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

[Gamolon]

Chips which would be easily collectable with a magnet.

But steel primer paint chips are obviously not composed of a thermitic material.

Primer paint chips fit Dr. Millette's findings.

Which also means that Dr. Millette was not looking at the right ones.

Two questions MM.

1. If Harrit and Jones found red/gray primer paint chips attracted to a magnet in addition to the red/gray thermtic chips, why did they not analyze those primer paint chips and compare them to the thermitic chips? Why did they need to go to an outside source for the primer paint composition?

2. If there were other types of red/gray chips in the dust, why does Harrit' paper conclude that ALL the red/gray chips were thermitic?

 

[Spanx]

Of course Millette could settle his claims in seconds if he wanted to.

MM

Yet Jones and Harrit can't. It sounds to me that even the remaining truthers don't trust them.

I guess we can look forward to a few words from Jones in September

 

[Miragememories]

"Two questions MM.

1. If Harrit and Jones found red/gray primer paint chips attracted to a magnet in addition to the red/gray thermtic chips, why did they not analyze those primer paint chips and compare them to the thermitic chips?"

Maybe because they found primer paint to behave innocuously and not worthy of extensive research.

"2. If there were other types of red/gray chips in the dust, why does Harrit' paper conclude that ALL the red/gray chips were thermitic?"

ALL of the 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chips that were found to be thermitic, were also found to be attracted by a magnet.

That in no way means Dr. Harrit et al are saying ALL of the 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chips were thermitic.

The absurdity of your constantly repeated belief is proof of its lying nature.

MM

 

[LSSBB]

Maybe because they found primer paint to behave innocuously and not worthy of extensive research.



ALL of the 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chips that were found to be thermitic, were also found to be attracted by a magnet.

That in no way means Dr. Harrit et al are saying ALL of the 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chips were thermitic.

The absurdity of your constantly repeated belief is proof of its lying nature.

MM

Are you saying they are unable to understand the importance of both one-to-one vs. one-to-standard comparisons in determining a valid statistical difference exists between materials? Do you know that in the absence of such comparisons, there is no support for setting such a difference exists?

 

[Miragememories]

"Because they found primer paint to behave innocuously and not worthy of extensive research.

ALL of the 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chips that were found to be thermitic, were also found to be attracted by a magnet.

That in no way means Dr. Harrit et al are saying ALL of the 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chips were thermitic."

"Are you saying they are unable to understand the importance of both one-to-one vs. one-to-standard comparisons in determining a valid statistical difference exists between materials?"

The importance to whom and to what?

"Do you know that in the absence of such comparisons, there is no support for setting such a difference exists?"

Is this gob·ble·dy·gook defense your best scientific argument against the proven thermitic ignitions of 9/11 WTC dust particles?

MM

 

[LSSBB]

The importance to whom and to what?



Is this gob·ble·dy·gook defense your best scientific argument against the proven thermitic ignitions of 9/11 WTC dust particles?

MM

Not scientific per se, statistical. It's how you tell if one thing is significantly different from another.

 

[Gamolon]

Maybe because they found primer paint to behave innocuously and not worthy of extensive research.

Let me get this straight.

Harrit and his group extract red/gray, magnetically attracted chips of interest into a pile.

They then, according to you, determine that some of these chips, among other things, are primer paint chips via testing them by resistivity and DSC.

KNOWING that they have primer paint chips in their hands, which is visually and magnetically similar to the thermite chips, they go to an outside, PRINTED source to figure out the composition of the primer paint instead of testing the primer paint chips they separated?!

They didn't even test the paint chips they supposedly separated by resisitivity?! They again went to an outside source! Why? They, according to you, separated primer paint chips out.

We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula: Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2
); L= thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31].

ALL of the 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chips that were found to be thermitic, were also found to be attracted by a magnet.

No. Go read the paper again. You have it backwards. This is painfully evident. That is why in one of the presentation videos, Harrit passes around a bag of dust and a magnet and tells the audience that they will extract thermite chips with it.

That in no way means Dr. Harrit et al are saying ALL of the 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chips were thermitic.

The absurdity of your constantly repeated belief is proof of its lying nature.

MM

Go to this supposed scientifically sound paper of Harrit's and quote me where, ANYWHERE, in that paper they make any statement that ANY of the chips that were extracted using the two defining characteristics (red/gray layers and attracted to a magnet) were anything else but thermitic in nature.

You can't. It states nothing of other chips.

It's stated everywhere in the paper. Every chip they extracted from the dust samples by magnet and having a red/gray layer was thermitic. All their tests were not peformed on all the chips. Therefore, it PROVES they were under the assumption that ALL the red/gray, magnetically attracted chips were going to be thermite.

Can you explain why they tested one chip for resisitivity in the paper yet plastered the results onto ALL their chips?

Can you explain why they tested 3 out of 4 samples in the DSC and plastered the results on ALL their chips?

So again, show me where, in the paper, they say that any of the tests performed resulted in finding chips other then thermite.

I'll wait here.

 

[Gamolon]

That in no way means Dr. Harrit et al are saying ALL of the 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chips were thermitic.

Again.

Show me one quote from the paper that shows them separating non thermitic chips from all the others.

Show me one test that has them finding, via one of their tests in the paper, anything pother then thermitic chips.

As I posted above, the glaring telltale sign is that they had to go to an outside source for both resisistivity of paints AND composition of the primer paint because they thought ALL the chips they extracted were thermitic.

 

[Gamolon]

Just for fun MM, here is the complete paragraph regarding the resisitivty test performed.

7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?
We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the formula:

Specific resistivity = RA / L where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L = thickness (m).

Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31].

I challenge you to show me how you interpret the above quote to mean that they tested all the red/gray, magnetically attracted chips and seperated them into paint and thermtic chips.

It's clear, once again, that they got results from a test and stereotyped every single red/gray chip they extracted with a magnet with that one test result.

Why don't YOU write Harrit or Jones and ask them about it?

 

[Gamolon]

How about this gem from the paper MM? Pay particular attention to the red portion of the quote.

The collapses of the three tallest WTC buildings were remarkable for their completeness, their near free-fall speed [11] their striking radial symmetry [1, 12] and the surprisingly large volume of fine toxic dust [13] that was generated.
In order to better understand these features of the destruction, the authors initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust. Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case. Further testing was then performed on the red/gray chips in an attempt to ascertain their composition and properties.

Not paint chips eh?

 

[WTC Dust]

Let me get this straight.

Harrit and his group extract red/gray, magnetically attracted chips of interest into a pile.

They then, according to you, determine that some of these chips, among other things, are primer paint chips via testing them by resistivity and DSC.

KNOWING that they have primer paint chips in their hands, which is visually and magnetically similar to the thermite chips, they go to an outside, PRINTED source to figure out the composition of the primer paint instead of testing the primer paint chips they separated?!

They didn't even test the paint chips they supposedly separated by resisitivity?! They again went to an outside source! Why? They, according to you, separated primer paint chips out.





No. Go read the paper again. You have it backwards. This is painfully evident. That is why in one of the presentation videos, Harrit passes around a bag of dust and a magnet and tells the audience that they will extract thermite chips with it.



Go to this supposed scientifically sound paper of Harrit's and quote me where, ANYWHERE, in that paper they make any statement that ANY of the chips that were extracted using the two defining characteristics (red/gray layers and attracted to a magnet) were anything else but thermitic in nature.

You can't. It states nothing of other chips.

It's stated everywhere in the paper. Every chip they extracted from the dust samples by magnet and having a red/gray layer was thermitic. All their tests were not peformed on all the chips. Therefore, it PROVES they were under the assumption that ALL the red/gray, magnetically attracted chips were going to be thermite.

Can you explain why they tested one chip for resisitivity in the paper yet plastered the results onto ALL their chips?

Can you explain why they tested 3 out of 4 samples in the DSC and plastered the results on ALL their chips?

So again, show me where, in the paper, they say that any of the tests performed resulted in finding chips other then thermite.

I'll wait here.

Millette did not prove it was primer paint, though. His attempts to remove
the two layers were completely unsuccessful, and they used solvents
which would normally be successful. If it had been primer, chances are
good that solvents would have been able to separate the layers.


No amount of solvents and heat, none of the lengthy incubation periods,
NOTHING that Millette tried was successful at removing those layers.
Not primer paint.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

WTC Dust: No, you are simply wrong and it is clear that you still don't know anything about polymers and paints, exactly like Niels Harrit, Steven Jones and their comrades.

I repeat: heavily crosslinked epoxy resin (three-dimenisonal polymer network) in primer paints cannot be really dissolved in anything and can only swell/be softened(depending on the degree of crosslinking). And only some minor portion of low molar mass polymer/oligomer can be sometimes extracted. Moreover, old epoxy samples, like those from WTC dust, are supposed to be additionally crosslinked by oxidation processes.

Jim Millette himself wrote: "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."

And all this makes sense and it is in full agreement with the expected behavior of epoxy binder in epoxy-based primer paint (like in Laclede primer for WTC floor trusses).

 

[Miragememories]

"WTC Dust: No, you are simply wrong and it is clear that you still don't know anything about polymers and paints, exactly like Niels Harrit, Steven Jones and their comrades.

I repeat: heavily crosslinked epoxy resin (three-dimenisonal polymer network) in primer paints cannot be really dissolved in anything and can only swell/be softened(depending on the degree of crosslinking). And only some minor portion of low molar mass polymer/oligomer can be sometimes extracted. Moreover, old epoxy samples, like those from WTC dust, are supposed to be additionally crosslinked by oxidation processes.

Jim Millette himself wrote: "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."

And all this makes sense and it is in full agreement with the expected behavior of epoxy binder in epoxy-based primer paint (like in Laclede primer for WTC floor trusses)."

Does it make sense that an epoxy-based primer paint would produce a dramatic exothermic reaction at ~430C and produce iron-rich micro-spheroids?

Because unless that is so, what Dr. Millette is talking about and what the authors of the 2009 Bentham paper are talking about, are two dissimilar substances.

Ivan, like a bad illusionist, you continually re-direct attention to the primer paint in attempt to distract your audience from the real action.

Once the discussion addresses the thermitic substance found by Dr. Harrit et al in all their 9/11 WTC dust samples, the horse is out of the barn.

A discussion about tons of primer paint is safe.

A discussion about tons of nanothermite...not so much.

MM

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM: We have tried to explain you perhaps fifty times: it indeed makes perfect sense that an epoxy-based primer paint (or any other paint based on organic polymer) would produce a dramatic exothermic reaction at ~430C. It is exactly what is supposed from such a paint, since its polymer binder simply and inevitably burns at such circumstances (and such burning can lead to the partial reduction/smelting of iron oxides by graphitic products of burning).

But, my response to WTC Dust dealt only with the solubility of paints (their binders).
Indeed that epoxy-based paints are insoluble in anything and can only swell, since they are usually heavily crosslinked.
WTC Dust, for your convenience, here is a photo of my chips of Laclede paint imitation (based on epoxy resin, with iron oxide and aluminosilicate as fillers/pigments), after several months of standing in MEK (on my lab desk):

As you can perhaps see (and I see it for sure), chips are still not dissolved at all (they are only swollen, which I measured in the past). By this "experiment", I proved again what was observed perhaps million times before: properly cured (crosslinked) epoxy resins are insoluble. In anything. Deal with it

 

[Miragememories]

"MM: We have tried to explain you perhaps fifty times: it indeed makes perfect sense that an epoxy-based primer paint (or any other paint based on organic polymer) would produce a dramatic exothermic reaction at ~430C.

It is exactly what is supposed from such a paint, since its polymer binder simply and inevitably burns at such circumstances..."

Dr. Harrit et al explored more than just primer paint, and were able to easily distinguish the ignition differences between paint chips and thermitic chips.

"When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C"

"We did a study on some epoxy paint. We put that in the DSC. We found that that paint would just burn up and turn to ash.

You may get a minor exothermic peak but it is not energetic.

It is a very smooth wide peak and it is certainly not an energetic material.

As part of the actual paint [WTC] that we ignited in the DSC, it was basically ash.

There were no micro-spheres found."

MM

 

[DGM]

Dr. Harrit et al explored more than just primer paint, and were able to easily distinguish the ignition differences between paint chips and thermitic chips.





MM

Strange thing is they don't include this in their data.

We should just have faith, right? (it's what you do).

 

[Miragememories]

"(and such burning can lead to the partial reduction/smelting of iron oxides by graphitic products of burning)"

Your response to the iron-rich micro-spheroids amounts to a lot of smoke.

Maybe you can cite some relevant examples to support such an assertion?

MM

 

[DGM]

Your response to the iron-rich micro-spheroids amounts to a lot of smoke.

Maybe you can cite some relevant examples to support such an assertion?

MM

Maybe you can show which samples actual produced "spheres". (it's part of the data they held back).

 

[beachnut]

Your response to the iron-rich micro-spheroids amounts to a lot of smoke.

Maybe you can cite some relevant examples to support such an assertion?

MM

the iron rich sphere Jones shows are iron oxide, not a product of thermite. Ironically the Jones paper conclusion is pure woo, and Millette, is reality. 12 years of woo, and no evidence for thermite. Where is Jones?

 

[chrismohr]

Kevin Ryan has told me personally he has both paint chips and thermitic chips in his physical possession, and that they are very different, but I can't have them. Nor can Jim Millette. Frustrating!