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

[tfk]

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

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



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]

Sample handover?

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:

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:

The article also shows that the paint has not degraded or dissolved at temperatures up to 800^o 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 800^o 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 800^o 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 800^o 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]). 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 800^o 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.

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.


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 800^o 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?