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

[Ivan Kminek]

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.

Chris, as for DSC, try to consider how to perform this "one test" to be somehow meaningful.
We do not know what Farrer burned in his DSC machine. Nobody knows it, including Farrer. I expect that in all 4 cases it was one material (one paint), since curves are basically similar in character and they seem to differ e.g. because of the varying portion of attached inactive oxidized steel. But, what kind of paint was really burned? We can only judge that it was one of the most abundant paints in the dust, i.e. Laclede or Tnemec paint, since it was probably easy to find these chips for burning. But, we can still be wrong (although it is not very probable), since it could be some paint (e.g.) from WTC7.

So, for any DSC measurements, several red chips with the composition corresponding to both Laclede and Tnemec paint must be carefully selected (and the portion of gray layer should be estimated, to calculate released energy per mass unit of reactive material). All chips must be burned in the machine to get some representative set of results for comparison with "Bentham curves".

So far for DSC under air, which can only prove that any polymer binder in the red chips indeed burns.
Now, for DSC under inert, which is necessary to exclude oxidation reactions. We know that two polymeric binders were present in the most abundant red primer paints: epoxy resin in Laclede paint and alkyd-linseed based resin in Tnemec paint. In the case of the second binder I am not sure, but for epoxy binder I found a reliable data that even under inert, this polymer can be massively degraded at temperatures ca 350-450 degrees C with exothermic effect! So such measurements under inert on Laclede paint could easily lead to the little "debunking disaster", since truthers will cry (not knowing absolutely anything about the thermal behavior of polymers): "hey, thermite finally proven by debunkers scientists!"

What I'm trying is to say that "one DSC test" and its evaluation could be a quite complicated, lengthy and expensive matter.

Therefore, isn't it better to conclude again: "According to XEDS measurements, carbon based/polymer binder strongly prevails in red-gray chips studied both by Harrit et al and Millette. Such material in principle CANNOT BE THERMITE of any kind, not speaking about the absence of elemental aluminum. Period".
Well, we have still to "face up" to the guys like Senenmut, who tries to suggest: "Could it be so that there are two kinds of very, very similar red-gray chips in the dust, one is some paints and one is nanothermite?"
Actually, we expected such silly reactions several week ago, but the answer is still the same. No, it could not be so. Anything with several tens of polymer binder in it cannot be intentionally prepared evil thermite; the "nanothermite game is over"

As for the interest of Jim Millette on the "microsphere matter" it sounds interesting and I'm again suggesting the same very simple experiment: let's try to crush some WTC concrete and look if it contains iron rich (or any other microspheres), coming from the fly ash. If yes, it could end this endless and tiring debate. Btw, I do not see clearly any microspheres in the nice microphotos of the WTC dust taken by Jim Millette

 

[ozeco41]

.... If yes, it could end this endless and tiring debate. Btw, I do not see clearly any microspheres in the nice microphotos of the WTC dust taken by Jim Millette

Try not to lose the context.

The only reason that thermXte or iron rich microspheres are being discussed is because truthers or trolls have raised them as part of their claim that there was controlled demolition at WTC on 9/11.

There was no demolition so the aim of the truthers or trolls is to keep debate going in ever deeper minutiae and ever more remote and irrelevant topics. Irrelevant to 9/11 conspiracy that is.

I recognise that a number of members are enjoying the scientific aspect of the debate but it is questionable if such debate belongs in the 9/11 sub forum. Especially when the prodders and stirrers who keep the debate circling and not progressing are easily shown to be nothing more than trolls.

Whilst ever members keep responding to trolling there is zero chance of ending what you describe as "...this endless and tiring debate." The trolls will keep moving the goal posts and digging deeper into irrelevancies.

Yes this situation was a risk which was identified before the study was initiated. Yes I support the study. Yes I contributed - out of respect for Chris Mohr and his close supporters.

BUT the test is in knowing when to cut the losses and stop. Because trolling truthers will keep the debate going as long as people keep following them. You, Ivan, Chris himself and Oystein are the three who need to face the challenge "When do we stop chasing truthers down these side tracks."

In part the answer may lie in how much you are interested in the topic for its purely scientific interest. It has done as much as it can for 9/11 discussion. Maybe remove any further work from the 9/11 sub-forum. It may survive on its own scientific merits but I doubt it. But from here on it can add little to 9/11 debate other than serving as a feeding ground for trolls.

 

[Oystein]

...
In part the answer may lie in how much you are interested in the topic for its purely scientific interest. It has done as much as it can for 9/11 discussion. Maybe remove any further work from the 9/11 sub-forum. It may survive on its own scientific merits but I doubt it. But from here on it can add little to 9/11 debate other than serving as a feeding ground for trolls.

To suggest this does not belong in the 9/11 subforum is bizarre.

The subforum exists not because towers crashed on 9/11, but because there is a 9/11 CT movement.

The study addresses claims of the 9/11 CT movement, and thus debate of the study belongs here. Pretty regardless of whether the outcome of the study furthers the understanding of highrise engineering, demolition methods or collapse dynamics. It doesn't even further much the understanding of dust and paint and nanomaterials. What it does further, by provocing interesting reactions, is understanding of the 9/11 CT movement.

(As a side effect, I learn little random things like what kinds of clues to look for in DSC traces; I learned that because I took some time to try and educate the troll Senemut. I knew from the beginning of course that the troll would refuse to learn. So what? My understanding of physical chemistry in general has improved greatly since I started debating red-gray chips. Yes, I could have taken a class, would have been more efficient, but less fun.)

 

[ozeco41]

To suggest this does not belong in the 9/11 subforum is bizarre...

Put irony quotes around my suggestion -- then think back a few months. To who made the identical suggestion a few months back. Who supported it. Who was targeted. And my justification at that time for retaining the topic in the 9/11 sub-forum. Then, when you add one plus one .... smile

After that sidetrack for amusement we may need to come back to my recent comment

 

[Oystein]

OK, I missed the irony. Of course I was thinking about the same incident that you are thinking of - after all, it was I who protested a decision to move a technical 9/11 thread to STTM by opening a thread in FM, and knew you supported the protest, so that's why I thought your statement sounded bizarre.


Sooo with this out of the way... Thanks for the reminder that nanothermite doesn't make or break the case for or against CD. Chris has stated a few times that if significant nanothermite was found that would give him cause to reconsider his stance on CD. And yes, it rightly should; nt is indeed not something that should have mase it out of the laboratory in outrageous masses and into downtown Manhattan. There is no know application for tons of nt relevant to inner city activities in 2001, so it would be quite foolish to dismiss the finding of tons of this stuff in the WTC dust. As it would be foolish to dismiss the finding of tons of C4 or dynamite in the dust as unrelated to the question of CD or not. NIST has looked closely at the possibility that Diesel storage tanks inside WTC7 might have played a significant role in the destruction of that building, even though there is no a priori reason to assume that any of the fires were fed by anything other than office contents. So if it was determined that the towers containes tons of thermite or tons of other explosives at the time of their collapses, then it would obviously raise the question if these peculiar hazards played a role in their destruction - whether by accident or intent.

But none of that is my focus here. My focus is on closing the lid tightly on the case against nanothermite, thereby forcing the TM to either lie, or abandon liars. Eventually, the story should ideally be "nine "researchers", whether through incompetence or deliberate dishonesty, led major portions of the TM to believe nonsense and make it a centerpiece of their belief system. They kept believing nonsense until an outsider, a journalist, undertook the effort to prove them wrong. This illustrates that the TM, by and large, is embracing nonsense. Don't trust them on any technical issue! The TM does not employ a self-correcting epistemology!"
(I realize though that the issue is too technically complex to stand a serious chance of getting communicated clearly to 99% of all truthers )

 

[Sunstealer]

When will it stop? People here are just dancing to the truther's tune. It's already been pointed out due to several reasons by several people including Dr Millette why DSC is an invalid and pointless test.

I'll guarantee that if any DSC trace is 10°C out the likes of Senenmut will cry foul even though Harrit's own data shows their sample is 100°C lower than Tillitson's data.

Harrit et al performed FTIR - where are the results? Instead of wasting time with DSC a far more conclusive result will be obtained by the release of Harrit's FTIR data.

This whole exercise has shown how pointless it is to do any further investigation because truthers will never accept it.

 

[carlitos]

When will it stop? People here are just dancing to the truther's tune.

I, for one, am tuning out after this. It's all pretend arguments in pretend land.

 

[Edx]

Harrit et al performed FTIR - where are the results? Instead of wasting time with DSC a far more conclusive result will be obtained by the release of Harrit's FTIR data.

This whole exercise has shown how pointless it is to do any further investigation because truthers will never accept it.

Maybe the did do it and it didnt give them the results they wanted.

 

[Sunstealer]

Maybe the did do it and it didnt give them the results they wanted.

I think that's exactly what happened. Same reason why the TEM study about a year later showed rhombohedral Fe₂O₃, but was inconclusive on the hexagonal platelets.

Truthers simply aren't interested in getting all the facts from their masters and prophets.

 

[Senenmut]

I'll guarantee that if any DSC trace is 10°C out the likes of Senenmut will cry foul even though Harrit's own data shows their sample is 100°C lower than Tillitson's data.

i think there will be a big enough difference to notice. not just 10C out. the whole curve will be much different.
take jones for instance describing what farrer has done:
"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"
and henryco:
"I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy but certainly not at such rate"

and ill put my money on it!

 

[LSSBB]

i think there will be a big enough difference to notice. not just 10C out. the whole curve will be much different.
take jones for instance describing what farrer has done:
"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"
and henryco:
"I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy but certainly not at such rate"

and ill put my money on it!

Senenmut, it appears to me you are purposefully avoiding the issue of the FTIR study results. Answer that, and maybe you will be taken more seriously.

 

[Oystein]

i think there will be a big enough difference to notice. not just 10C out. the whole curve will be much different.

Please compare the black and the green line with the red and the blue one.
Are they similar based on the criterion that you just outlined (my highlight), or different? Take note of the fact that red and blue have notable dips before and/or after the main peak, while black and green don't.
Also, though I left out the x- and y-axis on purpose, I can tell you that the black and green line go below zero power (endotherm) beyond ~540°C, while red and blue stay above zero (exotherm) all the way.

take jones for instance describing what farrer has done:
"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"

Please compare the black and the green line again with the red and the blue one.
Are they similar based on the criterion that you just outlined (my highlight), or different?
Take note that the red and blue peaks have a fairly well-defined breadth of ~40°C, while the black and green line have an ill-defined breadth of >100°C.

and henryco:
"I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy but certainly not at such rate"

Please compare the black and the green line again with the red and the blue one.
Are they similar based on the criterion that you just outlined (my highlight), or different?
Please note that both black and green both show a higher power density from start till about 520°C than both the red and blue line. Also, green and black peak within 10% of each other, while green is nearly 50% higher than red (and black and blue are even farther away from the other pair).


So, Senemut, based on the criteria you outlines, how different can two curves be, before you conclude two materials might be different? Would you not say that maybe Farrer (unknowingly) tested two different types of materials because
- The shape of black and green are similar, but both are different from the shapes of red and blue
- The broadness of red and blue are similar, but both are much narrower than green and black
- The rate at which energy is released is similar for black and green, but much higher than both red and blue.

Wouldn't you conclude that blue and red could be the same material, and that green and black would be a different material? If not, why not? Both pairs differ in all three criteria that you mentioned in your post!

And don't you sense by now that you have a huge problem here, because Farrer forgot to tell you
- What the black chip and its chemical composition looked like
- What the green chip and its chemical composition looked like
- What the red chip and its chemical composition looked like
- What the blue chip and its chemical composition looked like
so you don't know just what the heck he tested in his DSC?

 

[Sunstealer]

Senenmut, it appears to me you are purposefully avoiding the issue of the FTIR study results. Answer that, and maybe you will be taken more seriously.

I know it's quite telling. Harrit and Jones have data they refuse to release, but for Senenmut it's all about the DSC that isn't required. I bet Harrit's FTIR data shows kaolin in it.

But hey we don't want truthers asking legitimate questions of their truther masters do we, much better for them to disbelieve based on a needless test.

The reason why Senenmut is going along the DSC line is that he knows full well that nobody knows what type of sample Farrer tested in the DSC.

It could be 4 samples of Tnemec or Laclade or another type of primer paint. Could even be paint adhered to electronics. We have no idea because there is no information regarding the samples. There's every reason to suspect that 4 samples of Tnemec were analysed in the DSC and obviously you'd get a different trace from Millette's chips. I suspect that is what Senenmut is aiming for. A silly gotcha.


So it's pointless to analyse the samples Millette has that match samples a-d because we have no idea whether it was those samples a-d that were tested in DSC.

Before any DSC testing is performed I'd ask Harrit et al to give us EDX (and FTIR) data on the 4 samples they put in the DSC. Otherwise you're testing chalk and cheese.

 

[alienentity]

Before any DSC testing is performed I'd ask Harrit et al to give us EDX (and FTIR) data on the 4 samples they put in the DSC. Otherwise you're testing chalk and cheese.

I agree with you there. I think it's incumbent on the Harrit team to release that data (we all know how truthers hate it when the government withholds anything, so I'm shocked, just shocked, I tell you, that they would do the same thing as the enemy..) so that we can at least find out how it compares to the Millette samples.

And Senenmut has put himself into a peculiar position here, as he's now trying to set criteria for evaluating DSC. Oystein has asked some necessary and legitimate questions, and if Senenmut cannot respond in a satisfactory way, then there is no reason to take his idea seriously.

Senenmut needs to evaluate the DSC results of Harrit et al. and comment on whether or not those materials are the same or different, and why, according to Oystein's parameters.
If he rejects Oystein's parameters he must explain in detail why.

We have a right to evaluate Senenmut's ability to understand DSC before accepting any of his claims. Period.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ergh... Oystein seems to think that black and green DSC curves in Bentham paper can belong to the same material and red and blue curves belong to something different, whereas Sunstealer seems to think that they are all Tnemec paint... (Why, Sunstealer?)

I do not think that DSC curves on degrading/volatilizing polymers can be seriously compared using such tiny details as in Oystein' post, especially when burning samples attached to unknown amount of inert material (here oxidized steel) with a high heat conductivity/capacity. Reproducibility is low for the sample which evaporates/burns in the open sample pan in DSC device; this is in fact one of the reasons why it is soo difficult to find any DSC on heated/degrading polymers (or e.g. paints) in the scientific literature. (Moreover, almost no polymer chemist -except me - cares or is interested if the burning of some paint is exothermic, since it is obvious and not really interesting)

Btw, there are also some similarities in black and blue curve (weak exotherm at ca 300 degrees C) or „distinct“ differences between blue and red curve (e.g. red curve has a double peak).
I think that Oystein has some tendency (perhaps as genuine German) to expect too high precission/reproducibility for some analytical methods. I know from the everyday chemical practice that things are quite often not as clear as expected (and we just clearly face up to this „destiny of all researchers“ looking at the results of the Jim's study, btw).

The main reason why all four „Bentham curves“, although looking differently, can still belong to the same paint is of course the unknown mass ratios between red and gray layers. When gray layer is larger, it absorbs more of exothermic reaction heat, DSC curve (in W per gram of sample) is lower and also narrower. Moreover, larger gray layer as a heat sink can slower the onset of the exothermal oxidative degradation of polymer binder. This can explain why all DCS curves might be measured on the same chips.

Thank you even for your doubtful attention, perhaps I misunderstood something.
We should anyway discuss now more the results of Jim Millette's study, in which no DSC results are given for good reasons.

 

[Oystein]

Ivan, I am not really claiming there are two different materials.

I asked Senemut to apply the criteria he apparently deems significant to some curves that we actually have, just to see if he is able to discuss them intelligibly. The reason is that, if he pays 300$ to have one chip DSCed, he will get a curve. No doubt that curve will have a peak and be largely exotherm. No doubt that peak will be somewhere between 300°C and 600°C. No doubt the peak will be at a different hight and different temperature than any of the 5 peaks that Farrer shows. No doubt the curve will be different in other aspects - it will be broader or narrower, it may dip into endotherm territory here or there, it may have more than one peak like the blue and red curves. The question is: Will Senemut be able to tell if the differences are significant or not? What good will it be to show him graphs?

It seems that he believes that the Tillotson curve and the black curve from farrer are "similar" enough that they could be the same material (nanothermite). Will he believe a sesame seed contains nanothermit if sesame shows one peak somewhere between 300 and 600°?

No. If Senemut gets his DSC curve from Millette, someone will have to explain it to him. But who? Will he believe Millette? Unlikely, because he doesn't Millette now when Millette says that a DSC test is not a good idea. Me? Sunstealer? No, he already doesn't believe, or doesn't understand, either of us.

So what will Senemut do with a graph when he gets it for his 300$? That's what I want to know.

The samel logic would apply to the data Millette has published: When someone comments on it, they ought to explain why they come to the opinion they arrive at, and should explain the criteria they use. This holds for truthers as well as for us.

Everyone may please note that I have not yet commented on Millette's data. It's difficult.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But none of that is my focus here. My focus is on closing the lid tightly on the case against nanothermite, thereby forcing the TM to either lie, or abandon liars. Eventually, the story should ideally be "nine "researchers", whether through incompetence or deliberate dishonesty, led major portions of the TM to believe nonsense and make it a centerpiece of their belief system. They kept believing nonsense until an outsider, a journalist, undertook the effort to prove them wrong. This illustrates that the TM, by and large, is embracing nonsense. Don't trust them on any technical issue! The TM does not employ a self-correcting epistemology!"
(I realize though that the issue is too technically complex to stand a serious chance of getting communicated clearly to 99% of all truthers )

Bear in mind few of those named on the report took any part in the "research."
They simply allowed their names to be added for "Effect".
I think this was mainly a Jones effort with Farrer being manipulated into taking part.

 

[Sunstealer]

And Senenmut has put himself into a peculiar position here, as he's now trying to set criteria for evaluating DSC. Oystein has asked some necessary and legitimate questions, and if Senenmut cannot respond in a satisfactory way, then there is no reason to take his idea seriously.

I agree. I think it's important for everyone to know what the criteria is for Millette's samples; is it identical to the blue line or inbetween or what?

Senenmut needs to evaluate the DSC results of Harrit et al. and comment on whether or not those materials are the same or different, and why, according to Oystein's parameters.
If he rejects Oystein's parameters he must explain in detail why.

Indeed. I'd also ask for Senenmut, using his DSC expertise, to tell us how the 4 different graphs in the Harrit et al data match that of Tillitsons as part of that criteria.

 

[Sunstealer]

Ergh... Oystein seems to think that black and green DSC curves in Bentham paper can belong to the same material and red and blue curves belong to something different, whereas Sunstealer seems to think that they are all Tnemec paint... (Why, Sunstealer?)

Sorry Ivan. I've no idea which samples Farrer tested so I can't say they are all Tnemec red 99. I was simply pointing out that they could all be Tnemec red 99 and therefore would potentially be different to LaClade primer, Millette's samples or for that matter any other paint.

There could also be 2 samples of one primer and 2 samples of another. We just don't know.

Mostly the concentration on the Harrit DSC has been

1. Higher output than thermite's theoretical maximum.
2. Higher than Tillitson.
3. Ignition about 100°C lower than Tillitson.

I'll have to try and find if I posted the analysis of particle surface area verses volume for Aluminium particles and how that affects ignition temperature of those particles. Tillistson's agrees but the hexagonal platelets and fe2O3 particles found in the Harrit samples a-d do not.

 

[Sunstealer]

The main reason why all four „Bentham curves“, although looking differently, can still belong to the same paint is of course the unknown mass ratios between red and gray layers. When gray layer is larger, it absorbs more of exothermic reaction heat, DSC curve (in W per gram of sample) is lower and also narrower. Moreover, larger gray layer as a heat sink can slower the onset of the exothermal oxidative degradation of polymer binder. This can explain why all DCS curves might be measured on the same chips.

Agreed. This is one of the drawback when testing two materials of unknown weight in the DSC.