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

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

... 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?




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!

[Edx]

Originally Posted by alienentity

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!

No no, see its another KIND of thermite, just like their quiet explosives are another KIND of explosive. 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]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Julio

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]

Originally Posted by Julio

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]

Originally Posted by alienentity

...
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!

You can throw a dead horse in a lake and it won't drink.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

Originally Posted by Oystein

Yes.

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

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



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

one kind of chip that may not be the same material.

The same material as WHAT other material, Senemut? I have asked you several times now to tell us precisely which material Farrer tested in the DSC.

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

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

So are the two spikes in Fig 29 similar, or are they different? Please discuss, so we know why you come to your conclusion!

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

Is that so?

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

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

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

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

[twinstead]

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

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

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

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

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by twinstead

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

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

variation on a common theme. from spot to spot on the chips vary slightly but when heated in a dsc they react at about 430C

Is it a slight variation from chip to chip if one chip has all its Al bound to Si in kaolin, and another chip has no kaolin at all?

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

Senemut, you MUST answer this:

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

which goes back to the variation of ingredients but when placed in a dsc at about 430 they react and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres.

You keep saying this, but - how do you know?
Can you please point out which of the four chips that gave rise to Fig. 19 produced which kind of sphere in the residue? Be specific, and make reference to a page number or figure number in Harrit e.al.!

Originally Posted by Senenmut

but the material is consistant in that it reacts at about 430C and produces the corresponding dsc spike

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

along with the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

Where is the aluminium in these chips?

Originally Posted by Senenmut

now if millette dosent understand this, he is either ignorant of the fact or intentionally not producing these results by not testing his red gray chips in a dsc.

You continue to prove to all the world that you are stupid wrt DSC, very very stupid. Millette is not stupid. Millette is a million times smarter than you are wrt DSC. That's why he spared us the depressingly stupid things that Farrer did, when Farrer through something in the DSC that he forgot to characterize beforehand. Well, I can forgive Farrer, he was a bloody stupid inexperienced greenhorn with the DSC. He was simply too stuopid to start with, and too stupid to ask someone more intelligent than he is why what he did was so incredibly stupid. But you, Senemut, don't have that excuse. At some point you should show signs that you are slowly learning.

Please understand:

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

he has to show that his material is in fact the material jones has.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

it dosent matter if its thermitic or not. he has to show that his material is the same as jones' in that when placed in a dsc it produces a spike at about 430C.

No he dosn't. Because Jones has no clue what material dumbhead Farrer burned. Farrer forgot to look or forgot to tell. Jones should have said "get thee outta here, Farrer, I can't stand your stupid face!", but he didn't. I guess Jones is stupid then, too.

Originally Posted by Senenmut

now if his produces iron and silicon microspheres will be the interesting part!

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

he probably knows that if he places his "paint" in the dsc, then it will not show a similar spike.

If it doesn't, then it would be because Farrer, the stupid know-nothing, burned the wrong stuff in the DSC.
But why do you assert without evidence that the result would be different?

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

if it is a different material then he confirmed what he has, not what jones has.

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

millette's chemistry? even if it is a different material?

Different from WHAT material, Senemut? I asked you too many times, you need to answer this sometime. Remember Jones had at least six or seven DIFFERENT materials in his study? Remember that, Senemut?

Originally Posted by Senenmut

its not a moot point. its the most important point IMO. different materials have different dsc spikes. i know your smarter than that.

Yes. Just like Farrer's unknown non-thermite has a different spike than Tillotson's thermite.
Yes, alienentity is smarter than "that", with "that" being the combined DSC understanding of Farrer, Jones, Harrit, Ryan, Farnsworth, Legge, Larsen, Gourley, Basile, Griscom and Senemut. All these men understand nothing about DSC.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Julio

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

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


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

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

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

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by twinstead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by alienentity

How are Millette's chips different? Please explain this referring to both papers with page numbers.

SEM and EDX are similar but will it react around 430C in a DSC and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres. that is the clincher!! he still could of done many other tests before testing them in the dsc. then the last test could have been the climax...the dsc which he should have done.

Originally Posted by alienentity

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

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

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

Originally Posted by alienentity

Millette answered the questions raised by Harrit et al. He does tell you what the chips are made of. You really ought to be thanking Dr Millette and criticizing Harrit et al. for the incomplete work they did.

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

Originally Posted by alienentity

But that would require a level of critical thinking which I doubt you are capable of.

and to understand that one needs to do a dsc on millettes chips to prove they are similar to jones' is also critical thinking.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by alienentity

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/a...935flysuit.jpg

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

[Oystein]

[quote=Senenmut;8081477]SEM and EDX are similar but will it react around 430C in a DSC and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres. that is the clincher!! he still could of done many other tests before testing them in the dsc. then the last test could have been the climax...the dsc which he should have done avoided as it's a stupid thing to do.
Fixed that for you See my previous few posts with all the questions you are too incompetent to answer.

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

They vary because they are different materials. D'uh!

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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


and to understand that one needs to do a dsc on millettes chips to prove they are similar to jones' is also critical thinking really very very stupid because dumhead Farrer did the most incompetent job with the DSC.

Fixed that for you See my previous few posts with all the questions you are too incompetent to answer.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

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

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by alienentity

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!

Thanks for the new Sig material!!

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Thus, while some of the aluminum

Quote:

may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account
for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material.

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

Millette -

Quote:

Conclusions ---

Quote:

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite

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







Say …

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

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

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

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

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

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

[cantonear1968]

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

Cheers, gentlemen!

[cantonear1968]

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

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

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

[cantonear1968]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by alienentity

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.

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

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

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

check it out...

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Oystein

[*]Do you realize that the DSC graphs in Fig 19 indicate that tiny amounts of chips material (micrograms) took several minutes to burn, and this is a VERY SLOW reaction rate and very low power density? The answer to this question is short: It's either "yes", or "no", or "sorry Oystein, I am too dumb and don't understand the question"

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

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

May that be the cause why K.Ryan didn't want to give the samples for further analysis?

[cantonear1968]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

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

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

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

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

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

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

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

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

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

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

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


Say …

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

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

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

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

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



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

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

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

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

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

IMO, its all about the AL

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

check it out...

Don't you check your sources?

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

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

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

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

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

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