2_1]

I got off track with my little boast, but Chandler's video is beyond off-track, it's a mean-spirited attack which people gleefully pull out whenever they're too lazy to respond to the content of what I said... or in this case, to cut me down to size I guess. Anyway let's get back on track, I've already responded to Chandler's nasty little attack piece on YouTube keyword chrismohr911 video #18. The mistakes he caught on my first version of video 18 have long ago been corrected.

Though a little of topic from the thread I'd like to make a few more points. I mean fair is fair you made the first post in our exchange.

Chandler's "attack" was not mean "mean-spirited" it was factual. If reporting of facts, stating facts...etc makes you mean, I'd like to think I'm the meanest person around. I also find it funny how you saying you "won" the debate if off track, but me posting a rebuttal to that claim is "way off track" Something doesn't seem right with that. Chandler's video IS a response to what you said, is it necessary for me to re-write what is already in it?

I also find your little boast of "winning" the debate somewhat strange (for lack of a better word) For one thing debating isn't like a football game, who "wins" is somewhat subjective. It's a little odd you used that term, perhaps something like I handled myself well or something to that affect, would have sounded better. In my opinion, Gage did quite well, but it is my opinion.

Lastly, if you really do consider Chandler's video "nasty" (this is again subjective) try putting yourself in his situation. You associate yourself with people who do nothing but call him crazy, insult him and the whole movement. These insults are on a personal level. Now I have not seen you do that, but you certainly associate with people who do, one only has to look through threads on this board to see that. Would you be overly kind to someone who associates with people who do nothing but insult you, with some of the most vile things that can be said?

[Senenmut]

"truther" ups 300$ to finish the testing with a DSC test.

skeptics 0$???

[Julio]

Otherwise, I expect two kind of objections (among others):

1) "In fact, James Millette has not identified the material (some particular paint(s)), so this is no real progress or turnaround in the red-gray chip matter."
[...]
2) "Bentham chips still can be nanothermite, since they formed iron microspheres after heating in DSC device, which proved extremely high temperatures... blahblahblah... you know, this kind of stuff":o)
(Here, there is potentially much easier way to falsify this claim than expensive DSC experiments: Jim can select few chips with XEDS very similar to Bentham chips (a) to (d), with epoxy binder, iron oxide and kaolinite pigment in them, burn them in some oven under air and then look, if the ash contains some ferrospheres or any-spheres... But, perhaps better is not to measure anything, since the sad line of illiterate objections of truthers will never end;))

IMHO, the discussion could finish at the very moment Jones et al release their FTIR data, since it would identify what their chips actually are, regardless of whether they are the same chips Millete tested. Remember they also refused handle some samples to Millete. It's their turn, as I see it.

[DGM]

"truther" ups 300$ to finish the testing with a DSC test.

skeptics 0$???
I'm holding off the see the rest of Harrit/Jones et al data.

Any idea when they plan to release it?

[pgimeno]

I'm holding off the see the rest of Harrit/Jones et al data.

Any idea when they plan to release it?

Good point. Let's see.

Senenmut thinks the DSC (which is a test that doesn't prove a thing about the chemical composition of a sample) should be done to Millette's samples.

Millette thought that was not a necessary test to do because he proved through FTIR that the aluminium is actually in the form of kaolin platelets and nothing else.

Jones et al. have the FTIR data that would conclusively prove what the material is, but they won't release it.

And Senenmut is asking us to put money to do an unnecessary and inconclusive test, instead of asking Jones et al. to release the FTIR data which would be definitive??????

[Senenmut]

I'm holding off the see the rest of Harrit/Jones et al data.

Any idea when they plan to release it?

i dont communicate with them so i have no idea.

[Senenmut]

Good point. Let's see.

Senenmut thinks the DSC (which is a test that doesn't prove a thing about the chemical composition of a sample) should be done to Millette's samples.
it does provide addtional data though. and from that data we might be able to see that millette's material is different from jones'.

Millette thought that was not a necessary test to do because he proved through FTIR that the aluminium is actually in the form of kaolin platelets and nothing else.
it was not necessary to his samples but to equate millette's samples to jones' samples then the DSC needs to be done.

Jones et al. have the FTIR data that would conclusively prove what the material is, but they won't release it.
i really wish with they would...

And Senenmut is asking us to put money to do an unnecessary and inconclusive test, instead of asking Jones et al. to release the FTIR data which would be definitive??????
not unnecessary but i am asking for the test to be done.

[DGM]

i dont communicate with them so i have no idea.
I see. Tell you what. we'll do the test. We can release it at a later date. I can tell you now though. It did not support the "truther" view.

Does that work for you?

[Senenmut]

I see. Tell you what. we'll do the test. We can release it at a later date. I can tell you now though. It does not support the "truther" view.

Does that work for you?

ok but i dont understand? you state it "does not support the "truther" view"
from that context, it seems that you have already performed the test and just have not released the results yet?

am i right?

[DGM]

ok but i dont understand? you state it "does not support the "truther" view"
from that context, it seems that you have already performed the test and just have not released the results yet?

am i right?
Sure, we'll go with that.

(I was playing on the Jones FTIR tests).

;)

[Oystein]

"truther" ups 300$ to finish the testing with a DSC test.

skeptics 0$???

It would be cheaper if you could talk Harrit, Jones and Farrer into releasing the FTIR and TEM data they already had in 2009.

[Sunstealer]

Jones et al. have the FTIR data that would conclusively prove what the material is, but they won't release it.Absolutely. It's funny how truthers never hold their heroes to the same level of scrutiny they wish to impose on others.

And Senenmut is asking us to put money to do an unnecessary and inconclusive test, instead of asking Jones et al. to release the FTIR data which would be definitive??????Senenmut knows full well that the release of FTIR data will put this all to rest. Instead he's trying to get the focus onto worthless DSC testing. Anything to keep the illusion from exploding.

He refuses to answer any technical questions (Oysteins asked dozens) because he knows it will pin his position down. Instead he's grand-standing over a worthless test because he's ignorant with regard to materials characterisation.

Far better to push the debate toward what Millette didn't do rather than what Harrit et didn't do and perhaps refuse to do (even though they have the data). Smells fishy to me.

No additional money needs to be spent - the question regarding whether the materials are the same can be answered by Harrit or Jones publishing their data.

So far most of the posts in this thread haven't been true to the OP. I think that's because the OP is so clear regarding the data provided.

It looks like Millette has two sets of red/gray chips that are akin to LaClade and Tnemec primer paint adhered to steel although we can't be absolutely sure that's exactly what he has. We know it's not thermite.

Of those two sets, the one that is closest to LaClade is the one that matches Harrit et al samples a-d. That set has been analysed and shown to contain Kaolin, iron oxide pigment and epoxy. It is that data set that he looks to have compared with Tnemec Red 99. I'm amazed he was not informed that LaClade exists. One of the sticking points is the lack of knowledge that this paint was used. Jones is still using the "it doesn't match Tnemec Red 99, therefore it's not primer paint!" canard. I'm yet to see any truther actually acknowledge that

1. More than one primer paint is possible.

2. More than one primer paint was actually used.

3. There are more than two red paints in the whole world.



I'd like to ask our resident truthers if they find the following statements as true.

1. The dust is composed of many different materials.

2. Thermite (nano, super, thermate whatever) is present in the dust.

3. Paint is present in the dust.

4. Thermite can be separated from the dust using a magnet.

5. Paint adhered to steel can be separated using a magnet.

6 Millette used exactly the same technique as Harrit et al to separate his red/gray chips from the dust.


I expect none of them to reply.

[chrismohr]

Though a little of topic from the thread I'd like to make a few more points. I mean fair is fair you made the first post in our exchange.

Chandler's "attack" was not mean "mean-spirited" it was factual. If reporting of facts, stating facts...etc makes you mean, I'd like to think I'm the meanest person around. I also find it funny how you saying you "won" the debate if off track, but me posting a rebuttal to that claim is "way off track" Something doesn't seem right with that. Chandler's video IS a response to what you said, is it necessary for me to re-write what is already in it?

I also find your little boast of "winning" the debate somewhat strange (for lack of a better word) For one thing debating isn't like a football game, who "wins" is somewhat subjective. It's a little odd you used that term, perhaps something like I handled myself well or something to that affect, would have sounded better. In my opinion, Gage did quite well, but it is my opinion.

Lastly, if you really do consider Chandler's video "nasty" (this is again subjective) try putting yourself in his situation. You associate yourself with people who do nothing but call him crazy, insult him and the whole movement. These insults are on a personal level. Now I have not seen you do that, but you certainly associate with people who do, one only has to look through threads on this board to see that. Would you be overly kind to someone who associates with people who do nothing but insult you, with some of the most vile things that can be said?
This conversation belongs on a different thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212725&page=88
I'm sorry I went off-track but discussions like yours belong there, not here.
Thank you.

[Senenmut]

Absolutely. It's funny how truthers never hold their heroes to the same level of scrutiny they wish to impose on others.

Senenmut knows full well that the release of FTIR data will put this all to rest. Instead he's trying to get the focus onto worthless DSC testing. Anything to keep the illusion from exploding.

He refuses to answer any technical questions (Oysteins asked dozens) because he knows it will pin his position down. Instead he's grand-standing over a worthless test because he's ignorant with regard to materials characterisation.

Far better to push the debate toward what Millette didn't do rather than what Harrit et didn't do and perhaps refuse to do (even though they have the data). Smells fishy to me.

No additional money needs to be spent - the question regarding whether the materials are the same can be answered by Harrit or Jones publishing their data.

So far most of the posts in this thread haven't been true to the OP. I think that's because the OP is so clear regarding the data provided.

It looks like Millette has two sets of red/gray chips that are akin to LaClade and Tnemec primer paint adhered to steel although we can't be absolutely sure that's exactly what he has. We know it's not thermite.

Of those two sets, the one that is closest to LaClade is the one that matches Harrit et al samples a-d. That set has been analysed and shown to contain Kaolin, iron oxide pigment and epoxy. It is that data set that he looks to have compared with Tnemec Red 99. I'm amazed he was not informed that LaClade exists. One of the sticking points is the lack of knowledge that this paint was used. Jones is still using the "it doesn't match Tnemec Red 99, therefore it's not primer paint!" canard. I'm yet to see any truther actually acknowledge that

1. More than one primer paint is possible.

2. More than one primer paint was actually used.

3. There are more than two red paints in the whole world.



I'd like to ask our resident truthers if they find the following statements as true.

1. The dust is composed of many different materials.

2. Thermite (nano, super, thermate whatever) is present in the dust.

3. Paint is present in the dust.

4. Thermite can be separated from the dust using a magnet.

5. Paint adhered to steel can be separated using a magnet.

6 Millette used exactly the same technique as Harrit et al to separate his red/gray chips from the dust.


I expect none of them to reply.

from henryco's website:
"I also observed in the WTC dust these, now famous, red-grey chips having all of the characteristics including the chemical composition of those described by the authors in their publication. But, even warmed far beyond 400°C, none of mine reacted by producing molten iron which would have been
the signature of a thermitic reaction."


well thats interesting. he even heated his far beyond 400C. so what do ya think if henryco had used a dsc to heat his chips? do you think it would show a similar spike like jones' even though they have the same chemical composition but did not react?

[Sunstealer]

from henryco's website:
"I also observed in the WTC dust these, now famous, red-grey chips having all of the characteristics including the chemical composition of those described by the authors in their publication. But, even warmed far beyond 400°C, none of mine reacted by producing molten iron which would have been
the signature of a thermitic reaction."


well thats interesting. he even heated his far beyond 400C. so what do ya think if henryco had used a dsc to heat his chips? do you think it would show a similar spike like jones' even though they have the same chemical composition but did not react?

I expect none of them to reply.Yep I was right.

Why do truthers never address the questions in a post and just post random noise. Why are they so afraid of answering questions?

[Edx]

"truther" ups 300$ to finish the testing with a DSC test.

skeptics 0$???

I'll donate some money if Jones/Harrit et all release the FTIR data they said they said they conducted.

But oh wait they dont really need money to do that.

[Ivan Kminek]

Btw, Peterene, who is by far the smartest Czech truther (I am Czech as well), without any problems accepted that the paper of Harrit et al was refuted by Millette study (http://911blog.yweb.sk/679/Historicky-prulom-Aktivni-vybusnina-super-termit-vedecky-potvrzena-v-troskach-z-WTC.html).
Google translation:
"Yes, the chips are evidently paint. Again, it was confirmed that Jones et al. are crooks. I think that even the collapse itself could be explained by the effects of aircraft impact and fire."

So, we can basically await some more such reactions from really educated truthers, which is in fact the best what we can expect:cool: As I understand, Peterene is highly respected among Czech truthers, so he can change the mind of other people as well.

[Oystein]

Here is what Millette writes about the gray layer wrt steel:

Results
...
The SEM-EDS and backscattered electron (BE) analysis of the cross-sections of the gray layer in the red/gray chip showed it to be primarily iron consistent with a carbon steel.
The solvents had no effect on the gray iron/steel layer.
In summary, ... The gray side is consistent with carbon steel.
Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
Some additional quotes about the gray layer:
LTA was performed for time periods of 30 minutes to 1 hour depending on the size of the chip. The gray layer remained intact
The gray layers were in the range of 10 to 50 micrometers thick

A search for terms such as "spall", "rust" turns up empty.



I am questioning if the characterization of the gray layer suffices is indeed consistent with low-carbon steel. This would not only require that SEM-EDS and BE data be consistent with such steel, but also that the other properties mentioned are consistent with the behaviour of painted steel unter the stress of a collapse. In particular:

Is it a typical behaviour of painted steek surface that the top steel layer spalls off with paint still attached?
Is the observed gray layer thickness of 10-50µm (10-100µm according to Harrit e.al.) typical for the top oxide layer of structural steel when it spalls off?
Is that spalled oxide layer expected to be magnetic, and if yes, why? (Is there experimental data that shows such spalls to be magnetic, or do we know that magnetic materials such as magnetite or elemental iron are usually part of such an oxide layer?)


Metallurgists to the front, please! I need references, not just assertions!

[chrismohr]

Here is a summary of today's conversation with Jim Millette:

1.) DSC Test. A lot is being made of the fact that Millette didn't feel the need to do a DSC test to burn the chips. He said he could do the tests for $250 or so per chip, but he would also need a real expert to analyze the results. The reason: a real analyst would have a large database of DSC results from various kinds of thermitic materials and paints to compare against, which he does not have.

I suggested an alternative: rather than burning the chips and doing another DSC test, first hire that independent analyst to take a careful look at the data in the Bentham paper. I told him that even I, an English major, can see the DSC curves don't look anything like the Tillotson DSC curves. He kind of corrected me and said a more thorough analysis with an expert and a larger database with epoxy resin, various thermitics, other paints, etc., to compare against. He prefers the idea of a thorough independent analysis of the DSC readings in the Bentham paper first.


2.) Iron microspheres in the cement? I asked if he had any unburned samples of small pieces of concrete from the WTC collapse. At first glance, he said no. The closest samples he has are from Cortland Street. He doesn't have any dust from Ground Zero, which would be where chunks might be findable. He is having an assistant look for a 1/4 inch piece to see if he can find iron microspheres inside the piece of unburned concrete from fly ash.

3.) Iron microspheres generally. He is looking into them, and going over the Bentham report in detail.

4.) Publicity. He feels it is too early to go on cable TV or in Skeptic Magazine or Skeptical Inquirer, since he is not done with his research.

5.) Washing the chips. I told him that some people think his washing the chips for preparation washed away the thermite. That was one of the only times I heard him laugh. "That's why both I and the Bentham people did a cross section, to try to eliminate contamination. If there's thermite it's in the chips, not on them!" After that, I didn't have the heart to tell him some of the other wild accusations I've read on blogs.

He's unclear about which samples were washed for the MEK samples.

6.) He's looking at the white paper given to him by Oystein and Ivan doing some detective work for him on what the chips may actually be. When he finds good leads he will get actual samples of the paint chips suggested and test them.

7.) I didn't take good notes on this, but Millette is also concerned about the presence and absence of silica in various iron microspheres (his samples and "Bentham" samples. Sorry, I wish I could explain this part better.

[Ivan Kminek]

Here is a summary of today's conversation with Jim Millette:

1.) DSC Test. A lot is being made of the fact that Millette didn't feel the need to do a DSC test to burn the chips. He said he could do the tests for $250 or so per chip, but he would also need a real expert to analyze the results. The reason: a real analyst would have a large database of DSC results from various kinds of thermitic materials and paints to compare against, which he does not have.

I suggested an alternative: rather than burning the chips and doing another DSC test, first hire that independent analyst to take a careful look at the data in the Bentham paper. I told him that even I, an English major, can see the DSC curves don't look anything like the Tillotson DSC curves. He kind of corrected me and said a more thorough analysis with an expert and a larger database with epoxy resin, various thermitics, other paints, etc., to compare against. He prefers the idea of a thorough independent analysis of the DSC readings in the Bentham paper first.


2.) Iron microspheres in the cement? I asked if he had any unburned samples of small pieces of concrete from the WTC collapse. At first glance, he said no. The closest samples he has are from Cortland Street. He doesn't have any dust from Ground Zero, which would be where chunks might be findable. He is having an assistant look for a 1/4 inch piece to see if he can find iron microspheres inside the piece of unburned concrete from fly ash.

3.) Iron microspheres generally. He is looking into them, and going over the Bentham report in detail.

4.) Publicity. He feels it is too early to go on cable TV or in Skeptic Magazine or Skeptical Inquirer, since he is not done with his research.

5.) Washing the chips. I told him that some people think his washing the chips for preparation washed away the thermite. That was one of the only times I heard him laugh. "That's why both I and the Bentham people did a cross section, to try to eliminate contamination. If there's thermite it's in the chips, not on them!" After that, I didn't have the heart to tell him some of the other wild accusations I've read on blogs.

He's unclear about which samples were washed for the MEK samples.

6.) He's looking at the white paper given to him by Oystein and Ivan doing some detective work for him on what the chips may actually be. When he finds good leads he will get actual samples of the paint chips suggested and test them.

7.) I didn't take good notes on this, but Millette is also concerned about the presence and absence of silica in various iron microspheres (his samples and "Bentham" samples. Sorry, I wish I could explain this part better.

Hi, Chris, thanks for the news:cool:

1) As for the DSC database of the heating/burning of various polymers, I wonder if such databases exist. In the scientific literature, DSC on polymers degradation are seldom measured (for the reasons I have mentioned several times here as a polymer chemist). There are probably some specialized "forensic databases", not publicly available. . But even so, I think that DSC of polymer thermal-oxidative degradation (de facto burning) can be different even for similar materials, e.g. two epoxy resins. I can be wrong (and I'd like to be wrong in this case;)) but I think that even DSC forensic specialist would not be able to clearly recognize which polymer was burned-off the paint(s) in the Bentham paper.

2) Since it was me who suggested these simple proofs of fly ash in WTC concrete in the "microsphere thread", I'm looking forward to any results. As someone pointed out, even finding of abundant microspheres in the concrete wouldn't stop the truthers' litanies about "extremely high temperatures" in WTC, but it would bring some new arguments.

4) From my point of view, it is definitely too early to go to some TV or so. I still think that the most of the chips studied by Jim are particles of Laclede paint, and therefore one of the main preliminary conclusion (the paint/material studied is unknown) should be changed, although with some necessary caution. Personally, I highly doubt that there could be another paint than Laclede, containing epoxy binder, kaolinite (or more generally some aluminosilicate) and iron oxide, abundant enough in WTC dust.

5) The truthers' suspicion that washing of red chips with water can "wash away" the thermite or can change the thermite into paint with kaolinite is clearly the Twoofers Idiocy of the Year so far:cool: Therefore, I honored this claim with three smileys in the corresponding thread, which is perhaps my record in JREF. What is really important (and this is again my question to Jim Millette): could the washing with water (without some additional means like the action of ultrasound and/or detergents) remove all surface contaminants?

6) OK, let's wait if Jim Millette accepts at least some conclusions and ideas of our white paper:rolleyes:

7) I have no remarks.

Chris, perhaps this my post sounds rather "big-headed" or even biased (in favor of my beloved Laclede paint:cool:) or so. Then, I'm sorry. Anyway, thank you again for your effort, which has lead to the real "new investigation" of 911 events:rolleyes:

[Oystein]

Triggered by ergo's not quite so stupid post over in "Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper" thread, I looked closer at Appendix G, and this raised a few questions.


The base problem is again that the chips in the Bentham paper are not all the same, and that in particular the chip they soaked in MEK is different from the chips a-d that contain kaolin.

In post #77 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8107473&postcount=77) I showed that the XEDS spectrum for Jones's MEK-chip is so vastly different from the four spectra 7(a)-(d) that more than half of it would have to be removed as contamination, if you want to claim the additional calcium, zinc, magnesium, sulfur, and excess amounts of iron and silicone are contamination. A ridiculous and preposterous handwave.

So I wonder how and why he chose the chip that Millette treated with MEK: In Appendix G, I see no Zn, no S, very little Ca. It would be foolish to take one of the kaolin-chips, even though, well, truthers probably need to be shown that MEK doesn't have the magic property of being able to pull Al-atoms out of a silicate. To simply repeat the test one would want to look for a chip that has the following elements, ordered by peak height (elements in parentheses could be exchanged):
(C, O), Ca, (Fe, Si), (Al, S, Zn), (Mg, Cr)
Unfortunately, I see no good canditate chip for that profile. perhaps
9119-4795L1560-red(2): O, C, Si, (Al, Ca, Fe), (Zn, Mg, S, Ca, P)
9119-5230M3451B-re-gray(3): (C, O), Si, (Al, Fe, Ca), (Zn, Mg, S, Cr)
9119-5230M3451B-re-gray(9): O, Si, (Ca, Fe), (Al, S), (Zn, Mg, Cr)
9119-5230M3451B-re-gray(10): O, C, Si, (Al, Ca, Fe), (S, Zn, Mg, Cr)
9119X9135-red(5): (C,O), Si, (Fe, Al, Ca), (S, Mg, Zn, Cr, Na, Cl)
9119X9135-red(6): (C,O), (Si, Fe), (Al, Ca), (S, Mg, Zn, Cr)

Generally, all these chips have not enough Ca and Zn for my taste.

And anyway, data on Harrit's MEK-chip is pretty strange. They didn't show any detailed BSE images, so we really only have the bulk XEDS to go by. According to their Fig. 16, there is silica in it (SiO2). Fig 17 with mainly just Al is weird. Fig 18 shows, beside iron oxide, a little Cl, Na and P that are missing from the bulk at fig. 14.

But a mere repetition of what they did with their MEK-chip would of course be as stupid as what they did in the first place. To show that MEK-treatment separated Al from Si would require that they weren't separated before! But this separation isn't at all necessary. The only interesting question is: Does the red layer swell to 5 times its original size? Then it might well be not epoxy-based (crosslinked, difficult to dissolve) but a binder perhaps based on linseed oil.


Sooo to finish this confusing post ... I have no idea what useful stuff Millette could have done to repeat and clarify the MEK soaking experiment. ALl I know is: The chip that Jones put in MEK is different from the chip that Millette put in MEK, and both are different from chips (a)-(d) (Millette Appendix G, Phase 3: Has high Si, very low Al, can't be kaolin, must be SiO2). As it is, this Appendix G helps not one bit towards resolving anything about the Bentam paper. Wrong material.

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Do not forget that both epoxy (in Laclede) and alkyd-linseed (in Tnemec) resins are crosslinked polymeric three-dimensional networks after curing. They are both thermosets or reactoplasts (according to the new terminology). They are basically insoluble in anything, since chemical crosslinks in the three-dimensional network can not be disrupted by solvent.

The extent to which reactoplasts are swelling (the relative increase of volume) in good solvents like ketones, tetrahydrofuran, chlorinated benzenes, dimethylformamide, dimethylsulfoxide and others is mostly dependent on the number of crosslinking sites. The less of crosslinks means the higher swelling, since network is less dense and has a more "free space" which can be filled with the solvent. So, we can not easily say that this is epoxy since it swell in this way and this is alkyd-linseed (or polyurethane or whatever else reactoplast) since it swells in this way.

If the number of crosslinking sites is low, the reactoplast can be partially dissolved in good solvents, since some polymer branched chains can be "free" (not bound to the network). The action of "epoxy removers" is based on the fact that swollen epoxy has a much lower mechanical coherence and can be therefore mechanically removed from the substrate

Here can be found some basic info on thermosets/reactoplasts (http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/irc/cbd/building-digest-159.html)

[Oystein]

O...okay, I was out on a limb there then. Thanks for pulling me back! :o

(if only truthers could ever understand that correcting each other is a sign of good partnership, not of hostility...)

[ozeco41]

Oystein: Do not forget that both epoxy (in Laclede) and alkyd-linseed (in Tnemec) resins are crosslinked polymeric three-dimensional networks after curing. They are both thermosets or reactoplasts (according to the new terminology). They are basically insoluble in anything, since chemical crosslinks in the three-dimensional network can not be disrupted by solvent.

The extent to which reactoplasts are swelling (the relative increase of volume) in good solvents like ketones, tetrahydrofuran, chlorinated benzenes, dimethylformamide, dimethylsulfoxide and others is mostly dependent on the number of crosslinking sites. The less of crosslinks means the higher swelling, since network is less dense and has a more "free space" which can be filled with the solvent. So, we can not easily say that this is epoxy since it swell in this way and this is alkyd-linseed (or polyurethane or whatever else reactoplast) since it swells in this way.

If the number of crosslinking sites is low, the reactoplast can be partially dissolved in good solvents, since some polymer branched chains can be "free" (not bound to the network). The action of "epoxy removers" is based on the fact that swollen epoxy has a much lower mechanical coherence and can be therefore mechanically removed from the substrate

Here can be found some basic info on thermosets/reactoplasts (http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/irc/cbd/building-digest-159.html)

Now I know I was right to stick with civil engineering. If it don't work add more concrete. :o

[chrismohr]

Hi Ivan and Oystein,

I passed some of your comments on to Jim this morning.

Ivan you wrote,

"What is really important (and this is again my question to Jim Millette): could the washing with water (without some additional means like the action of ultrasound and/or detergents) remove all surface contaminants? " I asked Jim this just now. Also, as for your comments on the DSC database, Jim is looking for a forensic expert's database on explosives, arson materials, etc. to compare DSC readings from the Bentham paper against known thermitic materials. He would not presume to be able to ID a paint chip based on DSC readings in any event. The forensic analysis would simply be to answer the question, "do the bentham DSC tests show evidence of thermitic material?"

And yes, Ivan, your suggestion to find concrete from WTC has been taken up by Millette in his iron microsphere research. A pat on the back to you!

[Oystein]

Chris, Ivan,

I wrote up a nice lengthy blog post to explain why the chip that Harrit e.al. soaked in MEK isn't the same as chips (a)-(d):

Why red-gray chips aren't all the same (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html)

Bottom line is: Relative to Al, there is too much Si. Relative to Si, there is too much Fe and O. And all the Ca (2nd highest peak) and S (6th highest peak, more prominent than Al alone!) have to go, along with the Zn and Mg.

Quantitatively: At least two thirds (on average) of the 6 most abundant elements(*) must be removed as "contamination" before Fig 14 resembles Fig 7. If you have twice as much (and more) "contamination" as substance, your graph is worth crap, and your material is not what you think it is.

ETA: A professional with real XEDS experience would certainly have a few things to criticize - interpretation of peak heights can be a tricky thing I should maybe have added a few more calls for caution. But that's not really the point. Certainly, Harrit e.al. didn't look at that graph with any subtlety. They just saw "C? check. O? check. Fe? check. Si? check. Al? check". Of course many many many types of dust particles, including many kinds of red paint, but also concrete, many rocks and minerals, ashes, many catalysts, etc. will contain these five elements. You can't just say "it's red, it contains 5 of the most ubiquitious elements, it must be the same weird, secret high tech military magic stuff". Doesn't work that way.
My essay isn't meant to be an accurate XEDS interpretation, but analyses quantitatively how different the graphs are, and contrasts this with how similar 7(a)-(d) are to each other.



(*): That's if you include C, of which you don't have to remove anything. If you only look at five of the six most abundant elements, Ca, O, Fe, Si and S, you'd have to remove, on average, 78% of these five.

[Ivan Kminek]

Now I know I was right to stick with civil engineering. If it don't work add more concrete. :o

There is nothing so difficult to understand.
Let me try to describe the dissolution of polymers using some illustrative analogy:

Imagine a dense coil of many mutually entagled snakes lying on the bottom of some well – like in Indiana Jones movies:o) Snakes here represent the entangled molecular chains of linear polymers or so called thermoplastics (like polystyrene, PVC or polyvinylacetate etc).

Now add some water as a “solvent” to the well. Since snakes do not like water, they try to escape. They are furiously moving and twisting, but escape from the coil is not so easy. Anyway, after some time, the coil of snakes becomes to be less tight and it is bigger with some water in it – this roughly corresponds to the formation of polymer gel. Eventually, each snake (polymer chain) succeeds to escape and we have a “mixture” of individual snakes freely swimming in the water pool – analogy of polymer solution.

Now imagine the same coil of snakes, but here each snake is somehow firmly bound to some neighbor, let say with one “crosslink”. This corresponds to the crosslinked polymers or thermostets (like epoxy or alkyd resin). When adding water, snakes again try to escape, the coil starts to be less dense (swollen with water), but there is no way for snakes to definitely escape the swollen coil , since they are mutually bound together. The most they can do is just to form network of snake bodies elongated to the maximum (filled with water as solvent).

When each snake is bound with other snakes with more than one “crosslink”, the initial “snake network” is denser. Therefore, the final "swollen snake network" is also denser and it occupies lower volume.

In some senses, this analogy is not really good, e.g. since here our snakes do not like water, whereas polymer chains/networks in contact with their good solvent in fact “like” this solvent, they "like" to be in contact with solvent molecules, since they are chemically similar (according to the well-known chemical rule “similia similibus solvuntur”).
But this is not so important. This was simply my attempt to explain why polymer binders in both Laclede and Tnemec cannot be dissolved in anything and why they can only swell (as was proven both by Harrit and Millette at least for some red chips):cool:.

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris, Ivan,

I wrote up a nice lengthy blog post to explain why the chip that Harrit e.al. soaked in MEK isn't the same as chips (a)-(d):

Why red-gray chips aren't all the same (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html)

Bottom line is: Relative to Al, there is too much Si. Relative to Si, there is too much Fe and O. And all the Ca (2nd highest peak) and S (6th highest peak, more prominent than Al alone!) have to go, along with the Zn and Mg.

Quantitatively: At least two thirds (on average) of the 6 most abundant elements(*) must be removed as "contamination" before Fig 14 resembles Fig 7. If you have twice as much (and more) "contamination" as substance, your graph is worth crap, and your material is not what you think it is.

ETA: A professional with real XEDS experience would certainly have a few things to criticize - interpretation of peak heights can be a tricky thing I should maybe have added a few more calls for caution. But that's not really the point. Certainly, Harrit e.al. didn't look at that graph with any subtlety. They just saw "C? check. O? check. Fe? check. Si? check. Al? check". Of course many many many types of dust particles, including many kinds of red paint, but also concrete, many rocks and minerals, ashes, many catalysts, etc. will contain these five elements. You can't just say "it's red, it contains 5 of the most ubiquitious elements, it must be the same weird, secret high tech military magic stuff". Doesn't work that way.
My essay isn't meant to be an accurate XEDS interpretation, but analyses quantitatively how different the graphs are, and contrasts this with how similar 7(a)-(d) are to each other.



(*): That's if you include C, of which you don't have to remove anything. If you only look at five of the six most abundant elements, Ca, O, Fe, Si and S, you'd have to remove, on average, 78% of these five.

Thanks, Oystein, I will read it as my homework:o)

(Well, I have read it and have tried to add some remark, but the post was not published for some reason. Anyway, a fine blog contribution - and my remark was not important anyway)

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi Ivan and Oystein,

I passed some of your comments on to Jim this morning.

Ivan you wrote,

"What is really important (and this is again my question to Jim Millette): could the washing with water (without some additional means like the action of ultrasound and/or detergents) remove all surface contaminants? " I asked Jim this just now. Also, as for your comments on the DSC database, Jim is looking for a forensic expert's database on explosives, arson materials, etc. to compare DSC readings from the Bentham paper against known thermitic materials. He would not presume to be able to ID a paint chip based on DSC readings in any event. The forensic analysis would simply be to answer the question, "do the bentham DSC tests show evidence of thermitic material?"

And yes, Ivan, your suggestion to find concrete from WTC has been taken up by Millette in his iron microsphere research. A pat on the back to you!

Thanks, Chris:o)

[shure]

I would like to know about this...


Did he say they did TEM as part of this published paper?


Nope, this was said later. I remember discussing it with Steven online.


Not neccessarily. I don't understand all these tests. But if I am pulled over and refuse a breathalizer, and am given a blood test instead, it is accepted as even more accurrate than a breathalizer so there is no need to also take the breathalizer.

Is this the case with DSC and TEM? I don't know.


I do. Millette can claim his findings rebut Jones et al. on the basis of what he has now. That is evident. Jones can do likewise. That, also, is evident. I've explained why. I feel uneasy about saying it about a entire group of scientists, but I've said it a couple of times now.

DSC, however, was conducted by Tillotson, Jones and not by Millette. I consider that a hiatus, because DSC yields additional, important information. I suggest you read up on DSC to understand this better; and I also suggest you read the Tillotson paper, if you haven't already. I can send it to you if you like.

DSC and TEM are two completely different things. Since conducting a DSC test would have been peanuts for Millette, I don't understand why he didn't. If his argument is that it's irrelevant I would call him a liar.

I do think Oystein asked for a DSC, too. In fact, he was jerking Millette's sleeve every step of the way, which I think was a breach of ethical conduct.

I remind you all again that I am not going to do camp based reasoning, where I pounce on Jones and Ryan because they've done this or that. I am pissed off about the no hijacker claims. Apart from that, I will approach the science as it ought to be approached: factually, objectively, accurately and fairly.

One of the two parties is fraudulent. Period.
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

[Oystein]

I would like to know about this...

SnowCrash, SnowCrash...tsk tsk tsk

I do think Oystein asked for a DSC, too. In fact, he was jerking Millette's sleeve every step of the way, which I think was a breach of ethical conduct.
Not at all, if I had made any request concerning DSC, I would have asked Drl. Millette NOT to do such a stupid thing, because both Farrer's DSC test and Farrer's DSC results are totally meaningless, except that they prove that whatever it is Farrer put in his DSC (and that's really the crux: He gave us no indication as to what he put in the DSC. Remember, Harrit and Jones have found at least six different kinds of red-gray chips in their samples!) cannot possibly thermitic in nature and is very different from what Tillotson tested.

Besides, Farrer (or Harrit and Jones) lies: He did NOT call Gash or Tillotson to ask how they did their DSC test. Because contrary to what the ATM authots claim, Tillotson and Gash used nitrogen atmosphere, not air!


DSC, however, was conducted by Tillotson, Jones and not by Millette. I consider that a hiatus, because DSC yields additional, important information.
No, it doesn't. Garbage in, garbage out.

I suggest you read up on DSC to understand this better; and I also suggest you read the Tillotson paper, if you haven't already. I can send it to you if you like.
Yes, please. If you do that, and compare Tillotson's and FarrerÄs graphsm, you'll see that they are fundamentally different in several ways. They have to be: Both experiment measured different reactions occurring on differen materials under different atmosphere. The results of Farrer are meaningless.

DSC and TEM are two completely different things. Since conducting a DSC test would have been peanuts for Millette, I don't understand why he didn't. If his argument is that it's irrelevant I would call him a liar.
Yes, DSC and TEM are two completely different things. The former is a nonsense and incompetent thing to do, especially when a greenhorn amateur like farrer does it with unknown material, from which he forgot to cut off the inert mass, under the wrong atmosphere. The latter is competent test in the hands of an experienced professional, yielding definite an unambiguous result.

SnowCrash, I would call Millette an "experienced professional with the relevant education making a wise and economic call". I would call you a "fool", on the other hand, for making such uninformed accusations.

[Sunstealer]

I would like to know about this...DSC is not required as a test, it offers nothing meaningful. This is a materials characterisation exercise. DSC does not help identify the material in this case. FTIR and TEM-SAED do, that is why they were used.

DSC in Harrit's paper does not help identify the material.* The DSC curves in Harrit et al are nothing like Tillitsons yet it's claimed they are the same material. It's nonsense.

* nor does the silly electrical test nor does burning them with a torch.

Harrit et al had atleast 3 different types of materials in their chips. I'll support truthers in their cause for Millette to do a DSC when they can get the information from Harrit/Jones/Farrer as to exactly what chips he tested in the DSC.

Truthers don't understand the importance of this. Let me explain. Harrit had

1. Bananas (chips a-d)
2. Apples. (MEK chip)
3. Oranges. (Fig 31 chip)

Millette has

1. Bananas. (His EDX match Harrit's bananas.)
2. Apples. (Some of the red layers look like the MEK chip but not exactly sure).

So we don't know what Farrer put into the DSC. It could be 4 apples, it could be 2 apples and two bananas.

So lets assume it's 4 apples. Now if Millette put a banana in the DSC will the curve be the same? Unlikely. Truthers will scream blue murder if the curves differ (even though they ignore the differences between Harrit and Tillitson).

Lastly if Millette puts an apple in the DSC will that change the fact that the EDX data is the same, the morphology of the particals in the SEM photos are the same, the binder material looks the same, the gray layer is the same? No it's still an apple.

Millette has already explained why the DSC is not required. I wish truthers would actually read papers and threads before jumping to their silly conclusions.

Harrit et al performed FTIR, but did not include this definitive and conclusive analysis in the paper. Why not? Harrit et al performed a TEM with XRD iirc - they confirmed the rhombohedral Fe2O3 about a year later. They said that the results on the aluminosilicate platelets was "inconclusive".

The problem is truthers simply do not have the knowledge to understand what these analytical techniques are, what their limitations are and what they actually tell you. The lack of comment regarding FTIR data from Millette is telling - way above their heads. To then call Millette a liar or a fraud is ludicrous.

I told everyone that the material was paint 3 years ago. I even showed how it comprised of platelets of Kaolin and that the gray layer was steel. No truther could hold a candle to that analysis. Millette has shown me to be correct. What's more no truther can hold a candle to that conclusion either. I didn't need Harrit's DSC curves then and we don't need Millette to do the same test to show that the samples a-d in the Harrit et al paper are paint.

Truthers need to show why this

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=874

does not match the majority of samples that Millette has. When they can do that then perhaps they can then move onto FTIR and then maybe DSC.

They know they've been shown up, conned by their own need to believe, but they don't want to own up to it.

[shure]

Thanks for the responses ;)

[Sunstealer]

I am questioning if the characterization of the gray layer suffices is indeed consistent with low-carbon steel. This would not only require that SEM-EDS and BE data be consistent with such steel, but also that the other properties mentioned are consistent with the behaviour of painted steel unter the stress of a collapse. If I remember correctly BSE analysis can be used to determine oxide layers in steel. Possible he used that or he simply compared it with their library or used his experience.

Remember that we have lots of EDX data on steel. A while ago I linked to 10 or so EDX spectra that matched the gray layer in the papers.

The top one is from the Metallurgical analysis of wtc steel.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=908


In particular:
Is it a typical behaviour of painted steek surface that the top steel layer spalls off with paint still attached?

Yes.

We consider the oxide layer on steel to be incoherent with the parent metal (bulk of the steel). What this means is the steel will have a particular atomic lattice structure i.e defined atomic bond lengths that make up the crystal structure.

The oxide layer has such different bond lengths within it's crystal structure compared to the steel parent metal that the two are said to be incoherent with one another. Incompatible with one another. In effect what this means is that the oxide layer is not very well attached to the parent metal. Stress, whether thermal or mechanical, will tend to cause this layer to spall due to the weakness.


Is the observed gray layer thickness of 10-50µm (10-100µm according to Harrit e.al.) typical for the top oxide layer of structural steel when it spalls off? Yes. It's not quite as black and white because different rolling and processing techniques and temperatures can affect the characteristic of the oxide layers that form.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OHsKYj8T9z8C&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=rust+%22intermediate+layer%22&source=bl&ots=iZBAXdWPDX&sig=SGebXnVpq8pII4mGG87yiT7dKuY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ruBgT9P2GsmN8gPQ_8jLBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rust%20%22intermediate%20layer%22&f=false

What we are seeing is the intermediate (and probably inner) layer.


Is that spalled oxide layer expected to be magnetic, and if yes, why? (Is there experimental data that shows such spalls to be magnetic, or do we know that magnetic materials such as magnetite or elemental iron are usually part of such an oxide layer?)
Yes. The intermediate layer usually consists of magnetite.

[shure]

This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???


.

[000063]

Also from that thread
JREFers are lying, scum sucking ******** who attempt to redefine skepticism as subjugation to authority and American exceptionalism. Which is ironic, since Oys. is German, I'm not American, and Lefty is very left-wing.

Of course, Snowy runs 911 blogger, and isn't exactly objective.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-150.html

So what Jon? You think Pat or the JREF clique would welcome our cover-up arguments with open arms?

I don't give a **** what JREFers think. I don't give a **** what Truthers think, either.

No topic is off limits from critical scrutiny. I will not stop looking at those collapses because any one of you says so, and I will not disregard your research because the CD/Northwoods people say so.

I will evaluate the merit of each argument on its own. Then I will take an honest, well supported position on it. Groupthink makes me sick.Why bother answering a question from a guy who will not listen to it in the first place?


I have NO DOUBT that there are those who have an INTEREST in exposing Dr Jones. This article speculates at how suspicious it is that JRefs rush to support the study.

Are you really that surprised? i do not find it suspicious at all.

Is the behavior YOU are exhibiting any LESS biased?

All I know is that the credibility of Gage, Ryan and Jones has been almost completely destroyed – NOT thru smear campaigns and insinuation (as you see in the article I’m referencing) – but thru THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

[shure]

Is there a way to show that Jones is a liar? Something that can't be disputed?

[Sunstealer]

This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???


.Bearing in mind that the other part of the post is

JREFers are lying, scum sucking ******** who attempt to redefine skepticism as subjugation to authority and American exceptionalism.

Unless we're talking China, Russia and/or the GWOT. Then it's conspiracy time.

They would likewise denounce Fenton's book with lies. Shamelessly.

What else is new? Are you surprised?

Here's what you do. You read the literature on DSC and you read Tillotson's paper.

STOP... RELYING... ON... SOMEBODY... ELSE'S.... OPINION.

Look at them claiming a DSC is meaningless. Tillotson did one. Is it meaningless? Of course not.then why are you asking for our opinion if it's not going to be taken?

This snowcrash fella doesn't know what he's taking about. His argument is well such and such stuck his head in the oven so we should too. He has no idea why Harrit et al should not have bothered with DSC and why their DSC curves are essentially meaningless.

Harrit et al never confirmed they had thermite during their charactirisation. Tillitson did because he made it.

If you click on my sig it will show you the post where I show kaolin is present in Harrit's samples with no reference to DSC because it's not needed.

[Sunstealer]

Is there a way to show that Jones is a liar? Something that can't be disputed?That's not required. The data in the Harrit et al paper proves that they don't have thermite samples. Bearing in mind Jones's other interests he can simply be put down as a crackpot who's operating outside his field in this case.

[pgimeno]

Also from that thread

And also from that thread:

Look at them claiming a DSC is meaningless. Tillotson did one. Is it meaningless? Of course not.


I recall having seen someone say recently that either Tillotson or Gash said later that that test was unnecessary. Could someone confirm this? I've been searching the threads but can't find the quote.



This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???


.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8035699&postcount=1986

[alienentity]

SnowCrash, SnowCrash...tsk tsk tsk


.

I registered with 911blogger last year. I've attempted to make several comments on the Millette thread but none have appeared there. I wonder if snowcrash is afraid to have opposing voices on 911blogger?

Oh well, at least I can post here!

[Oystein]

This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???


.

I have it as a private mail, but second hand, unfortunately without permission to publish.

But it only makes sense. See: Tillotson and Gash, while discussing why their DSC test showd an energy density of only 1.5 kJ/g, report on page 343 of their paper (the same page that the DSC trace comes from):
From elemental analysis we have observed that these materials have organic impurities that make up ~10% of the sample by mass. It is likely that the impurities are due to residue solvent and/or epoxide or epoxide by-products from the synthesis. All these factors undoubtedly contribute to a reduction in the total energy measured.
Tillotson and Gash know, of course as well as any competend scientist in their fields, that organic solvents and epoxides will burn under air if heated sufficiently, and have an energy density that is significantly higher than that of even ideal thermite(*). So these organic impurities would not reduce the measured energy (density), they would increase it - if they were allowed to burn in the DSC. Tillotson and Gash however have no doubt that the organics reduce energy density. This only makes sense if they know as fact that the organics have not burned. There is only one way to keep them from burning: Heat then in an inert atmosphere.



(*) I have no tabulated values available at this time, but expect epoxy to have 15 kJ/g or more, and solvents 30 kJ/g and more.
~10% by weight impurities with 15 kJ/g would alone provide the entire 1.5 kJ/g for the whole sample that was measured. However, Tillotson and Gash have additional proof that a thermite reaction took place: They analysed the residue with PXRD (why didn't Harrit e.al. analyse their esidues with PXRD? The Tillotson and Gash article should teach then that doing a DSC alone is not enough to prove there was a thermite reaction!) and found metallic Fe and Al2O3. PXRD is a competent method. The XEDS and BSE that Harrit e.al. used was an incompetent method.


# oysteinbookmark

[Trojan]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but do we know how Millette received his dust samples? is there a chain of custody from Harrit to Millette?

[DGM]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but do we know how Millette received his dust samples? is there a chain of custody from Harrit to Millette?
He did not receive samples from the "truther" crew (they refused). The origin of his samples are documented in the paper.

[Oystein]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but do we know how Millette received his dust samples? is there a chain of custody from Harrit to Millette?

Short version: They had been collected in the days after 9/11 by real scientists experienced with securing such samples, from locations around GZ selected by smart criteria. Collected with documented, rigorous scientific protocols. Parts of the samples had already been analysed in 2001 and 2002 for peer-reviewed publications, the rest was stored in controlled environment (dark, cool dry) till today.

This contrasts with Harrit's and Jones's samples which were collected by amateurs in random locations without protocol and stored in uncontrolled and basically unknown conditions. It is only fitting that these samples were analysed by amateurs (none of the 9 authors of the Bentham paper is a forensic scientists. None has experience with this type of dust analysis. Farrer had never done a DSC test before. Someone said that Harrit has never done an XEDS before - I can hardly believe that. ).

[OCaptain]

There is nothing so difficult to understand.
Let me try to describe the dissolution of polymers using some illustrative analogy:

Imagine a dense coil of many mutually entagled snakes lying on the bottom of some well – like in Indiana Jones movies:o) Snakes here represent the entangled molecular chains of linear polymers or so called thermoplastics (like polystyrene, PVC or polyvinylacetate etc).

Now add some water as a “solvent” to the well. Since snakes do not like water, they try to escape. They are furiously moving and twisting, but escape from the coil is not so easy. Anyway, after some time, the coil of snakes becomes to be less tight and it is bigger with some water in it – this roughly corresponds to the formation of polymer gel. Eventually, each snake (polymer chain) succeeds to escape and we have a “mixture” of individual snakes freely swimming in the water pool – analogy of polymer solution.

Now imagine the same coil of snakes, but here each snake is somehow firmly bound to some neighbor, let say with one “crosslink”. This corresponds to the crosslinked polymers or thermostets (like epoxy or alkyd resin). When adding water, snakes again try to escape, the coil starts to be less dense (swollen with water), but there is no way for snakes to definitely escape the swollen coil , since they are mutually bound together. The most they can do is just to form network of snake bodies elongated to the maximum (filled with water as solvent).

When each snake is bound with other snakes with more than one “crosslink”, the initial “snake network” is denser. Therefore, the final "swollen snake network" is also denser and it occupies lower volume.

In some senses, this analogy is not really good, e.g. since here our snakes do not like water, whereas polymer chains/networks in contact with their good solvent in fact “like” this solvent, they "like" to be in contact with solvent molecules, since they are chemically similar (according to the well-known chemical rule “similia similibus solvuntur”).
But this is not so important. This was simply my attempt to explain why polymer binders in both Laclede and Tnemec cannot be dissolved in anything and why they can only swell (as was proven both by Harrit and Millette at least for some red chips):cool:.
"Crosslinked polymers! Why'd it have to be crosslinked polymers?"

[Ivan Kminek]

"Crosslinked polymers! Why'd it have to be crosslinked polymers?"

Ergh... you are right, "crosslinked polymer".... sounds suspicious!
According to Wiki, crosslinked polymers (thermosets) "are generally stronger than thermoplastic materials due to this three dimensional network of bonds (cross-linking), and are also better suited to high-temperature applications up to the decomposition temperature..."

Perhaps crosslinked polymers were used as nanothermite binder because of their unique properties: they better withstand/retain the horrible heat and pressure of thermitic reaction of aluminium (which treacherously looked as kaolinite!) up to some point/temperature, where they mightily contribute by their flash decomposition (lasting 5 minutes and more, according to Bentham paper) to the overall destructive effect of this secret pyrotechnical weapon!;)

It reminds me this extraordinary contribution from reddit.com (http://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/qm6uy/wtc_dust_study_feb_29_2012_by_dr_james_millette/):

"Thermite can be made of things other than aluminum and iron oxide, and they assume the lack of aluminum indicates there was no thermite. If there was iron oxide, what other elements could be substituted? Considering this would have been the black op of the century, is it not unreasonable to suggest whoever made this stuff knew enough to create an explosive that would leave no obvious evidence of thermite?"

Hehe, I think that we can expect more such truthers' Deep Thoughts, and I will try to gather some fine collection of them. The fresh idea of Dirk Eckhardt aka "Sitting Bull" that Millette washed red chips with water in order to sneakingly destroy their thermitic nature surely belongs among them:D:D

[OCaptain]

Ergh... you are right, "crosslinked polymer".... sounds suspicious!
According to Wiki, crosslinked polymers (thermosets) "are generally stronger than thermoplastic materials due to this three dimensional network of bonds (cross-linking), and are also better suited to high-temperature applications up to the decomposition temperature..."

Perhaps crosslinked polymers were used as nanothermite binder because of their unique properties: they better withstand/retain the horrible heat and pressure of thermitic reaction of aluminium (which treacherously looked as kaolinite!) up to some point/temperature, where they mightily contribute by their flash decomposition (lasting 5 minutes and more, according to Bentham paper) to the overall destructive effect of this secret pyrotechnical weapon!;)

It reminds me this extraordinary contribution from reddit.com (http://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/qm6uy/wtc_dust_study_feb_29_2012_by_dr_james_millette/):

"Thermite can be made of things other than aluminum and iron oxide, and they assume the lack of aluminum indicates there was no thermite. If there was iron oxide, what other elements could be substituted? Considering this would have been the black op of the century, is it not unreasonable to suggest whoever made this stuff knew enough to create an explosive that would leave no obvious evidence of thermite?"

Hehe, I think that we can expect more such truthers' Deep Thoughts, and I will try to gather some fine collection of them. The fresh idea of Dirk Eckhardt aka "Sitting Bull" that Millette washed red chips with water in order to sneakingly destroy their thermitic nature surely belongs among them:D:D
Wow, making a point I didn't intend to make!

I was honestly just riffing off the Indiana Jones reference.

[Oystein]

I think I found a candidate LaClede primer chip:

It's the one identified as 9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2
Images in Appendix D

First, compare the red layer XEDS of this chips with Harrit's chip (b):
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MilletteAnalysis/9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-red1_Xeds20kV.jpg
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MilletteAnalysis/Harrit_7b.jpg

I notice in both:

C dominates far and away
O is second highest (in Millette's spectrum, lighter elements are relatively stronger and heavier relatively weaker than in Harrit's. Such effects can come from geometry of the sample, attenuating factors, or would happen if Millette used a lower beam energy))
Al and Si come next and are almost equal
Si is "pregnant" on the right shoulder, at the 1.81 keV where Sr likes to hide!
Traces of S, Ca and Cr
And of course iron in fifth place

Only difference: Millette has a trace of Na. Oh well, I guess well never find anything totally without impurity.


Now the gray layer XEDS:
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MilletteAnalysis/9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-gray1_Xeds20kV.jpg
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MilletteAnalysis/Harrit_6b.jpg

I notice in both:

Fe just a little higher than O
There is this weird little peak between O and Fe L-alpha that doesn't correspond with any element's Edge energy as far as I can find, yet it's still there (also in chip c)
I think there is a tiny signal for Mn near 5.9 keV, although neither Millette nir Harrit labeled it (I did)
Little bit of C


So both red and gray spectra are really nice matches.

And on to the image:
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MilletteAnalysis/9119-5230M3451B-crosssec2-SemImage_1300x.jpg
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig05_orig.jpg

Is that BSE? Red layer is dark, gray layer bright. The gray layer is as homogeneous, brittle and edgy as the gray layers of Harrit. The red layer seems to be sprinkled with the 100nm hematite grains. Kaolin platelets are less than sharp, but the red arrows point at two acicular, whitish particles ca. 3µm long and perhaps 500nm thin. Candidates for Strontium Chromate?


What do you think, guys?

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Thanks for your analyses:cool:

Those two light needles can be strontium chromate crystals, interesting discovery, it is perhaps more convincing that the finding of such needles in our white paper. But still, it can be perhaps some accidental impurity, e.g. some tiny fibers (??). It would be great if Jim Millette can have a look on this:o)

Well, according to your analysis, this one Jim's chip must be Laclede paint because of a very good match of XDES with theory... not many chips, but at least one. Anyway, success:cool:
It would be great (and conclusive!) if Jim Millette can assign some FTIR spectrum confirming epoxy binder and kaolinite to this chip or to any other chips in which XEDS spectra were taken on cross-section of the red chips.
I still think that most of the spectra in Appendix D (XEDS on chips cross-sections) basically correspond to the expected Laclede paint spectra, considering that ratio between Si/Al peaks and Fe peak naturally fluctuates, e.g. since XEDS probe was mostly intentionally focused to very tiny areas. Impurities are practically negligible there. In the case of red paint chips from WTC, which were surrounded by fine dust e.g. from calcium sulfate, only XEDS spectrum on freshly cut surfaces perhaps can be good enough.

As for the "third peak" between Fe and O, I think that it could be some noise, which can be jugded from the overal noise in this graph. I think:cool:

[Oystein]

Last night I copied all the graphs in all of the Appendices to proper image files, they are clearer that way.

One thing that strikes me as odd is that almost all (33 of 34) XEDS graphs in Appendix B have some Mg. The lone exception is 9119-5230M3451B-red-gray(2) which is also a LaClede candidate. The cross-sections in Appendix D on the other hand are all Mg-free, with again one exception (9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-red(1), which is not a LaClede candidate). Why would that be so? Mg, at 1.25 keV, is a nice distance away from its nearest plausible neighbors, Na (1.04) and Al (1.49), so it is certainly not a matter of mistaking it for some other element. Would that indicate that Mg is a very common surface contamination that's hard to wash off with just water?
I would have to accept some Mg an perhaps other traces when selecting chips for closer examination - not a happy prospect.



(By the way: Comparing Millette's and Farrer's/Jones's images and graphs, I think that the Harrit team did some pretty nice hands-on work, they don't pale against the pro)

[Ivan Kminek]

Last night I copied all the graphs in all of the Appendices to proper image files, they are clearer that way.

One thing that strikes me as odd is that almost all (33 of 34) XEDS graphs in Appendix B have some Mg. The lone exception is 9119-5230M3451B-red-gray(2) which is also a LaClede candidate. The cross-sections in Appendix D on the other hand are all Mg-free, with again one exception (9119-5230M3451B-crosssec1-red(1), which is not a LaClede candidate). Why would that be so? Mg, at 1.25 keV, is a nice distance away from its nearest plausible neighbors, Na (1.04) and Al (1.49), so it is certainly not a matter of mistaking it for some other element. Would that indicate that Mg is a very common surface contamination that's hard to wash off with just water?
I would have to accept some Mg an perhaps other traces when selecting chips for closer examination - not a happy prospect.



(By the way: Comparing Millette's and Farrer's/Jones's images and graphs, I think that the Harrit team did some pretty nice hands-on work, they don't pale against the pro)

My self-quote from post 341:
"(As for XEDS spectra of surfaces, Appendix B)
Main problems I see as a layman (without proper experience):
- There is invariably some little peak of Mg, which should not be in Laclede paint; could it be contaminant?
- There is always little to medium peak of Ca, which does not belong to Laclede. Could it be contaminant?"
(On the other hand XEDS spectra on cross-sections show no Mg)

So, I agree, it is rather strange. I think that it is highly improbable that just accidentally, all "surface samples", just owing to Mg peak, are different paint that all "cut samples", since both sets of samples are comparatively big.
This prompts me that Mg peak should be somehow connected with the surface contamination of all (almost) chips in Appendix B, no matter what paint they are made of.

But I will enjoy now the first really spring day and evening in Prague (20 degrees C, sunny, a lot of people outside:rolleyes:)

[Julio]

As for the "third peak" between Fe and O, I think that it could be some noise, which can be jugded from the overal noise in this graph. I think:cool:

Suggestion: since Oysten identified a bump that might be Mn K line near 6 Kev, then it might be Mn L line at 0.63 Kev, just in between O K and Fe L.

[The Almond]

Suggestion: since Oysten identified a bump that might be Mn K line near 6 Kev, then it might be Mn L line at 0.63 Kev, just in between O K and Fe L.

The peak in question is actually part of the Fe L series. The Fe L family contains about 10 transition edges, of which at least 2 are visible at the resolution presented in the paper. The fluorescence yield of Mn L lines is usually about 1/10th of the Mn K-L2,3 (K alpha) lines.

[The Almond]

Why would that be so? Mg, at 1.25 keV, is a nice distance away from its nearest plausible neighbors, Na (1.04) and Al (1.49), so it is certainly not a matter of mistaking it for some other element. Would that indicate that Mg is a very common surface contamination that's hard to wash off with just water?
I would have to accept some Mg an perhaps other traces when selecting chips for closer examination - not a happy prospect.


Mg is an incredibly common Earth element. I can't think of a dust/dirt/ash sample that had no Mg in it. That being said, remember that we are dealing with heterogeneous materials, most of which are flakes and pieces. Those sneaky little X-rays have lots of opportunity to fluoresce nearby grains and contaminants.

[ozeco41]

I've been wondering if we could give this thread subtitles. :o



:duck:

[pgimeno]

And also from that thread:

Look at them claiming a DSC is meaningless. Tillotson did one. Is it meaningless? Of course not.

I recall having seen someone say recently that either Tillotson or Gash said later that that test was unnecessary. Could someone confirm this? I've been searching the threads but can't find the quote.

Found it.

Later they admitted (in private conversation) to some faulty thinking and that the DSC result isn't really very interesting.

[Miragememories]

Found it.



Well that sounds like another Elvis sighting.

MM

[Oystein]

And also from that thread:

Look at them claiming a DSC is meaningless. Tillotson did one. Is it meaningless? Of course not.
I recall having seen someone say recently that either Tillotson or Gash said later that that test was unnecessary. Could someone confirm this? I've been searching the threads but can't find the quote.


Found it.

Later they admitted (in private conversation) to some faulty thinking and that the DSC result isn't really very interesting.

Not unnecessary. Just, with hindsight and several years of learning later, not the smartest thing they could have done. Over the years, they have come to rely less and less on the enthalpy from DSC for irreversible reactions as an absolutely accurate value. In irreversible high energy processes the solid experiences too many changes that may lead to inefficient heat transfer to he DSC sensor and thus an inaccurate heat flow measurement. It's still an excellent tool for reversible processes such as melting/solidfying ot crystal phase transitions. Also for thermal decomposition. For full-fledged chemical reactions (redox), combustion calorimetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_calorimeters ?) is a far more accurate way to determine reaction enthalpy.

[pgimeno]

Thanks for the clarification. I got a different impression from the "not very interesting" part.

[Ivan Kminek]

Mg is an incredibly common Earth element. I can't think of a dust/dirt/ash sample that had no Mg in it. That being said, remember that we are dealing with heterogeneous materials, most of which are flakes and pieces. Those sneaky little X-rays have lots of opportunity to fluoresce nearby grains and contaminants.

Thanks, Almond
According to the USGS table published here (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html), the percentage of magnesium in the dust was in the range from ca 1.7 to 3.2 %. And magnesium was found in all samples.

Si prevailed together with Ca and Mg is everywhere in levels quite "compatible" with this little peak found in the XEDS spectra on red layer surfaces:cool: I think.

[Ivan Kminek]

Btw, let me consider those average concentrations of elements in the dust according to that table (not really calculated, just rough estimates):
Ca 17%
Si 18 %
Mg 3 %
S 4 %
Fe 2 %
Al 3 %

Now again for Appendix B, where little Mg peaks are almost always visible.
Considering that red chips are contaminated with the dust with this average composition, we can expect that Ca and Si contaminants quite substantially contribute to the heights of XEDS peaks of those elements originating from the red layers themselves.

On the other hand, such contribution should be negligible in the case of Fe and Al peaks.
Sulfur can in principle come only as contaminant, since there is no sulfur compound in the specification of both Laclede and Tnemec primer paint.

E.g., silicon peaks in Appendix B are in some cases substantially higher than aluminum peaks, which is not consistent with Laclede paint. But, if some part of Si peaks belongs to contaminants, the picture is immediately closer to Laclede. And Ca peaks can come only from contaminants. (I have not considered here few XEDS spectra which are more consistent with Tnemec, because of Zn peak etc.)

Perhaps it could deserve some closer look/correlation.
But perhaps not:o

[chrismohr]

Hi all,

Jim Millette dug up a couple labs for DSC tests but is not interested in adding this to his experimental protocol. Here is what he wrote this morning:


"Chris, I got your Email concerning the DSC opinion. I had tracked down 2 laboratories who could do the work: Micromeritics in Atlanta and Particle Technology Labs in Downers Grove, IL. ... I am not interested of directing this part of the project. I will see who I might find in the Forensics area for an opinion. Jim"


I also have the contact data Jim gave me if anyone wants to organize a DSC test. But as Jim told me twice on the phone, once he determined with certainty that the chips he tested had no thermitic materials, he would have just been testing the properties of some kind of paint chip.

The last sentence of his email above is of more interest to me and most of us: he liked my idea of getting an independent analysis of the DSC tests already done and reported on in the Bentham study.

So if anyone really wants to shell out the $250-$400 to DSC test a single chip, let me know.

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi, Chris,

OK, such an independent look of some expert on the Bentham DSC curves would be definitely useful for us, even if this expert is not able to identify the paint binder:cool:

[Oystein]

Regarding the "need" felt by truthers to do DSC test, I would like to point out that they are, as far as can be determined thus far, NOT interested in the curves (no truther has EVER set out to explain the curves, beyond the fallacious "they are narrow, so reaction speed must have been high") but only in the residue. As Frank Legge writes at 911Blogger (http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-02-11/replication-thermite-study-coming-within-weeks-dr-james-millette#comment-255311):
The important criterion regarding the DSC test is that the product is globular iron, hence previously molten. There is no way that the combustion of organic material in air can produce a temperature high enough to produce molten iron.

For those promoting "thermitic paint", the responsibility is theirs to find a sample of such material and to show that it had been applied in large scale in the towers. A theory without evidence is just a distraction.
The truthers did not record when during the DSC testing the melting supposedly happened, and indeed it can't be deducted with any degree of certainty from the graphs. Melting is an endotherm process. If it happens alone, without parallel combustion, the curve would dip below zero. Interestingly, two of their four curves DO dip below zero - after the exotherm reactions have ended of course: between ca. 550°C and 680°C (and the other two curves do not). This might indicate that the heat of the DSC plate itself is sufficient to melt something.

So again, truthers aren't interested in DSC results und discussion thereof (100% of them lack the required education), they only want to heat chips (slowly?) to 700°C, see them burn, and look if any microspheres have formed. To do that, you don't need a DSC. Perhaps Millette can do that with his muffler? Perhaps he is already doing that?

[Sunstealer]

In 2009, a few weeks after the paper came out, I successfully characterised the material that was in the Harrit et al paper as primer paint adhered to oxidised steel. I showed conclusively that the red layer contained kaolin. Read the following if you don't believe me.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293&highlight=kaolin+thermite
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&highlight=kaolin+thermite

I did this without using the DSC data. DSC is not required to work out what this material is. DSC is a red herring. DSC is worthless. DSC tells you nothing you don't already know. The fact that DSC is in Harrit et al tells you they didn't know what they were doing.

In 2012 Millette successfully characterises the material as primer paint adhered to oxidised steel and conclusively shows the presence of kaolin. He does this, just like me, without the use of Differential Scanning Calorimetry data.

Tell me why anyone should need to use DSC in order to characterise this material. Why did Harrit et al do it when they didn't need to?

Que single line "answer" from truthers in 3..2..1 rather than a 1000 word scientifically literate, logical and coherent response.

[Senenmut]

In 2009, a few weeks after the paper came out, I successfully characterised the material that was in the Harrit et al paper as primer paint adhered to oxidised steel. I showed conclusively that the red layer contained kaolin. Read the following if you don't believe me.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293&highlight=kaolin+thermite
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&highlight=kaolin+thermite

I did this without using the DSC data. DSC is not required to work out what this material is. DSC is a red herring. DSC is worthless. DSC tells you nothing you don't already know. The fact that DSC is in Harrit et al tells you they didn't know what they were doing.

In 2012 Millette successfully characterises the material as primer paint adhered to oxidised steel and conclusively shows the presence of kaolin. He does this, just like me, without the use of Differential Scanning Calorimetry data.

Tell me why anyone should need to use DSC in order to characterise this material. Why did Harrit et al do it when they didn't need to?

Que single line "answer" from truthers in 3..2..1 rather than a 1000 word scientifically literate, logical and coherent response.

like i said before it helps to rule out what material you have. you guys can NOT say that what millette tested is the same material that jones tested before you do a dsc. will it react at 430 or will it be like henryco's chips and NOT react to produce iron and silicon rich microspheres even at 900C. henryco did not do a dsc but when he heated up his chips they did not react.

[Sunstealer]

like i said before it helps to rule out what material you have. you guys can NOT say that what millette tested is the same material that jones tested before you do a dsc. will it react at 430 or will it be like henryco's chips and NOT react to produce iron and silicon rich microspheres even at 900C. henryco did not do a dsc but when he heated up his chips they did not react.Why do truthers have such poor reading comprehension?

Once again - Tell me why anyone should need to use DSC in order to characterise this material. (characterise means find out what it is)

You answered like i said before it helps to rule out what material you have.How? How exactly does it help to rule out other materials? Go into detail. Why would you use DSC in a materials characterisation exercise?

A single line answer with nothing to back it up. You made a statement now back it up.

If I give you a random sample of something, why would you put it in a DSC to find out what it's not rather than use dozens of other techniques that actually tell you what it is?

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted... I misunderstood Senenmut in this case.

[Julio]

like i said before it helps to rule out what material you have. you guys can NOT say that what millette tested is the same material that jones tested before you do a dsc. will it react at 430 or will it be like henryco's chips and NOT react to produce iron and silicon rich microspheres even at 900C. henryco did not do a dsc but when he heated up his chips they did not react.

Simply put, setting the criteria on a flawed test is rather stupid.

[chrismohr]

Ivan,
You asked on a different thread why Jim Millette didn't ID Laclede paint but instead said the chips he looked at were not yet precisely identified. As you may remember, before the preliminary results came out, he did his tests and experiments based on the Bentham paper. I didn't want to give too much input before he did his own independent analysis. Now that the preliminary report has come out, he has received Oystein's white paper, as well as several of Sunstealer's and Almond's and yours and other posts etc on this subject. He is looking at this data, and if I remember correctly I think he may take the best hypotheses and test them using actual samples before final publication.

[Oystein]

... you guys can NOT say that what millette tested is the same material that jones Farrer tested before you do a dsc ...

You are correct, with a slight correction as indicated.

The reason we can't say whether or not Millette tests the same material as Farrer put in the DSC is: Farrer forgot to characterize his material both before and after the DSC test, so it is completely unknown which of the several differend kinds of red-gray chips ignite with a peak around 430°C.

You point out that HenryCo had different chips. So you admit there WERE different chips. I am glad you understand that. You are now one step ahead of Farrer, Harrit, Legge, Jones, Ryan in understanding the problem with DSC. You are still several steps behind Sunstealer and myself. But ask questions, be ready to listen and learn, and I might help you.



In fact, I am currently composing the lengthy OP to a new thread dedicated to discussing DCS-testing of red-gray chips!
So please bear with me, it's still in the making.

[Oystein]

...
You answered How? How exactly does it help to rule out other materials? [B] Go into detail. ...

May I answer this?

1. The integral of the area under the curves indicates an energy density of up to 7.5 kJ/g, almost twice that of ideal thermite, and 6x that of a nanothermite reference. This despite the known fact that a substantial portion of the mass in the DSC is inert, and a substantial portion of the rest is organic material, prone to burn anywhere between 300 and 500 °C. From this follows: A) The heat release cannot possibly be fully explained by presence of thermite B) The vast majority of the heat release comes from exotherm reactions other that thermite
2. The ignition point of the chips, or rather peak temperature, is substantially (~100°C) lower than that of a known nanothermite reference, and even more drastically lower than the ignition temperature of ordinary thermites

These observations aloow us to rule out that the chips are thermitic in nature.

See, that was easy. I think using DSC ti rule out things can be valuable, and I am glad Farrer dit :)

[Miragememories]

"Ivan,
You asked on a different thread why Jim Millette didn't ID Laclede paint but instead said the chips he looked at were not yet precisely identified. As you may remember, before the preliminary results came out, he did his tests and experiments based on the Bentham paper. I didn't want to give too much input before he did his own independent analysis. Now that the preliminary report has come out, he has received Oystein's white paper, as well as several of Sunstealer's and Almond's and yours and other posts etc on this subject. He is looking at this data, and if I remember correctly I think he may take the best hypotheses and test them using actual samples before final publication."

And while your at it Chris, you might like to explain why you and Dr. Millette never made it clear from the very beginning [November 2011] that DSC testing was off the table?

As we all know, the most sensational findings from the 2009 Bentham Paper came out of the DSC testing.

It was not until his February presentation that it became clear that Dr. Millette's company had no ability to perform DSC testing and never had any intention of performing this testing elsewhere.

You might like to consider this more recent post from January 24, 2012 where you re-affirmed to us how Dr. Millette was going to repeat the work performed by Dr. Harrit et al for the 2009 Bentham Paper;
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7961510&postcount=1677

"1.) His intention is to replicate the tests done in the Bentham study... The Bentham paper does not report on having done a normal envirnmental forensic study of the components so Dr. Millette will do that, plus everything they did, plus other tests as needed."
formatting changes are mine

You gave one very deceptive hint at that time that that DSC testing would not be performed.

"2.) He will look for evidence not only of unignited thermitic materials but for unignited nanothermitic materials, using some of the same protocols as used in the Bentham paper."
formatting changes are mine

How could you claim there was any degree of fairness and value in this supposed parallel investigation of the 2009 Bentham Paper research when you must have know its most significant findings were not being re-tested?

And this is not deception?

MM

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan,
You asked on a different thread why Jim Millette didn't ID Laclede paint but instead said the chips he looked at were not yet precisely identified. As you may remember, before the preliminary results came out, he did his tests and experiments based on the Bentham paper. I didn't want to give too much input before he did his own independent analysis. Now that the preliminary report has come out, he has received Oystein's white paper, as well as several of Sunstealer's and Almond's and yours and other posts etc on this subject. He is looking at this data, and if I remember correctly I think he may take the best hypotheses and test them using actual samples before final publication.

OK, Chris:cool: The problem is that even if Jim is convinced enough that Laclede paint is a good candidate as for material of the most of his chips, truthers will still have some "counter-arguments", like the lack of any evidence of strontium chromate so far. Therefore I suggested some "additional" analyses looking for the presence of strontium.

[Gamolon]

If I give you a random sample of something, why would you put it in a DSC to find out what it's not rather than use dozens of other techniques that actually tell you what it is?

:D

You should just continually post the above quote. Maybe they'll get it someday...

[chrismohr]

MM, sigh, I thought Jim Millette was going to do a DSC test and he later decided not to because there was no evidence of thermitic material. He is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors, and I keep asking him about the tests. His most recent response: here are some DSC testers if you want to hire them but I am not interested in pursuing it because it isn't relevant to the question of thermitic materials. I do keep nudging him, believe it or not, though I believe he's right when he says the test is not necessary.

Sigh. Stop accusing me of lying. Please?

[Miragememories]

"MM, sigh, I thought Jim Millette was going to do a DSC test and he later decided not to because there was no evidence of thermitic material. He is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors, and I keep asking him about the tests. His most recent response: here are some DSC testers if you want to hire them but I am not interested in pursuing it because it isn't relevant to the question of thermitic materials. I do keep nudging him, believe it or not, though I believe he's right when he says the test is not necessary.

Sigh. Stop accusing me of lying. Please?"
I've been nice and used the less evil term, deceptive.

You were the person in direct communication with Dr. Millette, and you were the person making the claims about how good the investigation was going to be, and how closely it would follow the original testing performed for the 2009 Bentham Paper.

How did Dr. Millette make you think he was going to perform a DSC test?

You could say that Dr. Harrit et al, also felt there was not sufficient evidence to prove thermitic material, at least until they performed DSC testing.

And why at this late hour is Dr. Millette saying that "he is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors"?? For the most part, everyone in this thread has read that Bentham Paper. Are you suggesting that Dr. Millette has never bothered to at least read it?

Everything from Dr. Millette indicates he never had any such intention of seeing that DSC testing was performed, that he has no capability of performing DSC tests, and that he lacks the ability to perform such testing.

Like I said, the DSC testing was the most sensational aspect of the 2009 Bentham Paper. It was the DSC testing, that at least the 9/11 Truth seekers here, were most anxious to hear the results from.

Now you and the rest of the gang Official Story supporters appear quite content to accept the results, and investigative approach taken by Dr. Millette in his self-serving investigation, as being definitive.

It gave him a 'safe', 'nothing new', 9/11 paper to present for his company, and it gave you a bogus claim of sponsoring a legitimate investigation into the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

MM

[DGM]

Like I said, the DSC testing was the most sensational aspect of the 2009 Bentham Paper. It was the DSC testing, that at least the 9/11 Truth seekers here, were most anxious to hear the results from.


MM

Can you document what chips they tested in the Bentham Paper? It seems in their quest for truth they forgot to identify what they were actually testing.

Any luck getting your buddy Harrit to release the data he's holding back?

[16.5]

I've been nice and used the less evil term, deceptive.

You were the person in direct communication with Dr. Millette, and you were the person making the claims about how good the investigation was going to be, and how closely it would follow the original testing performed for the 2009 Bentham Paper.

How did Dr. Millette make you think he was going to perform a DSC test?

You could say that Dr. Harrit et al, also felt there was not sufficient evidence to prove thermitic material, at least until they performed DSC testing.

And why at this late hour is Dr. Millette saying that "he is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors"?? For the most part, everyone in this thread has read that Bentham Paper. Are you suggesting that Dr. Millette has never bothered to at least read it?

Everything from Dr. Millette indicates he never had any such intention of seeing that DSC testing was performed, that he has no capability of performing DSC tests, and that he lacks the ability to perform such testing.

Like I said, the DSC testing was the most sensational aspect of the 2009 Bentham Paper. It was the DSC testing, that at least the 9/11 Truth seekers here, were most anxious to hear the results from.

Now you and the rest of the gang Official Story supporters appear quite content to accept the results, and investigative approach taken by Dr. Millette in his self-serving investigation, as being definitive.

It gave him a 'safe', 'nothing new', 9/11 paper to present for his company, and it gave you a bogus claim of sponsoring a legitimate investigation into the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

MM

ZOMG! The worthless test that the Bentham knuckleheads performed was THE TEST, the make or break, the Sensational test, and the only one that makes the slightest bit of difference. We can now hand wave away the results of every other test, because the one worthless test that was not performed!

Sensational!

By the way, MM, how your boys coming along with resulting the rest of the results like they promised? lulz.

[plague311]

What part of "the brainiacs in the Bentham paper didn't outline (in any way, shape, or form) what they were testing in the DSC experiment" are you seriously not understanding? Furthermore, Chris, why do you care what MM thinks about you? He endorses lies, glorifies people that make a living off of lying to the uneducated, and has no issues character assassinating people when he deems fit. I guess it's just me, but I only value the opinion of those that are worth it.

That aside, I see that the desire to have a DSC is still lingering around. Despite there being absolutely no way to confirm what the actual chip was. I think it's foolish, but I'll be curious to see the outcome as well.

[chrismohr]

What part of "the brainiacs in the Bentham paper didn't outline (in any way, shape, or form) what they were testing in the DSC experiment" are you seriously not understanding? Furthermore, Chris, why do you care what MM thinks about you? He endorses lies, glorifies people that make a living off of lying to the uneducated, and has no issues character assassinating people when he deems fit. I guess it's just me, but I only value the opinion of those that are worth it.

That aside, I see that the desire to have a DSC is still lingering around. Despite there being absolutely no way to confirm what the actual chip was. I think it's foolish, but I'll be curious to see the outcome as well.
You're right! I don't care what MM thinks. Responding to his accusations is a waste of time. I do believe in responding to technical questions and challenges tho.

Still working on the DSC issue. Will let you know after my next conversation with Jim Millette.

[plague311]

You're right! I don't care what MM thinks. Responding to his accusations is a waste of time. I do believe in responding to technical questions and challenges tho.

Still working on the DSC issue. Will let you know after my next conversation with Jim Millette.

Not to blow sunshine up your *** but you've stepped up more than most others. You've earned the respect of people that are actually after the truth of what happened, I'd say you're good, keep doing what you do!

[cjnewson88]

MM is missing several key points..

1. What part of 'No Thermitic Material' do you not understand? The chips contain no trace of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size. They are not thermite. Are you choosing to ignore this fact?

2. No one knows what material Harrit tested.

3. Harrit never released any other data to 'prove' his theory, even though he promised to, nor does it seem he is likely to do so.

4. DSC is not a good method of identifying anything, compared to the far advanced methods used by Millette.

5. Anyone who looks at the following table can clearly see the DSC test that was done DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO MATCHING THE THERMITE LINE!

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png

Thermite shows endothermic reaction until 370C! It doesn't even become exothermic until JUST BEFORE THE TESTED MATERIAL IS HITTING IT'S PEAK!

Themite peaks OVER 100C HIGHER than the tested material.

This has been explained to you countless times.

Harrit's DSC only shows that what ever material they tested WAS NOT THERMITE. SO HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY IT IS THERMITE?

The test is irrelevant. It is not needed. You make yourself look dumber and dumber and more sheep like every time you bring it up.

[Tezro]

Hey MM-
When are Harritt et al going to release those FTIR results they promised over 3 years ago?
The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which
characterize this energetic material. We have performed
these same tests and will report the results elsewhere.

Have they done the analysis or not? Where are the results?

[ergo]

MM is missing several key points..

1. What part of 'No Thermitic Material' do you not understand? The chips contain no trace of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size. They are not thermite. Are you choosing to ignore this fact?

It's not a fact yet. It's a finding that contradicts a previous finding.



2. No one knows what material Harrit tested.

He tested the red-gray chips. What did Millette test?


3. Harrit never released any other data to 'prove' his theory, even though he promised to, nor does it seem he is likely to do so.

They published what they felt best presented their case with the space limitations they had. What does FTIR of nanothermite look like? When is Millette going to provide a proper comparison?


4. DSC is not a good method of identifying anything, compared to the far advanced methods used by Millette.

You appear to be merely parroting bunk that you've read here.

Harrit and Jones in fact did more tests than Millette did. Millette did not do DSC. Harrit and Jones did. Tillotson and Gash did. Millette failed to replicate this part of the study.


5. Anyone who looks at the following table can clearly see the DSC test that was done DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO MATCHING THE THERMITE LINE!

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png




You are looking at one result based on a certain engineered type. A xerogel. Nanothermites can be engineered in many different ways. There is no one nanothermite. The graph is representative only of a particular type tested.


Thermite shows endothermic reaction until 370C! It doesn't even become exothermic until JUST BEFORE THE TESTED MATERIAL IS HITTING IT'S PEAK!

Themite peaks OVER 100C HIGHER than the tested material.

See above.

[cjnewson88]

Nanothermites can be engineered in many different ways. There is no one nanothermite.

Gage says this a lot too. He often claims nanothermite can go both hush-a-boom and silent incendiary. What evidence is there for this? Or are you just being a sheeple?

[NoahFence]

I've been nice and used the less evil term, deceptive.

You were the person in direct communication with Dr. Millette, and you were the person making the claims about how good the investigation was going to be, and how closely it would follow the original testing performed for the 2009 Bentham Paper.

How did Dr. Millette make you think he was going to perform a DSC test?

You could say that Dr. Harrit et al, also felt there was not sufficient evidence to prove thermitic material, at least until they performed DSC testing.

And why at this late hour is Dr. Millette saying that "he is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors"?? For the most part, everyone in this thread has read that Bentham Paper. Are you suggesting that Dr. Millette has never bothered to at least read it?

Everything from Dr. Millette indicates he never had any such intention of seeing that DSC testing was performed, that he has no capability of performing DSC tests, and that he lacks the ability to perform such testing.

Like I said, the DSC testing was the most sensational aspect of the 2009 Bentham Paper. It was the DSC testing, that at least the 9/11 Truth seekers here, were most anxious to hear the results from.

Now you and the rest of the gang Official Story supporters appear quite content to accept the results, and investigative approach taken by Dr. Millette in his self-serving investigation, as being definitive.

It gave him a 'safe', 'nothing new', 9/11 paper to present for his company, and it gave you a bogus claim of sponsoring a legitimate investigation into the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

MM

enough.

[Tezro]

They published what they felt best presented their case with the space limitations they had.
Really? Space limitations? That's why they haven't published the results of the analysis they claim they did over three years ago?

[ergo]

Gage says this a lot too. He often claims nanothermite can go both hush-a-boom and silent incendiary. What evidence is there for this? Or are you just being a sheeple?

Good god, newson. You haven't even read the wiki on nanothermites?

[cjnewson88]

Good god, newson. You haven't even read the wiki on nanothermites?

Wiki probably written by Gage and Harrit..

Give me an actual source.

[ergo]

Really? Space limitations? That's why they haven't published the results of the analysis they claim they did over three years ago?

Yeah. It's called scientific publishing. Heard of it?

Obviously they felt the DSC test was more significant than the FTIR they did. They didn't feel the need to publish the FTIR. They probably still don't, since no scientific paper has yet appeared challenging their findings.

[ergo]

Wiki probably written by Gage and Harrit..

Give me an actual source.

Good god. :eye-poppi

[NoahFence]

Good god, newson. You haven't even read the wiki on nanothermites?

Haha!
The nanothermite wiki?

Uh... You might want to read it yourself.


No, I mean closely.

[cjnewson88]

Good god. :eye-poppi

Any time. A source please which states and provides evidence that nanothermite can be used as an explosive AND an incendiary.

[ergo]

Any time. A source please which states and provides evidence that nanothermite can be used as an explosive AND an incendiary.

No. Demonstrate you've done some reading first.

[cjnewson88]

No. Demonstrate you've done some reading first.

I read the wiki. It's not very large. Says nothing about nanothermites use as a highly explosive, or even mildly explosive, material.

Feel free to link something that shows you're not just a sheep.

[ergo]

I think one of your bedunker colleagues can straighten you out. I wouldn't waste my time.

[Redtail]

Good god. :eye-poppi

Its not hard. Just go to "references" on the wiki page & find the one that contains the information that was asked for.

[cjnewson88]

Its not hard. Just go to "references" on the wiki page & find the one that contains the information that was asked for.

None of them seem to :p

[ergo]

Its not hard. Just go to "references" on the wiki page & find the one that contains the information that was asked for.

Why are you telling me? Newson's the one who thinks nanothermite is a single chemical entity.

[cjnewson88]

I think one of your bedunker colleagues can straighten you out. I wouldn't waste my time.

So that's a no for you providing any evidence that proves the repeated claim that nanothermite can be engineered to go bang and fizzle?

Right, you're a sheep, I thought so.

baaaaaaaa

[cjnewson88]

Why are you telling me? Newson's the one who thinks nanothermite is a single chemical entity.

Not entirely, I am aware it can be a combination of different elements, however one would have thought they would DSC'd the closest resembling one if they were trying to make a point.. I guess they couldn't find one close enough to match.

I'd still like to see evidence that it can be engineered to go boom and fizzle though ergo. Feel free to prove you're not a sheep any time.

[Redtail]

Why are you telling me? Newson's the one who thinks nanothermite is a single chemical entity.

No, he asked for evidence of a claim that he even spelled out & you are failing to provide it.

[ergo]

Not entirely, I am aware it can be a combination of different elements, however one would have thought they would DSC'd the closest resembling one if they were trying to make a point.. I guess they couldn't find out close enough to match.

I'd still like to see evidence that it can be engineered to go boom and fizzle though ergo. Feel free to prove you're not a sheep any time.

Jon Cole has shown that simple thermite can go boom and fizzle. You think a nanothermite can't?

Why are you even asking this? This is not the subject of the thread. Are you trying to deflect from the fact that I debunked every single one of your tiresome, parroted counterpoints?

[cjnewson88]

Saying somebody did it with another material is not evidence ergo. Regardless, it is not on topic with this thread. I shall begin a new one. See you there.

Are you trying to deflect from the fact that I debunked every single one of your tiresome, parroted counterpoints?

omgz look, ergo is now a bedunker just like the rest of us!! hehe he wishes..

[ergo]

This (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8131775&postcount=463) maybe should be stundied.

Newson thinks Harrit and Gage wrote the wiki on nanothermites! :D

And no one else in the world, no other scientists or chemists have been able to get in there and correct their information!! Inside job!! :D

[NoahFence]

Ergo,
can you understand that the wiki you cited actually proves your theory wrong?

[cjnewson88]

This (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8131775&postcount=463) maybe should be stundied.

Newson thinks Harrit and Gage wrote the wiki on nanothermites! :D

And no one else in the world, no other scientists or chemists have been able to get in there and correct their information!! Inside job!! :D

I've heard far worse from you ergo. I wouldn't be too quick to start nominating stundies if I were you..

How many scientists or chemists in the world (who contribute to wikipedia) do you think wiki nanothermite ergo? I wouldn't say many, if any. But sure, what ever makes you think you've scored a point.

Btw, This (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8131858#post8131858) is for you.

[LSSBB]

This (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8131775&postcount=463) maybe should be stundied.

Newson thinks Harrit and Gage wrote the wiki on nanothermites! :D

And no one else in the world, no other scientists or chemists have been able to get in there and correct their information!! Inside job!! :D

How many scientists do you think are beating down the door to edit a Wikipedia article on Nanothermite?

Also, how many Truthers can't get a joke?

[ergo]

:rolleyes:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nano-thermite&action=history

How many edits do you see there?

[ergo]

* cough *

pwned.

* cough *

[cjnewson88]

I stand corrected (even though my original point was pure and obvious sarcasm). You'd think with all that revision of nanothermite there would be at least one sentence saying nanothermite can be engineered as a high explosive. Why is there not ergo?

[sheeplesnshills]

As we all know, the most sensational findings from the 2009 Bentham Paper came out of the DSC testing.


MM

What was sensational about it???? They set fire to paint chip in air.....nothing remotely strange at all about the test other than it being conducted in air rather than using an inert gas.:rolleyes:

[chrismohr]

Two things:
1) Just a reminder that we are talking about the dust study here, not whether nanothermites go hush a boom.
2) This issue was taken up months ago on my Gage Rebuttals on YouTube thread. I'm going by memory here and don't want to waste time tracking the source, but I think I remember Chris7 finding an article that showed that nanothermites had the potential to be used as a medium-grade explosive device. I stopped mocking the idea when I read that article. So I can grant that nanothermites maybe CAN be used as an explosive, maybe even less loud than high-grade explosives. But as I recall, lower-grade explosives with softer booms also by their nature have less destructive force. And most importantly, Jim Millette concluded there were NO thermitic materials of any kind in any of the chips he studied. That's the bottom line for me. Unless we can find some real evidence that the thermitics were there, who cares if nanothermites go hush-a-boom?

[tsig]

Two things:
1) Just a reminder that we are talking about the dust study here, not whether nanothermites go hush a boom.
2) This issue was taken up months ago on my Gage Rebuttals on YouTube thread. I'm going by memory here and don't want to waste time tracking the source, but I think I remember Chris7 finding an article that showed that nanothermites had the potential to be used as a medium-grade explosive device. I stopped mocking the idea when I read that article. So I can grant that nanothermites maybe CAN be used as an explosive, maybe even less loud than high-grade explosives. But as I recall, lower-grade explosives with softer booms also by their nature have less destructive force. And most importantly, Jim Millette concluded there were NO thermitic materials of any kind in any of the chips he studied. That's the bottom line for me. Unless we can find some real evidence that the thermitics were there, who cares if nanothermites go hush-a-boom?

Clearly nanothermite knows when you're looking for it and changes it's properties so you can't find it.:)

[ozeco41]

... So I can grant that nanothermites maybe CAN be used as an explosive, maybe even less loud than high-grade explosives. But as I recall, lower-grade explosives with softer booms also by their nature have less destructive force.... For all practical purposes in these debates cutting steel requires the boom. The "boom" is the same thing which cuts the steel AND makes a big bang.

So no big bang = no steel cutting "boom" = no steel cut. End of story. It is that simple - as I said for all practical purposes at the level of these debates.

...Unless we can find some real evidence that the thermitics were there, who cares if nanothermites go hush-a-boom? you are getting close to my position there Chris. :) It matters not if thermXtes were present - there was no demolition so no way that thermXte was used in a demolition.

It remains a pity that we meet the truthers in their arse about logic....:rolleyes:

Let them prove demolition as the first issue THEN the question of what incendiary or explosive or steel eating microbes or xyz was used...can be discussed.

If they cannot prove CD then discussion of the details is irrelevant...other than as a trolling tactic. :D

[Oystein]

Reading posts while logged out, I noticed ergo asked one interesting question:

What would the FTIR plots of nanothermite look like?

I am not an FTIR expert, but I would guess that FTIR spectra are cumulative. Like Millette shows in Appendix:
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MillettePreliminary/MillettePrelimApxC/9119-4795L1560-red-atr_0001_FTIRvsKaolinEpoxy.jpg
The red and blue lines are two ingredients, epoxy and kaolin (I believe from a database, not measured in the dust samples), the black line is the red layer of a chip. You can see how features of both ingredients show up in the curves of the composite: The peaks characteristic for Kaolin in the 3600s, and the peaks characteristic for epoxy around 2600.

The ingredients of nanothermite are obviously Al and Fe2O3, so if Millette could show, in his final paper, what the lines for these are, particularly Al (with the customary natural coating of Al2O3?), and that these lines don't show in the chips, that would show the doubters. And actually, it would give me some comfort, too.

Note: The chemical formula of Kaolin is often given as Al2Si2(OH)4O5, but also sometimnes written as Al2O3·2SiO2·2H2O, so I have the layman's suspicion that the FTIR spectrum of kaolin is a composite of the spectra of Alumina·Silica·Water.

How deep would FTIR penetrate into small Al particles? Would it primarily record the IR absorption of Al, or of the Alumina surface layer?




I found a practical guide to FTIR interpretation for the science-savvy:
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/BLManual/IR_Interpretation.pdf
And other nice links:
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/content/web-links/59-ftirarticles

[ergo]

For all practical purposes in these debates cutting steel requires the boom. The "boom" is the same thing which cuts the steel AND makes a big bang.

So no big bang = no steel cutting "boom" = no steel cut. End of story. It is that simple - as I said for all practical purposes at the level of these debates.

Um, no.

Of course, there are many ways to cut steel, as thermite and oxyacetelene torches show us.

Removed personal comment

[Ivan Kminek]

Reading posts while logged out, I noticed ergo asked one interesting question:

What would the FTIR plots of nanothermite look like?

I am not an FTIR expert, but I would guess that FTIR spectra are cumulative. Like Millette shows in Appendix:
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MillettePreliminary/MillettePrelimApxC/9119-4795L1560-red-atr_0001_FTIRvsKaolinEpoxy.jpg
The red and blue lines are two ingredients, epoxy and kaolin (I believe from a database, not measured in the dust samples), the black line is the red layer of a chip. You can see how features of both ingredients show up in the curves of the composite: The peaks characteristic for Kaolin in the 3600s, and the peaks characteristic for epoxy around 2600.

The ingredients of nanothermite are obviously Al and Fe2O3, so if Millette could show, in his final paper, what the lines for these are, particularly Al (with the customary natural coating of Al2O3?), and that these lines don't show in the chips, that would show the doubters. And actually, it would give me some comfort, too.

Note: The chemical formula of Kaolin is often given as Al2Si2(OH)4O5, but also sometimnes written as Al2O3·2SiO2·2H2O, so I have the layman's suspicion that the FTIR spectrum of kaolin is a composite of the spectra of Alumina·Silica·Water.

How deep would FTIR penetrate into small Al particles? Would it primarily record the IR absorption of Al, or of the Alumina surface layer?




I found a practical guide to FTIR interpretation for the science-savvy:
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/BLManual/IR_Interpretation.pdf
And other nice links:
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/content/web-links/59-ftirarticles

To be honest, I'm not able to find anything on the infrared spectra of metals, including aluminum. Metals are highly reflecting the infrared light, so special reflectance methods may be used. Anyway, I will ask the expert in our "infrared department", I promise:cool:

Here is an article titled "Characterization of aluminum hydroxide thin film on metallic aluminum powder" (http://144.206.159.178/ft/716/92221/1601696.pdf), with some IR spectra, but only bands belonging to aluminum compounds are discussed.

As for your "...that would show the doubters". Do you really believe that any truther here can be convinced by some IR spectra?

[000063]

MM, sigh, I thought Jim Millette was going to do a DSC test and he later decided not to because there was no evidence of thermitic material...

...How did Dr. Millette make you think he was going to perform a DSC test?...
MMStraw man.

...
You are looking at one result based on a certain engineered type. A xerogel. Nanothermites can be engineered in many different ways. There is no one nanothermite. The graph is representative only of a particular type tested....Appeal to magic, moving goalposts.

Good god. :eye-poppiAnyone can edit a Wiki. That's why most colleges won't accept Wikipedia as a primary source, and you see [citation needed] all the time. Even Wikipedia doesn't trust Wikipedia as a primary source.

This is ironic, coming from you, the person who somehow managed to not read a Wiki link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7231991#post7231991) saying how many (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7233012#post7233012) collapse survivors there are (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7235749#post7235749).

[fourtoe]

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

[Julio]

To be honest, I'm not able to find anything on the infrared spectra of metals, including aluminum. Metals are highly reflecting the infrared light, so special reflectance methods may be used. Anyway, I will ask the expert in our "infrared department", I promise:cool:


http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/

Here's a database of materials, including IR spectra (NIST - NWO certified :D ) You can find IR spectra for Fe2O3, also Kaolin, and Al compounds, but not for Al. Being a metal, it reflects all light until UV region, where it becomes transparent.

[Sunstealer]

They published what they felt best presented their case with the space limitations they had.Which, if true, shows that they either had absolutely no clue what they were doing or they were trying to paint a picture by omitting data.

DSC, MEK test, Electrical conductivity test, torch ignition test and the space wasting Fig 31, etc are all not required to find out what the material is. For some reason they kept all this crap in, but left out FTIR. Why? It looks highly suspicious.

FTIR is definitive. It cannot lie. The data is there. This data can then be compared with spectra of known materials to show exactly what material is present. If you had any idea or had been paying attention to the people on this site then you would know that.

If I give you a random sample of something, why would you put it in a DSC to find out what it's not, rather than use dozens of other techniques that actually tell you what it is?

What does FTIR of nanothermite look like? Seeing as you think Harrit et al had nano-thermite then why don't you ask them?. They have the data. They did not publish this data. Why don't you contact Harrit or Jones etc and ask them for the FTIR data. I bet they never release it. ;)

I'm convinced that you don't actually know what thermite is. You ask such silly questions. You certainly don't know how FTIR works or how to read the graphs.

Do you even accept that Millette's FTIR show epoxy and kaolin?

[000063]

...
Newson thinks Harrit and Gage wrote the wiki on nanothermites! :D...He said "probably". I figure he was being hyperbolic.

And no one else in the world, no other scientists or chemists have been able to get in there and correct their information!! Inside job!! :DYes, because Wikipedia never, ever has false information (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm).

The funny thing is that none of the sources on the page say what you seem to be claiming.

Ergo,
can you understand that the wiki you cited actually proves your theory wrong?This is an entirely rhetorical question, right?

[Sunstealer]

http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/

Here's a database of materials, including IR spectra (NIST - NWO certified :D ) You can find IR spectra for Fe2O3, also Kaolin, and Al compounds, but not for Al. Being a metal, it reflects all light until UV region, where it becomes transparent.Infact Fe2O3 and elemental Al is a bit irrelevant when it comes to FTIR. FTIR really shines when examining organic materials. This is why we asked for it (we also knew it would show kaolin). People forget that there is an enormous amount of organic binder material in Harrit, Millette and Basile's samples. eg.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=4865

* Oystein - this spectrum has the tell tale flared or extended tail of the Si peak and matches very well your analysis. It shows that Millette, Harrit and Basile had identical chips amongst their samples.

How much aluminium and Fe2O3 is in this lot? 1.68% max Aluminium!! lol. No truther has managed to explain why there is next to no thermitic material in this spectra yet so much binder material.

Tillitson had approximately 10% organic material left over from the sol-gel process. The primer paint in all of the samples is closer to 90% as expected. There is no proper analysis of the binder material in the Harrit et al paper.

Identifying this binder is critical in understanding what the material is. Any chemist would know this. Any chemist worth his salt would either know of a test method or would find one in order to determine what the binder is. Harrit et al performed FTIR so I suspect someone knew.

Why did they not release the results when it is crucial to showing what the binder material is? Did they perform the test and see it was epoxy so omitted it? Was their test inconclusive, if so how?

It stinks to high heaven that they didn't release data that would conclusively and definitively prove exactly what the binder material is in their samples when they actually utilised the best test method

[000063]

Um, no.

Of course, there are many ways to cut steel, as thermite and oxyacetelene torches show us.Which is not what Ozeco asserted. He made a claim about what could practically be used in a demolition, not what could be used to cut steel. Specifically, with regard's to Mohr's post about nanothermite being used as a relatively "quiet" explosive, wherein he also pointed out that a smaller boom would also mean less force. Ozeco asserted that severing steel on 911 would require high explosives, which would be loud. Unless you're asserting that hundreds or thousands of men snuck into burning buildings with cutting torches, and then got back out in instants as the three buildings collapsed.

Thermite would require a ludicrous and highly visible amount in order to be able to cut through even one beam, which it certainly would not be able to do instantly, or even quickly. Plus, in all three buildings, it or the hypothetical explosive or both has to survive significant amounts of fire and random impact without destruction or disruption. Plus there's the question of why the thermite was there in the first place.

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

[Ivan Kminek]

http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/

Here's a database of materials, including IR spectra (NIST - NWO certified :D ) You can find IR spectra for Fe2O3, also Kaolin, and Al compounds, but not for Al. Being a metal, it reflects all light until UV region, where it becomes transparent.

Thanks, Julio:cool:
It seems to me (but I have no literature) that metallic crystal lattices (like in aluminum) do not "vibrate" in the region of typical infrared measurements (up to 4000 cm-1, which corresponds to 2.5 µm).
But, according to this paper (http://www.measurement.sk/2004/S3/Bartl.pdf), metallic aluminum show some very broad reflectance minimum (i.e. absorbance maximum) at ca 0.8 µm, which corresponds to 12 500 cm-1. This broad "peak" is far away from the usual infrared measurements, it is in near-infrared region, almost in visible region.

Anyway, I would say that infrared spectra simply cannot "detect" elemental aluminum, only its compounds.