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

[thedopefishlives]

No, he didn't. When you're looking for energetic materials you obviously want to test the behaviour of the chips. Millette didn't do this.

That is your assertion, it is not "obvious", and at least one expert researcher disagrees with you. Fact is, the tests Millette did do definitely identified the material, and he could match it exactly to the type of paint if he had a known sample of said paint to compare it with. It does not compare to thermite, and wouldn't no matter how many DSC tests you did on it. DSC is not a material identification test.

 

[ergo]

That is your assertion, it is not "obvious", and at least one expert researcher disagrees with you.

I don't think Millette has specializations in energetic materials or nano-anything, so I doubt his opinion is definitive on this matter.

Fact is, the tests Millette did do definitely identified the material,

No, they didn't. Read the study.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I don't think Millette has specializations in energetic materials or nano-anything, so I doubt his opinion is definitive on this matter.

And yours is?

No, they didn't. Read the study.

Yes, they did. They may not have identified the exact brand of paint, but he definitively identified it as paint. An exact brand identification could be made if he was provided with a sample to match against. So what we know is, it is paint and it is not Tnemec.

 

[Sunstealer]

If you read a few posts above, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some kind of organic matrix in the mix. I think Harrit et al also acknowledge this.

So what new information does Millette bring? Nothing, as far I can see. Moreoever he didn't test the behaviour of the chips, instead stopping at his conclusion of paint - but without identifying what paint, since it's not Tnemec. Harrit et al did all the tests that Millette did and more.

Millete brings completely new information IF you weren't reading what I was posting 3 1/2 years ago. Whereas I could only use my experience and show via logic that the material is paint, Millette actually did the science. His data and conclusion back me 100%.

Comparison between Millette, Sunstealer and Harrit et al.

Red Layer

Harrit et al - organic matrix, unknown hexagonal platelets, iron oxide
Sunstealer - possible epoxy, kaolin, rhombohedral Fe₂O₃ (iron oxide pigment)
Millette - epoxy, kaolin, iron oxide pigment.

Gray Layer

Harrit et al - iron oxide.
Sunstealer - Oxidised steel.
Millette - Carbon steel.

So Millette brings additional but more importantly conclusive information. If you cannot see this then you are blind.

Repeat after me:

Is red paint thermite? Is red paint thermite? Is red paint thermite?

If no, then why do you need to do further testing when you already know what the material is? You would be hammered in any lab if you continued to perform time consuming and expensive tests.

Why must you perform additional testing when you know conclusively with proof from data that the material is paint? What do you gain? Millette has answered the question so why must anybody go further? How would say putting the chip in sulphuric acid tell you anything more?

Q - what material is this?

A - paint.

Why must you do more when you have the answer?

Ergo - what does 4+4 =

If your answer is 8 then I want you to do more testing, more maths. Put the paper you wrote the answer on in a DSC to see if 8 is the answer.

Why must the specific paint type be identified? If the material is paint then it is NOT thermite so why must the type of paint be identified? Why is "It is NOT thermite" be enough?

You can go on forever asking for additional testing but there is no point. The object of the materials characterisation exercise has been found. How do you characterise the material even more when you know what it is?

Harrit et al did the wrong tests they did way less testing than Millette because they did the wrong testing. That is why they didn't discover that the material was paint.

Why oh why can you not understand this?

You have proven yourself that samples a-d are paint. Just admit that is the case.

 

[ergo]

If the material is paint then it is NOT thermite

1) I don't agree. The thermitic material could well be mixed in with paint or some similar organic matrix, a possibility Harrit et al also hypothesize.

2) Harrit et al's tests ruled out paint. Millette stopped at an assumption of paint. Harrit et al, further, tested the behaviour of the chips, which, incidentally was also inconsistent with paint. Millette cannot explain the behaviour of the chips, nor can he confirm those results because he didn't test for that.

I think the key here is that Millette was not looking for energetic materials. He was looking for paint. And lo' and behold, he found it.

 

[OCaptain]

And you have no access to a lab ??

What he means is it's not worth the effort, because it's a garbage premise.

If you think it's not garbage, you put your money where your mouth is like Chris Mohr did and pay a professional to test anything your little heart desires.

But don't expect others to do your work for you.

 

[OCaptain]

1) I don't agree. The thermitic material could well be mixed in with paint or some similar organic matrix, a possibility Harrit et al also hypothesize.

2) Harrit et al's tests ruled out paint. Millette stopped at an assumption of paint. Harrit et al, further, tested the behaviour of the chips, which, incidentally was also inconsistent with paint. Millette cannot explain the behaviour of the chips, nor can he confirm those results because he didn't test for that.

I think the key here is that Millette was not looking for energetic materials. He was looking for paint. And lo' and behold, he found it.

What is hilarious (but sad) here is that you don't realize that Harrit, et al, ruled out thermite in their paper.

 

[Sunstealer]

I don't think Millette has specializations in energetic materials or nano-anything, so I doubt his opinion is definitive on this matter.

What? Send the Harrit et al paper to any metallurgist or materials engineer and they will conclude the material is red paint. Send the Millette data to the same people. They will conclude the same as Millette or me or any other materials engineer.

You do not need to specialise in "energetic materials or nano-anything" to recognise the characteristics of kaolin.

Within minutes of reading the paper I was able to identify it. That's called experience. You do not need to specialise to identify a common material that is used in industry by the millions of tonnes.

Secondly you are saying that Millette's interpretation of the data is wrong. data CANNOT lie.

Show how Millette's FTIR data and TEM-SAED data does not support his conclusion that the material is paint. Show why the red layer doesn't contain kaolin.

Here is the relevant graph to help you.

You won't because you are hopelessly out of your depth and can only throw mud.

No, they didn't. Read the study.

Yes they do! What are you arguing against?

Does Millette identify the hexagonal platelets as kaolin? Yes/No

Does Millette identify the organic matrix as epoxy? Yes/No

The above graph will help you.

Identifying the exact paint formulation does not mean that the material hasn't been identified.

The material has been identified it consists of epoxy, kaolin and rhombohedral iron oxide paint pigment.

You are playing at semantics and it doesn't wash. You yourself have stated indirectly, as I have shown, that the samples a-d are paint. Grow up and deal with finding out the truth for yourself.

 

[ergo]

What is hilarious (but sad) here is that you don't realize that Harrit, et al, ruled out thermite in their paper.

Is that why it's called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in [World Trade Center] Dust?

 

[Sunstealer]

1) I don't agree. The thermitic material could well be mixed in with paint or some similar organic matrix, a possibility Harrit et al also hypothesize.

Reference? Show how a thin layer of paint equivalent to the thickness shown in Harrit et al can have any effect on steel. (Hint: Dr Greenman already did the calculation)

Show how the data that Millette provides shows any evidence of thermite. Where is the Al? Not there.

2) Harrit et al's tests ruled out paint. Millette stopped at an assumption of paint. Harrit et al, further, tested the behaviour of the chips, which, incidentally was also inconsistent with paint. Millette cannot explain the behaviour of the chips, nor can he confirm those results because he didn't test for that.

No Harrit's tests didn't rule out paint they proved paint. They showed that kaolin is present in the material.

If you think that kaolin is part of thermite then show your evidence for it.

If Millette assumed paint then explain why the material is made of epoxy, kaolin and iron oxide pigment and show how that fits in with a thermite material.

Millette assumed nothing - you are slurring him.

What test did Harrit and Jones perform on chips a, b, c and d to show they were not paint? Show detailed conclusive evidence for this. You can't.

I think the key here is that Millette was not looking for energetic materials. He was looking for paint. And lo' and behold, he found it.

Prove that statement. It's libellous.

You have no idea what Millette was looking for. Secondly Millette provides his data. Show why the data is wrong. Show how Millette has either mis-interpreted his data or falsified it or whatever. The data shows exactly what the material is, you just choose to poo-poo it to suit your agenda even though you yourself have shown that the samples a-d are paint.

You are being dishonest and you know it. You've been found out. You cannot deal with the fact that through your own logic and analysis you have concluded that the material is paint. Now you are trying to through up chaff to cover yourself, but you will never answer the questions I have put to you.

 

[BasqueArch]

Is that why it's called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in [World Trade Center] Dust?

Complete title:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in [World Trade Center] Dust but You Would Not Know It by Looking at Our Study.

 

[Oystein]

1) I don't agree. The thermitic material could well be mixed in with paint or some similar organic matrix, a possibility Harrit et al also hypothesize.

2) Harrit et al's tests ruled out paint. Millette stopped at an assumption of paint. Harrit et al, further, tested the behaviour of the chips, which, incidentally was also inconsistent with paint. Millette cannot explain the behaviour of the chips, nor can he confirm those results because he didn't test for that.

I think the key here is that Millette was not looking for energetic materials. He was looking for paint. And lo' and behold, he found it.

No, Millette was looking for thermite. Thermite is what, ergo? -> A mix of a pure metal with a metal oxide. More specifically, in this case and per claims by Harrit e.al., a mix of elkemental Al and Fe2O3 in suitable proportions.

Questions to you (I'll provide the answers right away, you can agree, or disagree and state reasons):

1. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in chip a? (No)
2. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in chip b? (No)
3. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in chip c? (No)
4. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in chip d? (No)
5. Did Millette identify elemental Al in any of the chips that you agree are the same material as chips a-d? (No)
6. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in the MEK chip? (Yes, or so they interprete a certain data point)
7. Did Harrit e.al. quantify the amount, in wt%, of elemental Al in the MEK chip? (No)
8. Can the total Al-content in the MEK-chip be quantified, given the data presented by Harrit e.al.? (Yes, roughly)
9. What is thetotal Al-content in the MEK-chip? (under 1% by weight, given Figure 14)
10. Has anyone else quantified the total Al-content in any chip? (Yes, Mark Basile has. He put it at 1.3-1.7 wt%)
11. Is the Al-content suitable vis-a-vis the Fe2O3 content for thermite? (No)
12. Has anybody determined that a thermite reaction did in fact take place (No - that would require identifying the reaction products, which no one did)
13. Has any chip been shown to contain thermite, by anybody? (No)
14. Have any chip been shown to contain paint pigments? (Yes, chips a-d, and the chips that Millette determined to be similar to chips a-d)
15. Have any chips been shown to contain a typical matrix material for paints? (Yes, Millette has shown this)
16. Do any chips look like paint? (Yes, all of them)
17. Are chips a-d and the Millette chips the same material? (Very probably yes)
18. Has anyone identified elemental Al in them? (No)
19. Has anyone ruled out elemental Al in them? (Yes, Millette has)
20. Did Millette look specifically for elemental Al in his chips? (Yes)
21. Did Harrit e.al. look specifically for elemental Al in chips a-d? (No)
22. If a-d and Millette chips are the same material, and Millette chips contain no elemental Al, and Harrit e.al. showed no elemental Al in chips a-d, is there elemental Al in chips a-d? (No)
23. If there is no elemental Al in chips a-d, are they thermitic? (No, by definition)

After you answered all of these, you should be closer to understanding, and maybe you can then ponder without guidance the last question:

• Is the MEK chip the same material as chips a-d? (Not the same - it differs in many important respects: Different Al-Si ratio, Al and Si not bouind to each other, presence of several elements not found in chips a-d, most notably Zn, Mg and Ca), different layer thickness. However, it too, may be paint, with Tnemec being a plausible candidate)

And finally: I talked with Mark Basile on the phone about 2 weeks ago. He immediately agreed that of course the red gray chips are NOT all the same material - some are definitely really paint.

 

[beachnut]

Is that why it's called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in [World Trade Center] Dust?

That is a lie, they make up lies to fool their followers. They know their followers don't do chemistry and don't have critical thinking skills, that is why they blindly accept the title and ignore the fact the samples did not match thermite in energy, and the graph for thermite did not match the dust. 911 truth nuts like Jones use NAZI like names for their work to fool those who can't think for themselves.

They have a lie for a title, a few degrees, some PhDs, and people believe Jones' fantasy of thermite. With a little knowledge in logic, the paper is seen as fraud. This is why no one in the world has supported the paper and taken the results to a newspaper to earn a Pulitzer. There is no category for lies and woo in the Pulitzer Prize. Unless you are saying 911 truth is fiction. Are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Fiction

 

[Sunstealer]

What is hilarious (but sad) here is that you don't realize that Harrit, et al, ruled out thermite in their paper.

How could he? He is a truther that believes everything his masters tell him. He has no background in the subjects required to study the paper so he just parrots what his masters tell him.

He has no mind to actually examine what people who do have the knowledge to read, understand the data, and write a critique. It's like a baby being asked to pick the right answer between someone who says 2+2 = 4 and some who says 2+2 = potato. How can you pick one when you have no understanding of the number 2 (unless of course it's something you've done in your nappy/diaper)

He doesn't even believe his own simple logic (which is all that is required) to get the correct answer.

A single photo from Harrit et al debunks the paper:

He won't understand or acknowledge the logic behind why though. NB - ignore the label "kaolin" - it is correct but is not required to show why a thermite reaction never occurred. Hint: particles, proximity and temperature.

 

[ergo]

Reference?

Well, you already know this because you know someone did a calculation of what a thin layer of such a coating could do to steel. But here it is:

We note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed ...

... the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of “hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”. Indeed, the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips which survived the WTC destruction.

Show how a thin layer of paint equivalent to the thickness shown in Harrit et al can have any effect on steel. (Hint: Dr Greenman already did the calculation)

Did you mean Greening here?

 

[Spanx]

No, he didn't. When you're looking for energetic materials you obviously want to test the behaviour of the chips. Millette didn't do this.



I think it's because in scientific publishing there are space limitations, and you have to make decisions about what findings you're going to present, and you'll probably choose the ones that you think are the most relevant and irrefutable.

As to why they haven't published their FTIR and TEM results somewhere else, I don't know. I wish they would, if it would help clarify the matter.

It amazes me how the truth movement who are always asking questions, have never thought to ask their own movement any questions.

 

[Sunstealer]

Well, you already know this because you know someone did a calculation of what a thin layer of such a coating could do to steel. But here it is:

Sorry I see no indication of any calculation in the text you posted,

Did you mean Greening here?

Yes I do mean Greening - my slip. However, he did the calculation and it would not raise the temperature of the steel by any significant amount. You know this so why didn't you say so?

Care to answer any of my other questions from other posts? Don't worry you have another 3 1/2 years.

 

[ergo]

1. Is the Al-content suitable vis-a-vis the Fe2O3 content for thermite? (No)

How about for nanothermite?

1. Has anybody determined that a thermite reaction did in fact take place (No - that would require identifying the reaction products, which no one did)

Iron-rich microspheres were identified, which are a product of thermite.

1. Are chips a-d and the Millette chips the same material? (Very probably yes)

Are chips A - D the same as the chip soaked in MEK? Very probably, yes.

1. Has anyone identified elemental Al in them? (No)

Yes, the MEK chip analysis suggested no other possibility.

After you answered all of these, you should be closer to understanding, and maybe you can then ponder without guidance the last question:

I think that was an excellent summary of the bedunker argument with regard to red-grey chips. Thank you. As you can see above, I answered with regard to the MEK chip.

And finally: I talked with Mark Basile on the phone about 2 weeks ago. He immediately agreed that of course the red gray chips are NOT all the same material - some are definitely really paint.

Interesting. I guess he would also have to disagree with your conclusions in post #1089.

 

[ergo]

Sorry I see no indication of any calculation in the text you posted,

You didn't ask for a calculation. You asked for a reference for Harrit and Jones' hypothesis about the thermitic material being embedded in a paint-like organic matrix.

 

[Sunstealer]

How about for nanothermite?

Err how is nano-thermite different?

The classic thermite equation is

Fe₂O₃ + 2Al --> Al₂O₃ + 2Fe

Is this equation different for nano-thermite? If so, show the equation.

Ergo's very question shows he has no idea what thermite is nor does he have any idea of basic chemistry. He obviously has no idea what the nano prefix means either