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

[Oystein]

SEM and EDX are similar but will it react around 430C in a DSC and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres. that is the clincher!! he still could of done many other tests before testing them in the dsc. then the last test could have been the climax...the dsc which he should have done avoided as it's a stupid thing to do.
Fixed that for you See my previous few posts with all the questions you are too incompetent to answer.

check out this vid. you might have seen it already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

jones says the chip vary from chip to chip and even vary spot to spot on the chip. those variations are probably what causes that.

They vary because they are different materials. D'uh!

he tells us what his chips are made of. if at the end of the paper he did a dsc and it produced similar results then that would hold more weight have been a stupid thing to do.


and to understand that one needs to do a dsc on millettes chips to prove they are similar to jones' is also critical thinking really very very stupid because dumhead Farrer did the most incompetent job with the DSC.

Fixed that for you See my previous few posts with all the questions you are too incompetent to answer.

 

[Oystein]

or maybe millette could be a BIGGER man than kevin ryan and donate some of his chips that have passed the SEM and EDX criteria!

Donate to whom? To the incompetent and imbecile liars that Farrer, Ryan, Harrit Jones are? Why???

 

[Oystein]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

You are running away from a lot of questions. If you would only answer them competenly and honestly, then you would already have admitted that the DSC tests by Farrer that Harrit published were really terribly incompetently done, they only show that something is not thermite, but no one knows just what the imbecile Farrer tested there, which makes the whole data totally, utterly entirely useless.

But apparently you can't answer any of the questions, which means you are either incompetent, or dishonest, or both.

 

[triforcharity]

The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!

Thanks for the new Sig material!!

 

[BasqueArch]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

1) Sunstealer and Oystein have repeatedly explained to you (and more) why Harrit et al’s blunder DSC test of two compounds cannot tell you what the properties of one compound are.

2) Their own DSC test shows that the Tillotson thermite sample does not match theirs.

3) Millette has conclusively proven with copious evidence that the red layer is paint and an out of Millette’s lab cost of $300 per DSC test would therefore be unnecessary, wasteful, and out of the $1,000 budget. But Harrit et al can separate the red layer and correctly repeat the DSC test to see how closely their paint chips match Tillotson’s sol-xero-gel superthermite. Or its morphology. They haven’t.

4) Harrit et al didn’t prove elemental aluminum was present, they assumed it was. They wished it was.

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.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Millette -

Conclusions ---

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. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite

-http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf







Say …

Isn’t your sig quote a proven pus-filled bald faced lie?
Why yes it is.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207647&highlight=colby
Which has repeatedly been brought to your attention.

 

[Julio]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

Is that important determining that both chips are similar? I would say the important thing is to clearly identify what the chips actually are.

Millette used techniques which directly identify his. End of story.

Harrit et al just did not use any technique that allowed a direct identification of theirs, and relied on biased assumptions to indirectly determine their nature.

Now, who do you think should do some more tests?

 

[LSSBB]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

Here's another example of handwaving for you, in case you are unclear:

i bought the book Derailing Democracy a few weeks ago because people were asking about this quote. the quote is on page 13.
take it up with the author.

 

[cantonear1968]

Thank you to AlienEntity and Sunstealer for bringing clarity to the Millette study and especially to Oystein for explaining the incompetency of the Harrit et al. paper in a way that I had never read before. I thought Sunstealer had done an excellent job 3 years ago proving that Harrit/Jones' own data proved they had not found thermite, but Oystein's explanations of their shear bumbling and the false conclusions they derived from this data, even to a layman was quite enlightening.

Cheers, gentlemen!

 

[cantonear1968]

Senemut, it appears that you are attempting to set the criteria that a DSC test is the only way to compare materials without first establishing that this is the case. So please let me ask a direct question:

Are you stating that there is no other way to analyze and compare different materials other than a DSC test? Anticipating your response, are you saying this is the best way to compare different materials? Please explain why?

You seem like an educated person, so I am interested in your response.

 

[cantonear1968]

Just hang on to reality and you will be OK. The reality is no CD at WTC on 9/11.

Remember that this whole exercise is a derail red herring. The real issue is that the truthers want to prove demolition. They claim that thermXte was used in CD - or to be pedantically accurate they claim that:
A) ThermXte could have been used in CD; AND
B) It is our responsibility as debunkers to prove that thermXte wasn't used in CD.

(It is more generic than that - truthers/trolls hold the position that it is our responsibility to disprove each and every silly claim they make. And people go along with that path chosen by the truther/trolls. Remember - who makes the claim has burden of proof. And not the troll/truthers version which is "Whatever claim I make it is up to the debunkers to disprove." That is a mix of "reverse burden of proof" AND "prove a negative". )

Now the simple fact is that there was no CD - the evidence sufficient to satisfy any honest intelligent person who is not a scientist. To satisfy the scientists we need to play word games that it is "almost certain no CD and no-one has proved otherwise." Well beggar the scientific pedantries --- there was no CD.

And the truthers and more particularly the trolls want us debating on ground that they have chosen so they can keep discussion going round in circles. The objective is the trolls objective. The ground for debate is the ground chosen by the trolls to suit their purpose. And we are silly enough to play their games.

It is even sillier because, not satisfied with either "there is no thermxte" OR "there was no CD", the trolls have taken two paths. In this thread they are disagreeing with the methods of measurement. If they get their way we will next be discussing the credibility of the firms who make all this esoteric measurement gear ... or something equally as irrelevant like the colour of the box the machine was delivered in.

(And, BTW, we have another thread discussing troll chosen irrelevancies called "iron microspheres".)

Both sidelines are equally a waste of time to this thread from the perspective of 9/11 conspiracies - there was no CD and that is the firm bit of reality to hang onto.)

If the trolls/truthers ever decide to argue "CD or no CD?" I may join in. But I won't go down their sidetracks.

and there is no need to be "frightened" or "confused" by the detailed stuff in this thread. Remember -- it is only an excuse to avoid discussing CD and there was no CD.

I completely agree with your reasoning, Ozeco; it is irrelevant to discuss why Dr. Millette did not do a DSC test because it is irrelevant if there was thermite in the dust because thermite wasn't used to CD the buildings because the buildings weren't CD'd!

You could uncover a credit card receipt of George Bush ordering a 100 bags of thermite off of Ebay and it still adds no more relevancy to the discussion surrounding the WTCs! Because the buildings weren't CD'd!

I stated as much on Oystein's Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas? thread. And while I admit to a certain amount of cynicism to the need for the Millette study, I have reversed my opinion and feel that it is important to stymie these claims as they come up before they take root. It does nothing to change the mind of truthers and it should not be for that reason these tests and debates are conducted. We see that Senemut has not once tried to discuss what was actually IN the Millette study but has focused on what was NOT in the Millette study. It is easier for them to pretend they have an argument against what does not exist as opposed to acknowledging the reality that eliminates their discussion!

Good point Ozeco. Everyone please remember: the WTCs were not CD'd because there is no evidence to suggest they were CD'd.

 

[Senenmut]

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.

from the bentham paper:
3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning
Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.

 

[Senenmut]

Here's another example of handwaving for you, in case you are unclear:

check it out...

 

[Senenmut]

[*]Do you realize that the DSC graphs in Fig 19 indicate that tiny amounts of chips material (micrograms) took several minutes to burn, and this is a VERY SLOW reaction rate and very low power density? The answer to this question is short: It's either "yes", or "no", or "sorry Oystein, I am too dumb and don't understand the question"

i dont have a whole lot of time today. ill try and answer some questions later. what would you say to the tillotson graph of a known thermitic material?

 

[pgimeno]

Farrer did TEM on Jones's chips more than 2 years ago. Jones and Harrit have said so, but none of them ever published the results.

May that be the cause why K.Ryan didn't want to give the samples for further analysis?

 

[cantonear1968]

i dont have a whole lot of time today. ill try and answer some questions later. what would you say to the tillotson graph of a known thermitic material?

Before you go, I was hoping you could answer this:

Senemut, it appears that you are attempting to set the criteria that a DSC test is the only way to compare materials without first establishing that this is the case. So please let me ask a direct question:

Are you stating that there is no other way to analyze and compare different materials other than a DSC test? Anticipating your response, are you saying this is the best way to compare different materials? Please explain why?

You seem like an educated person, so I am interested in your response.

It shouldn't take you a whole lot of time.

 

[Senenmut]

1) Sunstealer and Oystein have repeatedly explained to you (and more) why Harrit et al’s blunder DSC test of two compounds cannot tell you what the properties of one compound are.

2) Their own DSC test shows that the Tillotson thermite sample does not match theirs.

3) Millette has conclusively proven with copious evidence that the red layer is paint and an out of Millette’s lab cost of $300 per DSC test would therefore be unnecessary, wasteful, and out of the $1,000 budget. But Harrit et al can separate the red layer and correctly repeat the DSC test to see how closely their paint chips match Tillotson’s sol-xero-gel superthermite. Or its morphology. They haven’t.

4) Harrit et al didn’t prove elemental aluminum was present, they assumed it was. They wished it was.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Millette - -http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf


Say …

Isn’t your sig quote a proven pus-filled bald faced lie?
Why yes it is.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207647&highlight=colby
Which has repeatedly been brought to your attention.

if its 300$ i could do that to clear this up!! if he accepts ill send 300$ STAT! same criteria millette used to seperate what he thought were particles of interest.....SEM, EDX.

hear that oystein. if he does it then im in.

 

[Senenmut]

Before you go, I was hoping you could answer this:



It shouldn't take you a whole lot of time.

Senemut, it appears that you are attempting to set the criteria that a DSC test is the only way to compare materials without first establishing that this is the case. So please let me ask a direct question:

Are you stating that there is no other way to analyze and compare different materials other than a DSC test? Anticipating your response, are you saying this is the best way to compare different materials? Please explain why?

what im saying is the sem and edx were similar....OK...and that was his criteria to start testing the chips. in my mind its a rule out scenario. are millettes chips EXACTELY like jones'. what we are most likely talking about here is the almightly elemental AL. usless there is some way to passivate the AL with silicon that i am unaware of and it looks like kaolin under EDX???? ive read where they can do that with flourine i believe. anyway, jones did a dsc on the material in question. the material did not have the exact spikes but did react according to the paper in the 415-435C range to produce iron and silicon rich spheres only after the spike. my reasoning is that millette's chips might be a different material. a material that does have kaolin instead of the alleged elemental AL of jones'. if this is the case, then you would see a vast different dsc spike just like what Farrer said about when he heated a paint chip in the dsc.

IMO, its all about the AL

 

[LSSBB]

check it out...

Don't you check your sources?

In any case, why aren't you addressing the methodology of Jones DSC and whether it included both layers? You are willing to nitpick on Millette's work, why not question the methods used by Harrit, et al.?

 

[NoahFence]

me handwaving? who seems to be handwaving the DSC which would be important in determining that millette's chips are similar to the dsc traces of jones' chips.

I love it when you truthers try to make it seem like you know what you're talking about. You realize you're not fooling anybody right?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

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

Senenmut, since you have asked twice, here is the link to my video of igniting/burning of my Laclede pain imitation (which has a similar composition as real WTC paint).
As you can see, this chip burned slightly over 1 minute, whereas red-gray chips of alleged nanothermite measured in DSC machine in Bentham paper burned 5 to 10 minutes, i.e. substantially longer
But, my chip had dimensions ca 15x10x0.5 mm, so it was much, much bigger than red-gray chips from the dust, therefore results are incomparable. Moreover, I ignited my chip with the lighter, so results are even more incomparable.
The purpose of my simple test was just to show to non-believers that such chip of epoxy paint is really burning when ignited, nothing else.

You also asked: "what would you say to the tillotson graph of a known thermitic material?" I already wrote you: Tillotson DSC graph by no means "proved" typical very rapid thermitic reaction, since heat was released slowly, during minutes (not during seconds or parts of seconds). Tillotson did not discuss the reason for such slow reaction, but he did not claim that the rate of this exothermic reaction proves thermite! (I just feel that rapid onset of rapid thermitic reaction should be "triggered" by some thermal shock, local overheating, which is not fullfilled in the DSC machine during slow and even heating.) Themitic reaction in Tillotson paper was proven by X-ray analysis of the product, which showed elemental Fe and aluminum oxide. In summary, nor Bentham DSC curves neither Tillotson DSC curve prove thermite and Bentham team chose completely unsuitable curve for comparison in their "crucial proof of nanothermite"

To All, but namely to Oystein: Although it can be a kind of bizzare fun to argue with devoted truthers like Senenmut, we should really try to sort somehow the results of Jim Millette's study. I suspect now that he in fact studied several (at least two) kinds of paint, and it is necessary for me to make some table what chip has what XEDS, FTIR, pigments depicted by TEM/SEM etc. I will try it, but Jim's samples have rather complicated notation. Moreover, I have to admit, some of Jims XEDS spectra have not really good resolution.