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

[chrismohr]

Link to James Millette's preliminary WTC Dust study:

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

Low Res:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf


In the summer of 2011, after finishing my 22 respectful YouTube rebuttals of Richard Gage’s Blueprint for Truth (keywords chrismohr911), I decided to see if I could organize an independent study of the World Trade Center dust to find out if thermitic materials could be found. Not being a chemist, I couldn't make a truly independent analysis of the data found in the Bentham paper alleging the discovery of unignited thematic material by Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and others: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009,”

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

While I am very skeptical of claims of controlled demolition on 9/11, I’m no scientist, and I can’t independently judge the merits of this Bentham article. What if they did find thermitic materials? I wanted to see if their evidence could stand up to scientific testing. So I began to ask, what would it take to do an independent test of the dust? Some people said that for a few hundred dollars, a lab could easily test the dust. Kevin Ryan told me it would not be so easy, and he turned out to be right. He seemed to indicate he would be reluctant to provide samples of his own dust, so eventually I decided to look for a lab which:

1) Knew a protocol for searching for unignited thermitic materials in dust
2) Did not put down the idea as ridiculous or a waste of time
3) Had access to WTC dust
4) Would not just run whatever test their lab could do just to make a few hundred dollars (they had to know what they were doing and have the equipment to do it)

Finally, for my part I decided not to tell the researcher how to do his/her job. I would simply ask if they could look for unignited thermitic materials in the dust, and if so, what protocol would they suggest and how much would it cost?

The search was not easy. I contacted 24 or 25 forensic experts, laboratories, universities, fire safety experts, etc. I broadcast out a general request to refer me to someone who could do this.

Eventually, I was recommended to Dr. James Millette of MVA Scientific Consultants near Atlanta. He had all the qualifications: 1.) He had a lab that could do multiple tests. 2.) He had access to WTC dust (Kevin Ryan would not be likely to release any of his own samples) 3.) He was genuinely openminded. I asked him if he believed there was thermitic material in the dust and he said he wouldn’t know until he did the tests. He openly acknowledged that no one in the traditional scientific community has seriously investigated this question. I asked him point blank what would happen if he found thermitic materials in the dust and he said he was used to giving forensic evidence that contradicted the expectations of the people who had hired him. He is an independent scientist. “If I find it I’ll publish it.” Many 9/11 Truth activists have told me, “at last, someone is taking the Bentham study seriously! At last, a real independent investigation!”

Dr. Millette is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and works with internationally known microscopy experts. An ad hoc international team of these experts, as well as architects, engineers, and other specialists, contributed their expertise to this study. Dr. Millette had already glanced at the red-gray chips in WTC dust but never did a thorough study of them. He decided to do this study for only $1000, although the value of all his research was much more.

I thought he just might be my guy. In case things didn’t work out, I called him “Lab Guy” for a month or so on the JREF blog and other correspondences. I checked him out, and got recommendations from a top arson expert and fire safety expert.

Why did he do such a thorough study at such a low cost? He is doing a lot more with this study than just doing a job and reporting his findings. It was the centerpiece of three major presentations by his lab at the American Association of Forensic Scientists 2012 convention:

http://www.mvainc.com/2012/01/13/feb-20-25-2012-american-academy-of-forensic-science-aafs-2012-annual-meeting/

In addition, the results will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Some people on the 9/11 Truth side were suspicious of him. I’ve summarized those suspicions on my Richard Gage debate thread starting near the bottom of this page:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212725&page=86

On that thread I am willing, on a limited basis, to answer sincere questions about my decision to choose Dr. Millette for this study. I am not interested in endless rounds of attacks and will not participate in such an exercise on that thread or anywhere.

However, this thread here is about summarizing and discussing the scientific findings of this report. If you have questions about Jim Millette’s credibility, those are being dealt with on the other thread (link above). This is a moderated thread, so any questions about anyone’s honesty or integrity etc. will be referred to the other thread. Here is Dr. James Millette’s promise to us:

“Chris, I can assure you that we will proceed in an objective, scientific manner and report what we find. At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community and when I publish, it will be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization. I do not see anything in our article that he linked… to suggest that we were publishing misleading data.” Jim Millette

I submit to you that Dr. Millette has kept his promise.

The next several posts contain the results of Dr. James Millette’s study. Onward!

[chrismohr]

Progress Report of Results: MVA9119
Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Introduction

This report summarizes the results to date of the analyses of red/gray chips found in samples of dust generated by the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster of 11 September 2001. MVA Scientific Consultants was requested by Mr. Chris Mohr of Classical Guide to scientifically study red/gray chips from WTC dust that matched those presented in a paper by Harrit et al., 2009,1 which concluded that thermitic material was present in the WTC dust. Mr. Mohr was unable to gain access to any samples used in the Harrit study so four samples were chosen from the archives of MVA Scientific Consultants. These dust samples had been collected within a month of 11 September 2001 and sent to MVA for different projects. They are identified by the sample numbers shown below and on the New York City map shown in Figure 1. The red/gray chips discussed in this report were analyzed during the period from 18 November 2011 to 20 February 2012. Some analytical results characterizing the particles in the dust from two of the samples (4808-L1616 and 9119-X0135) had been previously published in the scientific literature. 2,3

Fig. 1
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

Methods

In order to confirm that the samples chosen had the characteristics of WTC dust, the samples were examined by stereomicroscope and by polarized light microscopy (PLM) according to the procedures described in Turner et al., 20054 (Figures 2 and 3). The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives5 and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison.6 The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al.1 are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4). The spectrum may also contain small peaks related to other elements. To that end, the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.

1. The dust sample particles contained in a plastic bag were drawn across a magnet and those attracted to the magnet were collected (Figure 5).
9119ProgressReport022912s Page 3 of 21
2. Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water.
3. The particles were dried and mounted on a carbon adhesive film on an SEM stub and photographed (Figure 5).
4. Analysis of the surfaces of the chips was done by SEM-EDS at 20 kV without any added conductive coating (Figures 6 and 7).

Red/gray particles that matched the criteria (attracted to a magnet and an EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum) were then considered particles of interest and subjected to additional analytical testing. The additional tests included: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); SEM-EDS of cross-sections; low temperature ashing and residue analysis by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) with selected area electron diffraction (SAED) and EDS; muffle furnace ashing and residue analysis by PLM and TEM-SAED-EDS; ultra-microtome sectioning of the red layer and analysis by TEM-SAED-EDS; and solvent tests.

Stereomicroscopy was done using either an Olympus SZ-40 stereomicroscope or a Wild M5-49066 stereomicroscope.

Polarized light microscope (PLM) examination of the dusts and ashed residue was done with an Olympus BH-2 PLM or an aus Jena Jenapol PLM.

Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis of the surfaces of red/gray chips was done using a JEOL Model JSM-6490LV SEM coupled with a Thermo Scientific Noran System SIX x-ray energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS). Digital x-ray images and phase mapping was also done with this instrument.
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) was performed with a SensIR FTIR equipped with a diamond ATR objective and attached to an Olympus BX-51 compound microscope.

Cross-sections of the chips of interest were made with clean scalpel blades. The analysis of cross-sections was done with a JEOL Model JSM-6500F field emission SEM with a Thermo Scientific Noran System SIX EDS system.
Low-temperature ashing (LTA) is an alternative to using solvents to extract inorganic constituents from an organic film or coating.6 LTA of the chips of interest was done using an SPI Plasma Prep II plasma asher. LTA was performed for time periods of
30 minutes to 1 hour depending on the size of the chip. The gray layer remained intact and the red layer residue was collected in clean water and drops of the suspension were placed on carbon-film TEM grids. After drying, the particulate was analyzed using a Philips CM120 TEM capable of SAED and equipped with an Oxford EDS system.

Chips of interest were ashed in a muffle furnace using a NEY Temperature Programmable furnace operated at 400oC for 1 hour. The gray layer remained intact and the red layer residue was prepared as described above and analyzed using a Philips CM120 TEM-SAED-EDS.


Ultra-thin sections of a red layer were cut using a Reichert-Jung Ultracut E Ultramicrotome with a diamond knife. The ultra-thin sections were placed directly on TEM grids and analyzed using a Philips EM 420 TEM-SAED-EDS.
Samples of red/gray chips were placed in several solvents overnight and then subjected to ultrasonic agitation to determine if the solvents could dissolve the epoxy binder and liberate the internal particles. The solvents included methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and two commercial paint strippers used for epoxy resins. The commercial paint strippers, Klean-Strip KS-3 Premium Stripper and Jasco Premium Paint and Epoxy Remover, contain methylene chloride, methanol and mineral spirits. One red/gray chip was subjected to 55 hours of submersion in MEK, then dried and coated with a thin layer of gold for conductivity. The red layer was analyzed by SEM-EDS analysis using an advanced x-ray phase mapping technique. The technique uses a multivariate statistical analysis program to find spectral-similar regions in a spectral imaging acquisition. It analyzes the spectrum at each pixel location and then groups the pixels with similar spectra into principal components or phases.

[chrismohr]

Results

The composition of the four samples of dust chosen for study were consistent with WTC dust previously published 2,3 (Appendix A).

Red/gray chips that had the same morphology and appearance as those reported by Harrit et al.1, and fitting the criteria of being attracted by a magnet and having the SEM-EDS x-ray elemental spectra described in their paper (Gray: Fe, Red: C,O, Al, Si, Fe) were found in the WTC dust from all four locations examined. The red layers were in the range of 15 to 30 micrometers thick. The gray layers were in the range of 10 to
50 micrometers thick (Appendix B).

The FTIR spectra of the red layer were consistent with reference spectra of an epoxy resin and kaolin clay (Figure 8) (Appendix C).

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 cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin. The thinnest kaolin plates were on the order of 6 nm with many sets of plates less than 1 micrometer thick. Small x-ray peaks of other elements were sometimes present. The particles were in a carbon-based matrix (Figures 9 through 14) (Appendix D).

TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of the residue after low temperature ashing showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of kaolin clay. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment were also found (Figure 15) (Appendix E).


PLM analysis of the residue from red/gray chips after muffle furnace ashing at 400oC for 1 hour showed very fine red particles consistent with synthetic hematite (iron oxide) pigment particles (Figure 16). PLM also found possible clay present based on a micro-chemical clay-stain test. TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of another portion of the same muffle furnace residue showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment, plates of kaolin clay and some aciniform aggregates of carbon soot consistent with incomplete ashing of a carbon-based binder (Figure 17). The SAED pattern of the kaolin particles (Figure 18) matched the kaolin pattern shown in the McCrone Particle Atlas8 (Appendix E). The values for the d-spacings determined for the diffraction patterns matched those produced by reference kaolin samples.

TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 19 and 20). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).

The solvents had no effect on the gray iron/steel layer. Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within. SEM-EDS phase mapping (using multivariate statistical analysis) of the red layer after exposure to MEK for 55 hours did not show evidence of individual aluminum particles (Appendix G).

In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.

Discussion

The Encyclopedia of Explosives9 describes thermite as essentially a mixture of powdered ferric oxide and powdered or granular aluminum. There are two sets of ingredients listed for thermite in Crippen’s book on explosives identification.10 The first is iron oxide and aluminum powder and the second is magnesium powder, ferric oxide, and aluminum powder. Nano-thermite (thermatic nanocomposite energetic material) has been studied in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. A TEM image of a thin section of that material was published by R. Simpson11 in 2000 and
shows material that is made up of approximately 2 nanometer iron oxide particles and approximately 30 nanometer aluminum metal spheres (Figure 21).
According to the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology, kaolin (also known as aluminum silicate or china clay) is a platy or lamellar pigment that is used extensively as a pigment in many segments of the paint industry.12 It is a natural mineral (kaolinite) which is found in vast beds in many parts of the world.13 Iron oxide pigments are also used extensively in paints and coatings.13,14 Both kaolin and iron oxide pigments have been used in paints and coatings for many years.13,14 Epoxy resins were introduced into coatings in approximately 194715 and are found in a number of specially designed protective coatings on metal substrates.

In forensic studies, paints and coatings often must be broken down so that the components of the entire coating product can be studied individually. Epoxy resins are formed from the reaction of two different chemicals which produces a polymer that is heavily cross-linked. Epoxy resins can be especially difficult to dissolve. Organic solvents, including those sold commercially for epoxy paint/coating stripping, were found to soften the red layer of the red/gray chips but did not dissolve the epoxy resin sufficiently so particles within the coating could be dispersed for direct examination. In this study no organic solvent was found to release particles from within the epoxy resin and it was necessary to use low temperature ashing to eliminate the epoxy resin matrix and extract the component parts of the coating. The other procedures generally used to examine component particles within a coating without extraction (cross-sections and thin sections) were also applied in this study.

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 nano-thermite.

Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips

At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some
small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain some information about product materials. According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17 55 out of the 177 different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments. However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.

[chrismohr]

References

1. Harrit, N.H., Farrer, J., Jones, S.E., Ryan, K.R., Legge, F.M., Farnsworth, D., Roberts, G., Gourle, J.R., and Larsen, B.R., "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31.
2. Lioy, P.J, Weisel, C.P., Millette, J.R., Eisenreich, S., Vallero, D., Offenberg, J., Buckley, B., Turpin, B., Zhong, M., Cohen, M.D., Prophete, C., Yang, I., Stiles, R., Chee, G., Johnson, W., Porcja, R., Alimokhtari, S., Hale, R.C., Weschler, C., and Chen, L.C., "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001", Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, No. 7, 703-714, July 2002.
3. Millette, J.R., Boltin, R., Few, P. and Turner, Jr., W., "Microscopical Studies of World Trade Center Disaster Dust Particles", Microscope, 50(1): 29-35, 2002.
4. Turner, W.L., J.R. Millette, W.R. Boltin, and T.J. Hopen, A Standard Approach to the Characterization of Common Indoor Dust Constituents. Microscope 53(4):169-177. 2005.
5. TWGFEX Laboratory Explosion Group, Recommended Guidelines for Forensic Identification of Intact Explosives and Recommended Guidelines for Forensic Identification of Post-Blast Explosive Residues (Rev. 8 - 2009), Technical Working Group for Fire and Explosions, National Institute of Justice - Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.ncfs.org/twgfex/docs.
6. ASTM E1610-02, Standard Guide for Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison. ASTM –International, West Conshohocken, PA. Reapproved 2008.
7. COMPASS multivariate statistical analysis software program for Noran System Six x-ray system. Minoru Suzuki, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Yokohama, Japan; Pat Camus, Ph.D., Thermo Fisher Scientific, Madison, WI, USA. Application Note: 51220. 2008.
8. McCrone, W.C. and Delly, J.G. The Particle Atlas, 2nd Ed. Ann Arbor Press. Vol. 3, p. 584. 1973.
9. Kaye, S.M. “Thermite”, Encyclopedia of Explosives and Related Items, Vol. 9, PATR 2700, US Army Armament Research and Development Command, Dover, New Jersey, 1980, (available from NTIS, US Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161), page T189.
9119ProgressReport022912s Page 8 of 21
10. Crippen, J.B. Explosives and Chemical Weapons Identification. CRC Taylor &
Francis, Boca Raton, FL, 2006, p.149.
11. Simpson, R., Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives, Science and Technology Review. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory October, 2000.
12. Smith, A. “Inorganic Primer Pigments”, Federation Series on Coating
Technology, Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology, Philadelphia, PA. 1988.
13. Gettens, R.J. and Stout, G. L., “Painting Materials”, Dover Publications, 1966.
14. Petraco, N. and Kubic, T., Color Atlas and Manual of Microscopy for Criminalists, Chemists, and Conservators. CRC Press, Baca Raton, 2004.
15. Prane, J.A., “Introduction to Polymers and Resins”, Federation Series on
Coating Technology, Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology,
Philadelphia, PA. 1986.
16. Sramek, T.F.: Correspondence between Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. and
R. M. Monti, Port of New York Authority, giving clarification and attaching a
product sheet for Tnemec 69 and 99 column paints, Nov 22, 1967. As cited in:
Banovic, S.W. and Foecke, T., Assessment of Structural Steel from the World Trade Center Towers, Part IV: Experimental Techniques to Assess Possible Exposure to High –Temperature Excursions. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention. 6(5):103-120. Oct 2006.
17. www.tnemec.com [ last accessed on Feb. 26, 2012].

Table 1. Composition of Primer Paint on the World Trade Center Towers according to T. F. Sramek16
Pigment Iron Oxide 35.9%
Zinc Yellow (Zinc Chromate13) 20.3%
Tnemec pigment (proprietary composition) 33.7%
Diatomaceous silica 10.1%
Vehicle Soya alkyd resin solids 16.5%
Hard Resin 2.8%
Raw Linseed Oil 35.1%
Bodied Linseed Oil 6.4%
Suspension agents 2.2%
Driers and antiskin 4.8%
Thinners 32.3%

[invr4get911]

Thanks for taking this on and sharing the results, Chris.

Looks like THE main question was in deed answered. :)

[Quad4_72]

Wow. Very good work. Of course, the twoof movement will completely discredit it, as it does not fall in line with their beliefs. Still, well done.

[chrismohr]

Here is a list of appendices and diagrams that are part of the original report. The full report with photos will be posted very soon on the MVA Scientific Consultants website.

Figure 1. Sample Locations.
Figure 2. Example of the WTC dust. Sample L1560 - Murray & Church St.
9119ProgressReport022912s Page 10 of 21
Figure 3. Example of the WTC dust as seen with PLM showing common components of glass fibers, cementitious material and soot. Sample L1560 - Murray & Church St.
Figure 4. SEM-EDS spectral criteria for red/gray chips from Harrit, et al., 2009.
Figure 4. An example of separating particles with a magnet. Sample M3451 – Ann St.
Figure 5. An example of red/gray chips mounted on a carbon stub.
Sample M3451 – Ann St.
Figure 6. An example of SEM analysis of red/gray chips mounted on a carbon stub.
The particle numbers are shown that correspond to EDS spectra in Figure 7.
Figure 7. SEM-EDS spectra for particles 1, 2 and 3 in Figure 6.
Figure 8. Comparison of FTIR spectrum from red side of a red/gray chip showing the match with kaolin and epoxy resin references. Sample L1560.
Figure 9. BE image of a cross-section of a red (top)/gray (bottom) chip.
Figure 10. Secondary electron (SE) image of a cross-section of a
red (top)/gray (bottom) chip.
Figure 11. SEM-EDS spectrum from Spot 1 on the red layer (top) in Figure 10.
Figure 12. SEM-EDS spectrum from Spot 2 on the gray layer (bottom) in Figure 10.
Figure 13. Combined SE and BE image showing bright iron particles and aluminum-silicon plates in the carbon-based matrix.
Figure 14. SE image showing books of aluminum/silicon plates.
Figure 15. TEM image of residue after low temperature ashing. Particles: ‘a’ is kaolin, ‘b’ is iron oxide, ‘c’ is titanium dioxide, ‘d’ is kaolin on edge, ‘e’ is iron oxide.
Fig 15a. EDS of ‘a’. Fig 15b. EDS of ‘b’ Fig 15c. EDS of ‘c’
Fig 15d.

[Spektator]

Thanks, Chris, and thanks to Dr. Millette.

[NoahFence]

This is, to the letter, what the truth movement has been asking for since its inception. It is now up to them to prove that they were honestly looking for this or not.

Excellent work, Chris.

[Edx]

Clearly he is in on it.

None of them will change their minds on this. Anyone who doesnt agree with them is lying.

[Redtail]

Thanks for doing the leg work on this Chris.

As far as the truthers, while few, if any, will even do so much as reexamine their position, at the very least its a good example of scientific research.

[Kent1]

Thanks! Looks like great work. Will look this over in more detail tonight.

[moorea34]

Jim Millette does not know the Laclede Primer Paint ?

:o

[sheeplesnshills]

Chris, Good job.

[tmd2_1]

Results

The composition of the four samples of dust chosen for study were consistent with WTC dust previously published 2,3 (Appendix A).

Red/gray chips that had the same morphology and appearance as those reported by Harrit et al.1, and fitting the criteria of being attracted by a magnet and having the SEM-EDS x-ray elemental spectra described in their paper (Gray: Fe, Red: C,O, Al, Si, Fe) were found in the WTC dust from all four locations examined. The red layers were in the range of 15 to 30 micrometers thick. The gray layers were in the range of 10 to
50 micrometers thick (Appendix B).

The FTIR spectra of the red layer were consistent with reference spectra of an epoxy resin and kaolin clay (Figure 8) (Appendix C).

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 cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin. The thinnest kaolin plates were on the order of 6 nm with many sets of plates less than 1 micrometer thick. Small x-ray peaks of other elements were sometimes present. The particles were in a carbon-based matrix (Figures 9 through 14) (Appendix D).

TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of the residue after low temperature ashing showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of kaolin clay. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment were also found (Figure 15) (Appendix E).


PLM analysis of the residue from red/gray chips after muffle furnace ashing at 400oC for 1 hour showed very fine red particles consistent with synthetic hematite (iron oxide) pigment particles (Figure 16). PLM also found possible clay present based on a micro-chemical clay-stain test. TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of another portion of the same muffle furnace residue showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment, plates of kaolin clay and some aciniform aggregates of carbon soot consistent with incomplete ashing of a carbon-based binder (Figure 17). The SAED pattern of the kaolin particles (Figure 18) matched the kaolin pattern shown in the McCrone Particle Atlas8 (Appendix E). The values for the d-spacings determined for the diffraction patterns matched those produced by reference kaolin samples.

TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 19 and 20). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).

The solvents had no effect on the gray iron/steel layer. Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within. SEM-EDS phase mapping (using multivariate statistical analysis) of the red layer after exposure to MEK for 55 hours did not show evidence of individual aluminum particles (Appendix G).

In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.

Discussion

The Encyclopedia of Explosives9 describes thermite as essentially a mixture of powdered ferric oxide and powdered or granular aluminum. There are two sets of ingredients listed for thermite in Crippen’s book on explosives identification.10 The first is iron oxide and aluminum powder and the second is magnesium powder, ferric oxide, and aluminum powder. Nano-thermite (thermatic nanocomposite energetic material) has been studied in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. A TEM image of a thin section of that material was published by R. Simpson11 in 2000 and
shows material that is made up of approximately 2 nanometer iron oxide particles and approximately 30 nanometer aluminum metal spheres (Figure 21).
According to the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology, kaolin (also known as aluminum silicate or china clay) is a platy or lamellar pigment that is used extensively as a pigment in many segments of the paint industry.12 It is a natural mineral (kaolinite) which is found in vast beds in many parts of the world.13 Iron oxide pigments are also used extensively in paints and coatings.13,14 Both kaolin and iron oxide pigments have been used in paints and coatings for many years.13,14 Epoxy resins were introduced into coatings in approximately 194715 and are found in a number of specially designed protective coatings on metal substrates.

In forensic studies, paints and coatings often must be broken down so that the components of the entire coating product can be studied individually. Epoxy resins are formed from the reaction of two different chemicals which produces a polymer that is heavily cross-linked. Epoxy resins can be especially difficult to dissolve. Organic solvents, including those sold commercially for epoxy paint/coating stripping, were found to soften the red layer of the red/gray chips but did not dissolve the epoxy resin sufficiently so particles within the coating could be dispersed for direct examination. In this study no organic solvent was found to release particles from within the epoxy resin and it was necessary to use low temperature ashing to eliminate the epoxy resin matrix and extract the component parts of the coating. The other procedures generally used to examine component particles within a coating without extraction (cross-sections and thin sections) were also applied in this study.

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 nano-thermite.

Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips

At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some
small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain some information about product materials. According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17 55 out of the 177 different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments. However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.

To be clear at this time the source of the chips is unknown, but it is definitely not thermite or nano-thermite? Is that a fair statement?

[16.5]

To be clear at this time the source of the chips is unknown, but it is definitely not thermite or nano-thermite? Is that a fair statement?

I believe that it would be more clear if you were to say that 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, and the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite. At this time, the manufacturer of the epoxy product is unknown, although another candidate that was been suggested elsewhere is LaClede Steel Company who painted the floor trusses with their own standard primer.

[DGM]

I believe that it would be more clear if you were to say that 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, and the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite. At this time, the manufacturer of the epoxy product is unknown, although another candidate that was been suggested elsewhere is LaClede Steel Company who painted the floor trusses with their own standard primer.
You might want to add they matched the collection and preparation methods and the data included in the Harrit paper.

[tmd2_1]

I believe that it would be more clear if you were to say that 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, and the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite. At this time, the manufacturer of the epoxy product is unknown, although another candidate that was been suggested elsewhere is LaClede Steel Company who painted the floor trusses with their own standard primer.

Of course I can completely see where you got that from this quote. "At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16" Makes perfect sense now.

[DGM]

Of course I can completely see where you got that from this quote. "At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16" Makes perfect sense now.
Do you have a problem with the methodology (or are you waiting for someone to tell you what to think)?

[moorea34]

This is the paint:


http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/IMG/png/11SeptPeinture_7.png

Epoxy
Iron Oxyde
Kaolin

;)

[16.5]

Of course I can completely see where you got that from this quote. "At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16" Makes perfect sense now.

"At this time, the manufacturer of the epoxy product is unknown, although another candidate that was been suggested elsewhere is LaClede Steel Company who painted the floor trusses with their own standard primer."

Embiggened for you. Thanks for agreeing with this part:

I believe that it would be more clear if you were to say that 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, and the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

[DGM]

To be clear at this time the source of the chips is unknown, but it is definitely not thermite or nano-thermite? Is that a fair statement?
Let me help you:
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 nano-thermite.

Harrit also does not document any of this crucial element.

[tmd2_1]

"At this time, the manufacturer of the epoxy product is unknown, although another candidate that was been suggested elsewhere is LaClede Steel Company who painted the floor trusses with their own standard primer."

Embiggened for you. Thanks for agreeing with this part:

I believe that it would be more clear if you were to say that 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, and the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

Please point out to me where that is in any of Chris' posts. Thank you.

[tmd2_1]

Let me help you:


Harrit also does not document any of this crucial element.

Not my question.

[16.5]

Please point out to me where that is in any of Chris' posts. Thank you.

Hi, that is why I put elsewhere in my post. Thanks.

We'll just leave it at this:

I believe that it would be more clear if you were to say that 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, and the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

[DGM]

Not my question.
So, what is your question? If it pertains to the origin of the samples it was already covered.

[plague311]

Nice work Chris, and please pass on my thanks to Dr. Millette when you have the opportunity. I have much respect for the work you two put in to see this testing from beginning to end. Well done.

[tmd2_1]

So, what is your question? If it pertains yo the origin of the samples it was already covered.

Last time I'm posting it. To be clear at this time the source of the chips is unknown, but it is definitely not thermite or nano-thermite? Is that a fair statement?

[DGM]

Last time I'm posting it. To be clear at this time the source of the chips is unknown, but it is definitely not thermite or nano-thermite? Is that a fair statement?
No (On the origin) Yes (on the results)

The origin is documented to be in the same area as the Harrit paper.

Fig. 1
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

[NoahFence]

Last time I'm posting it. To be clear at this time the source of the chips is unknown, but it is definitely not thermite or nano-thermite? Is that a fair statement?

tl;dr?

Fig. 1
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

And according to the wall of text you didn't read, you are correct. They are not thermite or nano-thermite.

[Mudcat]

To be clear at this time the source of the chips is unknown, but it is definitely not thermite or nano-thermite? Is that a fair statement?

In what context are you using the word 'source'? They know where it came from, the WTC. They don't know who made it (though how that factors in is beyond me as it does nothing to strengthen or weaken the truther movement), but they suspect that it's likely from company already named in the report.

And yes, it is 100% not thermite or nano-thermite (or any other sinister substance for that matter). What's the confusion?

[beachnut]

...
I submit to you that Dr. Millette has kept his promise.

The next several posts contain the results of Dr. James Millette’s study. Onward!

Good job piggybacking on other studies and funding the work. Here you are doing it for free... You organized funding for a study, while, Gage took in over 300,000 dollars and he has funded zero studies to back up his delusions.

chrismohr - 1 Gage - 0

Good work

[moorea34]

Yes, excellent job Chris ;)

And thanks to Jim Millette also!

[Edx]

Good job piggybacking on other studies and funding the work. Here you are doing it for free... You organized funding for a study, while, Gage took in over 300,000 dollars and he has funded zero studies to back up his delusions.

chrismohr - 1 Gage - 0

Good work

Thats the real kicker, isnt it?

If Gage wanted to have the scientitic community take notice he would have used some money to fund lots of studies, eventually if they all came back positive someone would have to listen. Even if each cost them 10 times as much as Chris' study, they could have still afforded many. Rather spend it on Gage's personal income.

Its almost as if they dont want to fund studies they think wont give them the results they want.......

[fourtoe]

Its almost as if they dont want to fund studies they think wont give them the results they want.......

That can't possibly be the reason!

I can't wait to read this article, it's such a bummer that by the time I get the chance to do so this thread will have 25 pages....I won't be able to read it until later tonight.

[DGM]

That can't possibly be the reason!

I can't wait to read this article, it's such a bummer that by the time I get the chance to do so this thread will have 25 pages....I won't be able to read it until later tonight.
The actually article won't be out for a while. This is a summary. Nothing really surprising. He more or less duplicated what Harrit et al did. They didn't find thermite either. So far I haven't seen anything that wouldn't have been discovered if they did a competent peer-review.

[cjnewson88]

Ok so, correct me if I'm wrong.. but..

In Summery;

1) Red/Gray Chips are Not Thermite

2) Red/Gray Chips are Not Primer Paint

3) However, Red/Gray Chips Could Be Laclede Primer Paint?

What other source for the chips could their be? Clarity please if anyone can provide it :)

edit: Oh and Thanks Chris! Very much appreciated by all! Thanks to Jim too!

[leftysergeant]

I am still a little troubled by the fact that no strontium chromate was found in Millette's study. This would have absolutely confirmed the La Clede theory, but then, we are looking for less than 1% of the total mass of the material.

The absolute lack of discernable elemental aluminum positively rules out the possibility that the chips are thermite of any nature.

[fourtoe]

The actually article won't be out for a while. This is a summary. Nothing really surprising. He more or less duplicated what Harrit et al did. They didn't find thermite either. So far I haven't seen anything that wouldn't have been discovered if they did a competent peer-review.

Yeah, summary not article, my bad. Mohr mentioned that he was gonna present his findings at a conference first, IIRC. I will totally read this summary later.

[chrismohr]

I am still a little troubled by the fact that no strontium chromate was found in Millette's study. This would have absolutely confirmed the La Clede theory, but then, we are looking for less than 1% of the total mass of the material.

The absolute lack of discernable elemental aluminum positively rules out the possibility that the chips are thermite of any nature.
Jim Millette told me personally, because I asked, if he found strontium chromate and he said no, none.

[alienentity]

Thank you Chris and Dr Millette, this is very interesting.

I agree with the suggestion that clear wording be used to emphasize that this material cannot be any kind of thermite, chemically.
and that it is consistent with some kind of primer paint, even if the manufacturer is not identified.

thx


ps I believe these results suggest why Dr Jones has dawdled off from this topic - no doubt they have quietly concluded that they were mistaken and are simply never going to publish a follow-up paper. Too embarrassing.

[ergo]

I would like to say good job, too, Chris. You're one of the very few on the "debunking" side of 9/11 who is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

This is how science is advanced. This is how you challenge findings that you don't agree with. This is how dialogue is furthered.

Provided Millette really did follow the exact same methodology, I will be very interested in seeing Jones, Harrit et al's responses to this.

[Oystein]

Thanks, Chris, for copying the summary for us! I immediately noticed at least half a dozend things that Millette did a lot more competently than Harrit e.al.!

Is it possible for us to see the Figures and data somewhere, somehow? I read the summary just once, and it seems to me his criteria for selecting chips were a little broader than I, personally, would have wished for (keeping in mind of course that the study wasn't commisioned by me nor done for my convenience), but maybe if I see the data I am satisfied. Or maybe I'll find that, oh my bad, he selected chips I am not (personally) interested in.


Now some answers to fair questions:

Ok so, correct me if I'm wrong.. but..

In Summery;

1) Red/Gray Chips are Not Thermite

2) Red/Gray Chips are Not Primer Paint

3) However, Red/Gray Chips Could Be Laclede Primer Paint?

What other source for the chips could their be? Clarity please if anyone can provide it :)

edit: Oh and Thanks Chris! Very much appreciated by all! Thanks to Jim too!

Before everything, remember that there were at least 2, almost certainly more than 2, different steel primers used in the three towers, and that also there are at least two, almost certainly more than 2, different kinds of red-gray chips found in the WTC dust. So be careful when you ask questions about "the" red/gray chips or "the" primer.

1) Mostly correct: The chips that Millette studied are most definitely not thermite of any kind, as no elemental Al could be found. Just remember that of course it could still be logically possible that other kinds of particles are thermitic. The point is: No one has found any evidence of it.

2) Essentially false: Instead, they are beyond any reasonable doubt a kind of paint, painted on steel: Iron oxide and kaolin (two of the most mundane pigments out there) in epoxy. Call it "primer" if you you like, cause it's painted on steel. However, it is not Tnemec, which is a particular family of primer brand, two members of which we know were painted on the WTC perimeter columns. That brand contains Zinc; ;Millette, like Harrit, found no zinc, so the chips Millette studied are not Tnemec primer. They still are primer, just a different one

3) Probably false: Millette found no strontium chromate, but found some titanium (dioxide, I presume). Both these facts would indicate that his chips are not the LaClede formulation

[Quad4_72]

I would like to say good job, too, Chris. You're one of the very few on the "debunking" side of 9/11 who is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

This is how science is advanced. This is how you challenge findings that you don't agree with. This is how dialogue is furthered.

Provided Millette really did follow the exact same methodology, I will be very interested in seeing Jones, Harrit et al's responses to this.

For now, what do you think of the findings? Do you still believe that the chips were thermite?

[Steen Svanholm]

Before everything, remember that there were at least 2, almost certainly more than 2, different steel primers used in the three towers, and that also there are at least two, almost certainly more than 2, different kinds of red-gray chips found in the WTC dust. So be careful when you ask questions about "the" red/gray chips or "the" primer.



1. Do we know specifically of any other primers in WTC 1, 2 or 7 (or 3, 4, 5 and 6 for that matter)?

2. Do we know of any other primer candidates that would match the chemical findings and that have a reasonable propability of having been used in WTC?

And thanks to Mohr and Millette for the effort which at least will nuance future debates extensively.

[triforcharity]

Excellent work Chris! I certainly appreciate the hard work you've put into this. Job well done!

And Dr. Millette, thanks to you too for agreeing to be completely neutral and taking on this study!!. Thank you so much.

Conclusion: Truthers are going to have to make something else up now. Maybe methane gas......:duck:

[cjnewson88]

Now some answers to fair questions:

Before everything, remember that there were at least 2, almost certainly more than 2, different steel primers used in the three towers, and that also there are at least two, almost certainly more than 2, different kinds of red-gray chips found in the WTC dust. So be careful when you ask questions about "the" red/gray chips or "the" primer.

1) Mostly correct: The chips that Millette studied are most definitely not thermite of any kind, as no elemental Al could be found. Just remember that of course it could still be logically possible that other kinds of particles are thermitic. The point is: No one has found any evidence of it.

2) Essentially false: Instead, they are beyond any reasonable doubt a kind of paint, painted on steel: Iron oxide and kaolin (two of the most mundane pigments out there) in epoxy. Call it "primer" if you you like, cause it's painted on steel. However, it is not Tnemec, which is a particular family of primer brand, two members of which we know were painted on the WTC perimeter columns. That brand contains Zinc; ;Millette, like Harrit, found no zinc, so the chips Millette studied are not Tnemec primer. They still are primer, just a different one

3) Probably false: Millette found no strontium chromate, but found some titanium (dioxide, I presume). Both these facts would indicate that his chips are not the LaClede formulation


Thanks for the clarity Oystein. I hate myself for saying this, but getting this explained in 'lay mans' terms is really the easiest way I can understand this. When it comes to physics, mechanics etc I am more than competent at understanding in depth, however chemistry and in depth experiments like this one is a nightmare for me to understand easily, so any interpretation is much appreciated :)

On another note, one of the main arguments for thermitic material was that these red/gray chips were highly reactive in heat. IIRC, Harret et al heated the chips to 400C and recorded a violent reaction.

According to Chris's post;
Chips of interest were ashed in a muffle furnace using a NEY Temperature Programmable furnace operated at 400oC for 1 hour. The gray layer remained intact and the red layer residue was prepared as described above and analyzed using a Philips CM120 TEM-SAED-EDS.

Was this a replication of the same experiment? Could someone explain this section please for people like myself? Thanks.

[chrismohr]

Thanks, Chris, for copying the summary for us! I immediately noticed at least half a dozend things that Millette did a lot more competently than Harrit e.al.!

Is it possible for us to see the Figures and data somewhere, somehow? I read the summary just once, and it seems to me his criteria for selecting chips were a little broader than I, personally, would have wished for (keeping in mind of course that the study wasn't commisioned by me nor done for my convenience), but maybe if I see the data I am satisfied. Or maybe I'll find that, oh my bad, he selected chips I am not (personally) interested in.


Now some answers to fair questions:



Before everything, remember that there were at least 2, almost certainly more than 2, different steel primers used in the three towers, and that also there are at least two, almost certainly more than 2, different kinds of red-gray chips found in the WTC dust. So be careful when you ask questions about "the" red/gray chips or "the" primer.

1) Mostly correct: The chips that Millette studied are most definitely not thermite of any kind, as no elemental Al could be found. Just remember that of course it could still be logically possible that other kinds of particles are thermitic. The point is: No one has found any evidence of it.

2) Essentially false: Instead, they are beyond any reasonable doubt a kind of paint, painted on steel: Iron oxide and kaolin (two of the most mundane pigments out there) in epoxy. Call it "primer" if you you like, cause it's painted on steel. However, it is not Tnemec, which is a particular family of primer brand, two members of which we know were painted on the WTC perimeter columns. That brand contains Zinc; ;Millette, like Harrit, found no zinc, so the chips Millette studied are not Tnemec primer. They still are primer, just a different one

3) Probably false: Millette found no strontium chromate, but found some titanium (dioxide, I presume). Both these facts would indicate that his chips are not the LaClede formulation
Hi Oystein,
Yes, the entire preliminary findings, complete with figures, will be posted tomorrow morning. I'll put out the link and everyone will be able to see everything.

[chrismohr]

The full preliminary report will be available tomorrow, figures and pictures included, with a web link. I'll post that link here as soon as Jim Millette puts it up.

[LashL]

FYI, chrismohr sought permission in advance of creating this thread to have it placed on Moderated status once it was eventually created, and after discussion among the Mod Team, that permission was granted. Please ensure that your posts are on topic and in keeping with the higher standards of a Moderated thread. This thread is for discussing the findings of the report by Jim Millette. Other discussion that is not confined to that subject matter or is otherwise not suitable for a Moderated thread should be posted in the pre-existing thread cited in the OP. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

[grandmastershek]

I would like to say good job, too, Chris. You're one of the very few on the "debunking" side of 9/11 who is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

This is how science is advanced. This is how you challenge findings that you don't agree with. This is how dialogue is furthered.

Provided Millette really did follow the exact same methodology, I will be very interested in seeing Jones, Harrit et al's responses to this.

Indeed..the Millette study is how science is conducted. Harrit, Jones, Ryan, etc should take some notes.

[uke2se]

Good work, Chris and Dr. Millette. I know you did this for yourself, Chris, and I hope you aren't too upset when the twoofers step up their attempt at character assassination. No way they are going to accept a study like this.

On the plus side, you've given rational people another strong scientific argument for why nobody should take twoofers seriously.

[nicepants]

Indeed..the Millette study is how science is conducted. Harrit, Jones, Ryan, etc should take some notes.

Agreed!!

I remember when I first heard about the red/grey chips, I thought that the possibility of them being paint seemed likely.

Chris, thanks for taking point on this and doing what Gage & his crew have refused to do for years! Unfortunately, if past actions are any indication, Gage & co are likely to attack you, Millette, etc in any way possible in a grasping-at-straws effort to attempt to discredit the findings. (All you need is Gage to find some parking attendant at Millette's lab that's 3rd cousins with Dick Cheney and he'll throw the baby out with the bathwater).

I fear that the only way to get someone like Gage to accept findings like this is to have him agree, in advance, to the terms of the tests and to accept/endorse the findings regardless of the results so long as the tests abide by the agreed-upon terms.

That said, I'm looking forward to the full results and to the responses by truthers!

[alienentity]

Agreed!!

I remember when I first heard about the red/grey chips, I thought that the possibility of them being paint seemed likely.

Chris, thanks for taking point on this and doing what Gage & his crew have refused to do for years! Unfortunately, if past actions are any indication, Gage & co are likely to attack you, Millette, etc in any way possible in a grasping-at-straws effort to attempt to discredit the findings. (All you need is Gage to find some parking attendant at Millette's lab that's 3rd cousins with Dick Cheney and he'll throw the baby out with the bathwater).

I fear that the only way to get someone like Gage to accept findings like this is to have him agree, in advance, to the terms of the tests and to accept/endorse the findings regardless of the results so long as the tests abide by the agreed-upon terms.

That said, I'm looking forward to the full results and to the responses by truthers!

I have a suspicion Gage will focus on the lack of 'iron rich microspheres' as some kind of proof that the Millette chips are not the same as the Jones/Harrit chips.
I can just hear his Wolf Blitzer-like talking points 'Iron microspheres were not found by Millette, but could only be created by a thermitic reaction, so his study does not disprove the clear evidence for nanothermite found in the dust, or the freefall speed of the collapse, which could only be caused by controlled demolition' or something along those lines.:rolleyes:

[GlennB]

Chris, I'd just like to add my congratulations to the list :)

I can't say I'm exactly looking forward to the response of Gage, Harrit and co. as I strongly suspect it offers a huge opportunity for Trutheresque obfuscation. Perhaps they will surprise us and put their samples through more rigorous and meaningful testing?

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi, Chris, [/B], thanks a lot:cool: And many, many thanks to Jim Millette as well!

I think that our predictions from Paint thread are being confirmed experimentally, but it is too soon to discuss the results of Jim's study in detail without seeing figures, spectra, etc.

As a "discoverer" of Laclede red primer paint, I'm perhaps rather "biased" so far, since I'm still convinced that red-chips described by Jim and compared with closely studied "Bentham chips (a) to (d) are Laclede paint chips (at least mostly):cool:

Steen Svanholm: pls, read the Paint thread, everything we know about red WTC paints has been summarized there. Perhaps Oystein could put some short summary (or some good summarizing post from the paint thread) here?

Oystein: as for your point: "3) Probably false: Millette found no strontium chromate, but found some titanium (dioxide, I presume). Both these facts would indicate that his chips are not the LaClede formulation"... You already know me quite well, Oystein, my instant question is: could titanium dioxide be naturally present in small amounts in kaolinite? And the quick answer is: yes, it can:cool: See e.g. here http://www.clays.org/journal/archive/volume%2024/24-5-215.htm or here (http://www.reade.com/products/12-minerals-clays/278-kaolinite-clay-anhydrous-aluminum-silicate-nacrite-dickite-kaolinite-calcined-kaolin-china-clay-bolus-alba-porcelain-clay-aluminum-silicate-hydroxide-kaopectate-aluminum-silicate-hydrated-aluminum-silicate-dihydrat-bolbus-alba).
As for strontium chromate, we agreed that in 1 wt% concentration in Laclede primer, it might not be easy to detect/determine this compound in the paint. It seems that this really happened.

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks very much, Chris, Dr Millette, and to all who funded the study.

[Oystein]

1. Do we know specifically of any other primers in WTC 1, 2 or 7 (or 3, 4, 5 and 6 for that matter)?

2. Do we know of any other primer candidates that would match the chemical findings and that have a reasonable propability of having been used in WTC?

And thanks to Mohr and Millette for the effort which at least will nuance future debates extensively.

As far as I am aware of, we know only two primer formulations (Tnemec and LaClede). I don't know if anyone has found any paint formulation for any other building but the twin towers.

[Oystein]

Thanks for the clarity Oystein. I hate myself for saying this, but getting this explained in 'lay mans' terms is really the easiest way I can understand this. When it comes to physics, mechanics etc I am more than competent at understanding in depth, however chemistry and in depth experiments like this one is a nightmare for me to understand easily, so any interpretation is much appreciated :)
yw ;)

On another note, one of the main arguments for thermitic material was that these red/gray chips were highly reactive in heat. IIRC, Harret et al heated the chips to 400C and recorded a violent reaction.

According to Chris's post;
Chips of interest were ashed in a muffle furnace using a NEY Temperature Programmable furnace operated at 400oC for 1 hour. The gray layer remained intact and the red layer residue was prepared as described above and analyzed using a Philips CM120 TEM-SAED-EDS.
Was this a replication of the same experiment? Could someone explain this section please for people like myself? Thanks.
No, this wasn't a replication of the tests Farrer did for the Harrit team.

What Millette did is quite simply this: he carefully burned the organic matrix (epoxy), which largely turns into gas (CO2, H2O, ...) and disappears, to free the pigment from the matrix, so he can take a closer look at the pigments. Other methods to achieve the same result would have been: Dissolve paint in paint solvent (he tried that, but epoxy is notriously difficult to dissolve, so that didn't work), cut chips with a skalpell (that exposes only those pigments very close to the cut surface).
His furnace controls temperature carefully, but doesn't measure anything beyond that, as far as I understand.


The DSC (Differantiated Scanning Calorimeter) does something quite more complicated: You have to heating plates - one with your paint sample, the other without any sample as a control. You slowly feed energy (electric current I suppoose) to them, at the same rate, and you measure how the temperature of the device develops. You adjust energy input to both such that temperature rises constantly, for example at a rate of 10°C per minute. You really measure and plot how much energy you need to feed to your plates to achieve that heating rate.
No, if your sample contains some water, for example, that water will boil off around 100°C. This cools the plate, and you need to feed more energy to the plate with that sample than to the control plate, to still achieve the same heating rate. The same happens if an endotherm reaction occurs in your sample - that is a reaction that needs more energy input than comes out of it. If, on the other hand, your sample undergoes an exotherm chemical reaction (for example: it burns), then the sample heats up the plate, and you must reduce the heat you feed to your sample plate, or else your heating rate gets to high.

You do that process, starting perhaps at room temperature (20°C), and continue till you reach a desired maximum temperature (typically, DSCs will go to 600 or 700°C).

So what you basically measure at each temperature along the scale is the energy flow of the chemical and physical reactions that take place at that temperature. If you know the initial mass of your sample, you can compute from the curve a property called "energy density". But the shape of the curve can also be of interest, and of course the temperatures at which reactions peak.


What Farrer, Harrit and the others found was that thei chips react exothermally mostly around a peak at 430°, plus minus 50°. This means their reaction already started under 400°C. This is consistent with Millette's ashing of the sample at 400°C - a polymer like epoxy will degrade thermally at that temperature, no surprise. Also, it is no surprise that this reaction is exotherm. The energy densities that Farrer measured were unremarkable for organic substances: between 1.5 and 7.5 kJ/g. Paper and wood would have more than 15kJ/g, many plastics between 20 and 40 kJ/g, fossil fuels more than that. I don't have values for epoxy handy, but wouldn't be surprised at all if epoxy, too, had like 20kJ/g. Farrer's value were much lower than that, because (as Harrit e.al. concede themselves) their chips had this gray layer, which does not react, so it adds mass, but not energy, lowering the energy per mass. However, their values would be highly remarkable, if not downright impossible, for thermite: Ideal thermite has only 3.9kJ/g - two of Farrer's samples were above that value, so something that was not thermite must have burned, there is no way around that conclusion in this universe, and they even admit it.


Now, something that I am missing from Millettes ashed-in-a-furnace samples is - microspheres :D

[Sunstealer]

Firstly I'd like to thank Chris for his efforts in arranging for these tests to be performed, you have the patience of a saint.

It's about 20 years ago since being introduced to kaolin during a ceramics lecture. I've never used the material or come across it in any professional capacity, however, upon seeing the Harrit et al paper's SEM images and other data, 3 years ago, it was abundantly clear that kaolin was present. I'm unaware of any other hexagonal platelet with those characteristics. Millette has performed many tests that any self respecting and experienced materials scientist would carry out in what is essentially a "materials characterisation" exercise. The confirmation of the presence of kaolin by FTIR/TEM and the matches to reference data is especially pleasing. I wonder how many truthers will acknowledge that I was right 3 years ago?

The fact that FTIR also shows a cross-linked epoxy binder is good news too because this is what we were expecting to find. These two facts kill the thermite nonsense from Harrit and Jones et al stone dead.

It's also pleasing to see that Millette shows that the gray layer is consistent with steel which again shows that we were on the right path. No truther has ever managed to explain the gray layer nor refute the data indicating it is steel.

I'm looking forward to the full paper and it's data.

[Dragon37]

I see some people hung up on the source of the flakes. The only thing that matters, but this will be obscured by the truth movement talking about the source, is that it is not, I repeat not, thermite or nanothermite. That should not be lost in the ensuing war of words.

I find it interesting that Jones and company still refuse to allow further analysis of their samples by any other source. This, along with Millette's work, prove conclusively that the thermite debate.

Unfortunately, the "truth" side will continue to believe their thermite lie.

[chrismohr]

Hi all,

The link to the full study is coming out this morning.

I asked him one simple question about the study:

Did you replicate the Bentham study 100%? It looks like there was no test of the ignition temperature or energy release of the chips.

(Paraphrase) That's correct. We did cook the chips to release the particles from epoxy bindings for further study, but not to measure ignition temperature of energy release.

It was not necessary to take this step, because my chemical tests proved that the chips could not be thermitic in any way. I would have just been testing the ignition point and energy release of a paint chip and that would not have been necessary.

If someone wanted to do such a test, it would be as two-part process. A different lab would have to be employed to measure the heat output and ignition temperatures properly, and then someone else with expertise would need to properly analyze the data. The cost would be around $300 per sample for just the raw testing.

Otherwise, every part of the Bentham protocol was followed, and several other tests they did not do were added to the protocol.

[chrismohr]

Jim Millette is continuing his work to prepare for a peer-reviewed publication of his WTC dust sample findings and he has one question:

In the original Bentham study, Harrit et al wrote one line about how someone tested known thermite and found iron-rich microspheres. Rather than slog through the Bentham Report yet again, I'm wondering if anyone here knows what that line is about. He'd like to get any information he can about what Harrit et al did, what other studies might be out there re thermitic material and iron-rich microspheres, etc.

Thanks in advance.

[Ivan Kminek]

Moderator(s): As for my first post here, it took about 8 hours to be "allowed" here. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate off-topic and other inappropriate contributions later, after they are "published"? Thanks for considering this possibility:cool:

Chris:Basically, Jim's preliminary conclusions from his experimental work are quite similar to our presumptions at the beginning of "Paint thread": "Red-gray chips (with the structure and compositions identical/similar to Bentham chips (a) to (d)) are indeed not thermites because of this and this and this; they are paint particles, but they are not particles of Tnemec paint and we don't know what kind of paint they could be."
Since we know what paint it could be and why, Jim Millette should be informed about this at least now, after his fine experiments are finished. Therefore I suggest, Oystein, , even here that we should send our "white paper" on "Laclede paint hypothesis" to Jim Millette through Chris now, without further editing or reviewing. Jim can consider our claims and mention them in the final version of his peer-reviewed paper:cool:

[Dragon37]

They claim the only source of iron-rich microspheres is a by-product of a thermite reaction. No other combustible could have created them is their claim. I think the conjectures about the spheres came before and ultimately facilitated their false finding of thermite in their "tests".

[Gamolon]

Jim Millette is continuing his work to prepare for a peer-reviewed publication of his WTC dust sample findings and he has one question:

In the original Bentham study, Harrit et al wrote one line about how someone tested known thermite and found iron-rich microspheres. Rather than slog through the Bentham Report yet again, I'm wondering if anyone here knows what that line is about. He'd like to get any information he can about what Harrit et al did, what other studies might be out there re thermitic material and iron-rich microspheres, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Is this the one? Taken from the Bentham paper, page 25.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/benthamquote.png

The [5] reference is below.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/footnote5.png

[Grizzly Bear]

Gigantic kudos for having the patience to actually go this far with what I would have otherwise never taken seriously. I thought the results would be fairly straightforward but it still was a minor curiosity to be able to find out. You have way more patience that I got these days and I guess that's not always a bad thing if it helps you do what you set out for.

[moorea34]

I think you should remind him the composition of Laclede Primer Paint.
(the second most used paint during the construction of the Twin Towers with the tnemec primer paint) :

* Pigment (28,5 %)
----- Iron Oxyde 55 %
----- Aluminum silicate (kaolin) 41 %
----- Strontium Chromate 4 %

* Vehicule (71.5 %)
----- Epoxy Amine 45 %
----- Deionized Water and amine 55 %


;)

[chrismohr]

Here is the link to the full Jim Millette preliminary report, pictures, diagrams and all. Have fun!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

[chrismohr]

Moderator(s): As for my first post here, it took about 8 hours to be "allowed" here. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate off-topic and other inappropriate contributions later, after they are "published"? Thanks for considering this possibility:cool:

Chris:Basically, Jim's preliminary conclusions from his experimental work are quite similar to our presumptions at the beginning of "Paint thread": "Red-gray chips (with the structure and compositions identical/similar to Bentham chips (a) to (d)) are indeed not thermites because of this and this and this; they are paint particles, but they are not particles of Tnemec paint and we don't know what kind of paint they could be."
Since we know what paint it could be and why, Jim Millette should be informed about this at least now, after his fine experiments are finished. Therefore I suggest, Oystein, , even here that we should send our "white paper" on "Laclede paint hypothesis" to Jim Millette through Chris now, without further editing or reviewing. Jim can consider our claims and mention them in the final version of his peer-reviewed paper:cool:
Ivan I have a different idea: really look at all the new data in Jim's preliminary report first, then see if any of the spectra etc. line up with any particular paint. THAT would be very useful, I would think!

[Brainster]

Excellent job, Chris! I have linked both this discussion and the PDF at SLC.

[moorea34]

'Cr' is found several times in the spectra by Millette.
Exactly as in Harrit's paper.

Page 28, on the last graph on the left, quantities of Cr are not negligible.

[jaydeehess]

kodos and a blessing on your houses for this study. I look forward to further updates.

[LSSBB]

Here is the link to the full Jim Millette preliminary report, pictures, diagrams and all. Have fun!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

Thanks for getting this done, Chris. I will keep the report close to me heart. (No, really. I dowloaded it to my phone, which I keep in my jacket inner pocket).

[Vinny Shinblind]

There are conflicting results concerning thermite in the dust! That's why we need a new investigation!

/truther

[alienentity]

From the Millette study, pp 6-7 'Some small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amountdetected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.'

Based on what we do know about LaClede formulas of the day, is it not fair to say that this material is very similar to it in composition?
And further, can we not also surmise why this kind of material would be used in the construction of the towers?
Why else would it be present in the dust? I can't think of any other reason..

[Oystein]

Wow - this is massive! And lots of new things for me to learn.

Will take me a while to digest. Better try to avoid any half-baked comments...

[Orphia Nay]

Dear Truthers: Don't try and move the goalposts and say this test was about proving which sort of paint the chips are.

Harrit, Jones et al tested the chips and said they were ~thermite.

Dr Millette has tested the chips more thoroughly and proved Harrit, Jones et al wrong.

The test proves they were not thermite. End of story.

[ergo]

Hi all,

Did you replicate the Bentham study 100%? It looks like there was no test of the ignition temperature or energy release of the chips.

(Paraphrase) That's correct. We did cook the chips to release the particles from epoxy bindings for further study, but not to measure ignition temperature of energy release.

It was not necessary to take this step, because my chemical tests proved that the chips could not be thermitic in any way. I would have just been testing the ignition point and energy release of a paint chip and that would not have been necessary.



Um, okay, but I thought that

... primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 °C.

COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF RED/GRAY CHIPS

In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 °C.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

[fourtoe]

Dear Truthers: Don't try and move the goalposts and say this test was about proving which sort of paint the chips are.

Harrit, Jones et al tested the chips and said they were ~thermite.

Dr Millette has tested the chips more thoroughly and proved Harrit, Jones et al wrong.

The test proves they were not thermite. End of story.

This just seems way too straight forward. And whatever Kevin Ryan says is worthless because he had the chance to let others use his samples but didn't...nice that he's against open, independent scientific research.

Again, I wonder what Gage will say about this especially considering his good relations with Mohr. A lot of the attacks seem to rely on Mohr being deceitful.

It looks like at BEST they can get away with moving the goalposts, but that will only be accepted by the ones who already took the red pill :rolleyes:

[tfk]

Better try to avoid any half-baked comments...

If you start down THIS path, how will we recognize you...?

:eye-poppi

Tom

[Steen Svanholm]

Thanks to Ivan and Oystein for answering my questions.

It is quite certain that the burden of proof lies heavier on Harrit et al. than ever before.

It is also clear that Millette's experiment does not say which (if any) paint was found but as alienentity and others say, it may give a more qualified hint of what the red chips are and therefore a good idea of how to proceed with any further tests if needed.

[MrSkunkwork100]

Now all that stands to question, is WHY haven't the conspiracy advocates done this on their own, since they reportedly have some dust samples to test? If Chris Mohr (a person who is strictly interested only in getting to the bottom of things) can do it for an easy $1,000, why can't the "Scholars for 911 truth" do it?



Don't bother answering: I already know.

[Steen Svanholm]

Thanks to Ivan and Oystein for answering my questions.

Just for the record: Chris, do you know if Millette would be willing to hand over some of the dust samples to Harrit et al, should they want to do a comparison or replicating experiment of any sort?

[Oystein]

Um, okay, but I thought that
... primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 °C.

COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF RED/GRAY CHIPS

In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 °C.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

Yeah. That happens when you trust a truther: You end up believing lies and falsehoods.

See, in the very same artcicle, that you link to, Harrit lists the ingredients of the paint he is talking about. Figure 3 lists the pigments (adding up to 100%) and the vehicle (organic compounds, also adding up to 100%)


Harrit makes a big mistake there: He thinks that Zinc Yellow is 20.3% of the wet paint, then subtracts thinner and spirits and says that Zinc Yellow is 34% of the dry paint - but that balloney! We don't know what the ratio of pigment:vehicle was!
In LaClede Paint we know it: 28.5:71.5.
If the same ratio holds for Tnemec, then Zinc Yellow is only 5.8% of the wet paint; after evaporation of thinner and spirits this increases somewhat to ... I am too lazy to compute exactly, but something like 8%. Same correction would apply to all pigments.

At any rate, ergo, Harrit is flat-out wrong: Tnemec primer is, like most other paints, as suspension of mineral pigments in an organic matrix. The organic matrix certainly makes up the majority of volume and mass, and so, by definition, it is NOT "basically a ceramic material", as Harrit wants to make you believe. See Ceramic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic):
A ceramic is an inorganic, nonmetallic solid prepared by the action of heat and subsequent cooling.

In addition, you again forgot that the chips we are looking at are NOT Tnemec! They are an epoxy based paint, very much like the LaClede primer - if it is not the LaClede primer - and that we already know to be 71.5% organic.

So ergo, learn from this NOT to trust truthers ;)

[ergo]

Yeah. That happens when you trust a truther: You end up believing lies and falsehoods.

See, in the very same artcicle, that you link to, Harrit lists the ingredients of the paint he is talking about. Figure 3 lists the pigments (adding up to 100%) and the vehicle (organic compounds, also adding up to 100%)

Harrit makes a big mistake there: He thinks that Zinc Yellow is 20.3% of the wet paint, then subtracts thinner and spirits and says that Zinc Yellow is 34% of the dry paint - but that balloney! We don't know what the ratio of pigment:vehicle was!
In LaClede Paint we know it: 28.5:71.5.
If the same ratio holds for Tnemec, then Zinc Yellow is only 5.8% of the wet paint; after evaporation of thinner and spirits this increases somewhat to ... I am too lazy to compute exactly, but something like 8%. Same correction would apply to all pigments.

At any rate, ergo, Harrit is flat-out wrong: Tnemec primer is, like most other paints, as suspension of mineral pigments in an organic matrix. The organic matrix certainly makes up the majority of volume and mass, and so, by definition, it is NOT "basically a ceramic material", as Harrit wants to make you believe. See Ceramic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic):


The article also shows that the paint has not degraded or dissolved at temperatures up to 800o C. Hence, it's chemically stable, no matter what its constituents.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

In contrast, their red-grey chips ignited at temperatures well below this. Millette did not test this because, if I'm understanding this correctly, he saw no evidence of elemental aluminum and therefore concluded that the red layer could not be thermitic. Why do Harrit and Jones find elemental aluminum (in addition to the kaolin platelets) and Millette doesn't? Isn't Millette curious about this? Harrit and Jones tested their hypothesis using the DSC test. Millette didn't. Why not?

[twinstead]

The article also shows that the paint has not degraded or dissolved at temperatures up to 800o C. Hence, it's chemically stable, no matter what its constituents.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

In contrast, their red-grey chips ignited at temperatures well below this. Millette did not test this because, if I'm understanding this correctly, he saw no evidence of elemental aluminum and therefore concluded that the red layer could not be thermitic. Why do Harrit and Jones find elemental aluminum (in addition to the kaolin platelets) and Millette doesn't? Isn't Millette curious about this? Harrit and Jones tested their hypothesis using the DSC test. Millette didn't. Why not?

Aren't you curious as to why an independent study came to a different conclusion than Harrit and Jones?

[Oystein]

The article also shows that the paint has not degraded or dissolved at temperatures up to 800o C. Hence, it's chemically stable, no matter what its constituents.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

In contrast, their red-grey chips ignited at temperatures well below this. Millette did not test this because, if I'm understanding this correctly, he saw no evidence of elemental aluminum and therefore concluded that the red layer could not be thermitic. Why do Harrit and Jones find elemental aluminum (in addition to the kaolin platelets) and Millette doesn't? Isn't Millette curious about this? Harrit and Jones tested their hypothesis using the DSC test. Millette didn't. Why not?

Harrit contradicts himself.
The claim "the primer paint ... is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 °C." is made right under Figure 8, which bears the caption "...formation of a black layer under the primer paint at temperatures beyond 650 °C". A little higher up, Harrit speculates, probably correctly, that "formation of the black scales is due to charring of the organic binder". So Harrit tells you that the paint degrades at 650°C, and also tells you that it is stable up to 800°C.
I am curious about how you are going to explain that!

As for the question why that paint didn't burn around 430°C: Easy. The more stable paint is Tnemec red, which has an organic matrix mainly with linseed oil some resins, whereas the LaClede paint chips are based on an epoxy matrix. Two different materials. Harrit makes a lot of mistakes in that letter, but at least one conclusion is correct: Most of his red-gray chips are not Tnemec.



As for DSC: It's a totally useless test. Harrit e.al.have proven that the organic matrix of paint can burn. Big deal. Everybody knew that already. You write "Harrit and Jones tested their hypothesis using the DSC test", but you don't understand that DSC of a composite material that consists of an organic matrix, a metal oxide layer and particles of various minerals is a totally incompetent way of testing anything. If their result shows anything at all, then that the energy of these chips comes mostly from stuff that is definitely NOT thermite. "Mostly" starts at 95%, by the way, and includes the possibilty of "entirely".


Lastly, you ask why "Harrit and Jones find elemental aluminum (in addition to the kaolin platelets)". First, could you please show us where any of the authors of their crap paper have ever admitted there is kaolin in these chips? Secondly, no, they do not find elemental Al. Their methods are incompetent. They come closest in Fig. 17 and the accompanying discussion, where they claim a 3:1 ratio of Al:O for one spot in one chip. That would indeed indicate some elemental aluminium. Problem is: The chip as a whole contains waaaaaaaaaaaaay too little Al (see the teeny-weeeny Al peak in Fig 14) and waaaaay too much other stuff (C, Si, Ca, Fe) - so even if 2/3 of the Al were elemental, not more than 5% of that chip could possibly thermite. More than half of it surely is organic matrix, which has at least twice the energy density of even perfect thermite, so again at least 95% of the heat coming from burning such a chip would be ordinary organic combustion, and the 5% heat from thermite would be pathetically insignificant. That is NOT a thermitic material by any stretch of the imagination!

I suspect that Fig.17 is the result of them focussing on a piece af aluminium tray.

[GlennB]

The article also shows that the paint has not degraded or dissolved at temperatures up to 800o C. Hence, it's chemically stable, no matter what its constituents.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

In contrast, their red-grey chips ignited at temperatures well below this.


Ceramics ignite at such temperatures? I didn't know that.


Millette did not test this because, if I'm understanding this correctly, he saw no evidence of elemental aluminum and therefore concluded that the red layer could not be thermitic. Why do Harrit and Jones find elemental aluminum (in addition to the kaolin platelets) and Millette doesn't?

I didn't realise they found elemental aluminium. Perhaps I should learn to read more closely.

[chrismohr]

Hi Ergo and all,

I expect Millette's not burning the chips and not measuring ignition temperatures and energy releases will be seized upon by Kevin Ryan and other signatories to the 2009 Bentham paper. I asked Millette about this directly at least twice. My two items:

1.) If you are replicating the Bentham paper shouldn't you replicate every major experiment they did unless it was truly "wrong"? His answer was that once he determined with certainty (with his spectographs and other chemical analyses) that no thermitic traces of any kind were present, he would just be measuring the ignition temperature and energy output of a product we know is not thermitic. I guess it would be like saying, I'm looking for my keyring, and then, once I found it and it was in my hand, should I keep looking for the keyring in other rooms of my house? Still, I know the absence of this test will be a major complaint of people on the 9/11 Truth side.

2.) For $1500 or so we can probably do this ignition test. I'm almost certain Jim Millette would cooperate with this, because he could add it to what will be his published peer-reviewed paper. Millette just considered it wasteful and unnecessary... he replicated the Bentham study up to the point of coming to a certain decision, and even did other tests not performed by Harrit et al which he considered gaps in their research protocol.

If someone wants to organize such a test, great. I would ask it be done in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere as well as in air, to see if oxygenation affects the outcome, but I'm not sure it would really advance our knowledge. Take a look at the firt 90 seconds of my YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1UYdW4I. This demonstrates that the burning of the chips didn't create even close to an energy match to a known nanothermite anyway. I know that Harrit et al came up with explanations of why this would be so, but the experiment itself produced useless results for them the first go-around.

What Millette IS interested in is looking more deeply into the question of the iron mirospheres, and before publication he expects to do more with that question. Remember, this is a preliminary report based on a deadline. As just one example, he may be able to positively identify the kind of paint chips he was looking at, instead of saying "they are some kind of paint, they are definitely 100% not thermitic material of any kind," which i as far as he got as of February 29. Before he publishes his final results, he will be doing more research. The iron microsphere issue remains an open question for him and he may yet do more research on that question.

[pgimeno]

In contrast, their red-grey chips ignited at temperatures well below this. Millette did not test this because, if I'm understanding this correctly, he saw no evidence of elemental aluminum and therefore concluded that the red layer could not be thermitic. Why do Harrit and Jones find elemental aluminum (in addition to the kaolin platelets) and Millette doesn't? Isn't Millette curious about this? Harrit and Jones tested their hypothesis using the DSC test. Millette didn't. Why not?

Millette rules out the presence of elemental aluminium by several means: various solvents, low temperature ashing, and maybe I miss something else.

We know of a number of methodological errors in the way the ATM authors did the tests. Reading the paper, I think it's safe to say that the conclusion of elemental Al is not supported by their data, therefore they don't find it, they just claim they do. The way they test their hypothesis with the DSC is flawed, because the carbon burns in the atmospheric air, releasing in the process much more heat than is expectable from a thermitic reaction, which is what their own data shows (see image [1] (http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png)). After ruling out elemental Al entirely, Millette does not have a reason to perform any DSC test.

[Scott Sommers]

Jim Millette is continuing his work to prepare for a peer-reviewed publication of his WTC dust sample findings and he has one question:

In the original Bentham study, Harrit et al wrote one line about how someone tested known thermite and found iron-rich microspheres. Rather than slog through the Bentham Report yet again, I'm wondering if anyone here knows what that line is about. He'd like to get any information he can about what Harrit et al did, what other studies might be out there re thermitic material and iron-rich microspheres, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Is he really? Is the aim of this to deal with the thermite claims? If it is, it would be very unusual. There is no real debate about this among people who publish in legitimate peer-review venues. It's a conspiracy theory claim. Jones and these guys have never been cited in a paper dealing with 9/11 air contamination or in papers published in journals for research on energetic materials. In fact, I doubt that most researchers in these fields even know such a claim has been made. It would be like a paper addressing claims that Nazis live in a hallow Moon. You could do it. It might be fun. But it's more suitable for our forum than for a legitimate research venue.

[gerrycan]

Let me help you:


Harrit also does not document any of this crucial element.

what about on page 27 of the bentham paper?

"Further, we have shown that the red material contains
both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of
thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing in
the surviving chips"

[Sunstealer]

By the way Millettes data shows that some of the chips were Tnemec red 99 primer paint - see pages 28 and 29. Obviously these weren't analysed further because that was not the remit. The remit was to further test samples that were identical in nature to samples a-d in the Harrit paper.

That is what Millette did and his analysis shows that this material is paint. Thermite does not contain epoxy. Thermite does not contain kaolin. Therefore the material is not thermite. Primer paint does contain these materials therefore the material is primer paint.

We know that the tested material isn't tnemec red 99 - I've been saying that for years, as have others, but truthers don't seem to understand that more than one primer paint was used. We have another Laclade red joist paint.

I'll also bet that there were more than just these two. I suspect that over the years parts of the building were repainted due to remodelling, the fire in February 1975 and the bombing in 1993 as well as any maintenance and repairs. Wasn't there inspection of the decaying fireproofing materials and subsequent corrosion found during inspection? Again that would need to be repaired to specification.

I have yet to see any truther actually acknowledge that Millette found kaolin and epoxy resin in the samples. They seem to want to discuss anything but. FTIR categorically shows the presence of both kaolin and epoxy, which is why I was calling for this test to be performed by Harrit et al. It gives definitive answers.

The data does not lie.

[tfk]

[/url]

In contrast, their red-grey chips ignited at temperatures well below this. Millette did not test this because, if I'm understanding this correctly, he saw no evidence of elemental aluminum and therefore concluded that the red layer could not be thermitic. Why do Harrit and Jones find elemental aluminum (in addition to the kaolin platelets) and Millette doesn't? Isn't Millette curious about this? Harrit and Jones tested their hypothesis using the DSC test. Millette didn't. Why not?

it appears that you don't appreciate the definition of Millette's job.

His job was to figure out whether or not Harrit et al conclusion that these chips are unreacted (or reacted) thermite of any variety.

His job was not to figure out what Harrit et al did wrong.

Millette did his job.

tk

PS. If they have any integrity, Harrit, Jones, et al will recognize that it is THEIR job to figure out what they did wrong. And to publish a very public retraction of their previous work, complete with apologies to all the people that they mislead & slandered.

Or to replicate their testing, after consulting with experts who actually know what they are talking about. And to work closely with independent experts on the testing, in order to assure everyone that they get it right next time.

About the only completely dishonest, deceptive, unprofessional, & unjustifiable course of action that they can take at this point is ...

... No action.

The old "we stand by our previous results" crappola.

Which really translates into "we've been terrified for the last 4 years that someone was gonna try to replicate this. Now, screw all the people that we mislead. Screw all the people that we insulted. We have the shattered illusion of our reputations & egos to defend. Even though we're only defending them to the clueless!"

How much would you like to wager on which path Harrit, Jones, et al choose to take?

[chrismohr]

Steen,
I don't know. When I asked Kevin Ryan if Dr. Millette could have some of HIS allegedly thermitic samples, he not only said no, he accused me of dishonesty and Millette of deception. Niels Harrit has written off this study as "pathetic" and a waste of his time to even look at. That was before the study came out. So far, their responses have been 100% ad hominem attacks. If they change their tune and want to do real research on the subject, I'll ask Jim then.

[Sunstealer]

The article also shows that the paint has not degraded or dissolved at temperatures up to 800o C. Hence, it's chemically stable, no matter what its constituents.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

In contrast, their red-grey chips ignited at temperatures well below this. Millette did not test this because, if I'm understanding this correctly, he saw no evidence of elemental aluminum and therefore concluded that the red layer could not be thermitic. Why do Harrit and Jones find elemental aluminum (in addition to the kaolin platelets) and Millette doesn't? Isn't Millette curious about this? Harrit and Jones tested their hypothesis using the DSC test. Millette didn't. Why not?I'm going to answer the highlighted portion plus a bit more.

There are 2 known primer paints used in the WTC.

1. Tnemec red 99.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=877

Tnemec Red does not contain any kaolin. Instead there are aluminates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminate).

2. LaClade Joist Paint.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=4969

LaClade contains Aluminum Silicate (clay). This appears to be kaolin.

What you have to realise is that Millete AND Harrit et al observe BOTH types of primer paint in their analysis.

Harrit et al/Bentham.

Samples a-d contain Kaolin. I've been through this 100 times but suffice to say the data shows an aluminosilicate material with all the morphology of Kaolin.

The sample that was tested with MEK is not identical to samples a-d. It is a different material. A different paint. That paint IS Tnemec Red 99. Tnemec Red 99 does not contain kaolin, it contains aluminates (amongst others). So when they perform the MEK test and look for Aluminium that is not bound to Silicon they find it. And why wouldn't they?

The problem is they ASSUME that the sample subjected to MEK is the same as samples a-d. They are not.

That is why they find kaolin and (elemental) aluminium.


Millette

Millette does not find any (elemental Al) because he was not tasked with studying the material that contains any aluminate. Millette was tasked with testing material that matched Harrit et al's samples a-d, because it was these samples that were claimed to be thermite and had the most analysis performed on them.

The only practical method of sample matching was to use EDX in the SEM. If you read Millette's interim report then this is obvious. He in effect separates the chips via matching EDX spectra with the spectra in Harrit et al. Page 28 shows that Millette has Tnemec Red 99 chips too but these chips are not further analysed because they do not match the spectra of samples a-d.


DSC

There is no point in using DSC when other definitive and more accurate techniques are available to determine what a material actually is. DSC may be useful in some materials characterisation exercises, however, FTIR in this case gives a direct answer to what the material is.

You don't need to put an apple into a DSC to find out what it is if you can simple look at it and compare it with other known samples/photos of an apple.

DSC tells you nothing worthwhile about the material in question in this case. Harrit et al only performed DSC because they were a)convinced they had thermite before they analysed the material and b) because Tillitson had.

The DSC test in Harrit et al is worthless. The reason for this, and I've said it many times, is because they have two different materials in the DSC.

1. Gray layer.
2. Red layer.

DSC works by weight. No one knows how much the red layer weighs. No one knows how much the gray layer weighs. It's obvious what is reacting and forming the bulk of the spheres - it's the gray layer.

But the red layer stays mostly intact yet this red layer actually weighs something. When the calculations performed it includes the mass of the red layer thus skewing the result. Therefore it's inconclusive and a waste of time.

Harrit et al should have removed the red layer as Millette did (using a diamond scalpel) and tested only the red layer in the DSC. Harrit et al claim the red layer is thermite so why did they test both the red layer and the gray layer in the DSC instead of just the red nano-thermite?

If they had done this then no microspheres would have been found because it's the thin oxidised steel that is forming these spheres.

[beachnut]

The article also shows that the paint has not degraded or dissolved at temperatures up to 800o C. Hence, it's chemically stable, no matter what its constituents.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

In contrast, their red-grey chips ignited at temperatures well below this. Millette did not test this because, if I'm understanding this correctly, he saw no evidence of elemental aluminum and therefore concluded that the red layer could not be thermitic. Why do Harrit and Jones find elemental aluminum (in addition to the kaolin platelets) and Millette doesn't? Isn't Millette curious about this? Harrit and Jones tested their hypothesis using the DSC test. Millette didn't. Why not?


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.
Harrit and Jones say there is elemental Al, but they did not prove it. Most of there samples look like clay, and they offer only talk of elemental Al. Take a look at the paper. They had to cherry pick a spectrum to go with their talk. But they made a mistake and included, Fig. (11). XEDS spectra showing the elemental compositions of a grouping of thin platelets, big error. Read the whole paper, look at all their data. The Jones paper included data which confirms the conclusions of Millette, all we have to do is read the whole paper.

Bringing up Jones' paper confirms Millette's conclusions. Jones' paper debunks Jones' conclusions.

[cjnewson88]

ergo, what you need to understand is that Harrit and Jones didn't find thermite either :)

[DGM]

what about on page 27 of the bentham paper?

"Further, we have shown that the red material contains
both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of
thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing in
the surviving chips"
How is this documenting elemental Aluminum? If they said it contain Plutonium, would that be good enough for you?

[chrismohr]

Ivan,
In the other "paint" thread, you talk about trusting Jim Millette's analysis. I say look very closely to be sure all four chips are of the same time. You can analyze the spectographs, I can't. This is science, and if he actually tested two or even four different kinds of samples, we need to know. And what if the four samples are four different types of paint? That was not Millette's intention, but such a "mistake" on his part would be very interesting. It would mean there was absolutely no trace of thermitic material in four different kinds of chips. Whatever you find, put it out there!

[Oystein]

How is this documenting elemental Aluminum? If they said it contain Plutonium, would that be good enough for you?

Fig 17 in the Bentham paper shows the XEDS spectrum from a spot of the MEK-soaked chip after MEK-soaking and it shows much Al and little O. The accompanying text says that this indicated an Al:O ratio of 3:1. Al-oxide has a ratio of about 1.1:1, so their conclusion that some of the Al must be elemental seems reasonable.

Now first, this is from one chip that we believe is Tnemec - and that is different from the chips (a) - (d) in the Bentham paper. Millette comncentrated on chips similar to (a) - (d). Those do not contain elemental Al. Harrit e.al. seemed to firmly believe these, too, were thermite, but they aren't.

I don't see at this point that there should be a Al:O ratio of 3:1 anywhere in Tnemec, so their comnclusions from Fig. 17 are a slight riddle to me. Still, even if there were elemental Al, there is too little Al in that material overall to make any sense as thermite. Look at Fig 14 - lots of stuff - C, O, Fe, Si, Ca all have tall peaks, but the Al-peak is relatively small. There is certainly less than 3% Al in that stuff; thermite ought to be 25% Al. 95% of the heat in that chip upon combustion would come from the organic matrix.



Keep in mind: What the Millette study does NOT show, because it is rather impossible, that there is no elemental Al whatsoever anywhere at all in the dust. At this point it doesn't even show that there is no elemental Al in any of the red chips. What he does show is that there is not elemental Al in the chips of interest - those that look like (a)-(d) in the Harrit paper.

[chrismohr]

Is he really? Is the aim of this to deal with the thermite claims? If it is, it would be very unusual. There is no real debate about this among people who publish in legitimate peer-review venues. It's a conspiracy theory claim. Jones and these guys have never been cited in a paper dealing with 9/11 air contamination or in papers published in journals for research on energetic materials. In fact, I doubt that most researchers in these fields even know such a claim has been made. It would be like a paper addressing claims that Nazis live in a hallow Moon. You could do it. It might be fun. But it's more suitable for our forum than for a legitimate research venue.
I contacted Jim Millette and asked him, "Could you please find out for me if the red-gray chips Harrit et all declared to be thermitic actually are thermitic?" He said, "yes" and eventually he was hired. So yes it is unusual to do a major study on a claim of this kind. But once he got into it, he went on to present it to the Forensics Convention and is now working on peer-reviewing and writing a publishable paper. Universities and engineering schools everywhere study the 9/11 catastrophe with their students, and this brings a lot of favorable attention to his lab, and he has the luxury of studying something he finds interesting. Unusual, yes, but response has been very favorable for him! But yes indeed, there is only one question: is there thermitic material in the red-gray WTC chips? And one answer from the extensive research he did on the chips he studied: no.

[Sunstealer]

Ivan,
In the other "paint" thread, you talk about trusting Jim Millette's analysis. I say look very closely to be sure all four chips are of the same time. You can analyze the spectographs, I can't. This is science, and if he actually tested two or even four different kinds of samples, we need to know. And what if the four samples are four different types of paint? That was not Millette's intention, but such a "mistake" on his part would be very interesting. It would mean there was absolutely no trace of thermitic material in four different kinds of chips. Whatever you find, put it out there!One of the problems I'm finding is that the graphs are too small to read the sample identifications for each EDX spectra and then relate that info to the FTIR and TEM-SAED.

Looking at the FTIR spectra for 4 samples (Appx C, page 32) it's clear that these samples are all the same material. Looking at the labelling and specimen identification it appears that there is one individual chip specimen from each of the four bulk dust samples collected.

However, due to the small size of each EDX spectrum I can't see which individual chip specimen the FTIR data relates to.

[Senenmut]

If they had done this then no microspheres would have been found because it's the thin oxidised steel that is forming these spheres.

im just now starting to read the millette paper. please explain what you mean above.....that it the thin oxidized steel that is forming the spheres? in the bentham paper, the reaction takes place at 430C. millette never heats his particles up that high so even if it was the same stuff, maybe the reaction never took place anyway.....

[MrSkunkwork100]

[QUOTE=chrismohr;8074668]Hi Ergo and all,

I expect Millette's not burning the chips and not measuring ignition temperatures and energy releases will be seized upon by Kevin Ryan and other signatories to the 2009 Bentham paper. I asked Millette about this directly at least twice. My two items:

1.) If you are replicating the Bentham paper shouldn't you replicate every major experiment they did unless it was truly "wrong"? His answer was that once he determined with certainty (with his spectographs and other chemical analyses) that no thermitic traces of any kind were present, he would just be measuring the ignition temperature and energy output of a product we know is not thermitic. I guess it would be like saying, I'm looking for my keyring, and then, once I found it and it was in my hand, should I keep looking for the keyring in other rooms of my house? Still, I know the absence of this test will be a major complaint of people on the 9/11 Truth side.

2.) For $1500 or so we can probably do this ignition test. I'm almost certain Jim Millette would cooperate with this, because he could add it to what will be his published peer-reviewed paper. Millette just considered it wasteful and unnecessary... he replicated the Bentham study up to the point of coming to a certain decision, and even did other tests not performed by Harrit et al which he considered gaps in their research protocol.

If someone wants to organize such a test, great. I would ask it be done in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere as well as in air, to see if oxygenation affects the outcome, but I'm not sure it would really advance our knowledge. Take a look at the firt 90 seconds of my YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1UYdW4I. This demonstrates that the burning of the chips didn't create even close to an energy match to a known nanothermite anyway. I know that Harrit et al came up with explanations of why this would be so, but the experiment itself produced useless results for them the first go-around.

What Millette IS interested in is looking more deeply into the question of the iron mirospheres, and before publication he expects to do more with that question. Remember, this is a preliminary report based on a deadline. As just one example, he may be able to positively identify the kind of paint chips he was looking at, instead of saying "they are some kind of paint, they are definitely 100% not thermitic material of any kind," which i as far as he got as of February 29. Before he publishes his final results, he will be doing more research. The iron microsphere issue remains an open question for him and he may yet do more research on that question. [QUOTE]


That's the core of the Truth movement claim anyways: that the material is thermitic and that it was alien to the rest of the buildings' materials. As far as the iron spheres go: I don't think that's as big an issue. NMSR did an experiment where a wad of steel wool was exposed to a cigarette lighter and the low-temperature burning of the lighter produced iron spherules.

[MrSkunkwork100]

Please point out to me where that is in any of Chris' posts. Thank you.


tmd2:


Just go back and read the results portion of Chris' original post: the results show that the red/gray chips are decidedly NOT thermitic, or from a nano-thermite reaction. The inability to precisely source the paint itself is of no consequence to Dr. Millette's conclusions. That is to say, that the substance is NOT alien to the rest of the materials used in the construction of the buildings.

[twinstead]

tmd2:


Just go back and read the results portion of Chris' original post: the results show that the red/gray chips are decidedly NOT thermitic, or from a nano-thermite reaction. The inability to precisely source the paint itself is of no consequence to Dr. Millette's conclusions. That is to say, that the substance is NOT alien to the rest of the materials used in the construction of the buildings.

Yes. from what I can see, what has been resoundingly eliminated is the thought that there is thermitic material present; what it actually is, in other words what paint it is, is up for debate.

[alienentity]

That's the core of the Truth movement claim anyways: that the material is thermitic and that it was alien to the rest of the buildings' materials. As far as the iron spheres go: I don't think that's as big an issue. NMSR did an experiment where a wad of steel wool was exposed to a cigarette lighter and the low-temperature burning of the lighter produced iron spherules.

I think both the iron-rich microspheres and the ignition are interesting to people who've come across the Bentham paper and its claims...

[pgimeno]

What Millette IS interested in is looking more deeply into the question of the iron mirospheres, and before publication he expects to do more with that question.

DSC works by weight. No one knows how much the red layer weighs. No one knows how much the gray layer weighs. It's obvious what is reacting and forming the bulk of the spheres - it's the gray layer.

If Sunstealer is right, then Millette may have trouble finding the microspheres if they are the result of the DSC test and come from the gray layer. Especially if he tries to separate the red layer prior to testing as Sunstealer suggests.

[pgimeno]

Tnemec Red 99 does not contain kaolin, it contains aluminates (amongst others). So when they perform the MEK test and look for Aluminium that is not bound to Silicon they find it. And why wouldn't they?

The problem is they ASSUME that the sample subjected to MEK is the same as samples a-d. They are not.

That is why they find kaolin and (elemental) aluminium.

Elemental? Can you please clarify? The paper does not show evidence that the aluminium is not bound to something else, only that it is not bound to the silicon. Aluminates are not elemental aluminium, or am I wrong?

[Justin39640]

Yes. from what I can see, what has been resoundingly eliminated is the thought that there is thermitic material present; what it actually is, in other words what paint it is, is up for debate.
Are we 100% sure that the paint was the structural steel's primer? Has anyone ever made a list of other possible sources?

[Scott Sommers]

Chris, I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Thank you.

I contacted Jim Millette and asked him, "Could you please find out for me if the red-gray chips Harrit et all declared to be thermitic actually are thermitic?" He said, "yes" and eventually he was hired. So yes it is unusual to do a major study on a claim of this kind.
I'm not sure what you mean here. My understanding is that Dr. Millette was contracted by you to perform this study. It wasn't conducted for academic reasons. Nor did Dr. Millette approach you as a funding source. The dynamics of this study are no different from any commercial testing he would, such as if I contact him to confirm that the food I bought was in fact what the manufacturer claimed. So it wouldn't be a "major study" in any sense to anyone except the conspiracy theory community and its critiques. Otherwise someone else would have done it and published by now, and there would be citations for the thermite-conspiracy findings that go beyond the conspiracy theory community.

But once he got into it, he went on to present it to the Forensics Convention and is now working on peer-reviewing and writing a publishable paper. Universities and engineering schools everywhere study the 9/11 catastrophe with their students, and this brings a lot of favorable attention to his lab, and he has the luxury of studying something he finds interesting. Unusual, yes, but response has been very favorable for him! But yes indeed, there is only one question: is there thermitic material in the red-gray WTC chips? And one answer from the extensive research he did on the chips he studied: no.
I can see the results of this study being of academic and practical use to many people for many reasons. That the sample did not contain thermite would not be one of them. The issue of thermite in WTC dust is simply not of interest to anyone except conspiracy theorists and their critiques. I can't see any major peer-review journals interested in the question of thermite and WTC dust. I may be surprised about this, but I doubt whether you could get a serious paper published if its main focus was to address this question.

Conferences on the other hand...sure. Especially forensic science...they're big conferences and need a lot of papers. Even Chandler got his turn to speak about thermite at the WTC. What conference did he present this at? Yo use the past tense, but I was unable to find any reference to such a presentation.

[Ivan Kminek]

Ergo, in your post you quoted Harrit, who wrote: „....primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 °C."

Harrit very probably referred to the NCSTAR 1-3C report, Appendix A (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs//build05/PDF/b05032.pdf), where are these sentences: „the paint (Tnemec, I.K.) was essentially ceramic coating...“ (p.433 and 437). I noticed these sentences several months ago. But here, NIST report was suprisingly, but apparently wrong (as well as Harrit). Since Tnemec primer for perimeter columns contained a lot of organic/polymer binder (alkyd-linseed resins and similar), it cannot be regarded as „ceramic coating“. It was just typical paint.

Justin39640, as for your post: „Are we 100% sure that the paint was the structural steel's primer? Has anyone ever made a list of other possible sources?“ Yes, we have tried it, and this is a content of the thread „Origin of paint“. E.g., Oystein and BasqueArch calculated floor trusses surfaces painted by „Laclede primer“ and this paint simply should be very abundant in the dust, since painted area was huge and the paint was probably mostly stripped off during collapses. Generally, red primers applied on the construction steel were apparently the biggest available sources of such bi-layered red-gray chips.
Don't do it more complicated that it really is:o) I think that the most of the Jim Millette XEDS data measured on freshly-cut red layers show: chips basically match the „spectral criteria“ of Bentham chips (a) to (d), see Fig. 12 and Appendix D in Jim's report, and are consistent with the „main culprit“, i.e. Laclede red primer. We just should sort, if they are some data for some red-gray chips which show that this and this particle is probably not Laclede paint. This is a quite good task for some guys e.g. from Germany:rolleyes: Also, I would like to know, if Jim Millette magnetically separated also some red-gray chips, which did not correspond to the spectral criteria of Bentham chips (a) to (d), according to him.
(I agree with Sunstealer, btw, some spectra are not really well readable in the Jim's report).
Btw, Jim Millette supposes that all his magnetically selected chips matching some basic criteria are the same material. In some individual cases, he may be wrong and it's just normal.

Chris: Jim Millette should read now our white-paper (written by Oystein) why Bentham chips (a) to (d) were particles of Laclede paint. It's up to him, if he includes this very plausible JREF theory into his conclusions. If not, interested readers can find the explanation in our white-paper (written by Oystein), which would gain a greater meaning and even some more audience in this way:cool:

Anyway, Jim Millette and Chris deserve many thanks again.
Among others, we have here more stuff to discuss, which is a sign that we all may live in rather too prosperous society which leads (among others) to the endless debates on apparent nonsenses (like evil nanothermite used for CD of WTC).

[Sunstealer]

im just now starting to read the millette paper. please explain what you mean above.....that it the thin oxidized steel that is forming the spheres? in the bentham paper, the reaction takes place at 430C. millette never heats his particles up that high so even if it was the same stuff, maybe the reaction never took place anyway.....It is clear that I am talking about the Harrit et al paper in the above quote.

The is no need to perform a DSC test when trying to characterize* a material in this instance. It's a pointless test. Only truthers seem to think it's of significance.

*work out what it is.

Do you accept Millete's results that the analysed red material is paint and comprises of kaolin platelets and iron oxide pigment in an epoxy binder?

If not can you please show your reasoning in detail. Thanks.

[Sunstealer]

That's the core of the Truth movement claim anyways: that the material is thermitic and that it was alien to the rest of the buildings' materials. You can't have the following (classsic) thermite reaction without aluminium

Fe2O3 + Al --> Fe + Al203

No elemental Al found in the paint.

Truthers will have to work with

Fe2O3 + 2 Al2Si2O5(OH)4 --> ?????

Millette's work clearly identifies kaolin is the platelet material using two different methods; FTIR and TEM-SAED. There is no other source of Al in the material other than kaolin where the Al is bound to Si and O. If truthers still maintain that there is "elemental" aluminium present then they will have to show how that data is incorrect.

[Sunstealer]

If Sunstealer is right, then Millette may have trouble finding the microspheres if they are the result of the DSC test and come from the gray layer. Especially if he tries to separate the red layer prior to testing as Sunstealer suggests.DSC is unimportant - it doesn't tell you anything worthwhile. That's why I was asking for XRD and FTIR 3 years ago because those types of analysis give definitive results. FTIR in millette's study proves kaolin is present and also goes another step further proving that epoxy is present too. Don't forget that Harrit et al did no work other than a quick EDX on the binder.

Epoxy + kaolin + iron oxide pigment = paint. That's all there is to it. It's not thermite.

[Sunstealer]

Elemental? Can you please clarify? The paper does not show evidence that the aluminium is not bound to something else, only that it is not bound to the silicon. Aluminates are not elemental aluminium, or am I wrong?Yes you are correct, however, aluminium will form an oxide layer that will represent a large portion of that material if the particle is small enough.


In the Harrit et al paper

samples a-d show Al bound to Si and O - kaolin

Mek sample shows Al AND O in Fig 17 post MEK soaking. There is debate over the ratio and whether this actually shows elemental Al. There certainly is oxide present. However, this is meaningless because we know that chip is Tnemec Red 99 primer paint as proven by Jones himself. See sig.

[Sunstealer]

Are we 100% sure that the paint was the structural steel's primer? Has anyone ever made a list of other possible sources?Here's the giant haystack. Go find the needle.

There could be dozens of candidates, from red fire extinguishers to epoxy coated electronics. What we do know is that some particles are Tnemec Red 99 and that is adhered to structural steel. We have evidence that LaClade primer paint has been found and that was adhered to structural steel.

If you look at the EDX for the gray layer in Millette's data, Harrit et al, the metallurgical study and any other source a large portion of those spectra share their overall similarity with a low carbon steel. Now it's possible that ferrite electronics show exactly the same profile in EDX but I don't know.

[Senenmut]

It is clear that I am talking about the Harrit et al paper in the above quote.

The is no need to perform a DSC test when trying to characterize* a material in this instance. It's a pointless test. Only truthers seem to think it's of significance.

*work out what it is.

Do you accept Millete's results that the analysed red material is paint and comprises of kaolin platelets and iron oxide pigment in an epoxy binder?

If not can you please show your reasoning in detail. Thanks.

well, if a DSC test did not produce the same spikes then its probably not the same material. ivan posted a vid of some of his paint he created and caught on fire. i remember it burning for some time. the chips jones' has react very fast. IMO millette would need to show that his chips do or do not react at 415-435C range and show what kind of peak it produces in that range. these could be 2 different materials (millette chips vs jones' chips).

this is what henryco said about the dsc:
However the DSC analysis (Fig 19 Fig 29) are highly significant in that they show that the rate of the energy release is
extremely high: a very narrow and high peak, even higher than the reference nanothermite. This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction.


of coarse after that energy release is when they find the iron rich spheres as well as silicon rich spheres.

[Sunstealer]

well, if a DSC test did not produce the same spikes then its probably not the same material. ivan posted a vid of some of his paint he created and caught on fire. i remember it burning for some time. the chips jones' has react very fast. IMO millette would need to show that his chips do or do not react at 415-435C range and show what kind of peak it produces in that range. these could be 2 different materials (millette chips vs jones' chips).

this is what henryco said about the dsc:
However the DSC analysis (Fig 19 Fig 29) are highly significant in that they show that the rate of the energy release is
extremely high: a very narrow and high peak, even higher than the reference nanothermite. This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction.


of coarse after that energy release is when they find the iron rich spheres as well as silicon rich spheres.Addressing the highlighted part because I've already addressed the DSC in previous posts.

No, because the remit for Dr Millette was to use the EDX data alongside the SEM photographs in the Harrit paper to determine if he has the same material. He has done this. If you read the Millette interim data then you will see this.

Millette separates the chips from the dust using a magnet and has found more than one type of chip according to the EDX data as I read it. He has separated out chips that meet the criteria in the Harrit et al paper by SEM and EDX and it's these he has tested further using definitive testing methods i.e. FTIR and TEM-SAED. These methods show the material is paint. The material is not thermite.

If you examine his EDX data you can see that there are other chips that are a good match for Tnemec Red 99. A good example is page 26, L1560 Murray and Church street, second EDX spectra, chip 2. If you look at the photo you can clearly see that this chip has a slightly different surface texture and there is a difference in the EDX spectra compared with the other six chips. A far higher Si peak than Al is an indicator for a different material.

Last 2 spectra on page 28 from sample M3451, 49 Ann St, look like Tnemec Red 99 primer paint.

I'll leave you to deduce page 30 - the difference is easy to spot.

The separation method is the same, the chips analysed show identical EDX spectra, the SEM photos show identical particles, the SEM photos show identical "binder" material to the samples Harrit et al analysed, but the could be different. How do you work that out?

I knew as soon as the red herring DSC was not included that truthers would be all over it like a tramp (bum) on spilt chips. Dr Millette has already addressed why there was no need for DSC in the characterisation of this material.


Hi all,

The link to the full study is coming out this morning.

I asked him one simple question about the study:

Did you replicate the Bentham study 100%? It looks like there was no test of the ignition temperature or energy release of the chips.

(Paraphrase) That's correct. We did cook the chips to release the particles from epoxy bindings for further study, but not to measure ignition temperature of energy release.

It was not necessary to take this step, because my chemical tests proved that the chips could not be thermitic in any way. I would have just been testing the ignition point and energy release of a paint chip and that would not have been necessary.

If someone wanted to do such a test, it would be as two-part process. A different lab would have to be employed to measure the heat output and ignition temperatures properly, and then someone else with expertise would need to properly analyze the data. The cost would be around $300 per sample for just the raw testing.

Otherwise, every part of the Bentham protocol was followed, and several other tests they did not do were added to the protocol.I suggest if you want the DSC test performed you drum up the funding.

[pgimeno]

well, if a DSC test did not produce the same spikes then its probably not the same material.

When you apply that logic to this graph:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png

what is the conclusion?

The graph is the result of overlaying the scaled DSC plot which is compared with the nanothermite in figure 29 (nanothermite is the red curve with a peak to the right of the rest of peaks), with the DSC plot of all tested samples including that one in figure 19. I also added the zero line for reference as it gives an interesting insight.

I think it's fair to say that applying your reasoning to the DSC test, you can conclude that the chips tested in DSC are NOT nanothermite.

Worth noting is how the DSC of nanothermite is endothermic until about 270°C, further highlighting that it's a completely unrelated material.

[Edx]

pgimeno,

I dont know a lot about the chemistry of this, that looks pretty conclusive that it is paint from that graph. What is Harrit et all's explanation or understanding for this?

[Africanus]

Congratulations to Dr. Millette for this magnificent study and thanks a lot to Chris Mohr for the organization of the study and the funding. Now some further comments.

@sunstealer

I agree that it was not necessary for Dr. Millette to carry out the DSC experiments as the scope of his study was different (identyfying the composition of the red gray chips). But I think such an experiment is still worth carrying out. You once suggested that the "iron rich microspheres" derive from the gray layer (I had the same idea short before you posted it). This is a reasonable assumption but we don't have any proof. It would be a good topic for a further study.

@pgimeno

Thans for posting the DSC of Harrit's paper. I didn't realize until now that one of the observed samples shows two overlapping exotherms (MacKinlay 2) (although I'm quite familar with Harrit's paper). Has this been discussed before?

[arielflight]

Results

In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.[/I]1

Conclusions[/B]
Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips[/B]
[/HILITE]
At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some
small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain some information about product materials. According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17 55 out of the 177 different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments. However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.
Excuse my ignorance, but what good are unidentified chips? What does it prove?" Please enlighten me, so I can understand the significance of this study. Thank you.

[DGM]

pgimeno,

I dont know a lot about the chemistry of this, that looks pretty conclusive that it is paint from that graph. What is Harrit et all's explanation or understanding for this?[/B]

http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l564/dgmwood/stock-photo-magician-shows-stunts-and-tricks-with-cards-sleight-of-hand-glamour-background-78868972-1.jpg

:D

[BStrong]

Well done Chris.

[Senenmut]

When you apply that logic to this graph:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png

what is the conclusion?

The graph is the result of overlaying the scaled DSC plot which is compared with the nanothermite in figure 29 (nanothermite is the red curve with a peak to the right of the rest of peaks), with the DSC plot of all tested samples including that one in figure 19. I also added the zero line for reference as it gives an interesting insight.

I think it's fair to say that applying your reasoning to the DSC test, you can conclude that the chips tested in DSC are NOT nanothermite.

Worth noting is how the DSC of nanothermite is endothermic until about 270°C, further highlighting that it's a completely unrelated material.

it concludes that it is not the same nanothermitec material (could be different particle sizes etc etc.....

[pgimeno]

At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).
excuse my ignorance, but what good are unidentified chips? What does it prove?" please enlighten me, so i can understand the significance of this study progress report. Thank you.
ftfy.

The progress report proves that what Farrer et al. analyzed is paint, and that even if it is not yet an identified type of paint, it definitely is not thermite or nanothermite.

[Edx]

it concludes that it is not the same nanothermitec material (could be different particle sizes etc etc.....

seriously ?? expalin why it matches several results for paint, but not the nano thermite, please? :confused:

[DGM]

it concludes that it is not the same nanothermitec material (could be different particle sizes etc etc.....
You would almost think Harrit et al would have supplied a sample for independent review (comparison). I wonder why they didn't?

:rolleyes:

[ergo]

Pgimeno's graph overlay shows nothing that Harrit and Jones didn't already show. Both graphs are from Harrit and Jones. :eye-poppi

[Edx]

Pgimeno's graph overlay shows nothing that Harrit and Jones didn't already show. Both graphs are from Harrit and Jones. :eye-poppi

Yes and Im asking for the explanation for why it matches several known types of paint but nowhere near the nano thermite data. To me it looks like they've shown its not nano thermite, but then gone on to say its nano thermite anyway.

[ergo]

(^ referring to posts like #126)

With regard to the repeated assertions that the chips are paint, Harrit and Jones have already reported:
[After MEK soaking...] The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.

So
paint chips partly dissolve when soaked in MEK


They also

don't ignite at 430o C.

Millette neither reports on partial dissolving in the MEK, nor did he do an ignition test.

If he really wanted to drive the final nail in the coffin of the nanothermite theory, as those who commissioned him clearly wanted him to do, why wouldn't he just do the test and dispel all doubt?

[Edx]

Ergo can you explain the graph, or post the explanation by Harrit, or not?

[DGM]

(^ referring to posts like #126)

With regard to the repeated assertions that the chips are paint, Harrit and Jones have already reported:


How do you explain the fact their data and the new studies data matches? The only chip that doesn't, Jones already said was paint.

:confused:

[tfk]

Chris,


What Millette IS interested in is looking more deeply into the question of the iron mirospheres, and before publication he expects to do more with that question. Remember, this is a preliminary report based on a deadline. As just one example, he may be able to positively identify the kind of paint chips he was looking at, instead of saying "they are some kind of paint, they are definitely 100% not thermitic material of any kind," which i as far as he got as of February 29. Before he publishes his final results, he will be doing more research. The iron microsphere issue remains an open question for him and he may yet do more research on that question.

You may be able to help him out.

Point this out to him.

[Posted by BasqueArch]
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/pp/projects/laserprintforming.html


For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron.


This is a real shocker to me.

I never would have expected this great a difference between the bulk melting temperature & nanoparticle melting temperatures.

This might (might, I say) explain the whole mystery of the iron-rich microspheres forming at paper-burning temperatures.

tom

[ergo]

Because Oystein asked above: What Millette identifies as kaolin platelets are called "plate-like" particles in H & J. They are composed of aluminum and silicon and are of the same size as Millette determined: 1 micron.

Re-posting Harrit and Jones's discussion of elemental aluminum:

... It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form. ...

Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon, located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration and separation of the components. This is a significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not bound chemically.

The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). 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. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles.

[Sunstealer]

I wish the truthers would actually take the time to read the OP and Millette's interim report. It is clear from the many question they have that are answered in the report that they have not.

Truthers - go an download the report and read it.

Red/gray chips that had the same morphology and appearance as those reported by Harrit et al.1, and fitting the criteria of being attracted by a magnet and having the SEMEDS x-ray elemental spectra described in their paper (Gray: Fe, Red: C,O, Al, Si, Fe) were found in the WTC dust from all four locations examined.

Same material.

Stop handwaving and accept that you were wrong to back Jones and Harrit.

[Senenmut]

Addressing the highlighted part because I've already addressed the DSC in previous posts.

No, because the remit for Dr Millette was to use the EDX data alongside the SEM photographs in the Harrit paper to determine if he has the same material. He has done this. If you read the Millette interim data then you will see this.
it may look the same using those tests but will it react the same!!! the dsc would see if millette's chips react like jones's at 430C. if they did NOT react, then we would have 2 different types of chips.

Millette separates the chips from the dust using a magnet and has found more than one type of chip according to the EDX data as I read it. He has separated out chips that meet the criteria in the Harrit et al paper by SEM and EDX and it's these he has tested further using definitive testing methods i.e. FTIR and TEM-SAED. These methods show the material is paint. The material is not thermite. if it is a different material, then the conversation is pointless except why does jones' react and millette did not react at 430C.

The separation method is the same, the chips analysed show identical EDX spectra, the SEM photos show identical particles, the SEM photos show identical "binder" material to the samples Harrit et al analysed, but the could be different. How do you work that out?
its alittle harder to see with millette's pics. the figures 10,11,14, and 15 in millettes paper just arent as clear as the figures 8 and 9 in the thermitic paper. could be similar SEM, different material. put it in a dsc and test it and if it reacts around 430 with a similar spike then it is the same material. if it doesnt then it not the same material.

I knew as soon as the red herring DSC was not included that truthers would be all over it like a tramp (bum) on spilt chips. Dr Millette has already addressed why there was no need for DSC in the characterisation of this material.
its not a red herring. it is what it is. test millettes chips in a dsc and if it reacts around 430C and produces a similar spike, then check it for the iron and silicon microspheres. I think he is scarred to test them b/c he knows it could be a different material with a similar EDX/SEM.

[Senenmut]

I wish the truthers would actually take the time to read the OP and Millette's interim report. It is clear from the many question they have that are answered in the report that they have not.

Truthers - go an download the report and read it.



Same material.

Stop handwaving and accept that you were wrong to back Jones and Harrit.

then test it in a dsc and if it reacts at 430C and produces a similar spike, then check it for the iron and silicon microspheres!!

[ergo]

Point this out to him.

[Posted by BasqueArch]
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/pp/projects/laserprintforming.html


This is a real shocker to me.

I never would have expected this great a difference between the bulk melting temperature & nanoparticle melting temperatures.


Yes, it will be interesting to hear from Millette, RJ Lee, and Harrit, Jones, et al. on this.

[Sunstealer]

Because Oystein asked above: What Millette identifies as kaolin platelets are called "plate-like" particles in H & J. They are composed of aluminum and silicon and are of the same size as Millette determined: 1 micron.

Re-posting Harrit and Jones's discussion of elemental aluminum:I've already replied to you on this. Why do you refuse to read answers to your questions? Once again.

I'm going to answer the highlighted portion plus a bit more.

There are 2 known primer paints used in the WTC.

1. Tnemec red 99.



Tnemec Red does not contain any kaolin. Instead there are aluminates.

2. LaClade Joist Paint.



LaClade contains Aluminum Silicate (clay). This appears to be kaolin.

What you have to realise is that Millete AND Harrit et al observe BOTH types of primer paint in their analysis.

Harrit et al/Bentham.

Samples a-d contain Kaolin. I've been through this 100 times but suffice to say the data shows an aluminosilicate material with all the morphology of Kaolin.

The sample that was tested with MEK is not identical to samples a-d. It is a different material. A different paint. That paint IS Tnemec Red 99. Tnemec Red 99 does not contain kaolin, it contains aluminates (amongst others). So when they perform the MEK test and look for Aluminium that is not bound to Silicon they find it. And why wouldn't they?

The problem is they ASSUME that the sample subjected to MEK is the same as samples a-d. They are not.

That is why they find kaolin and (elemental) aluminium.

[Senenmut]

You would almost think Harrit et al would have supplied a sample for independent review (comparison). I wonder why they didn't?

:rolleyes:

i wish he would have. i also challege them to try and find al2o3 after the reaction takes place. im sure there is some way to do that. maybe if they do it in an enclosure and let the byproducts settle to the ground.

[Sunstealer]

I think he is scarred to test them b/c he knows it could be a different material with a similar EDX/SEM./sigh You can't be sensible. Onto ignore you go.

This is why I didn't contribute financially to the testing - it's a total waste of time because not a single truther will bother to address the data and conclusions because it goes against them. They just can't say "I got it wrong".

I'm just going to watch this thread disintegrate into the usual crap now.

[pgimeno]

it concludes that it is not the same nanothermitec material (could be different particle sizes etc etc.....
Or an entirely different material unrelated to nanothermite, which is actually the only possible conclusion. Remember that there is no elemental aluminium after all, therefore there's just no way to avoid the rejection that it's thermitic at all. Also, the total energy release shows how it can't be thermite.



Pgimeno's graph overlay shows nothing that Harrit and Jones didn't already show. Both graphs are from Harrit and Jones.
Exactly. It is posted in relation to this claim:
well, if a DSC test did not produce the same spikes then its probably not the same material.

and also to highlight graphically how much bigger the energy release is as compared to that of nanothermite.


paint chips partly dissolve when soaked in MEK
don't ignite at 430o C.

Let's see if you can answer this simple question:

Paint chips of WHAT PAINT do exhibit such behaviour?

Re-posting Harrit and Jones's discussion of elemental aluminum:
This is addressed entirely by Sunstealer in post #97

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8075588&postcount=97

A relevant excerpt:
Samples a-d contain Kaolin. I've been through this 100 times but suffice to say the data shows an aluminosilicate material with all the morphology of Kaolin.

The sample that was tested with MEK is not identical to samples a-d. It is a different material. A different paint. That paint IS Tnemec Red 99. Tnemec Red 99 does not contain kaolin, it contains aluminates (amongst others). So when they perform the MEK test and look for Aluminium that is not bound to Silicon they find it. And why wouldn't they?

[DGM]

Truthers - go an download the report and read it.




This is not going to help. For the average "truther" they could have analysed dog crap and they still would defend it the same way. They think what their told to think.

[twinstead]

A very eye-opening thread for me. It really illustrates some truthers' confirmation bias

[ergo]

Paint chips of WHAT PAINT do exhibit such behaviour?


The paint that was in the WTC dust.

In fact, I would think most paint dissolves at least partially in solvents. Isn't that what solvents are for?

[pgimeno]

The paint that was in the WTC dust.

Where do you get that from? Not from the ATM report, for sure.

[Senenmut]

/sigh You can't be sensible. Onto ignore you go.

This is why I didn't contribute financially to the testing - it's a total waste of time because not a single truther will bother to address the data and conclusions because it goes against them. They just can't say "I got it wrong".

I'm just going to watch this thread disintegrate into the usual crap now.

all you want to do is handwave!! it could be 2 different materials and you know this. anyone with a brain with some intelligence can see this! it does not go against me if it is 2 different kinds of material. once he tests it in a dsc and it reacts a 430C and has a similar spike then we can talk. until then, there is not much to say b/c these could be 2 different materials!

[ergo]

Exactly. It is posted in relation to this claim:


and also to highlight graphically how much bigger the energy release is as compared to that of nanothermite.

Of the gel studied by Tillotson, you mean.

And the energy release of which would also not indicate paint. Right? :boggled:

[Edx]

all you want to do is handwave!! it could be 2 different materials and you know this. anyone with a brain with some intelligence can see this! it does not go against me if it is 2 different kinds of material. once he tests it in a dsc and it reacts a 430C and has a similar spike then we can talk. until then, there is not much to say b/c these could be 2 different materials!

But the spike in Harrits DSC currently matches paint, doesnt it? Not thermite.

[DGM]

The paint that was in the WTC dust.

In fact, I would think most paint dissolves at least partially in solvents. Isn't that what solvents are for?
Depends on the paint. Epoxy base paints are very resistant to solvents after they cure.

Wait, Isn't that the ones we're talking about?

[Senenmut]

But the spike in Harrits DSC currently matches paint, doesnt it? Not thermite.

this is a quote from henryco:
However the DSC analysis (Fig 19 Fig 29) are highly significant in that they show that the rate of the energy release is
extremely high: a very narrow and high peak, even higher than the reference nanothermite. This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction.

if ivan is reading this, please post that like to you burning your paint you made.

[ergo]

Where do you get that from? Not from the ATM report, for sure.

True. I don't know.

But Harrit in his 2009 reply to the paint chip thesis points out that WTC paint has not ignited or altered chemically at any temperatures below 800o C.

[Edx]

this is a quote from henryco:
However the DSC analysis (Fig 19 Fig 29) are highly significant in that they show that the rate of the energy release is
extremely high: a very narrow and high peak, even higher than the reference nanothermite. This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction.

if ivan is reading this, please post that like to you burning your paint you made.

You're going to have to make this simple for a non-chemist.

In the graph you can see earlier, the sample clearly fits known paint samples, it does not at all fit the nano thermite data point. How does this test therefore show its thermite, rather than paint, when the results fit the paint data points and clearly not the thermite?

Can you explain that or not?

[Sunstealer]

Methods

In order to confirm that the samples chosen had the characteristics of WTC dust, the samples were examined by stereomicroscope and by polarized light microscopy (PLM) according to the procedures described in Turner et al., 20054 (Figures 2 and 3). The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives5 and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison.6 The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al.1 are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4). The spectrum may also contain small peaks related to other elements. To that end, the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.


Results


Red/gray chips that had the same morphology and appearance as those reported by Harrit et al.1, and fitting the criteria of being attracted by a magnet and having the SEM-EDS x-ray elemental spectra described in their paper (Gray: Fe, Red: C,O, Al, Si, Fe) were found in the WTC dust from all four locations examined. The red layers were in the range of 15 to 30 micrometers thick. The gray layers were in the range of 10 to 50 micrometers thick (Appendix B).

In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.

Millette found material using criteria obtained from the data in the Harrit et al paper, but truthers are now saying he has a different material.

How is that possible? Show using Millette's own data how he has not obtained material consistent with that tested by Harrit et al.

[Senenmut]

You're going to have to make this simple for a non-chemist.

In the graph you can see earlier, the sample clearly fits known paint samples, it does not at all fit the nano thermite data point. How does this test therefore show its thermite, rather than paint, when the results fit the paint data points and clearly not the thermite?

Can you explain that or not?

where is a graph of known paint that has a dsc curve like that?

[Edx]

where is a graph of known paint that has a dsc curve like that?

Im talking about the graph posted above (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8077743&postcount=122). If Im misunderstanding the graph please explain what its showing.

[Senenmut]

Millette found material using criteria obtained from the data in the Harrit et al paper, but truthers are now saying he has a different material.

How is that possible? Show using Millette's own data how he has not obtained material consistent with that tested by Harrit et al.

BUT DO THEY REACT AT 430c AND HAVE A SIMILAR SPIKE!! remember, after that reaction is when the team found iron and silicon rich microspheres.

[ergo]

Millette found material using criteria obtained from the data in the Harrit et al paper, but truthers are now saying he has a different material.

How is that possible? Show using Millette's own data how he has not obtained material consistent with that tested by Harrit et al.

.
.

To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.


Millette did not meet the challenge.

[pgimeno]

In fact, I would think most paint dissolves at least partially in solvents. Isn't that what solvents are for?
That's irrelevant. Since their MEK-soaked chip is believed to be Tnemec 99, what matters is what does MEK do specifically to Tnemec 99.

Of the gel studied by Tillotson, you mean.

And the energy release of which would also not indicate paint. Right? :boggled:
Wrong. This has been discussed many times. Epoxy is carbon. Carbon burns in the presence of oxygen releasing more energy than thermite. It can be the case that in some kinds of paint the carbon doesn't burn for some reason probably related to the materials the carbon is with, which in turn depends on the specific kind of paint.

And this is my last reply to this topic drift. This thread is about Millette's analysis. That analysis shows that there is no elemental aluminium at all in chips a-d studied in the ATM paper. Regardless of whether these are paint or not; it is not thermite.

(Edited to fix a mistake in my sentence)

[alienentity]

all you want to do is handwave!! it could be 2 different materials and you know this. anyone with a brain with some intelligence can see this! it does not go against me if it is 2 different kinds of material. once he tests it in a dsc and it reacts a 430C and has a similar spike then we can talk. until then, there is not much to say b/c these could be 2 different materials!

Sunstealer is right, you don't understand the topic, and you don't want to understand it. You are making no sense. If you look at the DSC done by Harrit et al. you'll see the energy releases were different across the samples anyway!

What you are failing to understand (which is why you're a truther) is that the DSC test performed by Harrit et al. has been superseded by a more revealing set of tests which they didn't do.

You've also completely (yes, you completely missed this) ignored the fact that there isn't enough of the Fe and Al in the chips to react thermitically in the first place. I'm talking about the Harrit et al. samples, not just Millettes.

Your argument is very similar to the kind of silly arguments made by truthers who refuse to accept any data which shows that planes crashed at Shanksville or the Pentagon, instead holding onto a fixed idea without understanding the overall context.

The DSC test by Harrit et al. was NEVER a 'proof' of nanothermite to begin with. That was an illusion which truthers were told to buy into - and they did, almost 100%. I don't think there's a 9/11 Truther out there who showed even a shred of critical thought or skepticism towards the claims of Harrit et al.
Instead, truthers showed remarkable obedience to the meme, as you are doing now.

Baaaaaaaaa!
http://www.reggie.net/photos/ireland/sligo/carrowkeel/4737304_black_and_white_sheep-600.jpg

[ergo]

And this is my last reply to this topic drift. This thread is about Millette's analysis. That analysis shows that there is no aluminium at all in chips a-d studied in the ATM paper.

Incorrect. There was aluminum. You're just contesting that it was elemental aluminum. Millette concludes that no elemental aluminum is present in the chips he studied.

[pgimeno]

Im talking about the graph posted above (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8077743&postcount=122). If Im misunderstanding the graph please explain what its showing.
I think you may have misunderstood. It shows the behaviour of 4 of the chips studied by Harrit et al. compared to nanothermite from Tillotson et al. There's no reference paint sample in the graph.

[alienentity]

You would almost think Harrit et al would have supplied a sample for independent review (comparison). I wonder why they didn't?

:rolleyes:

They know this stuff isn't nanothermite. And we know it too.

[DGM]

.
.



Millette did not meet the challenge.
Let me see if I can dumb this down..................

On second thought, I can't (it's already as stupid as it gets). If Harrit said it didn't match dog crap, so it can't be the same as thermite, "truthers" would believe him. That's what they're told to do.

[Edx]

I think you may have misunderstood. It shows the behaviour of 4 of the chips studied by Harrit et al. compared to nanothermite from Tillotson et al. There's no reference paint sample in the graph.

Ahh okay.

Still, its almost just as bad. It doesnt resemble the nano thermite on file, so they say its some other kind of thermite.

[twinstead]

So ergo in your opinion what makes Millette's conclusions wrong and Jones et all right?

[pgimeno]

Incorrect. There was aluminum. You're just contesting that it was elemental aluminum. Millette concludes that no elemental aluminum is present in the chips he studied.
Correct. I should have said elemental aluminium. My apologies. I've edited my post accordingly.

[alienentity]

Dr Harrit did not measure elemental aluminum directly in the MEK soaked chip. He assumed it was there.

But none of the chips which were subjected to the DSC were of that composition, they were different. So the supposed 'proof' of nanothermite by DSC would be invalidated by this feature alone, according to our resident truthers - but only if they applied the same logic to their own claims - which they never do... surprise, surprise.

Harrit et al. never met the burden of proof for their claims. How could they, since they were testing paint chips???? Of course this claim is going to fail on a scientific basis, because it is untrue.

The real questions which remain are whether the exact paint types of the various chips can be fully determined, and whether 9/11 Truthers will ever understand the Harrit and Millette studies.
I'm not holding my breath on the second one..

[Senenmut]

Im talking about the graph posted above (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8077743&postcount=122). If Im misunderstanding the graph please explain what its showing.

well, first off these are not KNOWN paints???? i dont know what you are talking about.

second, the material reacted at 430C and we get the observed spike. after the reaction took place is when jones' found the iron and silicon rich microspheres. did millette heat his chips up to 430C?

third, millette does not even know what kind of paint he found from what i can gather!

forth, do you have any data using a dsc on a known paint?

and if ivan is reading this, please post that vid of you burning the paint you created.

[Edx]

Harrit et al. never met the burden of proof for their claims. How could they, since they were testing paint chips???? Of course this claim is going to fail on a scientific basis, because it is untrue.

The real questions which remain are whether the exact paint types of the various chips can be fully determined, and whether 9/11 Truthers will ever understand the Harrit and Millette studies.
I'm not holding my breath on the second one..

I think the point is theres always some other way to show truthers are wrong, the question is at what point do you stop, and in this case stop spending money on it.

[DGM]

second, the material reacted at 430C and we get the observed spike. after the reaction took place is when jones' found the iron and silicon rich microspheres. did millette heat his chips up to 430C?



Why would he? What exactly did Harrit prove?

:confused:

[Senenmut]

Sunstealer is right, you don't understand the topic, and you don't want to understand it. You are making no sense. If you look at the DSC done by Harrit et al. you'll see the energy releases were different across the samples anyway!
haha...they are very similar and react between 415-435C

What you are failing to understand (which is why you're a truther) is that the DSC test performed by Harrit et al. has been superseded by a more revealing set of tests which they didn't do.
what you dont understand is that there could be 2 different sets of material tested. if millette is running these tests on a different material than jones' chips, then the tests are irrelevant when it comes to equating them with jones' chips.

You've also completely (yes, you completely missed this) ignored the fact that there isn't enough of the Fe and Al in the chips to react thermitically in the first place. I'm talking about the Harrit et al. samples, not just Millettes.
at 430C it produces iron and silicon microspheres. did millette heat his up that high to test that out? NOPE. i also challenge jones and crew to find al2o3 after the reaction.

Your argument is very similar to the kind of silly arguments made by truthers who refuse to accept any data which shows that planes crashed at Shanksville or the Pentagon, instead holding onto a fixed idea without understanding the overall context.
these could be 2 different types of material. if millette is scarred to test that theory out by not doing a dsc test and observing the associated spike with his material then thats a problem not just for truthers but for skeptics as well. are you a true skeptic??? haha

The DSC test by Harrit et al. was NEVER a 'proof' of nanothermite to begin with. That was an illusion which truthers were told to buy into - and they did, almost 100%. I don't think there's a 9/11 Truther out there who showed even a shred of critical thought or skepticism towards the claims of Harrit et al.
Instead, truthers showed remarkable obedience to the meme, as you are doing now.
but it does show that the material reacts at 430C and displays the spike associated with that material. and what does that spike show according to henryco:

"However the DSC analysis (Fig 19 Fig 29) are highly significant in that they show that the rate of the energy release is
extremely high: a very narrow and high peak, even higher than the reference nanothermite. This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction."

your the sheep for not asking for a dsc and the associated curve. considering the is when the chips of jones' react and produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

[alienentity]

third, millette does not even know what kind of paint he found from what i can gather!


What he showed it that it is mainly a carbon matrix (epoxy) with forms of clay or kaolin and pigment (FTIR analysis).
In other words: paint. Whichever manufacturer made it, it's still paint either way.

He also (p. 21) showed a TEM image of REAL nanothermite, which shows it is composed of an iron oxide xerogel with embedded pure aluminum spheres.

It's painfully obvious that none of the red/grey chips in any study are similar to this proven nanothermite, so using your own criteria (or RU a complete hypocrite?) you'd have to conclude that the none of the chips share basic structure with nanothermite, but instead share basic structure with.... paint.

The truth sometimes hurts. In this case it hurts 9/11 Truthers. Oh well...

[DGM]

haha...they are very similar and react between 415-435C


what you dont understand is that there could be 2 different sets of material tested. if millette is running these tests on a different material than jones' chips, then the tests are irrelevant when it comes to equating them with jones' chips.


at 430C it produces iron and silicon microspheres. did millette heat his up that high to test that out? NOPE. i also challenge jones and crew to find al2o3 after the reaction.


these could be 2 different types of material. if millette is scarred to test that theory out by not doing a dsc test and observing the associated spike with his material then thats a problem not just for truthers but for skeptics as well. are you a true skeptic??? haha


but it does show that the material reacts at 430C and displays the spike associated with that material. and what does that spike show according to henryco:

"However the DSC analysis (Fig 19 Fig 29) are highly significant in that they show that the rate of the energy release is
extremely high: a very narrow and high peak, even higher than the reference nanothermite. This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction."

your the sheep for not asking for a dsc and the associated curve. considering the is when the chips of jones' react and produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
Do you have a comparison to a "thermite" reaction? My best understanding is this is several times the "best" thermite reaction (energy density wise). Leading me to believe it was the organic material reacting.

[Edx]

YO Senenmut !

If you want to prove that paints dont have the same DSC results then why dont you conduct your own tests with all that AE911 truth money they get each year?

[alienentity]

haha...they are very similar and react between 415-435C
Which is a different reaction temp from real nanothermite. Oops, you left that part out.
Also they produce different amounts energy per gram - so they're not the same. Your point is moot.


what you dont understand is that there could be 2 different sets of material tested. if millette is running these tests on a different material than jones' chips, then the tests are irrelevant when it comes to equating them with jones' chips.
The fact you acknowledge that running tests on dissimilar materials is irrelevant is humorous when we consider that NONE of these chips is similar to any nanothermite.
None of the red-grey chips from WTC dust has the chemical composition of a thermitic material....

But, in any case Dr Millette carefully matched chips with Harrit's a-d samples. Can you show us how they are not the same?



these could be 2 different types of material. if millette is scarred to test that theory out by not doing a dsc test and observing the associated spike with his material then thats a problem not just for truthers but for skeptics as well. are you a true skeptic??? haha
The DSC test does not prove the material is nanothermite. Your point is still moot.
Actually the energy density of the chips is far higher than real nanothermite, based on the DSC tests. Therefore we can rule out nanothermite on that basis alone. If we are true skeptics.. haha



Funny you quote Henryco but do not understand his meaning 'and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that this is due to a thermitic reaction."

your the sheep for not asking for a dsc and the associated curve. considering the is when the chips of jones' react and produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
You need to take that back. I did suggest that this be done to satisfy the ignorance of truthers. I just happen to agree with sunstealer and others that the DSC is moot in terms of showing what the chips are made of.
That has already been determined - they are paint.

Actually it is you who has fallen prey to the propaganda, as the Jones/Harrit DSC shows the chips are very different from real nanothermite, and you still have your truther blinders on. So the sheep analogy still applies to you, I'm afraid.

[alienentity]

YO Senenmut !

If you want to prove that paints dont have the same DSC results then why dont you conduct your own tests with all that AE911 truth money they get each year?

One wonders that, with the 100's of thousands of dollars that AE911Truth rakes in every year, that they haven't tested some REAL nanothermite to see if it behaves the way the chips do?

I think it's fairly obvious they just don't want to know. It could be so easily proven if their allegations were true... this is a sure sign of pseudoscience overtaking 9/11 Truth on every level.

[alienentity]

Little challenge for our resident truthers. Looking at both the Harrit and Millette results, please show, using the same criteria, how Millettes' chosen samples are not the same material as Harrits' a-d samples.

Compare the samples by composition, morphology etc... as outlined in the papers. Let us know what you find.

[Senenmut]

What he showed it that it is mainly a carbon matrix (epoxy) with forms of clay or kaolin and pigment (FTIR analysis).
In other words: paint. Whichever manufacturer made it, it's still paint either way.
thats fine, just dont equate those to jones' chips without first doing a dsc and observe the spike and at what temp.

He also (p. 21) showed a TEM image of REAL nanothermite, which shows it is composed of an iron oxide xerogel with embedded pure aluminum spheres.
awesome!

It's painfully obvious that none of the red/grey chips in any study are similar to this proven nanothermite, so using your own criteria (or RU a complete hypocrite?) you'd have to conclude that the none of the chips share basic structure with nanothermite, but instead share basic structure with.... paint.
there are many nanothermites out there.

The truth sometimes hurts. In this case it hurts 9/11 Truthers. Oh well...

what hurts is seeing you try and say the millette chips are the same as jones' chips without millette doing a dsc and observing the associated curve. only after around 430C do jones' chips react to produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
did millete heat his up to 430?

[Edx]

One wonders that, with the 100's of thousands of dollars that AE911Truth rakes in every year, that they haven't tested some REAL nanothermite to see if it behaves the way the chips do?



I think this is the point that should be pushed now. They can keep saying that Millette should have done DSC and we will just say it was unnecessary.

But as you say AE911 make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, thats a helleva lot of tests they could be doing. If they think paint chips from a variety of types of paint should have this test and that it will give them results they expect then why don't they do it?

I said it before but if they kept commissioning labs to do tests for them and they kept coming back positive eventually the scientific world would have to take notice.

So how about it truthers? Stop complaining and get Gage to give up a new car or expensive cruise or whatever his massive salery gets him and actually use the donations to do some actual science.

[alienentity]

you try and say the millette chips are the same as jones' chips without millette doing a dsc and observing the associated curve. only after around 430C do jones' chips react to produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
did millete heat his up to 430?

See my previous post challenging you truthers to note the differences in the samples. You haven't even begun to demonstrate that they are different yet.
Now would be the time.

btw, Henryco tested his samples and did not get the same results as Harrit et al., so the original results have not been duplicated by any peers, hence they have not been established as scientific proof per the standard method.

Dr Jones elsewhere has stated that in order to be accepted by the scientific community, results MUST be repeatable. So far they have not been.

It is obvious by your comments that you
a) do not understand the testing that was done
b) do not want to understand the testing that was done

Hence
c) your comments are not scientifically meaningful

But carry on, as truthers always do. Ignore the obvious, and hold out for the obscure and irrelevant. :)

[beachnut]

... 430C do jones' chips react to produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
did millete heat his up to 430?
Epoxy resins flash at 430 C. Paper burns at 430 C. Paper has more energy, than thermite. Jet fuel has 10 times the heat of thermite. Don't be gullible.

Explain why the heat energy equal to 2,100 tons of thermite, the office fires in the WTC, needs more thermite? I have no idea why you would need thermite when the office fires had more heat energy.

There was no thermite found in the dust, Jones lied, the paper proves it was not thermite.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JetFuelandWoodBeatThermite.jpg
Now we see why the terrorists did not fill the aircraft with thermite instead of jet fuel. Jet fuel has TEN (10 times) times the heat energy of thermite~! What is hilarious, the dust samples burned by Jones did not match the heat release of thermite. Oops. They burned dust.

With Jones' logic, the entire earth's crust has thermite evidence. This is science, not fantasy.

[alienentity]

Senenmut, I've no further interest in bantering about this with you. You're back on ignore.
You've fully demonstrated your unwillingness to understand the Millette paper.

[Senenmut]

Which is a different reaction temp from real nanothermite. Oops, you left that part out.
Also they produce different amounts energy per gram - so they're not the same. Your point is moot.
i watched a vid about that jones put out and there are varying concentrations of those elements in the chips. that is what produces the iron microspheres with varying degrees of the elements with each microphere. maybe that is why there is a different energy output per gram. different ratio's of the stuff but it all reacts around 430C to produce iron and silicon rich microspheres.


The fact you acknowledge that running tests on dissimilar materials is irrelevant is humorous when we consider that NONE of these chips is similar to any nanothermite.
None of the red-grey chips from WTC dust has the chemical composition of a thermitic material....
we are talking about elemental AL. is it there or is it not there. jones says that it is, millette says there is none. are these 2 different sets of material? maybe. we wont know until millette tests his chips in a dsc.

But, in any case Dr Millette carefully matched chips with Harrit's a-d samples. Can you show us how they are not the same?
yeah, test millettes chips in a dsc like jones did and see if it reacts at 430 and produces a similar spike and then look for iron and silicon microspheres. then we can tell if they are the same or different.

The DSC test does not prove the material is nanothermite. Your point is still moot.
Actually the energy density of the chips is far higher than real nanothermite, based on the DSC tests. Therefore we can rule out nanothermite on that basis alone. If we are true skeptics.. haha
there might be 2 reactions taking place like even a skeptic said.

Funny you quote Henryco but do not understand his meaning


You need to take that back. I did suggest that this be done to satisfy the ignorance of truthers. I just happen to agree with sunstealer and others that the DSC is moot in terms of showing what the chips are made of.
That has already been determined - they are paint.
not made of.....it shows that they both react at a similar temp and exhibit a similar spike. only after that spike is when jones found iron and silicon microspheres.

Actually it is you who has fallen prey to the propaganda, as the Jones/Harrit DSC shows the chips are very different from real nanothermite, and you still have your truther blinders on. So the sheep analogy still applies to you, I'm afraid.

and your still blind to the fact there can be 2 different materials being tested.

[Senenmut]

Senenmut, I've no further interest in bantering about this with you. You're back on ignore.
You've fully demonstrated your unwillingness to understand the Millette paper.

i get it but he did NOT show that this is the same material!!! burn it in a dsc and see what temp it reacts at and the associated spike. only after that spike is when jones found iron and silicon microspheres!

[Senenmut]

Epoxy resins flash at 430 C. Paper burns at 430 C. Paper has more energy, than thermite. Jet fuel has 10 times the heat of thermite. Don't be gullible.

Explain why the heat energy equal to 2,100 tons of thermite, the office fires in the WTC, needs more thermite? I have no idea why you would need thermite when the office fires had more heat energy.

There was no thermite found in the dust, Jones lied, the paper proves it was not thermite.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JetFuelandWoodBeatThermite.jpg
Now we see why the terrorists did not fill the aircraft with thermite instead of jet fuel. Jet fuel has TEN (10 times) times the heat energy of thermite~! What is hilarious, the dust samples burned by Jones did not match the heat release of thermite. Oops. They burned dust.

With Jones' logic, the entire earth's crust has thermite evidence. This is science, not fantasy.

this is a prof jones quote which makes since:
"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"

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-11/replication-thermite-study-coming-within-weeks-dr-james-millette

[DGM]

this is a prof jones quote which makes since:
"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"

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-11/replication-thermite-study-coming-within-weeks-dr-james-millette
And how does this compare to say..................paper?

[Edx]

i get it but he did NOT show that this is the same material!!! burn it in a dsc and see what temp it reacts at and the associated spike. only after that spike is when jones found iron and silicon microspheres!

Why.. don't... you... ask.... AE911... to....spend.... some... of... their... 100s of $$$$$$k ...they... make ...each ...year.

Youve already been told that its entirely unnecessary to do the test, so if you want to prove its really not paint why doesn't Gage and co spend some money on some lab to do it like Chris did?

[jaydeehess]

If the problem is that its two different materials then the blame rests with Ryan and Harrit for refusing to allow access to their samples.
Millette showed that his material matched that described by Harrit in all ways. Millette chose tests designed specifically to identify the chemical make up of the samples . He showed that it is definately not thermite! He further showed that it is consistent with paint!
Harrit performed a different test, the DSC, and got widely varying energy density results. He also performed the test in the presence of oxygen thus ensuring that he simply could not claim that the energy released was not the result of oxidation. What he found then was the energy density of the material AND oxygen. He did not support his claim that the material was thermite in any way! It was not shown that the material was self oxidizing for instance.
Sennemut harps on about iron microspheres but burning steel wool or using a welding torch on steel will do the same thing thus showing that this is not indicative of thermite.
Finally, others have shown that the energy released by the samples is insufficient to melt steel, simply put even if it is thermite there isnt enough of it to do squat!

[Sunstealer]

There simply is no point in debating with people who think that a DSC analysis is in anyway is comparable with established techniques such as FTIR and TEM-SAED that go above and beyond the Harrit et al paper when conducting a materials characterisation exercise.

They don't understand the data presented.

Millette's study uses techniques that give a definitive answer which is what us debunkers have been asking for all along.

Chris Mohr has already stated why Dr Millette has not performed any DSC experiment. It's simply not required. FTIR and TEM studies go far above the analysis conducted by Harrit et al.

If truthers are so concerned then they should petition Harrit, Jones, Basil, Ryan etc to subject their samples to the higher and more rigorous analysis that is FTIR etc.

I called the Harrit et al paper in 2009 showing that kaolin was present. It's been 3 years almost and no further work has been published even though the need to do so was recognised in Harrit's own paper.

If you do the legwork and science it is obvious that both studies are analysing the same material.

Samples a-d in the Harrit et al paper show the red layer is comprised of kaolin and Fe2o3 particles in a binder adhered to an oxidised iron substrate.

Millette's study shows exactly the same but goes further with regard to the analytical methods used. That further analysis confirms kaolin via EDX, FTIR and TEM-SAED, confirms Fe203 particles and best of all confirms epoxy as the binder material using FTIR, which is a test any analytical chemist would know about and want to use.

For those truthers who are moaning about the lack of DSC why don't you turn your fire on Harrit et al and ask why they didn't perform a test method to determine what the carbon and oxygen rich binder material was? Why didn't the chemists on the team want to use FTIR?

You are all intent on attacking Millette for lack of a needless DSC test, but you won't question why Harrit et al didn't conduct a test to ascertain what the binder material was. Double standards.

I've asked you to show how Millette's study, using Millette's data and comparing it with the same data obtained by the same method by Harrit et al, differs significantly so as to show that the materials in each study are different. You can't do that. Instead you moan about DSC and quote from a poor paper. Why can't truthers on JREF actually do the analysis? Why can't you perform an analysis between Millette's and Harrit et al's data?

FTIR trumps DSC every time. TEM-SAED trumps DSC evertime. Truthers won't understand why.

[Edx]

BUT BUT BUT< teh chips aspolded in the DSC, proves thermight!

/how truthers think

[Sunstealer]

If the problem is that its two different materials then the blame rests with Ryan and Harrit for refusing to allow access to their samples.
Millette showed that his material matched that described by Harrit in all ways. Exactly.

[jaydeehess]

Why.. don't... you... ask.... AE911... to....spend.... some... of... their... 100s of $$$$$$k ...they... make ...each ...year.

Youve already been told that its entirely unnecessary to do the test, so if you want to prove its really not paint why doesn't Gage and co spend to the some money on some lab to do it like Chris did?

Gage can't spare the money. Though I suspect Chris and Millette would allow access toto samples. I wonder why no thruther has suggested this simple fix yet.

[Sunstealer]

Millette did not meet the challenge.He superseded it.

[Edx]

Gage can't spare the money. Though I suspect Chris and Millette would allow access toto samples. I wonder why no thruther has suggested this simple fix yet.

They dont need the same samples do they? They think that DSC tests of known paint chips of various types that have been mentioned will not react like their chips did. So cant they just do their own tests like Millette and Chris did and then show that when testing known paint samples it IS different?

[Africanus]

@pgimeno

Thans for posting the DSC of Harrit's paper. I didn't realize until now that one of the observed samples shows two overlapping exotherms (MacKinlay 2) (although I'm quite familar with Harrit's paper). Has this been discussed before?

Just for clarification: The two overlapping exotherms are the peaks at ca. 420°C and ca. 460°C. The latter is difficult to detect due to the superimposition of the different DSC graphs.

[Senenmut]

There simply is no point in debating with people who think that a DSC analysis is in anyway is comparable with established techniques such as FTIR and TEM-SAED that go above and beyond the Harrit et al paper when conducting a materials characterisation exercise.
if your not testing the same material then it is pointless!

They don't understand the data presented.
the point is that he did not absolutely confirm that his chips are the same as jones' chips. why test any further. if he tested a few of his chips after the EDX analysis was done in the dsc and they reacted at about 430C and produced the same spike then he could continue on with more certainity that these are in fact the same chips as jones has.

Millette's study uses techniques that give a definitive answer which is what us debunkers have been asking for all along.
only if they are the same material.

Chris Mohr has already stated why Dr Millette has not performed any DSC experiment. It's simply not required. FTIR and TEM studies go far above the analysis conducted by Harrit et al.
if you are studying the same material...again. he did not make a good arguement that it is in FACT the same materail.

If truthers are so concerned then they should petition Harrit, Jones, Basil, Ryan etc to subject their samples to the higher and more rigorous analysis that is FTIR etc.
sounds like a plan.

Millette's study shows exactly the same but goes further with regard to the analytical methods used. That further analysis confirms kaolin via EDX, FTIR and TEM-SAED, confirms Fe203 particles and best of all confirms epoxy as the binder material using FTIR, which is a test any analytical chemist would know about and want to use.
again, if it is the same material which it may not be.

You are all intent on attacking Millette for lack of a needless DSC test, but you won't question why Harrit et al didn't conduct a test to ascertain what the binder material was. Double standards.
its not needless if your not for sure you got the same material.

I've asked you to show how Millette's study, using Millette's data and comparing it with the same data obtained by the same method by Harrit et al, differs significantly so as to show that the materials in each study are different. You can't do that. Instead you moan about DSC and quote from a poor paper. Why can't truthers on JREF actually do the analysis? Why can't you perform an analysis between Millette's and Harrit et al's data?
you can NOT say its the same for sure without the dsc test.

FTIR trumps DSC every time. TEM-SAED trumps DSC evertime. Truthers won't understand why.

if you know you got the same material.

[cjnewson88]

Let me get this right.

Jones and others finds red/gray chips.

The crux of Jones argument is that he tested the red/gray chips on a DSC with known nanothermite:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png

The Blue line is the chips, (edit) the other lines are other chips found.

He then lays over nanothermite reaction onto it, showing it to be endothermic until about 370°C, and reacting much later and differently to the paint and red/gray sample.

Instead of stating that it is indeed a completely unrelated material, Jones tells everyone it is 'similar' and therefore nanothermite. Everyone believes him without question.

5 years later, after no attempts at publishing the findings in any respectable peer reviewed journals, or attempts at reconstructing/duplicating the experiment through any other avenue, Millette finds exact matches for the red/gray chips, and rather than relying on DSC, completes a series of more advanced and accurate test, which determine that the chips are not thermite, and are instead paint. Even though Millette carried out no DSC, Jones graph of the DSC supports Millette findings anyway.

However, after running short of character assassinations on Millette, truthers are now focused soli on the fact Millette didn't do his own DSC.

Regardless of the fact Millette did more advanced and accurate tests, that Millette determined exactly what they chips are and are not, or that Jones DSC matches Millette conclusion, Truthers are still refusing to acknowledge they have been fooled for 5 years because Millette didn't do his own DSC?

This is like if I discovered the world was round using Sputnik to plot points on the horizons, but told everyone the world was flat. Years later a satellite is launched which uses advanced scanners to determines the earth is in fact round. However because the satellite didn't use a method of plotting points on the horizon, the satellite is wrong and everyone has to continue to believe the world was flat..

[alienentity]

It's a shame Kevin Ryan didn't let Dr Millette have any of their dust/chip samples.

I wonder if he withheld because he was afraid it would be proved as paint, and that the truther flock would be orphaned on the myth of nanothermite. So by holding onto their samples, they ensure that
THERE CAN NEVER BE INDEPENDENT TESTING DONE.

It smells like a coverup to me, but then I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so perhaps there's another excuse...:p

[Justin39640]

It's a shame Kevin Ryan didn't let Dr Millette have any of their dust/chip samples.

I wonder if he withheld because he was afraid it would be proved as paint, and that the truther flock would be orphaned on the myth of nanothermite. So by holding onto their samples, they ensure that
THERE CAN NEVER BE INDEPENDENT TESTING DONE.

It smells like a coverup to me, but then I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so perhaps there's another excuse...:p

If these guys had an ounce of integrity, there wouldn't be a subforum here. :D

[Redtail]

It's a shame Kevin Ryan didn't let Dr Millette have any of their dust/chip samples.

I wonder if he withheld because he was afraid it would be proved as paint, and that the truther flock would be orphaned on the myth of nanothermite. So by holding onto their samples, they ensure that
THERE CAN NEVER BE INDEPENDENT TESTING DONE.

It smells like a coverup to me, but then I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so perhaps there's another excuse...:p

Wait... didn't they offer samples to anyone who wanted them back when they first did the test? Or did I imagine that?

[LSSBB]

{Self edited for civility}

[triforcharity]

thats fine, just dont equate those to jones' chips without first doing a dsc and observe the spike and at what temp.


awesome!


there are many nanothermites out there.



what hurts is seeing you try and say the millette chips are the same as jones' chips without millette doing a dsc and observing the associated curve. only after around 430C do jones' chips react to produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
did millete heat his up to 430?

If as Jones et al. claim is that the nanothermite was about 6% (IIRC) of the total composition of the dust, why would it show in Jones' sample, and not in a similar sample taken from the SAME AREA?

[tfk]

Yes, it will be interesting to hear from Millette, RJ Lee, and Harrit, Jones, et al. on this.

And when it gets shown that, at this size, this iron alloy will melt and form microspheres at around 430C ( the temperature of burning primer paint & over 2000C below the burning temp of thermite), what will be your conclusion?

Will you come to any conclusions or is this "I'm interested in this" all just a charade?

[twinstead]

Sad to say, but from the truthers' reaction, any money contributed to Millette's study was totally wasted

[jaydeehess]

They dont need the same samples do they? They think that DSC tests of known paint chips of various types that have been mentioned will not react like their chips did. So cant they just do their own tests like Millette and Chris did and then show that when testing known paint samples it IS different?M

there are several ways to settle this
1 Harrit supplies samples to Millette ancd the same tests are done as originallyy done on Millette samples

2 Millette samples to Harrit who do dsc on them
OR
3 what you said

[uke2se]

The good thing is that once this study passes peer-review and is published in a respected magazine, it will represet 100% more research into the technical details of 911 conspiracy theories than twoofers have done in over 10 years, and it will conclusively prove that twoofers are full of BS. What deluded twoofers say in this thread has no bearing on reality.

[Oystein]

(^ referring to posts like #126)

With regard to the repeated assertions that the chips are paint, Harrit and Jones have already reported:


So
paint chips partly dissolve when soaked in MEK


They also

don't ignite at 430o C.

Millette neither reports on partial dissolving in the MEK, nor did he do an ignition test.

If he really wanted to drive the final nail in the coffin of the nanothermite theory, as those who commissioned him clearly wanted him to do, why wouldn't he just do the test and dispel all doubt?

One of the many problems with Harrit's (Farrer's) DSC testing is that we don't know which kind or kinds of chips they tested to get the 4 graphs they published.
- Was it the kind of paint chips that contain kaolin but no zinc and no mg?
- Was it the kind of paint that contains zinc and magnesium, but no kaolin?
- Was it one of the other kinds of chips - some contained lead, some others titanium?

So do you know that the kind of chip they soaked in MEK is the kind of chip they put in the DSC? Answer: No you don't. In fact, if you look at the four chips that they showed DSC data of, that combust between 380°C and 480°C, you will notice that this is the ONLY thing we know about them. Or can you point out to ANY other data Farret, Harrit Jones have provided about these four specimens? They tell us which sampled these dust chips were taken from, and that information proves these four chips are not the same four chips as chips (a)-(d), so really we know absolutely nothing about them.
Since Harrit and Jones have studied at least 6 different kinds of chips (kaolin; zinc and magnesium; lead; titanium; multilayered; darc-gray layer carbon) and possibly even more, it is totally pointless to use the DSC data for anything at all.



And that was why Millette had the intelligence not to do any DSC test.


As an excercise for you and Senemut:


Please list all facts that you know about the chips that burn around 430°C!

[Oystein]

if your not testing the same material then it is pointless!
...

Exactly!


Please take a close, long and careful look at Harrit e.al. (the Bentham paper)


Which material were they testing in the DSC? What properties do these four chips have? Please give us an exhaustive list of all the properties you know, with reference to the paper (figures and discussion in the text; page numbers).

Hint: You won't find any at all beyond the DSC data itself. At most you may speculate that they were red-gray too and attracted to a magnet.
Hint: Try to find any photos or spectra - there are none.


So what material are these four chips? Please be specific!

[Ivan Kminek]

Exactly!


Please take a close, long and careful look at Harrit e.al. (the Bentham paper)


Which material were they testing in the DSC? What properties do these four chips have? Please give us an exhaustive list of all the properties you know, with reference to the paper (figures and discussion in the text; page numbers).

Hint: You won't find any at all beyond the DSC data itself. At most you may speculate that they were red-gray too and attracted to a magnet.
Hint: Try to find any photos or spectra - there are none.


So what material are these four chips? Please be specific!

Exactly:cool:
Moreover, exothermic peaks depicted in Fig. 19 and 29 are by no means "narrow" and show no "extremely high rate of energy release" (as was stupidly claimed by Bentham team and now by Senenmut), since the thermal energy was released in the range ca 50 to 100 degrees C. Considering the heating rate 10 degrees per minute, this corresponds to 5 to 10 minutes!. This was just a typical slow burning of organic polymer binder.
Btw, also superthermite DSC curve under air used for comparison is by no means narrow and does not itself prove the typical thermitic reaction which must be very fast after ignition. Exotherms, which should be regarded as proofs for rapid thermitic reaction should look like e.g. here (https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf) , Fig. 6. Here, the exothermic peak at ca 590 degrees C is really extremelly narrow and shows clearly thermitic reaction:cool:

[Sunstealer]

Exactly:cool:
Moreover, exothermic peaks depicted in Fig. 19 and 29 are by no means "narrow" and show no "extremely high rate of energy release" (as was stupidly claimed by Bentham team and now by Senenmut), since the thermal energy was released in the range ca 50 to 100 degrees C. Considering the heating rate 10 degrees per minute, this corresponds to 5 to 10 minutes!. This was just a typical slow burning of organic polymer binder.
Btw, also superthermite DSC curve under air used for comparison is by no means narrow and does not itself prove the typical thermitic reaction which must be very fast after ignition. Exotherms, which should be regarded as proofs for rapid thermitic reaction should look like e.g. here (https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf) , Fig. 6. Here, the exothermic peak at ca 590 degrees C is really extremelly narrow and shows clearly thermitic reaction:cool:I don't think truthers actually understand the graphs they are looking at. Even a simple yield strength v temperature graph seems to confuse them so there's no way they can understand the DSC curve. They'd also have to read the Harrit paper thoroughly too to find the heating rate.

Remember that it was Farrer that did the DSC testing and he had no idea what a DSC was. He'd never used one before. So inexperienced people like Farrer and Jones probably think that just looking at the graph and saying, "my that looks like a narrow peak" indicates that it is. Infact they probably think it's narrow just because it's narrower than the Tillitson curve. Truthers then just quote the nonsense without any understanding or analysis of the data.

If you read the Tillitson paper and find out the particle size and then compare it with the particle size that Harrit et al find then look at published data for the reduction of ignition temperature with particle size you'll come to a conclusion that proves that it's not the particles in the Harrit et al paper that are reacting at 430°C.

I won't spoil it, maybe later, I'll revisit this. It won't make any difference to truthers but it's an interesting exercise.

Oh and Ivan, you've linked to an 11mb PDF by the way.

[pgimeno]

Sad to say, but from the truthers' reaction, any money contributed to Millette's study was totally wasted

I already knew that. But hopefully when it's published in final form, it will help bringing balance to some Wikipedia entries like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspirac y_theories

[Oystein]

Let's look at this closely:
http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png


The blue line (MacKinlay 1) is closest to the Tillotson graph.

Let's compare the two graphs:
Property|MacKinlay 1|Tillotson
Stops being endotherm at|200°C|310°C
Starts being exotherm at|200°C|380°C
Exotherm peak begins in earnest at|420°C|490°C
Peaks at|440°C|525°C
Curve drops below 0 again at|never|560°C
Peak flattens out at|480°C|580°C
Peak hight is|~10.3 W/g|5.1 W/g
Energy density|1.5 kJ/g|1.5 kJ/g

The peaks of other three lines are are even farther away from Tillotson.



Now as for the assertion that the peak hight, a measure in W/g (power per mass unit) indicates a very rapid reaction, here is the bare truth of the matter:

Farrer found that MacKinlay 1 has 1.5 kJ/g of energy, or 1500 J/g.
If you burn 1g of that chip and it burns in 1 second, the specific power release would be 1500 W/g, because 1W = 1 J/s, by definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt).

However, actual power maxed at only about 10.3 W/g. This means that if you burn 1g of this substance and it sustains this peak power of 10.5 J/s/g, it will burn for 1500/10.3 seconds = 146s or 2 minutes and 26 seconds.

Just picture this, please: A tiny bit of this "highly energetic" material and it takes two and half minutes to burn!

Now of course for almost all of the time, this chip actually burned at an even lower rate! Before 430°C and after 450°C, burn rate (power, to be more precise) is less than half that peak value. In fact, the "narrow peak" goes from 420°C to 480°C. At a heating rate of 10°C/min, that peak alone corresponds to 6 minutes of continuous smouldering. The peaks of the other three chips are even wider. If they had burned at peak power from beginning to end (15, 21.5 and 23.5 W/g), they would have taken 3:20min, 4:39min and 6:19min, respectively, to burn off their total energy densities of 3, 6 and 7.5 k/J.



Please, ergo and Senemut, acknowledge that you now understand that the tiny little specks of dust that Farrer tested in the DSC all took several minutes to burn!


To put this into perspective, take an ordinary wooden safety match and light it and let it burn till you nearly burn your fingers.

I just did. My matches are 2mm by 2mm across and 4cm long. I let them burn until only 1cm is left, so the volume I burn is 3*0.2*0.2 cm3 = 0.12cm3. It is probably made of the wood of a European kind of poplar, which would have a density of 0.6g/cm3. So I am burning 0.072g of material there (after the head has ignited). The top half of the match is dipped in paraffin.
Wood has an energy density of about 16 kJ/g, paraffin has probably more than 40 kJ/g, but I don't know how much paraffin there is in a match stick. So let's be careful and say the wood stick has an energy density of only 20 kJ/g. This gives the 3cm of match stick that I burn a total energy of 1,440J, at 0.072g.

My match tends to go out by itself when I hold it horizontally, but burns nice and smooth if I hold the head slightly down. In that position, it is consumed in 10 seconds. I measured that.

So the power was 1,440J / 10s, or 144W.

And power density was 144W/0.072g = 2,000 W/g



A match stick burning slowly in your hand releases about 85 times the power that Farrer's most energetic chip did in the DSC when it reacted at its most vigorous!



ETA: # oysteinbookmark (and I corrected the energy density of match stick)

[Oystein]

.
To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.
Millette did not meet the challenge.

Harrit, Jones, et al. did not meet their own challenge. They totally failed to show what the stuff was they put in the DSC. They showed conclusively that there were at least 6 different kinds of chips in the ir study, but gave absolutely no indication which of these six or more kinds ignite at what temperature or have which DSC profile. It is entirely possible that the DSC results come from a kind of chip that otherwise does not appear at all in their crap paper.

Do you understand that, ergo? Do you understand that we know absolutely nothing about the four chips they measured in the DSC? Do you understand that we can't reproduce their test because we don't know if they measured chips with kaolin but no zinc and magnesium, or chips with zinc and magnesium but no kaolin, or chips with titanium, or chips with lead, or multilayered chips, or chips where the gray layer contains no metal? Or can you tell us which chips they measured in the DSC?

Looking at the raw data from Millette's interim report, can you tell us which chips he should have put in the DSC? Please give us page number and identify the specimens in Millette's report that YOU would test against Farrer's four DSC tests - and give us precise reasons for your choice!

If you go through that exercise, I hope you will finally understand that the DSC tests in Harrit, Jones, et al. are totally, utterly worthless, because you can never know what chips to take. They were so abysmally sloppy, and too stupid to notice even after years of having their faces rubbed in their own feces.

[Senenmut]

One of the many problems with Harrit's (Farrer's) DSC testing is that we don't know which kind or kinds of chips they tested to get the 4 graphs they published.
- Was it the kind of paint chips that contain kaolin but no zinc and no mg?
- Was it the kind of paint that contains zinc and magnesium, but no kaolin?
- Was it one of the other kinds of chips - some contained lead, some others titanium?

So do you know that the kind of chip they soaked in MEK is the kind of chip they put in the DSC? Answer: No you don't. In fact, if you look at the four chips that they showed DSC data of, that combust between 380°C and 480°C, you will notice that this is the ONLY thing we know about them. Or can you point out to ANY other data Farret, Harrit Jones have provided about these four specimens? They tell us which sampled these dust chips were taken from, and that information proves these four chips are not the same four chips as chips (a)-(d), so really we know absolutely nothing about them.
Since Harrit and Jones have studied at least 6 different kinds of chips (kaolin; zinc and magnesium; lead; titanium; multilayered; darc-gray layer carbon) and possibly even more, it is totally pointless to use the DSC data for anything at all.



And that was why Millette had the intelligence not to do any DSC test.


As an excercise for you and Senemut:


Please list all facts that you know about the chips that burn around 430°C!

you know as well as i do it probably boils down to elemental AL. and again, i challenge jones and crew to find some al2o3 after the reaction takes place.

[Senenmut]

Exactly!


Please take a close, long and careful look at Harrit e.al. (the Bentham paper)


Which material were they testing in the DSC? What properties do these four chips have? Please give us an exhaustive list of all the properties you know, with reference to the paper (figures and discussion in the text; page numbers).

Hint: You won't find any at all beyond the DSC data itself. At most you may speculate that they were red-gray too and attracted to a magnet.
Hint: Try to find any photos or spectra - there are none.


So what material are these four chips? Please be specific!

this is the point. will the chips that millette has react like those jones has. will they react around 430C or will they do what farrer has said paint does in a dsc:
"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"

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-11/replication-thermite-study-coming-within-weeks-dr-james-millette

[Senenmut]

Exactly:cool:
Moreover, exothermic peaks depicted in Fig. 19 and 29 are by no means "narrow" and show no "extremely high rate of energy release" (as was stupidly claimed by Bentham team and now by Senenmut), since the thermal energy was released in the range ca 50 to 100 degrees C. Considering the heating rate 10 degrees per minute, this corresponds to 5 to 10 minutes!. This was just a typical slow burning of organic polymer binder.
Btw, also superthermite DSC curve under air used for comparison is by no means narrow and does not itself prove the typical thermitic reaction which must be very fast after ignition. Exotherms, which should be regarded as proofs for rapid thermitic reaction should look like e.g. here (https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf) , Fig. 6. Here, the exothermic peak at ca 590 degrees C is really extremelly narrow and shows clearly thermitic reaction:cool:

considering the paper you linked did their test at 20C minute then i bet if jones did 20C per minute, his graph might look different too. the tillotson graph would look different too if he used 20C per minute.

[Oystein]

...
what you dont understand is that there could be 2 different sets of material tested. if millette is running these tests on a different material than jones' chips, then the tests are irrelevant when it comes to equating them with jones' chips.
Sorry to be riding this dead horse till it stinks but...

Senemut, do you realize that Jones's chips are NOT all the same material? That in fact he presents at least 6 different kinds of chips? And that it is totally unknown which of these 6 different kinds of chips, or perhaps even a seventh kind, was put in the DSC and ignited around 430°C?

Do you further realize that their paper does not indicate if any of the spheres in residiues came from any of the four chips which we know ignited roughy around 430°C (actually: ignited around 380°C, and already degraded exothermally starting around 250°C, and two of them continued to react exothermally all the way to 700°C)?

at 430C it produces iron and silicon microspheres.
Senemut, do you realize that Millette has presented several different kinds of red chips in his preliminary report? He has them all numbered, so, please, Senemut, give us the IDs of the chips that you think are identical to the chips Farrer measured in the DSC!

did millette heat his up that high to test that out? NOPE. i also challenge jones and crew to find al2o3 after the reaction.
Senemut, it shouldn't be hard to find alumina in the dust, particulary if you heat stuff. So don't challange them to only find al2o3 after the reaction. More impotantly, ask them fully characterize (photograph, XEDS, FTIR, TEM...) the chip before the reaction, have them thus show that there is little or no al2o3 before the reaction, then have then show al2o3 after the reaction. Oh, and not just some. Should really make up more than 40% by weight of the residue, since, as you certainly know (haha, just kidding), Tillotson's material was 90% thermite, and al2o3 is nearly 50% by weight the residue of the thermite reaction (and the organic matrix would largely burn away in air, the way Farrer does it).

Do you understand, Senemut, why the residue should really be nearly 50% al2o3?

these could be 2 different types of material. if millette is scarred to test that theory out by not doing a dsc test and observing the associated spike with his material then thats a problem not just for truthers but for skeptics as well. are you a true skeptic??? haha
The laugh is on you, Senemut, if you still don't undrstand that Farrer, Harrit Jones failed to address the problem that they could have looked at 2 different types of material (in fact, they looked at at least 6 different kinds of material), and made a stupid, very stupid blunder when they forgot to show which of the 6 or more kinds they put in the DSC. So why should Millette DSC-test any chips that are equal to type 1, the kaolin-rich chips (a)-(d) from Harrit e.al.? How do you, Senemut, know that these chips (a)-(d) ignited around 430°C, and not for example the kaolin-free kind of chip with zinc and magnesium they stupidly bathed in MEK, or the titanium-rich kind of chip they show residue of in Fig. 25, or the kinds of chips rich in copper or barium they talk of on page 28, or the kind of chip shown in Fig 32 whose gray layer contains no metal, or some multilayered chips as in Fig. 31?

but it does show that the material reacts at 430C and displays the spike associated with that material. and what does that spike show according to henryco:

"However the DSC analysis (Fig 19 Fig 29) are highly significant in that they show that the rate of the energy release is
extremely high: a very narrow and high peak, even higher than the reference nanothermite. This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction."

your the sheep for not asking for a dsc and the associated curve. considering the is when the chips of jones' react and produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

See one of my previous posts: Henryco is as stupid as Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, who all seem to believe that a power of combustion that is barely more than 1% of the power of a safety match stick (the wood part, not the ignition head! I am talking slow-burning wood here) constitutes an "energy release [that] is extremely high". How would you characterize a match stick that has 85 times the power density of the unknown chips that Farrer (an absolute beginner and total amateur in DSC testing, by the way) measured - 85x extreme - what's that? Would you give you kids matches to light a candle (oh, candle wax has an energy density 40,000 J/g. A typical candle burns 3-8g per hour, or 120000J - 320000J per 3600 seconds, or 33 to 89 W/g. So the power density of candles is up to 9 times higher than that of Farrer's DSC stuff. Amazing, huh? Will you ever light candles again, knowing they beat military-grade nanothermite 9:1?)

I hope you, Senemut, are not as stupid as Couannier, Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, because then you would be very stupid indeed.

[chrismohr]

Ivan and Oystein,

Is your white paper on paint out yet? If so I definitely want to pass it on to Millette. Can you also tell me if it takes into account Millette's new data or if it is pore-Millette?

[Oystein]

One of the many problems with Harrit's (Farrer's) DSC testing is that we don't know which kind or kinds of chips they tested to get the 4 graphs they published.
- Was it the kind of paint chips that contain kaolin but no zinc and no mg?
- Was it the kind of paint that contains zinc and magnesium, but no kaolin?
- Was it one of the other kinds of chips - some contained lead, some others titanium?

So do you know that the kind of chip they soaked in MEK is the kind of chip they put in the DSC? Answer: No you don't. In fact, if you look at the four chips that they showed DSC data of, that combust between 380°C and 480°C, you will notice that this is the ONLY thing we know about them. Or can you point out to ANY other data Farret, Harrit Jones have provided about these four specimens? They tell us which sampled these dust chips were taken from, and that information proves these four chips are not the same four chips as chips (a)-(d), so really we know absolutely nothing about them.
Since Harrit and Jones have studied at least 6 different kinds of chips (kaolin; zinc and magnesium; lead; titanium; multilayered; darc-gray layer carbon) and possibly even more, it is totally pointless to use the DSC data for anything at all.



And that was why Millette had the intelligence not to do any DSC test.


As an excercise for you and Senemut:


Please list all facts that you know about the chips that burn around 430°C!
you know as well as i do it probably boils down to elemental AL. and again, i challenge jones and crew to find some al2o3 after the reaction takes place.

What a monumental dodge, Senemut! How extremely far you can fling those goal posts! :eek:


Senemut, you demanded that the DSC data by Farrer (the absolute beginner and amateur in DSC testing) be replicated. Notice how you totally failed to answer the question about what test, and how, should be replicated in the DSC???


Please, Senemut, don't give me such a transparent and pathetic dodge again. Instead, please answer this:



One of the many problems with Harrit's (Farrer's) DSC testing is that we don't know which kind or kinds of chips they tested to get the 4 graphs they published.
- Was it the kind of paint chips that contain kaolin but no zinc and no mg?
- Was it the kind of paint that contains zinc and magnesium, but no kaolin?
- Was it one of the other kinds of chips - some contained lead, some others titanium?

So do you know that the kind of chip they soaked in MEK is the kind of chip they put in the DSC? Answer: No you don't. In fact, if you look at the four chips that they showed DSC data of, that combust between 380°C and 480°C, you will notice that this is the ONLY thing we know about them. Or can you point out to ANY other data Farret, Harrit Jones have provided about these four specimens? They tell us which sampled these dust chips were taken from, and that information proves these four chips are not the same four chips as chips (a)-(d), so really we know absolutely nothing about them.
Since Harrit and Jones have studied at least 6 different kinds of chips (kaolin; zinc and magnesium; lead; titanium; multilayered; darc-gray layer carbon) and possibly even more, it is totally pointless to use the DSC data for anything at all.



And that was why Millette had the intelligence not to do any DSC test.


As an excercise for you and Senemut:


Please list all facts that you know about the chips that burn around 430°C!

[Oystein]

Exactly!


Please take a close, long and careful look at Harrit e.al. (the Bentham paper)


Which material were they testing in the DSC? What properties do these four chips have? Please give us an exhaustive list of all the properties you know, with reference to the paper (figures and discussion in the text; page numbers).

Hint: You won't find any at all beyond the DSC data itself. At most you may speculate that they were red-gray too and attracted to a magnet.
Hint: Try to find any photos or spectra - there are none.


So what material are these four chips? Please be specific!
this is the point. will the chips that millette has react like those jones has. will they react around 430C or will they do what farrer has said paint does in a dsc:
"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"

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-11/replication-thermite-study-coming-within-weeks-dr-james-millette

This is the point?? You quote me, but you totally fail to address the point! What's the matter with you??? Why can't you give a straight answer to a straight question? I asked - please answer, this time no dodging and no moving goal posts:



Please take a close, long and careful look at Harrit e.al. (the Bentham paper)


Which material were they testing in the DSC? What properties do these four chips have? Please give us an exhaustive list of all the properties you know, with reference to the paper (figures and discussion in the text; page numbers).

Hint: You won't find any at all beyond the DSC data itself. At most you may speculate that they were red-gray too and attracted to a magnet.
Hint: Try to find any photos or spectra - there are none.


So what material are these four chips? Please be specific!

[Senenmut]

Sorry to be riding this dead horse till it stinks but...

Senemut, do you realize that Jones's chips are NOT all the same material? That in fact he presents at least 6 different kinds of chips? And that it is totally unknown which of these 6 different kinds of chips, or perhaps even a seventh kind, was put in the DSC and ignited around 430°C?

Do you further realize that their paper does not indicate if any of the spheres in residiues came from any of the four chips which we know ignited roughy around 430°C (actually: ignited around 380°C, and already degraded exothermally starting around 250°C, and two of them continued to react exothermally all the way to 700°C)?
read page 19 in the thermitic paper that says observation of iron rich sphere formation upon ignition of chips in a DSC.


Senemut, do you realize that Millette has presented several different kinds of red chips in his preliminary report? He has them all numbered, so, please, Senemut, give us the IDs of the chips that you think are identical to the chips Farrer measured in the DSC!
does millette actually have a DSC in his lab? you know as well as i that to be able to equate those to jones chips he needs to put them in a dsc and see if they react at around 430C and produce a similar spike.

The laugh is on you, Senemut, if you still don't undrstand that Farrer, Harrit Jones failed to address the problem that they could have looked at 2 different types of material (in fact, they looked at at least 6 different kinds of material), and made a stupid, very stupid blunder when they forgot to show which of the 6 or more kinds they put in the DSC. So why should Millette DSC-test any chips that are equal to type 1, the kaolin-rich chips (a)-(d) from Harrit e.al.? How do you, Senemut, know that these chips (a)-(d) ignited around 430°C, and not for example the kaolin-free kind of chip with zinc and magnesium they stupidly bathed in MEK, or the titanium-rich kind of chip they show residue of in Fig. 25, or the kinds of chips rich in copper or barium they talk of on page 28, or the kind of chip shown in Fig 32 whose gray layer contains no metal, or some multilayered chips as in Fig. 31?
you know what needs to be done to equate millette's chips with jones' chips.



See one of my previous posts: Henryco is as stupid as Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, who all seem to believe that a power of combustion that is barely more than the power of a safety match stick (the wood part, not the ignition head! I am talking slow-burning wood here) constitutes an "energy release [that] is extremely high".
I hope you, Senemut, are not as stupid as Couannier, Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, because then you would be very stupid indeed.

what would a match look like on a dsc trace?

[Oystein]

considering the paper you linked did their test at 20C minute then i bet if jones did 20C per minute, his graph might look different too. the tillotson graph would look different too if he used 20C per minute.

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?

[Oystein]

Sorry to be riding this dead horse till it stinks but...

Senemut, do you realize that Jones's chips are NOT all the same material? That in fact he presents at least 6 different kinds of chips? And that it is totally unknown which of these 6 different kinds of chips, or perhaps even a seventh kind, was put in the DSC and ignited around 430°C?

Do you further realize that their paper does not indicate if any of the spheres in residiues came from any of the four chips which we know ignited roughy around 430°C (actually: ignited around 380°C, and already degraded exothermally starting around 250°C, and two of them continued to react exothermally all the way to 700°C)?
read page 19 in the thermitic paper that says observation of iron rich sphere formation upon ignition of chips in a DSC.
How on FSM's green earth does this address the three paragraphs you just quoted??

I asked:

Senemut, do you realize that Jones's chips are NOT all the same material? That in fact he presents at least 6 different kinds of chips? And that it is totally unknown which of these 6 different kinds of chips, or perhaps even a seventh kind, was put in the DSC and ignited around 430°C?

Do you further realize that their paper does not indicate if any of the spheres in residiues came from any of the four chips which we know ignited roughy around 430°C (actually: ignited around 380°C, and already degraded exothermally starting around 250°C, and two of them continued to react exothermally all the way to 700°C)?

So please point out in the Harrit paper which spheres formed upon the DSCing of wich of the four specimen from Fig 19!

Hint: You won't because you can't because Farrer forgot to tell you! You can't know if any of the four chips from Fig. 19 resulted in any spheres.

Senemut, do you realize that Millette has presented several different kinds of red chips in his preliminary report? He has them all numbered, so, please, Senemut, give us the IDs of the chips that you think are identical to the chips Farrer measured in the DSC!
does millette actually have a DSC in his lab? you know as well as i that to be able to equate those to jones chips he needs to put them in a dsc and see if they react at around 430C and produce a similar spike.
Gosh, you really don't understand a thing! Should Millette DSC the smithereens out of every dust particle ever collected from the WTC? What a pathetically dumb thing to propose!
Almost all dust particles are different from those that Farrer DSCed, so almost all will show different traces. And what would that prove? Nothing!

Now a little something on DSC: If you have two specimen about which you know nothing, and you put then in a DSC, and they show similar traces. Are they then the same material? Yes or no?

The correct answer will hopefully give you a hint as to why doing DSC alone without otherwise characterizing your sample is a singularly moronic waste of time and money.

Why should Millette waste time and money on such a thing? To show he can be as spectacularly incompetent as Farrer? Or as blind and stupid as Farrer and Jones? He is smart, and therfore does the smart thing: Skip the DSC test.


And now a quick reminder about the questions you should REALLY reply to:

Senemut, do you realize that Millette has presented several different kinds of red chips in his preliminary report? He has them all numbered, so, please, Senemut, give us the IDs of the chips that you think are identical to the chips Farrer measured in the DSC!

The laugh is on you, Senemut, if you still don't undrstand that Farrer, Harrit Jones failed to address the problem that they could have looked at 2 different types of material (in fact, they looked at at least 6 different kinds of material), and made a stupid, very stupid blunder when they forgot to show which of the 6 or more kinds they put in the DSC. So why should Millette DSC-test any chips that are equal to type 1, the kaolin-rich chips (a)-(d) from Harrit e.al.? How do you, Senemut, know that these chips (a)-(d) ignited around 430°C, and not for example the kaolin-free kind of chip with zinc and magnesium they stupidly bathed in MEK, or the titanium-rich kind of chip they show residue of in Fig. 25, or the kinds of chips rich in copper or barium they talk of on page 28, or the kind of chip shown in Fig 32 whose gray layer contains no metal, or some multilayered chips as in Fig. 31?
you know what needs to be done to equate millette's chips with jones' chips.
Yes. Millette did it. It does not include the DSC test, because we have not the slightest clue what kind of chip the absolute and incompetent beginner Farrer put in his DSC.

You still don't understand this imoprtant point. I think you could start to begin to understand the first of it if you actually attempted to answer what I actually asked you. May I remind you of what I asked:
The laugh is on you, Senemut, if you still don't undrstand that Farrer, Harrit Jones failed to address the problem that they could have looked at 2 different types of material (in fact, they looked at at least 6 different kinds of material), and made a stupid, very stupid blunder when they forgot to show which of the 6 or more kinds they put in the DSC. So why should Millette DSC-test any chips that are equal to type 1, the kaolin-rich chips (a)-(d) from Harrit e.al.? How do you, Senemut, know that these chips (a)-(d) ignited around 430°C, and not for example the kaolin-free kind of chip with zinc and magnesium they stupidly bathed in MEK, or the titanium-rich kind of chip they show residue of in Fig. 25, or the kinds of chips rich in copper or barium they talk of on page 28, or the kind of chip shown in Fig 32 whose gray layer contains no metal, or some multilayered chips as in Fig. 31?


If your answer to these questions, after long hard thinking and reading again of the Harrit paper, is "I don't know!", then you are almost there!

See one of my previous posts: Henryco is as stupid as Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, who all seem to believe that a power of combustion that is barely more than 1% of the power of a safety match stick (the wood part, not the ignition head! I am talking slow-burning wood here) constitutes an "energy release [that] is extremely high".
I hope you, Senemut, are not as stupid as Couannier, Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, because then you would be very stupid indeed.
what would a match look like on a dsc trace?
And why would that matter? I don't know. It would look different.
The point I am making is: The peak width and height do NOT indicate a very high power density or energy release. They indicate a very slow energy release, the power is very low. This is in part due to the way a DSC works (it controls temperature and does not allow the heat of the reaction to let temperature run away). This simply demonstrated that Farrer, Harrit, Jones, HenryCo and the whole lot are too incompetent and stupid to interprete DSC results.



I noticed, Senemut, that you left out lengthy tracts of my post. May I post them again and ask you kindly to reply to them, too:

Senemut, it shouldn't be hard to find alumina in the dust, particulary if you heat stuff. So don't challange them to only find al2o3 after the reaction. More impotantly, ask them fully characterize (photograph, XEDS, FTIR, TEM...) the chip before the reaction, have them thus show that there is little or no al2o3 before the reaction, then have then show al2o3 after the reaction. Oh, and not just some. Should really make up more than 40% by weight of the residue, since, as you certainly know (haha, just kidding), Tillotson's material was 90% thermite, and al2o3 is nearly 50% by weight the residue of the thermite reaction (and the organic matrix would largely burn away in air, the way Farrer does it).

Do you understand, Senemut, why the residue should really be nearly 50% al2o3?

...

How would you characterize a match stick that has 85 times the power density of the unknown chips that Farrer (an absolute beginner and total amateur in DSC testing, by the way) measured - 85x extreme - what's that? Would you give you kids matches to light a candle (oh, candle wax has an energy density 40,000 J/g. A typical candle burns 3-8g per hour, or 120000J - 320000J per 3600 seconds, or 33 to 89 W/g. So the power density of candles is up to 9 times higher than that of Farrer's DSC stuff. Amazing, huh? Will you ever light candles again, knowing they beat military-grade nanothermite 9:1?)

[grandmastershek]

LMAO!!!

Is anyone surprised by the hand-waving?

1. Jones et al referenced Tilloston to make it look like they met the reference material. They didn't, so truthers argue they are all different forms of nanothermite.

2. They ignite is a non-inert atmosphere; not unique to nanothermite. Truthers pretend it is even though the ignition is not identical to their reference material.

Its the same as the explosive demolitions arguments. They claims its "this" then when it doesn't match, they move to "that". They were planning to hand wave it away from the beginning and even their own "experts" said as much.

[Ivan Kminek]

considering the paper you linked did their test at 20C minute then i bet if jones did 20C per minute, his graph might look different too. the tillotson graph would look different too if he used 20C per minute.

A quote from Bentham "paper": The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C."
In former times (several months ago) you seemed to me to be comparatively educated truther. Unfortunately, you are still able to believe even to such apparent, impudent and big fat lies like that Fig. 19 "shows etremely rapid release of energy", since your gods must be true:cool:

Ivan and Oystein,

Is your white paper on paint out yet? If so I definitely want to pass it on to Millette. Can you also tell me if it takes into account Millette's new data or if it is pore-Millette?

Chris: As regards me, I sent my notes and suggestions to Oystein about week ago. In my opinion, it can be published, but still it is reviewed by someone.
Jim Millette should really read this white paper since I think that he may change his main conclusions. Namely, Laclede red primer should be seriously considered as one of the abundant material of red-gray chips. since we know its composition, epoxy is a binder, etc.
Chris, I have not enough time today, but I would like to remind my current post from the Origin of paint. I suspect now that some XEDS spectra taken on the washed surfaces of red layers (Appendix B) may correspond better to Tnemec than to Laclede paint.

On the other hand, XEDS spectra on cross-sections of red layers (Appendix D) correspond well mostly to Laclede paint. I think that Jim in fact might study (at least) two kind of paints (Laclede and Tnemec), and therefore, some of his conclusions may not be valid.

E.g., the first main conclusion was: "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."

But, if some chips were Tnemec paint, this is not generally valid since Tnemec primer contained alkyd-linseed based binder, not epoxy. And FTIR spectra proving epoxy resin were taken only on some samples (?). Jim (not knowing about Laclede paint) perhaps simplifies the situation too much, since he basically thinks that all red-gray chips he collected by magnet are the the same paint, but not Tnemec.
(But, I can be wrong, since e.g. calcium peaks in Appendix B are generally smaller than in XDES of Tnemec paint).

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted, double post...

[Senenmut]

Yes.

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.

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.

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!

[alienentity]

Recently photographed 9/11 Truther flinging the goalposts off the playing field :cool:

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/caber_toss.jpg

[Senenmut]

A quote from Bentham "paper": The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C."
In former times (several months ago) you seemed to me to be comparatively educated truther. Unfortunately, you are still able to believe even to such apparent, impudent and big fat lies like that Fig. 19 "shows etremely rapid release of energy", since your gods must be true:cool:



Chris: As regards me, I sent my notes and suggestions to Oystein about week ago. In my opinion, it can be published, but still it is reviewed by someone.
Jim Millette should really read this white paper since I think that he may change his main conclusions. Namely, Laclede red primer should be seriously considered as one of the abundant material of red-gray chips. since we know its composition, epoxy is a binder, etc.
Chris, I have not enough time today, but I would like to remind my current post from the Origin of paint. I suspect now that some XEDS spectra taken on the washed surfaces of red layers (Appendix B) may correspond better to Tnemec than to Laclede paint.

On the other hand, XEDS spectra on cross-sections of red layers (Appendix D) correspond well mostly to Laclede paint. I think that Jim in fact might study (at least) two kind of paints (Laclede and Tnemec), and therefore, some of his conclusions may not be valid.

E.g., the first main conclusion was: "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."

But, if some chips were Tnemec paint, this is not generally valid since Tnemec primer contained alkyd-linseed based binder, not epoxy. And FTIR spectra proving epoxy resin were taken only on some samples (?). Jim (not knowing about Laclede paint) perhaps simplifies the situation too much, since he basically thinks that all red-gray chips he collected by magnet are the the same paint, but not Tnemec.
(But, I can be wrong, since e.g. calcium peaks in Appendix B are generally smaller than in XDES of Tnemec paint).

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

[alienentity]

one kind of chip that may not be the same material.

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 thermite 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.

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!

I'll translate what you just wrote:
1) The chips that Harrit et al. collected were not all the same
2) The energy outputs of the chips and their times of release were not the same
3) None of the chips matched an example of known nanothermite, which essentially means they are not nanothermite
4) Dr Millette's tests confirm, with greater accuracy than did those of Harrit et al., that the chips cannot be nanothermite.

Either way, DSC or not, none of the red/grey chips are nanothermite. The chemistry alone rules it out.

Therefore 9/11 Truthers such as Senenmut will avoid this obvious conclusion and start obfuscating about DSC even while it is a moot point. Another example of Ryan Mackey's 'Irreducible Delusion' at work.

For a greater understanding of this process it might be helpful to visit the website of the Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/). Flat Earthers have moved the goalposts out of this universe and into a parallel universe where they are unassailed by science and reason.
9/11 Truth, as we can see, is headed in this direction, very rapidly, with extremely high energy output, at near freefall speed™. :rolleyes:

[Senenmut]

A quote from Bentham "paper": The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C."
In former times (several months ago) you seemed to me to be comparatively educated truther. Unfortunately, you are still able to believe even to such apparent, impudent and big fat lies like that Fig. 19 "shows etremely rapid release of energy", since your gods must be true:cool:



Chris: As regards me, I sent my notes and suggestions to Oystein about week ago. In my opinion, it can be published, but still it is reviewed by someone.
Jim Millette should really read this white paper since I think that he may change his main conclusions. Namely, Laclede red primer should be seriously considered as one of the abundant material of red-gray chips. since we know its composition, epoxy is a binder, etc.
Chris, I have not enough time today, but I would like to remind my current post from the Origin of paint. I suspect now that some XEDS spectra taken on the washed surfaces of red layers (Appendix B) may correspond better to Tnemec than to Laclede paint.

On the other hand, XEDS spectra on cross-sections of red layers (Appendix D) correspond well mostly to Laclede paint. I think that Jim in fact might study (at least) two kind of paints (Laclede and Tnemec), and therefore, some of his conclusions may not be valid.

E.g., the first main conclusion was: "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."

But, if some chips were Tnemec paint, this is not generally valid since Tnemec primer contained alkyd-linseed based binder, not epoxy. And FTIR spectra proving epoxy resin were taken only on some samples (?). Jim (not knowing about Laclede paint) perhaps simplifies the situation too much, since he basically thinks that all red-gray chips he collected by magnet are the the same paint, but not Tnemec.
(But, I can be wrong, since e.g. calcium peaks in Appendix B are generally smaller than in XDES of Tnemec paint).

im sure you've seen this chip ignited before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo

[alienentity]

Facts are very confusing to 9/11 Truthers, as we can see. They quickly get lost and find it easier to simply latch onto simple concepts, regardless whether those concepts are factual or not.

The latest example of such a 'factoid' is the apparent 9/11 Truther belief that a DSC graph of a material 'a' (Harrit chip) , even if it is not like a DSC of material 'b' (nanothermite), must nonetheless be the same as 'b'.

So we can derive the logical statement: a≠b therefore a=b
And with regard to the Millette study, c (Millette chip)=a(Harrit chip), c≠b therefore a=b

Credit goes to Senenmut for elucidating this relationship.

[Senenmut]

I'll translate what you just wrote:
1) The chips that Harrit et al. collected were not all the same
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
2) The energy outputs of the chips and their times of release were not the same
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.
3) None of the chips matched an example of known nanothermite, which essentially means they are not nanothermite
but the material is consistant in that it reacts at about 430C and produces the corresponding dsc spike along with the iron and silicon rich microspheres. 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. he has to show that his material is in fact the material jones has. 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. now if his produces iron and silicon microspheres will be the interesting part! he probably knows that if he places his "paint" in the dsc, then it will not show a similar spike.
4) Dr Millette's tests confirm, with greater accuracy than did those of Harrit et al., that the chips cannot be nanothermite.
if it is a different material then he confirmed what he has, not what jones has.

Either way, DSC or not, none of the red/grey chips are nanothermite. The chemistry rules it out alone.
millette's chemistry? even if it is a different material?

Therefore 9/11 Truthers such as Senenmut will avoid this obvious conclusion and start obfuscating about DSC even while it is a moot point. Another example of Ryan Mackey's 'Irreducible Delusion' at work.
its not a moot point. its the most important point IMO. different materials have different dsc spikes. i know your smarter than that.

[moorea34]

im sure you've seen this chip ignited before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo

It's not a chip!
It's popcorn

:boxedin:

[alienentity]

but the material is consistant in that it reacts at about 430C
.
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:

[alienentity]

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



How are Millette's chips different? Please explain this referring to both papers with page numbers.

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.
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.

But that would require a level of critical thinking which I doubt you are capable of.

[beachnut]

... 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.

...!

Oops, DSC don't match! Not thermite. Now what?


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111JonesDelusion.jpg

These traces do not match. Now what? Jones lied, they don't have thermite, they have the insane claim of thermite made up by an old man who thinks the United States caused the earthquake at Haiti.

[alienentity]

It gets worse, Beach. The DSC results don't match, yet the material is claimed to be the same, ergo the DSC is not a useful tool for making that determination. Which is exactly what Oystein, Sunstealer and others have pointed out.

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

[Edx]

It gets worse, Beach. If the DSC results don't match, yet the material is claimed to be the same, ergo the DSC is not a useful tool for making that determination. Which is exactly what Oystein, Sunstealer and others have pointed out.

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....so he's still so very thirsty!

:deadhorse

No no, see its another KIND of thermite, just like their quiet explosives are another KIND of explosive. :D IF it doesnt look like thermite, it just means its a super dupa special kind of thermite that - duh - would look different.

[cjnewson88]

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?

[Julio]

all you want to do is handwave!! it could be 2 different materials and you know this. anyone with a brain with some intelligence can see this! it does not go against me if it is 2 different kinds of material. once he tests it in a dsc and it reacts a 430C and has a similar spike then we can talk. until then, there is not much to say b/c these could be 2 different materials!

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.

[GlennB]

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.


Senenmut's "points" on this particular subject are exactly the same as C7's, ergo's and others' elsewhere.

If any plausible error in the mass of evidence supporting the OT can be detected then it is deemed to verify the entire CT

If any plausible support can be found for one single, tiny aspect of the CT, then the entire CT is verified. Even when the CT isn't defined and is just some vague formless notion in a CTist's head.

Belief comes first, evidence and science come a distant second. It's fundamentalism at its finest.

[DGM]

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.

You answered your own question. They didn't do this by accident.

Why else would they refuse to submit their work to independent review?

[alienentity]

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.

PRecisely. If only Kevin Ryan had let Dr Millette have some, as requested by Chris Mohr.....oh well, I guess Accusing Minds Don't Want to Know!

[Oystein]

...
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

You can throw a dead horse in a lake and it won't drink.