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

[NoahFence]

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.

Trying out stand-up comedy material?

 

[ergo]

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


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?

Yes. Do you think otherwise?

• i.e. if one, or four, ignite at 430°C, all ignite at 430°C?

If one out of four ignite at 430 C, then not all ignite. If four out of four ignite, then all ignite. Why do you ask?

• i.e. if one is, for example, thermitic, all are thermitic?

If one is thermitic, chances are a good many of them are. It depends on how the thermite is distributed within the matrix, I suppose.

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

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

right?

If four out of four chips are paint, and there's no ignition reaction at 430 C that produces that exotherm and resulting microspheres, then it's likely that the chips are paint with no thermite.

If you can prove that plain old non-thermitic paint chips ignite at 430 C, producing similar microspheres at least one in four times as were observed by several researchers, then your case for no thermite is very strong.

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.

He may have a case that that chip or those chips are not thermitic.

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

If they're not thermitic, I don't really care what they are.

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

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)

I will honestly answer that I don't know. However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites. As was already pointed out, thermite has near the same energy density as TNT. Is TNT not an explosive in your eyes? What is the relevance of this constant harping on energy density?

If it relates specifically to the DSC test, then I am interested in learning how and why. Otherwise, I will reiterate again that all the literature on nanothermites discuss their greater energy storage capacity, faster reaction times, faster release rates, and therefore greater explosive potential. Discussions of energy density in this case appear to be entirely irrelevant.

Here's another reference:

Conventional energetic materials typically have relatively low energy density and reaction burn rate. By reducing the reactant particle size from micron size to nano scale, nanothermite mixtures decrease the diffusion and transport limitation, exhibiting a superfast reactivity and high pressure release rate during nanothermite reactions. These novel nanoenergetic materials have the potential to become the next generation explosive and propellant.

http://gradworks.umi.com/34/84/3484045.html

 

[Oystein]

...
I will honestly answer that I don't know. However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites.
...

Since there is no nanothermite (the energy density of >>4 kJ/g amd the absence of elemental Al prove absolutely that the energetiv material is not thermite of any kind), you are off topic. The topic is Millette's dust study.

The reason why we discuss DSC here is your assertion that a replication of Farrer's DSC test with the Millette chips which don't contain thermite wouöld prove anything with regard to the question of thermite or no thermite.

It does not.

Your reply of "I don't know" to the question "Are you claiming that nano-thermite (of the Al+Fe2O3 variety) can have an energy density > 4 kJ/g?" proves absolutely that you don't understand the most fundamental physical realities of this universe, or are utterly unable to apply them to the topic at hand.

it follows that debating this with you is pointless.

I'll end the debate here.

 

[ergo]

Can anyone explain to me why Oystein comes to this conclusion:

there is no nanothermite

from this conclusion:

the energy density of >>4 kJ/g amd the absence of elemental Al prove absolutely that the energetiv material is not thermite of any kind

???

Because I thought that nanothermites are typically embedded in a binder or matrix of some kind, typically organic. Isn't it commonly accepted that the presence of these organic compounds will alter the energy output in the reaction? For example,what was the energy release measured in the Tillotson test? Anyone?

So how can it be concluded that "there is no nanothermite" when the energy output will not confirm this either way?

Sorry if this is refried hash to some of you here, but I'm trying to understand why the "debunkers" are so focussed on energy density when it appears to have no relevance to explosive power, and also when it appears that energy release will vary with other materials present in the reacting material.

Eg: Harrit et al. (Bentham paper):

A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials [21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3 composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive [6, 24].

From Gash, 2003 (Nanostructured Energetic Materials with Sol-Gel Chemistry]:

... one could add metal-oxide components that are more reactive with Al(s) to increase the energy released.

The reason why we discuss DSC here is your assertion that a replication of Farrer's DSC test with the Millette chips which don't contain thermite would prove anything with regard to the question of thermite or no thermite.

My guess is that paint chips don't ignite at those temperatures, don't produce the same exotherm as the red grey chips, and don't produce microspheres. Since the WTC evidence shows us that Tnemec paint does not ignite at 430 C, and Harrit et al showed that microspheres form in the reaction, the evidence still weighs in favour of something more energetic than paint.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

For the lulz...

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

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)

I will honestly answer that I don't know. However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites. As was already pointed out, thermite has near the same energy density as TNT. Is TNT not an explosive in your eyes? What is the relevance of this constant harping on energy density?

If it relates specifically to the DSC test, then I am interested in learning how and why. Otherwise, I will reiterate again that all the literature on nanothermites discuss their greater energy storage capacity, faster reaction times, faster release rates, and therefore greater explosive potential. Discussions of energy density in this case appear to be entirely irrelevant.

Egad. My responses in blue:

• "However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites."
  
  True. Note, however, that the obsession with energy density is a Truther trait, initiated by Harrit et al.'s discussion of energy density in their paper.​
• "As was already pointed out, thermite has near the same energy density as TNT."
  
  As you had just acknowledged, energy density is irrelevant to actual explosive potential.​
• "Is TNT not an explosive in your eyes?"
  
  Yes, but chocolate chip cookies are not explosives, even though chocolate chip cookies have higher energy density than TNT. Please try to keep up with what you yourself had written just two sentences earlier.​
• "What is the relevance of this constant harping on energy density?"
  
  None. So why did Harrit et al. try to make such a big deal of energy density? And why did you and many other Truthers fall for that deception?​
• "If it relates specifically to the DSC test, then I am interested in learning how and why."
  
  Harrit et al.'s DSC test measured the energy density. That's one of the very few things that was accomplished by their DSC test. The energy density measured by their DSC test showed that the red-gray chips could not have been the kind of thermite or nanothermite they discussed in their paper.​
• "Otherwise, I will reiterate again that all the literature on nanothermites discuss their greater energy storage capacity,"
  
  As Oystein and others have pointed out on many occasions, nanothermites have less energy storage capacity than the corresponding thermites because their greater surface area exposes more of the oxidizable component to premature oxidation.​
• "Discussions of energy density in this case appear to be entirely irrelevant."
  
  Agreed. You should join us in laughing at Harrit et al. for basing so much of their argument on energy density.​

Sorry if this is refried hash to many of you here, but I'm trying to understand why the "debunkers" are so focussed on energy density when it appears to have no relevance to explosive power, and also when it appears that energy release will vary with other materials present in the reacting material.

Eg: Harrit et al. (Bentham paper):

Debunkers talk about energy density because Harrit et al. tried to use energy density as one of their main talking points. That has provided a great deal of amusement to scientifically literate debunkers, because Harrit's measurements of energy density actually proved their red-gray chips could not have been the kinds of nanothermite they discussed in their paper.

My guess is that paint chips don't ignite at those temperatures, don't produce the same exotherm as the red grey chips, and don't produce microspheres.

Your guesses have not been educated guesses. If you consult a dictionary, you will find that the word "hope" would have been even more appropriate than "guess".

 

[ergo]

• "However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites.
  
  
  True. Note, however, that the obsession with energy density is a Truther trait, initiated by Harrit et al.'s discussion of energy density in their paper.​

• 
  
  Actually, no. I don't see this in any "truther" arguments. On the other hand, every second post of Oystein's is about, well, how NOTHING can exceed 3.9kj/g or it SIMPLY ISN"T THERMITE!!!1! (sung to the tune of: "Ya can't have your puddin before ya eat yer meat!! HOW can you have yer puddin before ya eat yer meat?!?!!" )
  
  Which is, of course, utterly stupid. As you confirm here.
  
  The rest of your post simply reiterates that stupidity. Glad we agree on that.
  
  As for scientifically literate, I look forward to seeing any of you join the discussion in a professional scientific arena. But for a bunch of anonymous internet "debunkers" to claim that they know more about these matters than Niels Harrit is laughable. It's embarrassing - to anyone with any intelligence and humility.
  
  
  

  As Oystein and others have pointed out on many occasions, nanothermites have less energy storage capacity than the corresponding thermites because their greater surface area exposes more of the oxidizable component to premature oxidation.[/indent]

  
  And this is incorrect. You don't appear to know what you're talking about. If you disagree with me, provide a citation that confirms this claim.

 

[DGM]

I look forward to seeing any of you join the discussion in a professional scientific arena.

Let us know when your arguement gets to one.

 

[DGM]

Actually, no. I don't see this in any "truther" arguments. On the other hand, every second post of Oystein's is about, well, how NOTHING can exceed 3.9kj/g or it SIMPLY ISN"T THERMITE!!!1! (sung to the tune of: "Ya can't have your puddin before ya eat yer meat!! HOW can you have yer puddin before ya eat yer meat?!?!!" )

Which is, of course, utterly stupid. As you confirm here.

ergo:

I'm saying this in the nicest way. This post proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have not read or understand anything Oystein has said. You are so far out of your element that even I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[LSSBB]

ergo:

I'm saying this in the nicest way. This post proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have not read or understand anything Oystein has said. You are so far out of your element that even I'm embarrassed for you.

I am almost feeling sorry for him. Maybe if he got some help from an expert in performing unobtrusive building demolitions with thermite...

 

[Robrob]

I am almost feeling sorry for him. Maybe if he got some help from an expert in performing unobtrusive building demolitions with thermite...

Funny how in all those Youtube videos, there's not a single one of a steel girder being cut in half by thermite/thermate/nano-thermite/magic fairy pixie dust.

 

[DGM]

Funny how in all those Youtube videos, there's not a single one of a steel girder being cut in half by thermite/thermate/nano-thermite/magic fairy pixie dust.

Actually there was a "truther" (I don't recall his name) that did in-fact do some live experiments and did succeed. Although I do admire his effort he did expose a significant weakness in the "thermite" theory. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[alienentity]

Actually there was a "truther" (I don't recall his name) that did in-fact do some live experiments and did succeed. Although I do admire his effort he did expose a significant weakness in the "thermite" theory. I'll just leave it at that.

Jon Cole

 

[LSSBB]

Actually there was a "truther" (I don't recall his name) that did in-fact do some live experiments and did succeed. Although I do admire his effort he did expose a significant weakness in the "thermite" theory. I'll just leave it at that.

Well, I'm fairly certain the significant weakness in their theory involves a critical neuronal deficiency on the part of the adherents, however correcting this deficiency would very probably destroy the theory they hope to preserve.

 

[ozeco41]

Actually there was a "truther" (I don't recall his name) that did in-fact do some live experiments and did succeed. Although I do admire his effort he did expose a significant weakness in the "thermite" theory. I'll just leave it at that.

Well, I'm fairly certain the significant weakness in their theory involves a critical neuronal deficiency on the part of the adherents, however correcting this deficiency would very probably destroy the theory they hope to preserve.

The main weakness in all the thermXte claims is the simple fact that there was no demolition.

Even if there was a 100 tonne stockpile of thermite, thermate, nano-thermXte or Santa's custard found on Ground Zero --- there was no demolition.

We only discuss these bits of nonsense because we are prepared to argue "truther style" starting from the wrong end of the logic. They pose an anomaly - in this case the unproven anomaly that there may have been thermXte on ground zero. Then they reverse burden of proof and ask us to disprove the presence of thermXTe AND WE GO LONG WITH THAT FALSE LOGIC. Grrrrr!!!

There was no demolition. They need to prove there was demolition before the type of device used becomes of any significance. Even then it is irrelevant - the claim "they" are trying to make is that there was CD. If they prove CD they are home and hosed - don't need thermXte.

Hence my reference to Santa's custard -- first suggested by me in 2008 IIRC -- it was just as likely that Santa's custard caused CD as any form of thermXte. And the custard could easily have fallen off the sleigh and don't anyone raise anachronisms about 9/11 v 12/24 - we could end up in a derail.

It makes at least as much sense as the truther nonsense. And, (reversing burden of proof - truther style) "Prove me wrong".

 

[ergo]

ergo:
I'm saying this in the nicest way. This post proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have not read or understand anything Oystein has said. You are so far out of your element that even I'm embarrassed for you.

Well, anything I haven't quite grasped of Oystein's highly complex theory, feel free to enlighten me, DGM.

The best I can summarize from the logical carnage so far is: "There was no nanothermite.". . . "Because there was no nanothermite."

 

[NoahFence]

Did ergo just screw up Pink Floyd in order to make a point? Is there ANYTHING you can get right?

Anything?

 

[alienentity]

Did ergo just screw up Pink Floyd in order to make a point? Is there ANYTHING you can get right?

Anything?

LMAO yeah I caught that too, but it was so lame I just quietly chuckled to myself.

It's not even a tune, but it's on a tune. So it can't be sung! He got that wrong too!

 

[ergo]

Lol. But two bedunkers googling a Pink Floyd lyric to "verify" twoofer accuracy is not lame at all....

You won't google nanothermite, but boy howdy, watch out for those 1980s concept album rock lyrics!

 

[cjnewson88]

The Wall was released in the 70s, and ergo, no one needs to 'google' those lyrics.

 

[dafydd]

Lol. But two bedunkers googling a Pink Floyd lyric to "verify" twoofer accuracy is not lame at all....

You won't google nanothermite, but boy howdy, watch out for those 1980s concept album rock lyrics!

What is a 'bedunker''? Something to do with unking in bed? We are not truthers, we don't need to google everything.