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

[Senenmut]

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.



Same material.

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

then test it in a dsc and if it reacts at 430C and produces a similar spike, then check it for the iron and silicon microspheres!!

 

[ergo]

Point this out to him.

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


This is a real shocker to me.

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

Yes, it will be interesting to hear from Millette, RJ Lee, and Harrit, Jones, et al. on this.

 

[Sunstealer]

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:

I've already replied to you on this. Why do you refuse to read answers to your questions? Once again.

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.

 

[Senenmut]

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

i wish he would have. i also challege them to try and find al2o3 after the reaction takes place. im sure there is some way to do that. maybe if they do it in an enclosure and let the byproducts settle to the ground.

 

[Sunstealer]

I think he is scarred to test them b/c he knows it could be a different material with a similar EDX/SEM.

/sigh You can't be sensible. Onto ignore you go.

This is why I didn't contribute financially to the testing - it's a total waste of time because not a single truther will bother to address the data and conclusions because it goes against them. They just can't say "I got it wrong".

I'm just going to watch this thread disintegrate into the usual crap now.

 

[pgimeno]

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

Or an entirely different material unrelated to nanothermite, which is actually the only possible conclusion. Remember that there is no elemental aluminium after all, therefore there's just no way to avoid the rejection that it's thermitic at all. Also, the total energy release shows how it can't be thermite.

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

Exactly. It is posted in relation to this claim:

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

and also to highlight graphically how much bigger the energy release is as compared to that of nanothermite.

• paint chips partly dissolve when soaked in MEK
• don't ignite at 430^o C.

Let's see if you can answer this simple question:

Paint chips of WHAT PAINT do exhibit such behaviour?

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

This is addressed entirely by Sunstealer in post #97

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8075588&postcount=97

A relevant excerpt:

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?​

 

[DGM]

Truthers - go an download the report and read it.

This is not going to help. For the average "truther" they could have analysed dog crap and they still would defend it the same way. They think what their told to think.

 

[twinstead]

A very eye-opening thread for me. It really illustrates some truthers' confirmation bias

 

[ergo]

Paint chips of WHAT PAINT do exhibit such behaviour?

The paint that was in the WTC dust.

In fact, I would think most paint dissolves at least partially in solvents. Isn't that what solvents are for?

 

[pgimeno]

The paint that was in the WTC dust.

Where do you get that from? Not from the ATM report, for sure.

 

[Senenmut]

/sigh You can't be sensible. Onto ignore you go.

This is why I didn't contribute financially to the testing - it's a total waste of time because not a single truther will bother to address the data and conclusions because it goes against them. They just can't say "I got it wrong".

I'm just going to watch this thread disintegrate into the usual crap now.

all you want to do is handwave!! it could be 2 different materials and you know this. anyone with a brain with some intelligence can see this! it does not go against me if it is 2 different kinds of material. once he tests it in a dsc and it reacts a 430C and has a similar spike then we can talk. until then, there is not much to say b/c these could be 2 different materials!

 

[ergo]

Exactly. It is posted in relation to this claim:

​

and also to highlight graphically how much bigger the energy release is as compared to that of nanothermite.

Of the gel studied by Tillotson, you mean.

And the energy release of which would also not indicate paint. Right?

 

[Edx]

all you want to do is handwave!! it could be 2 different materials and you know this. anyone with a brain with some intelligence can see this! it does not go against me if it is 2 different kinds of material. once he tests it in a dsc and it reacts a 430C and has a similar spike then we can talk. until then, there is not much to say b/c these could be 2 different materials!

But the spike in Harrits DSC currently matches paint, doesnt it? Not thermite.

 

[DGM]

The paint that was in the WTC dust.

In fact, I would think most paint dissolves at least partially in solvents. Isn't that what solvents are for?

Depends on the paint. Epoxy base paints are very resistant to solvents after they cure.

Wait, Isn't that the ones we're talking about?

 

[Senenmut]

But the spike in Harrits DSC currently matches paint, doesnt it? Not thermite.

this is a quote from henryco:
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.

if ivan is reading this, please post that like to you burning your paint you made.

 

[ergo]

Where do you get that from? Not from the ATM report, for sure.

True. I don't know.

But Harrit in his 2009 reply to the paint chip thesis points out that WTC paint has not ignited or altered chemically at any temperatures below 800^o C.

 

[Edx]

this is a quote from henryco:
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.

if ivan is reading this, please post that like to you burning your paint you made.

You're going to have to make this simple for a non-chemist.

In the graph you can see earlier, the sample clearly fits known paint samples, it does not at all fit the nano thermite data point. How does this test therefore show its thermite, rather than paint, when the results fit the paint data points and clearly not the thermite?

Can you explain that or not?

 

[Sunstealer]

Methods

In order to confirm that the samples chosen had the characteristics of WTC dust, the samples were examined by stereomicroscope and by polarized light microscopy (PLM) according to the procedures described in Turner et al., 20054 (Figures 2 and 3). The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives5 and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison.6 The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al.1 are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4). The spectrum may also contain small peaks related to other elements. To that end, the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.

Results


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 SEM-EDS 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. The red layers were in the range of 15 to 30 micrometers thick. The gray layers were in the range of 10 to 50 micrometers thick (Appendix B).

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.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.

Millette found material using criteria obtained from the data in the Harrit et al paper, but truthers are now saying he has a different material.

How is that possible? Show using Millette's own data how he has not obtained material consistent with that tested by Harrit et al.

 

[Senenmut]

You're going to have to make this simple for a non-chemist.

In the graph you can see earlier, the sample clearly fits known paint samples, it does not at all fit the nano thermite data point. How does this test therefore show its thermite, rather than paint, when the results fit the paint data points and clearly not the thermite?

Can you explain that or not?

where is a graph of known paint that has a dsc curve like that?

 

[Edx]

where is a graph of known paint that has a dsc curve like that?

Im talking about the graph posted above. If Im misunderstanding the graph please explain what its showing.