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

[JayUtah]

Within 10 minutes he was collecting and saving dust? Why would anyone do such a thing? Wouldn't saving your ass be a better priority.

Did anyone elses BS meter just explode?

He (Delessio) does claim he was fleeing the area at the time, and at that point the evacuation of lower Manhattan had just been ordered.

Here's the problem. Had he claimed he was picking up dust deposited from the collapse of WTC 2 an hour or so previously, he'd have been credible. Instead he claimed he was engulfed in the dust cloud of WTC 1, which he said had just collapsed, and it was this dust he was collecting.

If you understand much about the aerosolization of particulates and their deposition rates and distances, you realize the dust he claims he was collecting cannot have settled at that distance at that time. Either his timeline is wrong, or his "dust" is a convenience sample of whatever had been on the pedestrian walkway.

 

[JayUtah]

...if you ever watch thermite reactions it becomes readily apparent that the white cloud formed (aluminum oxide) rapidly disperses.

How many large-scale thermite reactions have you personally witnessed? If you have read any of my posts in the other thread, you should realize I'm going to keep asking you this until you answer it, or until it becomes conspicuously obvious that you are bluffing.

 

[DGM]

He (Delessio) does claim he was fleeing the area at the time, and at that point the evacuation of lower Manhattan had just been ordered.

Here's the problem. Had he claimed he was picking up dust deposited from the collapse of WTC 2 an hour or so previously, he'd have been credible. Instead he claimed he was engulfed in the dust cloud of WTC 1, which he said had just collapsed, and it was this dust he was collecting.

If you understand much about the aerosolization of particulates and their deposition rates and distances, you realize the dust he claims he was collecting cannot have settled at that distance at that time. Either his timeline is wrong, or his "dust" is a convenience sample of whatever had been on the pedestrian walkway.

I have no problem with his sample coming from the collapses, it matches the other samples.

The fact they specify it as "fresh" as to avoid any question of contamination sets off my BS meter. The interview where he specifies when it was collected was 6 years after the event at a "truther" event in Boston.

Doesn't really matter in the whole scope of things because, he collected the same paint residue everyone else did.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no problem with his sample coming from the collapses, it matches the other samples.

He probably collected WTC 2 collapse material, which did have time to settle that far away from the collapse site.

The fact they specify it as "fresh" as to avoid any question of contamination sets off my BS meter.

Exactly. It clearly cannot have been, given the non-credible details in Delessio's testimony. It's likely he's adding detail in order to emphasize the alleged freshness of the sample, not realizing that his embellishments reduce his credibility.

Doesn't really matter in the whole scope of things because, he collected the same paint residue everyone else did.

Correct. As we've seen elsewhere, most Truther claims seem to have multiple things wrong with them. Some critics therefore prefer to take them to task for all of them, and some avoid the kettle-claim argument by conceding on one premise and attacking the most critical of the failed claims.

 

[DGM]

Exactly. It clearly cannot have been, given the non-credible details in Delessio's testimony. It's likely he's adding detail in order to emphasize the alleged freshness of the sample, not realizing that his embellishments reduce his credibility.

How did this blatant inaccuracy in sample ever get past peer-review.

(MM's post is a direct quote from the paper)

 

[JayUtah]

How did this blatant inaccuracy in sample ever get past peer-review.

Gee, I wonder...

 

[Redwood]

Why is MM writing in blue these days?

He got dem ol' Kozmic Blues again?

 

[Redwood]

Within 10 minutes he was collecting and saving dust? Why would anyone do such a thing? Wouldn't saving your ass be a better priority.

Arguably, it could be in the same vein as people who collected shards of Hindenburg.

 

[JayUtah]

Arguably, it could be in the same vein as people who collected shards of Hindenburg.

I think that would have been an easier proposition since the airship only burned for about 90 seconds, after which there were only isolated and relatively stable diesel fires. But the sentiment is apt enough: people fleeing from danger still snap cell phone pictures and grab souvenirs.

 

[beachnut]

Why is MM writing in blue these days?

Mold is setting in on failed 911 truth claims, repeated past their due date.

 

[LSSBB]

Mold is setting in on failed 911 truth claims, repeated past their due date.

 

[remo]

Campfire [sic] oliloquy

Mr Barnett “Thinking what something might be caused by" and "thought it might be caused by battery acid, acid rain or burning gypsum wallboard" WHILE REPORTING :”The significance of the work on a [steel] sample from Building 7, and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal. A one inch[steel]column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges-which are curled like a paper scroll-have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes-some larger than a silver dollar-let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending -but not holes”. That "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel....The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000C(1800F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel” - reportedly requiring a ‘very high concentration of sulfur, around 50(mol.%)’ - [Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”NYTimes], and cited by Mr Barnett as “A very unusual event,” about which “ No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified”,
MAY well have been said by the same man, but I would suggest at different times in his career.
As with the ‘shocked fire-wise professors’.

Ritchie LEE said of the 200X normal amounts of Fe spheres he identified in the DUST; “The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporised. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminium and silicon and alumino-silitcate spheres were also observed in the dust. The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. Theses spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.”

Yet Molybdenum spheres and other ‘high temperature event’ evidence not ‘obtainable by combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels’ was found in the dust of WTC911(USGS). Lead and steel were vaporised. Whole buildings fell AT free fall ! Pools of molten steel ‘running like lava in a volcano’, ‘like in a foundry’, pouring out the corner of the South Tower a molten steel river, so, presenting the idea of diffuse ‘hurricane force furnace winds’ burning ‘rust’ out of elevator shafts melting tons of steel in mid-air as fine molten mist during a violent eruptive building disintegrating at the rate of 11 stories per second., 110 stories in 10 seconds, is the real mockery here.

Sunder stated ”yeah. the issue of thermate in NIST judgement didn’t even reach level of importance to do detailed study for reasons we could rule it out fairly easily for several reasons. one. in order for a thermate reaction to to take place there has to be materials and of course building materials have all of the things required for thermite or thermate and we looked at the amount of thermate to bring the building down you would have had to place about a 100lbs of thermate right in the proximity of the column and it would have to adhere to the column because thats what thermite actually does, is melt the steel so somebody has to keep pushing it so that thermite continues to be sticking to this vertical column so that until it collapses in order to get that amount of materials into the building and actually place it is unlikely to have actually happened.”
All he needed do, was consult NIST partner SAIC contracting the largest ’non-governmental’ contingent to the WTC investigation utilising their extensive links to nano-thermite research and DOD to understand the lack of intelligence revealed by his quote.

Like the reduction of the question to campfire theatrics, all these men have made childish entertainment of a clear scientific invention, over the presented forensics of demolition.

 

[DGM]

Like the reduction of the question to campfire theatrics, all these men have made childish entertainment of a clear scientific invention, over the presented forensics of demolition.

The fact you accept fantasy is not evidence of demolition.

When do you think they're get some independent verification? Funny how they're the only ones with this "forensic evidence" and they won't share.

Better not question the motives of your handlers.

 

[beachnut]

... Yet Molybdenum spheres and other ‘high temperature event’. ...

lol, 911 truth have no idea why molybdenum was found. Did 911 truth try to research what molybdenum is found in? No, 911 truth makes up lies and the insane claim of thermite, made up by Jones 4 years after 911; mocking the murder of thousands by making up fantasy.

13 years of failure, is 911 truth

Molybdenum melts at 4750 F
Steel melts at 2600 - 2800 F
Thermite reaches 4532 F (oops)

The fake paper has silicon in the thermite, it means thermite has a lower max temperature.

OOPS, thermite can't melt the molybdenum... what do you do now.
Jones lied about thermite, he made it up;
13 years of failure.
911 truth fails to do research, fooling gullible people on 911 issues.

Why has 911 truth failed for 13 years? Was the plot too complex for 911 truth followers.
911 plot...
1. Take planes
2. Crash planes

19 terrorists used murder and then the easiest flying maneuver in the books, crashing.
911 truth makes up silly lies based on nonsense which fool a few gullible followers.

 

[1stClassAlan]

There's not much that annoys me more about Conspiracists than their constant harping on about "Thermite" and the new super improved version - "nano thermite!" Whatever that may be. Considering that a thermitic reaction in a chemical mixture takes place down at the chemical compound level in which electrons will be jumping about - you can forget "nano" and start thinking about pico, pico, pico - but this will be lost on such folk!

Their claim that "Thermite" ( as if you can walk into your local store and buy it over the counter!) is widely used and accepted for controlled demolition is utterly wrong and ridiculous. The only PRACTICAL use for it I know of, is in-situ welding of railway rails - hence it is CONSTRUCTIVE not destructive - and even this needs the employment of a well fitted crusible mould - as otherwise the material simply runs away once liquid. Transferring this knowledge to their conjecture that vast quantities were somehow installed to burn through certain steel sections in The Towers - begs the question - how was the resulting reaction contained? If the stream of unidentified liquid material seen pouring from the corner of Tower two shortly before its demise was reaction products - why couldn't other better laid charges be seen burning through the box section exterior walls? I'd also ask for evidence of any burning through of ANY steel before the clear up when oxy-propane sets were in use! Thermitic mixtures are quite difficult to light - you need at least an oxy-propane torch to start it off and even this can be a bit stop start so the fires can't be relied on to do it - explain then how the firing mechanism - first survived detection, penetration by aircraft, lumps of disrupted building and then completely disappeared from Ground Zero.

This also goes for ALL explosive allegations - I'm not an explosives "expert" but I reckon I know more about them than most Conspiracists and a good few on here - all the CD sites I've worked on are littered with identifiable explosives debris - plastic closures, copper shreds, copper smears on cut steel, unburnt det cord etc., etc., there would have to be a cover up of gigantic proportions to carry it off.

BTW Beechy - the commonest use of molybdenum I know of is inside light bulbs - you might know but for those that don't - it's used for the electrical conductor that passes through the glass - the very high melting point means it also has a low heat/ expansion co-efficient so doesn't crack the bulb or tube.

 

[LSSBB]

There's not much that annoys me more about Conspiracists than their constant harping on about "Thermite" and the new super improved version - "nano thermite!" Whatever that may be. Considering that a thermitic reaction in a chemical mixture takes place down at the chemical compound level in which electrons will be jumping about - you can forget "nano" and start thinking about pico, pico, pico - but this will be lost on such folk!

Their claim that "Thermite" ( as if you can walk into your local store and buy it over the counter!) is widely used and accepted for controlled demolition is utterly wrong and ridiculous. The only PRACTICAL use for it I know of, is in-situ welding of railway rails - hence it is CONSTRUCTIVE not destructive - and even this needs the employment of a well fitted crusible mould - as otherwise the material simply runs away once liquid. Transferring this knowledge to their conjecture that vast quantities were somehow installed to burn through certain steel sections in The Towers - begs the question - how was the resulting reaction contained? If the stream of unidentified liquid material seen pouring from the corner of Tower two shortly before its demise was reaction products - why couldn't other better laid charges be seen burning through the box section exterior walls? I'd also ask for evidence of any burning through of ANY steel before the clear up when oxy-propane sets were in use! Thermitic mixtures are quite difficult to light - you need at least an oxy-propane torch to start it off and even this can be a bit stop start so the fires can't be relied on to do it - explain then how the firing mechanism - first survived detection, penetration by aircraft, lumps of disrupted building and then completely disappeared from Ground Zero.

This also goes for ALL explosive allegations - I'm not an explosives "expert" but I reckon I know more about them than most Conspiracists and a good few on here - all the CD sites I've worked on are littered with identifiable explosives debris - plastic closures, copper shreds, copper smears on cut steel, unburnt det cord etc., etc., there would have to be a cover up of gigantic proportions to carry it off.

BTW Beechy - the commonest use of molybdenum I know of is inside light bulbs - you might know but for those that don't - it's used for the electrical conductor that passes through the glass - the very high melting point means it also has a low heat/ expansion co-efficient so doesn't crack the bulb or tube.

I believe that if you look up the Chicago Skytower demolition, they had to use pretty massive containment vessels for the thermite. That's probably part of why no one I know of ever tried structural controlled demolition with thermite again. Or would seriously consider it.

 

[pgimeno]

I believe that if you look up the Chicago Skytower demolition, they had to use pretty massive containment vessels for the thermite. That's probably part of why no one I know of ever tried structural controlled demolition with thermite again. Or would seriously consider it.

Probably right. I know of another one though. It took quite a while.

 

[chrismohr]

Remo, while you quote Mr Barnett as calling the eutectic steel phenomenon “A very unusual event,” about which “ No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified,” I got a much broader context to what he said by actually talking with him. It's obvious that there is no clear explanation, which is why he gave me three very different possible explanations... and not only are none of those possibilities thermitic, but he completely rejects the idea that it could have been CD! Go ahead and hold on to your interpretation of what he said 12 years ago, but he never once accepted CD as a possible explanation, and you are blinding yourself to the context of what he said by rejecting everything he has said about it since... to me and to others.

 

[LSSBB]

Probably right. I know of another one though. It took quite a while.

Thanks, I see how truly bright the burning was, also.

 

[remo]

Blind leading the Blind

The only context anything involved in this can be taken in, is the forensics unearthed since 911.
The fire-wise professor(s) found a ‘very unusual event’ - sulfur - IN CONJUNCTION with another ‘very unusual event’ - the total destruction of an 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high rise AT FREE FALL; and two 110 storied towers at close to free fall- during the worst terrorist attack in modern History.
That they - after finding evidence of what would OCCAM indicate thermitic attack on building steel - identifying sulfur, reported by 'fire-wise investigators' as an element specific to lowering melting temperature of steel during intergranular attack - didn’t offer ‘Thermate attack’ as ONE of the working hypothesis for the steel destruction, extending that instead to three variations of 'acid attack', pushed credulity past credibility into a catagory peculiar to all official 911 science.
His statement ‘completely rejected the IDEA it could have been CD’ is not echoed in the App.C report, where Mr Barnett found another ‘possible’ credible enough to be stated, that, “ It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure”. This does not read like a ‘complete rejection of the idea of CD’ to me. In fact it offers it as a distinct possibility in the face of the three hypothesis presented being IRRELEVANT to any prior/collapse/weakening/acceleration practicalities.
Given the nature of the atrocity, there being no proper investigation of that ‘prior possibility’ (Sunder also: “the issue of thermate in NIST judgement didn’t even reach level of importance to do detailed study”) nor further investigation into the “ No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified,” adds to the agnotological 'context' surrounding all official presentations of WTC911, and defenders of them.