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

[Miragememories]

"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"

Dr. Millette does not address those DSC findings which argue against the credibility of his own findings.

He shows his ignorance of the DSC work performed by the research scientists, when he states that only the "thermal properties" of a substance are revealed.

Dr. Millette ignores the importance of the findings from the DSC post ignition red chip residue.

And sadly, he shows little curiosity.

MM

 

[Spanx]

Dr. Millette does not address those DSC findings which argue against the credibility of his own findings.

He shows his ignorance of the DSC work performed by the research scientists, when he states that only the "thermal properties" of a substance are revealed.

Dr. Millette ignores the importance of the findings from the DSC post ignition red chip residue.

And sadly, he shows little curiosity.

MM

Why don't you contact Millette yourself and ask him your questions ?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Dr. Millette does not address those DSC findings which argue against the credibility of his own findings.

He shows his ignorance of the DSC work performed by the research scientists, when he states that only the "thermal properties" of a substance are revealed.

Dr. Millette ignores the importance of the findings from the DSC post ignition red chip residue.

And sadly, he shows little curiosity.

MM

Okay, MM, I'll bite. Exactly what does a DSC show besides thermal properties?

 

[BasqueArch]

Okay, MM, I'll bite. Exactly what does a DSC show besides thermal properties?

.....

 

[LSSBB]

Okay, MM, I'll bite. Exactly what does a DSC show besides thermal properties?

"Your honor, the body was not Mrs. Smith's, it was Ms. Jones. Although the DNA is Mrs. Smith's, we burnt the body and the thermal properties also match those of Ms. Jones."

 

[Oystein]

Dr. Millette does not address those DSC findings which argue against the credibility of his own findings.

He shows his ignorance of the DSC work performed by the research scientists, when he states that only the "thermal properties" of a substance are revealed.

Dr. Millette ignores the importance of the findings from the DSC post ignition red chip residue.

And sadly, he shows little curiosity.

MM

At the very least, it is unnecessary to burn chips specifically in a DSC: Harrit e.al. don't really use the DSC results (the curves, the numbers). In fact, they admit they realize the numbers pose a problem, as the energy release is too high to be explained by thermite. Do you understand that they admit this problem, and do you understand why that is a problem, MM?


If you are only interested in the residues, then it would suffice to burn the chips, without measuring heat flux.

The problem with connecting the heat flux with the residue is that the main peak in the DSC curves is clearly generated by organic combustion - see Ivan's latest posts for some comparisons - and there is no thermal event in the DSC graphs that can be tied to a thermite reaction. This can only mean two things:

• Either there was no reaction that created these residue particles of interest - i.e. they were in fact already present in the sample before the test, contrary to the authors' claims
• Or the reactions that produced the residue particles of interest were so weak, or involved such a tiny fraction of the total mass, as to be entirely insignificant

In short: The DSC results presented by Harrit e.al. alone are sufficient to rule out that the material is thermitic.

Now since Millette had figured out with absolute certainty by other, non-destructive methods that the material is not thermitic, why bother doing a DSC test?

If you lost your dog, and now you are returned a dog that looks similar, and you can rule out 100% that this is your dog (because, for example, your dog had only 3 legs, this one has four), why do an autopsy and kill the poor dog just to make sure?

 

[Sunstealer]

"Your honor, the body was not Mrs. Smith's, it was Ms. Jones. Although the DNA is Mrs. Smith's, the body has been identified by 10 of Mrs. Smith's relatives, finger prints match Mrs. Smith,Mrs. Smith's dentures have been identified by her dentist, we burnt the body and the thermal properties also match those of Ms. Jones."

Actually it's more like this - my additions in red.

It's massive wilful ignorance and dishonesty not to acknowledge that the material Millette has contains epoxy and kaolin when the actual results and data are laid out in black and white for anyone to examine.

This is why the truthers will never try to analyse the FTIR or TEM-SAED data because they know it shows paint. Instead they concentrate on something that has no importance to the task at hand, namely: what is this material?

MM also refuses to answer very simple questions because he knows answering them will completely undermine his position. He won't answer these:

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?

Secondly Ivan has shown categorically that epoxy is a good candidate for the exothermic DSC curve presented in Harrit et al. Again MM and other truthers will ignore this evidence.

Truther "logic": If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck then it must be a banana.

 

[Miragememories]

"At the very least, it is unnecessary to burn chips specifically in a DSC:…"

The red chips of interest, were not 'burned' in the DSC.

They were ignited in the DSC.

As you also know, the authors acknowledge and discuss in their report, the exceptional energy release when the red chips were ignited.

It would not suffice to "burn the chips" at the 400C Dr. Millette chose and then dig through the residue.

From my reading of the Bentham Paper, iron-rich spheres were always found in the residue produced by ignited red chips.

If Dr. Millette had heated the chips to at least 500C, the 430C threshold issue would at least be dealt with.

It would be expected that upon microscopic examination of the residue at least some of his [Dr. Millette] red chips would have ignited and produced iron-rich spheres, where previously none existed.

MM

 

[thedopefishlives]

MM, you completely and utterly dodged my question. What will a DSC of Millette's chips show besides "thermal properties"?

 

[Oystein]

MM, I respond to almost your entire post. I ask you to please at least answer the questions that I formatted in large, blue, bold fond. Thanks.

The red chips of interest, were not 'burned' in the DSC.

They were ignited in the DSC.

Wha....??

Wiktionary entry "ignite":

Verb

ignite (third-person singular simple present ignites, present participle igniting, simple past and past participle ignited)

(transitive) to set fire to (something), to light (something)
(transitive) to spark off (something), to enthuse
(intransitive) to commence burning.

Merriam-Webster entry "ignite":

Definition of IGNITE
transitive verb
1
: to subject to fire or intense heat; especially : to render luminous by heat
2
a : to set afire; also : kindle
b : to cause (a fuel) to burn
3
a : to heat up : excite <oppression that ignited the hatred of the people>
b : to set in motion : spark <ignite a debate>

Merriam-Webster entry "burn":

transitive verb
1
a : to cause to undergo combustion; especially : to destroy by fire <burned the trash>
b : to use as fuel <this furnace burns gas>
c : to use up : consume <burn calories>

Wiktionary entry "burn":

Verb

burn (third-person singular simple present burns, present participle burning, simple past and past participle burned or burnt (mostly UK))

(intransitive) To be consumed by fire, or at least in flames.

He watched the house burn.

(intransitive) To become overheated so as to make unusable.

The grill was too hot and the steak was burned.

(intransitive) To feel hot, e.g. due to embarrassment.

Her cheeks burned with shame.

(intransitive) To sunburn.

She forgot to put on sunscreen and burned.

(intransitive, curling) To accidentally touch a moving stone.
(transitive, ergative) To cause to be consumed by fire.

He burned his manuscript in the fireplace.

(transitive, ergative) To overheat so as to make unusable.

He burned the toast.

To ignite something means to make it combust.
To burn something means to make it combust.

As you also know, the authors acknowledge and discuss in their report, the exceptional energy release when the red chips were ignited.

Take away the higlighted word, and what you say is true. But you added that word, and make the statement FALSE. Nowhere in the paper do they state or suggest that the energy release is "exceptional". Exception from what? In fact, the energy release is normal and mundane for a wide range of organic polymers.

Here is how the Bentham paper comments the energy content measured in the DSC:

[page 28]
We observe that the total energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red material would promote understanding.

Please point out how you determined that the energy release is "exceptional"!

It would not suffice to "burn the chips" at the 400C Dr. Millette chose and then dig through the residue.

I don't claim that Millette attemped to replicate any burn test, imn fact he chose a method that would preclude the ignition of thermite, if any were present!

So that's a strawman.

From my reading of the Bentham Paper, iron-rich spheres were always found in the residue produced by ignited red chips.

You admitted earlier that there are non-thermitic red-gray chips in the dust. Were these also burned? Did they produce iron-rich spheres? If not, how were they separated from the "thermitic" chips BEFORE the DSC test was done? Is the method described in the paper? Can the method be discerned from the paper without consulting the authors?

It would be expected that upon microscopic examination of the residue at least some of his [Dr. Millette] red chips would have ignited and produced iron-rich spheres, where previously none existed.

Which, MM? What properties do the chips have that ignite and produce iron-rich spheres, which the other chips do not have?

 

[Miragememories]

"MM, you completely and utterly dodged my question. What will a DSC of Millette's chips show besides "thermal properties"?"

The DSC produces valuable residue.

The residue supports a thermitic reaction.

MM

 

[Dog Town]

The residue supports a thermitic reaction.

 

[cjnewson88]

Congratulations MM!

You've successfully managed to avoid all important questions, graphs and statements, and have succeeded in dragging the entire thread back to arguing about the DSC test, yet again!

Now excuse me and while I go back 30, 20 and 10 pages in this thread to see how, yet again, this DSC argument is going to pan out.

 

[Oystein]

The DSC produces valuable residue.

The residue supports a thermitic reaction.

MM

The residue of ALL red-gray chips?
Including those magnetic red-gray chips that are non-thermitic?

Or did they sort out the magnetic yet non-thermitic red-gray chips before the DSC test?
How?
Is the method to sort out those magnetic red-gray chips that are not thermitic described in the paper? Such that one wouldn't need to ask the authors?





(Oh, and by the way: NO, the residue does NOT support a thermitic reaction - no Al₂O₃ at all has been shown to be present. Which is required - showing Al₂O₃ is how the referenced LLNL scientists prove a thermite reaction occurred.)

 

[Ivan Kminek]

1) Some very approximate comparison of total heat release during combustion of epoxy resin in MCC apparatus and during heating of red-gray chips in DSC apparatus (Bentham paper).

Here is again MCC curve for pure epoxy resin (left curve):

...and DSC curves in Fig. 19, Bentham paper:

The total heat release (THR) corresponds to area delimited by peak, where x-axis is recalculated into time (in seconds). I'm lazy to integrate the areas more precisely, so let me take the MCC curve as a triangle with the base corresponding to 130 degrees K, i.e. to 130 seconds (heating rate was 1 K/s). The height of triangle is ca 360, therefore its area is (130x360)/2 is ca 23 000 J/g, i.e. 23 kJ/g. This is in a quite good accordance with published values for epoxy resins (about 20 kJ/g, if I remember correctly from Oystein's blog).

As for Bentham curves, total heats released were calculated by Harrit et al and were from 1.5 to 7.5 kJ/g. The range of results here is so wide than any comparison almost does not make sense, but let me take an average value 4.5 kJ/g for comparison. This seems to be basically in accordance with the "typical chip" in which red and gray layer have similar thicknesses; but incombustible gray layer has indeed significantly higher mass (magnetite has a density around 5 g/ml, whereas primer paint could have density between ca 1 and 1.5 g/ml. (Well, red paint layer also contains some incombustible pigments, but let me neglect them in these rough estimates...) .
Hence, the average value 4.5 kJ/g corresponds quite reasonably to the combustion of such red/gray chips with epoxy red layer and can be perhaps regarded as some "hint" that the most of reaction heat (heat of combustion in fact) was recorded by DSC device in Bentham paper.

2) It's quite probable that we have already discussed the following (but I'm not sure):
In all red-gray chips heated in DSC machine by Harrit et al, shown in Fig. 20, we see these shiny spherical things, which were created from gray layers. Basically, this transformation of gray layer into microspheres should be accompanied with the "heat of fusion", which is negative, and could be recorded by DSC device. We do not see clearly any such endothermic processes in published DSC curves, but they can be easily too weak for recording and/or they can proceed during quite a broad range of temperatures.
(E.g., magnetite, which could be the main material of gray layers, has a heat of fusion ca 140 kJ/mol, i.e. ca 0.6 kJ/g, which is not a high value. Note: transformation of gray layers into microspheres can not be regarded as a melting of a some pure material (magnetite itself cannot melt below 700 degrees C), but the process was anyway somewhat similar to melting, since the material(s) was/were transformed from more to less ordered state during heating. I think)

 

[Oystein]

Ivan,

1.) Yes, in my blog I sourced a tabulated value for "effective heat of combustion" of epoxy of just over 20 kJ/g.
And yes, their calculated values for energy density of red-gray chips are consistent with roughly equal thickness / volume of the red and the gray layer and 70% epoxy as the only reacting agent in the red layer. Of course, even if that epoxy had embedded the maximum amount of thermite that would be possible from the elemental composition they publish, that thermite would add so little heat, it would be lost in rounding error.

2.) Yes, transitions of all kinds, including solid-solid and liquid-liquid (glass transitions, amorph-chrystal...), show in DSC traces - in fact, DSC is used much more commonly to measure those than to measure chemical reactions. Their specific heat differential is lower than that of true phase transitions, and of oxidations.
Note that the round shapes might not have formed during the heating phase of the DSC test, but perhaps durin the cooling phase. They'd show an endotherm (trough) upon cooling then, but possibly an exotherm (peak) during the heating phase, which we are looking at in the plots.

 

[Spanx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGRTdWIuR-U&feature=youtube

A truther land favourite ^

Oops posted in the wrong thread !

On second thoughts maybe not.

 

[chrismohr]

The red chips of interest, were not 'burned' in the DSC.

They were ignited in the DSC.

As you also know, the authors acknowledge and discuss in their report, the exceptional energy release when the red chips were ignited.

It would not suffice to "burn the chips" at the 400C Dr. Millette chose and then dig through the residue.

From my reading of the Bentham Paper, iron-rich spheres were always found in the residue produced by ignited red chips.

If Dr. Millette had heated the chips to at least 500C, the 430C threshold issue would at least be dealt with.

It would be expected that upon microscopic examination of the residue at least some of his [Dr. Millette] red chips would have ignited and produced iron-rich spheres, where previously none existed.

MM

Putting aside the "burned" vs "ignited" question. a mor4e impprrtant point here is that MM and for that matter Steven Jones claim that iron-rich spheres were created in the burning of the chips in the Bentham paper where none were found before. The Bentham authors have admitted that the energy release is too high for thermite alone. The valuable residue does NOT include large amounts of aluminum oxide. So the value of the residue is now down to the existence of iron-rich spheres after the burning/igniting of the chips that Jones et al did. Am I right MM? I am asking you because I am not sure that in recent posts here at least the issue of the iron-rich spheres emerging FROM THIS EXPERIMENT has really been addressed. So let's address it now. MM and Steven Jones seem to be saying that these iron-rich spheres are evidence of thermite (due to 2700-degree temps allegedly required to create them), which Millette is ignoring this by not doing a DSC test. What are other explanations of why burning paint chips can also create iron-rich microspheres IN THIS EXPERIMENT?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

And now for something completely different. (It belongs perhaps to another red-gray chips thread, but doesn't really matter).

...At the beginning of year, our grant account in my institute is closed, so I have a lot of time to look at various net pages.
I've just looked again into the old thread on sciforums.com, in which a guy nicked Trippy (probably some scientist) had been cleverly debating with several truthers and semi-truthers.

In his post No. 2052 (yes, it was a pretty long debate), Trippy pointed out that XEDS of nanosized alumina (aluminum oxide) looks (or may look) exactly like "infamous" XEDS spectra of alleged elemental aluminium in Fig. 17 (Bentham paper).

And he was right.

Here is a Fig. 17, which is in fact the only "evidence" of elemental Al in Bentham paper:

Here is a Fig. 3 in the paper Trippy reffered to (caption: EDS spectrum of the nano alumina half-nanotubes.)

And finally, this is Fig. 2 from this paper (Caption for Fig. 2a: Fig. 2. EDX spectra of (A) pure nano-alumina):

So, what we can see here (neglecting impurities and Au present owing to method): although O peak should be even higher than Al peak in alumina (Al₂O₃), XEDS spectra of these nanosized alumina forms do not follow this expectation and oxygen peak can be very little in fact.

Currently, I have no idea why it is so.
And, well, Fig. 17 shows XEDS spectrum of MEK chip, which is probably Tnemec primer chip and shouldn't contain any alumina (according to specification). It should contain some "calcium aluminate", CaAl₂O₄ or similar, instead. But Trippy at least showed me that XEDS spectra of nano-stuffs can be distinctly different from the spectra taken on "macro-stuffs".

 

[Ivan Kminek]

(Sorry, Chris, I've overlooked your previous post. But in this matter - how can microspheres be formed from red/gray paint chips -, I have basically nothing new to add. It has been discusses here in the past thoroughly, but we have only various working hypotheses, how these microspheres could be created.)