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

[Gamolon]

b) The chip selection criteria are as specified in the isolation section of the paper and don't include separation of chips considered thermitic from those which are not, but instead consider all chips thermitic without distinguishing them. Given that there's no effort of characterizing each kind of chip on which an analysis is performed because all are considered the same thing, that makes the paper bad science.

Exactly.

 

[MarkLindeman]

What I find funny is that MM first said that the resisitivity test was done to make sure that none of the chips were paint. When it was pointed out to him that in the Bentham paper they only tested one chip for resisitivity, he moved onto the definitive test being the DSC. When it was pointed out to him the the DSC was not done on all the samples, he now says it had something to do with the specific color.

He said that, and then he stopped answering questions entirely, and then he returned to complain about "mud." I think that brings us up to the moment.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

As excellent as many of the responses and questions are regarding this particular subject it seems that it will always come to nothing.

IMHO the "truther" charlatans "researchers" never get past presenting half an argument and the "truther" cult members followers are left to extrapolate the other half. Since this is almost always well outside their chosen discipline, the results can be sometimes quite hilarious (if one doesn't take them too seriously).

Thermite is yet another example of this IMHO.

Just my 2 cents and props to some really great posts that are quite informative for reasons not related to nefarious government plots

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Miragememories
... If Ivan can find, and test, a credible material that ignites at ~430C, and leaves iron-rich micro-spheroids... MM

This primer paint test has already been done.

 

[Miragememories]

"It's kinda hard to do much with a guy who never ever responds to any of my emails requesting we work together on developing a protocol for their study.

I have been shunned by everyone involved in any dust experiments on the 9/11 Truth thermite experiment side.

Kind of an Amish thing, you know.

Amish thing?

What is there about Mark Basile's already thoroughly developed protocol that you feel fails to address your concerns?

MM

 

[chrismohr]

MM
No matter what I did, it was doomed to be rejected by 9/11 Truth people because I didn't have buyin ahead of time from at least some top 9/11 truth people. The same will happen with Basile's study and the JREF people if he goes ahead without buyin ahead of time.

Amish people formally "shun" members of their community who go too far astray and don't talk to them. It was a joke...

 

[Redwood]

What is there about Mark Basile's already thoroughly developed protocol that you feel fails to address your concerns?

MM

Does his protocol involve an ignition test under an inert atmosphere? Any ignition test not under an inert atmosphere is worthless. It doesn't even need to be a DSC. Basile could easily do a preliminary test with a jerry-rig setup in a single day.

Just go down to the local welding shop and purchase a small tank of nitrogen. Cross-check against an easily air-ignitable substance such as shredded paper. If his chip fails to ignite, no need to proceed any farther - it's not thermite.

What's the big hang-up? It's almost as though he's afraid to find out he's been wrong all these years.

 

[Redwood]

Jayzus Frickin' Kee-reist, here's a simple apparatus for doing a preliminary inert atmosphere ignition test on Basile's or Jones's chips.

Just go down to your local welding shop and purchase a small tank of nitrogen. Insert a PTFE two-hole stopper in a flask like this one - one to feed nitrogen through, another to insert the probe from an endoscopy camera. They're really cheap today, and you can feed directly from them into a USB port on your computer.

The nitrogen will flush out the atmospheric oxygen through the nipple in the side. Place your "nanothermite" chip in the bottom of the flask and focus the endoscopy camera on it. Use some shredded paper as a control. Choose your own heat source. If the paper and the chip decompose but fail to ignite, then the chip ain't thermite. If truthers are too lazy to do it, they can send a sample to me, plus $250, and I'll do it myself, and post videos of the whole damned thing.

 

[Miragememories]

Does his protocol involve an ignition test under an inert atmosphere? Any ignition test not under an inert atmosphere is worthless. It doesn't even need to be a DSC. Basile could easily do a preliminary test with a jerry-rig setup in a single day.

Just go down to the local welding shop and purchase a small tank of nitrogen. Cross-check against an easily air-ignitable substance such as shredded paper. If his chip fails to ignite, no need to proceed any farther - it's not thermite.

What's the big hang-up? It's almost as though he's afraid to find out he's been wrong all these years.

If you had bothered to look at the link showing his proposed study you would know that he does indeed intend to perform such a test in an inert atmosphere.

MM

 

[Redwood]

If you had bothered to look at the link showing his proposed study you would know that he does indeed intend to perform such a test in an inert atmosphere.

MM

Good. In that case, I showed above how a preliminary test can be done immediately and cheaply. No need to futz around asking for donations. Just do it, Baby!

From Harrit's Toronto presentation, he must have thousands of such chips. No need to worry about sacrificing a few in a destructive test.

 

[GlennB]

Amish thing?

What is there about Mark Basile's already thoroughly developed protocol that you feel fails to address your concerns?

MM

Basile's protocol fails (among other things) to identify elemental Al in the chips, which is a requirement for thermite. Other protocols might also be definitive and Millette's method leading to the finding of no elemental aluminium is one such.

The Bentham method waves aside the excessive exotherm as a by-product of thermitic behviour acting on the organic substrate.

Basile and Bentham both take the presence of iron-rich microshperes in the residue as proof of thermitic behaviour, and that is bad science.

Both have a protocol, but one that's biased towards the desired conclusion and inadequate to guide others towards unbiased replication. You yourself have previously pointed out that Millette must have got the "wrong" red-gray magnetically attracted chips when he followed the Basile/Bentham protocol and that in itself condemns the B/B protocol as scientifically useless.

I gets repetitious doesn't it? But as long as you refuse to face up to these points and people can be bothered to argue with you you're going to hear the same thing over and over.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Redwood: I think that also identifying of "elemental" Al is a part of Basile's "protocol", in the form of planned ESCA (XPS) measurements.

I know almost nothing about XPS, but the corresponding wiki entry X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy says e.g.:

"The photo-emitted electrons that have escaped into the vacuum of the instrument are those that originated from within the top 10 to 12 nm of the material." In other words, only very thin surface layer is reliably analyzed.

It seems that XPS is able to recognize somehow the "bonding" of the elements (e.g. whether the element is in an "elemental form" or in the form of some compound). But, since all aluminum particles are inevitably covered with the aluminum oxide layer with the thickness ca 5 nm, I doubt that the XPS search for elemental aluminum in those stacking Al/Si platelets with the thicknesses ca 40 nm can provide conclusive results... But I can be wrong and I am lazy to learn more in this respect now.

Anyway, it is just loss of time to study again those Al/Si-based platelets in Bentham chips (a) to (d), which were proven to be kaolinite by Jim Millette. If Basile still thinks that there is some Al metal in some red/gray chips, he should definitely look elsewhere

 

[Sunstealer]

Yes.

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

I'll give you the full question again as you seem to have ignored it.

• Is Zn and Cr contamination? If so, show how.

Don't selectively quote me again or try to give a smart alec response, it just shows you up for what you are.

 

[Sunstealer]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img163/9536/d5ih.png[/qimg]


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

Reading comprehension is not your forte is it? Read what I said again. Here's the proof that Fig 7 is not an accurate representation of the EDX spectrum produced by the analysis:

Now this is fine because of space constraints, however, they should mention the presence of other elements. Your problem is you've never seen a SEM in the flesh, don't know how they work, don't know what EDX/EDAX/XEDS is, never operated one and are incapable of learning when those that have show you like I just have.

The above spectrum is far more detailed than the spectra in Fig 7. That spectrum shows conclusively the presence of Sr and Cr as well as Ca and S. That spectrum is the MacKinlay one or sample 1 which is represented by chip a) in the paper. Look at Fig 7a again. Now tell me why S, Ca, Cr and Sr are not shown. That is right, it's not detailed enough. Ever get tired of being wrong? There is no mention in the Harrit et al paper of Strontium yet it was clearly found.

• Why is there no mention of Sr?
• What is the purpose of Sr in this claimed thermite?

Oh and that's on a sectioned chip so no "contamination" get out card can be played.

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

Buzzzzz. Wrong. You are easily fooled because you have no technical knowledge. You have put so much effort in to defending your fervently religious-like belief that it's impossible for you to see how poor the Harrit et al paper is or that the data in the paper actually identifies the material as paint adhered to steel.

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

The problem again is your lack of experience and knowledge of SEM.

Let me ask you this.

• What scanning method where the Harrit et al using? Were they using spot or area?
• Where is the identification of this contamination? Show me pictures of surface contamination.

If you understood how EDX works then you'd understand that the difference between Fig 7 and Fig 14 cannot possibly explained by contamination. Sure there may be very minor differences such as a slightly increased Ca peak but it cannot explain the huge differences, the different Bremsstrahlung and the Zn and Cr. We've been through this, let it go.

If contamination is present, then the MEK test is further proved to be meaningless because any separation of elemental aluminium came from the contamination and not the red layer.

Yep, the elemental Al described after soaking the chip in MEK was from surface contamination. So no thermite. If you disagree show why.

 

[Sunstealer]

Millette also rules out Tnemec.

PS: I think you can throw Sunstealer into the magical paint crowd, too.

I doubt you'll understand, but for the benefit of others.

Millette used the same separation technique as Harrit et al - use of a magnet. That means that in Millette's separated chips there are both Tnemec and Laclade paint chips.

Millette then used EDX to look at the red layer of ALL of these chips. He then compared ALL of the spectra to the spectra in chips a-d in Harrit et al.

All of the chips that were a close enough match to chips a-d (Laclade) were put in the "keep for further analysis" pile. The chips that didn't match (Tnemec and anything else) were put in the don't examine further pile.

When Millette performs analysis on the chips that match the chips a-d then it is impossible for him to find Tnemec because he's already removed all the Tnemec chips from the chips to be examined.

You can do a similar thing yourself: Get a big bowl of fruit, apples bananas, pears, grapes the lot.

Now pick out the fruit that is green and discard the rest. You are left with grapes and apples (and maybe some others).

Now use the apple criteria. Remove all the fruit that looks like an apple and put them in the "keep for further analysis" pile. All the rest put in the don't examine pile.

Now look at the apples. Are any of those apples a grape?

Of course not, yet that is exactly what ergo is saying! He is saying that Millette rules out grapes in his pile of separated apples therefore Sunstealer is wrong.

It's a silly and confused argument.

If you look at Millette's EDX data you can clearly see that there are spectra that are good matches for Laclade and good matches for Tnemec. Remember, truthers never analyse data so they wouldn't know.

Millette had Laclade and Tnemec and probably other magnetic material, however, the task set was to identify what material chip a-d were (apples) so there is no point in analysing further material that doesn't match chips a-d (grapes).

 

[Sunstealer]

[I've snipped the rubbish that isn't worth commentating on and left the rubbish that is]

A simulation based on the imagined results from an imagined test on the imagined composition of a substance that is unobtainable for actual real science testing.

It left you stunned and convinced.
MM

Again you show your ignorance of well established and accepted techniques that are used in industry and labs across the world on a daily basis. Oystein's and Almond's calculations based upon data published by NIST on Laclade composition using well defined Monte-Carlo simulation show just how wrong your ignorant statement is.

The results are an incredible match for spectra in Fig 7. I was surprised myself. If you showed those calculations and the results along with Fig 7 to any metallurgist or materials engineer with SEM experience he'd say that Laclade is an extremely good candidate for the red layer material in chips a-d.

One other thing us professionals do is to never look at data or results in isolation. Truthers always isolate the testing. When you add in all the other data such as the morphology of the particles found in the red layer, the EDX spectrum of those particles, (let alone Millette's FTIR, SEM and TEM work) clearly showing that iron oxide and kaolin pigments were present, not to mention the fact that the carbon matrix has been shown to be epoxy and epoxy fits the DSC data then the only conclusion one can come to is the material is paint and extremely likely to be Laclade red joist paint.

All the data points to that conclusion.

It's the above level of dishonesty that is the hallmark of the truth movement.

Almond has extensive SEM experience so is ideally placed to perform such analysis because he uses the tools daily. It's funny how someone who has never set foot in a materials lab is pontificating about a subject in which he knows nothing. Just bluster designed to mask the fact that he can't perform any analysis because he lacks the background, knowledge and training.

Why don't you be a bit more like Oystein and actually make the effort to actually learn something and then use that knowledge to do some original work?

You can bluster all you want, it won't pass here, as you well know.

(Is that civil enough for you mods? )

 

[Sunstealer]

Here is something from that recent article in aneta.org:

- Harrit et al. also mention another version of the chips in the dust, in very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, in addition to the chips examined in the paper. According to Jones, later unpublished analysis confirmed that these chips have the same red and gray layers as the standard bi-layered chips, along with different layers. He states that "thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper." When a blogger discovered a patent in July 2012, described as looking "like the manual for what was found in the WTC dust", Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best."

To my knowledge no one here has commented on this accusation. Any thoughts?

Anyone who has done any DIY or repaired a car or for that matter done any painting at all will be able to figure out why paint in multiple layers is present.

It's a testament to Jones' myopia and religious belief that he can't work out for himself why painted surfaces become layered in paint (due to multiple applications - oh there I've said it.)

 

[Sunstealer]

It's kinda hard to do much with a guy who never ever responds to any of my emails requesting we work together on developing a protocol for their study. I have been shunned by everyone involved in any dust experiments on the 9/11 Truth thermite experiment side. Kind of an Amish thing, you know.

Their response should tell you everything you need to know.

Look up the word "Pseudo-science" and you'll see that Harrit/Jones/Farrer/Basile etc fit into that category.

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html - look at the How can you recognize pseudoscience? section and see how it applies to all of the people above.

The very fact that they refuse to release samples is damning. What are they afraid of?

 

[Sunstealer]

Amish thing?

What is there about Mark Basile's already thoroughly developed protocol that you feel fails to address your concerns?

MM

Well he's wasting his time using DSC whether in air or inert atmosphere for a start. He'd be better of using money allocated to that to use another method that will positively identify what materials are present.

We know that there are two different red layers in the Harrit aet al paper. Truthers refuse to accept this criticism unless of course they are trying to pull the "he's got the wrong chips" nonsense, so unless there are tests to determine exactly what the material is then it's pointless to see how the material responds to DSC.

Secondly the DSC test is flawed anyway because there are 2 completely different materials in each chip - a gray metallic layer and a red epoxy based layer. You can't learn much from the use of DSC which is a weight based experiment when you don't know what weight each of the two layers makes up. This has been explained at least half a dozen times before.

DSC is a red-herring. They only did it because Tillitson and Gash did.

He would be far better of doing what Millette did and using low temperature ashing to separate out pigment particles and then examine them, thereby positively identifying the pigment.

Don't forget that Tnemec contains no kaolin or epoxy. Basile has no criteria for separating out chips that are identical to chips a-d. In his mind all red chips are the same material. His entire stance and hence methodology is flawed from the beginning. Quite funny really. Watch how they get a different FTIR spectrum because they are testing Tnemec or something else instead of the same material as chips a-d and then claim, "see, see, Millette had the wrong chips!"

Instead of dictating to the independent lab regarding which tests he wants he should simply say "identify the material". The lab will then, based upon the sample received and some preliminary testing, put together a test matrix with costing showing how this set of tests will positively identify the material. If costs are prohibitive then a bit of dialogue between parties will usually sort out the best bang for buck outcome.

The problem of course is this doesn't adhere to the truther psuedo-science of reproducibility whilst they ignore they're own reproducibility failings. No point reproducing test methods that are flawed

 

[Senenmut]

delete