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

[Miragememories]

"Today I looked very closely at Fig. 25 of the Bentham paper, which shows post-DSC residue of some red-gray chip. It shows grainy and coarse particles as well as a few microspheres that are several µm across. This is accompanied by an XEDS chart that is supposedly taken from one of the spheres, with a dominant Fe-peak, and also much Si and a lower Al peak. Of course O and C, too:

[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig25.jpg[/qimg]

This is a link to a greater magnification of the SEM image:

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums...erial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig25a_orig.jpg

What is interesting here?
-> The spheres are only medium gray!

Why is that intersting?
-> Because it's a BSE image! The brightness of spots in BSE images scales with the atomic number or mass of the predominating elements in thar spot. As we know e.g. from Fig. 4, 5, 8, particles or regions rich in iron (Fe, atomic number 26) appear bright, almost white, while regions dominated by Si and Al (atomic numbers 14 and 13) appear medium gray, and where there is only organic matrix (C, O; atomic numbers 6 and 8) we have a dark background.
..."

Again you appear to be guilty of attempting to extract more than is offered.

Are you suggesting that the Bentham authors were unaware of how BSE images are created?

That they purposely expected to fool the rest of the scientific community?

Your lengthy, poorly supported ramble, is strictly based on your expectation that dramatic brightness changes should be observable in the published BSE images.

You fail to consider how image editing and processing can easily render such an expectation meaningless.

The composite image above is comprised of a portion of Fig.25 (on the left), and Fig.5d (on the right).

To my eye, there is insufficient brightness difference between those two large spheres in Fig.25, and the gray chip shown in the bottom half of Fig.5d, to base your dramatic claims.

MM

 

[Africanus]

Interesting article and good work, Oystein. As I read your article, one fact drew my attention that I didn't consider before

[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig25.jpg[/qimg]

Is it possible, that kaolinite is present in this sample? The platlets to the left of the three spheres are very similar to kaolinite and the average atomic number matches, too.

 

[DGM]

That they purposely expected to fool the rest of the scientific community?


MM

I seriously doubt this was ever their intention. They have never seriously presented this to the scientific community, instead they chose to pay to have it published in a journal where they could also control the peer review. They have never sought independent verification. They refuse to share their samples or release tests (more conclusive) that they have claimed to have done.

Their intention was to fool their target audience, you!

 

[Dog Town]

Their intention was to fool their target audience, you!

It does seem to be, the one thing they are successful at!

 

[Oystein]

Interesting article and good work, Oystein. As I read your article, one fact drew my attention that I didn't consider before



Is it possible, that kaolinite is present in this sample? The platlets to the left of the three spheres are very similar to kaolinite and the average atomic number matches, too.

Difficult to say at that magnification.

the black bar that goes across almost the entire width of the image is ca. 50 µm.
Kaolin platelets are typically 1 or 2 µm wide and several tens of nm thin. The latter is equivakent to just 1 pixel in that image. Most of what I see in that image would be larger than that order of magnitude. I see some platy candidates above the left end of the black bar, but it's not clear to me that this must be kaolin, I can't rule out other substances, as we don't have a spectrum and a higher-magnification image that would show shape and size more clearly.






MM by the way should explain what the those grains an particles are that are brighter than the spheres, if he wishes to imagine that the spheres are basically iron. They must be rich in something with a higher atomic number than iron.

As for what my observation means with regards to the intentions or abilities of the authors: I'll leave that up to him. I am only pointing out the cool facts.

 

[Justin39640]

It does seem to be, the one thing they are successful at!

I think they could have lit dog crap on fire, called it thermite, and every truther out there would have still bought it.

 

[Oystein]

I think they could have lit dog crap on fire, called it thermite, and every truther out there would have still bought it.

If sufficiently dry, it will no doubt ignite in the requisite temperature range (remember: +/- 100 °C is no problem at all), release as much energy per mass unit (remember: a factor of 5 times more or less is no problem at all), and the ash will contain iron-rich spheres.

 

[Miragememories]

"MM by the way should explain what the those grains an particles are that are brighter than the spheres, if he wishes to imagine that the spheres are basically iron. They must be rich in something with a higher atomic number than iron.

As for what my observation means with regards to the intentions or abilities of the authors: I'll leave that up to him. I am only pointing out the cool facts."

Your idea of what constitutes a "fact" leaves a lot to be desired.

I suggest you address the issue of your seeing what isn't there to be seen.

No doubt the Bentham scientists could easily see those white particles, and clearly they felt there was not a conflict with their observations.

As professionals, who actually performed the tests, and observed the original BSE images generated, they would have a far greater understanding of what they observed than an unqualified pretender such as yourself, attempting an armchair greyscale analysis in front of 72dpi computer monitor.

MM

 

[cjnewson88]

Or; they knew they were being dishonest, lied about it, and hoped that people like MM would make excuses and assumptions for them in defense. Guess it worked.

 

[Redwood]

I'm not sure about the state of chromium in gray layers, it only seems that passivation layers are only some nanometers or tens of nanometers "thick", therefore negligible in comparison with the thicknesses of gray layers of oxidized steel in WTC red-gray chips.

Another quote from this article:

The failure to find an adequate alternative to chromate inhibitors during the last 25 years is, at least partly, due to a lack of understanding of the mechanism of inhibition. Numerous studies (2-5) have been devoted to clarification of the mechanism by which chromate ions inhibit the corrosion of metals and alloys. Thus, at high concentrations, chromate may act as the classical anodic passivating inhibitor, while at lower concentrations it may be reduced at cathode sites to chromium oxide, essentially functioning as a cathodic inhibitor.

Some schemes how such passivation can work eletrochemically in paints are here.

It could be easily a "full time job" for at least several days to know all essentials about chromate passivation of steel, but suitable chromate pigments in anticorrosive primers must be simply "very slightly soluble" in water, which leads to the formation of chromate and strontium ions migrating/diffusing (at least) in the still wet paint layer.

I have always wondered how strontium chromate crystals, quite rare in Laclede primer and firmly "trapped" in the crosslinked epoxy resin binder, can inhibit steel corrosion, since it looks like a classical "action at the distance"; and at least this point is clearer now

For me, it is another "point for Laclede paint" (here is some explanation of perhaps missing strontium chromate needles, as for Jim Millette's effort to find them), although I cannot be really conclusive in this regard

I apologize in advance for further derailing this thread, but discussing real science and technology is much more interesting than debunking woo!

Chromate is indeed a very effective corrosion inhibitor. Once upon a time where I worked we used chromate in aqueous solution at ~pH 12 in boiler water to inhibit corrosion. Interesting that at that pH, chromate isn't a very good oxidizing agent. In fact, it's easier to oxidize trivalent chromium to chromate at that pH!

True also that the actual mechanisms of corrosion inhibition haven't been extensively studied. It's just that everyone knows that they work! As an example, nitric acid was traditionally used to clean stainless steel, since that is what was used to passivate stainless in the first place. Theory was that the nitric acid reacted with the s.s. to produce an oxide surface layer. Problem was that, at the concentrations generally used, nitric acid is only weakly oxidizing. And as it turns out, citric acid, which isn't oxidizing at all, works really well. It seems that the mechanism is more that it "scrubs" the surface of the steel, allowing it to react with atmospheric oxygen, which forms the passivating layer.

 

[Dog Town]

No doubt the Bentham scientists could easily see those white particles, and clearly they felt there was not a conflict with their observations.

There's your sign!

 

[Dog Town]

I think they could have lit dog crap on fire, called it thermite, and every truther out there would have still bought it.

Gos ta pay dem beeels!

 

[chrismohr]

Millette Dust Study Update 6/15/12

I had another phone conversation with Jim Millette today to get a progress report on his WTC Dust study. A few highlights:

1) Since this project is not funded any further, he is having his employees work on this when they are having a "slow day at the office" so it doesn't get in the way of his work commitments, but it is coming along and he has written and studied more.

2) He has done more experiments and research on the iron-rich spheres. His updated report on the WTC Dust will be featured at a Microscopy Conference around July 10 (The McCrone Inter-Micro 2012 Conference, to be exact). There he will get another round of peer-review feedback on his work so far.

3) So far he has been unable to find a sample of known LaClede coating (and other possible suspected coatings that could be a match for his chips). He considers coming up with a positive ID of the red-gray chips relatively unimportant, as he has already confirmed that there is definitely no measurable amount of thermitic materials in any of the chips. However, he agrees it would be good if he DID find a match. To that end, there are many people at this conference with private collections of samples of all kinds of building materials, including customs officials, people from the Smithsonian Institute, fire forensics experts, etc. He will be asking all of them if anyone has samples of LaClede primer coatings.

4) He is still working on a final report and it will have additional information that the preliminary report did not have, as you can see.

 

[cjnewson88]

2) He has done more experiments and research on the iron-rich spheres. His updated report on the WTC Dust will be featured at a Microscopy Conference around July 10 (The McCrone Inter-Micro 2012 Conference, to be exact). There he will get another round of peer-review feedback on his work so far.

I dont suppose he gave any hints as to what his research on the iron-rich spheres revealed?

 

[Oystein]

Thanks Chris, sounds all good!

...
2) He has done more experiments and research on the iron-rich spheres.

Ah the suspence

His updated report on the WTC Dust will be featured at a Microscopy Conference around July 10 (The McCrone Inter-Micro 2012 Conference, to be exact). There he will get another round of peer-review feedback on his work so far.

That conference will be held July 9-13:
www.mcri.org/home/section/101-759-762/preliminary-schedule

And Jim is scheduled to speak on tuesday, 10th of july:
http://www.mcri.org/home/section/101-759-774/abstract-titles-and-speakers

Thermite in the World Trade Center Dust?
James R. Millette, MVA Scientific Consultants

3) So far he has been unable to find a sample of known LaClede coating (and other possible suspected coatings that could be a match for his chips). He considers coming up with a positive ID of the red-gray chips relatively unimportant, as he has already confirmed that there is definitely no measurable amount of thermitic materials in any of the chips. However, he agrees it would be good if he DID find a match. To that end, there are many people at this conference with private collections of samples of all kinds of building materials, including customs officials, people from the Smithsonian Institute, fire forensics experts, etc. He will be asking all of them if anyone has samples of LaClede primer coatings. ...

I agree that a positive ID is not necessary - for rational people. But very nice to have, since, alas, we are NOT dealing with rational people. It's like you are finding a yellowish liquid on your dinner table with tiny bubbles that form a white foam at the top and tastes slightly bitter. Forensic analysis shows its mostly water and about 4% alcohol and contains CO₂, and traces of hops, malt and yeast. You remember that you had bottles of Coors, Budweiser (the Czech original of course ) and Uerige Altbier in your fridge (and possibly other brands, too) and that the liquid, as per sworn affidavid by your wife, originated from the fridge. You think it tastes like Coors, but somehow you are missing the freshness.

Rational people will conclude that the liquid is beer.

Twoofers will suspect it must be a military lab grad poison with magical properties, unless you ID the brand of beer, because the yellowish color proves it's not Uerige.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I had another phone conversation with Jim Millette today to get a progress report on his WTC Dust study. A few highlights:

1) Since this project is not funded any further, he is having his employees work on this when they are having a "slow day at the office" so it doesn't get in the way of his work commitments, but it is coming along and he has written and studied more.

2) He has done more experiments and research on the iron-rich spheres. His updated report on the WTC Dust will be featured at a Microscopy Conference around July 10 (The McCrone Inter-Micro 2012 Conference, to be exact). There he will get another round of peer-review feedback on his work so far.

3) So far he has been unable to find a sample of known LaClede coating (and other possible suspected coatings that could be a match for his chips). He considers coming up with a positive ID of the red-gray chips relatively unimportant, as he has already confirmed that there is definitely no measurable amount of thermitic materials in any of the chips. However, he agrees it would be good if he DID find a match. To that end, there are many people at this conference with private collections of samples of all kinds of building materials, including customs officials, people from the Smithsonian Institute, fire forensics experts, etc. He will be asking all of them if anyone has samples of LaClede primer coatings.

4) He is still working on a final report and it will have additional information that the preliminary report did not have, as you can see.

Hi, Chris, thanks for the interesting news

As a "discoverer" of Laclede primer, I still think that most of Jim Millette's red chips for which XEDS were measured on crossections can be attributed to the Laclede paint quite reasonably (not for sure, but in the way "because of this and this, theses chips could be this WTC paint, for which we know this published specification").

I understand that Jim Millette considers such claim as relatively unimportant (his goal was to falsify thermite hypothesis), but they are important for us. Moreover, in the case this hypothesis will not be included in the final report, truthers will always claim that "paint hypothesis" was not confirmed by this study; remember the sneaky interpretation of AE911Truth.

I am confused: since Jim Millette had no problem to consider the Tnemec primer as the material of chips, why he does not consider "Laclede primer"? Its specification was published in NIST reports as well.

It is not very probable that anybody in the microscopic conference can possess the samples of authentic "Laclede paint" directly from WTC floor trusses. But, who knows?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Yes, we can consider only Budweiser beer with the Czech origin as genuine. We Czechs have no problem with German people in this regard, just American copy of Budweiser is a problem

We have invested a lot of time (among others) in this WTC paint matter. Lets wait up to Jim Millette's final report. Jim is not obliged to prove any paint. If there is no mention on "Laclede primer" in the final report, we can still write some seriously meant paper, e.g. for Bentham Press, why some/many of these chips studied by both Harrit and Millette can be Laclede primer

Anyway, many thanks again to both Chris and Jim

 

[chrismohr]

Hi, Chris, thanks for the interesting news

As a "discoverer" of Laclede primer, I still think that most of Jim Millette's red chips for which XEDS were measured on crossections can be attributed to the Laclede paint quite reasonably (not for sure, but in the way "because of this and this, theses chips could be this WTC paint, for which we know this published specification").

I understand that Jim Millette considers such claim as relatively unimportant (his goal was to falsify thermite hypothesis), but they are important for us. Moreover, in the case this hypothesis will not be included in the final report, truthers will always claim that "paint hypothesis" was not confirmed by this study; remember the sneaky interpretation of AE911Truth.

I am confused: since Jim Millette had no problem to consider the Tnemec primer as the material of chips, why he does not consider "Laclede primer"? Its specification was published in NIST reports as well.

It is not very probable that anybody in the microscopic conference can possess the samples of authentic "Laclede paint" directly from WTC floor trusses. But, who knows?

Ivan,
I may be wrong, but: he does seem interested in LaClede. He just doesn't feel he can offer a positive ID unless he can find a known sample to compare it against. He didn't say this explicitly, but I get the impression he doesn't want to publish a speculation, however well founded. This gives a high degree of credibility to what he DOES say, which is: no thermitic material in the dust. And I think you would agree that NO THERMITE is more important than a positive ID of LaClede, though all of us would love it if he can find it. Who knows, in the circles he is connected with, he may actually find a sample. The likelihood is reasonably high because several of these people have large collections of samples of stuff like this.
cmjsn88 wondered if he said more about the iron-rich spheres. He never tells me about his results until he is finished and is certain of what he is saying. It was obvious he was heading towards some kind of conclusion but again, he never talks without very high certainty of what he is saying.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan,
I may be wrong, but: he does seem interested in LaClede. He just doesn't feel he can offer a positive ID unless he can find a known sample to compare it against. He didn't say this explicitly, but I get the impression he doesn't want to publish a speculation, however well founded. This gives a high degree of credibility to what he DOES say, which is: no thermitic material in the dust. And I think you would agree that NO THERMITE is more important than a positive ID of LaClede, though all of us would love it if he can find it. Who knows, in the circles he is connected with, he may actually find a sample. The likelihood is reasonably high because several of these people have large collections of samples of stuff like this.
cmjsn88 wondered if he said more about the iron-rich spheres. He never tells me about his results until he is finished and is certain of what he is saying. It was obvious he was heading towards some kind of conclusion but again, he never talks without very high certainty of what he is saying.

OK, Chris, I understand that Jim must be very carefull in his conclusions. And I am looking forward to any results as for iron-rich spheres.

Still, one of the Jims claims in the preliminary report was:

"The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips."

He simply considered one of the WTC primer paint which does not fit (Tnemec) , whereas the other primer paint (Laclede primer), which fits and was used in WTC according the same reliable source (NIST reports), is strangely omitted.

 

[thedopefishlives]

OK, Chris, I understand that Jim must be very carefull in his conclusions. And I am looking forward to any results as for iron-rich spheres.

Still, one of the Jims claims in the preliminary report was:

"The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips."

He simply considered one of the WTC primer paint which does not fit (Tnemec) , whereas the other primer paint (Laclede primer), which fits and was used in WTC according the same reliable source (NIST reports), is strangely omitted.

He presumably considered the one which he happened to have on hand and could definitely compare against. At the time of his preliminary report, neither he nor (that I am aware of) anyone here had any knowledge of the LaClede primer as a potential candidate. His preliminary findings revealed it to be a possibility, and now he's going back to try to find a sample to compare against.