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

[Senenmut]

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.

BUT DO THEY REACT AT 430c AND HAVE A SIMILAR SPIKE!! remember, after that reaction is when the team found iron and silicon rich microspheres.

 

[ergo]

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.

.
.

To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.

Millette did not meet the challenge.

 

[pgimeno]

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

That's irrelevant. Since their MEK-soaked chip is believed to be Tnemec 99, what matters is what does MEK do specifically to Tnemec 99.

Of the gel studied by Tillotson, you mean.

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

Wrong. This has been discussed many times. Epoxy is carbon. Carbon burns in the presence of oxygen releasing more energy than thermite. It can be the case that in some kinds of paint the carbon doesn't burn for some reason probably related to the materials the carbon is with, which in turn depends on the specific kind of paint.

And this is my last reply to this topic drift. This thread is about Millette's analysis. That analysis shows that there is no elemental aluminium at all in chips a-d studied in the ATM paper. Regardless of whether these are paint or not; it is not thermite.

(Edited to fix a mistake in my sentence)

 

[alienentity]

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!

Sunstealer is right, you don't understand the topic, and you don't want to understand it. You are making no sense. If you look at the DSC done by Harrit et al. you'll see the energy releases were different across the samples anyway!

What you are failing to understand (which is why you're a truther) is that the DSC test performed by Harrit et al. has been superseded by a more revealing set of tests which they didn't do.

You've also completely (yes, you completely missed this) ignored the fact that there isn't enough of the Fe and Al in the chips to react thermitically in the first place. I'm talking about the Harrit et al. samples, not just Millettes.

Your argument is very similar to the kind of silly arguments made by truthers who refuse to accept any data which shows that planes crashed at Shanksville or the Pentagon, instead holding onto a fixed idea without understanding the overall context.

The DSC test by Harrit et al. was NEVER a 'proof' of nanothermite to begin with. That was an illusion which truthers were told to buy into - and they did, almost 100%. I don't think there's a 9/11 Truther out there who showed even a shred of critical thought or skepticism towards the claims of Harrit et al.
Instead, truthers showed remarkable obedience to the meme, as you are doing now.

Baaaaaaaaa!

 

[ergo]

And this is my last reply to this topic drift. This thread is about Millette's analysis. That analysis shows that there is no aluminium at all in chips a-d studied in the ATM paper.

Incorrect. There was aluminum. You're just contesting that it was elemental aluminum. Millette concludes that no elemental aluminum is present in the chips he studied.

 

[pgimeno]

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

I think you may have misunderstood. It shows the behaviour of 4 of the chips studied by Harrit et al. compared to nanothermite from Tillotson et al. There's no reference paint sample in the graph.

 

[alienentity]

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

They know this stuff isn't nanothermite. And we know it too.

 

[DGM]

.
.



Millette did not meet the challenge.

Let me see if I can dumb this down..................

On second thought, I can't (it's already as stupid as it gets). If Harrit said it didn't match dog crap, so it can't be the same as thermite, "truthers" would believe him. That's what they're told to do.

 

[Edx]

I think you may have misunderstood. It shows the behaviour of 4 of the chips studied by Harrit et al. compared to nanothermite from Tillotson et al. There's no reference paint sample in the graph.

Ahh okay.

Still, its almost just as bad. It doesnt resemble the nano thermite on file, so they say its some other kind of thermite.

 

[twinstead]

So ergo in your opinion what makes Millette's conclusions wrong and Jones et all right?

 

[pgimeno]

Incorrect. There was aluminum. You're just contesting that it was elemental aluminum. Millette concludes that no elemental aluminum is present in the chips he studied.

Correct. I should have said elemental aluminium. My apologies. I've edited my post accordingly.

 

[alienentity]

Dr Harrit did not measure elemental aluminum directly in the MEK soaked chip. He assumed it was there.

But none of the chips which were subjected to the DSC were of that composition, they were different. So the supposed 'proof' of nanothermite by DSC would be invalidated by this feature alone, according to our resident truthers - but only if they applied the same logic to their own claims - which they never do... surprise, surprise.

Harrit et al. never met the burden of proof for their claims. How could they, since they were testing paint chips???? Of course this claim is going to fail on a scientific basis, because it is untrue.

The real questions which remain are whether the exact paint types of the various chips can be fully determined, and whether 9/11 Truthers will ever understand the Harrit and Millette studies.
I'm not holding my breath on the second one..

 

[Senenmut]

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

well, first off these are not KNOWN paints???? i dont know what you are talking about.

second, the material reacted at 430C and we get the observed spike. after the reaction took place is when jones' found the iron and silicon rich microspheres. did millette heat his chips up to 430C?

third, millette does not even know what kind of paint he found from what i can gather!

forth, do you have any data using a dsc on a known paint?

and if ivan is reading this, please post that vid of you burning the paint you created.

 

[Edx]

Harrit et al. never met the burden of proof for their claims. How could they, since they were testing paint chips???? Of course this claim is going to fail on a scientific basis, because it is untrue.

The real questions which remain are whether the exact paint types of the various chips can be fully determined, and whether 9/11 Truthers will ever understand the Harrit and Millette studies.
I'm not holding my breath on the second one..

I think the point is theres always some other way to show truthers are wrong, the question is at what point do you stop, and in this case stop spending money on it.

 

[DGM]

second, the material reacted at 430C and we get the observed spike. after the reaction took place is when jones' found the iron and silicon rich microspheres. did millette heat his chips up to 430C?

Why would he? What exactly did Harrit prove?

 

[Senenmut]

Sunstealer is right, you don't understand the topic, and you don't want to understand it. You are making no sense. If you look at the DSC done by Harrit et al. you'll see the energy releases were different across the samples anyway!

haha...they are very similar and react between 415-435C

What you are failing to understand (which is why you're a truther) is that the DSC test performed by Harrit et al. has been superseded by a more revealing set of tests which they didn't do.

what you dont understand is that there could be 2 different sets of material tested. if millette is running these tests on a different material than jones' chips, then the tests are irrelevant when it comes to equating them with jones' chips.

You've also completely (yes, you completely missed this) ignored the fact that there isn't enough of the Fe and Al in the chips to react thermitically in the first place. I'm talking about the Harrit et al. samples, not just Millettes.

at 430C it produces iron and silicon microspheres. did millette heat his up that high to test that out? NOPE. i also challenge jones and crew to find al2o3 after the reaction.

Your argument is very similar to the kind of silly arguments made by truthers who refuse to accept any data which shows that planes crashed at Shanksville or the Pentagon, instead holding onto a fixed idea without understanding the overall context.

these could be 2 different types of material. if millette is scarred to test that theory out by not doing a dsc test and observing the associated spike with his material then thats a problem not just for truthers but for skeptics as well. are you a true skeptic??? haha

The DSC test by Harrit et al. was NEVER a 'proof' of nanothermite to begin with. That was an illusion which truthers were told to buy into - and they did, almost 100%. I don't think there's a 9/11 Truther out there who showed even a shred of critical thought or skepticism towards the claims of Harrit et al.
Instead, truthers showed remarkable obedience to the meme, as you are doing now.

but it does show that the material reacts at 430C and displays the spike associated with that material. and what does that spike show according to 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."

your the sheep for not asking for a dsc and the associated curve. considering the is when the chips of jones' react and produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

 

[alienentity]

third, millette does not even know what kind of paint he found from what i can gather!

What he showed it that it is mainly a carbon matrix (epoxy) with forms of clay or kaolin and pigment (FTIR analysis).
In other words: paint. Whichever manufacturer made it, it's still paint either way.

He also (p. 21) showed a TEM image of REAL nanothermite, which shows it is composed of an iron oxide xerogel with embedded pure aluminum spheres.

It's painfully obvious that none of the red/grey chips in any study are similar to this proven nanothermite, so using your own criteria (or RU a complete hypocrite?) you'd have to conclude that the none of the chips share basic structure with nanothermite, but instead share basic structure with.... paint.

The truth sometimes hurts. In this case it hurts 9/11 Truthers. Oh well...

 

[DGM]

haha...they are very similar and react between 415-435C


what you dont understand is that there could be 2 different sets of material tested. if millette is running these tests on a different material than jones' chips, then the tests are irrelevant when it comes to equating them with jones' chips.


at 430C it produces iron and silicon microspheres. did millette heat his up that high to test that out? NOPE. i also challenge jones and crew to find al2o3 after the reaction.


these could be 2 different types of material. if millette is scarred to test that theory out by not doing a dsc test and observing the associated spike with his material then thats a problem not just for truthers but for skeptics as well. are you a true skeptic??? haha


but it does show that the material reacts at 430C and displays the spike associated with that material. and what does that spike show according to 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."

your the sheep for not asking for a dsc and the associated curve. considering the is when the chips of jones' react and produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

Do you have a comparison to a "thermite" reaction? My best understanding is this is several times the "best" thermite reaction (energy density wise). Leading me to believe it was the organic material reacting.

 

[Edx]

YO Senenmut !

If you want to prove that paints dont have the same DSC results then why dont you conduct your own tests with all that AE911 truth money they get each year?

 

[alienentity]

haha...they are very similar and react between 415-435C

Which is a different reaction temp from real nanothermite. Oops, you left that part out.
Also they produce different amounts energy per gram - so they're not the same. Your point is moot.

what you dont understand is that there could be 2 different sets of material tested. if millette is running these tests on a different material than jones' chips, then the tests are irrelevant when it comes to equating them with jones' chips.

The fact you acknowledge that running tests on dissimilar materials is irrelevant is humorous when we consider that NONE of these chips is similar to any nanothermite.
None of the red-grey chips from WTC dust has the chemical composition of a thermitic material....

But, in any case Dr Millette carefully matched chips with Harrit's a-d samples. Can you show us how they are not the same?

these could be 2 different types of material. if millette is scarred to test that theory out by not doing a dsc test and observing the associated spike with his material then thats a problem not just for truthers but for skeptics as well. are you a true skeptic??? haha

The DSC test does not prove the material is nanothermite. Your point is still moot.
Actually the energy density of the chips is far higher than real nanothermite, based on the DSC tests. Therefore we can rule out nanothermite on that basis alone. If we are true skeptics.. haha



Funny you quote Henryco but do not understand his meaning

'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."

your the sheep for not asking for a dsc and the associated curve. considering the is when the chips of jones' react and produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

You need to take that back. I did suggest that this be done to satisfy the ignorance of truthers. I just happen to agree with sunstealer and others that the DSC is moot in terms of showing what the chips are made of.
That has already been determined - they are paint.

Actually it is you who has fallen prey to the propaganda, as the Jones/Harrit DSC shows the chips are very different from real nanothermite, and you still have your truther blinders on. So the sheep analogy still applies to you, I'm afraid.