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

[thedopefishlives]

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!

This, right here, should tell you something. Ordinarily I don't cotton on to impugning the motives of others, but saying, "I've got samples of thermitic chips and no, you can't see them or analyze them" is akin to saying, "I have built an over-unity device but no, you can't see it or disassemble it, only look at these readings I give you."

 

[Miragememories]

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!

Yes Chris this is old news.

"…BTW in support of what MM said, when Kevin Ryan was still talking to me, he said that he has in his possession both red-grey paint chips and red-grey thermitic chips, "and I can tell you they are not the same." He claimed that they look different to the eye, but more importantly, that the thermitic chips have an exothermic quality that the paint chips don't."

Dr. Millette has his own ample stash of 9/11 WTC dust. By using selected dust chips from his own stores, the chain of custody argument is eliminated.

Events have shown that Kevin's mistrust of Dr. Millette is justifiable.

Dr. Millette's study of red-grey paint chips only proved what Kevin Ryan and everyone else already knew. There are lots of those paint chips in the 9/11 WTC dust.

So far as we know, Dr. Millette has never made any serious attempt to find or analyze the thermitic red-grey chips.

He knows that paint chips have very high electrical resistance and that the thermitic chips have very low electrical resistance.

Did he check?

No.

Must Dr. Millette have realized that many red-grey chips were paint?

Yes.

Would primer paint adhering to bits of steel be magnetic?

Yes.

Do the thermitic red-grey chips look different to the trained eye?

Yes.

Could Dr. Millette, in his quest to collect chips that looked similar and were magnetic, have collected only red-grey paint chips while excluding those that were magnetic but slightly different in appearance?

Easily.

Chemist Mark Basile has found and tested hundreds of thermitic red-grey chips from the 9/11 WTC dust so we know they are not the figment of a creative imagination.

Meanwhile Dr. Millette claims he is really interested but he can't spare the few seconds necessary to heat his chips another 30C to validate his opinion.

And you wonder why Kevin Ryan et al hold little trust in Dr. Millette.

MM

 

[ergo]

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).

So you should have no problem demonstrating this, right? I mean, you've only had four years to do it.

 

[ergo]

Do the thermitic red-grey chips look different to the trained eye?

Yes.

Could Dr. Millette, in his quest to collect chips that looked similar and were magnetic, have collected only red-grey paint chips while excluding those that were magnetic but slightly different in appearance?

Easily.

And didn't Harrit and Jones point this out right off the bat when Millette's preliminary report came out?

Meanwhile Dr. Millette claims he is really interested but he can't spare the few seconds necessary to heat his chips another 30C to validate his opinion.

Lol. I guess $1000 only goes so far.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM, Ergo: wow, you start to be even rather offensive! (and evasive, as usually)

A little summary:
Q: What was the subject of Millette’s tudy?
A: (from the report):„The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (chips shown in Figures 2, 5 in Bentham paper).
In other words: the aim of the study was to prove whether „Bentham chips“ denoted (a) to (d) were thermitic.

Q: Did Millette find the same kind of chips like (a) to (d)?
A: Yes, he did, he found quite easily a lot of such chips.
Here is a micrograph of the cross-section of Bentham chips (a) to (d):

…and here is a micrograph from Millette’s report:

It is apparent that all chips had the same/similar bilayer arrangement and overall look.

A comparison of BSE images of Bentham chips and typical Millette's chip is here:

The similarity is indeed striking.

XEDS spectra of freshly cut red layers of Bentham chips (a) to (d):

…and corresponding typical XEDS spectra from Millette’s report:

XEDS spectra are strikingly similar and, btw, all correspond very well to the simulated XEDS spectra of “Laclede red primer” used for the protection of WTC1/2 floor trusses (upper spectrum is calculated from the known elemental composition of Laclede primer):

All detailed analyses of the pigment particles in the red layers showed that all such chips contained tiny rhomboid crystals of iron oxide (hematite) and typical stacking platelets of kaolinite as the only source of Si and Al signals.

(Whereas Harrit et al did not make any attempt to identify organic /carbon-based/ binder, which prevailed in the chips, Millette had no problem to show that the binder is some epoxy resin, which was a binder in Laclede red primer and probably also in some other primers or paints in WTC)

Conclusion: Bentham chips (a) to (d) and Millette’s chips with the same/similar characteristic are all the same and they are all some epoxy-based coating (paint) on rust flakes/oxidized steel.

Note: Even if (hypothetically) chips (a) to (d) (and corresponding Millette’s chips) contained some mystical form of metallic aluminum instead of kaolinite, these chips still cannot be any thermite (or generally any “pyrotechnic weapon), since organic polymer binder strongly prevailed in them (which precludes an efficient reaction of Al and iron oxide) and, no necessary strong oxidant for such polymer (like some nitrate or perchlorate) was present.

As Oystein wrote in the past, even if there were (hypothetically) tons of some nanothermite chips in WTC dust, Bentham chips (a) to (d) clearly do not belong to them. They are all just chips of red paint on rust. So, if you are looking for some nanothermites, try harder and look elsewhere next time, our dear truthers

 

[ozeco41]

...As Oystein wrote in the past, even if there were (hypothetically) tons of some nanothermite chips in WTC dust, Bentham chips (a) to (d) clearly do not belong to them. They are all just chips of red paint on rust. So, if you are looking for some nanothermites, try harder next times, our dear truthers

And, as ozeco41 wrote many times in the past, even if there were (actually) 100s of tons of any form of thermXte in WTC dust or conveniently stockpiled on site, it is irrelevant other than as a scientific curiosity. There was no CD therefore thermXte could not have been used in CD.

The only reason this thermXte stuff started was because S Jones was losing market prominence and he launched a new brand of woo.

The new marketing brand image has outlived the originators presence in the marketplace.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

And, as ozeco41 wrote many times in the past, even if there were (actually) 100s of tons of any form of thermXte in WTC dust or conveniently stockpiled on site, it is irrelevant other than as a scientific curiosity. There was no CD therefore thermXte could not have been used in CD.

The only reason this thermXte stuff started was because S Jones was losing market prominence and he launched a new brand of woo.

The new marketing brand image has outlived the originators presence in the marketplace.

Indeed

 

[Miragememories]

"Q: What was the subject of Millette’s tudy?"

From an email Dr. Millette wrote to Chris Mohr;

"Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction.

They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust..."

Readers please note the condescending attitude expressed by Dr. Millette.

He can't even bring himself to acknowledge the truth that scientists repeatedly observed exothermic reactions.

This is not the mindset of one open-minded scientist objectively analyzing the work of his fellow scientists.

Rather than see for himself, Dr. Millette chose not to observe the reaction of chips heated to ~430C or examine the residue they produced.

Based on some physical similarities he determined that the chips he was analyzing were representative of the highlighted chips analyzed for the 2009 Bentham paper.

In a nutshell, he said that since his chips looked like their chips, and were not thermitic, therefore, the 9/11 WTC dust chips highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper could not be either.

I say 'looked', because even at this preliminary stage Dr. Millette's chips were in chemical disagreement with those examined for the 2009 Bentham paper.

"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...Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found."

"We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.) More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.

Why would he not measure the electrical resistivity of his red material (discussed in our paper) right off? That's what gets me – he could have saved himself a lot of time. Finally he gets to TEM [Transmission Electron Microscopy] analysis, and finds that he has titanium oxide! How can he claim its the same material? What a waste of time."

"Whereas Harrit et al did not make any attempt to identify organic /carbon-based/ binder, which prevailed in the chips, Millette had no problem to show that the binder is some epoxy resin, which was a binder in Laclede red primer and probably also in some other primers or paints in WTC.

Conclusion: Bentham chips (a) to (d) and Millette’s chips with the same/similar characteristic are all the same and they are all some epoxy-based coating (paint) on rust flakes/oxidized steel."

Showing a clear appreciation that an epoxy resin might explain the red chips, epoxy paint was also heat tested to see if its chemical behaviour was similar to the that of the highlighted red chips in the 2009 Bentham paper.

"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."

All of Dr. Millette's study is focused on dismissing the 2009 Bentham paper at the starting gate.

At no time does he ever attempt any of the definitive testing that, if he was right in his belief, would have quickly put the 2009 Bentham paper in its grave.

It is worthy of note that at no time does Dr. Millette ever allude to the fact that iron-rich microspheres were common in the 9/11 WTC dust. A fact that after his years of 9/11 WTC dust research for the U.S. Government, he should have been well aware.

Dr. Jones had been studying this phenomenon for quite sometime before independent research by chemist Mark Basile revealed that iron-rich micro-spheroids were consistently produced when the thermitic red chips were ignited.

And why are iron-rich micro-spheroids so significant?

Because the fact of their existence provides proof of molten iron and temperatures high enough to create it!

"…A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen…"

MM

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM: Just short remarks:

- Titanium oxide (e.g. as anatase) is a quite normal (but negligible) part of kaolinite, therefore no wonder that some of the Millette's chips can contain some minute amounts of Ti. Moreover, it is not right that Harrit et al did not observe any titanium in the chips - look at Fig. 25, Bentham paper.

- I did not see that DSC of epoxy resin Ferrer was talking about, therefore there is nothing to discuss.

- I think that Mark Basile did not show us clearly any iron-rich micro-spheroids. He talked about some "iron films", which we do not see, and "iron-rich droplets", but their shape is very irregular and not spherical:

Moreover (although is not well readable), this droplet contained mere ca 50 % of iron, so it can be hardly considered to be "iron droplet".

- Although the iron-rich microspheres in the dust are off-topc, just one reminder: the "concentration" of microspheres ca 1 and more % is not any proof of thermite and it is clear that the vast majority of them couldn't be created by thermitic reaction. Consider that there were ca 100 000 tons of dust, therefore 1 % corresponds (roughly) to 1000 tons of burned thermite previously "smuggled" in to the towers! Even you should admit that this a plain nonsense

 

[Miragememories]

"MM: Just short remarks:

- Titanium oxide (e.g. as anatase) is a quite normal (but negligible) part of kaolinite, therefore no wonder that some of the Millette's chips can contain some minute amounts of Ti. Moreover, it is not right that Harrit et al did not observe any titanium in the chips - look at Fig. 25, Bentham paper. "

Dr. Millette seemed to feel that it was worth recognition.

Regarding Fig. 25 from the Bentham paper, I can see why you would be confused.

That XEDS spectra is from the post ignition debris which is not what Dr. Jones was talking about.

"We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.) More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied."

If you look at Figs. 6 and 7, you will not find a hint of titanium.

"- I did not see that DSC of epoxy resin Ferrer was talking about, therefore there is nothing to discuss."

Even as a professed expert on paint?

You have no familiarity with how it reacts to temperatures like 430C?

Than you have no contrary argument against Dr. Ferrer's assertion that at the most, when fully heated, epoxy paint may produce a minor exothermic peak and is not energetic.

"- I think that Mark Basile did not show us clearly any iron-rich micro-spheroids. He talked about some "iron films", which we do not see, and "iron-rich droplets", but their shape is very irregular and not spherical"

In a previous video, Mark Basile provided his understanding about the iron-rich micro-spheroids:

"From the reaction, they have basically fallen to the bottom of the chip. And then when they cooled, they have solidified. So they are not perfect spheres. Microspheres form when a material is liquid and it falls through air and the only real force acting on it is its own surface tension. And so it tries to minimize that surface area, and hence the surface energy, and goes into a sphere because that is the minimum surface area for a given volume of material.

These don't form into perfect spheres. They are trying to but then they hit something and they flatten out and so you basically wind up with all these metallic iron-based droplets that formed inside the chip. And the other thing. They don't all form into droplets. As these are actually burning down through the chip, or melting their way down through, they actually along the walls leave this very thin film of solidified iron.

Where as if you take these chips, before you ignite them, and I have done it, just like I did where I said I exposed a fresh section. I've cut into these chips, dozens, if not hundreds of times and I have never found an iron microsphere inside. I have never found a film of iron inside. It is not there until the chip reacts. When the chip reacts, it produces molten iron. There is no free iron. There is iron oxide before you ignite it but there is no free iron inside these chips."

Ivan you have yet to suggest any credible alternative explanation that undermines the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM

 

[DGM]

He can't even bring himself to acknowledge the truth that scientists repeatedly observed exothermic reactions.


MM

Wow, I had a campfire last night that contained a whole **** load of exothermic reactions. I wonder why Millette wasn't impressed.

Maybe because (unlike you) he knows what this means.

 

[pgimeno]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=994&pictureid=7290[/qimg]

Moreover (although is not well readable), this droplet contained mere ca 50 % of iron, so it can be hardly considered to be "iron droplet".

Feel free to link to this image at any time if you need to. Even if it says temp it will not move. You can hotlink it too but maybe it's too big to fit a page.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/temp/Basile_Postignition_analysis.png

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by 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).

So you should have no problem demonstrating this, right? I mean, you've only had four years to do it.

Jones and Harrit demonstrated this themselves when they stupidly/dishonestly conducted their DSCs under air, and found exotherms exceeding the maximum yield for thermite allowed by the laws of thermodynamics. But not for the combustion of organic resins.

"Ergo", Ergo, at least some of the energy came from ordinary combustion, and since Jones and Harrit have refused to perform a DSC under an inert atmosphere, the parsimonious conclusion under Occam's Razor is that ALL of it came from ordinary combustion of the resin.

If this were really thermite, you could bet your last nickel that J&H would have performed this test, published their results, and multitudes of analytical chemists would be studying these thermite paint chips. J&H haven't done so, because they know damned well that this test would expose them as charlatans. As to why you refuse to acknowledge this, the most charitable guess is that you are a victim of a sort of psychological version of the Fallacy of Sunk Costs.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM:
Ad) "Regarding Fig. 25 from the Bentham paper, I can see why you would be confused.
That XEDS spectra is from the post ignition debris which is not what Dr. Jones was talking about. "

Fig. 25 shows XEDS of post-ignition residue of one red/gray chip (one of the microspheres formed), and, if there was some titanium detected in it, titanium was inevitably present also in unburned chip. I suppose that even you do not suppose some elemental transmutations in the burned chips So, al least in this case some Ti was detected also in Bentham paper.
And it really does not make sense to be focused on some minute amounts of Ti anywhere, since Ti oxides are pretty common components of pigments, paints, plasters, etc.

As for DSC, I was talking about Ferrer's experimental curves on epoxy resin, which I would like to see. In the past, I have tried several times to explain that DSC is seldom used for the investigation of thermal/oxditative degradation of polymers (and why). This method does not easily provide reliable/reproducible results in such cases.

As for Basile, I think now that he showed us some really interesting experiments. Namely, his burning of the chip "Lucky Thirteen" with the formation of visible flame is interesting, as well as the latter burning of three chips of different paints, which did not really ignite with visible flame at the same (?) conditions. Moreover, I performed my own "experiments" with the heating of my epoxy-based Laclede paint imitation up to 500 degrees C and they also did not really ignite with the flame (as observed by my plain eyes).

Judging from this, I have a "feeling" that the auto-ignition of epoxy-based (or generally organic polymer-based) chip with the visible flame can be a pretty rare event in reality, even when the heating rate is pretty high (like on the Basile's element).
And my basic question to Basile would be now: was the chip "Lucky Thirteen" the only one in which visible flame was observed during heating?

Does Basile have some other such videos? Why the heck he called this his chip "Lucky Thirteen"?
And why this Basile's chip (contrary to burned paint chips) was substantially "puffed" prior ignition?

(Reminder: according to Basile's own XEDS spectra the chip Lucky Thirteen contained mere ca 2 % of Al and Fe, therefore it is simply ridiculous tu suppose that such a chip can be any thermite. These values are very probably "underestimated" somehow by the machine, but still... prevailing exothermic reactions must inevitably belong to the polymer binder).

 

[Miragememories]

"Dr. Millette seemed to feel that it [titanium] was worth recognition.

Regarding Fig. 25 from the Bentham paper, I can see why you would be confused.

That XEDS spectra is from the post ignition debris which is not what Dr. Jones was talking about."

"We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.) More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied."

If you look at Figs. 6 and 7, you will not find a hint of titanium.

"Fig. 25 shows XEDS of post-ignition residue of one red/gray chip (one of the microspheres formed), and, if there was some titanium detected in it, titanium was inevitably present also in unburned chip. I suppose that even you do not suppose some elemental transmutations in the burned chips So, al least in this case some Ti was detected also in Bentham paper.
And it really does not make sense to be focused on some minute amounts of Ti anywhere, since Ti oxides are pretty common components of pigments, paints, plasters, etc."

As you point out, it would not be surprising to discover evidence of titanium in a chip surface that remained contaminated by collapse debris.

Which is why Dr. Jones pointedly refers to the data obtained from "clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper".

Unlike Millette's thinned sections, the 2009 Bentham paper found no titanium in the clean cross section.

"As for DSC, I was talking about Ferrer's experimental curves on epoxy resin, which I would like to see.

In the past, I have tried several times to explain that DSC is seldom used for the investigation of thermal/oxditative degradation of polymers (and why).

This method does not easily provide reliable/reproducible results in such cases."

I believe Dr. Ferrer was doing a basic exploration of the behaviour of epoxy paint when heated to ~430C, the temperature that ignited the red chip material.

Does epoxy at ~430C produce a major exothermic peak?

Does it produce a narrow peak?

Does it produce a relatively flat (smooth) wide peak?

Have you ever produced iron-rich micro-spheroids from heating any kind of paint to ~430?

MM

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM: Sigh... You just force me to discuss again the same unimportant and evasive Jones' crap concerning Ti
Please, look at the Appendix D in Millette's report (Cross Section Images and Spectra)!
There are 26 XEDS spectra of cross-sections and only 2 (!) of them show some visible peaks of titanium!! (and I repeat that Ti is a normal component of kaolinite). If Jones tries to claim that because of this, all these chips analyzed are something else than chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper, he must be simply... very, very, very desperate And nobody with the proper education/common sense should not take this nonsense seriously...

As for DCS, I have repeated that DSC is seldom used for the investigation of thermal/oxidative degradation of polymers, since (among others) sample is massively evaporated. No DSC curves for epoxy resins are directly avalaible in the literature, and this is why asked for the Ferrer's experimental curves (which are still supersecret, as is typical for the Seekers of Truth. For such purposes (analyses of the heat flow from/off the heated/degraded polymer), other, much more suitable methods are used, like microcalorimetric combustion methods, namely DTA (Differential Thermal Analysis). I'm going to be repetitive, but here are again some DTA curves for polymers, mostly epoxy resins (links were given earlier). As you can see, the massive release of heat at the temperatures ca 400 to 500 degrees C is a standard and fully expected behavior of common organic polymers, including epoxies.

 

[Miragememories]

"MM: Sigh... You just force me to discuss again the same unimportant and evasive Jones' crap concerning Ti
Please, look at the Appendix D in Millette's report (Cross Section Images and Spectra)!
There are 26 XEDS spectra of cross-sections and only 2 (!) of them show some visible peaks of titanium!! (and I repeat that Ti is a normal component of kaolinite). If Jones tries to claim that because of this, all these chips analyzed are something else than chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper, he must be simply... very, very, very desperate And nobody with the proper education/common sense should not take this nonsense seriously..."

My opinion is that the existence, or not, of titanium is not the real issue.

It is the major differences between the 9/11 WTC dust samples chosen by Dr. Millette and the 9/11 WTC dust samples highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper that make Dr. Millette's unpublished study fail.

MILLETTE SAMPLE

- electrical resistivity not measured
- small amounts of titanium found on the surface of a clean slice
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer was softened
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer did not release any particles
- when heated to 400C and studied, no microspheroids of any kind were found
- when heated to ~430C results remain unknown as Millette refused to perform this critical test

BENTHAM SAMPLE

- reference test showed low electrical resistivity
- zero titanium was found on the surface of a clean slice
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer did not soften like paint
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer showed a significant migration and segregation of aluminum
- some of this aluminum was found to be elemental form
- at 400C no microspheroids have been discovered to exist
- when heated to ~430C and studied, iron-rich microspheroids were found
- when heated to ~430C red chips found to be thermitic ignited with a strong exothermic peak

"As for DCS, I have repeated that DSC is seldom used for the investigation of thermal/oxidative degradation of polymers, since (among others) sample is massively evaporated. No DSC curves for epoxy resins are directly avalaible in the literature, and this is why asked for the Ferrer's experimental curves (which are still supersecret, as is typical for the Seekers of Truth. For such purposes (analyses of the heat flow from/off the heated/degraded polymer), other, much more suitable methods are used, like microcalorimetric combustion methods, namely DTA (Differential Thermal Analysis). I'm going to be repetitive, but here are again some DTA curves for polymers, mostly epoxy resins (links were given earlier). As you can see, the massive release of heat at the temperatures ca 400 to 500 degrees C is a standard and fully expected behavior of common organic polymers, including epoxies. "

Mark Basile who first discovered that particular 9/11 WTC dust red chips produced iron-rich microspheroids when ignited at ~430C did not use DSC for his heat testing.

All your charts look nice and impressive but what I am interested in is the behaviour of the two structural steel primer paints used in the WTC.

In particular, LeClede which you claim to be the true substance found in the red chip material highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Dr. Millette has already gone on record as being in disagreement with your belief about LeClede steel primer paint, at least for the chips he tested.

Your LeClede belief only supports an argument that Dr. Millette studied visually similar but chemically different red chips from those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Getting back to your treatise on epoxy behaviour, is it also your expectation that upon combustion, temperatures capable of producing iron-rich micro spheroids can be produced?

MM

 

[pgimeno]

- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer did not soften like paint

Where did you get that from?

It did swell. I assume that swelling implies softening. I don't see how it can swell and stay hard at the same time. The authors don't say it stayed hard.

Besides it was not the same kind of chip as you should know well. The Al/Si ratio is not consistent with that of chips a-d, and the XEDS spectrum is more consistent with another kind of paint than with that of chips a-d.

In particular, LeClede which you claim to be the true substance found in the red chip material highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

That's not true, Ivan only attributes LaClede to chips a-d, not to the MEK-soaked chip. Or so I think.

 

[Miragememories]

"- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer did not soften like paint"

"Where did you get that from?"

"The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution.

In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK."

That is where I got that from. What would you consider to be the meaning of a marked contrast to soft?

"It did swell. I assume that swelling implies softening. I don't see how it can swell and stay hard at the same time. The authors don't say it stayed hard."

There would be very few pregnancies if that were the case.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Besides it was not the same kind of chip as you should know well. The Al/Si ratio is not consistent with that of chips a-d, and the XEDS spectrum is more consistent with another kind of paint than with that of chips a-d.

That's not true, Ivan only attributes LaClede to chips a-d, not to the MEK-soaked chip. Or so I think."

The MEK red chip was taken from the same bag of 9/11 WTC dust as chip (b) described in the 2009 Bentham paper.

The key difference is that it was an intact chip (b) and not a cross-sectioned chip (b).

Including the work of chemist Mark Basile, that chip was but one of hundreds that had been found to be thermitic.

Hundreds of these red chips ignited and produced micro-spheroids that were iron-rich at ratios that proved a previously molten state.

Iron-rich micro-spheroids that were not formed in the chip prior to ignition at ~430C.

Unlike Dr. Millette's limited study, the 2009 Bentham paper findings are not dependent on pre-ignition observations to make a finding of nano-thermite.

MM