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

[thedopefishlives]

And Paints as you put it, upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of 1535C, producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.?

MM

You still haven't proven 1535 degrees C. I'm still waiting for evidence of this. And don't say "iron-rich microspheres", because it has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that they can be artifacts of much lower-temperature processes.

 

[GlennB]

You still haven't proven 1535 degrees C. I'm still waiting for evidence of this. And don't say "iron-rich microspheres", because it has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that they can be artifacts of much lower-temperature processes.

MM clearly is making that assumption. Iron-rich spheres prove such temperatures in MM land.

 

[Spanx]

Perhaps someone will clarify for me as I am sure MM will not.

From what I can make out, MM is saying the only way to find if nanothermite is present in any substance is DSC testing ?

The only way to produce iron spheres is thermite ?

Does that sound about right ?

 

[Miragememories]

"You still haven't proven 1535 degrees C. I'm still waiting for evidence of this. And don't say "iron-rich microspheres", because it has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that they can be artifacts of much lower-temperature processes."

"…A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen…"

"…Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above the 700 ̊C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high temperatures indicate that a chemical reaction occurred…"

"…Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide.…"

I am not attempting to prove my research.

It is the work of the research scientists, Dr. Harrit et al, and their findings which I am addressing.

Unless you can demonstrate that their conclusions are not scientifically justifiable, I fail to see your point.

MM

 

[thedopefishlives]

Perhaps someone will clarify for me as I am sure MM will not.

From what I can make out, MM is saying the only way to find if nanothermite is present in any substance is DSC testing ?

The only way to produce iron spheres is thermite ?

Does that sound about right ?

From my reading, this is correct. Apparently thermite is capable of masquerading as ordinary paint until it is run through a DSC test in open air, then it suddenly reveals its thermite-ness. This, obviously, invalidates the otherwise more accurate tests that Dr. Millette did, because the super-duper-magic-nano-thermite stays hidden until ignited at precisely 430 degrees C.

 

[Dog Town]

I am not attempting to prove my research.

It is the work of the research scientists, Dr. Harrit et al, and their findings which I am addressing.

Unless you can demonstrate that their conclusions are not scientifically justifiable, I fail to see your point.

MM

Again, REALLY?

 

[Oystein]

You still haven't proven 1535 degrees C. I'm still waiting for evidence of this. And don't say "iron-rich microspheres", because it has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that they can be artifacts of much lower-temperature processes.

I am not attempting to prove my research.

It is the work of the research scientists, Dr. Harrit et al, and their findings which I am addressing.

Unless you can demonstrate that their conclusions are not scientifically justifiable, I fail to see your point.

MM

You're funny, MM: You first quote the statement that refutes the Harrit-claims you believe so naively and uncritically. I highlighted that part for you.



Now again: By what methods should a follow-up researcher select chips that you want to have tested in the DSC?
Is the method set out in the paper?
Or is it necessary to contact the authors about it?

 

[Spanx]

From my reading, this is correct. Apparently thermite is capable of masquerading as ordinary paint until it is run through a DSC test in open air, then it suddenly reveals its thermite-ness. This, obviously, invalidates the otherwise more accurate tests that Dr. Millette did, because the super-duper-magic-nano-thermite stays hidden until ignited at precisely 430 degrees C.

Thank you, so working along those lines would anyone be able to show me the 2005 DSC results carried out by Steven Jones ?

 

[Oystein]

Perhaps someone will clarify for me as I am sure MM will not.

From what I can make out, MM is saying the only way to find if nanothermite is present in any substance is DSC testing ?

The only way to produce iron spheres is thermite ?

Does that sound about right ?

Please, ask MM, and keep asking, until he gives you a positive and definitive answer. Enjoy the process, it will last for weeks and months if you really want

 

[Spanx]

Please, ask MM, and keep asking, until he gives you a positive and definitive answer. Enjoy the process, it will last for weeks and months if you really want

Lol

MM has never replied to any of my very simple questions and I have not seen him answer anyone's questions

I wonder if semenut is also MM

That's the last time I boost his YouTube hits

 

[Ivan Kminek]

And Paints as you put it, upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of 1535C, producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.?

MM

MM: in this my post, I responded to you with certainity and with some laugh only as for your first inquiry, which was: "Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C." Apparently, there were hundreds of materials in WTC based on carbon stuffs (not only paints) which basically fulfill this condition.

The response to your second question above is definitely more complex and I tried to express my current opinion in the second part of my post.

But, you basically inspired me to ask here another interesting, theoretical question (for me, Oystein and any other potential enthusiasts):

It is clear that bulk charges of thermite can reach extremely high temperatures when burning. But, is it even possible that burning of thermitic chip 20 micrometers "thick" (with attached iron oxide layer also ca 20 micrometers "thick", but this can be omitted for simplicity) could generate temperatures close to melting of steel or iron oxide?

I vaguely remember that someone (Dr. Greening?) calculated the elevation of steel temperatures caused by burning of such a layer (?) of nanothermite. but I cannot find the link now...

Some basic inputs for calculations can be like: 1) The active layer consists of well-packed pure nanothermite (no binder); 2) The burning of nanothemite is basically instantaneous. 3) For simplicity, chip is burning surrounded by standing air, therefore only radiation and convective heat losses in air take place.

Any ideas?

 

[Oystein]

MM: in this my post, I responded to you with certainity and with some laugh only as for your first inquiry, which was: "Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C." Apparently, there were hundreds of materials in WTC based on carbon stuffs (not only paints) which basically fulfill this condition.

The response to your second question above is definitely more complex and I tried to express my current opinion in the second part of my post.

But, you basically inspired me to ask here another interesting, theoretical question (for me, Oystein and any other potential enthusiasts):

It is clear that bulk charges of thermite can reach extremely high temperatures when burning. But, is it even possible that burning of thermitic chip 20 micrometers "thick" (with attached iron oxide layer also ca 20 micrometers "thick", but this can be omitted for simplicity) could generate temperatures close to melting of steel or iron oxide?

I vaguely remember that someone (Dr. Greening?) calculated the elevation of steel temperatures caused by burning of such a layer (?) of nanothermite. but I cannot find the link now...

Some basic inputs for calculations can be like: 1) The active layer consists of well-packed pure nanothermite (no binder); 2) The burning of nanothemite is basically instantaneous. 3) For simplicity, chip is burning surrounded by standing air, therefore only radiation and convective heat losses in air take place.

Any ideas?

A layer of 25 microns pure, stoiciometric thermite against a steel plate of inch (25 mm), that's 1:1000 in terms of volume.
Worse than that in terms of mass.
It's fairly easy to calculate that 1 mass unit of thermite can melt itself plus not much more than the same mass unit of steel. A 1:1 ration is a good practical approximation, accounting for some of the unavoidable losses.

But you have a 1:1000 ratio.
So instead of warming the steel by an average of 1500 °C, you warm it by - much less. Ok, much of the energy goes into fusion, which does not come into play when you just warm without melting.

Bottom line: You'll end up with a steel plate that's a few (single digits) degrees warmer than before. Why do exact modelling and calculations? It's insignificant.

The sun, shining from a bright blue september sky, can do a lot more, I think.

 

[GlennB]

Bottom line: You'll end up with a steel plate that's a few (single digits) degrees warmer than before. Why do exact modelling and calculations? It's insignificant.

After we failed to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, it comes down to this.

Even if this stuff were nanothermite it would be utterly ineffective as a destructive agent deliberately used to destroy a massive building.

 

[Dog Town]

After we failed to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, it comes down to this.

Even if this stuff were nanothermite it would be utterly ineffective as a destructive agent deliberately used to destroy a massive building.

That's why the leader of this failed twoofer "theory", changed his tune.
Dr. Jones switched his story to, it was a match for explosives! Only the deeply deluded cling to the original "theory"!

 

[Miragememories]

"Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C.

Materials, which upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of the 1535C producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.

MM"

"MM: in this my post, I responded to you with certainity and with some laugh only as for your first inquiry, which was: "Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C." Apparently, there were hundreds of materials in WTC based on carbon stuffs (not only paints) which basically fulfill this condition.

The response to your second question above is definitely more complex and I tried to express my current opinion in the second part of my post."

bolding is mine

There was no second question.

It was one question with a condition added.

It was your choice to interpret and edit my post as two questions.

MM

 

[Spanx]

Here is a post for MM to ignore.

From what I can make out, no DSC tests were carried out untill 2009. So how did Jones find thermite in 2004? If DSC is the only way to find thermite

I am happy to be corrected on my claim.

 

[Oystein]

...
There was no second question.
..

There's, however, a second question for you, dear MM. The first (you may have seen this one in various wordings previously):

Well, did he do that part right?
Did he use the method that was "all set out" in the Benthan paper, as Frank Legge said, and you agreed?
Or would he have to contact the authors to know exactly how to do the the red chip separation correctly? Cuz ya know, Professor Jones thinks that "his samples do not appear to be the same material as what we reported on"!

And now the second:

Here is a post for MM to ignore.

From what I can make out, no DSC tests were carried out untill 2009. So how did Jones find thermite in 2004? If DSC is the only way to find thermite

I am happy to be corrected on my claim.

 

[Oystein]

I was a good boy yesterday and today and wrote a new blog post:

Asking Truth scientists: How do you tell energetic and mundane chips apart?

It documents the chip-selection procedure used by Harrit e.al. and Millette, and what Jones, Legge, Ryan and Basile have said about there being different kinds of red-gray chips and that some of them are not thermitic.

This makes me ask a few questions, mainly revolving around what I have been asking MM in recent days. His extreme fear of this question tells me it is a very good question:

• When you have selected red-gray chips that are attracted by a magnet - by what method can you then separate thermitic from non-thermitic chips

and, in more detail:

• Did the "thermite" proponents, when they did their study, separate thermitic from non-thermitic chips before doing SEM/XEDS/DSC etc tests?
• If yes - how did they in fact do that separation?
• If no - did they then also test non-thermitic chips, and where is the SEM/XEDS/DSC/etc data for those?

 

[Miragememories]

"...This makes me ask a few questions, mainly revolving around what I have been asking MM in recent days. His extreme fear of this question tells me it is a very good question:

When you have selected red-gray chips that are attracted by a magnet - by what method can you then separate thermitic from non-thermitic chips?"

Heat.

You raise the ambient temperature to 430C or higher and the thermitic red chips will ignite.

The red chips that do not ignite are thus eliminated.

MM

 

[Redwood]

As you know Chris, Kevin Ryan has trust issues with Dr. Millette.

Having observed and financially contributed to the Millette research, I can quite understand Kevin Ryan's reluctance to participate.

The problem is not so much Kevin Ryan's refusal to provide relevant red chip samples, but Dr. Millette's refusal to test them in the same manner followed by Dr. Harrit.

I presume this would include, amongst other things, failure to quantify the organic resin matrix, and igniting the chip in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, which will allow the matrix to burn with far more energy than any putative thermite, rendering the DSC test useless, even on its own terms. Why replicate failure?