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

[LSSBB]

Detonation velocity of sol-gel produced 70nm nanothermite is 900m/s. http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/cejem/2-2010/full/klapotke.pdf

Detonation velocity of TNT is 6900 m/s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_explosive_detonation_velocities

So once again you are way, way off.

Now we've been here before haven't we Ergo? Do you know where we discussed this very topic? Yep it was in this very thread. 3 1/2 weeks ago.

So why are you bringing up exactly the same thing that was discussed? Are you incapable of learning? Do you have the memory of a goldfish? Why do you point blank refuse to accept documented evidence and data when it is presented to you?

You have already confessed that you have no idea what Enthalpy is.

You have already confessed that you have no idea what heat of reaction is.

You have already confessed that you have no idea why it's a theoretical limit.

You have already confessed that you have no idea how delta H is calculated.

Even though 10 minutes on Wiki reading the link provided to you would tell you everything. This information is learnt at around the age of 15 in school Chemistry classes. It's expanded on at advanced level 16-18 and you have to do the calculations.

Do you think we are lying to you when we tell you that you cannot get more than around 4KJ/g from this equation?

Fe2O3 + Al = Al2O3 + Fe

I've left it unbalanced on purpose. Ergo, please use your extensive knowledge of chemistry to balance the above equation. No cheating looking it up.

And now you have moved the goalposts again. And again that argument has been smashed. Aren't you getting tired of moving the posts? We are.

You have zero knowledge of chemistry. Zero. None. If you did, you'd get things right occasionally.

Tell us why we should discuss things with you when you have shown that you cannot learn the most basic of concepts even when they have been explained to you dozens of times?

Time for a little humor.

Q: How many psychotherapists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.

 

[ozeco41]

Time for a little humor.

Q: How many psychotherapists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.

This one might be closer to "on topic" here:
Q: How many carpenters does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Two, one to hold it, one to hammer it in.

 

[pgimeno]

Fe2O3 + Al = Al2O3 + Fe

I've left it unbalanced on purpose. Ergo, please use your extensive knowledge of chemistry to balance the above equation. No cheating looking it up.

It's easy to balance that equation as applied to the chips:

0Fe₂O₃ + 0Al = 0Al₂O₃ + 0Fe

... because there was NO elemental aluminium that could react with the Fe₂O₃.

 

[Oystein]

It's easy to balance that equation as applied to the chips:

0Fe₂O₃ + 0Al = 0Al₂O₃ + 0Fe

... because there was NO elemental aluminium that could react with the Fe₂O₃.

But but ... there were many many thermites!!!

3791 Fe₂O₃ + 7582 Al = 3791 Al₂O₃ + 7582 Fe

I win!

 

[Miragememories]

"...LOL

You are dodging. You made a claim - back it up: What is the range of energy yield for thernites? I know, you don't."

"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]. As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component."

"I know. What conclusion can you draw from this fact?

MM and ergo, to guide you towards a correct answer to this question, which of the following conclusions are correct, and which are false:

a) The DSC curves and energy densities are best explained by their consisting mostly of some (unknown) organic matrix material
b) The DSC curves and energy densities are best explained by their containing some nanothermite
c) It is possible that no organic combustion takes place
d) It is possible that no thermite reaction takes place"

That is totally evasive.

Responding with multiple choice questions is totally ignoring the answer you were previously provided with.

Why are you ignoring the Bentham Paper explanation?

MM

 

[funk de fino]

That is totally evasive.

Responding with multiple choice questions is totally ignoring the answer you were previously provided with.

Why are you ignoring the Bentham Paper explanation?

MM

So you don't know then?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why are you ignoring the Bentham Paper explanation?

Nobody's ignoring it. It is, in fact, perfectly correct to say that a non-zero fraction of the energy released may be from the organic matrix; indeed, it would be more correct to say that a non-zero part of the energy released must be from the organic matrix. What it carefully avoids pointing out, however, is that there is no reason to believe that a non-zero part of the energy released comes from a thermite reaction. We know that an organic matrix is giving out at least 95% of the energy emitted by these chips; there is no reason whatsoever to conclude that the remaining 5% is not also coming from the same source.

Dave

 

[alienentity]

Lol. What is this, now? Seven posts about Pink Floyd by bedunkers in a thread about Jim Millette's dust study?

Why are bedunkers trashing their own thread? They don't want to admit that the WTC primer paint doesn't ignite at 430 C ?

Yes we never tire of pointing out your mistakes and fallacious reasoning. That's correct.

btw, what temperature does the nanothermite of Tillotson et al. ignite? Can you tell us Ergo? (hint: it's not 430º)

 

[Oystein]

...
Why are you ignoring the Bentham Paper explanation?
...

I am not ignoring it. I am rejecting it, because it is flat out WRONG.

If you found the correct answers to my multiple choice question, ypu'd be a step closer to understanding why.

So please try it now!

 

[Miragememories]

I am not ignoring it. I am rejecting it, because it is flat out WRONG.

If you found the correct answers to my multiple choice question, ypu'd be a step closer to understanding why.

So please try it now!

Since you feel low resolution 68 KB JPEG images are a valid proof for visually rejecting the existence of 20-35 nm iron-rich microspheres, you earn little credibility for your other speculations.

MM

 

[R.Mackey]

Detonation velocity of sol-gel produced 70nm nanothermite is 900m/s. http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/cejem/2-2010/full/klapotke.pdf

Detonation velocity of TNT is 6900 m/s.

Minor correction, not that Truthers have any interest in the distinction -- the "velocity" in the sol-gel nanothermite construction is not a detonation velocity, because there is no detonation. It's a flame-front velocity.

No gas creation == no detonation. Nanothermite is not an explosive, period. Details in this old post.

You may now resume taunting the illiterate.

 

[ergo]

Am I the only one who has noticed absolutely no progress in this discussion? Ever since this study was released, it's been the same thermite/dsc/aluminum/why ergo is wrong

Yes, I've noticed this. How many opportunities have you guys had to present your case now? What is the difficulty?

"Nanothermite in the WTC has been disproven because:

1) ____________________________

2) ____________________________

3) ____________________________ "

(Usually there are three good reasons, but it doesn't have to be.)


Now, I know that bedunkers will probably say:

1) No elemental aluminum was found.

And the answer to this is that James Millette found no elemental aluminum. Or he determined that none was present. Harrit et al did. So a definitive statement cannot be made about the presence of elemental aluminum when there are two contradictory findings. Especially considering the other evidence Harrit et al reported, and especially since Millette's study is in response to Harrit et. al.

But can someone name the other two points? Would very much appreciate. Thanks a bunch.

 

[twinstead]

Uh, why does Nanothermite in the WTC need to be "disproven"? I'm no scientist, but I'd imagine it needs to be "proven".

 

[DGM]

Yes, I've noticed this. How many opportunities have you guys had to present your case now? What is the difficulty?

"Nanothermite in the WTC has been disproven because:

First you need to show it was proven in the first place or show reasonable cause for it to be there.


Can you do this?

 

[Oystein]

Since you feel low resolution 68 KB JPEG images are a valid proof for visually rejecting the existence of 20-35 nm iron-rich microspheres, you earn little credibility for your other speculations.

MM

Two pages up,m I linked to Fig 9 which I uploaded to my Photobucket account. I just noticed that Photobucked scaled it down, from 1291x968 pixels and 247 KB to 1023x767 pixels and 64 KB. I computed pixel resolution (3.5 px/nm) from my "original", which I have copied out of the Bentham paper original.

This was meant to illustrate why Gage could not possibly have seen any "spheres" 35 nm or smaller (i.e. 100 atoms or molecules across) "in the Bentham paper". I didn't mean to imply that this is at the same time the lower limit for SEM microscopy in general. Sorry if that was your impression. I said

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...).

The Bentham authors used a FEI XL30-SFEG scanning electron microscope (SEM). Here is a data sheet:

http://www.kstreetstudio.com/science/experiments/files/FEI-XL30-SFEG.pdf

Resolution 1.5 nm at 10 kV or higher, 2.5 nm at 1 kV

That's not very far away from the 3.5 nm pixel resolution in the original Fig 9. I would admit though that my initial estimate was slightly of - an object 35 nm across would enjoy a resolution of ca. 24x24 "pixels" (I am not sure we are actually talking about pixels), and that is probably just enough to discern spheres as such.




Now what YOU need to show evidence of is that any data exists from the Harrit team that shows spheres that small. I have shown that Gage's claim (as paraphrased by Chris Mohr) is FALSE. (There is, as I said from the beginning, a chance that either Gage or Mohr has mixed up pre- and post-ignition particles; however there really are no particles at all in the Bentham paper that are this small).

 

[Oystein]

Yes, I've noticed this. How many opportunities have you guys had to present your case now? What is the difficulty?

"Nanothermite in the WTC has been disproven because:

1) ____________________________

2) ____________________________

3) ____________________________ "

(Usually there are three good reasons, but it doesn't have to be.)


Now, I know that bedunkers will probably say:

1) No elemental aluminum was found.
And the answer to this is that James Millette found no elemental aluminum. Or he determined that none was present. Harrit et al did. So a definitive statement cannot be made about the presence of elemental aluminum when there are two contradictory findings. Especially considering the other evidence Harrit et al reported, and especially since Millette's study is in response to Harrit et. al.

But can someone name the other two points? Would very much appreciate. Thanks a bunch.

Point 1 is sufficient.
It is already abundantly clear from all the evidence Harrit e.al. present in Fig. 2-11 that there is no elemental Al in chips a-d.

There is not the slightest bit of evidence in all of the Bentham paper from page 19 on (the DSC test) to the end that would enable anyone to make at least an informed guess about the presence or non-presence of elemental Al before ignition (or, for that matter, the presence or non-presence of
Al-oxide in post-ignition residues)



This leaves us with the only bit of data that points toward elemental Al: Fig. 17, taken from the MEK-soaked chip. In recent days, I have looked into that data quite a bit, and would admit at this point that this XEDS graph is from a region with significant elemental Al:

There is, however, a big problem if you want to jump to the conclusion that this one measurement makes the chip "thermitic". This problem is the very low overall Al-content of the chip. Fig 14:

The Al-peak is tiny compared to O, C, Ca, Fe, Si, and S. I ran a few iterations of XEDS simulations, and found that this small Al-peak represents an Al-content of about 0.6% by weight aluminium. Since pure Al would have to get mixed 1:3 with iron oxide to get a perfect thermite mix, this means that the red layer of the MEK-chip contains a theoretical maximum of 2.4% thermite. With a theoretical maximum energy density of pure and perfect thermite of 3.9 kJ/g, the MEK-chip red layer gets less than 94 J/g from thermite, IF all the Al is elemental.

Which it isn't. Fig. 17 has enough O to oxidize 40-45% of the Al-atoms. Some of the O no doubt is bound to C, but still, some of the Al will not be able for a thermite reaction. Realistically, 0.6% Al in the chip, even if it were actually part of a thermite preparation, would limit the thermitic energy density of the red layer to under 50 J/g. In the DSC-test, Harrit e.al. measured up to 7,500 J/g! That's a factor of 150 too much!


Speculating that some of the signal in Fig. 14 is "contamination" doesn't come anywhere near to solving that problem.




To summarize:

- The only data that points to elemental Al is from the single MEK chip
- This chip contains only a trace total amount of Al
- This tiny amount of Al, even if it were to react thermitically with iron oxide, would be more than 2 orders of magnitude too little to explain the DSC data
- All other chips either contain no elemental Al (chips a-d, where clearly all Al is associated with Si and O to form kaolin clay), or it is simply unknown if they contain Al and in what form
- Harrit e.al. never described finding Al2O3 in post-ignition residues, a sine qua non for the thermite reaction.
- The paper thus falls very short (by a factor of >100) of proving that the chips are thermitic

Q.E.D.

 

[Africanus]

Not only were paint chips ruled out by the DSC, but they were ruled out by the flame tests as well, lol. Had forgotten this.

Wait, are you talking about the test where Harrit actually needed higher temperatures than Tillotson and Gash to ignite his "nanothermite", although its ingition temperature should be 100°C below the ignition temperature of Tillotson and Gash?

 

[Sunstealer]

Minor correction, not that Truthers have any interest in the distinction -- the "velocity" in the sol-gel nanothermite construction is not a detonation velocity, because there is no detonation. It's a flame-front velocity.

No gas creation == no detonation. Nanothermite is not an explosive, period. Details in this old post.

You may now resume taunting the illiterate.

Acknowledged. Thanks. I shall read that post at leisure and digest. It's difficult to distinguish due to mixed terminology and I've confused the two.

 

[Robrob]

No gas creation == no detonation. Nanothermite is not an explosive, period. Details in this old post.

A fact that often gets lost in all the hand waving.

 

[cjnewson88]

That post Mackey linked is gold. Wish I'd had read that before I wasted my time starting the 'Thermite goes bang and fizzle' thread.