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

[Sunstealer]

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

No. You don't understand the word "product" in the chemical equation sense.

Equation - Fe2O3 + 2Al --> Al2O3 + 2Fe

Fe2O3 and Al on the LHS are reactants.

Al2O3 and Fe on the RHS are products.

Go back to school and learn some basic chemistry that is taught around the age of 11.

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

Yes I did:

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)

So we can add basic reading comprehension to basic chemistry amongst you failings.

 

[ergo]

Err how is nano-thermite different?

I don't know. Do you?

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

I have some idea of what thermite is. I also know what the nano prefix means, which is much more than you can say for 95% of bedunkers who post here.

 

[Sunstealer]

Question:

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

Answer:

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

Why are you not answering the question? Where has Oystein mentioned the MEK chip in his question?

You have already stated that the chips a-d and the Millette chips are the same material so why are you obfuscating? This looks dishonest. Surely if you are going to take time to respond to a poster you ought to actually take the time to read and digest the question.

I'll leave it there. It's cruel to continue.

 

[Sunstealer]

I don't know. Do you?

Yes I do. The equation is the same. It cannot be anything different.

I have some idea of what thermite is. I also know what the nano prefix means, which is much more than you can say for 95% of bedunkers who post here.

No you don't, because if you did then you would know that the particle size has no bearing on the underlying chemical equation for the reaction.

This is basic stuff ergo, real basics. How can you argue when you have no fundamental understanding?

 

[ergo]

Why are you not answering the question? Where has Oystein mentioned the MEK chip in his question?

You have already stated that the chips a-d and the Millette chips are the same material so why are you obfuscating? This looks dishonest.

Yes, I think all the chips that display the same properties are essentially the same. This includes the MEK chip. I don't care if Oystein doesn't want to mention it.

 

[Sunstealer]

Yes, I think all the chips that display the same properties are essentially the same. This includes the MEK chip. I don't care if Oystein doesn't want to mention it.

Then there is no other conclusion. You say Millette's chips are essentially the same.

So if you conclude they are then you must accept that they are paint as Millette's detailed analysis shows.

Why are you trying to argue when you agree with the findings?

 

[Oystein]

How about for nanothermite?

No difference - stoichiometric (look it up if you don't know what the word means) proportions of reactants are not dependent on particle size. Al-content is insuffucient for both regular (micro-) and and nano-thermite.

Therefore, neither the MEK-chip nor Basile's chip can't be thermitic, meither nano nor micro

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

24. Are iron-rich microspheres the only product of the thermite reaction? (No, you must also prove Al2O3)
25. Has anybody identified Al2O3 after the reaction? (No)
26. Were iron-rich particles already present before heating? (Yes)
27. It the thermite reaction the only reaction that can produce iron-rich microspheres? (No, many reactions do this, including many that occur in combustion of ordinary materials mixed of organic and inorganic components)
28. Has anyone proven that a thermite reaction occurred by determining its reaction products? (No - it has not been shown that iron was produced that wasn't there before, and aluminium oxide has't been shown at all)

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

WRONG
The MEK chip contains elements that chips a-d- don't. It's Al-Si ratio is significantly different. In chips a-d, Al and Si are obviously bound together, as they appear in unity proportion in the kaolin plates. In the MEK-chip, Al and Si have been shown to be distributed unequally.

All your problems dissolve once you realize that the MEK chip is essentially a different materiall

Yes, the MEK chip analysis suggested no other possibility.

I wasn't talking about the MEK chio. I was talking about chips a-d.
18. Has anybody shown elemental Al in any of them? (No.)

You must not put the assumption that chips a-d are the same material as the MEK chip before the conclusion!

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.

Youi only told us your unfounded and wrong assumption that the MEK-chip is the same material as chips a-d. It isn't

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

That each chip is either paint or thermite, but not both? No, he would not. He is pretty clear that paint chips are not thermitic chips.
Different materials

 

[ergo]

Then there is no other conclusion. You say Millette's chips are essentially the same.

So if you conclude they are then you must accept that they are paint as Millette's detailed analysis shows.

Why are you trying to argue when you agree with the findings?

I guess it hasn't occurred to you yet that I don't agree with Millette's findings.

I believe his analysis was incomplete and that therefore his findings are inconclusive. I wouldn't try to argue that he didn't find some kind of organic matrix. But that doesn't prove no thermite.

 

[ergo]

All your problems dissolve once you realize that the MEK chip is essentially a different materiall

I think you mean all YOUR problems.

Like I said, demonstrate it and your argument will be much more convincing.

 

[Oystein]

With my amateur understanding on the matter, I would guess ...

I don't know. Do you?

Keep this in mind when you talk back to us:

You are an amateur
You don't know.

Never forget that: You don't know.

Sunstealer is a professional
Sunstealer knows.

I am an amateur, but I know anyway.

And you don't.

I have some idea of what thermite is. I also know what the nano prefix means, which is much more than you can say for 95% of bedunkers who post here.

No, you have no idea of what nano-thermite is, or else you would have known.

By the way, Niels Harrit also didn't know what nanothermite is. When he had finiished that paper under his name, he

• had not yer tealized that the 100 nm grains were hematite
• thought that such 100 nm grains would have to come from a high-tech lab
• did not know that 100 nm hematite grains are common and cheap red pigments

Did you know better than he? If not, you are not qualified to answer any questions here. You should then ask us to pretty please explain things to you - and accept the explanations, because we know, and you don't.

Because:

With my amateur understanding on the matter, I would guess ...

I don't know.

 

[Oystein]

Yes, I think all the chips that display the same properties are essentially the same. This includes the MEK chip. I don't care if Oystein doesn't want to mention it.

Liar. I did mention it. Several of my 23 questions talk about the MEK-chip, and I give answers.

Stop lying. It's frowned upon all over the world.


Then, please explain which same properties the MEK chip has as chips a-d!

 

[Oystein]

I guess it hasn't occurred to you yet that I don't agree with Millette's findings.

I believe his analysis was incomplete and that therefore his findings are inconclusive. I wouldn't try to argue that he didn't find some kind of organic matrix. But that doesn't prove no thermite.

How can you come to such a belief when...

With my amateur understanding on the matter, I would guess ...

I don't know.

??

 

[Sunstealer]

I guess it hasn't occurred to you yet that I don't agree with Millette's findings.

I believe his analysis was incomplete and that therefore his findings are inconclusive. I wouldn't try to argue that he didn't find some kind of organic matrix. But that doesn't prove no thermite.

OK so even though you say that chips a-d are the same as Millette's chips you are now saying that the conclusions gained from the data he has produced from experiments on the very same material are wrong.

Show how Millette's data does not support his conclusions.

You cannot say you disagree with his findings unless you show why. Why is his FTIR data wrong? He has provided the graph for the red material and he has provided the graphs for both kaolin and epoxy. I want to see why you think kaolin isn't present in the FTIR data. Show why you disagree.

We'll go onto the TEM analysis when you've answered the question.

 

[Oystein]

I think you mean all YOUR problems.

Like I said, demonstrate it and your argument will be much more convincing.

Here:
Why red-gray chips aren't all the same

Abstract:

In this post I will show that one particular chip in ATM, the one they soaked in MEK and present in Fig. 12-18, cannot possibly the same kind of material as the four chips they present in Fig. 2-11. Assuming that both represent the same material is preposterous. The most benign explanation for why the authors make that assumption is wishful thinking. We can rule out simple error or that they overlooked something, because it has been pointed out to them more than once in the past that the chips are different. A less benign, but perhaps more probable explanation would be outright fraud.​

And the conclusion:

A much better explanation is in order: Since no data exists, other than the base color and magnetic attraction, that shows that the MEK-chip is the same material as chips (a)-(d), since the visual appearance is doubtful, since the layer is too thick, and since the XEDS data shows that at least 65% of the mass of this chip is different from chips (a)-(d), the best and obvious conclusion is:

The MEK-chip is of a different material than chips (a)-(d). The assumption that the differences can be explained as contamination does not survice scrutiny and must be firmly rejected.​

Check out the argument in between.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives
Millette didn't HAVE to test the "behaviour of the chips". He examined them with more reliable means and determined that they were paint. What part of this are you still not getting?

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.

(Deep sigh) To repeat again, Harrit, et al failed to control for energy release from simple air combustion of the organic matrix in their samples. Because of this, none of the energy released in their tests can properly be attributed to a thermite reaction. Some or all came from simple air combustion. A DSC test done under a nitrogen or argon atmosphere will exclude that possibility. Any large energy release would then have to be attributed to some other exothermic reaction, possibly a thermite reaction.

Harrit et al have had several years to do a proper DSC test, or to pay an analytical laboratory to do it for them. Their failure to do so is indicative of their lack of confidence in their assertions.

Remember, we skeptics aren't trying to persuade the Truthers. It's the truthers who must persuade the scientific community and the general public. All they have for their efforts are years of failure.

 

[dafydd]

. But that doesn't prove no thermite.

The double negative shows that there was no thermite. We're making progress.

 

[Redwood]

Here:
Why red-gray chips aren't all the same

Abstract:

In this post I will show that one particular chip in ATM, the one they soaked in MEK and present in Fig. 12-18, cannot possibly the same kind of material as the four chips they present in Fig. 2-11. Assuming that both represent the same material is preposterous. The most benign explanation for why the authors make that assumption is wishful thinking. We can rule out simple error or that they overlooked something, because it has been pointed out to them more than once in the past that the chips are different. A less benign, but perhaps more probable explanation would be outright fraud.​

And the conclusion:

A much better explanation is in order: Since no data exists, other than the base color and magnetic attraction, that shows that the MEK-chip is the same material as chips (a)-(d), since the visual appearance is doubtful, since the layer is too thick, and since the XEDS data shows that at least 65% of the mass of this chip is different from chips (a)-(d), the best and obvious conclusion is:

The MEK-chip is of a different material than chips (a)-(d). The assumption that the differences can be explained as contamination does not survice scrutiny and must be firmly rejected.​

Check out the argument in between.

Harrit et al attribute the large calcium peak to surface contamination with gypsum, commonly used in wallboard; but for some reason they never attempted to remove it by washing with water. While gypsum is not greatly soluble in water, it is soluble enough to be easily removed by ultrasonic water washing. In the real world, gypsum often forms beautiful crystals by dissolving in ground water and then recrystallizing by evaporation. Sometimes, they weigh many tons: http://www.daviddarling.info/images/gypsum_crystals_Naica_mine.jpg

Such washing would not affect any organic matrix, hematite, or elemental aluminum.

 

[OCaptain]

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

Again, sad/hilarious here.

Their data rules out thermite, but they conclude it anyway.

 

[pgimeno]

Sunstealer, I'm not sure what you're not understanding. You asked me if I thought all the chips were essentially the same. I said I thought that is a very reasonable conclusion. I include the MEK chip in that assumption.

I'll tell you why that conclusion is wrong.

The selection methodology in the ATM paper was using a magnet and looking at the color of the chips:

A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color.
​

(p.9)

That's the criterion used to separate the chips. Now, we know that many red paint chips would have iron oxide adhered, and therefore be attracted by a magnet.

We also know that there are at least two types of paints used in the WTC steel (probably more): LaClede (applied to floor trusses) and Tnemec (applied to columns).

It is therefore expectable to find both kinds of paints in the dust. The separation method used in the paper is not sufficient to identify chips all made of the same material, as both would be red and both would be attracted by a magnet.

Furthermore, the spectrum of the MEK chip matches quite well that of known Tnemec paint, and does not match that of chips a-d.

That reasoning should be enough to conclude that the probability of the MEK chip being the same kind of material as that of chips a-d is nearly zero. The burden of proof is therefore on your side.