• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Oh my god ergo you almost got it.

I hope you don't mind me asking a personal question?

Do you suffer from DID ?
 
Redwood said:
Harrit et al attribute the large calcium peak to surface contamination with gypsum, commonly used in wallboard; but for some reason :rolleyes: 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. ...
Click to expand...
But that doesn't cut it. As I have shown, there is way too much clacium relative to sulfur, so even if you allow that all the sulfur comes from surface gypsum, you are still left with half the calcium peak, which would still be bigger than the Si and Al peaks. There is too much iron relative to Si, but too little Al. And gypsum doesn't explain Zn, Cr, and Mg. But Tnemec does!

Redwood said:
Such washing would not affect any organic matrix, hematite, or elemental aluminum.
Click to expand...

When Millette's prelim report came out, that was about the first thing some truther jumped on: They claimed that washing the chips was wrong, even fraudulent, und would passivate the elemental Al.

Poor truthers know-nothings: Steven Jones now regrets he didn't wash his:
ProfJones said:
it is unfortunate that we did not CLEAN the chip that was soaked in MEK, so as to obtain clear and unambiguous detail BEFORE the MEK run, regarding its elemental content. This is one of my regrets in the first paper.
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
And you have no access to a lab ??
Click to expand...

Ergo: Yes, I have an access to all necessary labs/equipment in my institute in Prague, including DSC and all kinds of microscopy, XEDS, FTIR etc.
But would you (or any other nanothermite truther) consider any WTC dust research done in my institute as independent (since I am a devoted nanothermite debunker)? Hardly.
Remember that Jim Millette as a respected forensic scientist has been already accused to be "gubmint shill" by e.g. K. Ryan, and the same person (and also S. Jones I think) speculates that Millette even did not measured the same kind of red chips like Harrit et al, etc. As for the last point: WTF? Harrit et al separated chips from 4 samples of WTC dust, collected in 4 places in Manhattan. Jim Millette did the same (but 4 dust samples were collected in different places). What is the statistical probability that Harrit found entirely different kind of chips than Millette, considering that samples were taken from 8 distant places in Manhattan? It is equal to zero, I would say, since dust must contain various particles basically in some "random cocktail":cool:

As for my institute, I would like to remind you that I already used its services last year for some very basic study on my "Laclede paint imitation" (an epoxy composite with the similar composition as genuine primer for WTC1/2 floor trusses).

Namely, my colleague measured TGA curves of this epoxy paint imitation both under air and under nitrogen, up to 800 degrees C.

Here is a TGA curve under air:

picture.php


Here is a TGA curve under nitrogen:

picture.php


As you can see, both under air and nitrogen, epoxy polymer binder is massively degraded (mass of the sample is quickly decreased) at about 400 degrees C, which is close to the temperature of the burning of chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper. Above ca 500 degrees C, the most of epoxy is missing since its degradation products were "vaporized"/burned out. And just inorganic pigments remain (according to curves). This is a quite typical behavior of epoxy resins, as well as of other polymers.
(Unfortunately, although we have 4 DSC devices in the institute, none of them is currently usable for measurements under air up to 700 or 800 degrees; it would require a purchase of some special sample holders)

Finally, here is a micrograph of my Laclede paint imitation taken after heating up to 700 degrees C under air (magnification ca 200x):

picture.php


In our institute, we are able to do basically same research as Jim Millette (except perhaps the plasma ashing), but it would of course require some official contract.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
As I have shown, there is way too much clacium relative to sulfur, so even if you allow that all the sulfur comes from surface gypsum, you are still left with half the calcium peak, which would still be bigger than the Si and Al peaks. There is too much iron relative to Si, but too little Al. And gypsum doesn't explain Zn, Cr, and Mg. But Tnemec does!
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what is the source of the calcium in Tnemec primer? Some form of calcium aluminum silicate, I suppose?

When Millette's prelim report came out, that was about the first thing some truther jumped on: They claimed that washing the chips was wrong, even fraudulent, und would passivate the elemental Al.

Poor truthers know-nothings: Steven Jones now regrets he didn't wash his:
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by ProfJones
it is unfortunate that we did not CLEAN the chip that was soaked in MEK, so as to obtain clear and unambiguous detail BEFORE the MEK run, regarding its elemental content. This is one of my regrets in the first paper.
Click to expand...

Next time, he should use the services of a reputable analytical chemist! Someone like.....Jim Millette, maybe! (But then, maybe he wouldn't get the results he was looking for ;).)

BTW, congratulations on your report . Very sharp.
 
Last edited:
Redwood said:
Out of curiosity, what is the source of the calcium in Tnemec primer? Some form of calcium aluminum silicate, I suppose?
Click to expand...
Check out Niels Harrit's May 2009 letter:
http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf

(Beware of two things:
a) I haven't strictly verified that he pulled up the correct MSDS
b) His calculations are rubbish - he didn't notice that, in Fig. 3, pigments add up to 100% and vehicle ingredients also add up to 100%, but that no proportion pigment:vehicle is given. He subsequently overestimates weight loss due to loss of volatile imngedients, and pigment content)

The proprietary Tnemec pigment supposedly contains calcium cilicates and aluminates (Fig. 4)

Redwood said:
Next time, he should use the services of a reputable analytical chemist! Someone like.....Jim Millette, maybe! (But then, maybe he wouldn't get the results he was looking for ;).)

BTW, congratulations on your report . Very sharp.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but you got the link wrong, that's as Jones comment at 911Blogger ;)
 
chrismohr said:
Ivan,
Thanks for your leads. Can anyone follow up on this and make the request? Time is tight for me. I have pursued NIST to the Port Authority and just yesterday I emailed the person who manages the WTC remains. I'll keep following through on that. Anyone (Oystein? Ivan?) willing to find out if these possible sources could help? Real LaClede primer from a WTC truss would be very very useful, and Millette will test it if he can find it.
Click to expand...

Chris: I am not a proper person for any such inquiry/reguest. I can help basically only with some googling of the possible sources of floor trusses.

Remember that about year ago, I sent some inquiry to PPG Industries as for Laclede paint; and Oystein sent another inquiry to NIST (I already forgot what was the topic). In both cases, no answers followed. We do not exactly why, but at least I mentioned 911 conspiracy theories in my e-mail, which could be easily the main reason.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
...
Remember that about year ago, I sent some inquiry to PPG Industries as for Laclede paint; and Oystein sent another inquiry to NIST (I already forgot what was the topic). In both cases, no answers followed. We do not exactly why, but at least I mentioned 911 conspiracy theories in my e-mail, which could be easily the main reason.
Click to expand...

I think I asked about where to find and how to obtain LaClede/floor truss material. I think I mailed to the generic address they had on the WTC study, something like "wtc@nist.gov", and not any named individuals. Indeed, no reply received, ever.


ETA: Yes, that is the email address for "General Public and Technical Professionals" according to this page. I think Chris wrote to Michael E. Newman, the contact for News Media. Perhaps one could go more directly to the Investigation Team, specifically Frank Gayle, Project Leader "Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel".
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
I think I asked about where to find and how to obtain LaClede/floor truss material. I think I mailed to the generic address they had on the WTC study, something like "wtc@nist.gov", and not any named individuals. Indeed, no reply received, ever.


ETA: Yes, that is the email address for "General Public and Technical Professionals" according to this page. I think Chris wrote to Michael E. Newman, the contact for News Media. Perhaps one could go more directly to the Investigation Team, specifically Frank Gayle, Project Leader "Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel".
Click to expand...
Actually I've made some progress. Michael Newman was able to tell me that NIST has not kept any samples and referred me to the NY/NJ Port Authority. I had a couple email contacts there and just got the name, email and phone of the person who directly manages the remaining steel pieces of WTC, most of which have been given over to various memorial objects: statues, traveling exhibits, etc. But whatever remains, I am now talking to the person who manages the steel. Just wrote an email yesterday and will follow up with a phone call next week if I don;t hear back.

Does anyone else have the time and energy to follow up on Ivan or Oystein's other possible leads for LaClede paint samples, from any source (either from WTC steel or from another known source)?
 
chrismohr said:
Actually I've made some progress. Michael Newman was able to tell me that NIST has not kept any samples and referred me to the NY/NJ Port Authority. I had a couple email contacts there and just got the name, email and phone of the person who directly manages the remaining steel pieces of WTC, most of which have been given over to various memorial objects: statues, traveling exhibits, etc. But whatever remains, I am now talking to the person who manages the steel. Just wrote an email yesterday and will follow up with a phone call next week if I don;t hear back.

Does anyone else have the time and energy to follow up on Ivan or Oystein's other possible leads for LaClede paint samples, from any source (either from WTC steel or from another known source)?
Click to expand...

Chris: Thanks a lot for your effort and good luck indeed:cool:
As we have already discussed, perhaps "WTC meteorite(s)" stored in Hangar 17 by NY/NJ Port Authority contain some remains of floor trusses.

Here is a quite good set of photographs.

It seems that some flat rusted steel pieces visible may be twisted floor trusses. Some particles of paint can be even preserved on them, but who knows?
 
Last edited:
Wow very interesting Ivan. I'll pass this truss picture on to my contact at Port Authority.
 
As many of you know, 9/11 Truth researcher Mark Basile and advocate Rick Shaddock are trying to get another WTC dust study off the ground. Rick is making the rounds of various talk show hosts and speaking highly of both me and Jim Millette. I need to find time to listen to this:

I also mentioned you (favorably of course) and Dr. Millette's study on 9/11 Free Fall show on No Lies Radio.
www.NoLiesRadio.org/archives/54612

Thanks for the inspiration to get the new WTC dust study done. We have raised about $761 so far.
www.MarkBasile.org

And in an earlier email also from Rick, these links and info:

It was my pleasure to be interviewed on Dr. James Fetzer's show and acknowledge your contributions.
This week's guest on the internet radio show, The Real Deal, hosted by Captain James Fetzer PhD (Philosophy, Professor Emeritus, Univ. Minnesota), is Rick Shaddock, who is doing a doctoral research study on Critical Thinking, Open-Mindednes s and Transcendental Meditation. They discuss similarities between TM and Plato's Dialectic, their different theories about the Pentagon plane, plus the rise of Collective Consciousness about 9/11, JFK, GMOs, and other truth awareness topics.
www.RadioFetzer.blogspot.com
November 28
In the first quarter section of the 2 hour talk. Near 7:30, 13:45 minute points
 
Hi folks

Just to understand a minor detail correctly:

If Harrit had did his experiment in an inert atmosphere, and if it turned out, actually, to be a thermitic reaction, he would find elemental iron microspheres (in abundance) in the residue, right?
But would he be able to measure it? I mean, will the elemental Iron remain elemental long enough to be measured? Or will it oxidize too fast?

I expect the answer is something like:
1. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue still in an inert atmosphere, he would clearly find and prove elemental iron.

2. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue taken out of the inert atmosphere (i.e. in plain air), he would have to do the measuering soon after, or the iron would oxidize and be indistinguishable from other iron oxide microspheres.

Is that correct?

My question clearly reveal that I do not know what the practical the procedure in a lab is. Can you measure everything (work the electron microscope) in an inert atmosphere or not?

One thing is clear, though: Since Harrit did not do the experiment in an inert atmosphere, there is no doubt that the iron sphere would oxidize almost as part of the process, since they are glowing hot or at least soon after. So the time span from ignition to measuring is vital. Did he do straight after or did he wait several days?

Look forwarding to hearing your expert responses.

Kindly,
Steen
 
Steen Svanholm said:
Hi folks

Just to understand a minor detail correctly:

If Harrit had did his experiment in an inert atmosphere, and if it turned out, actually, to be a thermitic reaction, he would find elemental iron microspheres (in abundance) in the residue, right?
But would he be able to measure it? I mean, will the elemental Iron remain elemental long enough to be measured? Or will it oxidize too fast?

I expect the answer is something like:
1. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue still in an inert atmosphere, he would clearly find and prove elemental iron.

2. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue taken out of the inert atmosphere (i.e. in plain air), he would have to do the measuering soon after, or the iron would oxidize and be indistinguishable from other iron oxide microspheres.

Is that correct?

My question clearly reveal that I do not know what the practical the procedure in a lab is. Can you measure everything (work the electron microscope) in an inert atmosphere or not?

One thing is clear, though: Since Harrit did not do the experiment in an inert atmosphere, there is no doubt that the iron sphere would oxidize almost as part of the process, since they are glowing hot or at least soon after. So the time span from ignition to measuring is vital. Did he do straight after or did he wait several days?

Look forwarding to hearing your expert responses.

Kindly,
Steen
Click to expand...

Hi Steen, let me try:

1. The immediate products of the thermite reaction are iron (elemental) and aluminium oxide, so yes, you "would clearly find ... elemental iron". And yes, it is likely that you would find some of that iron in spherical shapes, and micron sizes, given the small sample size (red layer 25 microns thin, only roughly 10% by weight, 2% by volume iron; iron oxide grains going into the reaction 100 nm small)

2. You are correct that surely the iron would oxidize fast, but I doubt it would oxidize completely.
For reference, Tillotsond Gash (reference [28] in Harrit e.al.) write, after DSC-testing their actual nanothermite under inert gas: "To verify that the reaction observed in Figs. 2 and 3 was indeed the thermite reaction the solid products from the DSC analysis reaction were analyzed using PXRD. The pattern of these products is shown in Fig. 4. The major constituents identified were metallic Fe and Al2O3..." - and indeed the two major expected PXRD peaks for elemental Fe are pretty prominent in Fig. 4.

Now you can't measure the DSC reaction products under the same inert atmosphere, or even in place. You have to take the probe out of the DSC device and put it into the electron microscope. Both devices have their hermetically closed chambers that contain the probe, and they are separate devices. Conventionally, electron microscopes are operated with the probe in a high vacuum, so that will protect the iron from oxidation in ambient air, but I can very well imagine, and expect, that they had their probe exposed to air for at least a brief transition time. I do not doubt though that they took it out of the DSC only after it had largely cooled down to near room temperature. In DSC experiments, it is not unusual to also have a cool-down phase during which you continue to measure, so the device has a way of cooling down controlledly.


In the case of Harrit e.al. we know that serious time must have passed between the DSC test and the SEM analysis of the residues, because in an AE911Truth interview, Farrer describes how they didn't have a DSC machine in the physics department at BYU and he had to go find a lab that has one. So he took the chip specimens to an entirely different lab, although we don't know where exactly. Since they write, on page 9 in the "Materials and Methods" section "An FEI XL30-SFEG scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to perform secondary-electron (SE) imaging and backscattered electron (BSE) imaging.", and indicate no exception for the residue analysis, we must assume that they used the same SEM, which is in Farrer's own lab (he is the lab manager there), to analyse the DSC residue. So that means there was a delay due to transport from DSC lab to SEM lab (on top of possible other delays, and time to prepare the samples)
 
Steen Svanholm said:
Hi folks

Just to understand a minor detail correctly:

If Harrit had did his experiment in an inert atmosphere, and if it turned out, actually, to be a thermitic reaction, he would find elemental iron microspheres (in abundance) in the residue, right?
But would he be able to measure it? I mean, will the elemental Iron remain elemental long enough to be measured? Or will it oxidize too fast?

I expect the answer is something like:
1. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue still in an inert atmosphere, he would clearly find and prove elemental iron.

2. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue taken out of the inert atmosphere (i.e. in plain air), he would have to do the measuring soon after, or the iron would oxidize and be indistinguishable from other iron oxide microspheres.

Is that correct?

My question clearly reveal that I do not know what the practical the procedure in a lab is. Can you measure everything (work the electron microscope) in an inert atmosphere or not?

One thing is clear, though: Since Harrit did not do the experiment in an inert atmosphere, there is no doubt that the iron sphere would oxidize almost as part of the process, since they are glowing hot or at least soon after. So the time span from ignition to measuring is vital. Did he do straight after or did he wait several days?

Look forwarding to hearing your expert responses.

Kindly,
Steen
Click to expand...

Hi, Steen, I'm definitely not an expert on corrosion of metals, so just few remarks after some googling (mostly without any guarantee):

- Oxidation (rusting) of iron is dependent on so many factors that its kinetics at certain conditions is hard to predict. Here is some paper. It seems that at room temperature, some passivation layer tens of angstroms "thick" is formed in seconds; and it seems that, naturally, it is created more quickly at e.g. several hundreds degrees C.

- As for your point 1.: I'm not so sure. Look e.g. at the "infamous" XEDS of microsphere formed during burning of commercial thermite (Fig. 24, Bentham paper):

picture.php


Of course this microsphere was exposed to air, but you can see quite large contamination with Si and Al stuffs which contain a lot of oxygen - hence they are partially responsible for a large oxygen peak in this spectrum. In short: even when kept strictly under inert, this particular microsphere (regarded as a "typical" by Harrit et al) would show some oxygen signal.

- As for your point 2: I'm not sure, since some passivation layer of oxidized iron can be formed pretty quickly. If such layer is formed during seconds or minutes, microsphere transferred trough air e.g. to DSC device will be always oxidized before next measurements.

Regarding a work under inert atmosphere: as an organic/polymer synthetic chemist, I'm forced to do most of my reactions under inert atmosphere, with occasional transfer of intermediates again under strict inert. In this respect I can tell you that such technologies (transfer of samples from one device/apparatus to another one under inert) are necessary and highly developed at present.
Concerning electron microscopy, such technologies, e.g. lockable sample holders also exist, see e.g. here.
In fact, necessity of complex work on several subsequent devices under strictly inert atmosphere is frequently solved using so-called "glove boxes". We have such glove box in our lab, btw, which is used only for physical measurements, not for any chemistry:cool:

Note: if I remember correctly, Tillotson, Gash and others have not characterized/identified products of "nanothermite" burning by XEDS, probably since this method does not give reliable results; they have used a kind of x-ray diffraction (powder XRD) to prove both Fe and alumina in the thermitic residues e.g. here.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys.

So it all takes us back to the fact:

We simply cannot be sure what Harrit has found but he definitely has not proved thermitic material. If he had done it in an inert atmosphere, he would have a had much better piece of evidence.
 
Hi Oystein

You said: "You are correct that surely the iron would oxidize fast, but I doubt it would oxidize completely."

My point was if it would oxidize enough to not be disinguishable from any iron oxide sphere.

But I guess from Ivans answer that even elemental iron residue from an actual thermitic reaction is difficult to distinguish from other iron oxide spheres.

Thus, it is a much better proof to perform the reaction in an inert gas.

Kindly,
Steen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom