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

[BasqueArch]

Here's the choice. Pick one.

1. Do a test that determines exactly what the material is. (FTIR) (TEM-SAED)
2. Do an ambiguous test that doesn't tell you much about the material. (DSC)

Truthers always pick number 2 and then argue that if you perform test 1, but not 2, then you haven't concluded anything. There is no point in replicating a flawed method. DSC is flawed as it tells you virtually nothing.

There is absolutely no point in performing method 2 when you've done method 1 and know EXACTLY what the material is.

It amazes me how stupid truthers are and how their dogmatic stance precludes them from understanding the simplest logic.

Not to mention that thermite requires a much higher temperature than ~ 450 C to ignite, but not epoxy resin, and that it should spew "sparkles" which their DSC paint chip test doesn't.

 

[Sunstealer]

What I am saying, is that if their Bentham Paper's findings are so fallacious, than it should be possible to prove them wrong using identical methodology.

Why do you want to use the wrong methods? It's one of the reasons why the paper is so flawed.

That's the whole bloody point of performing FTIR and SEM-SAED. Those two methods tell you EXACTLY what the material IS. Why do you want to replicate methods that cannot tell you exactly what the material is?

 

[Sunstealer]

Truthers: Below is a figure from the Harrit et al paper. Do you agree with the paper's conclusions that these 4 samples are the same? i.e. a=b=c=d

 

[Miragememories]

"Here's the choice. Pick one.

1. Do a test that determines exactly what the material is. (FTIR) (TEM-SAED)
2. Do an ambiguous test that doesn't tell you much about the material. (DSC)

Truthers always pick number 2 and then argue that if you perform test 1, but not 2, then you haven't concluded anything. There is no point in replicating a flawed method. DSC is flawed as it tells you virtually nothing.

There is absolutely no point in performing method 2 when you've done method 1 and know EXACTLY what the material is.

It amazes me how stupid truthers are and how their dogmatic stance precludes them from understanding the simplest logic."

Unless FTIR and TEM-SAED testing is applied to portions of cleaned samples that have be shown to provide DSC support for the Bentham Paper findings, the results will not be definitive.

So you, Mr. Anonymous, are calling the scientists who contributed to, and agreed with, the findings of the Bentham Paper, stupid just because they made a determination that the DSC findings were not ambiguous.

Well maybe sometimes it is unwise or unhealthy to pursue the truth.

But doing so does not mean a person is stupid.

Insulting people who seek the truth would appear to be reaching the height of stupidity.

MM

 

[DGM]

So you, Mr. Anonymous, are calling the scientists who contributed to, and agreed with, the findings of the Bentham Paper, stupid just because they made a determination that the DSC findings were not ambiguous.


MM

I don't believe he did. He called the people that believed them stupid. Big difference.

 

[Sunstealer]

I don't believe he did. He called the people that believed them stupid. Big difference.

Truthers aren't big on reading comprehension or responding to posts that show their ridiculous position up.

 

[BasqueArch]

My highlight

Unless FTIR and TEM-SAED testing is applied to portions of cleaned samples that have be shown to provide DSC support for the Bentham Paper findings, the results will not be definitive.

So you, Mr. Anonymous, are calling the scientists who contributed to, and agreed with, the findings of the Bentham Paper, stupid just because they made a determination that the DSC findings were not ambiguous.

Well maybe sometimes it is unwise or unhealthy to pursue the truth.

But doing so does not mean a person is stupid.

Insulting people who seek the truth would appear to be reaching the height of stupidity.

MM

Like vampires, non-truthers can't see their images in the mirror.
Vampires because they have no soul, non-truthers because they have no truth.

 

[Oystein]

Until I see a different outcome, I have no idea how I should interpret it.

Having said that, I am quite prepared to change my mind about the Bentham Paper findings if they cannot be replicated.

MM

1. You can say how you will interprete Millette getting basically the same result, right? How would you interprete that? Say Millette puts chips into the DSC that he has previously shown to contain lots of epoxy, mixed with serious amounts of hematite particles, kaolin particles, and bits of other particles (TiO2 perhaps, or Strontium Chromate), and no elemental Al, and gets the same result of an energetic peak near 430°C, power density up to 7.5 kJ/g, iron rich spheres in the residue (and whatever I might have missed now): Please comment such an outcome!

2. Can you give me an example of a result that differs from what Farrer got, that would change your mind about the Bentham Paper findings? I think "different result" would mean that one or more of the following occurs:
2.1 Temperature where power output peaks is significantly higher or lower than 430°C
2.2. Energy density of all or most specimens is either higher than Farrer's high value of 7.5 kJ/g, or lower than Farrer's low value of 1.5 kJ/g
2.3 Residue of DSC test looks significantly different (say, you don't find iron-rich spheres)
So again, please give me an example that you would interprete as Harrit e.al.'s findings being wrong, and not as Millette studying the wrong material!




In other words: Please design the experiment such that the hypothesis we are testing ("red-gray chips are thermitic material, i.e. the thermite reaction Fe₂O₃+2Al -> Al₂O₃+2Fe occurs when heated") can be falsified with it! Which possible test result(s) would constitute falsification?

 

[Oystein]

...samples that have be shown to provide DSC support for the Bentham Paper findings...

You are working under the assumption that the DSC test results in the Bentham paper support the Bentham paper findings.

That assumption is unsupported. The opposite is true: The DSC test results in the Bentham paper are best explained by a reaction other than the thermite reaction. Reason:
1. We know from the Bentham paper that a significant portion of the mass of the tested chips is inert gray layer
2. We know from the Bentham paper that a significant portion of the mass of the red layers is organic matrix.
3. We thus know from the Bentham paper that significantly less than 50% - certainly less than 25% and likely less than 10%, of the chips' mass consists of iron- and aluminium-bearing chemical substances
3b. From 3. it follows that certainly <25%, likely <10%, and possibly 0% of the chips' mass is actually thermite in stoichiometric proportions.
4. We know from the Bentham paper that the chips have an energy density up to 7.5 kJ/g
5. We know from the Bentham paper that pure thermite, under the idealest of conditions, has an energy density of <4 kJ/g
6. Combining findings 3b. and 5., we thus know from the Bentham paper that thermite provides certainly less than a value of 1 kJ/g (<4 kJ/g * 25%), likely <0.4 kJ/g (<4 kJ/g * 10%) and possibly 0 kJ/g
7. We know from the Bentham paper that a different reaction (or several other reactions) must also have occurred
8. From 4., 6. amd 7. it follows that these other reactions must have provided 6.5-7.5 kJ/g in the chip that had an energy density of 7.5 kJ/g, or 87-100% of the energy output; and 3.5-4.5 kJ/g (78-100%) in the second-most powerful chip.
9. From 8. it follows that the main peak of the black and green DSC curves in Figure 19 of the Bentham paper must largely, if not completely due to reactions other than the thermite reaction

In short:
The powerful event that happened around 430°C in the Bentham paper DSC test was not the thermite reaction.

If you disagree, please show where my reasoning is wrong!

 

[ergo]

In short:
The powerful event that happened around 430°C in the Bentham paper DSC test was not the thermite reaction.

Great, then all you have to do now is show us positively what caused the reaction. Not tell us what did it; not conjecture about it. Show us.

 

[ergo]

I would also add for the readers of these threads, that 9/11 bedunkers, without fail, refer to thermite in their so-called analyses, when references to the literature repeatedly shown to them indicates a much different kind of power density in nanothermites than regular thermite.

Most if not all bedunkers arguing in these threads have little knowledge of nanochemistry - something that Neils Harrit is expert in.

Until recently, many bedunkers in fact didn't really believe in nanothermites. They were convinced it was something Harrit and Jones made up. Seriously.

 

[Oystein]

Great, then all you have to do now is show us positively what caused the reaction. Not tell us what did it; not conjecture about it. Show us.

No. You lost focus very quickly. Remember, the question is:

Which possible test result(s) would constitute falsification of the Harrit e.al. findings?

I have shown that their own DSC test results falsify their findings. Do you remember what their findings were?

 

[Spanx]

So we have Thermite, Thermate and nanothermite.

Ergo please tell us where Millette went wrong.

 

[ergo]

You've told us your opinion, Oystein. An opinion based largely on ignorance of nanochemical processes.

You've shown us nothing,

 

[DGM]

You've told us your opinion, Oystein. An opinion based largely on ignorance of nanochemical processes.

You've shown us nothing,

OK, Using the Bentham paper. Tell us what part actually supports their conclutions. Don't use their opinion. Show me chemistry.

I bet you cant. (they didn't)

 

[Oystein]

No. You lost focus very quickly. Remember, the question is:

Which possible test result(s) would constitute falsification of the Harrit e.al. findings?

I have shown that their own DSC test results falsify their findings. Do you remember what their findings were?

You've told us your opinion, Oystein. An opinion based largely on ignorance of nanochemical processes.

You've shown us nothing,

I note:

1. You cannot, or refuse to, tell us what Harrit e.al.'s findings were
2. You cannot, or refuse to, explain which possible test result(s) would constitute falsification of the Harrit e.al. findings.

In other words, you give up and lose by default.

Good evening.

 

[ergo]

I note that you have consistently failed to show us positively what caused the reaction in the DSC test - one you claim is not thermitic.

Therefore, by your logic, you give up and lose by default.

 

[DGM]

I note that you have consistently failed to show us positively what caused the reaction in the DSC test - one you claim is not thermitic.

Therefore, by your logic, you give up and lose by default.

Neither did Jones and the boys. You don't have a problem with that though.

 

[Oystein]

I note that you have consistently failed to show us positively what caused the reaction in the DSC test - one you claim is not thermitic.

Therefore, by your logic, you give up and lose by default.

No.

That is not the question we are debating here.

Do you remember what the question is that Harrit e.al. wanted to answer? Do you remember the answer they gave?

Do you remember the question we asked Millette? Do you remember the answer?

Which answer is correct, ergo?

The evidence is in: Harrit's answer is wrong
Millette's answer is wright.
DSC plays no role in answering either question.
DSC is unnecessary and a distraction.

 

[pgimeno]

Great, then all you have to do now is show us positively what caused the reaction. Not tell us what did it; not conjecture about it. Show us.

How can anyone tell? We have abso-*******-lutely no idea of what they put into the DSC, because the authors were so sloppy to not analyze the samples before putting them there.

So, you're dodging the main question by demanding an impossibility. You've been told time and again that DSC is not a good method to characterize a material. The DSC trace doesn't tell us what a material is. And we have no idea of what they put in there.

Now, what result from a DSC test would convince you that there is no thermite?

(My prediction: Ergo will not answer that question this time either, and neither will MirageMemories. The reason: if they reveal their card then they can't work around it if the test is done and they get the result they don't want. They want to believe there is thermite. So did the authors of the paper, which is why it's a biased paper with a conclusion that can't be trusted.)