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

[GlennB]

The Bentham red chips do have a different appearance from those red chips chosen by Dr. Millette.

http://imageshack.us/a/img836/2848/822p.png

Dr. Millette's red chip selections all look like paint chips.

MM

Quite possibly the most pitiful thing you've posted here. And the choice is massive.

 

[DGM]

The Bentham red chips do have a different appearance from those red chips chosen by Dr. Millette.

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img836/2848/822p.png[/qimg]

Dr. Millette's red chip selections all look like paint chips.

MM

Are you talking with all the background noise Harrit elected to include in the data?

The target particles are identical. If only you knew what you were looking at, you wouldn't post things that proved yourself wrong.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 12

 

[GlennB]

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited Rule 12

 

[Africanus]

The Bentham red chips do have a different appearance from those red chips chosen by Dr. Millette.

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img836/2848/822p.png[/qimg]

Dr. Millette's red chip selections all look like paint chips.

MM

Sorry, but this is a silly argument. Harrit's chips and Millette's chips show the same composition in the EDX analysis. If you want to disprove Millette, record the IR spectra of Harrit's chips and publish it.

 

[Mudcat]

Oh, it exists. Some labs have made it.

Huh, and here I thought it was just some fictional substance that the Truthers made up.

I have yet to see any proof of anyone using it for anything, or of any significantly sized fabrication facilities.

So it's like anti-mater then?

This is all off topic, though.

Establishing the existance of the substance goes a long way to determine if it could've been found in the destruction of the WTC. If it didn't exist then how could it be found in the wreckage?

 

[kid meatball]

So it's like anti-mater then?

Shares more in common with handwavium.

 

[Mudcat]

Shares more in common with handwavium.

More like anti-mater, both in plot tropes and real life since, like nanothermite, anti-mater isn't used for anything since we don't have a whole lot of it nor are there any significant sized fabrication facilities.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MUDCAT: This is a very strange post, after all these years, since these stuffs indeed exist. Bentham paper itself contains several references about real nano-thermites, and also relevant Wiki entry says e.g.:

"Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[2]

MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[5]

Nanoenergetic materials (not pure nano-thermites), aka metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) can store more energy than "pure" nano-thermites since they can contain explosive components with the higher energy contents than thermite pair fuel-oxidizer itself, or perhaps some polymer/organics coupled with a strong oxidizer, etc.

MM: "The Bentham red chips do have a different appearance from those red chips chosen by Dr. Millette. Dr. Millette's red chip selections all look like paint chips."

This is indeed a very strange post as well. All chips look basically the same, except their apparent color, which is/can be influenced by the used "instrumentation". For a perfect comparison of colors, you have to use the same apparatus/microscope and exactly the same conditions/settings, including the imaging hardware/software. At least I think so, not being any expert on microscopy methods

 

[ergo]

I would need to see proof that nanothermite exists at all first.

Because Google doesn't work for you?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM, addendum:

Just compare the colors of these "partially reacted" WTC chips, which were both denoted by truthers as nanothermite chips after partial burning during the disaster:

There is also a similar difference in colors, as you showed above, which can be given by the different imaging instrumentation. But, these two chips still can be two different red materials, who knows. From mere such optical micrographs, it is impossible to say, al least XEDS spectra are necessary to know more. And, XEDS of Bentham chips (a) to (d) (their cross-sections) correspond very well to the XEDS of cross-sections of "typical" Millette chips, as I showed you recently.

 

[Miragememories]

I only post these images to support the point that a trained eye can isolate 9/11 WTC dust red chips which are good candidates for ignition.

After removing the color, even to my untrained eye, the samples chosen by Millette show discernible differences.

BENTHAM c xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxMILLETTE 2

"…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."

When you also consider that hundreds of chips selected by chemist Mark Basile have supported the findings in the 2009 Bentham paper, and that the chips selected by Dr. Millette do not, the obvious conclusion is that Dr. Millette selected chips which were similar but not the same.

MM

 

[beachnut]

I only post these images to support the point that a trained eye can isolate 9/11 WTC dust red chips which are good candidates for ignition.

http://imageshack.us/a/img836/2848/822p.png

After removing the color, even to my untrained eye, the samples chosen by Millette show discernible differences.

http://imageshack.us/a/img15/5253/f5xu.jpg
BENTHAM c xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxMILLETTE 2



When you also consider that hundreds of chips selected by chemist Mark Basile have supported the findings in the 2009 Bentham paper, and that the chips selected by Dr. Millette do not, the obvious conclusion is that Dr. Millette selected chips which were similar but not the same.

MM

You don't do photography do you? You were fooled by the insanity of Jones on thermite, and you can't let it go. You have Pulitzer Prize winning stuff, but no reality based evidence.

Jones made it up. When will you learn? Target fixation is not good all the time.

At least you know the color is not a way to make up stuff.

Lucky Millette did not put in stuff to debunk his paper. Like Jones putting in samples which do not match thermite in energy, and a DSC which does not match thermite. Jones' paper debunks itself, and you can't explain any of it. How many Chemical Engineering courses have you taken to become such an expert who can't see fraud?

 

[tsig]

I only post these images to support the point that a trained eye can isolate 9/11 WTC dust red chips which are good candidates for ignition.

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img836/2848/822p.png[/qimg]

After removing the color, even to my untrained eye, the samples chosen by Millette show discernible differences.

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img15/5253/f5xu.jpg[/qimg]
BENTHAM c xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxMILLETTE 2



When you also consider that hundreds of chips selected by chemist Mark Basile have supported the findings in the 2009 Bentham paper, and that the chips selected by Dr. Millette do not, the obvious conclusion is that Dr. Millette selected chips which were similar but not the same.

MM

1. is in focus and 2. is out of focus.

 

[MarkLindeman]

I only post these images to support the point that a trained eye can isolate 9/11 WTC dust red chips which are good candidates for ignition....

When you also consider that hundreds of chips selected by chemist Mark Basile have supported the findings in the 2009 Bentham paper, and that the chips selected by Dr. Millette do not, the obvious conclusion is that Dr. Millette selected chips which were similar but not the same.

You're making the Bentham paper look pretty awful. After all, it said this:

The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color....

Did the Bentham authors intend to say that there were at least two kinds of red/gray chips, but they used their "trained eye" to isolate the ones that were "good candidates for ignition"? Did they forget? Did they not notice?

(ETA: Oystein conveniently gathered and annotated multiple such quotations in a blog post back in January.)

(I think the extent of Basile's experimental support for the Bentham paper was getting chips to ignite. That isn't much support at all.)

 

[Mudcat]

Because Google doesn't work for you?

It works for me, but I learned not to trust Google results unless they are verified.

 

[Miragememories]

False Claim

Just a reminder about Millette's study with regards to Ivan & Oystein's LeClede primer paint obsession.

"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):

(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."

"... when Millette published his results last year, which proved our hypothesis that Bentham chips (a) to (a) are indeed pieces of WTC epoxy paint with kaolinite and iron oxide, I told myself: well, this is our apparent (and expected) victory, but what will I discuss now as a chemist on JREF? Perhaps something about homeopathy (what is another weird topic which had fascinated me for some years in the past)?"

Dr. Millette has never stated a belief that the chips he studied were Leclede primer paint.

This is nothing but a big lie which gets constantly repeated with the apparent hope that repetition will lead to belief.

"Well, as you know, we expect some 1.2 wt% of strontium chromate in Laclede primer. XEDS is definitely not able to prove it, since strontium peak is inevitably in overlap with silicon peak and, moreover, the concentration of this compound is too low."

"Problem is that chromium was present (as zinc chromate) also in Tnemec primer paint (and perhaps even in some other minor primers, unknown to us). So, clearly only strontium detection can be good enough as the "final" proof of Laclede paint."

"Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE.

It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it.

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede."

It is a year and a half later and Dr. Millette has not reported a change of mind.

MM

 

[MarkLindeman]

Dr. Millette has never stated a belief that the chips he studied were Leclede primer paint.

And Ivan did not say that he did. Perhaps you were reading too quickly?

This is nothing but a big lie which gets constantly repeated with the apparent hope that repetition will lead to belief.

Yeah, right.

The XEDS results may or may not demonstrate that Millette's chips match Bentham chips (a) through (d), but misrepresenting Ivan's words is an interesting choice of priorities.

 

[GlennB]

Just a reminder about Millette's study with regards to Ivan & Oystein's LeClede primer paint obsession.


Dr. Millette has never stated a belief that the chips he studied were Leclede primer paint.

This is nothing but a big lie which gets constantly repeated with the apparent hope that repetition will lead to belief.

It is a year and a half later and Dr. Millette has not reported a change of mind.

I've just read the quotes from Ivan that you included. He/they conclude the chips are epoxy-based paint. The 'specifically Laclede' part was speculation, quite likely wrong.

You're representing this to mean 'lack of Laclede' = 'not paint at all', which is little better than outright lying.

Let me remind you:

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."

My bolding.

 

[Miragememories]

"I've just read the quotes from Ivan that you included. He/they conclude the chips are epoxy-based paint. The 'specifically Laclede' part was speculation, quite likely wrong.

You're representing this to mean 'lack of Laclede' = 'not paint at all', which is little better than outright lying.

Let me remind you:

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.

My bolding."

If Ivan does not believe the highlighted chips in the 2009 Bentham paper are LaClede primer paint than he can say so himself.

He said he monitors this thread daily.

I agree with you that he is quite likely wrong. Something that he and Oystein have refused to admit.

Ivan has repeatedly stated he supports Oystein's LaClede paint theory.

"Harrit is apparently unaware of the fact that more than one type of primer was used on WTC steel.

He is talking about Tnemec.

Our [Ivan Kminek and Oystein], theory is that chips a-d from "Active Thermitic Material..." are LaClede standard primer from floor joists - a different formulation than the Tnemec from perimeter columns."

This is the epoxy-based paint Ivan is constantly referring to and that is why he continues to refer to LaClede when he talks about the chips being only paint.

Ivan and Oystein know that the 2009 Bentham paper already analyzed the only other candidate primer paint, Tnemec, so they are betting everything on LaClede.

Dr. Millette's study says a big NO to LaClede.

So.

If Dr. Millette was studying steel primer paint chips, as he and Ivan are arguing, they must be Tnemec which the 2009 Bentham paper has scientifically eliminated as a contender.

That eliminates the two steel primer paints known to have been used at the WTC.

Conclusion:

The 9/11 WTC dust red chips highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper were not steel primer paint.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

The 9/11 WTC dust red chips highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper were not steel primer paint.

Nor were they therm*te.


NF