Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[beachnut]

Greetings.

... Is there a way, chemically, to enhance the energyyeld of thermite/thermate/nanothermite in any way beyond 4 KJ/g?

In the minds of 911 truth followers. A chemical reaction, resulting in woo.

 

[Oystein]

Greetings.

As a newcomer (ok, lurked here for years)on these forums, I would like to ask a simple question focusing entirely on the chemican reaction/burn regarding thermite. Is there a way, chemically, to enhance the energyyeld of thermite/thermate/nanothermite in any way beyond 4 KJ/g?

No. Period. That figure is dictated by the chemical bonds; it is the absolute maximum possible.

If you include some other substance that has its own chemical or physical reaction, you can get more energy out of the compound, but it's not the aluminum/iron oxide redox that's providing that additional energy.

Correct answer by EMH.

An analogy: Okra is a vegetable that has a nutritional value (energy) of 31 kcal per 100 g. Can you get overweight on a diet that consists solely of okra? No, because to gain weight, you'd have to ingest more than 2,000 kcal per day, or 14 pounds of okra, and trust me, you don't want to do that.

Your question would be like "can you increase the nutritional value of okra?", and the answer is "only by adding something that has more calories". For example, you could fry your okra in lard (900 kcal per 100 g). If your meal is hald okra, half lard by weight, then eating more than just one pound gets you over your limit of 2,000 kcal per day.

You could then say that "okra makes you overweight", but that would be highly misleading, if not outright false: It is the lard that makes you gain weight, not the okra.



Same with Harrit e.al.'s thermite theory: They say the chips are thermite, but really the energy comes from the organics, not the thermite. You can't get more than 31 kcal/100 g from okra, and you can't get more than 4 kJ/g from thermite.


Oh, by the way: 31 kcal/100 g = 0.31 kcal/g = 1.3 kJ/g. Okra is actually almost as energetic as the nano-thermite made by Tillotson and Gash (1.5 kJ/g).

 

[Stamuel]

In the minds of 911 truth followers. A chemical reaction, resulting in woo.

And the award for best Truther-themed haiku goes to...

beachnut!

(OK, it technically isn't a haiku, but it really sounds like one, doesn't it?)

 

[Tilorop]

Thanks, and great analogy by the way Oystein. In order for thermite(insert any version here, fictious or not) to heat steel enough for it to loose strength(3-400+c), you are bound to a certain amount(and I belive, substantial) for heavy/massive steel members. I'm no expert in any of the fields, but using thermite to demolish anything sounds terrible inefficient for not to mention very risky due to the chaotic nature of it.

Hypothetically, I would probably go for some good old high explosives primarily on the seatings of a single floor to drop it to the next in order to trigger a pancaking effect(and removing lateral support, hence colums would buckle bringing it all down). Rigging a single level could in theory trigger a global collapse, right? If so, why would anyone bother to rig the whole building?

By the way, nanothermite, will it always be exothermic, or can it in some cases (or always, if small enough) become endothermic?

Thanks.

 

[Oystein]

Thanks, and great analogy by the way Oystein. In order for thermite(insert any version here, fictious or not) to heat steel enough for it to loose strength(3-400+c), you are bound to a certain amount(and I belive, substantial) for heavy/massive steel members. I'm no expert in any of the fields, but using thermite to demolish anything sounds terrible inefficient for not to mention very risky due to the chaotic nature of it.

From basic material properties and the reaction enthalpy of thermite it can be calculated that, in oder to melt 1 pound of steel, you need roughly a pound of thermite, or more.

Merely heating it to a temperature where steel becomes weak would not give you much control at all, and wouldn't heal the truthers' incredulity that a building supposedly could not collapse totally just from fires that merely weaken steel.

Hypothetically, I would probably go for some good old high explosives primarily on the seatings of a single floor to drop it to the next in order to trigger a pancaking effect(and removing lateral support, hence colums would buckle bringing it all down). Rigging a single level could in theory trigger a global collapse, right? If so, why would anyone bother to rig the whole building?

Right. As the late Danny Jowenko, a leading European demolition expert, explained in a video that truthers know, but only partially acknowledge: The goal of any highrise demolition is to take out a strategic bit of the structure, and then to let gravity do the rest of the work.

By the way, nanothermite, will it always be exothermic, or can it in some cases (or always, if small enough) become endothermic?

Thanks.

Whether a reaction is endothermic or exothermic depends on the "enthalpy of reaction". It's the differential between the "stored" chemical (inter-atom) energy of the reactants before and the products after the reaction - and that is a constant for any given chemical reaction. The thermite reaction

Fe₂O₃ + 2Al -> Al₂O₃ + 2Fe + delta-Energy​

always releases just under 4 kJ of energy for every gram of a mix of (Fe₂O₃ + 2Al). So the reaction is always exotherm.

Now if you mix thermite with other substances, and measure the energy release of the mix, then the energy density might go up or down, depending on what you mix the thermite with, and with how much.
You could mix thermite with substances that undergo an endotherm reaction and might suck up the energy released by the thermite. But you can't get a negative energy release on aggregate, unless you add some external energy.
In any case, the thermite in the mix would still be exotherm, and release 4 kJ/g. If the mix is endotherm on aggregate, it wouldn't be because it contains thermite.


Any by the way: The energy released by chemical reactions is (almost^[1]) independent of particle size. Whether nano-, micro- or milli-thermite, the reaction always releases the same 4 kJ/g. The potential advantages of nano-sizing the stuff are
- reaction may run faster, thus with more power (energy release per time unit)
- reaction may run to a higher degree of completion, leaving relatively less (Fe₂O₃ + 2Al) unreacted
There are also potential disadvantages. Most notably, aluminium always oxidizes at its surface as soon as it is exposed to air. That oxide layer is very thin, measured in nanometers, and thus not very significant in larger particles, but can be very significant when your particles themselves are only tens of nanometers small - then a large proportion of your Al would already be oxidized, and that oxide is just dead weight in your thermite, lowering the average energy density. In fact, the scientists at LLNL that Harrit e.al. quote believe that this is the main reason why their nano-thermite was measured at only 1.5 kJ/g instead of close to 4 kJ/g.



[1] At nano-scales, some effects like van-der-Waals forces between particles may become significant, increasing or decreasing the energy in the mix.

 

[remo]

Bet your nuts.

" as Mohr so succintly put it: "It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede."

I wouldn't bet my beached nuts on you guys ever having heard of the words 'false flag attack' either.

" Millette´s followers insist that his FTIR data confirms paint and rules out nanothermite, but they keep reaching conclusions without proper research. Since superthermite is available in fully organic forms, hybrid forms like Harrit´s chips with high organic content, and even mixed with paint epoxy, any competent researcher would have to compare the FTIR spectra of the red/gray chips to these hybrid forms of superthermite: Millette´s relevant FTIR data is not only flawed, it also lacks all the needed research and comparisons, so it is inconclusive, if not fully debunked."

"The final problem with Millette´s paint-hypothesis is that even if he proves that the chips contain paint-epoxy, that would not rule out thermitic materials, as JREF forum member "Sunstealer" discovered: He stumbled upon a paper dealing with thermitic materials that are diluted with standard epoxy, up to 50% by weight and 80% by volume, so there is actually such a thing as functional nano-thermite mixed with paint.This reference certainly refutes Millette's contention that finding normal epoxy mixed in with the chips would rule out superthermite."

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/

'While a particular embodiment of the invention has been illustrated and described, and specific materials, thicknesses, and processing procedures have been set forth to explain the principles of the invention, such are not intended to be limiting. Modifications and changes will became apparent to those skilled in the art, and it is intended that the invention be limited only by the scope of the appended claims.'

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=5505799.PN.&OS=PN/5505799&RS=PN/5505799

 

[Africanus]

" Millette´s followers insist that his FTIR data confirms paint and rules out nanothermite, but they keep reaching conclusions without proper research. Since superthermite is available in fully organic forms, hybrid forms like Harrit´s chips with high organic content, and even mixed with paint epoxy, any competent researcher would have to compare the FTIR spectra of the red/gray chips to these hybrid forms of superthermite: Millette´s relevant FTIR data is not only flawed, it also lacks all the needed research and comparisons, so it is inconclusive, if not fully debunked."

This claim is pure nonsense, as until today no FTIR spectra of Harrits chips are available! So there is nothing to compare Millette's chips to.

"The final problem with Millette´s paint-hypothesis is that even if he proves that the chips contain paint-epoxy, that would not rule out thermitic materials, as JREF forum member "Sunstealer" discovered: He stumbled upon a paper dealing with thermitic materials that are diluted with standard epoxy, up to 50% by weight and 80% by volume, so there is actually such a thing as functional nano-thermite mixed with paint.This reference certainly refutes Millette's contention that finding normal epoxy mixed in with the chips would rule out superthermite."

This is another nonsensic claim! Millette built his refutation of the thermite hypothesis not solely on the presence of the epoxy, he also proved that no elemental aluminum was present, only chemical bound aluminum as kaolinite!

Conclusion: Another deceptive truther article. Shame on you, Mr. Talboo!

PS: It is interesting how right Sunstealer was:

I'm reluctant to show the source because I can gaurantee that truthers will be all over it saying, "look! look! thermite and epoxy, see, see Jones was right, Harrit is right" etc, etc.

Source: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8344850&postcount=729

Hi Africanus

Thansk for a very precise and pedagogical answer.

Just to make sure I understand your point (and my own confusement) in question 3:

A DSC experiment measures the ignition temperature by gradually incresing temperature of the specimen until ignition sets in. It does not measure the temperature of the reaction itself thta follows (which might be much higher, e.g. the melting point of iron), is that correct?

Kindly,
Steen

Totally correct!

 

[beachnut]

" as Mohr so succintly put it: "It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. ..."

Jones paper clearly shows no thermite, no need for another study. There is no steel which shows exposure to thermite. Zip. No big deal but Jones made up the thermite did it scenario out of political bias, or some mental problem. Good luck advancing an idea that is nuts.

... heard of the words 'false flag attack' either.

911 was not a false flag event, it was a terrorist attack promised by UBL. For some reason Jones made up the claim of thermite and has fooled a fringe few paranoid conspiracy theorists who see false flags in their heads.

" Millette´s followers insist that his FTIR data confirms paint and rules out nanothermite, but they keep reaching conclusions without proper research. Since superthermite is available in fully organic forms, hybrid forms like Harrit´s chips with high organic content, and even mixed with paint epoxy, any competent researcher would have to compare the FTIR spectra of the red/gray chips to these hybrid forms of superthermite: Millette´s relevant FTIR data is not only flawed, it also lacks all the needed research and comparisons, so it is inconclusive, if not fully debunked."

Gee whiz, Jones paper rules out thermite. Evidence of not thermite damage to steel rules out thermite on 911. 11 plus years, Jones was debunked before he made up his fantasy of thermite. It is nonsense, and sad to see someone fired for going nuts like Jones did on 911 issues, due to his failed politics.
Truth is, his work on Christ visiting the New World is better than Jones disrespectful, anti-intellectual, treasonous work on 911.

"The final problem with Millette´s paint-hypothesis is that even if he proves that the chips contain paint-epoxy, that would not rule out thermitic materials, as JREF forum member "Sunstealer" discovered: He stumbled upon a paper dealing with thermitic materials that are diluted with standard epoxy, up to 50% by weight and 80% by volume, so there is actually such a thing as functional nano-thermite mixed with paint.This reference certainly refutes Millette's contention that finding normal epoxy mixed in with the chips would rule out superthermite."

??? There was no super-thermite painted on anything on 911 - this is a fantasy made up by mad men; like Jones.
Yes Virgina, there is iron oxide in paint, and yes there is Al in paint.

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/

'While a particular embodiment of the invention has been illustrated and described, and specific materials, thicknesses, and processing procedures have been set forth to explain the principles of the invention, such are not intended to be limiting. Modifications and changes will became apparent to those skilled in the art, and it is intended that the invention be limited only by the scope of the appended claims.'

Seriously? How does producing gobs of nonsense debunk the fact no steel on 911 shows damage from thermite. Explain how you can back in thermite damage to steel which was not touched by thermite? Do you understand, no engineers found steel in the debris which was damaged by thermite. Better change from Jones' failed thermite to Judy's beam weapon, you can say the evidence evaporated.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=5505799.PN.&OS=PN/5505799&RS=PN/5505799

Referencing a patent to prove the existence of a substance not present to destroy the WTC complex on 911 is anti-intellectual nonsense. You have to show damage to steel at the WTC. You are left with zero evidence of thermite, save the delusions of a fallen PhD.

You can prove thermite exists, you can't prove it was used on 911; because the evidence proves there was no thermite used on 911. Jones' paper proves they did not find thermite. Please take the paper to chemical engineer and let him explain why you were fooled by Jones. How many Chem Engineers have you consulted?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

" as Mohr so succintly put it: "It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede."

I wouldn't bet my beached nuts on you guys ever having heard of the words 'false flag attack' either.

" Millette´s followers insist that his FTIR data confirms paint and rules out nanothermite, but they keep reaching conclusions without proper research. Since superthermite is available in fully organic forms, hybrid forms like Harrit´s chips with high organic content, and even mixed with paint epoxy, any competent researcher would have to compare the FTIR spectra of the red/gray chips to these hybrid forms of superthermite: Millette´s relevant FTIR data is not only flawed, it also lacks all the needed research and comparisons, so it is inconclusive, if not fully debunked."

"The final problem with Millette´s paint-hypothesis is that even if he proves that the chips contain paint-epoxy, that would not rule out thermitic materials, as JREF forum member "Sunstealer" discovered: He stumbled upon a paper dealing with thermitic materials that are diluted with standard epoxy, up to 50% by weight and 80% by volume, so there is actually such a thing as functional nano-thermite mixed with paint.This reference certainly refutes Millette's contention that finding normal epoxy mixed in with the chips would rule out superthermite."

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/

'While a particular embodiment of the invention has been illustrated and described, and specific materials, thicknesses, and processing procedures have been set forth to explain the principles of the invention, such are not intended to be limiting. Modifications and changes will became apparent to those skilled in the art, and it is intended that the invention be limited only by the scope of the appended claims.'

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=5505799.PN.&OS=PN/5505799&RS=PN/5505799

Merry Christmas, Remo
You truthers should celebrate incoming New Year by a special firework using a mixture of kaolinite and iron oxide in some 60 % (or more) of epoxy resin. This will be really spectacular fiery show, I would guess, fully corresponding to the importance/credibility of nanothermite "theory" Good luck

 

[Sunstealer]

What about the kaolin Remo? Millette's FTIR data clearly shows kaolin is present so why does your superduper nanothermite contain a common industrial filler? The Harrit et al paper shows kaolin to be present too as I showed 3 1/2 years ago.

You are desperately clutching at straws.

 

[remo]

Q/A:social engineering

Why did Dr. Millette find kaolin in his analysis? Because it was there in the material he examined. We know that Harrit and Jones found particles that ignited. ejecting molten hot iron spherules. Specifically linked in their paper to material known at LLNL. Not regarded as a common component of primer paint.
Why did Dr.Millette not find thermitic material ?
We await his paper being presented in a peer reviewed science journal laying out the argument.
As to the use in demolition sequence of these rare highly machined composits as found by Harrit/Jones? Go ask the special ops boys that did the business. Maybe they do a History channel tv special on it soon with Claire Danes as Amanda Keller. Know anyone chubby and European and blond to play Rudi Dekker?
In the meantime, we can read back on the known knowns. The FEMA study of eutectic attack on the steel.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=fem...ient=firefox-a
It is nonsense to argue these phenomena not related to use of energetics. It was 'evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion ATTACK on the steel..subsequent intergranular MELTING etc' .
As to 'no evidence'. " * Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002:[ii]
http://rememberbuilding7.org/destruction-of-evidence/
“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”

* Jonathan Barnett, PhD, FEMA BPAT Investigator:[iv]
“Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item – photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7.”

* Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, New York:[iii]
“[T]here is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.”

 

[Spanx]

Thanks for the first link remo, it brings up some fantastic search results

 

[chrismohr]

Hiya Remo,

I'm no expert, just an organizer of the Millette study. Millette did not find strontium chromate, which would have been a specific piece of evidence of the red-grey chips being LaClede paint primer. Since it is an easy thing to miss, his failure to find it leaves the question open until he is able to find a known chip of LaClede primer to compare the red-grey chips against. This is why I was unwilling to bet my leeft nut on the red-grey chips specifically being LaClede. We are looking for a LaClede primer sample, possibly off a truss from the WTC debris itself. Millette does hope to finish his study in 2013.

BTW I also personally asked Jonathan Barnett about the suflidized steel just last month and he specifically said that it could have been created due to battery acid, acid rain, or gypsum wallboard burning. He also absolutely rejects the idea that thermate could have been a cause of the sulfidized steel, and tells 9/11 Truth activists to relax and take it easy there is no evidence of CD. Thought you should know that the guy you and other 9/11 truth activists quote is unambiguously not in agreement with your central claim.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Further to Chris Mohr's comment above, here's a 2007 email correspondence between a conspiracy theorist and Dr Barnett:

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/ind...30:correspondence-regarding-the-events-of-911

Remo, I'd recommend you read this.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi, Chris
Just one reminder, as for strontium chromate, which represented some 4 % of pigments in Laclede paint: I found that this pigment is gradually depleted from paints for corrosion protection; this is in fact necessary for its proper function of anticorrosive agent. Hence, after 40 and more years after the paint job, original crystalline needles of this stuff could dissapear from the paint or could at least change their shape/size (chromate dissolved in water is expected to travel in the form of ions mostly to the steel in crevices or other damaged parts of the paint).
It would be of course great to compare red chips from the dust with authentic particles of Laclede paint - if there is no strontium chromate found in them as well, the "Laclede paint theory" would celebrate its victory.

Indeed, we can expect similar depletion of zinc chromate in Tnemec paint for perimeter columns, for the same reason (it has similar solubility in water). And there is a lot of zinc and chromium detected by XEDS, as was shown by S. Jones. But this pigment represented some 20 % of pigments in this paint, so its depletion was not probably so apparent/distinct in this case.

This is just my hypothesis, but I think that it should be taken into consideration by Jim Millette.

 

[Oystein]

Why did Dr. Millette find kaolin in his analysis? Because it was there in the material he examined.

Exactly.

And the same material is present in Harrit's chips a-d - just look at Figures 8 (BSE-image of kaolin platelets), 9 (SE-image of kaolin platelets), 10 (XEDS-map showing that Si and Al are strongly associated with kaolin platelets and with each other) and 11a (XEDS spectrum with Al = Si < O, the elemetal signature of kaolin).

Add to this that Steven Jones recently revealed that Jeff Farrer found additional evidence, through unpublished TEM-studies, that there may well be a 1:1 ratio of Si and Al in these platelets - exactly what you expect for kaolin.

Jones, Farrer, Harrit have absolutely no explanation for the presence of Si and its consistent 1:1 ratio to Al.

We have the explanation: Kaolin. All the Al in chips a-d is bound as kaolin.

And that's exactly what Millette found too, in chips selected by doing exactly what Harrit e.al. in their paper, matching chips a-d to a t.

We know that Harrit and Jones found particles that ignited.

Big deal. With 70% epoxy, you fully epxect it to react exothermally: First anaerobe decomposition, then, around 425 °C, ignition in air. Common and well-known behaviour of epoxy

ejecting molten hot iron spherules.

Given that they were looking at a material that started out being mostly (>50%) corroded iron (the gray layer! What else do you think it is?), they found precious little evidence of actual elemental iron. I see one little sintered blob of 2 µm in the paper that may have some elemental iron mixed with the iron oxide.

Specifically linked in their paper to material known at LLNL.

No such link exists in the paper, except for bare-assed assertions.

Not regarded as a common component of primer paint.

As there is no such link, that sentence is moot.

Why did Dr.Millette not find thermitic material ?

Easy: There is none.

We await his paper being presented in a peer reviewed science journal laying out the argument.

Indeed. Don't put your hopes too high that he might not eventually submit this to a respected (as opposed to the disgraceful Bentham publishers crap) journal, might not survive peer-review and thus not have it published. And don't hope it won't smash Harrit e.al. to pieces.

As to the use in demolition sequence of these rare highly machined composits as found by Harrit/Jones? Go ask the special ops boys that did the business.

In other words: You have no *********** idea

Maybe they do a History channel tv special on it soon with Claire Danes as Amanda Keller. Know anyone chubby and European and blond to play Rudi Dekker?

Bringin actors to the scientific debate is what Da Twoof does. Ed Asner, Daniel Sunjata, Charlie Sheen, Roseanne Barr - ring a bell?

In the meantime, we can read back on the known knowns. The FEMA study of eutectic attack on the steel.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=fem...ient=firefox-a
It is nonsense to argue these phenomena not related to use of energetics. It was 'evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion ATTACK on the steel..subsequent intergranular MELTING etc'

Yes. So?
What "high temperature", remo? Put a number to it!
And exactly: INTERGRANUAL melting. Do you understand where that melting occurs? Do you think they places thermite there?
And exactly: CORROSION! That's a gradual process!

It is nonsense to argue these phenomena are related to use of energetics.
(What are "energetics", by the way? Can you define the term, such that is does not apply to epoxy based paint, or your own dried droppings?)

[snipped off topic crap]

You're off-topic. Again.

 

[Oystein]

Hi, Chris
Just one reminder, as for strontium chromate, which represented some 4 % of pigments in Laclede paint: I found that this pigment is gradually depleted from paints for corrosion protection; this is in fact necessary for its proper function of anticorrosive agent. Hence, after 40 and more years after the paint job, original crystalline needles of this stuff could dissapear from the paint or could at least change their shape/size (chromate dissolved in water is expected to travel in the form of ions mostly to the steel in crevices or other damaged parts of the paint).
It would be of course great to compare red chips from the dust with authentic particles of Laclede paint - if there is no strontium chromate found in them as well, the "Laclede paint theory" would celebrate its victory.
...

But Jeff Farrer found strontium chromate

 

[Sunstealer]

Why did Dr. Millette find kaolin in his analysis? Because it was there in the material he examined.

Yep. Now would you do me the favour of answering the following question:

Below is Fig 7 of the Harrit et al paper

Do you agree with Harrit that the above 4 samples a,b,c and d are the same material?

I'm ignoring the rest of your post because it's off-topic drivel. If you wish to talk about the high temperature corrosion seen in some steel sections recovered then there are a dozen threads that already deal with that topic. I've also explained in detail in those threads as to what mechanisms explain that type and level of corrosion.

I suggest that you actually read my posts on this thread from 3 1/2 years ago. All is explained. Then move onto the high temperature corrosion threads.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

But Jeff Farrer found strontium chromate

Yes, but strontium peaks are marked (as barely visible) by the Farrer's XEDS device here:

These very weak signals are something which could be easily missed/"overlooked" by Millette's XEDS device. And minute chromium peaks are detected in some/many XEDS spectra of Jim Millette.
I/we don't know up to now what method Jim Millette used looking for strontium chromate (except XEDS, which is not suitable in this case); just electron microscopy? Probably. Then, it is still possible that originally present strontium chromate needles were transformed into different/smaller objects after more than 40 years and are not clearly visible in micrographs...

Btw, had been floor trusses painted with Laclede primer exposed to some constant "climate" and humidity in WTC, similar to the conditions in office spaces? I have no idea, to be honest.

 

[ergo]

With the last few posts by Oystein, it looks like 9/11 bedunkers have finally understood the difference between energy vs. power density. Yay.

It must have finally sunk in when their suggestions to various militaries about the nano applications of okra were continually ignored.