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

[ergo]

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

A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

and/or,

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's confirmations of that.

 

[beachnut]

A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

and/or,

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's confirmations of that.

Paper has more energy than thermite; what would the world be if we all had to take and understand chemistry? You would not be falling for lies, and there would be no 911 truth. Kind of big fail, bringing thermite to an office fire. To beat the office fires before collapse on 911, you need to bring 2,500 TONS of Thermite. What a dumb big failed fantasy. What do you offer, blind obedient repeating lies made up by idiots in 911. Why do you spread nonsense made up by nuts?

 

[ergo]

Paper has more energy than thermite

Good to know. I look forward to watching you cut steel with a paper fire. Or is that melt steel? How about a nanoengineered paper bomb? Cool.

 

[Oystein]

A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

You say:

IF (NOT A1 AND NOT A2) THEN NOT B​

with

A1 = "Millette's chips produce any exothermic reaction"
A2 = "Millette's chips produce microspheres"
B = "There is thermite"​

An argument of the form IF X THEN Y has one valid reversal: IF NOT Y THEN NOT X.

Above, X = (NOT A1 AND NOT A2) and Y = NOT B
and NOT Y = B and NOT X = (A1 or A2)
and IF NOT Y then NOT X = IF B THEN (A1 or A2)

So from your claim "(I'll accept there is no thermite if) a test of Millette's chips produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres" follows application of the most basic logic:

If there is thermite, then Millette's chips produce any exothermic reaction OR Millette's chips produce microspheres.​

Is that a true statement, ergo? Note that I stress the word "any"! It's important here.
How about

If there is an organic matrix, then Millette's chips produce any exothermic reaction OR Millette's chips produce microspheres.​

Is that a true statement, ergo?

and/or,

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's confirmations of that.

Why do you need specifically Farrer's and Basile's confirmation of that? Are you contending that, if Farrer and Basile died today, then it would be foorever impossible for Millette to disprove the thermite theory?

 

[pgimeno]

A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

Please explain how would that convince you.

Are you implicitly agreeing here that the chips analyzed by Millette have the same composition to the chips in figure 2 a-d in the Bentham paper, and thus if one is thermite the other is too, and vice versa?

Under what conditions should the test be performed for you to consider that a negative conclusion derives logically from a DSC experiment? (a) Presence of oxygen, (b) Pure nitrogen?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Harrit et al ruled out paint using several different methods. Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint.

Harrit et al deduced elemental aluminum both from chemical observation and the results of DSC testing. Millette stopped at his assumption of kaolinite, therefore did not do DSC testing.

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.

Is anyone bored yet?

Ergo, we debunkers here are in some agreement that iron-rich microspheres were created basically from gray layers (Sunstealer's idea) and it does not make sense to heat some different samples of paints on gray rust and to look for microspheres. Only tests on original samples from WTC can be comparable/convincing enough, so it is up to Jim Millette or any other "owner" of dust samples.

Oystein and interested: I'm not sure if this is new, but I have found this article Steel for bearings, where are paragraphs on spheroidisation in steel. It seems to me (I have no access to original journals) that when steel is annealed at ca 600-800 degrees C, cementite spheroids are quickly formed in several minutes.
Here is one image from the link:

One quote: "In an interesting study, induction annealing was used to produce divorced pearlite, i.e.spheroidised cementite in a matter of minutes [271]. Undissolved cementite was preserved by rapid austenitisation of a 52100 type steel for 30s at 850 degrees C. This was then transformed isothermally at 650 degrees C for 17min to produce the required microstructure with a hardness of about 235HV."

I'm no metallurgist so I have no idea if such processes (low temperature spheroidisation) can take place also in rusted steel ("gray rust") or e.g. on the boundary of unoxidized and "pristine" steel, but perhaps yes...? Anyway, microsphere decicted in Fig. 25 (Bentham paper) may be such spherical cementite, contaminated by Si and Al stuffs. I think

Anyway, it is just another hint that iron-rich rounded microobjects can be formed from such materials at quite low temperatures

 

[Oystein]

...
Anyway, it is just another hint that iron-rich rounded microobjects can be formed from such materials at quite low temperatures

That's the important thing: It is another nail in the coffin of the dumb Truther claim that "iron-rich micresphere, therefore a chemical reaction must have reached >1530 °C (only possible explanation), therefore thermite (only possible explanation)".

We have now at least the following processes that create iron-rich microspheres at temperatures reached by common types of fire and not involvling thermite:

• Burning fine strands or particles of iron
• Sintering
• Burning organic materials that contain iron compouns - iron microspheres condense out of the reaction. Common examples are burning coal in a power plant, burning wood in a camp fire, and burning houshold waste in an incinerator
• Spheroidisation of cementite in steel

I am pretty sure that, in general, phase transitions in corroded steel und heat also change the shape of microstructures, and many will tend towards spherical shapes.

So the above simplistic truther argument fails. It doesn't take the burden off of their shoulder to prove both that thermite is present before burning (they have failed this burden yet, by failing to show significant quantities of Al) AND that a thermite reaction did in fact take place (e.g. by quantifying the 4 substances involved in the thermite reaction before and after).

It's back to the lab for truthers: Find plenty of elemental Al before the reaction! Find plenty of Al-oxide after!

 

[thedopefishlives]

Good to know. I look forward to watching you cut steel with a paper fire. Or is that melt steel? How about a nanoengineered paper bomb? Cool.

One item having more chemical energy than another has nothing to do with how quickly the energy is released. You fail at basic chemistry.

 

[Oystein]

...
One quote: "In an interesting study, induction annealing was used to produce divorced pearlite, i.e.spheroidised cementite in a matter of minutes [271]. Undissolved cementite was preserved by rapid austenitisation of a 52100 type steel for 30s at 850 degrees C. This was then transformed isothermally at 650 degrees C for 17min to produce the required microstructure with a hardness of about 235HV."
...

Relying on Wikipedia...:
Cementite is iron carbide, Fe₃C, which commonly forms in carbon steel, as no more than 0,02wt% od carbon can usually be dissolved in cool steel without it forming compounds.

Fe₃C is 6.67% by weight carbon and 93.3% iron. Since the steels used, for example, by LaClede Steel for the floor trusses, contains in the vicinity of 1% C, it would follow that up to 14% of the mass of such steel could be cementite (less, if you factor in additional mass of O from corrosion).

Anyway, microsphere decicted in Fig. 25 (Bentham paper) may be such spherical cementite, contaminated by Si and Al stuffs. I think

Hmm nuh, don't think so, too much Si and Al, and S, Ca, Ti, O... so whatever sphere they measured there (unfortunately, they didn't indicate the scanned region in the accompanying BSE image) was probably more of the glassy kind that included metal oxide particles and is found in extreme abundance in all sorts of ashes from ordinary fires.

A better candidate is Fig. 21, it's in the right size range, and has a pretty clean XEDS spectrum with a nice carbon peak.


But we shouldn't speculate too much on what this or that sphere or spectrum in Harrit e.al. shows. It suffices to say that several explanations are possible and not ruled out that are non-nefarious (have nithing to do with thermite). Beyond that, data is simply too thin.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Relying on Wikipedia...:
Cementite is iron carbide, Fe₃C, which commonly forms in carbon steel, as no more than 0,02wt% od carbon can usually be dissolved in cool steel without it forming compounds.

Fe₃C is 6.67% by weight carbon and 93.3% iron. Since the steels used, for example, by LaClede Steel for the floor trusses, contains in the vicinity of 1% C, it would follow that up to 14% of the mass of such steel could be cementite (less, if you factor in additional mass of O from corrosion).



Hmm nuh, don't think so, too much Si and Al, and S, Ca, Ti, O... so whatever sphere they measured there (unfortunately, they didn't indicate the scanned region in the accompanying BSE image) was probably more of the glassy kind that included metal oxide particles and is found in extreme abundance in all sorts of ashes from ordinary fires.

A better candidate is Fig. 21, it's in the right size range, and has a pretty clean XEDS spectrum with a nice carbon peak.


But we shouldn't speculate too much on what this or that sphere or spectrum in Harrit e.al. shows. It suffices to say that several explanations are possible and not ruled out that are non-nefarious (have nithing to do with thermite). Beyond that, data is simply too thin.

Yep, we shouldn't speculate too much, still another my attempt

My original thought was: there was apparently too little of carbon in the WTC construction steel(s) to explain microspheres in Bentham paper as cementite spheroids formed from gray layers, but couldn't be some cementite formed during burning of paint by reaction with its thermally degraded carbon-based polymer binder?
Probably yes, since the formation of cementite from hematite is well-known, when heating e.g. with charcoal (which is what is basically formed from any paint polymer binder above ca 450 degrees C, until it is not burned out by further oxidations at even higher temperatures). Also, steel itself "consumes" some carbon e.g. from charcoal, with the formation of cementite during "carburization".

But, these are again just speculations based on very quick literature search, microspheres can be indeed something else than cementite I'm also not sure if such formation of cementite can take place in oxidative atmosphere (under air).

 

[Oystein]

Yep, we shouldn't speculate too much, still another my attempt

My original thought was: there was apparently too little of carbon in the WTC construction steel(s) to explain microspheres in Bentham paper as cementite spheroids formed from gray layers, but couldn't be some cementite formed during burning of paint by reaction with its thermally degraded carbon-based polymer binder?
Probably yes, since the formation of cementite from hematite is well-known, when heating e.g. with charcoal (which is what is basically formed from any paint polymer binder above ca 450 degrees C, until it is not burned out by further oxidations at even higher temperatures). Also, steel itself "consumes" some carbon e.g. from charcoal, with the formation of cementite during "carburization".

But, these are again just speculations based on very quick literature search, microspheres can be indeed something else than cementite

Too lazy to do calculations now, but my intuition is that the burning paint alone wouldn't do much at all to the gray layer:
1. Assuming that red and gray layers come in about equal volumes (same layer thickness, on average), then the gray layer has like 4-5 times the mass of the red layer.
2. Only a small proportion of the heat of the burning polymer would get into the gray layer, the much greater part would go away as hot gas and radiation.
3. Given reasonable estimates of the heat capacity of the gray layer and the energy density of the red layer, one could compute an estimate of how hot the gray layer could get on average, and I suspect it wouldn't come near the temperatures mentioned in your earlier quote from that paper.

However, we must not forget that the gray layer as well gets heated by the DSC. If my intuition above is right, then more energy is infused into the gray layer by the equipment than by the heat of reaction, making the heat of the reaction relatively unimportant. However, you are correct that the red layer may offer reaction partners to the grey layer - I have previously speculated about epoxy decomposing temporarily to benzene, and further in part to CO or even H₂; you are adding char, and yeah, that might be a viable source for iron to form carbides - but again, we are speculation! Don't forget that the iron is already mostly oxidized, and I am not sure iron oxide could be transformed to iron carbide just like that. But the carbon steel already starts out with some significant iron carbide content, the DSC temp goes up to 700 °C, we may have a reducing atmosphere while the epoxy decomposes, etc. Who knows what can happen?

 

[ergo]

One item having more chemical energy than another has nothing to do with how quickly the energy is released. You fail at basic chemistry.

Wha-a...? You mean paper combustion won't cut steel?? Are you suggesting that there's some kind of difference between energy density and power density?? Have you alerted the other "debunkers" about this??

 

[Oystein]

Wha-a...? You mean paper combustion won't cut steel?? Are you suggesting that there's some kind of difference between energy density and power density?? Have you alerted the other "debunkers" about this??

Can you point us to an instance of WTC steel "cut" prior to collapse? Thanks.

ETA: Or actually to an instance of Jones's red-gray chips cutting steel.

 

[Spanx]

Wha-a...? You mean paper combustion won't cut steel?? Are you suggesting that there's some kind of difference between energy density and power density?? Have you alerted the other "debunkers" about this??

Wha-a... Like this chip didn't cut through the heating strip it was on ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo&feature

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Wha-a... Like this chip didn't cut through the heating strip it was on ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo&feature

Hehe, pretty good remark

 

[ergo]

Can you point us to an instance of WTC steel "cut" prior to collapse? Thanks.

Why are you asking this? Beachnut said paper "has more energy" than thermite. I challenged him to cut some steel with a paper fire to show us this greater "amount" of energy in action. Then the dopefish straightened us all out by suggesting that energy release is far more important than energy density in doing work.

So your question really should be, and should probably always be, what was the relevance of Beachnut's statement?

 

[DGM]

Why are you asking this? Beachnut said paper "has more energy" than thermite. I challenged him to cut some steel with a paper fire to show us this greater "amount" of energy in action. Then the dopefish straightened us all out by suggesting that energy release is far more important than energy density in doing work.

So your question really should be, and should probably always be, what was the relevance of Beachnut's statement?

You should be asking yourself this of the DSC experiment.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Why are you asking this? Beachnut said paper "has more energy" than thermite. I challenged him to cut some steel with a paper fire to show us this greater "amount" of energy in action. Then the dopefish straightened us all out by suggesting that energy release is far more important than energy density in doing work.

So your question really should be, and should probably always be, what was the relevance of Beachnut's statement?

I love the way you put words in my mouth. I never suggested that release was more important than energy density. It is a factor, that is all. An office fire will still do damage to structural steel, especially when it is left without fire protection because someone flew a plane into it (or, in the case of WTC7, a burning building fell on it). It does not necessarily follow from "thermite's high rate of energy release causes it to do a lot of damage quickly" that "an office fire can't do any damage at all because it doesn't release energy fast enough".

 

[ergo]

You should be asking yourself this of the DSC experiment.

Perhaps. For example, I would love to see the DSC results of this organic matrix that bedunkers keep talking about. Just to, you know, compare. Sometimes, to study something in a scientific way, researchers do stuff like that.

 

[DGM]

Perhaps. For example, I would love to see the DSC results of this organic matrix that bedunkers keep talking about. Just to, you know, compare. Sometimes, to study something in a scientific way, researchers do stuff like that.

You can find this in lots of places. Have you tried looking in reference books? I'd like to see one that shows they supports the conclusion of the paper.