Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

[Ivan Kminek]

Cool! Thanks for sharing, Ivan. I can't think why people would conclude this bi-layered stuff is some kind of exotic thermitic. That's the last thing I would have thought.

btw I'm working with a Czech conductor doing 'Rusalka' for the next 2 weeks. Great stuff!

Of course, those "nonsensical" gray layers have represented one of the biggest problems of the thermite theory from the day of Bentham paper publishing They make sense only in the "paint hypothesis".

Btw, when I look to these Jim's micrographs of the WTC chips (upper photo), I can quite clearly see some whitish contaminant on the middle chip (gray) and also on the right red chip. I don't know if Jim precleaned somehow those chips before XEDS measurements, btw.

Are you a professional musician? Enjoy Rusalka!
You know, we Czech people are one of the most important nations on this planet Consider just Antonin Dvorak in the field of music... or Prof. Zdenek Bazant in the matter of 911 attacks

 

[Oystein]

Zeuzzz: : since we have basically a permission from Chris Mohr, we can show you the first, indeed very preliminary (!) results of Jim Millette's work from the beginning of this year (?).

He already collected few red-gray chips from the WTC dust and here are their micrographs under some magnification:

As you can see, chips are similar to the chips in Bentham paper and it is even more clear now that such tiny red objects are really abundant in the WTC dust. This is of course very good for further analytical work.

Here is the very first XEDS of the red layer, measured by Jim.
It's hard to make any conclusion here. It seems to me that this layer can be basically identical with the red layers shown in Fig. 7 in Bentham paper (especially Fig. 7c is quite close), but chip surface can be heavily contaminated with mostly calcium, sulfur (calcium sulfate from wallboards?), magnesium and (maybe) silicon (see bellow). All these elements are common in contaminants. A very little carbon peak is strange (considering that paint layer has to contain organic/polymeric binder). Basically, this red layer can still be something else than material shown in cited Fig. 7.

Here is the very first XEDS of the gray layer. . It shows us a spectrum corresponding basically to some iron oxide, but again the layer is probably contaminated, here mostly with some silicon stuff. Notably, manganese (an "ingredient" of the floor trusses steel) is marked in the spectrum.

I would say: no conclusion can be made from these few results, except this one: any potential surface contaminants must be thoroughly removed from the chips by some good methods, like e.g. ultrasonic cleaning. But Jim knows it very well (and Bentham team also knew it very well)

This is exactly the kind of stuff we need and expect from Jim: He shows a photo of a chip, and names it "Particle A", then provides some data on it. I would not accept this particular chip as identical to chips (a) - (d), by the way, but it's good to have it included. I would expect him to do something along the following line:

• Describe his dust bags, by amount, provenience, chain of custody, general appearance
• From each bag, extract a specified mass (e.g. 1g) and make them the samples of this study. Label them, such as "sample 1", "sample 2", etc.
• Sort out all particles from several dust samples according to the two criteria "attracted to a magnet" and "flat chip that's red on one side and gray on the other"
• Weigh them and provide their percentage by weight in each sample.
• Randomly select a sufficient number of individual chips from each sample
• Photograph them all, and give them names. Maybe such as "1-A" or "4-Y", meaining the first chip (A) from dust sample 1, and the 25th chip (Y) from dust sample 4
• Describe them in some detail, such as dimensions and mass of each chip.
• Clean them, or break them or whatever is best to stay clear of contaminants
• Do an XEDS of both layers
• Select all chips that come reasonably close to the signature of chips (a) - (d) (red layer: mostly C, then O, then Al and Si about the same peak hight, followed by Fe K-alpha, all other elements traces at best and no Zn; gray layer: Fe and O, with some C and perhaps bits of Mn)
• All other chips: maybe sort them by common signature as far as possible
• Weigh each group of chips, give relative amounts
• Do further analysis on all, or a representative number of selected chips, that match (a)-(d)
• Provide all data per named chip (e.g. in tables in an appendix)
• Discuss

In that process, if Particle A were already clean, I think it would get sorted out as not matching (a)-(d), as there is too little Al, too little C and too much S and Ca. But it should still appear in some way in the study.

Obviously, Jim is no way bound by my expectations, but this list implies a few criteria by which I would gauge the usefulness of his paper.

 

[Oystein]

...
Are you a professional musician? Enjoy Rusalka!
You know, we Czech people are one of the most important nations on this planet Consider just Antonin Dvorak in the field of music... or Prof. Zdenek Bazant in the matter of 911 attacks

Mozart's Don Giovanni was commissioned, finished and premiered in Prague, that counts a lot for me

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris, Would you be so very kind and ask Jim if he somehow cleaned red-gray chips for these very preliminary XEDS measurements?

Oystein: You are right that even if all Ca and S comes from some contaminant, Al peak is too low and C peak is almost missing, which are clues that this chip (or its measured area) differs from Bentham chips (a) to (d). Especially this little carbon peak is strange...
Your suggestions how to make this research are comprehensive, I'm not only sure if we can expect such thorough analyses of many tens of chips for one thousand bucks

 

[sheeplesnshills]

This is from Chris Mohr, the darling of the JREF believers in the OCT.

Do skeptics have "darlings"?

 

[Oystein]

Chris, Would you be so very kind and ask Jim if he somehow cleaned red-gray chips for these very preliminary XEDS measurements?

Oystein: You are right that even if all Ca and S comes from some contaminant, Al peak is too low and C peak is almost missing, which are clues that this chip (or its measured area) differs from Bentham chips (a) to (d). Especially this little carbon peak is strange...
Your suggestions how to make this research are comprehensive, I'm not only sure if we can expect such thorough analyses of many tens of chips for one thousand bucks

I have no idea, quite frankly, how much machine time and manpower an additional chip would take in the "XEDS machine", and consequently how much that costs. But consider this:

• Without a statistically significant number of specimen, the results won't be worth much
• Jim must do XEDS on enough chips anyway to identify enough candidates for further analysis

So I contend he will look at many tens of chips in roughly the way I describe, or realize the effort is futile at the get-go.
After all, Harrit e.al. certainly looked at many more speciment than they present in the paper. Or remember Marc Basile, who reported extensively on his "lucky chip #13" - do you supposed he didn't look at chips #1-12, or that he stopped at #13? I think once you are in your lab with chips preselected by magnet and visual inspection, it doesn't matter so much if you run XEDS on 10, 20 or 30 chips.
ETA: Also, remember the RJ LeeGroup analysed over 100,000 specimen under the electron microscope in under 18 months (started sampling in june 2002, released report in december 2003). Not sure they did XEDS in each instance. But this should highlight the capacity: They processed more than 15 specimens per hour on average, assuming a 12-hour per day lab availability.


But I'll humbly admit I spoke from uneducated imagination if and when The Almond reprimands me

 

[chrismohr]

Do skeptics have "darlings"?

I'm skeptical about that.
BTW I want to know what alienentity is doing with Rusalka. Dvorak is MY darling, all Dvorak, and of course Mozart's Don Giovanni (as one critic said, everything happens in that opera but an onstage birth... so of course I composed an opera that HAS an onstage birth in it... From The Realm Of The Shadow). Dvorak constantly teaches me the value of a great melody.
Hearing Dvorak and Mozart clears my brain when thinking about the origin of red-gray chips, which is why this post is utterly relevant to this thread

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris, Oystein, Alienentity: as a Czech citizen, I'm proud that you appreciate Antonin Dvorak's music (and Mozart's music as well, but he wasn't Czech) Dvorak had spent some years in the States, composing his beloved Symphony No.9, "From the New World".

Oystein: To be honest, I have also no idea if XEDS measurements can be somehow "automated" or so for large series of samples Almond should give us some on-line lectures in XEDS, btw, or at least some link to some good "textbook" available online.

Chris, pls, ask Jim, how was it with cleaning of those first chips, thanks

 

[Miragememories]

"...4.) He [Jim Millette] guesses we will have preliminary information around 15th February. The full report will take several months...
...7.) Several times he said, "what do we have?" We can't have answers until we know what we have. Don't jump the gun; let me do my work and we'll see what I find, he was saying...
...13.) Several people have said that if he discovers thermitic materials, he will never admit to it because this would destroy his career. He said he is not worried about that at all. He is an independent scientist, and "If I find it I'll publish it." And if he finds no evidence for active thermitic material, then he will conduct the necessary tests to determine what the red-gray chips most likely are..."

"Thanks Chris, for all the effort you have put into this, can't wait for the results."

"You're welcome. I think Jim Millette will be done with his preliminary research in mid-February. If I understood correctly, he will present his initial findings at an American Academy of Forensic Sciences gathering in late February, then publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. The only guarantee we have is that we will get a report. As for thermites, as you may know he said, "If I find it I'll publish it."

In the meantime, a "Real Truther" has investigated Jim Millette and offered emotional and financial support for this project (he is not on JREF). Some people have vehemently rejected his embracing of this dust study, and he has replied to them with this letter:...."

Hmm.

Could you clarify this a bit Chris?

Will we or will we not, be the beneficiaries of Jim Millette's preliminary findings?

Or do we have to wait until he decides what to publish?

Your posted responses are somewhat unclear on this.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

He's going to tell everybody but you.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....
Chris, pls, ask Jim, how was it with cleaning of those first chips, thanks

A watched pot never boils. A completed and reviewed report by Millette when he issues it will result in less confusion than constant dribbles of partial undigested information.

That's what i'm used to in the construction industry in any case. Do it once do it right.
Every hour I don't rush my drawings saves me 5 later in revisions and correcting confusion.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hmm.

Could you clarify this a bit Chris?

Will we or will we not, be the beneficiaries of Jim Millette's preliminary findings?

Or do we have to wait until he decides what to publish?

Your posted responses are somewhat unclear on this.

MM

Tests are already completed and the paper written, peer reviewed and published but we didn't tell you just to mess with your mind.....

 

[The Almond]

I have no idea, quite frankly, how much machine time and manpower an additional chip would take in the "XEDS machine", and consequently how much that costs. But consider this:

• Without a statistically significant number of specimen, the results won't be worth much
• Jim must do XEDS on enough chips anyway to identify enough candidates for further analysis

[...]

But I'll humbly admit I spoke from uneducated imagination if and when The Almond reprimands me

I officially reprimand you. Your sentence is 8 lashes with a wet noodle!

You raise some very good points. Regarding your first point, the real problem is that the number of specimens required to get a complete picture of all the chemical species in a sample of dust or ash is quite large. In truth, we really don't know just how many individual particles you need to image. The number depends very heavily on the question you're trying to answer.

Let's suppose that I believed a nuclear bomb were detonated to blow up the twin towers, and I wanted to find evidence of the bomb material in the dust. This could help me determine if it were a U or Pu bomb, but I need to find particles specifically composed of one or the other. I can suppose that the ratio of the weight of the bomb itself to the weight of the twin towers to be very small. I would thus conclude that the weight ratio of nuclear material to innocuous ash and dust produced in the collapse is also very small. Essentially, I'm looking for a needle in a haystack.

To me, the question of thermite and its role in the destruction of the twin towers is like the needle in the haystack problem. The result is, you need to look at a whole bunch of particles, not just a few.

That being said, the XEDS machine can be automated. Folks like RJ Lee use a specific type of electron microscope designed to image and analyze hundreds of thousands of particles. When I run similar experiments, I can do about 1000 particles per hour, and let the instrument run for several days to get the desired number of particles. RJ Lee looked at about 100,000 particles, which is quite reasonable, in my opinion.

 

[chrismohr]

This is exactly the kind of stuff we need and expect from Jim: He shows a photo of a chip, and names it "Particle A", then provides some data on it. I would not accept this particular chip as identical to chips (a) - (d), by the way, but it's good to have it included. I would expect him to do something along the following line:

• Describe his dust bags, by amount, provenience, chain of custody, general appearance
• From each bag, extract a specified mass (e.g. 1g) and make them the samples of this study. Label them, such as "sample 1", "sample 2", etc.
• Sort out all particles from several dust samples according to the two criteria "attracted to a magnet" and "flat chip that's red on one side and gray on the other"
• Weigh them and provide their percentage by weight in each sample.
• Randomly select a sufficient number of individual chips from each sample
• Photograph them all, and give them names. Maybe such as "1-A" or "4-Y", meaining the first chip (A) from dust sample 1, and the 25th chip (Y) from dust sample 4
• Describe them in some detail, such as dimensions and mass of each chip.
• Clean them, or break them or whatever is best to stay clear of contaminants
• Do an XEDS of both layers
• Select all chips that come reasonably close to the signature of chips (a) - (d) (red layer: mostly C, then O, then Al and Si about the same peak hight, followed by Fe K-alpha, all other elements traces at best and no Zn; gray layer: Fe and O, with some C and perhaps bits of Mn)
• All other chips: maybe sort them by common signature as far as possible
• Weigh each group of chips, give relative amounts
• Do further analysis on all, or a representative number of selected chips, that match (a)-(d)
• Provide all data per named chip (e.g. in tables in an appendix)
• Discuss

In that process, if Particle A were already clean, I think it would get sorted out as not matching (a)-(d), as there is too little Al, too little C and too much S and Ca. But it should still appear in some way in the study.

Obviously, Jim is no way bound by my expectations, but this list implies a few criteria by which I would gauge the usefulness of his paper.

Hi Oystein,

I sent your long post above to Jim Millette and here is what he said:

"Your German friend outlines a good, careful approach. He is correct that he does not understand the costs. The bill for the RJ Lee WTC dust work was over $53 million! and none of the samples were analyzed at the level of detail that your German friend describes here. Most of the RJ Lee analyses were for asbestos fibers only. By the way, the RJ Lee fee was paid by Deutsche Bank or its insurer. For your project, we will continue to work on one particle at a time with the understanding that each analytical result is a step forward. I also understand that even if we do 1,000 particles someone may not find it convincing but as a scientific study we will have something to add. Have a good weekend. Jim"

In another email responding to my request for concrete chunks, paint primer samples etc from the WTC debris, he said he'll look into it. That was a week ago. I'll ask again.

 

[chrismohr]

Ivan: I also asked Jim about how he cleaned the sample, he didn't respond.
MM: My understanding is that we are buying the report from him and a preliminary report will be in our hands in a couple weeks. From there he will run it past the Forensics experts and then publish a peer-reviewed paper. I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure we will be getting his report sooner rather than later.
BasqueArch, in the spirit of letting Millette do his job, I pass along stuff from this thread if it looks interesting, including challenges from 9/11 Truth people. But I always say, here is more stuff FYI. He reads everything I send him but it's not throwing him off track.

 

[ozeco41]

...To me, the question of thermite and its role in the destruction of the twin towers is like the needle in the haystack problem. The result is, you need to look at a whole bunch of particles, not just a few....

BUT the question is "what blew down the haystack?" NOT "is there a needle in the haystack which may by some undefined mechanism have caused the haystack to collapse?"
(And I know the analogy is far from perfect)

Moving away from imperfect analogies the question which is relevant to 9/11 conspiracy discussion and is the implicit question which has led to this current situation is "Was there CD of WTC?" ThermXte is not the single sole question, it is merely one of the claimed possible materials which could be used in CD.

The question of "Was there thermXte" arises for two independent reasons and one confused one:
1) it is a stand alone question of scientific interest - independent of any claim of CD; OR
2) it is being answered in response to the truthers claim that thermXte was present and all the flawed logic and trickery that flows from that choice. (viz reverse burden of proof; discuss a red herring to prevent progress etc etc)

The "confused" reason is that it is seen as a way to prove/disprove CD. BUT there are far more efficient ways of addressing the question of CD and the weight of evidence is "No CD!" And no truther has ever dented or put forward a reasoned comprehensive claim which even starts to dent the case of "No CD!"

To slightly modify one of my repeated statements it would not (will not?) matter if we find there was 100 tonnes of thermXte on site. The evidence is that there was no demolition therefore no use of thermXte in demolition. If thermXte was on site then the pro-demolition crowd still have the same long way to go to prove CD as has existed since 2001. And they have never put forward a reasoned claim. That claim has to show a mechanism for CD and how the logistic and security barriers were overcome. They have never achieved either to date.

By all means let this investigation continue but in going along with the wishes of truther/trolls to discuss sidelines let's not lose track of context.

[/embark-bandwagon]

 

[Oystein]

I officially reprimand you. Your sentence is 8 lashes with a wet noodle!

Thank you, oh mighty Almond

You raise some very good points. Regarding your first point, the real problem is that the number of specimens required to get a complete picture of all the chemical species in a sample of dust or ash is quite large. In truth, we really don't know just how many individual particles you need to image. The number depends very heavily on the question you're trying to answer.

Chris and I have different questions, and actually I couldn't tell you exactly what question Chris has asked Jim to answer when he ordered that study. Loosely speaking, Chris wants to know "is there (unreacted?) thermite in the dust"?

My question is quite different: "Are there red-gray chips in the dust with the same XEDS signatures as chips (a)-(d), and if so, what are the chemical constituents of the red layer?". My objective is to prove or disprove that these chips are paint formulation identical or very similar to LaClede standard primer as described in the NIST report.

I suppose that my question can be answered with fewer chips, because we have a pretty good idea of what particles we are looking for and how to find them. How many would very much depend on the relative abundance of exactly these particles in the dust, or among red-gray chips. Which agrees with what you say:

To me, the question of thermite and its role in the destruction of the twin towers is like the needle in the haystack problem. The result is, you need to look at a whole bunch of particles, not just a few.

That being said, the XEDS machine can be automated. Folks like RJ Lee use a specific type of electron microscope designed to image and analyze hundreds of thousands of particles. When I run similar experiments, I can do about 1000 particles per hour, and let the instrument run for several days to get the desired number of particles. RJ Lee looked at about 100,000 particles, which is quite reasonable, in my opinion.

 

[Oystein]

Hi Oystein,

I sent your long post above to Jim Millette and here is what he said:

How embarrassing

"Your German friend outlines a good, careful approach. He is correct that he does not understand the costs. The bill for the RJ Lee WTC dust work was over $53 million! and none of the samples were analyzed at the level of detail that your German friend describes here. Most of the RJ Lee analyses were for asbestos fibers only. By the way, the RJ Lee fee was paid by Deutsche Bank or its insurer. For your project, we will continue to work on one particle at a time with the understanding that each analytical result is a step forward. I also understand that even if we do 1,000 particles someone may not find it convincing but as a scientific study we will have something to add. Have a good weekend. Jim"

This again highlights the point I made in my previous post, that approach and extent of his analysis depends very much on the question we want to have answered. I have said before that I defer to your objective, Chris, and only hope that Jim's work will give us data that allows me to answer my question as a collateral effect. Naturally, I am lobbying for my case

 

[alienentity]

I'm skeptical about that.
BTW I want to know what alienentity is doing with Rusalka. Dvorak is MY darling, all Dvorak, and of course Mozart's Don Giovanni (as one critic said, everything happens in that opera but an onstage birth... so of course I composed an opera that HAS an onstage birth in it... From The Realm Of The Shadow). Dvorak constantly teaches me the value of a great melody.
Hearing Dvorak and Mozart clears my brain when thinking about the origin of red-gray chips, which is why this post is utterly relevant to this thread

Wow guys, I had no idea my comments would provoke this outpouring of support for Dvorak!! Amazing.
I'm coaching and performing with a production at a major university. Long work but some absolutely beautiful things in it.

Chris, all I can say about your Realm is ... WOW!! You are a man of many talents, kudos!! So we can thank you for a number of contributions, not least which is your excellent video series on 9/11 Myths.

Frankly I'd much rather spend a bit of time reading this thread than debating the same old truther myths. I think there is merit in this investigation of the chips even though I do share the sentiments of ozeco41 regarding the actual possibility of thermXte being responsible for the tower collapses.

I am hoping this inquiry will result in a kind of 'kill shot' for the myth of the nanothermite chips. But I await the results as does everyone else.

cheers and goodnight

 

[tsig]

How embarrassing



This again highlights the point I made in my previous post, that approach and extent of his analysis depends very much on the question we want to have answered. I have said before that I defer to your objective, Chris, and only hope that Jim's work will give us data that allows me to answer my question as a collateral effect. Naturally, I am lobbying for my case

Why don't you all leave the guy alone to do his job?