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

[Spanx]

its to establish if millette has the same type of material first.

With the red/gray chips and iron-rich spheres, we were "lucky" in that these were attracted by a strong magnet, and I was able to concentrate them fairly easily

The above quote is from Jones. He used a magnet to select his chips, the same as Millette

 

[Senenmut]

He/She's not that bright.

i hope you know when you speak about that chart, you are speaking about sunstealer b/c he is the one that first posted it. but i agree, it is not that bright to bring a chart like that to make a point about how the gray layer can cause iron rich microspheres.

 

[Senenmut]

The above quote is from Jones. He used a magnet to select his chips, the same as Millette

sweet!

 

[beachnut]

1. kaolin is not going to produce any silicon rich microspheres

2. gray layer is not going to form iron rich microspheres.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_28544514ca6f7bcc08.jpg[/URL]

Did you post proof iron spheres form in fire? No thermite. Too bad you can't explain what you posted.

Why do you debunk yourself? You should have taken chemical engineering courses before you posted your BS.

 

[Spanx]

sweet!

Sweet ! So we agree they both have the same chips.

 

[Senenmut]

Sweet ! So we agree they both have the same chips.

did millette replicate the experiments and get silicon and iron rich microspheres?

 

[DGM]

i hope you know when you speak about that chart, you are speaking about sunstealer b/c he is the one that first posted it. but i agree, it is not that bright to bring a chart like that to make a point about how the gray layer can cause iron rich microspheres.

Nice attempt at a zing but, I won't work. Some of us took chemistry and got better than a D.

Who besides the followers of this paper have you got information from (You know, told what to think)?

I asked two PhD chemists to look at the paper and advise me. They both laughed at it. Just saying.

 

[Sunstealer]

Lets look at these hexagonal platelet particles. Truthers claim that the hexagonal platelet particles as seen here

contain pure/free/elemental aluminium and that it's the aluminium within these particles that reacts with the iron oxide (small grayish/whitish angular particles) to produce the thermite reaction.

The next picture is DSC residue. What can you identify in that picture? (Ignore my labels just concentrate on shapes and structures).

I can see:

A "large" round particle approximately 5µm in diameter.
Several small white rhomboid particles that are identical to those in fig 9.
Several hexagonal platelets that are identical to those in fig 9, one of which is in very close proximity to (maybe even resting on) the "large round particle".

Write down what you observe. What do you see? I know that sounds like you are back in school and doing some experiment in some boring class! But it is still a useful exercise, because anyone who has working eyes (and glasses if need be) can do it. There is nothing mysterious about observation.

The large round particle is what truthers call an iron rich microsphere. MM and other truthers claim that this microsphere MUST have reached a temperature of at least the melting point of pure iron and that this temperature occurred due to the thermite reaction between the aluminium in the hexagonal platelets and the white rhombohedral Fe₂O₃.

Here is the coresponding Fig 21 EDX spectrum for that round iron rich microsphere:

Note that iron rich does not mean pure. There is a bit to be said about the Harrit et al conclusion regarding this particle but I won't go into that here.

What is the melting point of pure/free/elemental Al?

660°C

What was the maximum temperature of the DSC experiment?

700°C

What is the temperature that MM and other truthers claim is required to produce the microsphere?

1538°C

What is the melting point of Al again? Just to be sure.

What can we see in the post DSC residue? Look at what you wrote down. We clearly see hexagonal platelets. We clearly see white rhomboids. Truthers claim that a thermite reaction occurred between the aluminium in the hexagaonal platelets and the rhomboidal Fe₂O₃ particles when the temperature of the DSC reached approximately 430°C.

Remember Fe₂O₃ (white rhomboids) + 2Al (hexagonal platelet) --> 2Fe (iron rich microsphere) +Al₂O₃(where's this stuff?)

If a thermite reaction occurred then why do we still find the reactants in their original form? They should have reacted together to form products of iron and alumina. Why do we still see Fe2O3 particles right next to Al containing hexagonal platelets? These two particles are the very basis of the nano-thermite claim yet here they are sitting on top of each other or right next to each other (intimately mixed is the truther phrase) after they have supposedly reacted together!

Now any one who has studied chemistry to A-level (16-18 in UK) or higher (degree) will know that the real world is not the same as the theoretical world. No reaction is perfect in the real world. So if you measure out the correct weight of Fe₂O₃ and Al powder taking into account the stoichiometry you are never going to get the perfect reaction and obtain the theoretical delta H (change in enthalpy) for the reaction. Not all the Al will react with the iron oxide, but the vast majority will, otherwise thermite wouldn't be used in applications such as grenades or railway track welding.

Even if we were to really, really, really stretch reality and give the truther an out and say some of the reactants that were "intimately mixed" didn't react at 430°C or 500°C or 600°C or at the maximum of 700°C that the DSC reached then there is still a major problem for them.

Truthers claim these platelets contain elemental Al. Those platelets are still visible after DSC. Those platelets have structure, the exact same structure as they did before DSC - they haven't changed in any way.

What happens when a solid becomes a liquid? Ever bought an ice-cream? Ever left an ice-cube out on the kitchen work surface?

Yep, even a 4 year old understands that when a solid melts the material doesn't retain it's shape.

What temperature does elemental Al melt at?

660°C

Remember that the DSC went up to 700°C. Remember that MM and other truthers claim that the microspheres can only be formed at 1538°C plus.

If pure/free/elemental aluminium was present in the hexagonal platelet particles, then even if a tiny proportion of them didn't react with the Fe₂O₃ at 430°C, the aluminium in those platelets would have melted at 660°C when the DSC reached that temperature and would have remained liquid when the DSC reached it's maximum of 700°C thereby destroying the hexagonal shape. If pure Al was present then we would expect to see no hexagonal particles in post DSC residue.

MM and the other truthers go even further! They claim that 1538°C is needed to produce iron rich microspheres, but as you can see, there is a hexagonal platelet that is supposed to contain elemental Al, which melts at 660°C, sat right next to an iron rich microsphere which is claimed reached more than twice the melting poing of Al in the post DSC residue!

The fact that there are observable hexagonal platelet structures in post DSC residue that match hexagonal platelet structures observed before any heating proves that no pure/free/elemental aluminium was ever present in those platelets.

Dr Millette observes the same hexagonal platelets in his red/gray chips that fit the criteria for chips a-d in Harrit et al. He has performed EDX on those platelets and the results match Harrit et al. Just compare Fig 11a in Harrit et al with Millette's EDX on those platelets - look at the Si/Al ratio. Those platelets are the same material. Dr Millette has identified that material using definitive techniques, namely TEM-SAED and FTIR. Those platelets are kaolin (china clay).

Kaolin does not contain any pure/free/elemental Al - which is the reason why some of those platelets can be observed in Harrit et al's post DSC residue.

 

[Senenmut]

Nice attempt at a zing but, I won't work. Some of us took chemistry and got better than a D.

Who besides the followers of this paper have you got information from (You know, told what to think)?

I asked two PhD chemists to look at the paper and advise me. They both laughed at it. Just saying.

they just dont know what an enjoyable read it really is.

 

[Spanx]

did millette replicate the experiments and get silicon and iron rich microspheres?

No.

He didn't need to, There was no Al in the chips.

Why would he need to replicate the Bentham paper if there is no Al in the chips?

No Al No Thermite

 

[Senenmut]

No.

He didn't need to, There was no Al in the chips.

Why would he need to replicate the Bentham paper if there is no Al in the chips?

No Al No Thermite

no iron and silicon rich microspheres then no same chips.....duhhh

 

[Spanx]

no iron and silicon rich microspheres then no same chips.....duhhh

What sort of special magnet does Jones have.......duhhh

 

[Senenmut]

that particle sunstealer is showing is about 5x that of what jones and co describe in their paper. look how long it is.

 

[Senenmut]

i also dont have a problem with all the fe2o3 reacting. the chips go from dark red to somwhat pinkish post reaction.

 

[Sunstealer]

Sunstealer's post evades responding to the issue of the iron-rich microspheres discovered in the red/gray chip residue where none existed prior to the 430°C ignition.

No - you know full well that I believe the microspheres are produced from a non-thermite reaction and that the microspheres are predominantly made up of the oxidised steel layer/gray layer that the paint is adhered to most likely due to a reduction mechanism involving carbon.

Sunstealer attempts to re-direct the issue.

There is no issue to redirect. Red paint adhered to oxidised steel produces microspheres upon heating according to the data provided in Harrit et al. You know that fly ash microspheres have a very similar morphology and composition and they are produced at temperatured far below the melting point of pure iron. It's not our fault that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this fact. Iron microsphere formation does not need temperatures of 1500°C plus - municipal waste incinerators are proof of this.

Sunstealer ignores previous arguments that show Millette effectively ignored the Bentham Paper after he isolated red/gray chips with a magnet.

This is plain nonsense. There is no argument except the one you made up in your head. The Harrit et al paper is explicit in it's methodology for isolating chips. It's there in black and white. You are simply trying to muddy the waters by throwing in unsubstantiated nonsense. Nothing in the paper, under the relevant section on isolating chips mentions a resistivity test. If the test was applicable to isolating chips then you should be the first to chastise them for failing to put that specific information in the correct section. In fact that would be picked up at peer-review.

It has been made abundantly clear that the WTC produced an immeasurable amount of dust. Everything that was contained in the WTC site is comprised in that dust. No doubt there were lots of samples of kaolin, primer paint, etc etc etc. No doubt a lot of these materials had similar appearance and no doubt many were already magnetic or contaminated by material(s) attracted by magnetism.

No doubt.

Without the further guidance provided by the authors of the Bentham Paper (resistivity test), it would be quite easy to select and test the wrong chips when picking visually through a large isolation pile.

No it wouldn't.

Firstly as you well know the resistivity test was never part of the isolation of chips. If it was then it would be mentioned under that section. If it was and wasn't mentioned under the relevant section then the paper fails on that alone because it is then impossible for an independent researcher to follow.

Your resistivity test is a desperate grasping of straws as you drown in the tide of reality.

Secondly Dr Millette uses a criteria for ensuring that he isolates chips that have identical characteristics as those identified as chips a,b,c and d in Harrit et al. harrit et al do not provide any indication that they performed resistivity testing on chips A-d and even if they had the result with regard to Millette's chip isolation is moot. Millette expressly "zeroes in" on the characteristics of chips a-d as supplied by the data in Harrit et al. There is no resistivity data for chips a-d in Harrit et al. However, there is plenty of data that can be used to ensure the observer has the correct chips.

There is no argument with Millette's FTIR results

Of course not you wouldn't know where to start!

other than he proves that not all the red/gray chips were 'chips of interest'

Of course not all red/gra chips were of specific interest. Millette was only interested with chips that matched the data from chips a-d in Harrit et al. That was the whole bloody point! That is what his task was. You seem to be under the impression that peoples' time, expertise and facilities they work in cost nothing. The scope had to focus (something truthers can't do) on the specifics, namely the claim that samples a-d where thermite.

Separating red/gray chips from WTC dust using a magnet, analyse those chips and further separate chips of interest based on the criteria that they matched chips a-d is the most sensible, logical and practical course.

It's not our fault if you make up nonsense about resistivity testing when that was not a criteria for isolation and only warranted one paragraph in the Harrit et al paper.

and that he purposely (did not use the resistivity test), selected unrepresentative, indisputable chips for his testing.

What resistivity test? There was none in regards to selecting and isolating chips from the dust. In the words of Ricky Gervais as he scolds Karl pilkington - stop talking ****.

Show us how he selected unrepresentative chips. Quote, verbatim the criteria for his selection and then detail how he selected chips that would not match chips a-d. The selection criteria is there in black and white for all to read. If you have a problem with that criteria then quote it word for word and then detail why that criteria cannot be used to select chips matching those chips a,b,c and d in Harrit et al.

You are drowning - you are throwing out any nonsense to deflect from just how wrong you are.

Millette proved the existence of material that we knew, and he knew, had to be in the WTC dust debris.

There is no sense in this sentence, but it is laced with accusation.

Of course red paint is going to be found in dust debris. It's a no brainier. The steel-work of the building was painted with red paint. Instead of pointing the finger at Millette, perhaps you should ask yourself why Harrit et al failed to find any red primer paint in their WTC dust.

Why did they fail to find paint? They should have found paint adhered to oxidised steel yet they make no mention of finding paint. Surely if paint was a potential in the dust then Harrit et al would have made sure that they identified paint in the dust and then, though their subsequent data, shown that the material they found was not paint.

Harrit et al show no data on primer paint used in the WTC.

Since Millette refused to publicly test his samples above 400°C, or isolate chips of interest by checking their resistivity, and since this thread is about his dust study, his lack of any replicating temperature results is very significant.

You have been told this time after time after time yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the reason why Millette heated the material to 400°C even though Millette himself tells you in his progress report.

Why do you continually refuse to acknowledge why Millette heated the sample to 400°C? His reasoning is there in black and white. Why don't you quote the reason? Why do you never quote the reason even though Dr Millette has expressly stated that the reason was to remove the carbon based matrix so as to be able to analyse the particles using TEM-SAED - a far better method that Harrit et al performed?

If you had your wits about you, you would question why Harrit didn't use this sound analytical method to isolate they hexagonal platelets for further definitive analysis.

You are screaming desperately about a temperature, but you have no understanding as to why this temperture was chosen even though it has been explained to you at least a dozen times and expressly stated by Millette.

Once more: Dr Millette needed to

The video of the chip ignition reveals an intense exothermic reaction occurred over a ~0.06 seconds of time and that the chip's overall disintegration occurred in less than a second.

But you have zero data regarding this event regarding the reaction products! Show, using the data in that video, that a thermite reaction occurred. You can't. There is zero analysis of the products produced. There is no data for heating rate let alone anything else. The heating on a metallic strip is worthless. It's in stark contrast to the data Millette provides.

Sure they did some testing to 700°C, but they got the results of interest at 430°C and the Bentham Paper authors repeatedly note a finding of 430°C for the thermitic reaction and not 700°C.

MM

But they don't. Firstly they conducted the experiment in air so they cannot claim a thermite reaction has occurred and secondly they acknowledge that the energy released is greater than that for thermite. They propose that this additional energy is from the carbon based matrix.

Ivan has consistently shown that epoxy undergoes a reaction at this temperature so what you and Harrit et al claim is ambiguous at best.

You do not comment and nor do Harrit et al on the endotherm at approximately 570-700°C. Why is that? The DSC test went all the way up to 700°C so why the concentration on the exortherm and nothing on the endotherm?

Harrit et al should propose an explanation for the entirety of their thermogram.

 

[Sunstealer]

what if your fantasy is believing millettes chip are also the same chips jones' has?

The isolation of the chips by Millette was performed in exactly the same way as Harrit et al.

We know that separating red/gray chips via magnet will extract a number of different materials. Anything magnetic will be separated.

Harrit et al specifically document chips a-d in their paper. Millette has specifically used a criteria to further analyse chips that only correspond to data as specified in chips a-d.

Harrit et al separated all sorts of chips via magnet. They have alluded to this:

We have observed that some chips have additional elements
such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31)
which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and
displays multiple red and gray layers.

Page 28.

You continually concentrate upon Millette's analysis even though he has specifically isolated chips that conform to the data from chips a-d in Harrit et al, but you completely ignore Harrit et al's own data when they categorically state that some of the red/gray chips they claim are thermite do not match the data in their own chips a-d.

Why do you, MM and every other truther, including the authors of the paper, refuse to explain the inconsistencies regarding what is actually present in these samples?

There is no explanation from truthers or the authors to the questions posed in the very paper they champion!

The answer is simple: Material separated via a magnet will only separate magnetic materials. Harrit et al and other truthers fail to understand this. This method of separation is going to produce a myriad of samples which is self evident via the above statement.

Why did they fail to produce any sample in the paper that was not thermite? Why is there zero mention that their method of isolation produced a chip/sample that was not thermite?

 

[jaydeehess]

However, perhaps I am misinformed. Do you perhaps have a link to a video of said explosive thermite cutting through a steel column as fast as a conventional explosive but relatively much quieter?

If it does exist and is in use then I imagine Mr. Gage has a video of it in action that he shows at his speaking engagements around the world, right?

No sarcasm, is there such an illustration of the existance of thermate explosives?

 

[Sunstealer]

some data. where are the silicon and iron rich microspheres in millettes data? thats the important part of the data.

No. what you are asking is meaningless.

Instead what you should be doing is actually comparing Millette's data with that found in Harrit et al. This isn't difficult, there is plenty there. Millette even told you what he used and why.

Perhaps pattern recognition and pattern matching is not your forte. You only need to find similarity.

Why don't you practice?

Play a game of "snap" - pack of cards (best not use Ace to King but something more pictorial) dealt equally between two players, each player lays down a card in turn, then if the two dealt cards match up the first person to call snap wins all the dealt cards.

If you play against a 3 year old using generic cards such as chicken, car, spade etc and you may get the gist of it and even win a few.

It really is a s simple as that - just match patterns between Millette and Harrit et al'd data.

 

[jtl]

Sunstealer:

you know full well that I believe the microspheres are produced from a non-thermite reaction and that the microspheres are predominantly made up of the oxidised steel layer/gray layer that the paint is adhered to most likely due to a reduction mechanism involving carbon.

It´s really nice and comforting to believe things, to have FAITH

The idea that normal paint could have produce reduced iron spheres, from fully oxidized iron, in the DSC, is very interesting. It would be a lot more credible if the idea came from an actual expert on the subject, instead of an anonymous person on some forum.

But since we are talking about science, not faith, having some expert giving us an idea for a possible explanation(a hypothesis)would not be enough, we need the hypothesis proved in an experiment.

So if you want anyone to take this seriously, let´s have some experimental proof published. TALK IS CHEAP.

Given that you guys already paid Millette, ask him to do it, and let him give us the references to explain the process that reduced the molten spheres in a reviewed and published paper.

 

[Senenmut]

No. what you are asking is meaningless.

haha..meaningless. the thing you need to be asking is why millette didnt replicate jones' exoeriments and produce iron and silicon microspheres himself. if he couldnt produce them then he knows he has the wrong chips. henryco heated his reds up to 900C and nothing happened. it did not loss the red color as stated in henryco's paper unlike when jones' react.