Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Millette's paper beats the fraud of Jones. Keep up the failed support for fraud. Is your work published somewhere? You act like you have proof of thermite, but don't understand the DSC proves it is not thermite. Why are two samples less than thermite in energy? Why does Jones thermite not get hot?
Nope, the description is entirely appropriate when dealing with people like you who have zero relevant knowledge or education on the subject and who post in the manner that you do.
meal·y-mouthed
[mee-lee-moutht, -mouthd] Show IPA
adjective
avoiding the use of direct and plain language, as from timidity, excessive delicacy, or hypocrisy; inclined to mince words; insincere, devious, or compromising.
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.
That was not the question I asked and you know it is not the question I asked. You have been asked dozens of times yet you refuse. This is mealy mouthed and dodging the question.
I shall repeat it for the umpteenth time. Here is the EDX spectrum for the red layers on chips a-d in the Harrit et al paper.
Do you agree that chips a, b, c and d in the above diagram are the same material?
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.
Irrelevant - paint is paint is paint. We've said this all along. Even if we could not determine the specific paint that Harrit analysed that does not detract from the fact he found paint and not thermite.
To expand on this: Millette's criteria is to match his chips to chips a-d in Harrit.
Chips a-d in Harrit are NOT Tnemec red primer paint therefore this will automatically be ruled out. Millette only had the data for Tnemec red, he didn't have the data for Laclade red joist paint when he made that statement.
The only thing Millette stated was he didn't observe any Strontium in his samples but that is to be expected as his EDX analysis was on the surface where we'd expect Strontium ions to leach from whilst the Chromium ions migrate to the substrate's (steel's) surface. That's the entire point regarding Strontium Chromate as a corrosion inhibitor.
Lastly the EDX data Millette supplied do not show any great detail. We know that chips a-d contain strontium because we have a more detailed EDX spectrum from one of the chips:
Contrast that with Fig 7 (the one you refuse to answer on)
So everyone can see that Fig 7 is not the true detail. The same is true for Millette's EDX figs because they are so small.
That figure with the notation "Label A: Cross Section" is a chip from MacKinlay, which is from dust found in her apartment.
2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination
For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4.
If we now look at how Harrit et al labels chips a-d they say:
Fig. (2). Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Interesting to see that even though Strontium and Chromium are present it isn't commented upon in the paper. That would be no surprise if the authors only saw the less detailed EDX spectrum.
What Harrit et al did is quote resistivity data from a paper:
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31].
[31] Abu Ayana YM, El-Sawy SM, Salah SH. Zinc-ferrite pigment for corrosion protection. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 1997; 44(6): 381-8.
You have repeatedly said that Harrit tested primer paint and you've repeatedly been shown that he nor his team did. It is not mentioned in the paper at all. The only reason you keep bringing the resistivity up is because you falsely claim that resistivity is a criteria for chip isolation - it isn't and the Harrit et al paper does not state resistivity as a criteria for isolating chips.
You have been caught making things up and when pulled up on it continued to try to lie your way out. That won't wash here when many people know the Harrit er al paper inside out.
and highlighted red chip material. They found the red chip material had very low resistance and that steel primer paints had relatively high resistance.
They tested one chip of unknown origin. That chip is supposedly comprised of two different materials, one of which is predominantly metallic.
They never compared their data with actual Laclade or Tnemec red primer paint. The test is pointless and this has already been explained in great detail to you.
Different types of paint will behave differently when soaked in MEK. It depends on a range of factors. This has already been explained to you (by Redwood, Ivan Kminek and others) in detail. There is nothing that the MEK soaking can tell us about the actual compounds present in the red layer over and above what we can already observe in the SEM data. It's a pointless test.
Instead of keeping that in the paper the authors excluded FTIR data which would tell you exactly what the organic compound the red layer was mostly comprised of. They substituted a naff test for one that would be clear to all what the material was.
Again this makes no difference because the material soaked in MEK by Harrit et al does not match the material in chips a-d. Soaking a substance in MEK is not going to tell you what the material is. See above.
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.
Of course Millette would reject tnemec red primer paint for his samples that matched chips a-d in Harrit et al.
The chips a-d in Harrit et all are NOT Tnemec red primer paint. You know this already. It's been discussed. There has never been any doubt, even from day 1 that chips a-d or the equivalent chips Millette tests further are Tnemec.
However, Millette has other chips that are very good matches for Tnemec red primer paint, he simply never performed further tests on them because those chips did not meet the criteria and therefore the scope of work Millette was asked to do, just as Fig 14 shows that the chip Harrit soaked in MEK is actually Tnemec red primer paint and therefore cannot be used in the same data set as chips a-d in the same paper.
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.
Doesn't matter if Millette rules out all red primer paints in the world. The fact of the matter is he correctly matches his samples to Harrit et al using exactly the same isolation technique taken from the paper and the same techniques, namely SEM with EDX, that allow the materials engineer to ascertain whether the materials in question are the same.
Harrit's unidentified chips undergo containing multiple materials exhibit an exotherm over a range of temperature whose peak is approximately at 430°C.
This test does not identify what the material is, but more damningly does not correlate with any data on known thermite. The temperature is far too low.
or for that matter any other data in Harrit et al. No Lead is seen here.
The only mention of Lead in Harrit is
We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers.
Harrit et al only observe that some chips contain Lead, but this is not shown on the chips a-d that they claim are thermite.
Why are you not questioning the fact that Millette finds no Lead but that Harrit et al don't find Lead in all their chips?
Why do you leap on the fact that Millette's chips appear to not contain Lead and use that as an argument, but refuse to use the same criteria for Harrit's own chips which also don't contain Lead?
You are not using equal criteria.
Did you know that some of Millette's chips also contained copper? Specifically as identified through TEM on hexagonal Si/Al platelets.
Why do you not mention this match with Harrit's own observation?
Secondly Titanium was observed in post DSC residue, namely Fig 25, here it is at the top:
So where did that Titanium come from? It had to have been present in the chip subjected to DSC. It's not going to magically appear.
So any attempt by you to claim that Millette had the wrong chips because they do not contain Lead but do contain Titanium is wrong, because we have evidence from the same paper that you champion, that explicitly shows that evidence of Lead or Titanium is not universal.
Naturally occurring minerals such as Kaolinite, along with other minerals used in the manufacture of coatings are going to contain other elements by their very nature. This is one of the reasons why the Harrit et al paper observes the presence of elements that would never be present in thermite.
Harrit et al ask a question:
We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others?
Incidentally, why did Harrit, as lead author, not insist that the TEM data was included instead of rubbish like the resistivity test, DSC, MEK soaking and a picture of someone igniting chips with a torch?
Why haven't they published this data just like they promised to publish the FTIR data?
You have already done so on numerous occasions yet refuse to acknowledge the answers.
Millette's task was to positively identify the material that matched chips a-d in the Harrit et al paper. There is no need to heat the chips to 700°C as per the DSC test or heat them to 430°C to do that. DSC cannot positively identify such a range of materials as observed in chips a-d let alone the material found in Fig 17 or any of the other myriad of materials Harrit et al separated with a magnet.
The reason for low temperature ashing was to remove the organic material so that analysis using TEM could be performed in order to identify the particles present in the organic matrix.
He successfully does this and shows that Kaolin, iron oxide pigment and some Titanium Dioxide is present.
This is where you get the presence of Titanium from. Anyone who knows anything about coatings will know that TiO2 produces a white colour. It's used extensively through industry and is used in paper and plastics as well as paint. There is no mystery here.
This is a good example of your dishonesty and the fact that you are trying to twist observations to suit your own agenda.
Millette states (on page 4 under Results) his observations regarding the thickness of Kaolin plates:
The SEM-EDS and backscattered electron (BE) analysis of the cross-sections of the gray layer in the red/gray chip showed it to be primarily iron consistent with a carbon steel. The cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin. The thinnest kaolin plates were on the order of 6 nm with many sets of plates less than 1 micrometer thick. Small x-ray peaks of other elements were sometimes present. The particles were in a carbon-based matrix (Figures 10 through 15) (Appendix D).
The thinnest observed where 6nm thick and therefore not all of them where of that thickness.
1 micrometer is 1 micron. 1 micron = 1000nm (nanometers)
So as you and everyone else can see, the 40nm thickness observed by Harrit et al falls easily within the range that Millette observed. People without SEM experience will regularly think that the very tiny area observed by SEM and subsequently published is completely typical of the entire sample. It's not, and one must bear that in mind, especially when dealing with a myriad of particles, that differences in size are to be expected.
Kaolinite is a natural material and will therefore form a range of sizes within the characteristic hexagonal platelet shape. EDX performed on these thin hexagonal platelets by Millette matches the same data from Harrit et al due to the peak height ratio of Al/Si and therefore shows that these platelets are the same material in both instances.
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.
Dr Harrit was soaking a chip that didn't contain any material that had Silicon bonded to Aluminium. The MEK soaked chip does not contain Kaolin.
There is absolutely no evidence in the paper showing that the chip soaked in MEK is the same material as chips a-d. The paper does not show the chip's surface in the same detail as chips a-d in figs; 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. Therefore there is no way to ascertain any separation of elements.
Similarly this chip is claimed to be contaminated. There is no indication in the paper to say that the chip was cleaned prior to soaking in MEK. Therefore there is no way to determine whether a separation of elements is simply surface contamination migrating to one area and then being identified.
Anyone who has eyes can clearly see the correlation between Si and O and Al and O. See fig 15.
No one is saying that this chip contains kaolin and therefore a correlation between Al and Si exists to any extent.
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.
All ready discussed numerous times. There is no way that contamination of the surface can explain this:
I have made a correction, identifying the proper peaks from the original:
turning into this:
(which you refuse to comment upon)
especially given this:
The bottom image is taken from a talk by Jones whereby he claims that this EDX spectrum is of WTC primer paint and then he compares this to the chips a-d in Harrit et al.
Here is an up to date image taken from a the talk:
which can be found here (see 1.14:51 and onwards):
So anyone can see that the EDX spectrum that Jones presents as Tnemec red primer paint matches the chip in Fig 14 that was soaked in MEK. This also shows that Oystein's Monte-Carlo simulations regarding Tnemec red are correct as are his simulations on Laclade for chips a-d)
The fact that Jones is only comparing one known primer paint with to specific samples a-d, when there are actually two known primer paints, as discovered by our friend; the late Ivan Kminek, whilst ignoring the fact that his data matches Fig 14 which is the chip soaked in MEK is telling. He is only comparing one set of data and conveniently ignoring the other, either through ignorance, incompetence or fraud.
Again; we've been through all of this but MM refuses to acknowledge the data.
Not true. The composition of Tnemec is as follows:
An aluminate is a chemical compound containing Aluminium as part of a negative ion. So you have to include Oxygen as part of the compound in this case.
It's easily seen from Fig 15 in Harrit et al that even after soaking there is a strong correlation between Al and O as well as Si and O as expected. Funny how there is no corresponding map for Ca even though MM states categorically that Al is only bound to Ca. MM - why is there no map for Ca when it was so predominant on the pre-soaked EDX? Why would anyone assume that the entire presence of Ca was due to contamination when it was known that Tnemec red contains Ca?
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.
Detail explicitly, quoting from the Harrit et al paper, where cleaning, by whatever means, is shown.
Some of Millette's chips, which he didn't further observe due to them being outside the criteria of matching the red layer of chips a-d in Harrit at al comprehensively show the presence of both Zn and Ca after washing with de-ionized water. (They are a good match for Tnemec red btw)
Unfortunately you have this notion that the EDX spectrum in Fig 14 is the same as that in Fig 7 (You know, the one you won't comment on). It's not as if I haven't shown above (and previously in the many threads) that this is not true.
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.
Again wrong. Millette not only uses the Harrit et al paper's criteria for separating chips of interest in exactly the same way as detailed in the paper (without your ludicrous resistivity test which is false), but also goes on to separate the chips for further testing that comprehensively match the data as shown in Harrit et al.
All of your points have been thoroughly shown to be nonsense and nothing more than desperation.
No it doesn't - in fact teh residue shows exactly the opposite - as I have previously explained. Once again, here is a photo of the residue:
You can clearly see the hexagonal platelets still present. You can clearly see the rhomboidal iron oxide pigment still present. That means that these components did not react even though the test reached 700°C, some 270°C above the temperature that is claimed that these reactants reacted!
If the local temperature reached above the melting point of iron; 1540°C, then we'd expect to see no structures of the reactants. The fact that we still see hexagonal platelets and rhombohedral iron oxide present after such heating proves that there is no thermite reaction between the two.
That one photo on it's own debunks the entire paper.
Secondly there is no analysis of the products associated with the thermite reaction, which is:
Fe2O3 + Al --> Fe + Al2O3
The paper does not identify any Al2O3 as a by-product of the reaction and therefore cannot claim that the above reaction has occurred unlike Gash and Tillitson, which the Harrit et al paper references and tries to base itself upon.
You have been told this numerous times but continue to ignore this crucial fact.
Sunstealer and MM,
I don't think any mention was made of the fact that Ivan had concocted some fake LaClede primer paint, and if I remember correctly, he did an MEK soak on the paint he created based on the LaClede formula he found, and the chips did not dissolve or soften, but stayed hard for months! Even if his fake LaClede paint wasn't the actual stuff, at the very least it does show that different kinds of paints behave differently when subjected to MEK soaks... and his fake LaClede paint actually behaved in a way that was the same as the chips Harrit/Jones soaked.
Soon I will be releasing some new information about the "different chips" argument. Stay tuned as I put the finishing touches on my YouTube epilogue.
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.
I would nominate this but I know how that goes. IMO, this is as concise and straightforward a response to the Millette study as I've read on here.
I try to stay out of these highly technical threads, but I do read them, and I have been curious about the specific arguments against Millette. In sum, it's disheartening that this is where we are all these years later.
For the moment, I am only going to address the most glaring and most relevant responses you made. The more 'red herring-like' issues like the resistivity test have little bearing on the proof that Millette analyzed a different material than Dr. Harrit et al.
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.
I believe chips a, b, c and d from Fig.7 of the 2009 Bentham paper are of similar chemical makeup but that they are not a match for Millette's selected chips a, b, c and d.
For the uninitiated, the a, b, c and d references only share agreement with the Millette report in so far as they relate to the 9/11 geographical locations from which they were sampled.
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.
"Irrelevant - paint is paint is paint. We've said this all along. Even if we could not determine the specific paint that Harrit analysed that does not detract from the fact he found paint and not thermite."
"The EDX data Millette supplied do not show any great detail. We know that chips a-d contain strontium because we have a more detailed EDX spectrum from one of the chips:
It is important to note the very serious misrepresentation you are making here. Your so-called revelation of strontium is a false interpretation.
The EDX spectrum above is a result of jacking up the gain from a 10 keV range to 20 keV.
You will notice that the Fe, Al, Si signals are clipping as a result and that the background noise has been correspondingly elevated.
The Sr (strontium) peaks are non-existent as that is only noise and barely perceptible at that. They are only marked on the display because that is where they would have occurred IF they had been present.
You really reveal your lack of scientific integrity when you attempt such blatant dishonesty. It is particularly of concern because this was pointed out to you much earlier is this thread.
I'll respond further when I have more time to waste on you.
For the moment, I am only going to address the most glaring and most relevant responses you made. The more 'red herring-like' issues like the resistivity test have little bearing on the proof that Millette analyzed a different material than Dr. Harrit et al.
I think it's a hoot that you folks insist on using spectral analysis of paint chips and other particulate matter with your FEA's and EDX's and all that crap when anybody with a functioning brain knows there was no controlled demolition of ANY kind.
Please tell me (MM) this is just a hobby of some kind. You don't actually believe you'll prove inside jobby job, do you?
I think it's a hoot that you folks insist on using spectral analysis of paint chips and other particulate matter with your FEA's and EDX's and all that crap when anybody with a functioning brain knows there was no controlled demolition of ANY kind.
Please tell me (MM) this is just a hobby of some kind. You don't actually believe you'll prove inside jobby job, do you?
Harrit et al. report, "The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution." Millette reports, "Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within."
If this is among your strongest arguments that Millette's chips are fundamentally different from Harrit et al.'s four chips, one shudders to imagine your weakest ones. But Harrit et al.'s paper is infirmed either way.
Ironically, no thermite was used on 911. Jones and Harrit's fraud is seen in their paper, whereas Millette's paper is straight science. Not surprising 911 truth has to attack Millette's paper since is found no thermite, can the same people can't see Jones and Harrit did not prove they found thermite.
There is nothing technical about Jones and Harrit's paper. It is clear they have to quibble about the chips they loosely claim to be thermite. Two chips with more energy than thermite and two chips with less energy. Jones makes up an excuse the binder adds energy, but why does the same binder add less energy?
Funny paper, it only takes reading comprehension to see the fraud.
But the big red flag of woo for thermite. No evidence of damage to any steel by thermite. Kind of makes the thermite studies a waste of time; add that to the USGS study and the study for the bank building, we end up with no thermite.
It is interesting to see 911 truth try to do chemistry, and fail to see Jones is a fraud on thermite.
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.
I will concede that the 2009 Bentham paper only reported actual measurement of the resistivity of the red chip material.
They did not publish the resistivity measurements for paint as that data was already published as a tabulated reference.
I regret any misunderstanding on this point and it was never my intention to lie. My focus was on the red chip material and not the readily available paint data.
This in no way means that the comparison data for the resistivity of steel primer paints was erroneous.
If you can find any contradictory data regarding the resistivity of Tnemec or LeClede steel primer paints please present it.
Dr. Harrit et al said:
"We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints…"
"Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material."
R.I.P. "Btw, I've just tried to measure the resistivity of my Laclede imitation chip, using simple two probe method (two strips of silver paste were first applied to make good contacts, their distance was ca 3 mm). But, for my multimeter Agilent U1242A, the resistance is too high (not measurable).
I will concede that the 2009 Bentham paper only reported actual measurement of the resistivity of the red chip material.
They did not publish the resistivity measurements for paint as that data was already published as a tabulated reference.
I regret any misunderstanding on this point and it was never my intention to lie. My focus was on the red chip material and not the readily available paint data.
This in no way means that the comparison data for the resistivity of steel primer paints was erroneous.
If you can find any contradictory data regarding the resistivity of Tnemec or LeClede steel primer paints please present it.
This does not change any of the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper which is why I consider it a 'red herring'.
The resistivity measurement was a useful but unnecessary aid in selecting candidate red chip material.
I believe chips a, b, c and d from Fig.7 of the 2009 Bentham paper are of similar chemical makeup but that they are not a match for Millette's selected chips a, b, c and d.
MM
Hi gang,
We all know the DSC images comparing and superimposing known nanothermite to the red-grey chips, how they are off by over 100 degrees C and off by a factor of two to five re energy release. I've been looking for other DSC images of paint, kaolin/expoxy, organic compounds, etc to see if there are any materials whose exothermic curve looks at all similar to these DSC images we already know (in temperature range and energy release). Can anyone help in this research?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
