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

[Oystein]

we will end this conversation then.

l. I take that this means your answer to all the querstions I asked is "Sorry, but I, Senemut, am too stupid or too dishonest to even answer one question".
I thought this would be so

i think you are handwaving.

Great. You run away from every single question, but I am handwaving.

What a transparent piece of dishonesty. Hey, Senemut, everybody can see how you run away!

im putting my money where my mouth is.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

ive emailed chris and if he says your in then im sending the money! you have to at least respect that.

No. You should give it to charity instead. I'd suggest some charity that promotes science education.

if im wrong then im wrong.

You are 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?

A material different from WHAT, Senemut? I am asking you this in about every post, sometimes more than once per post. Different material from WHAT? You have no freaking clue what materials you are talking about! No one knows what crap Farrer threw in the DSC!

listen to jones speak about the chips and how they vary from chip to chip

Yes. That means that the chips are from various different materials, and if you assume they are all basically the same when they vary from chip to chip, then you are obviously VERY STUPID!

and from place to place on the same chips. one thing in commmon, they react to form iron and silicon rich microspheres.

Yes, if you treat them with oxy-acetylen torch. Such a torch has a flame temperature of up to 3000°C. Of course you get spheres of all kinds with such overkill.

However, the one thing Jones doesn't mention here is - DSC! That talk was december 2007 - more than a year before the Bentham crap paper came out.

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

Yes, except they forgot to tell you which of the various kinds of chips they put in the DSC, so this was a useless excercise. It can't be repeated. Because we don't know which material Farrer used. He forgot to tell us in his stupidity! But nevermind, the DSC test he did was stupid anyway, considering that he stupidly did it under air. The only, very limited, use of his DSC data is that it proves unequivocally that something is NOT thermite.

Now Jones seems to believe otherwise: That Farrer's stupid DSC test proved it was thermite. Well, Jones is either an imbecile, or a liar, or both, when he says such stupid things. Why do you believe Jones? Jones is an imbecile, or a liar, or both. Senemut, do you generally trust imbeciles and liars to tell you scientific facts? If you believe liars and imbeciles like Jones and Farrer, then you must be VERY stupid! Stop being so very stupid on a public forum!



And start answering the many questions you are so frantically and embarrassingly running away from!

 

[Oystein]

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.

Haha yes, that fits it perfectly. You are describing exactly the level of stupid that Senemut is currently acting on.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

"Calcium peaks issue in Tnemec XEDS spectra"

Oystein: Just forget Senenmut and stay calm, dude

Now, for something really on-topic, i.e. Millette's study, before I try to make my own table of results.

As I mentioned during weekend, I see some XEDS spectra taken on the washed surfaces of red layers (Appendix B), which may correspond better to Tnemec than to Laclede paint: they contain little peak of Mg (and Na), medium or small peaks of Ca, some little peaks of S and sometimes even Zn and Cr peaks. All these elements, except sulfur, should be present in Tnemec primer, which contained: Zinc chromate (source of Zn and Cr); talc (source of Mg) and "calcium silicates and aluminates" (some source of few percent of Ca in the dry material). Moreover, in some spectra Si peaks are substantially bigger than Al peaks (in contrast, they should be roughly the same in Laclede paint, since it contained kaolinite). All these "tracks" may indicate that this and this layer can be actually Tnemec.

For comparison, we have two XEDS spectra of red layers which should be Tnemec paint: one from the lecture of S. Jones and second one is just the spectrum of MEK chip from Bentham paper (both available e.g. in your blog). But in both cases, the main calcium peaks at ca 3.7 KeV are really huge, bigger than everything else except C and O. Partially, this can be attributed to the higher atomic number of Ca (20) in comparison to atomic numbers of e.g. Si (14) and Al (13), but still, there seems to be a substantial discrepancy in the expected and observed peaks of calcium in these samples, if they are Tnemec...
What it could mean? We do not know if Jones washed/cut his Tnemec sample before measurements, but we know very well that MEK chip was not freshly cut before measurements. Therefore, at least in MEK chip, the substantial portion of calcium peak can originate from surface contamination (probably mostly by calcium sulfate, since also sulfur peak is quite distinct in the spectrum of MEK chip.

In short, I think that Tnemec spectra mentioned above are not ideal for comparison when discussing Jim Millette's results. Generally, it seems to me that it would not be really easy to attribute individual XEDS spectra to individual red primer paints we know, namely when they have such a low resolution. But, we have to try it anyway
Or... we can ask Jim Millette through Chris, if he could send us better spectra (we anyway paid some little money for them, so we should deserve them)

 

[tsig]

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?

IOW you're backed into a corner and are ready to flee.

 

[Oystein]

Ok, one final post on the issue of doing a DSC test omn Millette's chips:


1. A very good reason not to do it unless you can show that it will yield useful results that advance a reasonable study objective is that the DSC test destroys the specimens. They are not available for more useful tests later. Millette already destroyed some in his muffler, when he ashed the organic matrix to free the pigments. So in his professional assessment, the destruction of some chips was a reasonable trade-off, but a DSC would not. Certainly not with the kind of stupid non-proposal that Senemut is advancing here.

2. Suppose Millette did test chips in the DSC - what possible outcomes are there, and what would the mean?

• Possibility A: The DSC trace is very similar to those of Farrer. In that case, Senemut has been shown wrong, and everybody else, too. So what? We already know they are wrong. It would only be piling up on the proof that the chips are not thermite
• Possibility B: The DSC graph is not similar, In that case, we would conclude that Farrer put something else in his DSC that is not thermite. We still wouldn't know what chips he tested, we only know that a) they are not of the kind of chips a-d that Harrit and Millette concentrated on, which isn't thermite, and b) It's not thermite.

In summary, we would either learn what chips put in the DSC or not, but we wouldn't learn anything new wrt thermite. But who really cares what chips Farrer put in the DSC? It wasn't thermite, because it hat waaaaay too much energy density to be thermite.


If Millette is a scientist and professional with integrity, he will advise Senemut that testing the chips in the DSC just for comparison with Farrer's unknown chips is a stupid waste of time, as no conceivable result would teach us anything we don't already know, and reject his money.

 

[chrismohr]

Oystein/Ivan and Senenmut

Two separate items:

I wonder if Millette's dropbox link to the full study is lower-resolution than the original he sent me. I just emailed Ivan and Oystein my original emailed report from Millette. If it has higher resolution and the relevant charts are readable,. I will ask them to re-save the link for maximum clarity.

As for Senenmut, I can see one good reason to go forward with the DSC test: both Tillotson and Harrit/et al both included DSC in their protocols, so for the sake of complete replication, if people are willing to pay for the tests, then why not? As Millette and Oystein have said repeatedly, Millette has already established NO THERMITE in the tests he did, including tests not done by Harrit et al. Millette said he would just be testing the ignition properties of paint chips, which is why he said no.

Now, if we go forward, it will cost way more than $300. Millette estimated over $325 per sample, so four samples would be $1300. Then a professional would need to be hired to properly analyze the raw data. And this does not include the cost of cooking the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. I think we would be looking at $1500-$2000 to do this right. It is not worth money for me to see the results of this, but if someone wants to ante up $1500 or more I will look into it with Millette.

As a pure brainstorm, I also thought of another possibility: an independent analysis of what Farrer/Harrit did and their data. It may be possible to independently analyze that test for $300 or so. Millette has told me a separate person would have to be hired for this because it is not squarely in his area of expertise. People who don't believe Oystein will at least have to deal with the fact that a calm, cool, collected analyst was hired to do an independent report.

 

[000063]

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

Well, that's a clear and direct answer to the question, and totally not word-vomit.

 

[Julio]

And this does not include the cost of cooking the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere.

This is the reason why doing the DSC test is useless. Farrer did a flawed test in air, which contains oxigen.

What Senemut is asking for, is replicating a flawed test which will yield no useful data. If Millette repeated the test under right conditions (Ar or N atmosphere) the result will be totally different, and the desired comparison would never be possible!!!

 

[DGM]

This is the reason why doing the DSC test is useless. Farrer did a flawed test in air, which contains oxigen.

What Senemut is asking for, is replicating a flawed test which will yield no useful data. If Millette repeated the test under right conditions (Ar or N atmosphere) the result will be totally different, and the desired comparison would never be possible!!!

Are you saying a test to produce no meaningful data is not worth doing to "debunk" a test that produced no meaningful data?

I say, submit the Harrit/Jones el al paper to the same journal as Millette's. Let them go through the same "peer-review".

Surely the "truthers" wouldn't object to this (or the authors).

 

[Ivan Kminek]

e

Two separate items:

I wonder if Millette's dropbox link to the full study is lower-resolution than the original he sent me. I just emailed Ivan and Oystein my original emailed report from Millette. If it has higher resolution and the relevant charts are readable,. I will ask them to re-save the link for maximum clarity.

As for Senenmut, I can see one good reason to go forward with the DSC test: both Tillotson and Harrit/et al both included DSC in their protocols, so for the sake of complete replication, if people are willing to pay for the tests, then why not? As Millette and Oystein have said repeatedly, Millette has already established NO THERMITE in the tests he did, including tests not done by Harrit et al. Millette said he would just be testing the ignition properties of paint chips, which is why he said no.

Now, if we go forward, it will cost way more than $300. Millette estimated over $325 per sample, so four samples would be $1300. Then a professional would need to be hired to properly analyze the raw data. And this does not include the cost of cooking the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. I think we would be looking at $1500-$2000 to do this right. It is not worth money for me to see the results of this, but if someone wants to ante up $1500 or more I will look into it with Millette.

As a pure brainstorm, I also thought of another possibility: an independent analysis of what Farrer/Harrit did and their data. It may be possible to independently analyze that test for $300 or so. Millette has told me a separate person would have to be hired for this because it is not squarely in his area of expertise. People who don't believe Oystein will at least have to deal with the fact that a calm, cool, collected analyst was hired to do an independent report.

Hi, Chris
1) Yes, spectra you have sent to me are much better readable, thanks.

2) I think that with paying additional DSC measurements, we could go simply too far and such research would be never-ending story because of further and further idiotic objections and demands of truthers.
As a typical example, take just "our" Senenmut. Although I have tried to explain him that both DSC curves in Bentham paper and Tillotson paper by no means proved thermitic reaction, he still does not believe me, since he does not understand what I claim (e.g. that burning of very tiny chips lasting 5-10 minutes simply cannot be regarded as "extremely rapid release of heat energy" in any civilized country)
Why anybody should pay for the proofs that various red paints used in WTC burn? It's just silly Remember just fresh Jim's experiments with ashing at 400 degrees C for 1 hour (with the aim to get free pigment particles) - what else is this ashing that the degradation/burning/volatilizing of some polymer binder? Paints simply burn and inorganic pigments remain.
Moreover, as Oystein has pointed many times (even rather furiously sometimes), we don't know what was really burned in DSC device by Farrer.
We should concentrate now to some attempts to analyze closer the results of Jim Millette's study.

 

[Craig4]

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

I take it that you pawned your shift key to help for this.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi, Chris
1) Yes, spectra you have sent to me are much better readable, thanks.

2) I think that with paying additional DSC measurements, we could go simply too far and such research would be never-ending story because of further and further idiotic objections and demands of truthers.
As a typical example, take just "our" Senenmut. Although I have tried to explain him that both DSC curves in Bentham paper and Tillotson paper by no means proved thermitic reaction, he still does not believe me, since he does not understand what I claim (e.g. that burning of very tiny chips lasting 5-10 minutes simply cannot be regarded as "extremely rapid release of heat energy" in any civilized country)
Why anybody should pay for the proofs that various red paints used in WTC burn? It's just silly Remember just fresh Jim's experiments with ashing at 400 degrees C for 1 hour (with the aim to get free pigment particles) - what else is this ashing that the degradation/burning/volatilizing of some polymer binder? Paints simply burn and inorganic pigments remain.
Moreover, as Oystein has pointed many times (even rather furiously sometimes), we don't know what was really burned in DSC device by Farrer.
We should concentrate now to some attempts to analyze closer the results of Jim Millette's study.

I agree that you, Oystein and others should work on analyzing all of Millette's new data. Make sure Almond and Sunstealer get the email with the higher-resolution images, and I will ask Millette to post a high-res pdf as well.

I am still taking on the DSC question, for one more reason too: Steven Jones proclaimed awhile back that no replication of the Bentham paper experiments would be complete without them. This is not an endless stream of test after test, it's one test.

What's funny tho is that even I can see that Tillotson did the DSC analysis to delineate some of the properties of known nanothermite, and Harrit et al used the test to try to prove thermitic material.

Millette is much more interested in further research on the iron microspheres right now. If someone is actually willing to commit $1500+ to a thorough DSC study, I'm sure it can be arranged, but Millette has told me at least twice no more new knowledge will be gained from DSC. So far no one has commented on my idea of getting an independent analysis of the Farrer/Harrit DSC data though, which I think would be more affordable.

 

[chrismohr]

High Resolution Version of Millette Report: New Link

To read the small print and figures in the Millette dust report, please go to this new link:


High Res: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

Low Res: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf (original link....unchanged)

Sunstealer and Almond et al, Ivan and Oystein assure me this is much more clear.

Now get to work!

Thanks,
Chris

 

[alienentity]

Hi Chris,

I just replied to your PM, btw. I'd like to see the Harrit paper reviewed independently, esp. if the review can be published in an established journal relevant to the topic.

Maybe the Journal of 9/11 Studies? Just kidding!

 

[moorea34]

Perfect Chris!

The new file is perfect!

 

[Sunstealer]

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

Page 26.

Indeed, the red chips can be ignited using a torch and
they have properties of a pyrotechnic nanocomposite. All the
required ingredients are present – aluminum, iron, oxygen,
silicon, and carbon – and they are incorporated in such a way
that the chip forms (and sometimes ejects) very hot material
when ignited. The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We
note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption
of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed
[29].

I wonder if Senenmut should perhaps be putting as much effort into getting Harrit et al to release results of their FTIR analysis as he is in asking for Millette to perform DSC.

3 years later and they have not released the results even after promising to do so. Why did they not include such important and conclusive data in their paper? If they did FTIR then they would have definitive proof of thermite so why not publish it? Why publish silly photos and resistance tests when an FTIR spectra would be conclusive and remove all doubt?

There is so much crap in that paper the more important things get missed.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is the reason why doing the DSC test is useless. Farrer did a flawed test in air, which contains oxigen.

What Senemut is asking for, is replicating a flawed test which will yield no useful data. If Millette repeated the test under right conditions (Ar or N atmosphere) the result will be totally different, and the desired comparison would never be possible!!!

Exactly what struck me about this. If a proper dsc is done, One in which oxidation with surrouding atmospheric oxygen, truthers will cry and wail that it does not replicate Harrit.
Nevermind that flawed as Harrit's dsc method is, his results vary so widely as to make them less than useful.

 

[alienentity]

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

Page 26.



I wonder if Senenmut should perhaps be putting as much effort into getting Harrit et al to release results of their FTIR analysis as he is in asking for Millette to perform DSC.

3 years later and they have not released the results even after promising to do so. Why did they not include such important and conclusive data in their paper? If they did FTIR then they would have definitive proof of thermite so why not publish it? Why publish silly photos and resistance tests when an FTIR spectra would be conclusive and remove all doubt?

There is so much crap in that paper the more important things get missed.

I'm just gonna come out and say it: I think they did the tests and realized the chips just ain't thermitic, so they've kept their mouths shut about it.

I got suspicious when Dr Jones turned his attention to earthquakes and free energy devices. Let's face it, if they had something which confirmed their earlier claims they'd be shouting about it every day... but all we have is silence.

And they're not sharing their dust with the other scientists in the sandbox.

 

[fourtoe]

Two separate items:

I wonder if Millette's dropbox link to the full study is lower-resolution than the original he sent me. I just emailed Ivan and Oystein my original emailed report from Millette. If it has higher resolution and the relevant charts are readable,. I will ask them to re-save the link for maximum clarity.

As for Senenmut, I can see one good reason to go forward with the DSC test: both Tillotson and Harrit/et al both included DSC in their protocols, so for the sake of complete replication, if people are willing to pay for the tests, then why not? As Millette and Oystein have said repeatedly, Millette has already established NO THERMITE in the tests he did, including tests not done by Harrit et al. Millette said he would just be testing the ignition properties of paint chips, which is why he said no.

Now, if we go forward, it will cost way more than $300. Millette estimated over $325 per sample, so four samples would be $1300. Then a professional would need to be hired to properly analyze the raw data. And this does not include the cost of cooking the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. I think we would be looking at $1500-$2000 to do this right. It is not worth money for me to see the results of this, but if someone wants to ante up $1500 or more I will look into it with Millette.

As a pure brainstorm, I also thought of another possibility: an independent analysis of what Farrer/Harrit did and their data. It may be possible to independently analyze that test for $300 or so. Millette has told me a separate person would have to be hired for this because it is not squarely in his area of expertise. People who don't believe Oystein will at least have to deal with the fact that a calm, cool, collected analyst was hired to do an independent report.

Maybe we could get Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell to fund it?

I'm just gonna come out and say it: I think they did the tests and realized the chips just ain't thermitic, so they've kept their mouths shut about it.

I got suspicious when Dr Jones turned his attention to earthquakes and free energy devices. Let's face it, if they had something which confirmed their earlier claims they'd be shouting about it every day... but all we have is silence.

And they're not sharing their dust with the other scientists in the sandbox.

In Brainster's debate with Dylan Avery so many years ago, Dylan mentioned "I think he already has [sent out samples to independent labs]" and Brainster said that Frank Greening has been asking for them for awhile and hasn't gotten them. Was Dylan just pulling that statement out of his ass?

 

[Senenmut]

im in for 300$$