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

[chrismohr]

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

 

[Oystein]

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

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

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

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



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

 

[chrismohr]

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

I contacted Jim Millette and asked him, "Could you please find out for me if the red-gray chips Harrit et all declared to be thermitic actually are thermitic?" He said, "yes" and eventually he was hired. So yes it is unusual to do a major study on a claim of this kind. But once he got into it, he went on to present it to the Forensics Convention and is now working on peer-reviewing and writing a publishable paper. Universities and engineering schools everywhere study the 9/11 catastrophe with their students, and this brings a lot of favorable attention to his lab, and he has the luxury of studying something he finds interesting. Unusual, yes, but response has been very favorable for him! But yes indeed, there is only one question: is there thermitic material in the red-gray WTC chips? And one answer from the extensive research he did on the chips he studied: no.

 

[Sunstealer]

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

One of the problems I'm finding is that the graphs are too small to read the sample identifications for each EDX spectra and then relate that info to the FTIR and TEM-SAED.

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

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

 

[Senenmut]

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

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

 

[MrSkunkwork100]

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.

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

 

[MrSkunkwork100]

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

tmd2:


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

 

[twinstead]

tmd2:


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

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

 

[alienentity]

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

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

 

[pgimeno]

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

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

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

 

[pgimeno]

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

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

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

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

 

[Justin39640]

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

Are we 100% sure that the paint was the structural steel's primer? Has anyone ever made a list of other possible sources?

 

[Scott Sommers]

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

I contacted Jim Millette and asked him, "Could you please find out for me if the red-gray chips Harrit et all declared to be thermitic actually are thermitic?" He said, "yes" and eventually he was hired. So yes it is unusual to do a major study on a claim of this kind.

I'm not sure what you mean here. My understanding is that Dr. Millette was contracted by you to perform this study. It wasn't conducted for academic reasons. Nor did Dr. Millette approach you as a funding source. The dynamics of this study are no different from any commercial testing he would, such as if I contact him to confirm that the food I bought was in fact what the manufacturer claimed. So it wouldn't be a "major study" in any sense to anyone except the conspiracy theory community and its critiques. Otherwise someone else would have done it and published by now, and there would be citations for the thermite-conspiracy findings that go beyond the conspiracy theory community.

But once he got into it, he went on to present it to the Forensics Convention and is now working on peer-reviewing and writing a publishable paper. Universities and engineering schools everywhere study the 9/11 catastrophe with their students, and this brings a lot of favorable attention to his lab, and he has the luxury of studying something he finds interesting. Unusual, yes, but response has been very favorable for him! But yes indeed, there is only one question: is there thermitic material in the red-gray WTC chips? And one answer from the extensive research he did on the chips he studied: no.

I can see the results of this study being of academic and practical use to many people for many reasons. That the sample did not contain thermite would not be one of them. The issue of thermite in WTC dust is simply not of interest to anyone except conspiracy theorists and their critiques. I can't see any major peer-review journals interested in the question of thermite and WTC dust. I may be surprised about this, but I doubt whether you could get a serious paper published if its main focus was to address this question.

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

 

[Ivan Kminek]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sunstealer]

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

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

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

*work out what it is.

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

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

 

[Sunstealer]

That's the core of the Truth movement claim anyways: that the material is thermitic and that it was alien to the rest of the buildings' materials.

You can't have the following (classsic) thermite reaction without aluminium

Fe₂O₃ + Al --> Fe + Al₂0₃

No elemental Al found in the paint.

Truthers will have to work with

Fe₂O₃ + 2 Al2Si₂O₅(OH)₄ --> ?????

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

 

[Sunstealer]

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

DSC is unimportant - it doesn't tell you anything worthwhile. That's why I was asking for XRD and FTIR 3 years ago because those types of analysis give definitive results. FTIR in millette's study proves kaolin is present and also goes another step further proving that epoxy is present too. Don't forget that Harrit et al did no work other than a quick EDX on the binder.

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

 

[Sunstealer]

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

Yes you are correct, however, aluminium will form an oxide layer that will represent a large portion of that material if the particle is small enough.


In the Harrit et al paper

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

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

 

[Sunstealer]

Are we 100% sure that the paint was the structural steel's primer? Has anyone ever made a list of other possible sources?

Here's the giant haystack. Go find the needle.

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

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

 

[Senenmut]

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

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

*work out what it is.

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

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

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

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


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