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

[Oystein]

Thanks, Sunstealer. This your last post (response to jtl) is something which should be even published elsewhere, not only here. Perhaps on ScrewLooseChange?

Although I indeed know all this stuff quite well, your comparison of micrographs of chips cross-sections from Bentham paper and Millette's report is something new, and very telling

I could repost that for posterity on my blog, with proper reference to here, if Sunstealer allows?

You wrote: "Truthers will never accept any result that doesn't conclude thermite. Even if Harrit and Jones came out and said it is a fake paper and a hoax they would still believe that thermite was found."

Do you really think that "nanothermite meme" would survive even such event? The deep belief of nanotruthers seems to be quite tightly bound to some nanothermite proponents like Jones, Harrit or Ryan...

I remember that Harrit has already stated somewhere, last year, that the 2009 nanothermite paper is no more than a "footnote". I got this from one of my Danish contacts, Steen Svanholm probably. Don't recall if that was published, or in private communication. Anyway, the Dane said it was framed a bit as if Harrit was already retreating from the paper, basically meaning "even if we are wrong on this, and yeah I know we are, but I can't say outright, some of the other **** we produce hopefully will stick".

 

[Miragememories]

"MM,

This reminds me of the old Salem witch test. Dunk a woman and if she drowns she is not a witch. Burn the chips and no further tests on them are possible."

Which is maybe why you don't/won't get it.

Speaking as an atheist, I cannot fathom the religious ignorance that leads people to believe in witches and subject them to such a barbaric practise.

The Bentham Paper shows that the scientists studied the red chips extensively before igniting them.

Not being fools, the scientists documented their findings before subjecting each red chip to an ignition temperature.

In this manner, they would have a record for each red chip, regardless of whether it ignited or not.

Assuming they halved each sample, they would also have an un-ignited portion available for further investigation.

After ignition there proved to be a lot more to be observed than a dead witch.

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

Oystein - You (or anyone else) are more than welcome to post a link or copy my posts.

I could correlate all the Harrit data with the relevant Millette equivalent (and some Henryco), but it's a lot of work copying the photos and graphs from both, resizing if necessary, saving and uploading it all and then writing commentary. I might try and correlate all the SEM photo data together and post that and then do the same for each set of say, red layer, gray layer, hexagonal platelets, rhomboids etc at a later date. The question is: Is anything accomplished by doing that?

A while ago I came across two papers whilst searching for the effect of particle size on ignition temperature which showed a direct correlation between the two. Unfortunately I didn't bookmark them, suffice to say the particle sizes in the Harrit et al paper are too large for the reaction temperature of 430°C. Remember Tillitson's prepared particles sizes where 3-10nm Fe2O3 and ~25nm Al and their DSC curve had a maximum at @ 530°C. In contrast Harrit et al had Fe2O3 at 100nm in size!

All this sort of thing takes huge amounts of time. I can post something that has taken me two hours to write, check and reference, then a truther will write 10 words ignoring the post so I don't see the point too much these days.

Do you really think that "nanothermite meme" would survive even such event?

Yep, truthers would just claim that Harrit and Jones had been "got to", bribed or threatened or some such.

 

[Oystein]

The Bentham Paper shows that the scientists studied the red chips extensively before igniting them.

Ok. Can you please quote any passage from the paper that identifies a chip that was first "studied extensively" and then ignited?
(Your answer should be: "No, I can't")

Not being fools, the scientists documented their findings before subjecting each red chip to an ignition temperature.

Ok. Did they in fact subject each red chip to an ignition temperature?
How do you know?
Is any of that documented in the paper?
Did they subject chip a to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip b to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip c to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip d to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject the MEK-spoaked chip to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject that multi-layered chip with significant Pb to an ignition temperature?
(You answers should be, in order: "No. I don't know. No. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.")

In this manner, they would have a record for each red chip, regardless of whether it ignited or not.

Ok. Where is this record? Is there any mention in the paper that such a record exists?
(Your answers should be, respectively: "There is no such record. No.")

Assuming they halved each sample, they would also have an un-ignited portion available for further investigation.

Ok. Did they in fact halve (or is that half) any of their red chips, particularly those presented in the paper?
(Your answer should be: "I don't know, probably not")

After ignition there proved to be a lot more to be observed than a dead witch.

Well, what did they ignite? A witch? A duck?
(Your answer should be: "I have no *********** clue, because that DSC-amateur Farrer failed to tell us")


You see, all those answers would be "I, MM, don't know" or "no, these scientists didn't in factr do what I assert".

I expect that every question you don't address in your next reply is answered by you the way I tell you. So you may limit yourself to addressing those questions where you disagree with me prescribed answers)


(Oh, and I'd bet a rack of beer that MM will ignore these questions )

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Well, Sunstealer, it basically depends if you would have at least some fun, writing such a summary (comparison of papers). If not, forget it

Another remark as for Fig. 6 from the paper of Gash et al:

Doesn't this curve actually show what I have been interested today in, i.e. the temperature elevation of (authentic) nanothermite chips when ignited? Unfortunately, there are no data about the mass of this sample.

The temperature increase/difference is 50 degrees (very, very low increase in fact), but it is related to 1 mg of sample. I stay confused so far, not sure what it means in fact.

Btw, typical WTC red-gray chip (its red layer) has dimensions 0.1x0.1x0.002 cm, i.e. its volume is 0.00002 cm³. Its mass should therefore be around 0.00002 g, which is only 0.02 milligram! Pretty tiny sample (corresponding e.g. to the higher dose of LSD), and heat losses must be really huge during its burning.

 

[BasqueArch]

Ok. Can you please quote any passage from the paper that identifies a chip that was first "studied extensively" and then ignited?
(Your answer should be: "No, I can't")


Ok. Did they in fact subject each red chip to an ignition temperature?
How do you know?
Is any of that documented in the paper?
Did they subject chip a to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip b to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip c to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip d to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject the MEK-spoaked chip to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject that multi-layered chip with significant Pb to an ignition temperature?
(You answers should be, in order: "No. I don't know. No. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.")


Ok. Where is this record? Is there any mention in the paper that such a record exists?
(Your answers should be, respectively: "There is no such record. No.")


Ok. Did they in fact halve (or is that half) any of their red chips, particularly those presented in the paper?
(Your answer should be: "I don't know, probably not")


Well, what did they ignite? A witch? A duck?
(Your answer should be: "I have no *********** clue, because that DSC-amateur Farrer failed to tell us")


You see, all those answers would be "I, MM, don't know" or "no, these scientists didn't in factr do what I assert".

I expect that every question you don't address in your next reply is answered by you the way I tell you. So you may limit yourself to addressing those questions where you disagree with me prescribed answers)


(Oh, and I'd bet a rack of beer that MM will ignore these questions )

Oystein's new Socratic method is so much more efficient than the previous version.

And the winner of the
2012 JREF-Charles Ives most "Unanswered Questions" is:

Oystein!


(1906)


​

 

[Oystein]

...Pretty tiny sample, and heat losses must be really huge during its burning.

Especially considering that the exotherm (heat release) was spread out over a span of several MINUTES. Plenty of time for such tiny probes to revert to ambient temperature every time a few molecules react. (For fun, we could estimate how many iron oxide grains there were in an average specimenm and how many of those would have reacted per second if they had reacted at all - which they, of course, did not, as evidenced by the red color of much of the residue and the visible presence of rhombic grains in Fig. 21)

 

[Sunstealer]

Well, Sunstealer, it basically depends if you would have at least some fun, writing such a summary (comparison of papers). If not, forget it

Another remark as for Fig. 6 from the paper of Gash et al:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=988&pictureid=7265[/qimg]

Doesn't this curve actually show what I have been interested today in, i.e. the temperature elevation of (authentic) nanothermite chips when ignited? Unfortunately, there are no data about the mass of this sample.

The temperature increase/difference is 50 degrees (very, very low increase in fact), but it is related to 1 mg of sample. I stay confused so far, not sure what it means in fact.

Btw, typical WTC red-gray chip (its red layer) has dimensions 0.1x0.1x0.002 cm, i.e. its volume is 0.00002 cm³. Its mass should therefore be around 0.00002 g, which is only 0.02 milligram! Pretty tiny sample, and heat losses must be really huge during its burning.

From the paper

At approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7mg

You could possibly get an idea of weight from those dimensions and Fig 2.

 

[Miragememories]

"To clarify: Jim Millette said DSC testing was unnecessary because his other tests conclusively showed chemical signatures that were NOT consistent with thermite."

If Dr. Millette is so certain that his testing was infallible, where is the expected professional curiosity when a strong contradiction occurs?

It would appear that all Dr. Millette has to do is pop a few more red chip selects into the oven (now set at 430C plus), and then observe and explain that 'ash'.

You know, like Dr. Harrit and his group of scientists did.

The beauty of complex chemical engineering is that you can create unexpected yet dramatic behaviour.

Take C4 for example. It can catch fire and burn itself out. It will never detonate that way.

But ignite it properly, and you have an incredibly powerful explosive.

So turn up the damn oven and take a look.

MM

 

[Dog Town]

If Dr. Millette is so certain that his testing was infallible, where is the expected professional curiosity when a strong contradiction occurs?

That should tell you something!

You're doing it wrong, AGAIN!

 

[Sunstealer]

Here's a thought experiment you can all try to show how MM's reasoning is faulty.

Imagine you have no senses - no taste, no smell, no hearing, no touch and no sight.

Those are your 5 available tests you can perform, but currently you don't have any of them.

Now, imagine that someone puts an apple on the table in front of you and says you can choose to use 2 out of 5 of your available senses in order to identify the object.

Which two senses would you choose? Logically you'd pick the senses that would give you the most information to deduce what the object was.

MM is telling you that because Millette didn't listen to the apple then we must disregard the data obtained by using sight and taste.

Why would you put your ear to the apple and listen to it in order to find out what it was when you'd already opened your eyes and taken a nice big juicy bite?

 

[Dog Town]

Why would you put your ear to the apple and listen to it in order to find out what it was when you'd already opened your eyes and taken a nice big juicy bite?

Religious agenda?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Sunstealer, as for "From the paper, Quote: At approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7mg."

OK, but I considered only red layer in this my estimate (which has much lower density than gray layer) and "my" dimensions were lower (1x1 mm). Does not really matter... We can simply conclude that all chips had a mass below 1 mg.

If Dr. Millette is so certain that his testing was infallible, where is the expected professional curiosity when a strong contradiction occurs?

It would appear that all Dr. Millette has to do is pop a few more red chip selects into the oven (now set at 430C plus), and then observe and explain that 'ash'."

MM

Here, I can agree with you. Millette can do this simple experiment. Only I doubt that he can really explain expected microspheres in the "ash" in detail (which processes exactly took place), but I can be wrong This is just my opinion.
Just a question (to be sure): do you believe that chips would do exactly the same things when heated in DSC device and in ordinary oven, respectively (considering the same/very similar heating rate)?

(The rest of your post is again weird. There is simply no way how the chips with the composition of paints (kaolinite as pigment, no proper oxidant for polymeric binder) can be miraculously transformed into deadly pyrotechnics. These chips were materials employed for the protection of WTC steel, not for its destruction.)

 

[BasqueArch]

Speaking of tests :

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

Because Millette - http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/paper/index.htm

"The FTIR spectra of the red layer were consistent with reference spectra of an epoxy resin and kaolin clay (Figure 8) (Appendix C)."

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

Because Millette - "TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 19 and 20). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F)."

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

Because Oystein http://67.228.115.45/showthread.php?t=231314&page=30

"So this shows that not only did Tillotson and Gash find the expected thermite reaction products, it also shows that the reactants are mostly gone. Remember T&G knew exactly that their material contained 90% thermite (ca. 23% Al, ca. 67% Fe2O3, if they aimed at a stoichiometric mix - the rest organic residue of the gel process), so there is their proof that thermite changed into thermite products - all four substances are accounted for.

Contrast this to Harrit e.al. who
- did not prove metallic Al before the DSC test
- did not prove Al2O3 after the DSC test
- did not prove absence of metallic Fe before the DSC test
- only have vague evidence of some possible metallic Fe after the reaction
All they have is some proportion (of unknown quantitiy) of iron oxide before the test - AND they also have some proportion (again, of unknown quantity) of iron oxide after the test, so they
- did not prove that Fe2O3 was reduced during the test"

 

[Miragememories]

"The Bentham Paper shows that the scientists studied the red chips extensively before igniting them."

"Ok. Can you please quote any passage from the paper that identifies a chip that was first "studied extensively" and then ignited?
(Your answer should be: "No, I can't")"

That is such an amateur question. Proper and accurate record keeping is foremost in any research scientist's mind. Certainly you do not expect them to publicly prepare and publish all their records?

"Not being fools, the scientists documented their findings before subjecting each red chip to an ignition temperature."

"Ok. Did they in fact subject each red chip to an ignition temperature?
How do you know?
Is any of that documented in the paper?
Did they subject chip a to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip b to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip c to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip d to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject the MEK-spoaked chip to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject that multi-layered chip with significant Pb to an ignition temperature?
(You answers should be, in order: "No. I don't know. No. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.")"

In plain english, I am saying that after making this sensational discovery, the scientists quickly realized the comparison importance of the pre-ignition records.

"In this manner, they would have a record for each red chip, regardless of whether it ignited or not."

"Ok. Where is this record? Is there any mention in the paper that such a record exists?
(Your answers should be, respectively: "There is no such record. No.")"

That question was covered by my previous answer.

"Assuming they halved each sample, they would also have an un-ignited portion available for further investigation."

"Ok. Did they in fact halve (or is that half) any of their red chips, particularly those presented in the paper?
(Your answer should be: "I don't know, probably not")"

It really would depend on how many positive sample run-throughs they wanted to completely document.

Certainly it should be reproducible.

"After ignition there proved to be a lot more to be observed than a dead witch."

"Well, what did they ignite? A witch? A duck?
(Your answer should be: "I have no *********** clue, because that DSC-amateur Farrer failed to tell us")


You see, all those answers would be "I, MM, don't know" or "no, these scientists didn't in factr do what I assert".

I expect that every question you don't address in your next reply is answered by you the way I tell you. So you may limit yourself to addressing those questions where you disagree with me prescribed answers)


(Oh, and I'd bet a rack of beer that MM will ignore these questions )"

You certainly have your own way of seeing things.

MM

 

[jtl]

Sunstealer:

if Millette did DSC and microspheres where found post testing then truthers will claim thermite even though all the other data shows that the material is paint

Not if we beat them at their own game and isolate and identify both kinds of chips and test them. They have admitted that some are paint so we test those and make sure they have a gray layer so we get the iron spheres. Game Over.

There is no getting away from this.
MM will not even commit to agreeing

Truthers have pointed out a way to "get away" by claiming Millette has not identified the right chips. Chips "a to d" should be the same but I agree with MM up to a point, that truthers dispute Millette chips, with titanium and lack of tests.

samples a-d are the same as the vast majority of samples Millette separated and analysed.

Maybe Millette chips are not all the same? His paper is not as neat as Harrit paper and this is a weakness. Why give twoofies the ammo? This is why I suggest Millette follow Harrit "to the letter", and maybe he could actually narrow down the pool of chips that match Harrit

 

[DGM]

You certainly have your own way of seeing things.

MM

This is precious. You're proof is that they are "scientists so they must have".

That's called a belief.

 

[Sunstealer]

This is precious. You're proof is that they are "scientists so they must have".

That's called a belief.

Funny how I things go in circles

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4613818&postcount=25

I noted in that post nearly 4 years ago now that their paper lacked any way of following which chip had been subject to which test. It's a major failing in the paper and one that would have been picked up before a peer review was even sought.

 

[jtl]

Oystein:

Millette DID follow Harrit's study to the letter...

In addition, he selected chips whose XEDS spectra from the gray and from the red layer had the same elemental composition as chips a-d.

I do not agree; The ignition tests are missing, and I think Millette could have followed other tests more closely, such as showing that chips remain brittle after MEK and as I already told Sunstealer I think there is too much XEDS clutter to rule out differences.

- The MEK-soaked chip wasn't tested in the DSC
- Chips a-d weren't tested in the DSC
...with the spherical iron residue. And look what you see at ca. 4.5 keV: A clear peak for titanium!

I am not so sure this is a strong argument. It seems to assume that there was no structure to Harrit paper and that chips a to d somehow did not represent chips tested via MEK and ignition. And isn´t the main spectra for chips "a to d" supposed to be clean surface(no ti) vs contaminated MEK and ignition chips?

 

[Gamolon]

In the Bentham paper, page 23, they state:

Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite” reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred to as “super-thermite” [20, 22]. We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study

Then, on page 29 of the Bentham paper, they state:

As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 ˚C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 ˚C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.

Have they done this "future study/comparison"? If not, how can anyone use this paper as proof that ANY form of thermite was used? They already state that conventional thermite was NOT found, yet have not done a study/test (that I know of) that shows similarities to "super-thermite".

Have they done tests on other materials, suspected of providing the same results (paint, resin, etc.), to prove that it was NOT any of those?