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

[Miragememories]

"...Where is the DSC thermograph for non-thermitic red/gray chips in Harrit et al?"

Are you suggesting that Dr. Harrit et al never performed any DSC testing on known non-thermitic materials for comparison?

That they never tested relevant materials like steel primer paint?

Do you honestly expect a finished report to contain all the laboratory documentation accumulated over the course of their research?

MM

 

[Oystein]

Are you suggesting that Dr. Harrit et al never performed any DSC testing on known non-thermitic materials for comparison?...

You are losing focus again. We are talking about how to distinguish between magnetic red-gray chips that are thermitic and magnetic red-gray chips that are not [correction on edit:]magnetic thermitic[/correction on edit].

The authors claim that the data they present is representative for ALL red-gray chips that are thermitic, and don't mention even the possibility that some of them may nonetheless be non-thermitic.

So yeah, from the Bentham paper we must conclude that indeed they never performed any DSC testing on magnetic red-gray chip that they consider to be non-thermitic.


Now before you lose focus again, let me remind you that we are discussing here the point: How can a follow-up researcher distinguish between thermitic magnetic red-gray chips and non-thermitic magnetic red-gray chips - before doing further testing.


Previously, you seem to have answered this question...

1. Do you assert that reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - yes, no, or don't know, MM?​

... in the affirmative:

"Yes, I, MM, am of the opinion that reading and understanding the Bentham paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them".​

Now please attend to the second question also:

2. Do you assert that it is thus not necessary (for a competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors) to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?​

I have been asking this for at least the fourth time. Every reader can clearly see how you are running away from answering this question.

Why don't you just leave the growing embarrassment behind and just answer it? A "yes", a "no" or a "don't know" will do.

Everything else will not do.

 

[Sunstealer]

Are you suggesting that Dr. Harrit et al never performed any DSC testing on known non-thermitic materials for comparison?

That they never tested relevant materials like steel primer paint?

Do you honestly expect a finished report to contain all the laboratory documentation accumulated over the course of their research?

MM

Why don't you answer the questions?

Do you agree that samples a-d and Millette's samples are the same material?

Where is the DSC thermograph for non-thermitic red/gray chips in Harrit et al?

We are talking about how thermitic and non-thermitic material is distinguished.

Stop trying to weasel your way around things and answer the questions from myself and Oystein.

 

[Gamolon]

Am I understanding that the claim from Legge/Harritt is that only thermitic red/gray chips were/are magnetic?

 

[Oystein]

Am I understanding that the claim from Legge/Harritt is that only thermitic red/gray chips were/are magnetic?

Legge recently has said that "of course" some of the red-gray chips are not thermitic; not totally sure if that applies to red-gray chips that have been pulled out by a magnet - he wouldn't answer the question. But I strongly suppose this is so.

By the way: The Bentham paper, and none of its authors, have yet answered the following questions:

1. What in the red-gray chips makes them magnetic?
2. What is the gray layer composed of in detail (which iron oxide phases, etc)?

I think answering both would clear a few things up.

 

[Sunstealer]

It's interesting that no truther has dared to perform any analysis of Dr Millette's preliminary results- either agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. None of them is analysing the FTIR or TEM-SAED data. It could be total nonsense for all a truther knows.

I wonder why that is?

 

[Oystein]

It's interesting that no truther has dared to perform any analysis of Dr Millette's preliminary results- either agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. None of them is analysing the FTIR or TEM-SAED data. It could be total nonsense for all a truther knows.

I wonder why that is?

The Bentham authors claim in their paper they have FTIR data.
They have held it back for almost 4 years now.
Why?

Jeff Farrer has TEM-data.
He has held it back for over 3 years.
Why?

Steven Jones claims he has XRD data from an independent lab.
He has held it back for 3 years.
Why?

 

[Gamolon]

Legge recently has said that "of course" some of the red-gray chips are not thermitic; not totally sure if that applies to red-gray chips that have been pulled out by a magnet - he wouldn't answer the question. But I strongly suppose this is so.

But based on the paper and what was said by Legge, doesn't one have to draw the conclusion that:

1. All the chips to be tested were magnetic as that's how they gathered their test samples

and

2. All the chips that were magnetically gathered tested to be thermitic

Thus, according to them, all thermitic red/gray chips are magnetic.

All the other non-magnetic chips were assumed to be non-thermitic, left in the pile, and never tested.

That's the conclusion to be drawn from their paper without asking questions correct?

 

[Starving for Truth]

MM, run away from the shills, I'll give you cover and employ a clever diversionary tactic so they focus their attention on me!

HEY, SHILLS!!! YES, YOU SHILLS!! LOOK OVER HERE!

lala-la-la-la-la-laaa-la (C major)

debunk me if you caan-- (C major)
debunk me if you caaa-aaa--an (walking bass line down to G major)
shiiii--lll----sssss (ba-dum-ts)

RUN, MM, RUN, WE FOOLED THEM!

 

[Oystein]

But based on the paper and what was said by Legge, doesn't one have to draw the conclusion that:

1. All the chips to be tested were magnetic as that's how they gathered their test samples

Yes - as in "all the chips they in fact tested were in fact magetic".

and

2. All the chips that were magnetically gathered tested to be thermitic

Yes, that is what a close reading of much of the text suggests.
They do report on some unusual chips, with different composition and look, but provide too little detail to allow any determination whether or not these are thermitic, and whether or not these are magnetic.

Thus, according to them, all thermitic red/gray chips are magnetic.

No. See below.

All the other non-magnetic chips were assumed to be non-thermitic, left in the pile, and never tested.

No. I don't see that they state or imply any assumptions at all about particles they didn't test - whether non-magnetic, or non-red-gray.

That's the conclusion to be drawn from their paper without asking questions correct?

The conclusion to be drawn is that all particles in the dust that have the 2 properties

1. Being attracted to a magnet
2. Being chips having a red and a gray layer, each tens of microns thin

are all very similar and share all key properties they tested for, and are thus all concluded to be thermitic.


That doesn't rule out the possibility that other particles, not sharing the 2 selection criteria, might be thermitic or whatever.

 

[Miragememories]

"It's interesting that no truther has dared to perform any analysis of Dr Millette's preliminary results- either agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. None of them is analysing the FTIR or TEM-SAED data. It could be total nonsense for all a truther knows.

I wonder why that is?"

I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM

There isn't any need and there is no fear at all, it's a meaningless test. FTIR and TEM-SAED shows catagorically what the material is.

No truther has bothered to even look at the FTIR trace because they don't know how to.

DSC is meaningless as you have been told time and time again, especially since no one knows which samples where tested, the test was conducted in air, the chips in the DSC data included the oxidised steel layer and the DSC data in the Harrit et al paper shows that thermite couldn't possibly be present due to too much energy being released. What's more the FTIR trace and the TEM-SAED data trump any DSC nonsense because those methods characterise the material - DSC can never do so.

Focus MM. Focus, focus on the questions put to you. Stop evading. Why will you not answer the simple questions:

Do you agree that samples a-d and Millette's samples are the same material?

Where is the DSC thermograph for non-thermitic red/gray chips in Harrit et al?

 

[Dog Town]

I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM

That's the conclusion you've reached, through all of this?



* we really need a WOOSH smilie!

 

[chrismohr]

MM, when I asked Jim Millette last year why he didn't do a DSC test, here is the email he sent back, verbatim and unedited:

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim

 

[pgimeno]

I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM

The "fear" is that it would be useless. See posts #1061 and #1062. No result would be conclusive of anything.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8815790#post8815790

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There isn't any need and there is no fear at all, it's a meaningless test. FTIR and TEM-SAED shows catagorically what the material is.

This bears repeating for emphasis. FTIR gives bond information, TEM-SAED gives structure. DSC measures heat absorption capability. The first two gives you information that you can use to narrow down the possibilities by giving you very specific chemical and structural data. DSC gives you a characteristic that would belong to a number of possible materials.

Since you've already got chemical bond and structural information, what need have you of what it takes to boil the sample? Or in the case of the Jones test, incinerate it? You already know how it's put together with the first two methods.

The cry for DSC data is ridiculous in the face of tests that clearly identify what the material is. Pretending that it's more relevant to the debate is akin to saying that a listen with a stethoscope's going to tell the doctor more than a blood workup will.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM

Hehe Are you serious, MM?

Some info for you again:

- About one year ago we predicted that all red-gray chips analyzed by Jim Millette will be compatible with paints (on rust flakes). This really happened, all chips contained only kaolinite instead of aluminum. Such composite cannot be thermite.

- Because of these finding we can easily predict that these red/gray chips would behave like paints in DSC device under air, i.e. they will show similar curves as in Fig. 19 in Bentham paper.

E.g., here are calorimetry curves for cured pure epoxy resin Epon 862 (left) and its mixture with 5 % of silica (right). (HRR means heat release reate):

And here is a Fig. 19 from Bentham paper:

As you can see, curves in Fig. 19 are compatible with the combustion of epoxy resin just shown. Hence, all these results, including Fig. 19, are compatible with epoxy paints

(Note: HRR for epoxy are much higher than in Fig. 19, and I don't know the reasons at the moment; one factor is anyway clear: all red-gray chips burned in Bentham paper contained gray incombustible layer of iron oxides, which substantially lowered heat released from one gram of sample.)

 

[Oystein]

I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM

I wonder -- why all the fear about answering a simple questiom?

2. Do you assert that it is thus not necessary (for a competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors) to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein (and others who may be interested):

I've been pointed out several times here that DSC is not a good/common method for determining the heat release during thermal-oxidative degradation/combustion of polymers since, among others, the mass of sample is dramatically changing during measurements and combustible vapors/gases are(can be) blown out with the stream of air, hence they can "escape" from the measured "space" prior their ignition/combustion). This is why it is so difficult to find papers showing e.g. DSC curves of thermally decomposed epoxy resins.

However, other, more suitable methods are available.

In the paper I've just cited above, a quite new device/method was employed for examining heat release rate (and overal released heat).
A device called Microscale Combustion Calorimeter, MCC was employed for the combustion of epoxy resin composites.

A quote from here: "A very small quantity of sample (1–4 mg) is pyrolyzed under nitrogen flow at a constant heating rate (typically 1 K/s) and the released gases are sent to an oven and burnt in presence of oxygen at 900 °C. These conditions allow complete combustion. The heat release is calculated according to the Huggett’s relation (1 kg of consumpted oxygen corresponds to 13.1 MJ of released energy)."

Here are some more curves obtained using MCC:

A typical "MCC curve" for polymers (caption: Fig. 1. Typical HRR curve using MCC apparatus (example: Polyamide 6)):

Some more MCC curves for epoxy resins/their composites:

We can see that "MCC curves" can be/are similar for various polymers and they basically indicate: at temperatures around 400 degrees C, polymers are massively degraded under inert and their combustible/vaporized degradation products are then burned in air/oxygen.

Question is why DSC curves in Fig. 19 (Bentham paper) are so similar to all these MCC curves. It seems to me that just accidentally (?), the most/substantial part of flammable vapors/gases formed by thermal-oxidative degradation of polymer binder in these red-gray chips was really combusted closely to the chips; therefore the thermal effect of these processes was recorded by DSC device, at least partially.

(Note: quite clearly, MCC device is much more suitable for measurements of thermal effects during heating of red-gray chips than DSC. This method allows in principle - among others - to determine if the thermal effect belongs to thermitic reaction, since no flammable gaseous products, which can be then ignited in air, are formed during burning of (pure) thermites. Hence, "MCC curve" for pure thermites should be basically flat. But can I recommend this method as very suitable substitute of DSC? Probably not, since truthers would cry, looking at the results: common, you used different method than our scientific gods Harrit et al! Another fraud of debunkers!)

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Some more boring remarks as for DSC and MCC:

1) MCC basically uses an approach of "oxygen consumption calorimetry": the released reaction heat is not measured directly, but it is derived from the amount of oxygen consumed by burning of combustible products in the oven.

2) Heating rates in MCC are typically 1 K/s, i.e. 60 degrees (Celsius or Kelvin) per minute, i.e. 6x higher than during DSC measurements in Bentham paper. This should basically mean that polymer binder here is degraded more quickly, releasing more quickly volatile/flammable products. But, the conditions are not directly comparable anyway, since in MCC device, samples are first degraded/pyrolyzed under inert (whereas they were degraded, pyrolyzed and also burned under air in Bentham paper).

3) Alumina pans as sample holders were open in Bentham paper (exposed to surrounding atmosphere). I've just asked our "TGA/DSC lady" Dr. Kovarova and she basically told me: "When measuring DSC under inert, we usually employ closed sample holders, especially if there is no possibility/danger that sample would release a lot of vapors. When measuring under air, this gas should indeed have a contact with the sample. In this case, we usually also employ closed sample holder, but we puncture its cover several times, in order to allow air to come/exchange in the measured space."

4) This point, dealing with released heat in DSC and MCC, is currently "under construction"