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

[Miragememories]

"Hi, I'm still lurking here. . .

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:. . ."

Of course in the Bentham paper, the value of the observations was not so much about the temperature at which the curve spiked.

Knowing that ignition occurred around 430C was certainly useful, but the intensity and brief duration of the spike was a behavior that made those 9/11 WTC dust chips 'stand out from the crowd'.

The strong thermitic evidence provided by the ignited chips' iron-rich microsphere residue has not been reported anywhere as an expected consequence of heating primer paint of any formulation to those temperatures and much higher.

MM

 

[DGM]

The strong thermitic evidence provided by the ignited chips' iron-rich microsphere residue has not been reported anywhere as an expected consequence of heating primer paint of any formulation to those temperatures and much higher.

MM

There was no evidence of a "thermitic" reaction. The sample produce a profile with too much energy (density) and had to be done in air.

Besides them saying so, what is the evidence?

 

[Oystein]

Of course in the Bentham paper, the value of the observations was not so much about the temperature at which the curve spiked.

Is this why you demand that some tests be done to precisely 430 °C?

Knowing that ignition occurred around 430C was certainly useful,

Can you detail the why and how knowing this is value useful? For example, what difference does this make vs. a spike at, say, 480 °C, or 380 °C?

but the intensity and brief duration of the spike was a behavior that made those 9/11 WTC dust chips 'stand out from the crowd'.

The strong thermitic evidence provided by the ignited chips' iron-rich microsphere residue has not been reported anywhere as an expected consequence of heating primer paint of any formulation to those temperatures and much higher.

MM

Can you cite anything that shows that "The strong thermitic evidence provided by the ignited chips' iron-rich microsphere residue has been reported anywhere as an expected consequence of heating nanothermite of any formulation to those temperatures and much higher"?

1. For example, do you have any reports of nanothermite igniting/peaking near 430 °C like the red-gray chips did?
2. Do you have any reports of nanothermite burning at peak values of 10-24 W/g in a DSC experiment like the red-gray chips did?
3. Do you have any reports of nanothermite giving off 4.5 or 7.5 kJ/g like two of the red-gray chips did?
4. Do you have any reports of nanothermite residue still having lots of red iron oxide left over visibly after the reaction, as shown in Fig. 20, 23 and 26 of the Bentham paper?

(If your answers to these four (4) questions aren't "no", "no", "no" and "no" respectively, you are a liar. If you don't answer these four (4) questions properly, with a "yes"+citiation, or "no", you are the usual coward).

 

[Redwood]

Memo to truthers: If this were a boxing match, it'd be the 15th round, and you are hopelessly behind on points. Your only chance is to land a knockout blow.

There is absolutely nothing to lose at this point by demanding that Harrit, et al run a DSC under an inert atmosphere, and publish their results. Also, don't forget the x-ray diffraction data and the infrared data that's been promised for years.

If they get a significant exotherm, they can submit it to a respectable analytical chemistry journal. No need to allege nano-banano thermite, inside jobbies, or anything of the like.

Suggested title and brief summary for the paper (actually, this would be more of a "communication", or a subject for a conference paper.)

Anomalous Exotherm in WTC Dust Sample DSC Under Inert Atmosphere

Samples of what appear to be paint upon cursory examination yield exothermic reaction when heated under inert atmosphere.

Since they appear to be red primer paint, based on their appearance under an electron or optical microscope, showing grains of hematite and the familiar stacked platelets of kaolinite in an organic matrix, we cannot account for this exotherm as being from combustion, as oxygen was excluded. More research is needed. Dust samples available on request.

As a retired industrial chemist, I can assure truthers that chemists would be very interested in a result like this.

Could paint resins be undergoing some kind of heretofore unknown exotic reaction, perhaps akin to peroxide formation in ethers? We'd want to know! I guarantee you that others would do follow-up experiments! (I've seen some odd reactions in my own career.)

OK, back to reality: This will never happen, as Jones and Harrit are charlatans. They know damn well what their results will be. The null hypothesis will be supported - it's paint.

Truthers, you've been played. You've been punked. It's your own fault. Even if you're ignorant of chemistry, you swallowed their bunkum and never bothered to solicit the opinions of knowledgeable people in the field of analytical chemistry.

 

[cjnewson88]

MM ignored the last 100 pages of thermite threads and still going on about "higher peak = better thermite" fallacy?

And yes, thanks Ivan, that is what I was looking for. So suffice to say, short of finding a paint chip from WTC and burning it, these are the best we have so far for comparing the Bentham DSC of "thermite"?

 

[chrismohr]

Memo to truthers: If this were a boxing match, it'd be the 15th round, and you are hopelessly behind on points. Your only chance is to land a knockout blow.

There is absolutely nothing to lose at this point by demanding that Harrit, et al run a DSC under an inert atmosphere, and publish their results. Also, don't forget the x-ray diffraction data and the infrared data that's been promised for years.

If they get a significant exotherm, they can submit it to a respectable analytical chemistry journal. No need to allege nano-banano thermite, inside jobbies, or anything of the like.

Suggested title and brief summary for the paper (actually, this would be more of a "communication", or a subject for a conference paper.)


As a retired industrial chemist, I can assure truthers that chemists would be very interested in a result like this.

Could paint resins be undergoing some kind of heretofore unknown exotic reaction, perhaps akin to peroxide formation in ethers? We'd want to know! I guarantee you that others would do follow-up experiments! (I've seen some odd reactions in my own career.)

OK, back to reality: This will never happen, as Jones and Harrit are charlatans. They know damn well what their results will be. The null hypothesis will be supported - it's paint.

Truthers, you've been played. You've been punked. It's your own fault. Even if you're ignorant of chemistry, you swallowed their bunkum and never bothered to solicit the opinions of knowledgeable people in the field of analytical chemistry.

Excellent post Redwood. As a non-chemist I had no choice but to ask for feedback re the Jones/Harrit paper. Even I can understand, with help, many of the objections raised by this paper. And you are right that chemists would find such a paper as you suggested VERY interesting. Millette himself was VERY interested in what he would find before he found it, and he got a LOT of interest from forensic scientists at two conventions where he made his public presentations about the WTC dust. There is a lot of interest in all forensic questions re 9/11, and an unexplained legitimate strong exothermic reaction w/o oxygen would indeed be powerful stuff!

 

[WTC Dust]

One thing that has struck me when I read this study for the first time and when I re-read it again yesterday is the attempt to dissolve the "epoxy resin" with various solvents over various lengths of time. The really couldn't dislodge the red layer, no matter how strong the solvent was or how long the chips were in the solvent. Maybe they couldn't dissolve the red layer because it wasn't epoxy resin. Techniques that are normally used to dissolve expoxy resin should dissolve expoxy resin.

Overall this paper suffers from the same problem as almost every other paper written from about the WTC dust. There's no attempt at context. There is no explanation for the existence of these iron fragments. I understand that this was a narrow paper, meant only to address the issue of thermite. Not finding thermite was a reasonable result.

But from a scientific point of view, this paper doesn't break new ground. The thermite theory was very weak from the beginning. The thermite hypothesis debunks itself. What is missing from the paper is something along the lines of "We started out with tall steel buildings and ended up with iron fragments. Here's why this happened."

Finally, the paper pre-isolates magnetic portions of the dust, and tests those. It doesn't test the other components.

 

[chrismohr]

One thing that has struck me when I read this study for the first time and when I re-read it again yesterday is the attempt to dissolve the "epoxy resin" with various solvents over various lengths of time. The really couldn't dislodge the red layer, no matter how strong the solvent was or how long the chips were in the solvent. Maybe they couldn't dissolve the red layer because it wasn't epoxy resin. Techniques that are normally used to dissolve expoxy resin should dissolve expoxy resin.

Overall this paper suffers from the same problem as almost every other paper written from about the WTC dust. There's no attempt at context. There is no explanation for the existence of these iron fragments. I understand that this was a narrow paper, meant only to address the issue of thermite. Not finding thermite was a reasonable result.

But from a scientific point of view, this paper doesn't break new ground. The thermite theory was very weak from the beginning. The thermite hypothesis debunks itself. What is missing from the paper is something along the lines of "We started out with tall steel buildings and ended up with iron fragments. Here's why this happened."

Finally, the paper pre-isolates magnetic portions of the dust, and tests those. It doesn't test the other components.

Hi WTCDust, What you read in Millette's preliminary study is his answer to the question I hired him to research: is there thermitic material in the red-grey chips from WTC dust as claimed by Jones/Harrit et al? His answer was no. He pre-isolated the red-grey chips to test using the same criteria as described in the Harrit/Jones paper. He charged us $1000 for work that would have been 6 to 10 times more expensive just for these specific red-grey chips.

There was a more thorough dust study on the WTC dust performed by RJ Lee. That one examined all the components of the dust, and to do so the cost was millions of dollars. You may want to look at that study. He found and identified the iron-rich microspheres you talk about, and said they were to be expected in a fire like the ones at WTC. You may also want to check out radiation levels in that dust study and other information that may help validate or invalidate other theories (mininukes, space rays, etc, all of which would leave tracks that would be obvious in the RJ Lee study). To my knowledge, the RJ Lee study did not test for thermites, so Millette's study focuses on one of the few areas not covered in the RJ Lee study. The reason RJ Lee did not specifically test for thermitic material is that no evidence was found for controlled demolition and like NIST, RJ Lee followed the evidence. The reason Millette did look for thermitic materials is because we hired him to do so and he was willing to do the research at below-cost to be able to make presentations and hopefully someday publish a paper if he ever gets the time.

Your complaint against Millette that What is missing from the paper is something along the lines of "We started out with tall steel buildings and ended up with iron fragments. Here's why this happened" is not the question I posed to Millette. If you would like to pose that question to a reputable scientist, as I posed my thermite question to Millette, by all means go ahead and do so. For $1000 you may be able to hire someone to do at least a preliminary analysis. Or, if you have a pre-conceived hypothesis you want tested, you can present the hypothesis to this person. This is what I asked with Millette: "There's a hypothesis out there that there is thermitic material in the WTC dust. Can you test this hypothesis?" You could just as easily say, "I have a hypothesis that small neutron bombs were planted in the WTC Buildings and those were what caused the WTC Buildings to collapse that day. Can you test this hypothesis?" You can even lay out reasons you believe this: pulverization of steel into iron-rich microspheres, fast annihilation of the building, etc. You wouldn't even have to tell this scientist about the lack of radiation or radiation sickness among the people near Ground Zero. Any reputable scientist would quickly figure this out and would consider it in a white paper or preliminary report for you. Best of luck in your research, it's always good to test your hypotheses by bringing real experts in to test them. Neither you nor I have the necessary training to really get answers to our questions without qualified professional help. I got the help I needed and was prepared to accept a positive or negative result to the testing I hired him to do. If it's 9/11 Truth you want, I suggest you do what I did. It's a great exercise, really... I learned a lot from it. But to complain that MY study didn't answer YOUR question is too easy, too passive. Take real action as I did and hire a top scientific expert in the field to really look at your claims!

 

[WTC Dust]

Hi WTCDust, What you read in Millette's preliminary study is his answer to the question I hired him to research: is there thermitic material in the red-grey chips from WTC dust as claimed by Jones/Harrit et al? His answer was no. He pre-isolated the red-grey chips to test using the same criteria as described in the Harrit/Jones paper. He charged us $1000 for work that would have been 6 to 10 times more expensive just for these specific red-grey chips.

There was a more thorough dust study on the WTC dust performed by RJ Lee. That one examined all the components of the dust, and to do so the cost was millions of dollars. You may want to look at that study. He found and identified the iron-rich microspheres you talk about, and said they were to be expected in a fire like the ones at WTC. You may also want to check out radiation levels in that dust study and other information that may help validate or invalidate other theories (mininukes, space rays, etc, all of which would leave tracks that would be obvious in the RJ Lee study). To my knowledge, the RJ Lee study did not test for thermites, so Millette's study focuses on one of the few areas not covered in the RJ Lee study. The reason RJ Lee did not specifically test for thermitic material is that no evidence was found for controlled demolition and like NIST, RJ Lee followed the evidence. The reason Millette did look for thermitic materials is because we hired him to do so and he was willing to do the research at below-cost to be able to make presentations and hopefully someday publish a paper if he ever gets the time.

Your complaint against Millette that What is missing from the paper is something along the lines of "We started out with tall steel buildings and ended up with iron fragments. Here's why this happened" is not the question I posed to Millette. If you would like to pose that question to a reputable scientist, as I posed my thermite question to Millette, by all means go ahead and do so. For $1000 you may be able to hire someone to do at least a preliminary analysis. Or, if you have a pre-conceived hypothesis you want tested, you can present the hypothesis to this person. This is what I asked with Millette: "There's a hypothesis out there that there is thermitic material in the WTC dust. Can you test this hypothesis?" You could just as easily say, "I have a hypothesis that small neutron bombs were planted in the WTC Buildings and those were what caused the WTC Buildings to collapse that day. Can you test this hypothesis?" You can even lay out reasons you believe this: pulverization of steel into iron-rich microspheres, fast annihilation of the building, etc. You wouldn't even have to tell this scientist about the lack of radiation or radiation sickness among the people near Ground Zero. Any reputable scientist would quickly figure this out and would consider it in a white paper or preliminary report for you. Best of luck in your research, it's always good to test your hypotheses by bringing real experts in to test them. Neither you nor I have the necessary training to really get answers to our questions without qualified professional help. I got the help I needed and was prepared to accept a positive or negative result to the testing I hired him to do. If it's 9/11 Truth you want, I suggest you do what I did. It's a great exercise, really... I learned a lot from it. But to complain that MY study didn't answer YOUR question is too easy, too passive. Take real action as I did and hire a top scientific expert in the field to really look at your claims!

I do not claim that anything like nukes was used to destroy the WTC, just to make that point right away. In fact, much evidence goes directly against this theory. Additionally, I do not report iron microspheres in my WTC dust samples. Sharped edged iron fragments were found in great abundance. I'm not reporting iron microspheres.

And, yes, I do realize that the Millette paper was narrow. I understand that it was funded by you to address a specific question. It succeeded at disproving the notion of thermite. But they weren't able to dissolve the red layers, no matter how strongly they attempted to do this. You didn't really address this point. More than disproving thermite, the author also suggested that the red layer was epoxy resin, but the red layer didn't behave like epoxy resin when they tried to dissolve it. This is curious. This indicates that it might not be epoxy resin (because it didn't dissolve like epoxy resin would be expected to dissolve).

In addition, this paper suffers from the lack of context that every single other paper (except that written by me and one other researcher) suffers from. It ignores the meaning of the presence of all these iron chips in the dust. It's all well and good to study the iron fragments at great length, but if you ignore the fact that these iron fragments exist in such large amounts, the analysis doesn't get to the juicy bits.

HELLO, WORLD! The WTC dust contains iron fragments! This is inconsistent with a plane crash mechanism of destruction!

These iron fragments are strange. That some of them are layered is strange. I found layered chips in my own samples. This is strange.

 

[WTC Dust]

These layered chips are remarkably smooth and evenly coated, compared to what I would expect from the addition of anything like paint. Check out this website that shows what paint layers look like under a microscope. http://io9.com/5984807/microscopic-...-spectacular-than-we-ever-would-have-imagined

 

[pgimeno]

Knowing that ignition occurred around 430C was certainly useful, but the intensity and brief duration of the spike was a behavior that made those 9/11 WTC dust chips 'stand out from the crowd'.

Brief? 5 minutes is 'brief'?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I do not claim that anything like nukes was used to destroy the WTC, just to make that point right away. In fact, much evidence goes directly against this theory. Additionally, I do not report iron microspheres in my WTC dust samples. Sharped edged iron fragments were found in great abundance. I'm not reporting iron microspheres.

And, yes, I do realize that the Millette paper was narrow. I understand that it was funded by you to address a specific question. It succeeded at disproving the notion of thermite. But they weren't able to dissolve the red layers, no matter how strongly they attempted to do this. You didn't really address this point. More than disproving thermite, the author also suggested that the red layer was epoxy resin, but the red layer didn't behave like epoxy resin when they tried to dissolve it. This is curious. This indicates that it might not be epoxy resin (because it didn't dissolve like epoxy resin would be expected to dissolve).

In addition, this paper suffers from the lack of context that every single other paper (except that written by me and one other researcher) suffers from. It ignores the meaning of the presence of all these iron chips in the dust. It's all well and good to study the iron fragments at great length, but if you ignore the fact that these iron fragments exist in such large amounts, the analysis doesn't get to the juicy bits.

HELLO, WORLD! The WTC dust contains iron fragments! This is inconsistent with a plane crash mechanism of destruction!

These iron fragments are strange. That some of them are layered is strange. I found layered chips in my own samples. This is strange.

I'm not still sure when you are just joking, dear WTCDust But this your post contains some comparatively "factual" (but erroneous) remarks concerning epoxy resins, which require correction.

Once again, especially for you: properly cured epoxy resins are crosslinked polymers, therefore they do not dissolve in any solvent. They can only swell in good solvents for them (e.g. ketones like acetone, MEK, tetrahydrofuran, chlorinated aromatics, dimethylformamide). The extent of swelling depends on the density of crosslinking, some low-molar mass portion of epoxy resin can be even dissolved sometimes, but the complete dissolution is impossible. E.g., my Laclede primer imitation chips (based on cured epoxy resin), which I put into MEK several weeks ago, remain indeed undissolved and are only swollen with MEK).

The action of epoxy resin "removers" is based on the fact that good solvents in these removers can swell the resin, which is therefore softened and can be mechanically removed.

Enjoy the Truth about the epoxy resins solubility

 

[Oystein]

One thing that has struck me when I read this study for the first time and when I re-read it again yesterday is the attempt to dissolve the "epoxy resin" with various solvents over various lengths of time. The really couldn't dislodge the red layer, no matter how strong the solvent was or how long the chips were in the solvent. Maybe they couldn't dissolve the red layer because it wasn't epoxy resin. Techniques that are normally used to dissolve expoxy resin should dissolve expoxy resin.

...But they weren't able to dissolve the red layers, no matter how strongly they attempted to do this. You didn't really address this point. More than disproving thermite, the author also suggested that the red layer was epoxy resin, but the red layer didn't behave like epoxy resin when they tried to dissolve it. This is curious. This indicates that it might not be epoxy resin (because it didn't dissolve like epoxy resin would be expected to dissolve). ...

Can you please name the techniques that are normally used to dissolve epoxy resin, along with citations of such use? Something that shows us how epoxy resin actually behaves when one tries to dissolve it

Can you then point out which of those techniques were tried by Millette on some red-gray chips, but failed to dissolve them thus?

Thank you.

Ivan Kminek is an organic polymer scientist and well-versed with the behaviour of various organic polymers in various solvents. I understand he explained that epoxy resin tends to cross-link so heavily that few solvents really disrupt the matrix. He can probably provide more detail if needed. In fact, Millette makes a similar remark, see below. [ETA: Ivan beat me to it]


Here is the full text of what Millette did to try and dissolve paint chips:

Samples of red/gray chips were placed in several solvents overnight and then subjected to ultrasonic agitation to determine if the solvents could dissolve the epoxy binder and liberate the internal particles. The solvents included methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and two commercial paint strippers used for epoxy resins. The commercial paint strippers, Klean-Strip KS-3 Premium Stripper and Jasco Premium Paint and Epoxy Remover, contain methylene chloride, methanol and mineral spirits.
...
The solvents had no effect on the gray iron/steel layer. Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within.
...
Epoxy resins are formed from the reaction of two different chemicals which produces a polymer that is heavily cross-linked. Epoxy resins can be especially difficult to dissolve. Organic solvents, including those sold commercially for epoxy paint/coating stripping, were found to soften the red layer of the red/gray chips but did not dissolve the epoxy resin sufficiently so particles within the coating could be dispersed for direct examination. In this study no organic solvent was found to release particles from within the epoxy resin and it was necessary to use low temperature ashing to eliminate the epoxy resin matrix and extract the component parts of the coating.

I'd like to add a few thoughts:

• Millette appears to imply that all the chips he tried to dissolve had red layers on an epoxy basis - I think this implication may be invalid, as we know there are different kinds of red-gray chips, some of which may be based on some other polymers.
• I am not sure that paint strippers, even those specifically geared towards removing epoxy, act by dissolving the epoxy matrix to the point of releasing pigments. It may be normal and sufficient for such commercial products to merely soften the matrix such that it can be removed from surfaces mechanically with reasonable ease.
• I'd thus like to see a reference to show that cured, old epoxy paint can usually be dissolved using at least one of the agents and methods applied by Millette.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

These layered chips are remarkably smooth and evenly coated, compared to what I would expect from the addition of anything like paint. Check out this website that shows what paint layers look like under a microscope. http://io9.com/5984807/microscopic-...-spectacular-than-we-ever-would-have-imagined

Your linked photography of paint layers is beautiful and interesting Just try to consider that this is a crossection of some "multilayer" formed by sequentional artistic painting, therefore no wonder that layers are mostly irregular It has nothing common with our usual "paint jobs" intended for even covering of some surfaces (e.g. WTC constuction steel). Moreover, painting technologies novadays are indeed much better/much more advanced than in 18th century.

 

[WTC Dust]

Your linked photography of paint layers is beautiful and interesting Just try to consider that this is a crossection of some "multilayer" formed by sequentional artistic painting, therefore no wonder that layers are mostly irregular It has nothing common with our usual "paint jobs" intended for even covering of some surfaces (e.g. WTC constuction steel). Moreover, painting technologies novadays are indeed much better/much more advanced than in 18th century.

Points noted!

 

[Oystein]

Points noted!

Did you also note the points about how and why, both theoretically and empircally, cured epoxy resin is NOT expected to dissolve under solvents, as you claimed?

 

[Sunstealer]

Others above have explained why cured epoxy doesn't dissolve readily - something a chemist should know. There's absolutely no doubt that Millette's chips contain epoxy in the red layer.

If anyone disagrees then they can analyse the following FTIR data and tell us why epoxy isn't present.

 

[WTC Dust]

Others above have explained why cured epoxy doesn't dissolve readily - something a chemist should know. There's absolutely no doubt that Millette's chips contain epoxy in the red layer.

If anyone disagrees then they can analyse the following FTIR data and tell us why epoxy isn't present.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=5660[/qimg]

"Does not dissolve readily" is a bit of an understatement, considering the rather extensive (yet unsuccessful) efforts that went on to get it to dissolve.

Kaolin is also a major component of toilets and sinks, just to add that point. Kaolin is the major component of porcelain. There were no intact toilets or sinks found in the debris. Hmmmm.

Looking at the data some more. Back later.

 

[DGM]

Come on you guys! You've got to admire the guts it took Tracy to come to this thread in an attempt for attention.

She entered a technical thread (and got hammered). She's a PhD damn-it

She does get one thing right. What caused the dust was not hot.

 

[Oystein]

"Does not dissolve readily" is a bit of an understatement, considering the rather extensive (yet unsuccessful) efforts that went on to get it to dissolve. ...

Please do NOT derail this thread with nonsense stuff about toilets! You will be reported if you try again. Thanks for your cooperation.

In the meantime, please acknowldge posts 2672 and 2673, which challenge your FALSE assertion that epoxy will dissolve in the solvants that Millette tried, and ask you to provide evidence in case you don't accept the refutation lashed against you by an eminant scholar in the relevant field of polymer chemistry!