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

[Sunstealer]

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.

Addressing the highlighted part because I've already addressed the DSC in previous posts.

No, because the remit for Dr Millette was to use the EDX data alongside the SEM photographs in the Harrit paper to determine if he has the same material. He has done this. If you read the Millette interim data then you will see this.

Millette separates the chips from the dust using a magnet and has found more than one type of chip according to the EDX data as I read it. He has separated out chips that meet the criteria in the Harrit et al paper by SEM and EDX and it's these he has tested further using definitive testing methods i.e. FTIR and TEM-SAED. These methods show the material is paint. The material is not thermite.

If you examine his EDX data you can see that there are other chips that are a good match for Tnemec Red 99. A good example is page 26, L1560 Murray and Church street, second EDX spectra, chip 2. If you look at the photo you can clearly see that this chip has a slightly different surface texture and there is a difference in the EDX spectra compared with the other six chips. A far higher Si peak than Al is an indicator for a different material.

Last 2 spectra on page 28 from sample M3451, 49 Ann St, look like Tnemec Red 99 primer paint.

I'll leave you to deduce page 30 - the difference is easy to spot.

The separation method is the same, the chips analysed show identical EDX spectra, the SEM photos show identical particles, the SEM photos show identical "binder" material to the samples Harrit et al analysed, but the could be different. How do you work that out?

I knew as soon as the red herring DSC was not included that truthers would be all over it like a tramp (bum) on spilt chips. Dr Millette has already addressed why there was no need for DSC in the characterisation of this material.

Hi all,

The link to the full study is coming out this morning.

I asked him one simple question about the study:

Did you replicate the Bentham study 100%? It looks like there was no test of the ignition temperature or energy release of the chips.

(Paraphrase) That's correct. We did cook the chips to release the particles from epoxy bindings for further study, but not to measure ignition temperature of energy release.

It was not necessary to take this step, because my chemical tests proved that the chips could not be thermitic in any way. I would have just been testing the ignition point and energy release of a paint chip and that would not have been necessary.
If someone wanted to do such a test, it would be as two-part process. A different lab would have to be employed to measure the heat output and ignition temperatures properly, and then someone else with expertise would need to properly analyze the data. The cost would be around $300 per sample for just the raw testing.

Otherwise, every part of the Bentham protocol was followed, and several other tests they did not do were added to the protocol.

I suggest if you want the DSC test performed you drum up the funding.

 

[pgimeno]

well, if a DSC test did not produce the same spikes then its probably not the same material.

When you apply that logic to this graph:

what is the conclusion?

The graph is the result of overlaying the scaled DSC plot which is compared with the nanothermite in figure 29 (nanothermite is the red curve with a peak to the right of the rest of peaks), with the DSC plot of all tested samples including that one in figure 19. I also added the zero line for reference as it gives an interesting insight.

I think it's fair to say that applying your reasoning to the DSC test, you can conclude that the chips tested in DSC are NOT nanothermite.

Worth noting is how the DSC of nanothermite is endothermic until about 270°C, further highlighting that it's a completely unrelated material.

 

[Edx]

pgimeno,

I dont know a lot about the chemistry of this, that looks pretty conclusive that it is paint from that graph. What is Harrit et all's explanation or understanding for this?

 

[Africanus]

Congratulations to Dr. Millette for this magnificent study and thanks a lot to Chris Mohr for the organization of the study and the funding. Now some further comments.

@sunstealer

I agree that it was not necessary for Dr. Millette to carry out the DSC experiments as the scope of his study was different (identyfying the composition of the red gray chips). But I think such an experiment is still worth carrying out. You once suggested that the "iron rich microspheres" derive from the gray layer (I had the same idea short before you posted it). This is a reasonable assumption but we don't have any proof. It would be a good topic for a further study.

@pgimeno

Thans for posting the DSC of Harrit's paper. I didn't realize until now that one of the observed samples shows two overlapping exotherms (MacKinlay 2) (although I'm quite familar with Harrit's paper). Has this been discussed before?

 

[arielflight]

Conclusion

Results

In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.[/I]1
Conclusions[/B]
Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips[/B]
[/HILITE]
At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some
small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain some information about product materials. According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17 55 out of the 177 different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments. However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.

Excuse my ignorance, but what good are unidentified chips? What does it prove?" Please enlighten me, so I can understand the significance of this study. Thank you.

 

[DGM]

pgimeno,

I dont know a lot about the chemistry of this, that looks pretty conclusive that it is paint from that graph. What is Harrit et all's explanation or understanding for this?[/B]

 

[BStrong]

Well done Chris.

 

[Senenmut]

When you apply that logic to this graph:

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png[/qimg]

what is the conclusion?

The graph is the result of overlaying the scaled DSC plot which is compared with the nanothermite in figure 29 (nanothermite is the red curve with a peak to the right of the rest of peaks), with the DSC plot of all tested samples including that one in figure 19. I also added the zero line for reference as it gives an interesting insight.

I think it's fair to say that applying your reasoning to the DSC test, you can conclude that the chips tested in DSC are NOT nanothermite.

Worth noting is how the DSC of nanothermite is endothermic until about 270°C, further highlighting that it's a completely unrelated material.

it concludes that it is not the same nanothermitec material (could be different particle sizes etc etc.....

 

[pgimeno]

At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).

excuse my ignorance, but what good are unidentified chips? What does it prove?" please enlighten me, so i can understand the significance of this study progress report. Thank you.

ftfy.

The progress report proves that what Farrer et al. analyzed is paint, and that even if it is not yet an identified type of paint, it definitely is not thermite or nanothermite.

 

[Edx]

it concludes that it is not the same nanothermitec material (could be different particle sizes etc etc.....

seriously ?? expalin why it matches several results for paint, but not the nano thermite, please?

 

[DGM]

it concludes that it is not the same nanothermitec material (could be different particle sizes etc etc.....

You would almost think Harrit et al would have supplied a sample for independent review (comparison). I wonder why they didn't?

 

[ergo]

Pgimeno's graph overlay shows nothing that Harrit and Jones didn't already show. Both graphs are from Harrit and Jones.

 

[Edx]

Pgimeno's graph overlay shows nothing that Harrit and Jones didn't already show. Both graphs are from Harrit and Jones.

Yes and Im asking for the explanation for why it matches several known types of paint but nowhere near the nano thermite data. To me it looks like they've shown its not nano thermite, but then gone on to say its nano thermite anyway.

 

[ergo]

I'm sorry to see this thread is no longer moderated.

(^ referring to posts like #126)

With regard to the repeated assertions that the chips are paint, Harrit and Jones have already reported:

[After MEK soaking...] The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.

So

• paint chips partly dissolve when soaked in MEK

They also

• 
  don't ignite at 430^o C.

Millette neither reports on partial dissolving in the MEK, nor did he do an ignition test.

If he really wanted to drive the final nail in the coffin of the nanothermite theory, as those who commissioned him clearly wanted him to do, why wouldn't he just do the test and dispel all doubt?

 

[Edx]

Ergo can you explain the graph, or post the explanation by Harrit, or not?

 

[DGM]

(^ referring to posts like #126)

With regard to the repeated assertions that the chips are paint, Harrit and Jones have already reported:

How do you explain the fact their data and the new studies data matches? The only chip that doesn't, Jones already said was paint.

 

[tfk]

Chris,

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.

You may be able to help him out.

Point this out to him.

[Posted by BasqueArch]
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/pp/projects/laserprintforming.html

For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron.

This is a real shocker to me.

I never would have expected this great a difference between the bulk melting temperature & nanoparticle melting temperatures.

This might (might, I say) explain the whole mystery of the iron-rich microspheres forming at paper-burning temperatures.

tom

 

[ergo]

Because Oystein asked above: What Millette identifies as kaolin platelets are called "plate-like" particles in H & J. They are composed of aluminum and silicon and are of the same size as Millette determined: 1 micron.

Re-posting Harrit and Jones's discussion of elemental aluminum:

... It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form. ...

Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon, located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration and separation of the components. This is a significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not bound chemically.

The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). 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. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles.

 

[Sunstealer]

I wish the truthers would actually take the time to read the OP and Millette's interim report. It is clear from the many question they have that are answered in the report that they have not.

Truthers - go an download the report and read it.

Red/gray chips that had the same morphology and appearance as those reported by Harrit et al.1, and fitting the criteria of being attracted by a magnet and having the SEMEDS x-ray elemental spectra described in their paper (Gray: Fe, Red: C,O, Al, Si, Fe) were found in the WTC dust from all four locations examined.

Same material.

Stop handwaving and accept that you were wrong to back Jones and Harrit.

 

[Senenmut]

Addressing the highlighted part because I've already addressed the DSC in previous posts.

No, because the remit for Dr Millette was to use the EDX data alongside the SEM photographs in the Harrit paper to determine if he has the same material. He has done this. If you read the Millette interim data then you will see this.

it may look the same using those tests but will it react the same!!! the dsc would see if millette's chips react like jones's at 430C. if they did NOT react, then we would have 2 different types of chips.

Millette separates the chips from the dust using a magnet and has found more than one type of chip according to the EDX data as I read it. He has separated out chips that meet the criteria in the Harrit et al paper by SEM and EDX and it's these he has tested further using definitive testing methods i.e. FTIR and TEM-SAED. These methods show the material is paint. The material is not thermite.

if it is a different material, then the conversation is pointless except why does jones' react and millette did not react at 430C.

The separation method is the same, the chips analysed show identical EDX spectra, the SEM photos show identical particles, the SEM photos show identical "binder" material to the samples Harrit et al analysed, but the could be different. How do you work that out?

its alittle harder to see with millette's pics. the figures 10,11,14, and 15 in millettes paper just arent as clear as the figures 8 and 9 in the thermitic paper. could be similar SEM, different material. put it in a dsc and test it and if it reacts around 430 with a similar spike then it is the same material. if it doesnt then it not the same material.

I knew as soon as the red herring DSC was not included that truthers would be all over it like a tramp (bum) on spilt chips. Dr Millette has already addressed why there was no need for DSC in the characterisation of this material.

its not a red herring. it is what it is. test millettes chips in a dsc and if it reacts around 430C and produces a similar spike, then check it for the iron and silicon microspheres. I think he is scarred to test them b/c he knows it could be a different material with a similar EDX/SEM.