Millette failed to determine what the composition of those chips were since he never proved the chips he examined met all the stated criteria.
"Absolute rubbish and you know it.
When I take Georgio through the comparison everyone will see that Millette did study the correct chips, namely those that matched chips a-d.
You will disagree no matter what because you lose face and have to back track on everything you've said if you agree.
You can't even agree with everyone else that chips a-d are the same material in Harrit et al!
Are the chips a-d in Harrit et al the same material?
Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question when there is no conjecture or argument over this issue?
Cue a dodgy and mealy mouthed reply."
"mealy mouthed"?
Is baiting and bullying respondents the standard academic approach you learned in school, or is childish incivility what they taught you?
I have repeatedly posted my disagreement about whether or not Millette's a-d chip selections were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
There are a number of valid reasons why I cannot agree with you on this.
Millette claims that the material he analyzed is primer paint but he could not match his chip selections to any specific primer paint used on the WTC steel.
Dr. Harrit et al tested the electrical resistivity of steel primer paint and highlighted red chip material. They found the red chip material had very low resistance and that steel primer paints had relatively
high resistance.
Millette soaked his chip sample in a MEK solution and it behaved in a manner associated with paint (
softened).
Dr. Harrit et al soaked their chip in a MEK solution for 55 hours and
it did not soften or dissolve.
Millette effectively eliminated Tnemec steel primer paint as a possibility when he could not find a chemical match with any of the 177 listed formulations.
The other candidate primer paint, LeClede he also eliminated from contention which Chris Mohr colourfully attested to. I have additional material arguing against LeClede primer paint but Millette's disagreement with it is sufficient argument for the moment.
Additionally, the steel primer paints used on the WTC steel are basically a ceramic material which is chemically stable up to 800 C.
Dr. Harrit's sample ignited at approximately 430 C.
Millette's TEM analysis showed his sample selections contained titanium and no lead.
Though unpublished, Dr. Harrit et al have TEM analysis that show traces of lead but no titanium.
Since Millette regrettably refused to do 430 C ignition tests, I won't bother introducing that argument.
Millette claims to have found kaolin plates (common to paint) as thin as 6 nm.
Dr. Harrit et al report consistent platelets "approximately 40 nm thick".
Additionally, Dr. Harrit et al discovered that MEK paint solvent induced swelling that segregated the silicon from the aluminum thus establishing that the those two elements were not chemically bound and therefore, the plates were not kaolin.
You (Sunstealer), have made much to-do about Fig.14 in the 2009 Bentham paper, claiming an XEDS spectrum match with Tnemec steel primer paint.
The problem is that you ignore the fact that that particular chip sample had an unwashed and contaminated surface whereas the other XEDS spectrum results were obtained from clean uncontaminated surfaces.
In addition, Tnemec only has aluminum bound to calcium. Tnemec also contains zinc. As observed in the XEDS spectra for cleaned chips, once the surface contamination is removed, the calcium and the zinc no longer appear.
There is more to report about the finding of elemental aluminum but I'll stop here for now.
Millette obviously tested chosen chips which were visually similar and attracted to a magnet but by no means a match for the highlighted chips referred to in the 2009 Bentham paper.
MM
