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

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi Ivan and Oystein,

I passed some of your comments on to Jim this morning.

Ivan you wrote,

"What is really important (and this is again my question to Jim Millette): could the washing with water (without some additional means like the action of ultrasound and/or detergents) remove all surface contaminants? " I asked Jim this just now. Also, as for your comments on the DSC database, Jim is looking for a forensic expert's database on explosives, arson materials, etc. to compare DSC readings from the Bentham paper against known thermitic materials. He would not presume to be able to ID a paint chip based on DSC readings in any event. The forensic analysis would simply be to answer the question, "do the bentham DSC tests show evidence of thermitic material?"

And yes, Ivan, your suggestion to find concrete from WTC has been taken up by Millette in his iron microsphere research. A pat on the back to you!

Thanks, Chris)

 

[shure]

I would like to know about this...

Did he say they did TEM as part of this published paper?

Nope, this was said later. I remember discussing it with Steven online.

Not neccessarily. I don't understand all these tests. But if I am pulled over and refuse a breathalizer, and am given a blood test instead, it is accepted as even more accurrate than a breathalizer so there is no need to also take the breathalizer.

Is this the case with DSC and TEM? I don't know.

I do. Millette can claim his findings rebut Jones et al. on the basis of what he has now. That is evident. Jones can do likewise. That, also, is evident. I've explained why. I feel uneasy about saying it about a entire group of scientists, but I've said it a couple of times now.

DSC, however, was conducted by Tillotson, Jones and not by Millette. I consider that a hiatus, because DSC yields additional, important information. I suggest you read up on DSC to understand this better; and I also suggest you read the Tillotson paper, if you haven't already. I can send it to you if you like.

DSC and TEM are two completely different things. Since conducting a DSC test would have been peanuts for Millette, I don't understand why he didn't. If his argument is that it's irrelevant I would call him a liar.

I do think Oystein asked for a DSC, too. In fact, he was jerking Millette's sleeve every step of the way, which I think was a breach of ethical conduct.

I remind you all again that I am not going to do camp based reasoning, where I pounce on Jones and Ryan because they've done this or that. I am pissed off about the no hijacker claims. Apart from that, I will approach the science as it ought to be approached: factually, objectively, accurately and fairly.

One of the two parties is fraudulent. Period.

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

 

[Oystein]

I would like to know about this...

SnowCrash, SnowCrash...tsk tsk tsk

I do think Oystein asked for a DSC, too. In fact, he was jerking Millette's sleeve every step of the way, which I think was a breach of ethical conduct.

Not at all, if I had made any request concerning DSC, I would have asked Drl. Millette NOT to do such a stupid thing, because both Farrer's DSC test and Farrer's DSC results are totally meaningless, except that they prove that whatever it is Farrer put in his DSC (and that's really the crux: He gave us no indication as to what he put in the DSC. Remember, Harrit and Jones have found at least six different kinds of red-gray chips in their samples!) cannot possibly thermitic in nature and is very different from what Tillotson tested.

Besides, Farrer (or Harrit and Jones) lies: He did NOT call Gash or Tillotson to ask how they did their DSC test. Because contrary to what the ATM authots claim, Tillotson and Gash used nitrogen atmosphere, not air!

DSC, however, was conducted by Tillotson, Jones and not by Millette. I consider that a hiatus, because DSC yields additional, important information.

No, it doesn't. Garbage in, garbage out.

I suggest you read up on DSC to understand this better; and I also suggest you read the Tillotson paper, if you haven't already. I can send it to you if you like.

Yes, please. If you do that, and compare Tillotson's and FarrerÄs graphsm, you'll see that they are fundamentally different in several ways. They have to be: Both experiment measured different reactions occurring on differen materials under different atmosphere. The results of Farrer are meaningless.

DSC and TEM are two completely different things. Since conducting a DSC test would have been peanuts for Millette, I don't understand why he didn't. If his argument is that it's irrelevant I would call him a liar.

Yes, DSC and TEM are two completely different things. The former is a nonsense and incompetent thing to do, especially when a greenhorn amateur like farrer does it with unknown material, from which he forgot to cut off the inert mass, under the wrong atmosphere. The latter is competent test in the hands of an experienced professional, yielding definite an unambiguous result.

SnowCrash, I would call Millette an "experienced professional with the relevant education making a wise and economic call". I would call you a "fool", on the other hand, for making such uninformed accusations.

 

[Sunstealer]

I would like to know about this...

DSC is not required as a test, it offers nothing meaningful. This is a materials characterisation exercise. DSC does not help identify the material in this case. FTIR and TEM-SAED do, that is why they were used.

DSC in Harrit's paper does not help identify the material.* The DSC curves in Harrit et al are nothing like Tillitsons yet it's claimed they are the same material. It's nonsense.

* nor does the silly electrical test nor does burning them with a torch.

Harrit et al had atleast 3 different types of materials in their chips. I'll support truthers in their cause for Millette to do a DSC when they can get the information from Harrit/Jones/Farrer as to exactly what chips he tested in the DSC.

Truthers don't understand the importance of this. Let me explain. Harrit had

1. Bananas (chips a-d)
2. Apples. (MEK chip)
3. Oranges. (Fig 31 chip)

Millette has

1. Bananas. (His EDX match Harrit's bananas.)
2. Apples. (Some of the red layers look like the MEK chip but not exactly sure).

So we don't know what Farrer put into the DSC. It could be 4 apples, it could be 2 apples and two bananas.

So lets assume it's 4 apples. Now if Millette put a banana in the DSC will the curve be the same? Unlikely. Truthers will scream blue murder if the curves differ (even though they ignore the differences between Harrit and Tillitson).

Lastly if Millette puts an apple in the DSC will that change the fact that the EDX data is the same, the morphology of the particals in the SEM photos are the same, the binder material looks the same, the gray layer is the same? No it's still an apple.

Millette has already explained why the DSC is not required. I wish truthers would actually read papers and threads before jumping to their silly conclusions.

Harrit et al performed FTIR, but did not include this definitive and conclusive analysis in the paper. Why not? Harrit et al performed a TEM with XRD iirc - they confirmed the rhombohedral Fe₂O₃ about a year later. They said that the results on the aluminosilicate platelets was "inconclusive".

The problem is truthers simply do not have the knowledge to understand what these analytical techniques are, what their limitations are and what they actually tell you. The lack of comment regarding FTIR data from Millette is telling - way above their heads. To then call Millette a liar or a fraud is ludicrous.

I told everyone that the material was paint 3 years ago. I even showed how it comprised of platelets of Kaolin and that the gray layer was steel. No truther could hold a candle to that analysis. Millette has shown me to be correct. What's more no truther can hold a candle to that conclusion either. I didn't need Harrit's DSC curves then and we don't need Millette to do the same test to show that the samples a-d in the Harrit et al paper are paint.

Truthers need to show why this

does not match the majority of samples that Millette has. When they can do that then perhaps they can then move onto FTIR and then maybe DSC.

They know they've been shown up, conned by their own need to believe, but they don't want to own up to it.

 

[shure]

Thanks for the responses

 

[Sunstealer]

I am questioning if the characterization of the gray layer suffices is indeed consistent with low-carbon steel. This would not only require that SEM-EDS and BE data be consistent with such steel, but also that the other properties mentioned are consistent with the behaviour of painted steel unter the stress of a collapse.

If I remember correctly BSE analysis can be used to determine oxide layers in steel. Possible he used that or he simply compared it with their library or used his experience.

Remember that we have lots of EDX data on steel. A while ago I linked to 10 or so EDX spectra that matched the gray layer in the papers.

The top one is from the Metallurgical analysis of wtc steel.

In particular:

Is it a typical behaviour of painted steek surface that the top steel layer spalls off with paint still attached?

Yes.

We consider the oxide layer on steel to be incoherent with the parent metal (bulk of the steel). What this means is the steel will have a particular atomic lattice structure i.e defined atomic bond lengths that make up the crystal structure.

The oxide layer has such different bond lengths within it's crystal structure compared to the steel parent metal that the two are said to be incoherent with one another. Incompatible with one another. In effect what this means is that the oxide layer is not very well attached to the parent metal. Stress, whether thermal or mechanical, will tend to cause this layer to spall due to the weakness.

Is the observed gray layer thickness of 10-50µm (10-100µm according to Harrit e.al.) typical for the top oxide layer of structural steel when it spalls off?

Yes. It's not quite as black and white because different rolling and processing techniques and temperatures can affect the characteristic of the oxide layers that form.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...v=onepage&q=rust "intermediate layer"&f=false

What we are seeing is the intermediate (and probably inner) layer.

Is that spalled oxide layer expected to be magnetic, and if yes, why? (Is there experimental data that shows such spalls to be magnetic, or do we know that magnetic materials such as magnetite or elemental iron are usually part of such an oxide layer?)

Yes. The intermediate layer usually consists of magnetite.

 

[shure]

This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???


.

 

[000063]

Also from that thread

JREFers are lying, scum sucking ******** who attempt to redefine skepticism as subjugation to authority and American exceptionalism.

Which is ironic, since Oys. is German, I'm not American, and Lefty is very left-wing.

Of course, Snowy runs 911 blogger, and isn't exactly objective.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-150.html

So what Jon? You think Pat or the JREF clique would welcome our cover-up arguments with open arms?

I don't give a **** what JREFers think. I don't give a **** what Truthers think, either.

No topic is off limits from critical scrutiny. I will not stop looking at those collapses because any one of you says so, and I will not disregard your research because the CD/Northwoods people say so.

I will evaluate the merit of each argument on its own. Then I will take an honest, well supported position on it. Groupthink makes me sick.

Why bother answering a question from a guy who will not listen to it in the first place?

I have NO DOUBT that there are those who have an INTEREST in exposing Dr Jones. This article speculates at how suspicious it is that JRefs rush to support the study.

Are you really that surprised? i do not find it suspicious at all.

Is the behavior YOU are exhibiting any LESS biased?

All I know is that the credibility of Gage, Ryan and Jones has been almost completely destroyed – NOT thru smear campaigns and insinuation (as you see in the article I’m referencing) – but thru THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

 

[shure]

Is there a way to show that Jones is a liar? Something that can't be disputed?

 

[Sunstealer]

This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???


.

Bearing in mind that the other part of the post is

JREFers are lying, scum sucking ******** who attempt to redefine skepticism as subjugation to authority and American exceptionalism.

Unless we're talking China, Russia and/or the GWOT. Then it's conspiracy time.

They would likewise denounce Fenton's book with lies. Shamelessly.

What else is new? Are you surprised?

Here's what you do. You read the literature on DSC and you read Tillotson's paper.

STOP... RELYING... ON... SOMEBODY... ELSE'S.... OPINION.

Look at them claiming a DSC is meaningless. Tillotson did one. Is it meaningless? Of course not.

then why are you asking for our opinion if it's not going to be taken?

This snowcrash fella doesn't know what he's taking about. His argument is well such and such stuck his head in the oven so we should too. He has no idea why Harrit et al should not have bothered with DSC and why their DSC curves are essentially meaningless.

Harrit et al never confirmed they had thermite during their charactirisation. Tillitson did because he made it.

If you click on my sig it will show you the post where I show kaolin is present in Harrit's samples with no reference to DSC because it's not needed.

 

[Sunstealer]

Is there a way to show that Jones is a liar? Something that can't be disputed?

That's not required. The data in the Harrit et al paper proves that they don't have thermite samples. Bearing in mind Jones's other interests he can simply be put down as a crackpot who's operating outside his field in this case.

 

[pgimeno]

Also from that thread

And also from that thread:

Look at them claiming a DSC is meaningless. Tillotson did one. Is it meaningless? Of course not.

I recall having seen someone say recently that either Tillotson or Gash said later that that test was unnecessary. Could someone confirm this? I've been searching the threads but can't find the quote.

This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???


.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8035699&postcount=1986

 

[alienentity]

SnowCrash, SnowCrash...tsk tsk tsk


.

I registered with 911blogger last year. I've attempted to make several comments on the Millette thread but none have appeared there. I wonder if snowcrash is afraid to have opposing voices on 911blogger?

Oh well, at least I can post here!

 

[Oystein]

This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???


.

I have it as a private mail, but second hand, unfortunately without permission to publish.

But it only makes sense. See: Tillotson and Gash, while discussing why their DSC test showd an energy density of only 1.5 kJ/g, report on page 343 of their paper (the same page that the DSC trace comes from):

From elemental analysis we have observed that these materials have organic impurities that make up ~10% of the sample by mass. It is likely that the impurities are due to residue solvent and/or epoxide or epoxide by-products from the synthesis. All these factors undoubtedly contribute to a reduction in the total energy measured.

Tillotson and Gash know, of course as well as any competend scientist in their fields, that organic solvents and epoxides will burn under air if heated sufficiently, and have an energy density that is significantly higher than that of even ideal thermite^(*). So these organic impurities would not reduce the measured energy (density), they would increase it - if they were allowed to burn in the DSC. Tillotson and Gash however have no doubt that the organics reduce energy density. This only makes sense if they know as fact that the organics have not burned. There is only one way to keep them from burning: Heat then in an inert atmosphere.



(*) I have no tabulated values available at this time, but expect epoxy to have 15 kJ/g or more, and solvents 30 kJ/g and more.
~10% by weight impurities with 15 kJ/g would alone provide the entire 1.5 kJ/g for the whole sample that was measured. However, Tillotson and Gash have additional proof that a thermite reaction took place: They analysed the residue with PXRD (why didn't Harrit e.al. analyse their esidues with PXRD? The Tillotson and Gash article should teach then that doing a DSC alone is not enough to prove there was a thermite reaction!) and found metallic Fe and Al₂O₃. PXRD is a competent method. The XEDS and BSE that Harrit e.al. used was an incompetent method.


# oysteinbookmark

 

[Trojan]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but do we know how Millette received his dust samples? is there a chain of custody from Harrit to Millette?

 

[DGM]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but do we know how Millette received his dust samples? is there a chain of custody from Harrit to Millette?

He did not receive samples from the "truther" crew (they refused). The origin of his samples are documented in the paper.

 

[Oystein]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but do we know how Millette received his dust samples? is there a chain of custody from Harrit to Millette?

Short version: They had been collected in the days after 9/11 by real scientists experienced with securing such samples, from locations around GZ selected by smart criteria. Collected with documented, rigorous scientific protocols. Parts of the samples had already been analysed in 2001 and 2002 for peer-reviewed publications, the rest was stored in controlled environment (dark, cool dry) till today.

This contrasts with Harrit's and Jones's samples which were collected by amateurs in random locations without protocol and stored in uncontrolled and basically unknown conditions. It is only fitting that these samples were analysed by amateurs (none of the 9 authors of the Bentham paper is a forensic scientists. None has experience with this type of dust analysis. Farrer had never done a DSC test before. Someone said that Harrit has never done an XEDS before - I can hardly believe that. ).

 

[OCaptain]

There is nothing so difficult to understand.
Let me try to describe the dissolution of polymers using some illustrative analogy:

Imagine a dense coil of many mutually entagled snakes lying on the bottom of some well – like in Indiana Jones movies) Snakes here represent the entangled molecular chains of linear polymers or so called thermoplastics (like polystyrene, PVC or polyvinylacetate etc).

Now add some water as a “solvent” to the well. Since snakes do not like water, they try to escape. They are furiously moving and twisting, but escape from the coil is not so easy. Anyway, after some time, the coil of snakes becomes to be less tight and it is bigger with some water in it – this roughly corresponds to the formation of polymer gel. Eventually, each snake (polymer chain) succeeds to escape and we have a “mixture” of individual snakes freely swimming in the water pool – analogy of polymer solution.

Now imagine the same coil of snakes, but here each snake is somehow firmly bound to some neighbor, let say with one “crosslink”. This corresponds to the crosslinked polymers or thermostets (like epoxy or alkyd resin). When adding water, snakes again try to escape, the coil starts to be less dense (swollen with water), but there is no way for snakes to definitely escape the swollen coil , since they are mutually bound together. The most they can do is just to form network of snake bodies elongated to the maximum (filled with water as solvent).

When each snake is bound with other snakes with more than one “crosslink”, the initial “snake network” is denser. Therefore, the final "swollen snake network" is also denser and it occupies lower volume.

In some senses, this analogy is not really good, e.g. since here our snakes do not like water, whereas polymer chains/networks in contact with their good solvent in fact “like” this solvent, they "like" to be in contact with solvent molecules, since they are chemically similar (according to the well-known chemical rule “similia similibus solvuntur”).
But this is not so important. This was simply my attempt to explain why polymer binders in both Laclede and Tnemec cannot be dissolved in anything and why they can only swell (as was proven both by Harrit and Millette at least for some red chips).

"Crosslinked polymers! Why'd it have to be crosslinked polymers?"

 

[Ivan Kminek]

"Crosslinked polymers! Why'd it have to be crosslinked polymers?"

Ergh... you are right, "crosslinked polymer".... sounds suspicious!
According to Wiki, crosslinked polymers (thermosets) "are generally stronger than thermoplastic materials due to this three dimensional network of bonds (cross-linking), and are also better suited to high-temperature applications up to the decomposition temperature..."

Perhaps crosslinked polymers were used as nanothermite binder because of their unique properties: they better withstand/retain the horrible heat and pressure of thermitic reaction of aluminium (which treacherously looked as kaolinite!) up to some point/temperature, where they mightily contribute by their flash decomposition (lasting 5 minutes and more, according to Bentham paper) to the overall destructive effect of this secret pyrotechnical weapon!

It reminds me this extraordinary contribution from reddit.com:

"Thermite can be made of things other than aluminum and iron oxide, and they assume the lack of aluminum indicates there was no thermite. If there was iron oxide, what other elements could be substituted? Considering this would have been the black op of the century, is it not unreasonable to suggest whoever made this stuff knew enough to create an explosive that would leave no obvious evidence of thermite?"

Hehe, I think that we can expect more such truthers' Deep Thoughts, and I will try to gather some fine collection of them. The fresh idea of Dirk Eckhardt aka "Sitting Bull" that Millette washed red chips with water in order to sneakingly destroy their thermitic nature surely belongs among them

 

[OCaptain]

Ergh... you are right, "crosslinked polymer".... sounds suspicious!
According to Wiki, crosslinked polymers (thermosets) "are generally stronger than thermoplastic materials due to this three dimensional network of bonds (cross-linking), and are also better suited to high-temperature applications up to the decomposition temperature..."

Perhaps crosslinked polymers were used as nanothermite binder because of their unique properties: they better withstand/retain the horrible heat and pressure of thermitic reaction of aluminium (which treacherously looked as kaolinite!) up to some point/temperature, where they mightily contribute by their flash decomposition (lasting 5 minutes and more, according to Bentham paper) to the overall destructive effect of this secret pyrotechnical weapon!

It reminds me this extraordinary contribution from reddit.com:

"Thermite can be made of things other than aluminum and iron oxide, and they assume the lack of aluminum indicates there was no thermite. If there was iron oxide, what other elements could be substituted? Considering this would have been the black op of the century, is it not unreasonable to suggest whoever made this stuff knew enough to create an explosive that would leave no obvious evidence of thermite?"

Hehe, I think that we can expect more such truthers' Deep Thoughts, and I will try to gather some fine collection of them. The fresh idea of Dirk Eckhardt aka "Sitting Bull" that Millette washed red chips with water in order to sneakingly destroy their thermitic nature surely belongs among them

Wow, making a point I didn't intend to make!

I was honestly just riffing off the Indiana Jones reference.