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

[cjnewson88]

Oystein, you make so much logical sense and explain things so well it's rather undeniable you know what you are talking about and are correct. Ergo is being dishonest to himself by disregarding your posts.

I should start saving your posts somewhere for future reference.. unless you've already saved all this somewhere that I could get a copy?

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, you make so much logical sense and explain things so well it's rather undeniable you know what you are talking about and are correct. Ergo is being dishonest to himself by disregarding your posts.

I should start saving your posts somewhere for future reference.. unless you've already saved all this somewhere that I could get a copy?

For like three months now I have wanted to write a comprehensive article in my blog on the many many problems of Farrer's DSC tests, but am procrastinating on it

I'll let you know when it's done

 

[pgimeno]

If you want to prove paint, you want to know what reacted here.

I certainly agree with half of that sentence by ergo. I want to know what reacted in DSC. Because we have no freaking clue!

And if the results on reproducibility of DTA traces that Sunstealer Ivan mentioned apply in this case, I think that we can say that we have four completely different things. Most likely not even that is granted, though.

If you put a lot of sugar in your coffee, the mix is not sugar! And if you put a lot of water into your cat, the composite is not water! So if you put a lot of thermite into an organic binder, the mix is not thermite!

Hmm... that principle does not always hold. If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel full of wine, you get sewage.

 

[Sunstealer]

Most of the thread is off-topic now. It's interesting that there simply hasn't been any analysis of Millette's data by truthers.

We expect to see particles of paint in the dust. The buildings were huge and enormous quantities of paint were present. Any material attached to a magnetic material such as steel is going to be separated using the magnet method. Hence we would expect to find paint.

I would expect any study to characterise paint as part of the screening process if you were looking for thermite or for that matter any other material.

It's interesting that the truther studies never found a single sample of paint. This is a massive anomaly. Millette in contrast is only looking for samples that match the criteria set out in the Harrit et al paper and has done so. His much more thorough analysis shows these samples to be paint.

Did Millette find other materials using the magnet method of separation and if so what were they?

 

[Senenmut]

oystein-
got a link to 100nm size hematite pigment for sale. ive looked here and there and cant find any yet?

 

[Oystein]

oystein-
got a link to 100nm size hematite pigment for sale. ive looked here and there and cant find any yet?

LOL

Did you found any larger than 100 nm hematite pigment for sale?

 

[ozeco41]

For like three months now I have wanted to write a comprehensive article in my blog .... but am procrastinating on it

I intend to do my Doctorate in Procrastination...


...when I get around to it.

 

[ergo]

Oystein has posted way too much for me to respond to in a single day - and I would like to respond, so I will begin with this post.

I already answered this - in fact, the answer is at the very start and core of this argument:

WE! DON'T! ***********! KNOW!!!

Because Farrer didn't show, describe characterize what he put in the DSC. Some of the many different types of red-gray chips I suppose.

This is stupid. The red grey chips all have very specific common characteristics that are not shared by other particles in the dust. As well, they have generally the same chemical signatures, with a few blips of variations which could well be contamination.

For you to say you "don't know" what was tested using the DSC is just stupid. We know you think it's paint chips. So just say it. It's not potato chips. It's not bananas. It's not carpet. You think it's paint chips. Why are you having problems saying this?

Furthermore, we all know that it was red grey chips that were tested. It wasn't some other particle that slipped in there or that just looks like the red-grey chips. Whether there is some minor heterogeneity among the chips, they are still all red-grey chips with the properties that Harrit identified and that Millette confirmed. You think they're paint. Others think they're thermitic. You know that if it's paint, it's not Tnemec, because Tnemec WILL NOT IGNITE AT 430 C. If you doubt this, you should be testing it to remove your doubt. If you don't want to test it, you'll have to accept the evidence that already exists, which is that Tnemec DOESN'T IGNITE AT THAT TEMPERATURE. Do tests, and you can blather all you want. Refuse to do these test, you'll have to accept the current evidence.

No, it wouldn't. DSC can't distinguish betweem paint and non-paint. The DSC curve of LaClede will be dominated by the epoxy matrix. Suppose Farrer's chips really were a formulation of thermite, in an epoxy matrix, then the 430°C peak likewise would be dominated by the epoxy matrix, and my curve would look very similar to his, and you couldn't conclude paint from the result. That's because DSC is not a competent or useful method to ID unknown materials.

And that's not why it was used. Don't insult people's intelligence.

NO, ergo, none of the literature on nanothermites tells us this. You make that up.

If you want to maintain your position, please provide a citation that any of the literature on nanothermites tells us that nano-thermite can release more energy per mass unit than the theoretical maximum for thermite (just under 4.0 kJ/g for Al+Fe2O3).

...

Are you claiming that nano-thermite (of the Al+Fe2O3 variety) can have an energy density > 4 kJ/g?

I find Jim Hoffman's explanation perfectly understandable:

Whereas the energy density of an explosive is determined by its chemistry, its power density is determined by its reaction rate, which, in the case of a thermitic material, is determined by its physical characteristics. Specifically, the reaction rate increases with the fineness of the metal and oxide powders and the uniformity with which they are mixed.

.... The reaction rate in turn determines the destructive character of the material. Whereas a cup of conventional thermite will melt a hole clear through a car's engine block, the same quantity of a nano-thermite composite explosive will blow the car apart.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Energy Density and Power Density

In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives. [1] [2]

Because thermites have historically had much lower power densities than conventional high explosives, they are classified as incendiaries rather than explosives

Oystein, do you disagree with the statement that nanothermites can store more energy than conventional energetic materials?

It wasn't about the thermite theory. Please pay attention to context! It was about your claim that Tnemec, and perhaps other paints, would withstand temperatures far beyond 430°C. They don't, they do get oxidized in an exotherm reaction; they matrix just doesn't go away into thin air.

As per the WTC physical evidence, Tnemec doesn't burn at 430 C. If you disagree with this, prove otherwise.

The "mud-cracking" that NIST observed for heated Tnemec is indicative of a loss of volume and mass of the paint matrix. That is because it reacts chemically.

As per the WTC physical evidence, Tnemec doesn't burn at 430 C. If you disagree with this, prove otherwise.

 

[Africanus]

Whether there is some minor heterogeneity among the chips, they are still all red-grey chips with the properties that Harrit identified and that Millette confirmed.

Dr. Millette confirmed the elemental composition of the chips, but he did some further tests like IR spectroscopy. And this tests prove that only chemically bonded aluminum is present. So Harrit's chips are not nanothermite.

You think they're paint. Others think they're thermitic.

Dr. Millette confirmed the the presence of kaolinite and epoxy binder. Both are components of paint like the laclede primer.

You know that if it's paint, it's not Tnemec, because Tnemec WILL NOT IGNITE AT 430 C. If you doubt this, you should be testing it to remove your doubt.

So you got evidence for that claim? Then please post the corresponding DSC results here.

 

[ergo]

Thanks for your irrelevant comments, Africanus. You have completely missed the point of what I'm saying to Oystein.

And no, burden of proof for the ignition point of Tnemec primer lies with Oystein, who is making claims against the material evidence. I know you guys don't understand this, but that's not my problem.

Pay better attention to what's being said, dude.

 

[Oystein]

We are massively off-topic. So I'll just reply to the part that mentions Millette's dust study:

This is stupid. The red grey chips all have very specific common characteristics that are not shared by other particles in the dust. As well, they have generally the same chemical signatures, with a few blips of variations which could well be contamination.
...
Furthermore, we all know that it was red grey chips that were tested. It wasn't some other particle that slipped in there or that just looks like the red-grey chips. Whether there is some minor heterogeneity among the chips, they are still all red-grey chips with the properties that Harrit identified and that Millette confirmed.
...

Let me check if I understand you correctly, ergo. Are you saying that

• as per your first paragraph, all red-gray chips are essentially the same material?
• i.e. if one, or four, ignite at 430°C, all ignite at 430°C?
• i.e. if one is, for example, thermitic, all are thermitic?

If I got that part right then you will certainly agree that

• if on, or four, chips are paint, then all are paint

right?

Got news for you, ergo:

Millette proved that one kind of chips contains only common ingredients of paint, but no elemental metal (in particular, no aluminium), so those chips are surely paint, and definitely not thermitic.

It follows, from your logic, that all red-gray chips are not thermitic, they are all paint.


I have one question that you dodged very elaboratively, by derailing an already derailed thread to the totally irrelevant topic of "power density".

Oystein, do you disagree with the statement that nanothermites can store more energy than conventional energetic materials?

Well first you answer what I originally asked:

Are you claiming that nano-thermite (of the Al+Fe2O3 variety) can have an energy density > 4 kJ/g?

(If you fail to give a crisp answer, which begins either with a "Yes." or a "No.", you'll go back to ignore immediately, as that will show that your evasions, distractions and stupidity will never end)

 

[Oystein]

By the way:

The "AE911Truth Blueprint Newsletter | Vol. XXXVIII | May 2012" was a little late, they mailed it out a couple of days ago and labeled it "Late May – Early June 2012".

Still no mention of any critique of the Millette Progress Report. Instead, they are featuring a length article on - squibs!

 

[Oystein]

Bumped for Chris Mohr, in case it got lost in the recent derail:

Oystein,
Last Friday Richard Gage told me personally that some of the iron-rich spheres found in the Bentham paper were only about 100 atoms across. Is this true? That would be ultra-nano if it were! He thinks Millette may not have looked at this closely enough.

Let's see...

Iron oxide, Fe₂O₃, has a density of about 5.2 g/cm³ and a molar mass of 159.7 g/mol. So one mol occupies a volume of (159.7/5.2) cm³ = 30.7 cm³ = 3.7*10^-5 m³. The edges of cube of that volume are 0.031 m long (3.1 cm), that is 310,000,000 31,000,000 nm.

1 mole is about 6.0 ×10²³. The cubic root of that number, 84,343,266, would be the number of molecules along the edge if you arrange 1 mole in a cube.

So if iron oxide molecules were in a cubic crystal structure, you'd find 84,343,266 molecules per 31,000,000 nm, or 0.37 nm per molecule, or 37 nm per 100 molecules.

The iron oxide pigments in the red paint are typically 100-150 nm across, that would be 270-405 molecules.

This would be somewhat different for different materials, but I think we get an idea here of the orders of magnitude that we are talking about.
Iron: 23 nm / 100 atoms.
Silica: 34 nm / 100 atoms
Iron oxide: 37 nm / 100 atoms
etc.

So Gage is claiming that there are microspheres in the Bentham paper that are about 20-40 nm across? Let me check their micrographs...

Nope, I see no post-ignition spheres smaller than 1 micron, all are larger than 1,000 nm, or more than 2500 atoms/molecules across.

However, as I said, the iron oxide pigments are close to that order of magnitude, they are only a few 100 molecules across. Perhaps he (or you?) mixed up pre-ignition grains and post-ignition spheres?

100 nm iron oxide pigments have been state of the art for 100 years and are easily and cheaply produced on large industrial scales by entirely conventional means: Chemical reaction, grinding and sieving, and are thus found in millions of mundane products.

(ETA: A few corrections and additions marked in blue and striked-out)

 

[chrismohr]

Bumped for Chris Mohr, in case it got lost in the recent derail:



(ETA: A few corrections and additions marked in blue and striked-out)

Thanks Oystein, yes I copied this post and it will be used in the re-re-rebuttal pages because it's so good!

 

[Miragememories]

Thanks Oystein, yes I copied this post and it will be used in the re-re-rebuttal pages because it's so good!

And how good is it?

Before you rush to post Oystein's beautifully wrapped analysis, you might want to consider the basis for his conclusion.

After all of his dazzling but pointless number crunching, he went to the photomicrographs with a ruler to get his critical data.

The blue reference line is 50,000 nm long (50 microns).

A rough guess would place the smallest visible iron-rich microspheres at around 1,000 nm or 1 micron.

So the 100 atom diameter microsphere that Richard Gage referred to, would be from 23 thousandths to 37 thousandths of the diameter of the smallest visible microsphere that Oystein could see.

So on what basis did Oystein justify in bold lettering, the conclusion that the micrographs negated the existence of those spheres?

"...Bumped for Chris Mohr, in case it got lost in the recent derail:..."

"...So Gage is claiming that there are microspheres in the Bentham paper that are about 20-40 nm across? Let me check their micrographs.

Nope, I see none post-ignition spheres smaller than 1 micron, all are larger than 1,000 nm, or more than 2500 atoms/molecules across...."

Spheres so small, that even if the Bentham Paper's published micrograph had sufficient resolution to show them, a magnifying instrument would still be required to view such a small object.

Richard Gage's stating the Bentham Paper authors found microspheres of a certain size, is not the same as claiming that the Bentham Paper published every micrograph including those at a magnification sufficient to show the smallest of the iron-rich microspheres discovered in the residue of ignited red chips.

MM

 

[Oystein]

...
After all of his dazzling but pointless number crunching, he went to the photomicrographs with a ruler to get his critical data.

Actually, it must have been Richard Gage who went to the photomicrographs with a ruler to get his critical data:

Richard Gage told me personally that some of the iron-rich spheres found in the Bentham paper were only about 100 atoms across

So when I am told that Richard Gage finds such tiny spheres in the Bentham paper, then surely I should be able to repeat that feat, yes?

So let's look at the Bentham paper and the microspheres therein:

The blue reference line is 50,000 nm long (50 microns).

A rough guess would place the smallest visible iron-rich microspheres at around 1,000 nm or 1 micron.

So the 100 atom diameter microsphere that Richard Gage referred to, would be from 23 thousandths to 37 thousandths of the diameter of the smallest visible microsphere that Oystein could see.

Wow, I am impressed, MM! Three sentences in a row without something really stupid, you aren't as bad as I thought!
Yes, I agree with all of that!

Now, the blue marker in the image you uploaded there is about 220 pixels wide, and represents, as you say, 50,000 nm, so 1 pixel corresponds to 227 nm, or 37 nm (100 iron oxide molecules across) would correspond to 0.16 pixels.

Gage claims (if Chris quotes him properly) that you can find spheres this small in the Bentham paper.


Clearly, you cannot.

So on what basis did Oystein justify in bold lettering, the conclusion that the micrographs negated the existence of those spheres?

And there the MM nonsense is picked up again.
Strawman.
I didn't say the micrographs "negated the existence of those spheres". I said "I see none post-ignition spheres smaller than 1 micron"

Please try not to misrepresent me in the future. Such blunders only strengthen my conviction that you are a dishonest man.

Spheres so small, that even if the Bentham Paper's published micrograph had sufficient resolution to show them, a magnifying instrument would still be required to view such a small object.

The problem is, there is a technical limit to the resolution / magnification of SEM or BSE images. The iron oxide grains for example in Fig. 8, which are 100-150 nm across, are already close to that limit. If you had any particles of the size we are talking about here, 25-40 nm, they would be so small at highest resolution that you couldn't tell if they are spheres or some other shape (irregular, cube...).

You'd need to do TEM microscopy then. But that had not been done by the ATM authors until after publication (and we don't know any results).

So I can tell you with great conviction: They didn't find any microspheres that are only 100 atoms (or molecules) across. Not in the Bentham paper, and also not in the unpublished material to the Bentham paper.


Of course I am aware that no reasons in the world will ever rob you of your religious faith in the full Truthiness of everything any leader of Da Twoof ever utters.

 

[alienentity]

Good point. I forgot to check the thread before replying. It's definitely OT. I'm done anyway.

But the question related to the Millette study does pertain to the claims of explosive demolition. The fact is there is no evidence of explosive materials in the WTC dust, as AE911Truth and the Bentham paper claims.

 

[Miragememories]

"...So Gage is claiming that there are microspheres in the Bentham paper that are about 20-40 nm across? Let me check their micrographs... Nope, I see none post-ignition spheres smaller than 1 micron, all are larger than 1,000 nm, or more than 2500 atoms/molecules across...."

"The problem is, there is a technical limit to the resolution / magnification of SEM or BSE images. The iron oxide grains for example in Fig. 8, which are 100-150 nm across, are already close to that limit. If you had any particles of the size we are talking about here, 25-40 nm, they would be so small at highest resolution that you couldn't tell if they are spheres or some other shape (irregular, cube...).

You'd need to do TEM microscopy then. But that had not been done by the ATM authors until after publication (and we don't know any results).

So I can tell you with great conviction: They didn't find any microspheres that are only 100 atoms (or molecules) across. Not in the Bentham paper, and also not in the unpublished material to the Bentham paper.


Of course I am aware that no reasons in the world will ever rob you of your religious faith in the full Truthiness of everything any leader of Da Twoof ever utters."

If you knew it was impossible for the micrographs to show something that small, why did you look?

The above is a 1,000 nm portion of Fig.9 from the Bentham Paper. Considering it is just a 72 ppi screen capture, and that the source image must be of a much higher quality, I believe that round objects with a diameter only 30-40 nm would still be discernible as round.

What I don't understand is why Chris, acting as a journalist, would seek the advice of a pretender like yourself, rather than pursuing clarification from Richard Gage. Richard Gage is trying to get the true story out there and obviously he is on speaking terms with Chris.

Oh you might want to be more careful with how you use the terms; "atoms" and "molecules", since one is composed of the other.

MM

 

[Oystein]

If you knew it was impossible for the micrographs to show something that small, why did you look?

Just in case

[qimg]http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/3161/bseimage.png[/qimg]

The above is a 1,000 nm portion of Fig.9 from the Bentham Paper. Considering it is just a 72 ppi screen capture, and that the source image must be of a much higher quality, I believe that round objects with a diameter only 30-40 nm would still be discernible as round.

Here is a link to the best quality Fig. 9 I can get out of the paper:

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums...terial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig09_orig.jpg

It's missing the information in the black bar, which includes a scale marker. The black bar is approximately 4.3 microns wide and 300 nm high. Since it's 84 pixels high, 1 pixel is 3.5 nm; A structure 35 nm across would show as 10 pixels. I just played around a little with MS Paint, resizing several images of circles and spheres to 10 pixel diameter. It depends pretty much on contrast resolution if you can tell a circle from an octogon, for example, or a smooth ball from a dimpled and bumpy one.

What I don't understand is why Chris, acting as a journalist, would seek the advice of a pretender like yourself, rather than pursuing clarification from Richard Gage. Richard Gage is trying to get the true story out there and obviously he is on speaking terms with Chris.

LOL
You are quite something, calling me a pretender, and Gage a dispenser of true stories

Turns out, what Chris heard from Gage there is FALSE. If Chris trusted in Gage's words, he'd now believe a FALSE statement. How about that?

Oh you might want to be more careful with how you use the terms; "atoms" and "molecules", since one is composed of the other.

Hahahaha

Please, MM, where did I use the terms incorrectly?

 

[Miragememories]

"...Here is a link to the best quality Fig. 9 I can get out of the paper:

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums...terial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig09_orig.jpg"

Your so called reference is a 68 KB JPEG of an SE image. That is not a lossless, copy of the original.

There are many sites that discuss SEM and SE imaging in under 10 nanometers.

The quality of your proofs leaves a great deal to be desired.

MM