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

[Reactor drone]

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.

Right, and do you see how that's different to the Xerogel which reacted at around 530° C?

 

[Craig4]

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.

At this point we can safely dismiss you. It's perfectly obvious this has nothing to do with evidence for you and everything to do with you not wanting to give up your myth. While appreciate that it might be hard to give up your cherished belief it's clearly time to do just that.

 

[Oystein]

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.

All four chips from different samples.
What material were these four specimens, Senemut? Wich of the at least six different materials that appear in the same paper, Senemut?

 

[Oystein]

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?

Most of the questions required no time, only a "yes", a "no", or a "I am too dumb to understand this".

Everybody can see how scared you are of the questions.

ETA: I talked about Tillotson's graph several times before. Strange that you missed it. Here is a brief summary:

1. Tillotson new that his stuff is about 90% thermite, 10% organic
2. Because of the significant organic component, he did his test under inert gas (nitrogen)
3. Up until over 300°C, his material reacted endothermally. I don't know why
4. His material peaked at about 530°C
5. Peak height was about 5.1 W/g
6. Beyond 560°C, his stuff goes endothermic agaon

Contrast this with Farrer's sample:

1. Farrer should have known, but was actually too stupid to know, that his stuff was about 0% thermite, >70% organic
2. Because of the significant organic component, he should habe done his test under inert gas. But because he is really very stupid, he did it under air, guaranteeing that 95-100% of the heat comes from simply burning organic matrix. If that stupid doesn't hurt you, then you don't understand organic chemistry and you don't understand DSC
3. His material NEVER reacted endothermally
4. His material peaked much (about 100°C) earlier, around 425°C
5. Peak heights were much higher, between 2 and 5 times higher than Tillotson's. And this despite the stupid mistake to not remove the gray, inert layer first. Had he removed the gray layer as he should have, then the difference in peak hight would be even more extreme
6. Beyond the peak, 560°C, his stuff remains exothermic

So really EVERYTHING about Tillotson's graph is fundamentally different from Farrer's graphs.

Farrer proves unequivocally that his chips were NOT thermitic.



But Farrer is dumb, and Harrit is dumb, and Jones is extremely stupid. And so are Ryan, Gourley, Legge, Farnsworth, Basile, Griscom and Senemut: They all believe that the very different graphs are similar.

But when one material reacts endothermally and the other exothermally, that is a fundamental difference. Only stupid people too incompetent to do DSC and read DSC graphs do DSC and read DSC graphs, what can you expect? Stupid results, that's what.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Yes, I hear that, Senemut. You insist on wasting money to make someone waste his time on something you don't understand and that would be really very extremely foolish to do, nearly as dumb in fact as Farrer, Harrit Jones.



Millette is not that dumb
I am not that dumb.



Answer the questions. Don't waste any more of our time.

 

[alienentity]

..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.

I noticed this resolution issue on my screen as well. I wonder if Dr Millette can improve those images.

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

That's the second thing I tried to do (after looking at the data). A test matrix is very handy but the lettering is too small to read on most graphs so I couldn't do it.

I remember back in Apr '09 doing one for Harrit et al which was a nightmare and that was still wrong as I thought that chips a-d had been the ones subjected to DSC. As Oystein points out we have no idea which chips in Harrit's paper were used in DSC. There's no record which is very poor.

I'm just ignoring Senenmut - there is nothing he can bring to the discussion. Millette has already explained why DSC is not necesary and a waste of time and money. Instead truthers like Senenmut should be directing their fire at Harrit, Jones, Basile, Ryan, Farrer and asking why they didn't carry out a simply definitive test such as FTIR. There is no point fannying about with DSC when a quick, cheap(ish) test will tell you exactly what the material is.

 

[alienentity]

There is no point fannying about with DSC when a quick, cheap(ish) test will tell you exactly what the material is.

I can't recall reading the whole Tillotson paper but do you know why they did DSC on their nanothermite? What were they trying to demonstrate?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I can't recall reading the whole Tillotson paper but do you know why they did DSC on their nanothermite? What were they trying to demonstrate?

It is apparent from Tillotson paper that he used DSC to determine the overall heat energy evolved by thermitic reaction (by integration of an area below the curve).
I'm not familiar with analyses on pyrotechnics, but is quite clear that when the heat of reaction is released slowly (like in this case, in DSC machine), it is easier to determine it more precisely

 

[Oystein]

what im saying is the sem and edx were similar....

Which SEM and EDX were similar, Senemut? There are SEMs and EDXs in the Bentham paper that are wildly dissimilar from one another (e.g. Fig 7 and Fig 14 are totally, crassly different), and there are SEMs and EDXs in Millette's that are different from one another.

So please be specific! Use page numbers and figure numbers in both reports and tell us which are similar (and more importantly: realize those that are NOT 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'.

Exactly like WHICH chips from Jones, Senemut? You keep running away from that question! Answer it, for FSM's sake!

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????

Ok, at least this come probably close to the truth of the matter, which is: You are grossly incompetent about chemistry and the physics of chemistry. You must be aware of it, right?

ive read where they can do that with flourine i believe.

Pathetic.
You are grasping at Strawmen.
There is no fluor.

anyway, jones did a dsc on the material in question.

Stop saying that Jones was the stupid dumbhead who did the DSC. Jones was even too stupid to find himself a DSC lab.
Jeff Farrer was the stupid dumbhead who found himself a DSC lab and did all that dumb, stupid stuff there, like forgetting to tell us just WHAT material he put in that thing, or stupidly burning orgnics in air, which is a fool-proof way of ensuring that you won't get any useful results.

You keep saying things like the material in question, but imbecile Farrer forgot to tell you WHICH material, Senemut!

So please: Give as full listing of all the properties of the chips that moron Farrer put in the DSC!
- Did they contain Zn?
- Did they contain Mg?
- Did they contain Ca?
- Did they contain Cr?
- Did they contain Sr?
- Did they contain Ti?
- Did they contain Pb?
- Did they contain Fe?
- Did they contain Ba?
- Did they contain Cu?
- Did they contain Al?
- Did they contain Si?
- What was the ratio Al:Si?
- Did they contain little kaolin plates?
- Did they contain hematite grains?
- Was the organic matrix epoxy or based on linseed oil?
- Did the gray layer contain Fe?
- Did the gray layer contain Mn?
- How thick was the gray layer?
- How thick was the red layer?
- Can you show us any photos of the chips before the DSC test?
- Can you show us any photos of the chips after the DSC test?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain Fe-rich spheres?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain Al-Si-rich spheres?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain C?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain Ti?
- Did the residue of these four chips contain Ca?


Hint: when you start answering these questions competently and honestly, you should notice that a pattern quicly emerges. It looks like that:
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- I don't know, cuz moron Farrer forgot to look or tell
- ...etc

Senemut, do you start to notice something? This: We have not the slightest clue what the stuff was that Farrer put in the DSC!

So why should Millette compare any of his different kinds of chips in the DSC with data of something that is entirely unknown?

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.

Except that you don't know this. Because Farrer did not give you the data.
You should at this point consider the possibility that Farrer simply was WRONG about the residue of the four unknown chips that ignited around 425°C



Oh and by the way: two of the four chips ignited well UNDER 400°C. Farrer, Jones and Harrit are just too stupid to read DSC traces. Can't blame them. They are incompetent dumbheads who have never done this sort of thing before. Farrer even admits this: That he is a bloody absolute beginner at the DSC. That's a case of the blind leading the blind. And Senemut following blindly.

my reasoning is that millette's chips might be a different material.

Millette's chips ARE different materials, Senemut!
Jones's chips also ARE different materials, Senemut!
That's why I keep asking you: WHICH of the six or more different materials did Farrer moronically burn in the DSC?

a material that does have kaolin instead of the alleged elemental AL of jones'.

One material from Jones (chips a-d) does have kaolin. Jones, Harrit, Farrer, Ryan, in their limitless stupidity, think that material is thermite. Millette has proven that it is not thermite, because there is no elemental Al in it. Actually, that much was 99% clear already from the Harrit/Jones/Farrer data. Millette added the remaining 1%.

Another material from Jones (the MEK-soaked chip) is very different from the first, and that's where they allegedly found a little bit (really, a little bit; less than 3%, if you study Fig 14 and are competent to interprete it) of elemental Al. Much too little to make that material "thermitic". With 5% by weight, or less, thermite ingredient in 70% or more organic matrix, that stuff is not thermitic. Thermite provides waaaaay too little energy density to even sustain the reaction, if you dilute it 1:20 like that. You must be really very stupid, as stupid as Harrit, Jones, Farrer (and that would be so stupid it constantly hurts) to think an organic paint with tiny bits of elemental Al could be thermitic.



Now the 300$ question for you, Senemut: Which material was it that had its organic matrix burned by moron Farrer in the DSC? Was it...
...the first material (like chips a-d) with kaolin but zero thermite?
...the second material (like the MEK-soaked chip) with no kaolin but with zinc and magnesium and perhaps (but highly dubious) a liiiiiiitly bit of elemental Al?
...or one of the at least four other different materials they talk about in their study?

(Answer: You don't know. Jones doesn't know. Harrit doesn't know. They stupidly had the moron, the know-nothing Farrer do something that dumbhead Farrer was way to incompetent for, namely a useless DSC test)

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.

Wishful thinking.
And you chose to believe a man who has proven himself to be a stupid incompetent. Look at all the stupid mistaked Farrer made when he tried to do the DSC thing that he knows nothing about:

• He forgot to identify and characterize the specimen he incinerated, which is reaöy stupid when you want to write a scientific paper, because this failure ensures that your study can't and won't be reproduced. Why? Cause no other researcher can possibly know what material to use. Stupid stupid Farrer!
• He forgot to separate the inert (already fully oxidized) gray layer from the "energetic" red layer, which ruins the energy density and power density results. What a stupid blunder! (But Harrit and Jones aggravated the stupidity by including the almost useless energy density values in their stupid paper: At up to 7.5 kJ/g, they proved conclusively that whatever they burned in the DSC was NOT thermite. Then they were all jointly to stupid to notice they just disproved thermite)
• He forgot to use inert gas, which is really extremely stupid when you already know that more than 70% of the mass of your samples and more than 95% (but actually 100%) of the heat would come from the organic matrix when it burns in air
• He forgot to show us the residues of the DSC test of these four specimens and analyse them chemically. How do we know there even were spheres of any kind? We don't know, cuz the morons forgot to ID the residues. What we DO know for a fact of course is that the only DSC residue image and data they show (in Fig 25) cannot be from a chip that is similar to the first (kaolin) or second (alleged Al, plus Zn and Mg) kind of different materials, because that residue contains significant Ti, which the others don't. So apparently, Farrer tested neither kaolin chips nor the kind of chip they allegedly found Al in. Stupid!
  He compared his DSC traces with a trace by Tillotson that is different in every way, and concluded that may it is somehow the same. This is the summit of all their stupidy. This stupid really hurts bad.

See, all these stupid mistakes, just because they had an incompetent imbecile do the unnecessary stupid DSC test.

IMO, its all about the AL

Yes, and Millette did what Jones and his morons failed to show: That there is no elememtal Al.

 

[Oystein]

I can't recall reading the whole Tillotson paper but do you know why they did DSC on their nanothermite? What were they trying to demonstrate?

They were only interested in the energy density. Perfect stoichiometroic thermite would have close to 4 kJ/g. But this value is theoretical only, because aluminium always develops a layer of inert oxide that is several nanometers thick. This oxide layer adds mass to the thermite, but is not involved in providing energy, so it reduces the maximum attainable energy density. This is no big deal if your Al-particles are micro-sized (i.e. thousands of nanometers large) - you lose only a small percentage of energy due to the passivation layer. But in their nanothermite preparation, where the Al-particles (roughly spheres, not plates, by the way) are only ~30nm across, if the outer 5nm are oxidized, that means that 42% of your Al is already oxidized.

Tillotson and Gash found their n-thermite had only 1.5 kJ/g.

They were apparently uninterested in the shape of the curve and did not discuss it.

Later they admitted (in private conversation) to some faulty thinking and that the DSC result isn't really very interesting.

 

[Oystein]

@ All:

I'll stop ranting over Senemut. It should be abundantly clear that he doesn't understand crap and is running away from facts and reason just to keep believing in a gospel preached by morons.

It's still good that I went on it. Thanks to pgimeno for showing the DSC graphs with the zero-line. I learned from that just HOW fundamentally different Tillotson's graph is from Farrer's. Not that this changed the overall conclusion. Just one more thing to rub in truthers' faces.

Of course more truthers will latch onto that lack of DSC tests, and we need to be very precise and complete about all the things Farrer and the boys did stupidly wrong there.

 

[Senenmut]

Yes, I hear that, Senemut. You insist on wasting money to make someone waste his time on something you don't understand and that would be really very extremely foolish to do, nearly as dumb in fact as Farrer, Harrit Jones.



Millette is not that dumb
I am not that dumb.



Answer the questions. Don't waste any more of our time.

its called put up or shut up. im putting money where my mouth is. millette is not dumb either. money is money.

 

[Senenmut]

@ All:

I'll stop ranting over Senemut. It should be abundantly clear that he doesn't understand crap and is running away from facts and reason just to keep believing in a gospel preached by morons.

It's still good that I went on it. Thanks to pgimeno for showing the DSC graphs with the zero-line. I learned from that just HOW fundamentally different Tillotson's graph is from Farrer's. Not that this changed the overall conclusion. Just one more thing to rub in truthers' faces.

Of course more truthers will latch onto that lack of DSC tests, and we need to be very precise and complete about all the things Farrer and the boys did stupidly wrong there.

we will end this conversation then. i think you are handwaving. im putting my money where my mouth is. ive emailed chris and if he says your in then im sending the money! you have to at least respect that. if im wrong then im wrong. if im right and from what farrer has said about when he burned paint in the dsc, then it is a different material. what would you say if it was a vast different dsc spike?

listen to jones speak about the chips and how they vary from chip to chip and from place to place on the same chips. one thing in commmon, they react to form iron and silicon rich microspheres. and from the bentham paper, they say the react at 415-435C. after the spike is when we see the iron and silicon rich microspheres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

 

[Oystein]

its called put up or shut up. im putting money where my mouth is. millette is not dumb either. money is money.

I see that you are shutting up, because you are avoiding all my questions like the plague.

What a poor, embarrassing performance, Senemut. Everybody can see how stark naked you are. Everybody can see how you never understood why the Harrit paper is stupid. Everybody can see how you never understood why Farrer's DSC tests are total nonsense and only prove that something is not thermite. Everybody can see how you don't understand the Millette data. Everybody can see how you'll never understand why doing a DSC test on the chips is utter folly. Why can everybody see all that? Because you are utterly, totally, completely unable to answer even one of many many questions correctly. I won't speculate if this is due to fear, stupidity or dishonesty, but it has to be one (or more) of these.

Answer the questions.

 

[uke2se]

If Senenmut wants to waste his money, why not allow him to fund further tests? Couldn't Chris pass his money over to Millette?

 

[Senenmut]

If Senenmut wants to waste his money, why not allow him to fund further tests? Couldn't Chris pass his money over to Millette?

exactly.

 

[Senenmut]

I see that you are shutting up, because you are avoiding all my questions like the plague.

What a poor, embarrassing performance, Senemut. Everybody can see how stark naked you are. Everybody can see how you never understood why the Harrit paper is stupid. Everybody can see how you never understood why Farrer's DSC tests are total nonsense and only prove that something is not thermite. Everybody can see how you don't understand the Millette data. Everybody can see how you'll never understand why doing a DSC test on the chips is utter folly. Why can everybody see all that? Because you are utterly, totally, completely unable to answer even one of many many questions correctly. I won't speculate if this is due to fear, stupidity or dishonesty, but it has to be one (or more) of these.

Answer the questions.

this is off topic but an interesting read
here is where i got the fluorine thing:
http://www.nanotech-now.com/products/nanonewsnow/issues/037/037.htm

"The next step in the process involves exposure of the unpassivated Al nanoparticles to a solution of a perfluorinated carboxylic acid. The -COOH binds to the Al surface forming a covalently bound self assembled monolayer and the result is a passivated, oxide free Al nanocomposite."

 

[uke2se]

Unless, of course, the particular test you (Senenmut) want to have performed is completely meaningless. I don't think you can expect a scientist to do whatever you want just because you pay him.

As an example, say you asked him to paint the samples pink because you thought that would change the outcome. He'd be right to tell you to take your money and leave, as no respected scientist wants to be treated like a dancing bear.

 

[Feldspar]

exactly.

So you are going to compare unknown chips with Milette's chips? We don't know what kind of red/gray chips Farrer burned in the DSC you know. And we know that there are several different kinds of red/gray chips in the dust, none of which have been proven as thermitic yet. Can you please tell us what kind of chips Farrer burned as asked of you by Oystein?