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

[Gamolon]

Spanx:

Oh so having the paper reviewed and published is important, but only when it from someone supporting Harrit? FYI, I am excited to see Basile´s paper published. That article Ivan K points out, that has those new paint videos, also tells us that Basile is raising money to fund independent tests to confirm his replication of Harrit´s ignition tests. If he does publish that, nanothermite in the dust will be officially relicated and confirmed, but if Basile would suddenly refuse to publish, like Millette, I would assume failed paper, per Millette.

DGM:

What made Harrit´s paper so powerful that you guys not only spend years arguing about it on these threads, but also have a fundraiser to try to refute it, giving your own money?

FYI, the only "power" you guys have is the fact that you HIRED Millette, which gives you power over Millette, the power to ask him to publish the paper if it is up to it. It has become pretty clear that this won´t happen, so I will have to wait for Basile´s paper.

Harrit's paper is garbage and he knows it.

The paper claims that ALL the red/gray chips pulled from the dust are thermitic yet two of the participants have claimed the opposite.

This is why Harrit and Jones refuse to answer any questions regarding the supposed all important resistivity test how they separated non-thermitic red/gray chips from others.

They know they screwed up when Legge and Jones opened their big yappers about there being different kinds of red/gray chips.

 

[LSSBB]

What made Harrit´s paper so powerful that you guys not only spend years arguing about it on these threads, but also have a fundraiser to try to refute it, giving your own money?

Fighting the purveyors of woo and FUD.

 

[MarkLindeman]

You know what fellas? You are not helping yourselves at all.

Thanks for your concern, but I'm not the one who needs the help. The fact is that Harrit et al.'s paper has had no impact on informed opinion whatsoever, and the substantive reasons have been stated repeatedly and at length. If it somehow had been published in a reputable journal, maybe more people would have resigned over its publication, but otherwise I doubt that it would have any greater influence.

Others, like you two, have moved the goalpost and attack the reviewer, which is also pathetic.

That's thin gruel, jtl. Are you asserting that Griscom does have experience with DSC, XEDS, or forensics? Or is it somehow unsporting to point out that he doesn't? Or what?

This is particularly pathetic in light of Griscom´s expertise, having been chosen to be one of the first people to identify dust particles from the Moon, for NASA.

Run that by me again. Did he use DSC and XEDS to identify nanothermite in dust particles from the Moon? I'm thinking not. What part of Griscom's expertise, specifically, do you think is relevant to the analysis under dicussion?

Whats more, identifying the reactions within a chemical is chemical physics, another field Millette knows nothing about.

Run that by me again. "Identifying the reactions within a chemical"?

Maybe you can walk us through what you think Millette does know, and then explain in detail why you think it is irrelevant. That might be interesting.

The sad thing is that you guys think it is ok to spread garbage rumors about Griscom,

It's a garbage rumor that Griscom doesn't have XEDS, DSC, or forensics experience? Do tell.

but you blow up if anyone wants to talk about Millette´s fraud charges for his previous WTC dust studies.

I blew up? Lucky thing that someone patched me back together.

I can understand why you would rather discuss personalities than observables. I think you're making the best possible arguments for your position. Have you considered reconsidering?

 

[Sunstealer]

Griscom hasn't the relevant materials characterisation experience. He's a physical chemist, which is a completely different field to that of materials science, and physical chemistry is no use in identifying materials. He was in no way a peer when reviewing the paper, which was outside his field and outside his experience.

 

[DGM]

DGM:

What made Harrit´s paper so powerful that you guys not only spend years arguing about it on these threads, but also have a fundraiser to try to refute it, giving your own money?

FYI, the only "power" you guys have is the fact that you HIRED Millette, which gives you power over Millette, the power to ask him to publish the paper if it is up to it. It has become pretty clear that this won´t happen, so I will have to wait for Basile´s paper.

Still doesn't explain why you feel the need to come here and argue about the paper and refuse to present it at relevant conferences.

Don't you wonder why the Harrit team keeps this to followers only? I know why, I've had the paper reviewed by two PhD chemists. They were not impressed.

Strange part is, you need us. We're the only attention you get.

 

[beachnut]

Iron sphere expected in WTC dust; DSCs don't match, Jones is self-debunking.

... Good Luck buddy, you are going to need it, but you get what you deserve.

Good luck yourself. The DSCs don't match.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111JonesDelusion.jpg
You were fooled, or you failed to read the paper. What did you find wrong in Millette's paper?


Oops no thermite needed for iron spheres found at the WTC. Jones lied to support his insane claim. Jones suffers from delusions on 911, and so does Harrit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ9wSD4Hcys You laugh, when you need to debunk it. Why is 911 truth so easy to debunk? Because their claims are based on fantasy.

You can't post anything wrong with Millette's paper; Jones has failed, Harrit is stuck with hundreds of tons of thermite in his head, in his paranoid conspiracy head.
You offered no evidence, you laugh at science; you lost this one, Millette wins again.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Do you know of any structural steel primer paints that are in agreement with a short duration flash of high temperature flame after exposure to a temperature of 430C?

Do you know of any structural steel primer paints that after burning, leave behind a residue containing iron rich microspheres -- where none previously existed?

Are these not reasonable questions for a true scientist to ask?

MM

1) ANY structural steel primer paint, as well as any other paint with organic polymer binder, is in agreement with "a short duration flash".
For polymers, a parameter called autoignition temperature (AIT) can be determined. AIT is defined by Wiki: "The lowest temperature at which the substance will spontaneously ignite in a normal atmosphere without an external source of ignition, such as a flame or spark."
AIT for organic polymers are in the range (ca) 350 to 550 degrees C, so that temperature 430 degrees C is OK. But we do not really know at which temperature of heating element Basile's WTC chip ignited.
Your words "high temperature flame" is mere wishful thinking. Nobody knows what was the temperature of burning Basile's chip, but judging from the pale flame, temperature was not really high It looked just like a burning of some polymer, I would say.

2) Nobody has cared so far if any structural primer paint (or any other paint) with iron oxide as a pigment leaves iron-rich microspheres after burning. But since we reasonably expect that those microspheres in Bentham chips are formed from gray layers of rust (at least mostly), your question is not correct/relevant. Should be: "...any structural steel primer paints attached to rust..." etc.

We know from those two Basile's videos that autoignition of paint chips with polymer binders (unknown) is nothing we can expect automatically when paint is gradually heated.
We do not know (or perhaps I just forgot?) how many Basile's WTC chips really ignited on his heating element. Why the WTC chip shown on his video with visible ignition was called "Lucky Thirteen" by Mark Basile? Could it be that just only this one single chip really ignited with visible flame, therefore its funny name?

 

[Spanx]

Lol, why does basile need to do further tests if the Bentham paper is so good

With all the millions of truthers out there why is Basile finding it hard to raise $5000.

Just for the record, who and why is anyone asking for a replication of Harrit's ignition tests ?

Just bumping these questions up for jtl.

As usual he has missed them.

 

[jtl]

Ivan K:

ANY structural steel primer paint, as well as any other paint with organic polymer binder, is in agreement with "a short duration flash".

This is obviously not true. Basile tried to ignite two different paints but they did not ignite. NIST tested the Tnemec primer paint that was used on the WTC and it did not ignite, even though they heated to more than 650 degrees C.

And didn´t NIST test the paint on steel beams, even with some black rust flakes attached? Did they see any molten spheres?

 

[chrismohr]

FYI from Jim Millette: It is my honor to share with you that I've been given the 2013 Snider Lifetime Achievement Award by members of the Environmental Information Association (EIA). With support from valuable clients like you, MVA Scientific Consultants has had the privilege to work with over hundreds of environmental engineering and industrial hygiene firms to help solve their environmental testing needs.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan K:

This is obviously not true. Basile tried to ignite two different paints but they did not ignite. NIST tested the Tnemec primer paint that was used on the WTC and it did not ignite, even though they heated to more than 650 degrees C.

Jtl: Autoignition of organic materials, including polymers, is simply a well known process This is why I wrote "ANY structural steel primer paint, as well as any other paint with organic polymer binder, is in agreement with "a short duration flash" and I adhere to it
Another question is at which condition tiny paint chips can be auto-ignited, namely with visible flame.

Oystein: Autoignition of polymers heated under air requires: 1) the temperature high enough, to supply necessary activation energy (wiki); 2) optimal concentration of flammable/volatile degradation products, in a proper mixture with oxygen from air.
As we discussed in the past, from heated tiny WTC chips (or any other tiny chips with prevailing polymer), flammable fumes can easily escape and can be quickly diluted before they may autoignite. Naturally, the quicker is the heating, the more probable is auto-ignition.

Like any other synthetic chemist, I'm using magnetic strirrers with precisely heated plate, which heats all reaction vessels, baths, etc. German company IKA delivers top magnetic stirrers here in Europe (and they are definitely better than American ones. Up to last week, I have used only IKA stirres with plates heatable up to 400 degrees C. But just yesterday, I obtained a new IKA stirrer, which has a ceramic plate heatable to 500 degrees C.
Therefore, I´ve just put on that plate a few chips of my Laclede paint imitation and few other chips of some unknown red paint from the lab (acrylic one, according to smell during burning).
Then, I set the plate to the maximum temperature.
All chips gradually darkened above ca 350 degrees and they began to release easily visible smokes/fumes at ca 400 degrees. At 500 degrees, all chips were almost black.
None of them self-ignited, at least I did not see any flame by my plain eyes...
The heating rate was (ca) 50 degrees/min.
End of the report

 

[Oystein]

Hehe I want my own lab, too!

Ivan, can you give us a physical description of your paint sapmples? were they loose chips, or painted onto something? Dimensions (thickness, width...)? I'd think that sample size and geometry / surface-to-volume ratio might affect the reaction air - don't you think?

Can you set your equipment to a lower heating rate? Or a higher? Difficult to guess how quickly Basile heated his chips...

 

[Spanx]

I think that some enthusiast here should make two series of screenshots from Basile's videos of heating of these red and blue paint chips and post it here There are anyway quite rare and even very valuable, perhaps nobody before Mark Basile filmed microscopic paint chips grilled on some heating element. There was perhaps no reason to do it.
But seriously, these Mark Basile's videos are interesting, since they are a kind of experimental evidence in sense: not all paint chips are ignited with flame when rapidly heated on this element

Is this any good ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJYhVAyvD4&feature=youtube

You will notice the view count has gone viral, alot of truther interest

 

[Sunstealer]

Is this any good ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJYhVAyvD4&feature=youtube

You will notice the view count has gone viral, alot of truther interest

Very poor quality video. There is also zero information other than colour too. Basile isn't very good at this. I don't think he understands what he's doing.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Hehe I want my own lab, too!

Ivan, can you give us a physical description of your paint sapmples? were they loose chips, or painted onto something? Dimensions (thickness, width...)? I'd think that sample size and geometry / surface-to-volume ratio might affect the reaction air - don't you think?

Can you set your equipment to a lower heating rate? Or a higher? Difficult to guess how quickly Basile heated his chips...

The heating rate of my plate can be somehow regulated by setting of the highest temperature(s), but not reliably. But, the actual temperature of the plate is controlled/measured precisely.

- Irregular Laclede imitation chips had "main" dimesions ca 2 to 5 mm and thicknesses ca 0.3 - 0.6 mm.

- Irregular red paint chips had similar "main" dimensions, but thicknesses were lower, corresponding to paint (I did not measure it). These chips were attached to red rust layers (they were taken from one rusted device in my lab).

Using just my plain eyes, equipped with Chinese reading glasses costing 2 bucks (1.5 dioptries), I did not notice any difference in the behavior of all "my" chips. They were black finally, indeed, since 500 degrees C is a temperature high enough to degrade polymer to black tar/soot, but it is not high enough to burn even those black stuffs (all this is a typical behavior of polymers). I should perhaps add that my Laclede imitation chips were previsously heated (in the independent experiment) up to 700 degrees C and they were red again, since all black soot and tar was burned off at very high temperatures. Here is again a micrograph: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=854&pictureid=7686

Btw, we see some short darkening in Basile's paint chips at the time ca 3-6 second, which can indicate similar degradation processes. This darkening is temporary, however, therefore these dark stuffs were probably further burned at higher temperatures (?). Or do I see just some shades?
This all can indicates that Basile's element was heated pretty quickly and up to quite high temperatures. I think. But these are of course data which should be provided by Mark Basile himself

Looking again at the video of Basile's WTC chip "Lucky 13", I think that this chip (contrary to Basile's two paint chips) was really distinctly inflated before and when the flame occured.
Perhaps volatile/combustible product of polymer degradation were concentrated in these "holes"/pores of the inflated chip, therefore they "were ready" for causing autoignition with the visible flame at even higher temperatures.

 

[Spanx]

Very poor quality video. There is also zero information other than colour too. Basile isn't very good at this. I don't think he understands what he's doing.

I would have said white chip and yellow chip

 

[Oystein]

... I should perhaps add that my Laclede imitation chips were previsously heated (in the independent experiment) up to 700 degrees C and they were red again, since all black soot and tar was burned off at very high temperatures. Here is again a micrograph: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=854&pictureid=7686
...

Ahhh yes, I agree you should add that
That means you can't know how much, if any, polymer was left, correct? I'd think you just tested some inorganic "ceramic" of red, perhaps sintered, iron oxide and clay.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ahhh yes, I agree you should add that
That means you can't know how much, if any, polymer was left, correct? I'd think you just tested some inorganic "ceramic" of red, perhaps sintered, iron oxide and clay.

Sorry, Oystein, my sentence "I should perhaps add that my Laclede imitation chips were previsously heated (in the independent experiment)" meant that I heated up to 700 degrees another Laclede imitation chips, not those grilled on IKA stirrer up 500 degrees.
- Chips from the stirrer were finally black, because of incomplete combustion of polymer degraded to soot/tar.
- Chips from the oven were finally dark red (because of complete combustion of soot/tar from polymer) and fragile. After I crushed them and make the powder, my colleague took the linked microghraph of this powder.

 

[cjnewson88]

Hi, I remember some time ago someone (I think it was Ivan) posted a trace of epoxy being burned in a similar way to a dsc. Anyone got that handy and where it was sourced from?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi, I remember some time ago someone (I think it was Ivan) posted a trace of epoxy being burned in a similar way to a dsc. Anyone got that handy and where it was sourced from?

Hi, I'm still lurking here
I'm not sure what do you mean, but you probably mean my posts about differential thermal analysis (DTA) of polymers (?).
Using this method, material (polymer) is first heated under inert and gaseous degradation/pyrolysis products are then combusted under air/oxygen in the other part of the device.

Resulting DTA curves look like these:

Basically, DTA curves should be similar to DSC curves under air for the same material, but they better reflect the thermal behavior, since the combustion of all degradation products is more precisely measured.
The similarity of these DTA traces to DSC curves in Bentham paper is indeed apparent: