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

[Miragememories]

Ivan Kminek, why are you hiding from the Truth?

The world still awaits your response Ivan Kminek.

Do you and Oystein still insist that the red chips studied by Dr. Millette and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper are LaClede primer paint?

MM

 

[Gamolon]

Truthers, including the authors of the paper, have no answers for the presence of Zn and Cr.

• Why is Zn and Cr present?
• What is the purpose of Zn and Cr in thermite?
• Is Zn and Cr contamination? If so, show how.
• Why are Zn and Cr only present in some chips but not others?
• Why, if military grade super-nanothermite can only be produced in laboratories, is the process control so poor?

So what do Harrit and truthers think the Bentham paper found? Was it strictly thermite or was it thermite mixed with something else (primer paint?) so it could be applied to the steel?

This is what kills me. The paper clearly states that ALL the chips were thermitic. Then some authors and truthers come out after and say there were different types of these chips. They paper even clearly states that the chips WERE NOT paint. Why the contradiction here?

Harrit and his group extracted chips that had red/gray layers and were attracted to a magnet. According to Frank Legge, Jones, MM, and others, they found various "types" of extracted, red gray, magnetically attracted chips which include paint chips, some "thermitic", some other types.

How did they find this out? What tests were done to separate them out and why weren't these results published in the paper?

To Sunstealer's point above, as a scientist, wouldn't you want to know how these chips, similar visually (having red/gray layers) and being attracted to a magnet, differed CHEMICALLY? Why wasn't this information published? They had to have known this to know there were different kinds of chips.

Let see. I have chip a which is comprised of A, B, C, and D (paint). I have a chip which is comprised of A, B, C, D, E, F (thermitic).

Wouldn't you publish that? Isn't that important?

 

[ergo]

You said they tested red/gray paint chips that were magnetically attracted. Can you show us where they did that?

Can you show me where I said that?

 

[ergo]

• Is Zn and Cr contamination?

Yes.

Wow, that answers four of your questions. Funny how that works.

On the other hand, us debunkers with technical knowledge and experience,

You've already identified a simple test to prove your theory. Why won't you do it? Is it because 9/11 researchers already did and have debunked your claim?

 

[Dcdrac]

9/11 researchers have done nothing other than prove they live in a fantasy world bubble bereft of hard evidence and proof.

 

[Gamolon]

Can you show me where I said that?

No problem. Let's go back to the beginning. Here is MM's quote...

It is the aftermath of combustion which is attention grabbing.

WTC paint is not going to produce iron-rich microspheroids.

MM

To which Sunstealer replied...

But "WTC paint" adhered to oxidised steel will.

You replied to Sunstealer's quote above with...

That should be pretty easy to confirm. Would like to see that.

So you would like to see "WTC paint adhered to oxidised steel" produce iron-rich microspheroids, implying that it hasn't been done yet.

I then asked you the following, curious as to why Harrit and his group didn't test any of the paint chips separated out...

Why didn't Harrit do this? According to Jones, MM, and others, they HAD paints chips.

To which you replied...

They did.

So you explicitly said they tested paint chips they separated out and I am asking you to show me where they state this. Please point me to the test that they did on red/gray, magnetically attracted PAINT CHIPS that were separated out from the thermtic chips.

Why did they have to go to outside sources to get information regarding paint chips THEY ALREADY HAD. Why did they go to outside sources to garner OTHER pint samples to test when THEY ALREADY HAD PAINTS CHIPS in their possession?

The Bentham paper clearly states that they found no other types of red/gray, magnetically attracted chips in their samples and that all tests indicate thermite of some kind. Yet later, Jones, Legge, MM, and others claim there WERE different types of these chips. Where is the data on how they determined this and what where the results?

For example, how do the red/gray paint chips compare to the red/gray thermitic chips? Why wasn't this information published?

 

[NoahFence]

The world still awaits your response Ivan Kminek.


MM

LOL!!!


There's only like 4 people who give a crap, and you're one of them.

The world... please. Truthers are gnats. Insignificant and irrelevant.

 

[Miragememories]

"1. The MEK soaked chip is a different material to chips a-d because chips a-d show no presence of Zn accompanying Cr.

instead Sr and Cr are present indicating a different corrosion inhibitor was used.

(Note that Fig 7 EDX spectra are not detailed enough to identify the presence of Sr or Cr, that information was obtained elsewhere.)"

Other than the absence of surface contaminants, I'm not sure why you feel Fig. 7 provides less detail than Fig. (14)?

All 5 chips are presented in the 2009 Bentham paper and were determined to be thermitic.

Chips from batches a,b,c, & d were exposed to contamination during the 9/11 WTC destruction and were cross-sectioned to provide a clean surface for XEDS.

The MEK-soaked chip, which was also also exposed to contamination during the 9/11 WTC destruction, came from batch (b), but was not cross-sectioned leaving a 'dirtier' surface for XEDS.

Of course the XEDS of its surface showed differences.

MM

 

[ergo]

So you explicitly said they tested paint chips they separated out and I am asking you to show me where they state this.

No I didn't. I said they tested paint chips. Which they did, with flame.

Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.

I'm not aware of any reports of magnetically attracted WTC paint chips. I'm not denying they exist necessarily; I just don't know who is making this claim.

 

[pgimeno]

It is the aftermath of combustion which is attention grabbing.

WTC paint is not going to produce iron-rich microspheroids.

On the other hand, thermite IS going to produce aluminium oxide.

So now we know what the iron spheres are not, and what the substance that burned is not.

There's a plausible hypothesis as for what the iron spheres are: part of the gray layer. And there's another plausible hypothesis as for what the substance that burned is: epoxy binder.

Millette confirmed that there was epoxy resin, strengthening that hypothesis. He also confirmed that there was no elemental aluminium to start with, therefore no thermite, which explains why there was no aluminium oxide in the residue. Now you can ask all you want what these spheres are. I am only mildly interested. And I suspect Millette might have lost interest too.

 

[pgimeno]

Pgimeno:


Yes, but I based this "warning" on just this one paper (although a good one). I am still not sure what would be the thermic effect of heating e.g. epoxy Laclede paint under inert.

Sure. I think it's sound advice and should be followed. Since your post explains that there's a possibility that even under an inert atmosphere there's an exotherm, it's a good call for cautiousness, which was what I was trying to convey.

 

[ergo]

Millette confirmed that there was epoxy resin, strengthening that hypothesis.

And this in no way contradicts what Harrit and Jones have suggested.

He also confirmed that there was no elemental aluminium to start with,

Confirmed is the wrong word. He came to that conclusion. If he was confirming something, it would be prior findings. Whose prior findings was he confirming?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

The world still awaits your response Ivan Kminek.

Do you and Oystein still insist that the red chips studied by Dr. Millette and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper are LaClede primer paint?

MM

Yes, Sir

 

[ergo]

Why would Laclede primer paint be so different behaviourally from the 800 C stable Tnemec primer paint? Can you answer that, Ivan Kminek?

(And when are you going to prove it.)

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted... double post owing to the slow connection.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Why would Laclede primer paint be so different behaviourally from the 800 C stable Tnemec primer paint? Can you answer that, Ivan Kminek?

(And when are you going to prove it.)

1) Tnemec primer cannot be "800 C stable" as well as the Laclede primer. In both primers, prevailing polymeric binders are inevitably burned out at such high temperatures. If somebody (e.g. Harrit) claims that Tnemec can survive these temperatures (is "stable"), he is simply wrong.

2) We have no detailed micrographs of authentic Tnemec attached to corresponding rust flakes after such heating available. Perhaps, those microspheres are formed even from Tnemec red/gray chips, but we do not know it.

3) We do not know what red/gray materials were burned in DSC in Bentham paper. We can just suppose that most of them were prevailing red/gray chips (which should be Laclede primer chips, according to expected high abundance in the dust). But, the detailed comparison of the shapes of four available DSC curves indicates that they may represent two different paints:

But, it is hard to be conclusive in this regard and I personally think that all curves can still represent the behavior of the same stuff.

 

[ergo]

1) Tnemec primer cannot be "800 C stable" as well as the Laclede primer. In both primers, prevailing polymeric binders are inevitably burned out at such high temperatures. If somebody (e.g. Harrit) claims that Tnemec can survive these temperatures (is "stable"), he is simply wrong.

Those are the temperatures cited by NIST. The paint begins to spall at around 650 C. NIST tested the samples beyond 800 C, with increased spalling occurring at that point.

Do you disagree with NIST's findings?

2) We have no detailed micrographs of authentic Tnemec attached to corresponding rust flakes after such heating available. Perhaps, those microspheres are formed even from Tnemec red/gray chips, but we do not know it.

What are Tnemec red-grey chips?

We do not know what red/gray materials were burned in DSC in Bentham paper. We can just suppose that most of them were prevailing red/gray chips (which should be Laclede primer chips, according to expected high abundance in the dust). But, the detailed comparison of the shapes of four available DSC curves indicates that they may represent two different paints:

They're not Tnemec paint. That's been ruled out by H & J, Millette, and by experiment. It has been conclusively ruled out. There's no hems or haws about it. So what two paints are you now hypothesizing? And how many more fantasy paints are 9/11 bedunkers going to be dreaming up?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I have no problem with NIST findings. No wonder that burned Tnemec layer began to spall from the massive steel elements at high temperatures, as observed by NIST. The deformation of the red layer after burning of the binder is fully expectable.

Tnemec red/gray chips are simply chips of Tnemec paint attached to corresponding oxidized steel flakes. One good example of such a chip is very probably so called "Bentham MEK chip".

As I already wrote: I personally think that red/gray chips burned in DSC had to be mostly Laclede paint chips - just because of their expected prevalence. Tnemec and Laclede primers are no "fantasy paints", their presence in the dust is well proven - contrary to your "fantasy nanothermites"

 

[ergo]

I have no problem with NIST findings. No wonder that burned Tnemec layer began to spall from the massive steel elements at high temperatures, as observed by NIST. The deformation of the red layer after burning of the binder is fully expectable.

But you're suggesting that Tnemec paint would ignite at 430 C, producing iron microspheres. Clearly it doesn't.

Tnemec red/gray chips are simply chips of Tnemec paint attached to corresponding oxidized steel flakes. One good example of such a chip is very probably so called "Bentham MEK chip".

Oh, so you're making something up. The chips weren't Tnemec. Did you not get that part?

As I already wrote: I personally think that red/gray chips burned in DSC had to be mostly Laclede paint chips - just because of their expected prevalence. Tnemec and Laclede primers are no "fantasy paints", their presence in the dust is well proven - contrary to your "fantasy nanothermites"

But Tnemec has been ruled out by all those who have physically investigated the possibility. So it's not Tnemec.

If Laclede was so prevalent, why have you found no samples of it yet?

Man, I had no idea you guys were this far behind in your fantasy conjecturing. Who do you think is still listening to you at this point? Good lord.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

But you're suggesting that Tnemec paint would ignite at 430 C, producing iron microspheres. Clearly it doesn't.

How do you know it? It is no more than your wishfull thinking

Oh, so you're making something up. The chips weren't Tnemec. Did you not get that part?

I just wrote that MEK chip was probably Tnemec chip. It is quite probable that Tnemec chips are quite rare in the dust in comparison with Laclede chips, since e.g. the massive perimeter steel was much less deformed during the catastrophe than comparatively "tiny" floor trusses. This can be the reason why Millette did not recognize clearly any Tnemec chip in his study.

But Tnemec has been ruled out by all those who have physically investigated the possibility. So it's not Tnemec.

If Laclede was so prevalent, why have you found no samples of it yet?

Man, I had no idea you guys were this far behind in your fantasy conjecturing. Who do you think is still listening to you at this point? Good lord.

We have found no samples of Laclede paint since no floor trusses are available anywhere, even for Jim Millette, who tried to find them. But we have its detailed specification available in NIST report. And this specification is in a very good/excellent agreement with the properties of Bentham chips (a) to (d), which were declared to be nanothermite by Harrit et al