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.
OK.
The resistivity test has no bearing on whether Millette analysed a different material as identified and documented in Harrit et al because the resistivity test does not feature in the description of the method to isolate the chips from the dust:
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. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from
roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray).
Page 9 under: 2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination
All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet.
Page 10.
I see that you have finally agreed that this is not a requirement for selection of red/gray chips from the dust. (I read your subsequent post before replying to this one).
I applaud you for that.
I believe chips a, b, c and d from Fig.7 of the 2009 Bentham paper are of similar chemical makeup
Again I welcome that you acknowledge that the EDX in Fig 7 shows a similar make-up between chips a, b, c, and d in Harrit et al.
but that they are not a match for Millette's selected chips a, b, c and d.
For everyone's information, Millette does not label any of his chips that have been separated by the same method as a, b, c and d.
Millette simply uses Fig 7 as part of his criteria for selecting chips that have a similar chemical make-up for further analysis. His SEM analysis of those chips isolated by the same method and showing EDX spectra equivalent to Fig 7 also include (SEM) images. These images are consistent with images taken by Harrit et al. The most similar of which is from specimen 9119X0135. The following is a comparison of the two:
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.
As far as I'm aware this is incorrect.
The following is from the Millette report:
These dust samples had been collected within a month of 11 September 2001 and sent to MVA for different projects. They are identified by the sample numbers shown below and on the New York City map shown in Figure 1. The red/gray chips discussed in this report were analyzed during the period from 18 November 2011 to 20 February 2012.
Some analytical results characterizing the particles in the dust from two of the samples (4808-L1616 and 9119-X0135) had been previously published in the scientific literature. 2,3
I have tabulated them:
MVA # |Date Collected |Sample Location |Map No.
4808-L1616 |28 September 2001 |22 Cortlandt St. |1
4795-L1560 |22 September 2001|Murray & Church St. |2
5230-M3451 |15-16 September 2001 |49 Ann St. |3
9119-X0135 |07 October 2001 |33 Maiden Lane |4
The following is from Harrit et al:
This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust. A map showing the locations where the four samples were collected is presented as Fig. (1).
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.
So the individual samples of dust are labelled 1-4 (by geographical location).
We then have the following connection between chips a, b, c and d and the samples 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the dust they have come from:
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).
Fig. (5). BSE images of cross sections of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The cross sections from sample 2 (b) and 4 (d) also show the adhering gray layer.
This implicitly ties individual chips labelled a-d to samples taken from the locations 1-4.
I'll tabulate this data so it can be compared with Millette using the information in Harrit et al:
Chip notation|Date Collected*|Collected by| Sample Location| Map No.
a|around 1 week after|MacKinlay|113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St|1
b|9/11/2001|Delessio/Breidenbach |Brooklyn Bridge|2
c|9/12/2001|Intermont|16 Hudson St|3
d|9/12/2001|White |1 Hudson St|4
*
On the morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay was in her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building. The building was closed for entry for about a week. As soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment, she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick
layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art piece.
The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio
who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was
on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time
the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He
saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick
dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful
of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the
end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the
North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom
Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of
them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic
bag.
On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape [17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It
was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7, which fell hours later.
On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New
York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of
1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found
a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry
near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm).
Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount
of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the
room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and,
on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis.
Another sample was collected from the apartment building at 16 Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm on 9/12/2001. Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008 for analysis. Intermont sent a signed affidavit with each sample verifying that he had personally collected the (nowsplit) sample;
These locations from both Millette and Harrit are shown below:
Remember that there are many chips isolated from each sample of dust from each location.
One of the biggest criticisms I have regarding the Harrit et al paper is the lack of correlation between individual chips and the relevant data. That is why chips a-d are the best to look at because they are all well labelled. You can easily look at the data corresponding to those chips and ascertain all the details in the trail.
We can also see that the chip subjected to MEK soaking was from sample 2; Delessio/Breidenbach (Brooklyn Bridge).
The chip that was used for this experiment was extracted from dust sample 2 and is shown in the images below. Fig. (12a) shows an SE image of the chip prior to the MEK treatment. It is positioned with the interface between the red and gray layers nearly parallel to the plane of the image. Fig. (12b) shows a BSE image of the chip after the MEK soak.
However, this does not mean that the MEK chip was chip b) in Fig 2, 5 and 7. It is a different chip otherwise it would be specified. There is no label for this chip which is why I've always referred to it as the "MEK chip"
Whilst we are on the subject of identifying which chips were subject to which analysis then I'd like it to be known that I have requested Chris Mohr to ask Dr Millette for a correlation between the EDX form specific chips and the data in the progress report.
I'll try to go back over the thread to find out where I request this. This is one of the reasons why a "test matrix" is so important. Essentially it's a table that documents which specimen had been subjected to which individual test.
I am not in disagreement with Millette that he found selected steel primer paint chips from his sample pile.
I think that this statement is disingenuous at best, doubly so, bearing in mind that you agree that the resistivity test is not a requirement for chip isolation and agree that the red layer in chips a-d are of the same chemical make-up in Harrit et al.
I would very much like you to expand on this.
All of the chips that Millette isolated using the magnet technique are presented in his progress report both visually and via EDX analysis of the red layer present on each dual layered chip. He did not select any of them, other than those matching the corresponding data in Harrit et al.
EDX spectra for the red layers of all isolated chips have been published in his report. He has provided more data than Harrit and Jones et al. Why haven't they published all of their data (including the FTIR data as promised) on their website(s)?
A large percentage of those chips do not have EDX spectra compatible with chips a-d as seen in Harrit et al. I urge anyone who has an interest to download the Progress report and actually look at the data.
Here are some examples of EDX spectra from chips that Millette isolated using the method detailed in Harrit et al but do not match the spectra in Harrit et al for chips a-d:
MM - do you agree that these spectra do not match Fig 7 from Harrit et al?
Here's the comparison for everyone else.
Oh and don't forget this:
Oops - looks like Millette managed to isolate some Tnemec red primer paint using the magnet technique.
It's highly likely that Millette isolated Tnemec red primer paint adhered to steel (just as Harrit et al did).
However, Millette had specific criteria to match the EDX spectra from Fig 7 in Harrit et al (labelled Fig 4 in his report). He states in the progress report:
Red/gray particles that matched the criteria (attracted to a magnet and an EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum) were then considered particles of interest and subjected to additional analytical testing. The additional tests included: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); SEM-EDS of cross-sections; low temperature ashing and residue analysis by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) with selected area electron diffraction (SAED) and EDS; muffle furnace ashing and residue analysis by PLM and TEM-SAED-EDS; ultra-microtome sectioning of the red layer and analysis by TEM-SAED-EDS; and solvent tests.
Results
The composition of the four samples of dust chosen for study were consistent with WTC dust previously published 2,3 (Appendix A).
Red/gray chips that had the same morphology and appearance as those reported by Harrit et al.1, and fitting the criteria of being attracted by a magnet and having the SEM-EDS x-ray elemental spectra described in their paper (Gray: Fe, Red: C,O, Al, Si, Fe) were found in the WTC dust from all four locations examined.
So as anyone can see, Millette was looking to match the material that Harrit et al had obtained and documented in their paper.
When MEK-soaked, Millette's chips softened as one would expect. In the 2009 Bentham paper, the chip which underwent a 55 hour MEK-soaking, did not soften.
The softening off chips is neither here nor there. Ivan Kminek detailed that cured epoxy does not soften as Chris Mohr's post above. We know conclusively that soaking in MEK does in no way determine the composition of the material.
Secondly it has been shown conclusively that the paint chip in Harrit et al whose red layer is analysed by EDX and shown in Fig 14 is in no way a match for those chips shown in Fig 7.
You yourself admit that chips a-d, whose red layers are analysed using EDX, as seen in Fig 7, are of the same chemical make-up. There is absolutely no correlation between the red layers in chips a-d and the chip subjected to MEK - as shown above and many times over.
Therefore the specific properties of this chip when subjected to soaking by MEK cannot be attributed to the chips a-d as labelled and documented in Harrit et al.
Is not the critical point here that Millette's MEK-soaked sample DID NOT PHYSICALLY BEHAVE LIKE THE MEK-SOAKED SAMPLE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO MATCH?
No, as attributed above and the numerous postings of Ivan Kminek, whose own testing and data show.
Soft vs hard represents a very significant variation.
No, as seen above.
It is important to note the very serious misrepresentation you are making here. Your so-called revelation of strontium is a false interpretation.
This is not a misrepresentation because data from a known truther shows the element is present.
The EDX spectrum above is a result of jacking up the gain from a 10 keV range to 20 keV.
15-20KeV is the standard range for EDX.
You will notice that the Fe, Al, Si signals are clipping as a result and that the background noise has been correspondingly elevated.
What we view in that example is simply a more detailed EDX spectrum as opposed to what we see in Harrit et al due to the constraints imposed.
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.
No, that is not true. If you look at the way in which SEDX/EDS/EDAX/EDX works given the fact that modern SEM XEDS analysis is driven via complex algorithms then you'll understand that the machine identifies Sr as being present.
If all EDX spectra had elements marked at their corresponding K, L and M electron transmission lines then the spectrum would be useless.
For a quick look at what can be detected look here:
http://www.unamur.be/services/microscopie/sme-documents/Energy-20table-20for-20EDS-20analysis-1.pdf
Note how many K, L and M lines there are, note the relevant KeV and transpose them on any of the EDX spectra in Harrit et al.
If SEM XEDS/EDS/EDX/EDAX was to mark every possible transmission line, irrespective of whether that element was present as collected via the detector, then any spectra would be unintelligible. That's one of the reasons why these expensive machines incorporate software to aid the user and illustrates why it's important to have an experienced analyst to look at the data.
An illustration of this is easily demonstrable using our very own subject. You only have to look at SEM EDX data from both Millette and Harrit to see that at around 1 KeV, Sodium (Na) is labelled on the EDX when anyone who has experience will know that there is an overlap of Sodium and Zinc (Zn) at that point. A knowledgeable user will look at all of the data and the nature of the sample they are looking at in order to identify one element or the other.
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.
You can bait me all you want. I've answered all of your questions in far more detail, using the readily available material, than you will ever do.
I'll respond further when I have more time to waste on you.
MM
I have all the time in the world for you and I like the feisty nature of your last sentence. I'm not one for censoring and prefer a debate with a bit of bite behind it.
You may also realise that I'm not just posting for you, but for everyone reading; truther, debunker or lurker, all of whom are equally important.
