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

[Julio]

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

I wouldn't say "elemental", but "bulk" or crystal. In that sense, other tests like X-ray diffraction, or Electron Diffraction in TEM (like the SAED Millette conducted) could reveal the presence of Al crystals.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Sunstealer: As for your "It stinks to high heaven that they didn't release data that would conclusively and definitively prove exactly (using FTIR) what the binder material is in their samples when they actually utilised the best test method."
You are of course right...

But let me suppose that Harrit et al measured FTIR spectra of some red chips and identified epoxy resin (similarly as Jim Millette). (I have some doubts in this respect since no person in the Bentham team has the basic education in organic/polymer chemistry, but let say they identified epoxy binder using usual comparison with some infrared spectra database.) I think that it should not be the reason why they are not willing to show FTIR spectra, since even thermite can contain some minor amount of epoxy polymer binder.
It is perhaps more probable that Bentham team identified kaolinite in the red chips by infrared spectroscopy) And this can be the reason why their FTIR spectra are "Top Truthers Secret"

 

[Sunstealer]

I wouldn't say "elemental", but "bulk" or crystal. In that sense, other tests like X-ray diffraction, or Electron Diffraction in TEM (like the SAED Millette conducted) could reveal the presence of Al crystals.

Me too. I hate this "elemental" nonsense. Unfortunately if you don't use truther parlance then they have no idea what you are talking about. I always try to put "elemental" in quotes for this reason.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Me too. I hate this "elemental" nonsense. Unfortunately if you don't use truther parlance then they have no idea what you are talking about. I always try to put "elemental" in quotes for this reason.

OK, guys In Czech technical/chemical language, the phrase "elemental... something" ("elementární...něco" in Czech) is frequently used in the sense "it is this element, not its compounds", there is no way how to misunderstood such wording. But I will try to remember how it is in correct English.

 

[Julio]

OK, guys In Czech technical/chemical language, the phrase "elemental... something" ("elementární...něco" in Czech) is frequently used in the sense "it is this element, not its compounds", there is no way how to misunderstood such wording. But I will try to remember how it is in correct English.

It's not about language (Hey! English is not my first language either!) When you speak about "elemental" you are referring to only a kind of atoms. I don't think any of us misunderstand you, but in this context we are speaking about a bunch of a atoms (of only one element) arranged in a crystal. So crystal is a better word to describe it.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

It's not about language (Hey! English is not my first language either!) When you speak about "elemental" you are referring to only a kind of atoms. I don't think any of us misunderstand you, but in this context we are speaking about a bunch of a atoms (of only one element) arranged in a crystal. So crystal is a better word to describe it.

OK) Lady from our department of vibrational spectroscopy (the boss of the department is somewhere abroad) told me that aluminium in bulk would basically reflect the light including IR, except UV (as you found).
FTIR can detect/measure silicon and other semiconductors, but it is not suitable for metals like aluminium because of the highly delocalized/mobile electrons responsible for conductivity....blahblahblah... it was rather over my head.
Anyway, FTIR is not able to "detect" aluminium

 

[Oystein]

Ok, so I learn:

• FTIR is great to identify bindings (i.e. compounds); Millette identified Kaolin and epoxy with it. The Kaolin explains a lot, if not all, of the (little) Al there is.
• But FTIR alone wouldn't be good to rule out elemental Al (crystalline or amorphous or whatever), as Al reflects IR
• TEM would be the method of choice to detect crystals of Al

Am I close so far?

So how exactly does Millette rule out any unbound Al?

 

[Oystein]

By the way, i just wrote another Blog Post. This time prompted by Frank Legge's careless assertion that Millette says he found steel, and didn't say he found iron oxide, in the gray layers.

Comparison of Gray Layer XEDS by Harrit vs. Millette

Of course, the shortest of glances at Millette's data reveals that all of his gray layers show significant oxidation. I set out to quantify this and compare with Harrit e.al. I had done this earlier, computing the ratio between the O-peak and the highest (K-alpha) Fe-Peak, and found that Millette's samples appear to have relatively less oxygen. However, upon closer examination, I found that in Millette's data, the K-alpha of iron is higher than the L-alpha of the same iron by a factor that is about twice the factor seen in Harrit's graphs. So there seems to be a systematic difference in the device, method, sample preparation or whatever that would make the higher energy levels appear larger in Millette's XEDS than in Harrit's.

If I compare the O-peak to the much closer (on the x-axis) L-alpha peak of Fe, I find that the ratio between those peaks is almost the same in both studies, differing by only about 20%, with Millette's appearing slightly more oxidized.

At the same time, there is more variation in Millette's C peaks, and he sometimes finds Al, but no Mn. I conclude that both Millette and Harrit are looking at oxidized steel, but Millette probably has different alloys.

Conclusions:

This finding

• lends confidence to the belief that both Harrit an Millette looked at red-gray chips where the gray layer is oxidized structural steel and red the layer is mineral pigments in organic matrix
• reinforces the suspicion that there are several different kinds of red-gray chips in WTC dust
• highlights the need to carefully identify and distinguish these different kinds of red-gray chips before any particular conclusions or further study are contemplated.

 

[tsig]

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.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=4865[/qimg]

* 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

They went into the lab and did a lot of sciency tests then wrote up a sciency paper knowing full well that their followers wouldn't understand the paper and that most scientists wouldn't bother to read it to refute it.

Cargo cult science at it's finest.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Infrared spectroscopy is not good only for compounds, but also for atoms of elements bound e.g. in some crystal lattices (but not always). Each chemical bond (or group of bonds) has its characteristic vibration(s) and other motions (rotations, twisting etc.) which can be in resonance with incoming IR light of some frequency, therefore the energy of the light is absorbed by properly "tuned" bond(s) leading to some changes in the bond(s) motions.

I think that Jim Millette simply identified kaolinite by several independent methods. In fact, he experimentally proved what Sunstealer claimed already several days after Bentham "paper" publishing. He did not try to exclude the presence of aluminium as element, since it was not necessary. But perhaps I have overlooked something

 

[Sunstealer]

So how exactly does Millette rule out any unbound Al?

TEM-SAED.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.

 

[Oystein]

TEM-SAED.

Ok, the TEM-EDS of all platelets he looked at is pretty clear: It's always very cleanly Al=Si + O + C. I see the TEM-SAED pattern of platelets, and should believe this is characteristic for kaolin. Can we find references on the internet of TEM-SAED patterns for
- Kaolin
- Alumina
- Silica
- Aluminium
to show me (or those truthers willing to learn) that indeed these patterns are different?

Basically, Millette has tested a number of different-looking particles in the ash and found none that is simply Al. This does not logically rule out any Al at all, just drives down drastically the maximum possible abundance, which already started out low.

Cool.

But why o why no SrCrO4?

 

[Sunstealer]

MM is missing several key points..

1. What part of 'No Thermitic Material' do you not understand? The chips contain no trace of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size. They are not thermite. Are you choosing to ignore this fact?

2. No one knows what material Harrit tested.

3. Harrit never released any other data to 'prove' his theory, even though he promised to, nor does it seem he is likely to do so.

4. DSC is not a good method of identifying anything, compared to the far advanced methods used by Millette.

5. Anyone who looks at the following table can clearly see the DSC test that was done DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO MATCHING THE THERMITE LINE!
[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png[/qimg]

Thermite shows endothermic reaction until 370C! It doesn't even become exothermic until JUST BEFORE THE TESTED MATERIAL IS HITTING IT'S PEAK!

Themite peaks OVER 100C HIGHER than the tested material.

This has been explained to you countless times.

Harrit's DSC only shows that what ever material they tested WAS NOT THERMITE. SO HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY IT IS THERMITE?

The test is irrelevant. It is not needed. You make yourself look dumber and dumber and more sheep like every time you bring it up.

The DSC data from Harrit et al are slap bang in the range for the thermal decomposition of epoxy.

See Fig 1 b - page 146 (actually page 4 out of 9 in pdf)

http://144.206.159.178/ft/1034/62579/1060545.pdf

as well as the reduction of iron oxides Fig 5.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926860X07002062

I wish I could get hold of this too. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141391098002225 - it's bang on for an analysis of the thermal curves.

 

[Sunstealer]

Basically, Millette has tested a number of different-looking particles in the ash and found none that is simply Al. This does not logically rule out any Al at all, just drives down drastically the maximum possible abundance, which already started out low.

Cool.

[truther mode on]Why didn't he test every single particle for Al!![truther mode off]

But why o why no SrCrO4?

Remember that we had no idea that Sr was even present until we saw this

Look at how small the registering of Sr is. We know it's masked at lower KeV be Si peak and we know the wider trailing edge of the Si peak at the base is likely to indicate that Sr is present. Strontium Chromate, according to Ivan will decompose during ashing. I've looked at the TEM photos and it's really difficult to see whether there are any particles other than Fe2O3 and kaolin (and soot). I think there are possible candidates, but it's really difficult to see if it's just particles that are viewed edge on.

Page 17 Fig 16c even shows TiO2 present. That's not even supposed to be present in LaClade or Tnemec.

People also have to realise that specifications change all the time. It's also very common for a customer to specify a certain coating or give the supplier a standard that the coating must meet. Doesn't mean they all have to have exactly the same materials in.

One thing is for sure. If you remove material from WTC dust using a magnet you separate chips of paint adhered to steel not thermite.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Paint colorimetry

Well, we still don't know what Jim's chips can be Laclede paint, Tnemec paint or some other paints...

Is there some other way how to distinguish between those paints using some additional methods?
Of course it is
Although most of us are "paint lovers", we still tend to forget that they are different paints, so they simply have different colors (absorption/reflectance spectra in visible region). E.g. because they can contain different iron oxide pigments...
All Jim's red chips look very similar in color, but only for our eyes unequipped with any spectrometer.

There is the whole field of material testing called paint colorimetry, see e.g. here. Quote: "There are four main classes of instruments used in colorimetry, the colorimeter, spectrophotometer, densitometer, and spectroradiometer."

I'm not saying that it makes some sense to pay for such measurements, but they can be indeed useful.
At present, the additional "testing" for the presence of strontium in some selected chips is much more important for us, I think.

 

[chrismohr]

Jim Millette update

I just talked with Jim Millette. In the next couple weeks he plans to write up a short followup on the progress of his research, with some of his thin section work expanded upon and the process of elimination he is going through as he tries to identify the specific source of the red-gray chips.

Then, in the end of April, he will give another progress report, this time on his research into the iron-rich microspheres.

He also said that this project is so big, it may end up being several peer-reviewed papers, not just one. And no, there is no set date for publication. A big project will take time.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I just talked with Jim Millette. In the next couple weeks he plans to write up a short followup on the progress of his research, with some of his thin section work expanded upon and the process of elimination he is going through as he tries to identify the specific source of the red-gray chips.

Then, in the end of April, he will give another progress report, this time on his research into the iron-rich microspheres.

He also said that this project is so big, it may end up being several peer-reviewed papers, not just one. And no, there is no set date for publication. A big project will take time.

Thanks, Chris I wonder why Jim Millette is still so "cryptical"... Laclede primer paint is the clear candidate as for the material of the most of his red-gray chips.
I would bet my left nut on it and I do not believe that we may have overlooked some better "culprit" in this "criminal case"

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks, Chris I wonder why Jim Millette is still so "cryptical"... Laclede primer paint is the clear candidate as for the material of the most of his red-gray chips.
I would bet my left nut on it and I do not believe that we may have overlooked some better "culprit" in this "criminal case"

Me and my bad memory again... was there an issue about no strontium chromate in Millette's samples? At any rate, he has Oystein's white paper. Millette never says anything until he does his own experiments. He just told me today that when he finds a possible clue, he will track down a sample and test it before saying anything.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Me and my bad memory again... was there an issue about no strontium chromate in Millette's samples? At any rate, he has Oystein's white paper. Millette never says anything until he does his own experiments. He just told me today that when he finds a possible clue, he will track down a sample and test it before saying anything.

Well, as you know, we expect some 1.2 wt% of strontium chromate in Laclede primer. XEDS is definitely not able to prove it, since strontium peak is inevitably in overlap with silicon peak and, moreover, the concentration of this compound is too low.
We perhaps hoped that Jim may find some needle-shape crystals of this compound by microscopy (namely microscopy using polarized light), but Jim has not confirmed such crystals.
Therefore, I am willling to pay some more money for the proof of strontium, using suitable method, like atomic absorption spectrometry. For such measurements, only red chips corresponding quite well or very well to Laclede paint (owing to their XEDS spectra) should be selected

 

[The Almond]

Well, as you know, we expect some 1.2 wt% of strontium chromate in Laclede primer. XEDS is definitely not able to prove it, since strontium peak is inevitably in overlap with silicon peak and, moreover, the concentration of this compound is too low.

Actually, XEDS is more than capable of resolving this overlap. One simply requires suitable standards (SiO2 and SrF2, for example). A multiple linear least squares fitting algorithm will readily deconvolve minor Sr L family lines from major Si lines.