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

[cjnewson88]

This maybe should be stundied.

Newson thinks Harrit and Gage wrote the wiki on nanothermites!

And no one else in the world, no other scientists or chemists have been able to get in there and correct their information!! Inside job!!

I've heard far worse from you ergo. I wouldn't be too quick to start nominating stundies if I were you..

How many scientists or chemists in the world (who contribute to wikipedia) do you think wiki nanothermite ergo? I wouldn't say many, if any. But sure, what ever makes you think you've scored a point.

Btw, This is for you.

 

[LSSBB]

This maybe should be stundied.

Newson thinks Harrit and Gage wrote the wiki on nanothermites!

And no one else in the world, no other scientists or chemists have been able to get in there and correct their information!! Inside job!!

How many scientists do you think are beating down the door to edit a Wikipedia article on Nanothermite?

Also, how many Truthers can't get a joke?

 

[ergo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nano-thermite&action=history

How many edits do you see there?

 

[ergo]

* cough *

pwned.

* cough *

 

[cjnewson88]

I stand corrected (even though my original point was pure and obvious sarcasm). You'd think with all that revision of nanothermite there would be at least one sentence saying nanothermite can be engineered as a high explosive. Why is there not ergo?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

As we all know, the most sensational findings from the 2009 Bentham Paper came out of the DSC testing.

MM

What was sensational about it???? They set fire to paint chip in air.....nothing remotely strange at all about the test other than it being conducted in air rather than using an inert gas.

 

[chrismohr]

Two things:
1) Just a reminder that we are talking about the dust study here, not whether nanothermites go hush a boom.
2) This issue was taken up months ago on my Gage Rebuttals on YouTube thread. I'm going by memory here and don't want to waste time tracking the source, but I think I remember Chris7 finding an article that showed that nanothermites had the potential to be used as a medium-grade explosive device. I stopped mocking the idea when I read that article. So I can grant that nanothermites maybe CAN be used as an explosive, maybe even less loud than high-grade explosives. But as I recall, lower-grade explosives with softer booms also by their nature have less destructive force. And most importantly, Jim Millette concluded there were NO thermitic materials of any kind in any of the chips he studied. That's the bottom line for me. Unless we can find some real evidence that the thermitics were there, who cares if nanothermites go hush-a-boom?

 

[tsig]

Two things:
1) Just a reminder that we are talking about the dust study here, not whether nanothermites go hush a boom.
2) This issue was taken up months ago on my Gage Rebuttals on YouTube thread. I'm going by memory here and don't want to waste time tracking the source, but I think I remember Chris7 finding an article that showed that nanothermites had the potential to be used as a medium-grade explosive device. I stopped mocking the idea when I read that article. So I can grant that nanothermites maybe CAN be used as an explosive, maybe even less loud than high-grade explosives. But as I recall, lower-grade explosives with softer booms also by their nature have less destructive force. And most importantly, Jim Millette concluded there were NO thermitic materials of any kind in any of the chips he studied. That's the bottom line for me. Unless we can find some real evidence that the thermitics were there, who cares if nanothermites go hush-a-boom?

Clearly nanothermite knows when you're looking for it and changes it's properties so you can't find it.

 

[ozeco41]

... So I can grant that nanothermites maybe CAN be used as an explosive, maybe even less loud than high-grade explosives. But as I recall, lower-grade explosives with softer booms also by their nature have less destructive force....

For all practical purposes in these debates cutting steel requires the boom. The "boom" is the same thing which cuts the steel AND makes a big bang.

So no big bang = no steel cutting "boom" = no steel cut. End of story. It is that simple - as I said for all practical purposes at the level of these debates.

...Unless we can find some real evidence that the thermitics were there, who cares if nanothermites go hush-a-boom?

you are getting close to my position there Chris. It matters not if thermXtes were present - there was no demolition so no way that thermXte was used in a demolition.

It remains a pity that we meet the truthers in their arse about logic....

Let them prove demolition as the first issue THEN the question of what incendiary or explosive or steel eating microbes or xyz was used...can be discussed.

If they cannot prove CD then discussion of the details is irrelevant...other than as a trolling tactic.

 

[Oystein]

Reading posts while logged out, I noticed ergo asked one interesting question:

What would the FTIR plots of nanothermite look like?​

I am not an FTIR expert, but I would guess that FTIR spectra are cumulative. Like Millette shows in Appendix:

The red and blue lines are two ingredients, epoxy and kaolin (I believe from a database, not measured in the dust samples), the black line is the red layer of a chip. You can see how features of both ingredients show up in the curves of the composite: The peaks characteristic for Kaolin in the 3600s, and the peaks characteristic for epoxy around 2600.

The ingredients of nanothermite are obviously Al and Fe₂O₃, so if Millette could show, in his final paper, what the lines for these are, particularly Al (with the customary natural coating of Al₂O₃?), and that these lines don't show in the chips, that would show the doubters. And actually, it would give me some comfort, too.

Note: The chemical formula of Kaolin is often given as Al₂Si₂(OH)₄O₅, but also sometimnes written as Al₂O₃·2SiO₂·2H₂O, so I have the layman's suspicion that the FTIR spectrum of kaolin is a composite of the spectra of Alumina·Silica·Water.

How deep would FTIR penetrate into small Al particles? Would it primarily record the IR absorption of Al, or of the Alumina surface layer?




I found a practical guide to FTIR interpretation for the science-savvy:
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/BLManual/IR_Interpretation.pdf
And other nice links:
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/content/web-links/59-ftirarticles

 

[ergo]

For all practical purposes in these debates cutting steel requires the boom. The "boom" is the same thing which cuts the steel AND makes a big bang.

So no big bang = no steel cutting "boom" = no steel cut. End of story. It is that simple - as I said for all practical purposes at the level of these debates.

Um, no.

Of course, there are many ways to cut steel, as thermite and oxyacetelene torches show us.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Reading posts while logged out, I noticed ergo asked one interesting question:

What would the FTIR plots of nanothermite look like?​

I am not an FTIR expert, but I would guess that FTIR spectra are cumulative. Like Millette shows in Appendix:
[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Millette/MillettePreliminary/MillettePrelimApxC/9119-4795L1560-red-atr_0001_FTIRvsKaolinEpoxy.jpg[/qimg]
The red and blue lines are two ingredients, epoxy and kaolin (I believe from a database, not measured in the dust samples), the black line is the red layer of a chip. You can see how features of both ingredients show up in the curves of the composite: The peaks characteristic for Kaolin in the 3600s, and the peaks characteristic for epoxy around 2600.

The ingredients of nanothermite are obviously Al and Fe₂O₃, so if Millette could show, in his final paper, what the lines for these are, particularly Al (with the customary natural coating of Al₂O₃?), and that these lines don't show in the chips, that would show the doubters. And actually, it would give me some comfort, too.

Note: The chemical formula of Kaolin is often given as Al₂Si₂(OH)₄O₅, but also sometimnes written as Al₂O₃·2SiO₂·2H₂O, so I have the layman's suspicion that the FTIR spectrum of kaolin is a composite of the spectra of Alumina·Silica·Water.

How deep would FTIR penetrate into small Al particles? Would it primarily record the IR absorption of Al, or of the Alumina surface layer?




I found a practical guide to FTIR interpretation for the science-savvy:
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/BLManual/IR_Interpretation.pdf
And other nice links:
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/content/web-links/59-ftirarticles

To be honest, I'm not able to find anything on the infrared spectra of metals, including aluminum. Metals are highly reflecting the infrared light, so special reflectance methods may be used. Anyway, I will ask the expert in our "infrared department", I promise

Here is an article titled "Characterization of aluminum hydroxide thin film on metallic aluminum powder", with some IR spectra, but only bands belonging to aluminum compounds are discussed.

As for your "...that would show the doubters". Do you really believe that any truther here can be convinced by some IR spectra?

 

[000063]

MM, sigh, I thought Jim Millette was going to do a DSC test and he later decided not to because there was no evidence of thermitic material...

...How did Dr. Millette make you think he was going to perform a DSC test?...
MM

Straw man.

...
You are looking at one result based on a certain engineered type. A xerogel. Nanothermites can be engineered in many different ways. There is no one nanothermite. The graph is representative only of a particular type tested....

Appeal to magic, moving goalposts.

Good god.

Anyone can edit a Wiki. That's why most colleges won't accept Wikipedia as a primary source, and you see [citation needed] all the time. Even Wikipedia doesn't trust Wikipedia as a primary source.

This is ironic, coming from you, the person who somehow managed to not read a Wiki link saying how many collapse survivors there are.

 

[fourtoe]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

 

[Julio]

To be honest, I'm not able to find anything on the infrared spectra of metals, including aluminum. Metals are highly reflecting the infrared light, so special reflectance methods may be used. Anyway, I will ask the expert in our "infrared department", I promise

http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/

Here's a database of materials, including IR spectra (NIST - NWO certified ) You can find IR spectra for Fe2O3, also Kaolin, and Al compounds, but not for Al. Being a metal, it reflects all light until UV region, where it becomes transparent.

 

[Sunstealer]

They published what they felt best presented their case with the space limitations they had.

Which, if true, shows that they either had absolutely no clue what they were doing or they were trying to paint a picture by omitting data.

DSC, MEK test, Electrical conductivity test, torch ignition test and the space wasting Fig 31, etc are all not required to find out what the material is. For some reason they kept all this crap in, but left out FTIR. Why? It looks highly suspicious.

FTIR is definitive. It cannot lie. The data is there. This data can then be compared with spectra of known materials to show exactly what material is present. If you had any idea or had been paying attention to the people on this site then you would know that.

If I give you a random sample of something, why would you put it in a DSC to find out what it's not, rather than use dozens of other techniques that actually tell you what it is?

What does FTIR of nanothermite look like?

Seeing as you think Harrit et al had nano-thermite then why don't you ask them?. They have the data. They did not publish this data. Why don't you contact Harrit or Jones etc and ask them for the FTIR data. I bet they never release it.

I'm convinced that you don't actually know what thermite is. You ask such silly questions. You certainly don't know how FTIR works or how to read the graphs.

Do you even accept that Millette's FTIR show epoxy and kaolin?

 

[000063]

...
Newson thinks Harrit and Gage wrote the wiki on nanothermites! ...

He said "probably". I figure he was being hyperbolic.

And no one else in the world, no other scientists or chemists have been able to get in there and correct their information!! Inside job!!

Yes, because Wikipedia never, ever has false information.

The funny thing is that none of the sources on the page say what you seem to be claiming.

Ergo,
can you understand that the wiki you cited actually proves your theory wrong?

This is an entirely rhetorical question, right?

 

[Sunstealer]

http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/

Here's a database of materials, including IR spectra (NIST - NWO certified ) You can find IR spectra for Fe2O3, also Kaolin, and Al compounds, but not for Al. Being a metal, it reflects all light until UV region, where it becomes transparent.

Infact Fe2O3 and elemental Al is a bit irrelevant when it comes to FTIR. FTIR really shines when examining organic materials. This is why we asked for it (we also knew it would show kaolin). People forget that there is an enormous amount of organic binder material in Harrit, Millette and Basile's samples. eg.

* Oystein - this spectrum has the tell tale flared or extended tail of the Si peak and matches very well your analysis. It shows that Millette, Harrit and Basile had identical chips amongst their samples.

How much aluminium and Fe2O3 is in this lot? 1.68% max Aluminium!! lol. No truther has managed to explain why there is next to no thermitic material in this spectra yet so much binder material.

Tillitson had approximately 10% organic material left over from the sol-gel process. The primer paint in all of the samples is closer to 90% as expected. There is no proper analysis of the binder material in the Harrit et al paper.

Identifying this binder is critical in understanding what the material is. Any chemist would know this. Any chemist worth his salt would either know of a test method or would find one in order to determine what the binder is. Harrit et al performed FTIR so I suspect someone knew.

Why did they not release the results when it is crucial to showing what the binder material is? Did they perform the test and see it was epoxy so omitted it? Was their test inconclusive, if so how?

It stinks to high heaven that they didn't release data that would conclusively and definitively prove exactly what the binder material is in their samples when they actually utilised the best test method

 

[000063]

Um, no.

Of course, there are many ways to cut steel, as thermite and oxyacetelene torches show us.

Which is not what Ozeco asserted. He made a claim about what could practically be used in a demolition, not what could be used to cut steel. Specifically, with regard's to Mohr's post about nanothermite being used as a relatively "quiet" explosive, wherein he also pointed out that a smaller boom would also mean less force. Ozeco asserted that severing steel on 911 would require high explosives, which would be loud. Unless you're asserting that hundreds or thousands of men snuck into burning buildings with cutting torches, and then got back out in instants as the three buildings collapsed.

Thermite would require a ludicrous and highly visible amount in order to be able to cut through even one beam, which it certainly would not be able to do instantly, or even quickly. Plus, in all three buildings, it or the hypothetical explosive or both has to survive significant amounts of fire and random impact without destruction or disruption. Plus there's the question of why the thermite was there in the first place.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

 

[Ivan Kminek]

http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/

Here's a database of materials, including IR spectra (NIST - NWO certified ) You can find IR spectra for Fe2O3, also Kaolin, and Al compounds, but not for Al. Being a metal, it reflects all light until UV region, where it becomes transparent.

Thanks, Julio
It seems to me (but I have no literature) that metallic crystal lattices (like in aluminum) do not "vibrate" in the region of typical infrared measurements (up to 4000 cm^-1, which corresponds to 2.5 µm).
But, according to this paper, metallic aluminum show some very broad reflectance minimum (i.e. absorbance maximum) at ca 0.8 µm, which corresponds to 12 500 cm^-1. This broad "peak" is far away from the usual infrared measurements, it is in near-infrared region, almost in visible region.

Anyway, I would say that infrared spectra simply cannot "detect" elemental aluminum, only its compounds.