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

[alienentity]

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?

One wonders that, with the 100's of thousands of dollars that AE911Truth rakes in every year, that they haven't tested some REAL nanothermite to see if it behaves the way the chips do?

I think it's fairly obvious they just don't want to know. It could be so easily proven if their allegations were true... this is a sure sign of pseudoscience overtaking 9/11 Truth on every level.

 

[alienentity]

Little challenge for our resident truthers. Looking at both the Harrit and Millette results, please show, using the same criteria, how Millettes' chosen samples are not the same material as Harrits' a-d samples.

Compare the samples by composition, morphology etc... as outlined in the papers. Let us know what you find.

 

[Senenmut]

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.

thats fine, just dont equate those to jones' chips without first doing a dsc and observe the spike and at what temp.

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.

awesome!

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.

there are many nanothermites out there.

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

what hurts is seeing you try and say the millette chips are the same as jones' chips without millette doing a dsc and observing the associated curve. only after around 430C do jones' chips react to produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
did millete heat his up to 430?

 

[Edx]

One wonders that, with the 100's of thousands of dollars that AE911Truth rakes in every year, that they haven't tested some REAL nanothermite to see if it behaves the way the chips do?

I think this is the point that should be pushed now. They can keep saying that Millette should have done DSC and we will just say it was unnecessary.

But as you say AE911 make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, thats a helleva lot of tests they could be doing. If they think paint chips from a variety of types of paint should have this test and that it will give them results they expect then why don't they do it?

I said it before but if they kept commissioning labs to do tests for them and they kept coming back positive eventually the scientific world would have to take notice.

So how about it truthers? Stop complaining and get Gage to give up a new car or expensive cruise or whatever his massive salery gets him and actually use the donations to do some actual science.

 

[alienentity]

you try and say the millette chips are the same as jones' chips without millette doing a dsc and observing the associated curve. only after around 430C do jones' chips react to produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
did millete heat his up to 430?

See my previous post challenging you truthers to note the differences in the samples. You haven't even begun to demonstrate that they are different yet.
Now would be the time.

btw, Henryco tested his samples and did not get the same results as Harrit et al., so the original results have not been duplicated by any peers, hence they have not been established as scientific proof per the standard method.

Dr Jones elsewhere has stated that in order to be accepted by the scientific community, results MUST be repeatable. So far they have not been.

It is obvious by your comments that you
a) do not understand the testing that was done
b) do not want to understand the testing that was done

Hence
c) your comments are not scientifically meaningful

But carry on, as truthers always do. Ignore the obvious, and hold out for the obscure and irrelevant.

 

[beachnut]

... 430C do jones' chips react to produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
did millete heat his up to 430?

Epoxy resins flash at 430 C. Paper burns at 430 C. Paper has more energy, than thermite. Jet fuel has 10 times the heat of thermite. Don't be gullible.

Explain why the heat energy equal to 2,100 tons of thermite, the office fires in the WTC, needs more thermite? I have no idea why you would need thermite when the office fires had more heat energy.

There was no thermite found in the dust, Jones lied, the paper proves it was not thermite.

Now we see why the terrorists did not fill the aircraft with thermite instead of jet fuel. Jet fuel has TEN (10 times) times the heat energy of thermite~! What is hilarious, the dust samples burned by Jones did not match the heat release of thermite. Oops. They burned dust.

With Jones' logic, the entire earth's crust has thermite evidence. This is science, not fantasy.

 

[alienentity]

Senenmut, I've no further interest in bantering about this with you. You're back on ignore.
You've fully demonstrated your unwillingness to understand the Millette paper.

 

[Senenmut]

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.

i watched a vid about that jones put out and there are varying concentrations of those elements in the chips. that is what produces the iron microspheres with varying degrees of the elements with each microphere. maybe that is why there is a different energy output per gram. different ratio's of the stuff but it all reacts around 430C to produce iron and silicon rich microspheres.

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....

we are talking about elemental AL. is it there or is it not there. jones says that it is, millette says there is none. are these 2 different sets of material? maybe. we wont know until millette tests his chips in a dsc.

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?

yeah, test millettes chips in a dsc like jones did and see if it reacts at 430 and produces a similar spike and then look for iron and silicon microspheres. then we can tell if they are the same or different.

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

there might be 2 reactions taking place like even a skeptic said.

Funny you quote Henryco but do not understand his meaning


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.

not made of.....it shows that they both react at a similar temp and exhibit a similar spike. only after that spike is when jones found iron and silicon microspheres.

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.

and your still blind to the fact there can be 2 different materials being tested.

 

[Senenmut]

Senenmut, I've no further interest in bantering about this with you. You're back on ignore.
You've fully demonstrated your unwillingness to understand the Millette paper.

i get it but he did NOT show that this is the same material!!! burn it in a dsc and see what temp it reacts at and the associated spike. only after that spike is when jones found iron and silicon microspheres!

 

[Senenmut]

Epoxy resins flash at 430 C. Paper burns at 430 C. Paper has more energy, than thermite. Jet fuel has 10 times the heat of thermite. Don't be gullible.

Explain why the heat energy equal to 2,100 tons of thermite, the office fires in the WTC, needs more thermite? I have no idea why you would need thermite when the office fires had more heat energy.

There was no thermite found in the dust, Jones lied, the paper proves it was not thermite.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JetFuelandWoodBeatThermite.jpg[/qimg]
Now we see why the terrorists did not fill the aircraft with thermite instead of jet fuel. Jet fuel has TEN (10 times) times the heat energy of thermite~! What is hilarious, the dust samples burned by Jones did not match the heat release of thermite. Oops. They burned dust.

With Jones' logic, the entire earth's crust has thermite evidence. This is science, not fantasy.

this is a prof jones quote which makes since:
"Dr. Farrer has ignited a paint sample in a DSC and the paint sample showed a much broader thermal spike, indicating a relatively slow heat-release"

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-...e-study-coming-within-weeks-dr-james-millette

 

[DGM]

this is a prof jones quote which makes since:
"Dr. Farrer has ignited a paint sample in a DSC and the paint sample showed a much broader thermal spike, indicating a relatively slow heat-release"

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-...e-study-coming-within-weeks-dr-james-millette

And how does this compare to say..................paper?

 

[Edx]

i get it but he did NOT show that this is the same material!!! burn it in a dsc and see what temp it reacts at and the associated spike. only after that spike is when jones found iron and silicon microspheres!

Why.. don't... you... ask.... AE911... to....spend.... some... of... their... 100s of $$$$$$k ...they... make ...each ...year.

Youve already been told that its entirely unnecessary to do the test, so if you want to prove its really not paint why doesn't Gage and co spend some money on some lab to do it like Chris did?

 

[jaydeehess]

If the problem is that its two different materials then the blame rests with Ryan and Harrit for refusing to allow access to their samples.
Millette showed that his material matched that described by Harrit in all ways. Millette chose tests designed specifically to identify the chemical make up of the samples . He showed that it is definately not thermite! He further showed that it is consistent with paint!
Harrit performed a different test, the DSC, and got widely varying energy density results. He also performed the test in the presence of oxygen thus ensuring that he simply could not claim that the energy released was not the result of oxidation. What he found then was the energy density of the material AND oxygen. He did not support his claim that the material was thermite in any way! It was not shown that the material was self oxidizing for instance.
Sennemut harps on about iron microspheres but burning steel wool or using a welding torch on steel will do the same thing thus showing that this is not indicative of thermite.
Finally, others have shown that the energy released by the samples is insufficient to melt steel, simply put even if it is thermite there isnt enough of it to do squat!

 

[Sunstealer]

There simply is no point in debating with people who think that a DSC analysis is in anyway is comparable with established techniques such as FTIR and TEM-SAED that go above and beyond the Harrit et al paper when conducting a materials characterisation exercise.

They don't understand the data presented.

Millette's study uses techniques that give a definitive answer which is what us debunkers have been asking for all along.

Chris Mohr has already stated why Dr Millette has not performed any DSC experiment. It's simply not required. FTIR and TEM studies go far above the analysis conducted by Harrit et al.

If truthers are so concerned then they should petition Harrit, Jones, Basil, Ryan etc to subject their samples to the higher and more rigorous analysis that is FTIR etc.

I called the Harrit et al paper in 2009 showing that kaolin was present. It's been 3 years almost and no further work has been published even though the need to do so was recognised in Harrit's own paper.

If you do the legwork and science it is obvious that both studies are analysing the same material.

Samples a-d in the Harrit et al paper show the red layer is comprised of kaolin and Fe2o3 particles in a binder adhered to an oxidised iron substrate.

Millette's study shows exactly the same but goes further with regard to the analytical methods used. That further analysis confirms kaolin via EDX, FTIR and TEM-SAED, confirms Fe203 particles and best of all confirms epoxy as the binder material using FTIR, which is a test any analytical chemist would know about and want to use.

For those truthers who are moaning about the lack of DSC why don't you turn your fire on Harrit et al and ask why they didn't perform a test method to determine what the carbon and oxygen rich binder material was? Why didn't the chemists on the team want to use FTIR?

You are all intent on attacking Millette for lack of a needless DSC test, but you won't question why Harrit et al didn't conduct a test to ascertain what the binder material was. Double standards.

I've asked you to show how Millette's study, using Millette's data and comparing it with the same data obtained by the same method by Harrit et al, differs significantly so as to show that the materials in each study are different. You can't do that. Instead you moan about DSC and quote from a poor paper. Why can't truthers on JREF actually do the analysis? Why can't you perform an analysis between Millette's and Harrit et al's data?

FTIR trumps DSC every time. TEM-SAED trumps DSC evertime. Truthers won't understand why.

 

[Edx]

BUT BUT BUT< teh chips aspolded in the DSC, proves thermight!

/how truthers think

 

[Sunstealer]

If the problem is that its two different materials then the blame rests with Ryan and Harrit for refusing to allow access to their samples.
Millette showed that his material matched that described by Harrit in all ways.

Exactly.

 

[jaydeehess]

Why.. don't... you... ask.... AE911... to....spend.... some... of... their... 100s of $$$$$$k ...they... make ...each ...year.

Youve already been told that its entirely unnecessary to do the test, so if you want to prove its really not paint why doesn't Gage and co spend to the some money on some lab to do it like Chris did?

Gage can't spare the money. Though I suspect Chris and Millette would allow access toto samples. I wonder why no thruther has suggested this simple fix yet.

 

[Sunstealer]

Millette did not meet the challenge.

He superseded it.

 

[Edx]

Gage can't spare the money. Though I suspect Chris and Millette would allow access toto samples. I wonder why no thruther has suggested this simple fix yet.

They dont need the same samples do they? They think that DSC tests of known paint chips of various types that have been mentioned will not react like their chips did. So cant they just do their own tests like Millette and Chris did and then show that when testing known paint samples it IS different?

 

[Africanus]

@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?

Just for clarification: The two overlapping exotherms are the peaks at ca. 420°C and ca. 460°C. The latter is difficult to detect due to the superimposition of the different DSC graphs.