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

[Senenmut]

Exactly
Moreover, exothermic peaks depicted in Fig. 19 and 29 are by no means "narrow" and show no "extremely high rate of energy release" (as was stupidly claimed by Bentham team and now by Senenmut), since the thermal energy was released in the range ca 50 to 100 degrees C. Considering the heating rate 10 degrees per minute, this corresponds to 5 to 10 minutes!. This was just a typical slow burning of organic polymer binder.
Btw, also superthermite DSC curve under air used for comparison is by no means narrow and does not itself prove the typical thermitic reaction which must be very fast after ignition. Exotherms, which should be regarded as proofs for rapid thermitic reaction should look like e.g. here , Fig. 6. Here, the exothermic peak at ca 590 degrees C is really extremelly narrow and shows clearly thermitic reaction

considering the paper you linked did their test at 20C minute then i bet if jones did 20C per minute, his graph might look different too. the tillotson graph would look different too if he used 20C per minute.

 

[Oystein]

...
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.

Sorry to be riding this dead horse till it stinks but...

Senemut, do you realize that Jones's chips are NOT all the same material? That in fact he presents at least 6 different kinds of chips? And that it is totally unknown which of these 6 different kinds of chips, or perhaps even a seventh kind, was put in the DSC and ignited around 430°C?

Do you further realize that their paper does not indicate if any of the spheres in residiues came from any of the four chips which we know ignited roughy around 430°C (actually: ignited around 380°C, and already degraded exothermally starting around 250°C, and two of them continued to react exothermally all the way to 700°C)?

at 430C it produces iron and silicon microspheres.

Senemut, do you realize that Millette has presented several different kinds of red chips in his preliminary report? He has them all numbered, so, please, Senemut, give us the IDs of the chips that you think are identical to the chips Farrer measured in the DSC!

did millette heat his up that high to test that out? NOPE. i also challenge jones and crew to find al2o3 after the reaction.

Senemut, it shouldn't be hard to find alumina in the dust, particulary if you heat stuff. So don't challange them to only find al2o3 after the reaction. More impotantly, ask them fully characterize (photograph, XEDS, FTIR, TEM...) the chip before the reaction, have them thus show that there is little or no al2o3 before the reaction, then have then show al2o3 after the reaction. Oh, and not just some. Should really make up more than 40% by weight of the residue, since, as you certainly know (haha, just kidding), Tillotson's material was 90% thermite, and al2o3 is nearly 50% by weight the residue of the thermite reaction (and the organic matrix would largely burn away in air, the way Farrer does it).

Do you understand, Senemut, why the residue should really be nearly 50% al2o3?

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 laugh is on you, Senemut, if you still don't undrstand that Farrer, Harrit Jones failed to address the problem that they could have looked at 2 different types of material (in fact, they looked at at least 6 different kinds of material), and made a stupid, very stupid blunder when they forgot to show which of the 6 or more kinds they put in the DSC. So why should Millette DSC-test any chips that are equal to type 1, the kaolin-rich chips (a)-(d) from Harrit e.al.? How do you, Senemut, know that these chips (a)-(d) ignited around 430°C, and not for example the kaolin-free kind of chip with zinc and magnesium they stupidly bathed in MEK, or the titanium-rich kind of chip they show residue of in Fig. 25, or the kinds of chips rich in copper or barium they talk of on page 28, or the kind of chip shown in Fig 32 whose gray layer contains no metal, or some multilayered chips as in Fig. 31?

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.

See one of my previous posts: Henryco is as stupid as Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, who all seem to believe that a power of combustion that is barely more than 1% of the power of a safety match stick (the wood part, not the ignition head! I am talking slow-burning wood here) constitutes an "energy release [that] is extremely high". How would you characterize a match stick that has 85 times the power density of the unknown chips that Farrer (an absolute beginner and total amateur in DSC testing, by the way) measured - 85x extreme - what's that? Would you give you kids matches to light a candle (oh, candle wax has an energy density 40,000 J/g. A typical candle burns 3-8g per hour, or 120000J - 320000J per 3600 seconds, or 33 to 89 W/g. So the power density of candles is up to 9 times higher than that of Farrer's DSC stuff. Amazing, huh? Will you ever light candles again, knowing they beat military-grade nanothermite 9:1?)

I hope you, Senemut, are not as stupid as Couannier, Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, because then you would be very stupid indeed.

 

[chrismohr]

Ivan and Oystein,

Is your white paper on paint out yet? If so I definitely want to pass it on to Millette. Can you also tell me if it takes into account Millette's new data or if it is pore-Millette?

 

[Oystein]

One of the many problems with Harrit's (Farrer's) DSC testing is that we don't know which kind or kinds of chips they tested to get the 4 graphs they published.
- Was it the kind of paint chips that contain kaolin but no zinc and no mg?
- Was it the kind of paint that contains zinc and magnesium, but no kaolin?
- Was it one of the other kinds of chips - some contained lead, some others titanium?

So do you know that the kind of chip they soaked in MEK is the kind of chip they put in the DSC? Answer: No you don't. In fact, if you look at the four chips that they showed DSC data of, that combust between 380°C and 480°C, you will notice that this is the ONLY thing we know about them. Or can you point out to ANY other data Farret, Harrit Jones have provided about these four specimens? They tell us which sampled these dust chips were taken from, and that information proves these four chips are not the same four chips as chips (a)-(d), so really we know absolutely nothing about them.
Since Harrit and Jones have studied at least 6 different kinds of chips (kaolin; zinc and magnesium; lead; titanium; multilayered; darc-gray layer carbon) and possibly even more, it is totally pointless to use the DSC data for anything at all.



And that was why Millette had the intelligence not to do any DSC test.


As an excercise for you and Senemut:


Please list all facts that you know about the chips that burn around 430°C!

you know as well as i do it probably boils down to elemental AL. and again, i challenge jones and crew to find some al2o3 after the reaction takes place.

What a monumental dodge, Senemut! How extremely far you can fling those goal posts!


Senemut, you demanded that the DSC data by Farrer (the absolute beginner and amateur in DSC testing) be replicated. Notice how you totally failed to answer the question about what test, and how, should be replicated in the DSC???


Please, Senemut, don't give me such a transparent and pathetic dodge again. Instead, please answer this:



One of the many problems with Harrit's (Farrer's) DSC testing is that we don't know which kind or kinds of chips they tested to get the 4 graphs they published.
- Was it the kind of paint chips that contain kaolin but no zinc and no mg?
- Was it the kind of paint that contains zinc and magnesium, but no kaolin?
- Was it one of the other kinds of chips - some contained lead, some others titanium?

So do you know that the kind of chip they soaked in MEK is the kind of chip they put in the DSC? Answer: No you don't. In fact, if you look at the four chips that they showed DSC data of, that combust between 380°C and 480°C, you will notice that this is the ONLY thing we know about them. Or can you point out to ANY other data Farret, Harrit Jones have provided about these four specimens? They tell us which sampled these dust chips were taken from, and that information proves these four chips are not the same four chips as chips (a)-(d), so really we know absolutely nothing about them.
Since Harrit and Jones have studied at least 6 different kinds of chips (kaolin; zinc and magnesium; lead; titanium; multilayered; darc-gray layer carbon) and possibly even more, it is totally pointless to use the DSC data for anything at all.



And that was why Millette had the intelligence not to do any DSC test.


As an excercise for you and Senemut:


Please list all facts that you know about the chips that burn around 430°C!

 

[Oystein]

Exactly!


Please take a close, long and careful look at Harrit e.al. (the Bentham paper)


Which material were they testing in the DSC? What properties do these four chips have? Please give us an exhaustive list of all the properties you know, with reference to the paper (figures and discussion in the text; page numbers).

Hint: You won't find any at all beyond the DSC data itself. At most you may speculate that they were red-gray too and attracted to a magnet.
Hint: Try to find any photos or spectra - there are none.


So what material are these four chips? Please be specific!

this is the point. will the chips that millette has react like those jones has. will they react around 430C or will they do what farrer has said paint does in a dsc:
"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

This is the point?? You quote me, but you totally fail to address the point! What's the matter with you??? Why can't you give a straight answer to a straight question? I asked - please answer, this time no dodging and no moving goal posts:



Please take a close, long and careful look at Harrit e.al. (the Bentham paper)


Which material were they testing in the DSC? What properties do these four chips have? Please give us an exhaustive list of all the properties you know, with reference to the paper (figures and discussion in the text; page numbers).

Hint: You won't find any at all beyond the DSC data itself. At most you may speculate that they were red-gray too and attracted to a magnet.
Hint: Try to find any photos or spectra - there are none.


So what material are these four chips? Please be specific!

 

[Senenmut]

Sorry to be riding this dead horse till it stinks but...

Senemut, do you realize that Jones's chips are NOT all the same material? That in fact he presents at least 6 different kinds of chips? And that it is totally unknown which of these 6 different kinds of chips, or perhaps even a seventh kind, was put in the DSC and ignited around 430°C?

Do you further realize that their paper does not indicate if any of the spheres in residiues came from any of the four chips which we know ignited roughy around 430°C (actually: ignited around 380°C, and already degraded exothermally starting around 250°C, and two of them continued to react exothermally all the way to 700°C)?

read page 19 in the thermitic paper that says observation of iron rich sphere formation upon ignition of chips in a DSC.

Senemut, do you realize that Millette has presented several different kinds of red chips in his preliminary report? He has them all numbered, so, please, Senemut, give us the IDs of the chips that you think are identical to the chips Farrer measured in the DSC!

does millette actually have a DSC in his lab? you know as well as i that to be able to equate those to jones chips he needs to put them in a dsc and see if they react at around 430C and produce a similar spike.

The laugh is on you, Senemut, if you still don't undrstand that Farrer, Harrit Jones failed to address the problem that they could have looked at 2 different types of material (in fact, they looked at at least 6 different kinds of material), and made a stupid, very stupid blunder when they forgot to show which of the 6 or more kinds they put in the DSC. So why should Millette DSC-test any chips that are equal to type 1, the kaolin-rich chips (a)-(d) from Harrit e.al.? How do you, Senemut, know that these chips (a)-(d) ignited around 430°C, and not for example the kaolin-free kind of chip with zinc and magnesium they stupidly bathed in MEK, or the titanium-rich kind of chip they show residue of in Fig. 25, or the kinds of chips rich in copper or barium they talk of on page 28, or the kind of chip shown in Fig 32 whose gray layer contains no metal, or some multilayered chips as in Fig. 31?

you know what needs to be done to equate millette's chips with jones' chips.

See one of my previous posts: Henryco is as stupid as Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, who all seem to believe that a power of combustion that is barely more than the power of a safety match stick (the wood part, not the ignition head! I am talking slow-burning wood here) constitutes an "energy release [that] is extremely high".
I hope you, Senemut, are not as stupid as Couannier, Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, because then you would be very stupid indeed.

what would a match look like on a dsc trace?

 

[Oystein]

considering the paper you linked did their test at 20C minute then i bet if jones did 20C per minute, his graph might look different too. the tillotson graph would look different too if he used 20C per minute.

Yes.

And while Tillotson knew exactly what he put in his DSC - he describes precisely how he synthesized it, and what it contains (Fe2O3, Al, 10% organic matrix), Farrer forgot to tell us what he put in his DSC. Or do you know what it was? Can you tell me if there was an organic matrix in his stuff, and how many % by weight of the sample that was? Did he tell you privately if he found any Al or Fe or Zn or Mg or kaolin or hematite or lead or copper or barium in his chips before he incinerated them? Because he sure didn't mention any of that in the paper!

So:
- Tillotson DSCed well-desctribed nanothermite.
- Farrer DSCed - something, we don't know what.
Their results were very different from each other.
What the results prove is
1. Farrers stuff was not similar at all to Tillotson's stuff
2. Farrers stuff is mostly, if not entirely, not thermite.



Millette now showed that one kind of chip - the kind Harrit e.al. talked about in the first third of their paper ("a-d") contain no thermite, because there is absolutely no aluminium in them (and also no al2o3, by the way, because all the Al is in the silicate). So why, pray tell, should he do another, costly test, that also would only show that organic stuff burns?

 

[Oystein]

Sorry to be riding this dead horse till it stinks but...

Senemut, do you realize that Jones's chips are NOT all the same material? That in fact he presents at least 6 different kinds of chips? And that it is totally unknown which of these 6 different kinds of chips, or perhaps even a seventh kind, was put in the DSC and ignited around 430°C?

Do you further realize that their paper does not indicate if any of the spheres in residiues came from any of the four chips which we know ignited roughy around 430°C (actually: ignited around 380°C, and already degraded exothermally starting around 250°C, and two of them continued to react exothermally all the way to 700°C)?

read page 19 in the thermitic paper that says observation of iron rich sphere formation upon ignition of chips in a DSC.

How on FSM's green earth does this address the three paragraphs you just quoted??

I asked:

Senemut, do you realize that Jones's chips are NOT all the same material? That in fact he presents at least 6 different kinds of chips? And that it is totally unknown which of these 6 different kinds of chips, or perhaps even a seventh kind, was put in the DSC and ignited around 430°C?

Do you further realize that their paper does not indicate if any of the spheres in residiues came from any of the four chips which we know ignited roughy around 430°C (actually: ignited around 380°C, and already degraded exothermally starting around 250°C, and two of them continued to react exothermally all the way to 700°C)?

So please point out in the Harrit paper which spheres formed upon the DSCing of wich of the four specimen from Fig 19!

Hint: You won't because you can't because Farrer forgot to tell you! You can't know if any of the four chips from Fig. 19 resulted in any spheres.

Senemut, do you realize that Millette has presented several different kinds of red chips in his preliminary report? He has them all numbered, so, please, Senemut, give us the IDs of the chips that you think are identical to the chips Farrer measured in the DSC!

does millette actually have a DSC in his lab? you know as well as i that to be able to equate those to jones chips he needs to put them in a dsc and see if they react at around 430C and produce a similar spike.

Gosh, you really don't understand a thing! Should Millette DSC the smithereens out of every dust particle ever collected from the WTC? What a pathetically dumb thing to propose!
Almost all dust particles are different from those that Farrer DSCed, so almost all will show different traces. And what would that prove? Nothing!

Now a little something on DSC: If you have two specimen about which you know nothing, and you put then in a DSC, and they show similar traces. Are they then the same material? Yes or no?

The correct answer will hopefully give you a hint as to why doing DSC alone without otherwise characterizing your sample is a singularly moronic waste of time and money.

Why should Millette waste time and money on such a thing? To show he can be as spectacularly incompetent as Farrer? Or as blind and stupid as Farrer and Jones? He is smart, and therfore does the smart thing: Skip the DSC test.


And now a quick reminder about the questions you should REALLY reply to:

Senemut, do you realize that Millette has presented several different kinds of red chips in his preliminary report? He has them all numbered, so, please, Senemut, give us the IDs of the chips that you think are identical to the chips Farrer measured in the DSC!

The laugh is on you, Senemut, if you still don't undrstand that Farrer, Harrit Jones failed to address the problem that they could have looked at 2 different types of material (in fact, they looked at at least 6 different kinds of material), and made a stupid, very stupid blunder when they forgot to show which of the 6 or more kinds they put in the DSC. So why should Millette DSC-test any chips that are equal to type 1, the kaolin-rich chips (a)-(d) from Harrit e.al.? How do you, Senemut, know that these chips (a)-(d) ignited around 430°C, and not for example the kaolin-free kind of chip with zinc and magnesium they stupidly bathed in MEK, or the titanium-rich kind of chip they show residue of in Fig. 25, or the kinds of chips rich in copper or barium they talk of on page 28, or the kind of chip shown in Fig 32 whose gray layer contains no metal, or some multilayered chips as in Fig. 31?

you know what needs to be done to equate millette's chips with jones' chips.

Yes. Millette did it. It does not include the DSC test, because we have not the slightest clue what kind of chip the absolute and incompetent beginner Farrer put in his DSC.

You still don't understand this imoprtant point. I think you could start to begin to understand the first of it if you actually attempted to answer what I actually asked you. May I remind you of what I asked:
The laugh is on you, Senemut, if you still don't undrstand that Farrer, Harrit Jones failed to address the problem that they could have looked at 2 different types of material (in fact, they looked at at least 6 different kinds of material), and made a stupid, very stupid blunder when they forgot to show which of the 6 or more kinds they put in the DSC. So why should Millette DSC-test any chips that are equal to type 1, the kaolin-rich chips (a)-(d) from Harrit e.al.? How do you, Senemut, know that these chips (a)-(d) ignited around 430°C, and not for example the kaolin-free kind of chip with zinc and magnesium they stupidly bathed in MEK, or the titanium-rich kind of chip they show residue of in Fig. 25, or the kinds of chips rich in copper or barium they talk of on page 28, or the kind of chip shown in Fig 32 whose gray layer contains no metal, or some multilayered chips as in Fig. 31?


If your answer to these questions, after long hard thinking and reading again of the Harrit paper, is "I don't know!", then you are almost there!

See one of my previous posts: Henryco is as stupid as Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, who all seem to believe that a power of combustion that is barely more than 1% of the power of a safety match stick (the wood part, not the ignition head! I am talking slow-burning wood here) constitutes an "energy release [that] is extremely high".
I hope you, Senemut, are not as stupid as Couannier, Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Basile, Griscom, because then you would be very stupid indeed.

what would a match look like on a dsc trace?

And why would that matter? I don't know. It would look different.
The point I am making is: The peak width and height do NOT indicate a very high power density or energy release. They indicate a very slow energy release, the power is very low. This is in part due to the way a DSC works (it controls temperature and does not allow the heat of the reaction to let temperature run away). This simply demonstrated that Farrer, Harrit, Jones, HenryCo and the whole lot are too incompetent and stupid to interprete DSC results.



I noticed, Senemut, that you left out lengthy tracts of my post. May I post them again and ask you kindly to reply to them, too:

Senemut, it shouldn't be hard to find alumina in the dust, particulary if you heat stuff. So don't challange them to only find al2o3 after the reaction. More impotantly, ask them fully characterize (photograph, XEDS, FTIR, TEM...) the chip before the reaction, have them thus show that there is little or no al2o3 before the reaction, then have then show al2o3 after the reaction. Oh, and not just some. Should really make up more than 40% by weight of the residue, since, as you certainly know (haha, just kidding), Tillotson's material was 90% thermite, and al2o3 is nearly 50% by weight the residue of the thermite reaction (and the organic matrix would largely burn away in air, the way Farrer does it).

Do you understand, Senemut, why the residue should really be nearly 50% al2o3?

...

How would you characterize a match stick that has 85 times the power density of the unknown chips that Farrer (an absolute beginner and total amateur in DSC testing, by the way) measured - 85x extreme - what's that? Would you give you kids matches to light a candle (oh, candle wax has an energy density 40,000 J/g. A typical candle burns 3-8g per hour, or 120000J - 320000J per 3600 seconds, or 33 to 89 W/g. So the power density of candles is up to 9 times higher than that of Farrer's DSC stuff. Amazing, huh? Will you ever light candles again, knowing they beat military-grade nanothermite 9:1?)

 

[grandmastershek]

LMAO!!!

Is anyone surprised by the hand-waving?

1. Jones et al referenced Tilloston to make it look like they met the reference material. They didn't, so truthers argue they are all different forms of nanothermite.

2. They ignite is a non-inert atmosphere; not unique to nanothermite. Truthers pretend it is even though the ignition is not identical to their reference material.

Its the same as the explosive demolitions arguments. They claims its "this" then when it doesn't match, they move to "that". They were planning to hand wave it away from the beginning and even their own "experts" said as much.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

considering the paper you linked did their test at 20C minute then i bet if jones did 20C per minute, his graph might look different too. the tillotson graph would look different too if he used 20C per minute.

A quote from Bentham "paper": The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C."
In former times (several months ago) you seemed to me to be comparatively educated truther. Unfortunately, you are still able to believe even to such apparent, impudent and big fat lies like that Fig. 19 "shows etremely rapid release of energy", since your gods must be true

Ivan and Oystein,

Is your white paper on paint out yet? If so I definitely want to pass it on to Millette. Can you also tell me if it takes into account Millette's new data or if it is pore-Millette?

Chris: As regards me, I sent my notes and suggestions to Oystein about week ago. In my opinion, it can be published, but still it is reviewed by someone.
Jim Millette should really read this white paper since I think that he may change his main conclusions. Namely, Laclede red primer should be seriously considered as one of the abundant material of red-gray chips. since we know its composition, epoxy is a binder, etc.
Chris, I have not enough time today, but I would like to remind my current post from the Origin of paint. I suspect now that some XEDS spectra taken on the washed surfaces of red layers (Appendix B) may correspond better to Tnemec than to Laclede paint.

On the other hand, XEDS spectra on cross-sections of red layers (Appendix D) correspond well mostly to Laclede paint. I think that Jim in fact might study (at least) two kind of paints (Laclede and Tnemec), and therefore, some of his conclusions may not be valid.

E.g., the first main conclusion was: "The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments."

But, if some chips were Tnemec paint, this is not generally valid since Tnemec primer contained alkyd-linseed based binder, not epoxy. And FTIR spectra proving epoxy resin were taken only on some samples (?). Jim (not knowing about Laclede paint) perhaps simplifies the situation too much, since he basically thinks that all red-gray chips he collected by magnet are the the same paint, but not Tnemec.
(But, I can be wrong, since e.g. calcium peaks in Appendix B are generally smaller than in XDES of Tnemec paint).

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted, double post...

 

[Senenmut]

Yes.

So:
- Tillotson DSCed well-desctribed nanothermite.
- Farrer DSCed - something, we don't know what.
Their results were very different from each other.
What the results prove is
1. Farrers stuff was not similar at all to Tillotson's stuff
2. Farrers stuff is mostly, if not entirely, not thermite.



Millette now showed that one kind of chip - the kind Harrit e.al. talked about in the first third of their paper ("a-d") contain no thermite, because there is absolutely no aluminium in them (and also no al2o3, by the way, because all the Al is in the silicate). So why, pray tell, should he do another, costly test, that also would only show that organic stuff burns?

one kind of chip that may not be the same material.

let me spell this out to you. from what i bolded above. farrer and the bentham paper ran dsc's and found similar spikes corresponding to their material. and tillotson ran a dsc and found a spike that corresponded to his material. now if by chance one found some of material laying around from an unknown orgin around a ran a dsc on it and the spike was similar to tillotson's then one could conclude that they are similar (similar makeup of material). and when jones and crew find some material and around a dsc on their stuff, it has a corresponding spike. so we can say that the material they tested is similar in makeup b/c it has a similar spike. regardless if its thermitic or not.

now bring in millette's chips. if he did a dsc on them and see if the corresponding spike was similar, then we can say that it is similar to jones'. the paper says he ashed the chips of interest so i dont know if that was all the chips he found or not. so maybe we will never know if he ashed them all!! how convenient if that is the case!

 

[alienentity]

Recently photographed 9/11 Truther flinging the goalposts off the playing field

 

[Senenmut]

A quote from Bentham "paper": The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C."
In former times (several months ago) you seemed to me to be comparatively educated truther. Unfortunately, you are still able to believe even to such apparent, impudent and big fat lies like that Fig. 19 "shows etremely rapid release of energy", since your gods must be true



Chris: As regards me, I sent my notes and suggestions to Oystein about week ago. In my opinion, it can be published, but still it is reviewed by someone.
Jim Millette should really read this white paper since I think that he may change his main conclusions. Namely, Laclede red primer should be seriously considered as one of the abundant material of red-gray chips. since we know its composition, epoxy is a binder, etc.
Chris, I have not enough time today, but I would like to remind my current post from the Origin of paint. I suspect now that some XEDS spectra taken on the washed surfaces of red layers (Appendix B) may correspond better to Tnemec than to Laclede paint.

On the other hand, XEDS spectra on cross-sections of red layers (Appendix D) correspond well mostly to Laclede paint. I think that Jim in fact might study (at least) two kind of paints (Laclede and Tnemec), and therefore, some of his conclusions may not be valid.

E.g., the first main conclusion was: "The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments."

But, if some chips were Tnemec paint, this is not generally valid since Tnemec primer contained alkyd-linseed based binder, not epoxy. And FTIR spectra proving epoxy resin were taken only on some samples (?). Jim (not knowing about Laclede paint) perhaps simplifies the situation too much, since he basically thinks that all red-gray chips he collected by magnet are the the same paint, but not Tnemec.
(But, I can be wrong, since e.g. calcium peaks in Appendix B are generally smaller than in XDES of Tnemec paint).

link that vid of you burning that paint you made and we can see some SLOW burning

 

[alienentity]

one kind of chip that may not be the same material.

let me spell this out to you. from what i bolded above. farrer and the bentham paper ran dsc's and found similar spikes corresponding to their material. and tillotson ran a dsc and found a spike that corresponded to his material. now if by chance one found some of thermite laying around from an unknown orgin around a ran a dsc on it and the spike was similar to tillotson's then one could conclude that they are similar (similar makeup of material). and when jones and crew find some material and around a dsc on their stuff, it has a corresponding spike. so we can say that the material they tested is similar in makeup b/c it has a similar spike. regardless if its thermitic or not.

now bring in millette's chips. if he did a dsc on them and see if the corresponding spike was similar, then we can say that it is similar to jones'. the paper says he ashed the chips of interest so i dont know if that was all the chips he found or not. so maybe we will never know if he ashed them all!! how convenient if that is the case!

I'll translate what you just wrote:
1) The chips that Harrit et al. collected were not all the same
2) The energy outputs of the chips and their times of release were not the same
3) None of the chips matched an example of known nanothermite, which essentially means they are not nanothermite
4) Dr Millette's tests confirm, with greater accuracy than did those of Harrit et al., that the chips cannot be nanothermite.

Either way, DSC or not, none of the red/grey chips are nanothermite. The chemistry alone rules it out.

Therefore 9/11 Truthers such as Senenmut will avoid this obvious conclusion and start obfuscating about DSC even while it is a moot point. Another example of Ryan Mackey's 'Irreducible Delusion' at work.

For a greater understanding of this process it might be helpful to visit the website of the Flat Earth Society. Flat Earthers have moved the goalposts out of this universe and into a parallel universe where they are unassailed by science and reason.
9/11 Truth, as we can see, is headed in this direction, very rapidly, with extremely high energy output, at near freefall speed™.

 

[Senenmut]

A quote from Bentham "paper": The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C."
In former times (several months ago) you seemed to me to be comparatively educated truther. Unfortunately, you are still able to believe even to such apparent, impudent and big fat lies like that Fig. 19 "shows etremely rapid release of energy", since your gods must be true



Chris: As regards me, I sent my notes and suggestions to Oystein about week ago. In my opinion, it can be published, but still it is reviewed by someone.
Jim Millette should really read this white paper since I think that he may change his main conclusions. Namely, Laclede red primer should be seriously considered as one of the abundant material of red-gray chips. since we know its composition, epoxy is a binder, etc.
Chris, I have not enough time today, but I would like to remind my current post from the Origin of paint. I suspect now that some XEDS spectra taken on the washed surfaces of red layers (Appendix B) may correspond better to Tnemec than to Laclede paint.

On the other hand, XEDS spectra on cross-sections of red layers (Appendix D) correspond well mostly to Laclede paint. I think that Jim in fact might study (at least) two kind of paints (Laclede and Tnemec), and therefore, some of his conclusions may not be valid.

E.g., the first main conclusion was: "The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments."

But, if some chips were Tnemec paint, this is not generally valid since Tnemec primer contained alkyd-linseed based binder, not epoxy. And FTIR spectra proving epoxy resin were taken only on some samples (?). Jim (not knowing about Laclede paint) perhaps simplifies the situation too much, since he basically thinks that all red-gray chips he collected by magnet are the the same paint, but not Tnemec.
(But, I can be wrong, since e.g. calcium peaks in Appendix B are generally smaller than in XDES of Tnemec paint).

im sure you've seen this chip ignited before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo

 

[alienentity]

Facts are very confusing to 9/11 Truthers, as we can see. They quickly get lost and find it easier to simply latch onto simple concepts, regardless whether those concepts are factual or not.

The latest example of such a 'factoid' is the apparent 9/11 Truther belief that a DSC graph of a material 'a' (Harrit chip) , even if it is not like a DSC of material 'b' (nanothermite), must nonetheless be the same as 'b'.

So we can derive the logical statement: a≠b therefore a=b
And with regard to the Millette study, c (Millette chip)=a(Harrit chip), c≠b therefore a=b

Credit goes to Senenmut for elucidating this relationship.

 

[Senenmut]

I'll translate what you just wrote:
1) The chips that Harrit et al. collected were not all the same

variation on a common theme. from spot to spot on the chips vary slightly but when heated in a dsc they react at about 430C

2) The energy outputs of the chips and their times of release were not the same

which goes back to the variation of ingredients but when placed in a dsc at about 430 they react and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres.

3) None of the chips matched an example of known nanothermite, which essentially means they are not nanothermite

but the material is consistant in that it reacts at about 430C and produces the corresponding dsc spike along with the iron and silicon rich microspheres. now if millette dosent understand this, he is either ignorant of the fact or intentionally not producing these results by not testing his red gray chips in a dsc. he has to show that his material is in fact the material jones has. it dosent matter if its thermitic or not. he has to show that his material is the same as jones' in that when placed in a dsc it produces a spike at about 430C. now if his produces iron and silicon microspheres will be the interesting part! he probably knows that if he places his "paint" in the dsc, then it will not show a similar spike.

4) Dr Millette's tests confirm, with greater accuracy than did those of Harrit et al., that the chips cannot be nanothermite.

if it is a different material then he confirmed what he has, not what jones has.

Either way, DSC or not, none of the red/grey chips are nanothermite. The chemistry rules it out alone.

millette's chemistry? even if it is a different material?

Therefore 9/11 Truthers such as Senenmut will avoid this obvious conclusion and start obfuscating about DSC even while it is a moot point. Another example of Ryan Mackey's 'Irreducible Delusion' at work.

its not a moot point. its the most important point IMO. different materials have different dsc spikes. i know your smarter than that.

 

[moorea34]

im sure you've seen this chip ignited before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo

It's not a chip!
It's popcorn

 

[alienentity]

but the material is consistant in that it reacts at about 430C
.

No, that is false. Not even close to 430ºC. About 530ºC in fact or roughly 100º higher. (Flat Earth analogy comes to mind again)

But I guess 'about' is being used in your logic to mean 'the same', just as 'near freefall' is 'the same as freefall' even if it is only 64% - ie, not near, not the same.

So, sure, if not being the same means 'the same', then you are correct.