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

[Sunstealer]

Hmm..where to start.

As you must be able to clearly see Chris, Sunstealer stated proof of Sr (strontium), by dishonestly misrepresenting Dr. Harrit's XEDS data and the context in which Dr. Harrit presented it.

No I've not misrepresented the data as you will see from post on the topic.

Looking at the larger context, using the same 9/11 blogger submission by Dr. Jones you refer to, that contained Dr. Ferrer's remarks, Dr. Jones also remarked that nowhere in Millette's report is there any finding of Sr or Pb (lead).

And his analysis most likely wouldn't. Millette conducted EDX on the surface of clean chips. The whole point of using a chromate inhibitor is that over time the compound breaks down into it's constituent ions so that the chromium ion migrates to the surface of the substrate (steel) thereby increasing it's resistance to corrosion and the strontium ion is lost to the surroundings. This process is one of the reasons why we are moving away from such compounds with regards to corrosion protection because the sacrificed ion enters the atmosphere. Lead Chromate was very popular but has mostly been phased out because the mechanism introduces Lead to the environment.

Oystein comprehensively showed through the use of the composition of LaClede and his subsequent Monte-Carlo simulations that Strontium would not be picked up at the same resolution even though the element was used in the data.

Lastly, why is Jones exhorting the presence of Lead as some sort of gotcha when there is no reason for thermite to contain Lead? Ask Jones why thermite should contain Pb or any one of the substances that are not Fe₂O₃ and Al observed in the paper he helped produce. As I've shown Pb is a common constituent of older paints. Saying, "ah ha! We observed Lead but you didn't so nah, nah nah" is a silly response because it doesn't tell anybody why Pb should be observed. In Harrit et al, many other elements are observed, but none of them are consistent with thermite.

You should be asking these questions.

This is particularly telling because Sunstealer has claimed repeatedly that Millette's use of TEM results in superior conclusive results to those obtained by Dr. Harrit's use of XEDS.

Once again you've either misconstrued my claim or misunderstood the TEM data that Millette has produced.

Millette's TEM data is primarily used to analyse particles after the sample has been subjected to low temperature ashing in order to separate out constituent particles from the carbon matrix. The temperature used was 400°C and carried out for times between 30 minutes and 1 hour. Strontium Chromate is not stable at that temperature and will therefore degrade. So the likelihood of any particles remaining after this is very low.

The reason for saying that TEM is a superior method is because Millette uses TEM-SAED analysis. Selected Area Electron Diffraction produces crystallographic information which is specific to the sample analysed and therefore analyses the structure of the material. This technique means you can identify exactly what the material is in this case. That is why it is superior to any of the techniques presented in Harrit et al.

Millette identifies the particles present in the ashed chip specimen.

MM then goes on to try to illustrate his point by quoting me:

To illustrate my point;

"1. Do a test that determines exactly what the material is. (FTIR) (TEM-SAED)

Unless FTIR and TEM-SAED testing is applied to portions of cleaned samples that have be shown to provide DSC support for the Bentham Paper findings, the results will not be definitive."

"It's interesting that no truther has dared to perform any analysis of Dr Millette's preliminary results- either agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. None of them is analysing the FTIR or EM-SAED data. It could be total nonsense for all a truther knows."

"…There is absolutely no point in heating samples to satisfy your need for microspheres when you totally ignore the FTIR and TEM-SAED results…"

"There is absolutely no point in heating a sample when you already know what the material is due to performing low temperature ashing and TEM-SAED on the particles."

Note how every time I refer to SAED and not just TEM analysis. I do not refer to any other technique that is available using TEM analysis. I specifically refer to SAED and that technique is applied to particles post ashing in Millette's study. Therefore I am obviously refering to the particles, namely hexagonal platelets and rhombohedral iron oxides seen in both Harrit et al and Millette's progress report.

It's obvious that you are trying to twist what I have consistently stated before.

Now, apparently for Sunstealer, XEDS noise (Harrit's data) is superior to TEM (Millette's data) when it suits what he wishes to believe (a finding of LeClede steel primer paint).

Nope, as shown above.

If Sunstealer's claim that Millette's chips are a match for Dr. Harrit's chips is true, why does he present this paradox where he accepts a belief that Sr is shown in Dr. Harrit's supposedly inferior XEDS noise data but is not at all evident in Millette's supposedly superior TEM data?????

Strawman. I've explained why above.

Dr. Ferrer's TEM data (detection of Sr and Cr) contradicts Millette's TEM data (no detection of any Sr or Cr).

No it doesn't as I've shown above.

What we actually have is you inferring that there is a split between Harrit and Jones/Farrer regarding the presence of Sr and Cr in the chips. You are claiming that Harrit says the S, Ca, Cr and Sr peaks in the spectrum are misidentified and therefore background noise based on non-exact wording from Harrit (even though I've shown that SEM-EDX does not support that position) and then you are claiming that Sr and Cr are indeed part of the chips and quoting Farrer/Jones as proof!

There is no reference to the presence of Strontium in the Harrit et al paper. Why not?

You are quoting Farrer as saying it's present through his TEM studies, however, there is no mention in the paper. There are mentions of other elements being present:

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?

Why not Strontium if Farrer has shown it to be true?

Farrer is a co author!

Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

So why is there no mention of Strontium?

What's more, and this is the more important part: Why is Strontium found in thermite? What is the purpose of this element?

Farrer, Jones and yourself would have to explain why these elements are present in thermite. Us debunkers know why Strontium would be found in primer paint because it's part of the corrosion inhibitor. It's the same reason why Zinc is found - Strontium chromate and Zinc chromate are added to paint as corrosion inhibitors.

More and more it becomes increasingly clear that Millette was studying different chips than those observed in the 2009 Bentham paper.

No it doesn't. More and more it shows how desperate you have become in your obsession and more and more it shows that Harrit et al has no idea what they were looking at or they misconstrued the analysis to favour their own deluded theory regarding the terrorist attack on 9/11.

 

[Sunstealer]

In order to have any legitimacy, Millette's investigation required his test chips be a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

And he does as shown in his progress report. The method to obtain red/gray chips was follwed as per the Harrit et al paper. It's only you and other truthers who disagree because the conclusions do not support your wishes.

And you are comparing the EDX spectrum from the surface of a red chip soaked in MEK to the EDX spectrum of a red chip which has been cross-sectioned to expose an uncontaminated inner surface.

You can only observe the data that is presented.

In the Harrit et al paper this:

is claimed to be the same as this:

when we know this:

There is absolutely no way that the red layer of the chip in Fig 14 can match the red layer of chips a, b, c, and d as seen in Fig 7. Contamination cannot explain the discrepancy.

When we look at the data obtained from Millette's progress report we can also see that he obtained chips that match the data from Fig 14 and the talk from Jones where he shows us an EDX spectrum from Tnemec red primer paint:

And don't forget that those chips were cleaned.

If we take the claim under Fig 14 that Ca and S are contaminants:

Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material.

then we would expect a clean chip to have an EDX spectrum very similar to Fig 7 and nowhere near that of Fig 14.

We don't. This comprehensively shows that Tnemec red primer paint (adhered to steel) is present as chips when separated using the technique identified in Harrit et al.

If we accept that there is contaminant from gypsum wallboard present in Fig 14 then this explanation does not explain the presence of other elements over and above those seen in Fig 7.

The very fact that the authors observe Zn and Cr as being present in some of their chips indicates that the corrosion inhibitor Zinc Chromate ZnCrO₄ is likely present given that we know that this is a constituent of Tnemec red primer paint.

The EDX spectrum taken from the red chip with the contaminated surface will show the same EDX spectrum as the cross-sectioned red chip with the difference being, it will also include the contaminates.

No it won't as I have shown above. The very fact that this chip was not examined using the same method as chips a-d in the same paper shows a lack of consistency which should have at minimum been picked up upon review.

Are you also suggesting that Dr. Harrit's cleaned red chip (fractured) would have behaved like Millette's and softened in MEK?

Which chip are you referring to? Read the Millette report and post the chip notation for the one that you are referring to.

 

[Sunstealer]

It was Dr. Harrit, an expert in nano science who stated;

Appeals to authority do no wash here

Originally Posted by Dr. Harrit
"Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium."

But that does not mean that those elements were not detected by the SEM. It's only you that wishes to twist the meaning and imply that the presence of those elements is false.

I've shown in previous posts why the idea that these elements have been falsely identified by the equipment is nonsense. If SEM-EDX was so inaccurate then we'd expect to see a whole host of elements present in that part of the spectrum and the user would have to then go through a hugely time consuming process of elimination in order to remove falsely identified elements.

Anyone who uses SEM-EDX would have to do this. It would mean that the technique would be unreliable and therefore not be used in the way we see it used today.

You can put as much spin as you like on this but Dr. Harrit's meaning is crystal clear.

No it's not as I have shown.

Noise is noise.

Nice try, but again, as I have explained in the more technical post above, that this is not true.

If a signal's amplitude matches that of the noise that it is embedded in, for all intents and purposes, it is unreadable or of no significance.

Again I've shown that this is not true and once more the peaks for S, Ca and Cr are quite clear and backed by the statistical analysis that the EDX software uses.

I like to keep things as simple as possible so the world may understand and you obviously like to keep things complicated so the world will take your word for it.

Wrong once again. The scanning electron microscope is a complicated piece of machinery. In order to use one you have to understand how it works. That understanding is taught in every Materials Science/Metallurgy degree as well as others. SEM operators also have to understand the workings even if they have never undergone a degree in another subject.

Once computerisation came in then a SEM operator had to learn an entirely new way of operating the machine because it became far more software orientated. This added degree of complexity required additional training, however, the underlying physics of the machine hasn't changed.

It's this underlying physics, regarding the EDX detection apparatus and how it works, is what I have explained. I've done this as best I could regarding background noise or Bremsstrahlung and the identification of peaks associated with individual elements as seen in the EDX spectrum.

I've also given references to articles explaining this.

Sunstealer, you have hand waved the issue of noise, the fact that Dr. Millette using superior TEM methodology found no Sr so you grasp at Dr. Farrer's reference to the same, ignore the effect of surface contamination, ignore volumes of independent data supporting proof of nanothermite etc etc.

All answered in previous posts.

This all old ground that you doggedly insist you've answered to.

And I have. Extensively.

The subject of his thread is Dr. Millette's WTC Dust Study reported on Feb.29, 2012.

It is. I wish that somehow you'd actually read his report and digest his analysis and data.

The very important point under dispute is; did Dr. Millette's WTC Dust Study actually examine sample material that matched the highlighted red chip material in the 2009 Bentham paper?

And the answer to that is yes. Yes he did.

Dr Millette has provided a progress report detailing his data and findings. The only person who is not discussing his data is you.

Sunstealer, Oystein and Kminek all believe the red chip material studied by Dr. Millette was steel primer paint.

As does Dr Millette:

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

Millette consistently refers to the presence of kaolin in his samples and shows that these kaolin platelets are identical to those observed in Harrit et al.

He also documents that kaolin is consistent with the identification of paint.

And you all believe that Dr. Millette was indeed investigating material that was a match for that highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Of course. He has documented as such. That is easy to see.

There were two brands of steel primer paint known to have been used at the WTC, Tnemec and LeClede.

Yes.

Using methods which Sunstealer has previously stated were superior to those used by Dr. Harrit et al, Dr. Millette found that his test material was not a chemical match for any of the listed 177 listed formulations for Tnemec steel primer paint.

As you well know Millette did not have the composition of LaClede red joist paint when he made that observation.

Secondly the fact that an exact match for a specific composition of paint, whether, primer paint or other, does not nullify his findings.

He found paint, not thermite. Any other consideration is moot. The fact that in depth analysis by Oystein using both Tnemec red and LaClede formulations show excellent correlations for the EDX spectra observed has been ignored by you and other truthers.

The Harrit paper was debunked within weeks of it's laughable publication. It's impact on the scientific community has been zero.

That is argument alone, that if Sunstealer is right about Dr. Harrit et al studying Tnemec steel primer paint, than Dr. Millette was not studying a 'matching' material.

No as shown repeatedly above.

Both studies extracted Tnemec red primer paint from the dust as shown by the comparison of EDX spectra seen above.

Millette was tasked with matching his chips with chips a-d in Harrit et al. Chips a-d in Harrit et al were not Tnemec red.

Millette only had instruction to identify chips corresponding to chips a-d in Harrit et as per the magnet extraction method and matching the EDX spectrum for the red layer in Fig 7. The fact he does this and then comprehensively shows that his SEM images match those in Harrit confirms that he had the same material. Here is the evidence:

Evidence that you ignore even though it's been presented time after time.

All of the data matches.

In short, whatever the material was that Dr. Millette was testing, it was not a match for Tnemec of LeClede steel primer paint.

Dr Millette, as far as I'm aware, never had the information regarding Laclede red primer paint. Al of his data for the chips he matched to chips a-d in Harrit et al are excellent matches for Laclede red joist primer paint. Oysteins extensive work comparing the expected EDX spectrum for the known composition of Laclede along with the fact that Millette identified the carbon based binder material as epoxy along with kaolin points toward Laclede being the material analysed.

Even if he did and he had ruled it out it doesn't mean that his finding show that the material in Harrit et al was not thermite.

Millette identifies a material consistent with a red paint applied to steel. That material consists of an epoxy containing iron oxide pigment and kaolin particles just as one would expect from LaClede red joist primer paint because the same constituents are specified as the composition for such paint.

Millette does not identify thermite.

You can go to the ends of the earth, but you will still see that Millette does not conclude that the material separated from the dust, using the exact same method that Harrit et al used, is thermite.

And if Dr. Millette was wrong about the primer paint not-matching, as Sunstealer, Oystein and Kminek insist, than obviously Dr. Millette was not studyng 'matching chips'.

Your logic is faulty as we've all shown.

Additionally Sunstealer, you ignore the further evidence regarding the disparate behaviour between Dr. Millette's red material when soaked in MEK and Dr. Harrit's red material when soaked in MEK.

Discussed above, shown to be incorrect and dismissed.

You also refuse to acknowledge the explanation given by Dr. Harrit et al for differences between the XEDS spectrum for a contaminated red chip surface and one that has been cleanly cross-sectioned.

Again, discussed above and shown to have been answered in detail once again. Stop throwing up the same old, tired and debunked nonsense.

It's inanely tiresome to have to repeat the same information over and over when you explicitly state or quote someone when the reasons why you are incorrect have been given upteen times before.

I'll try to address the rest of your post when I have time. I'm off on holiday now so don't expect any reply. I'll try and deal with the rest of it in the future.

 

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by Dr. Farrer
"I have always shown the additional data to those that have requested it.
I have absolutely nothing to hide with the data that was collected for this paper."

Thank you for this quote, MM. I have repeatedly asked Dr Farrer to release all the TEM data and he has refused. I even asked him not to give it to me personally (since I am not a scientist) but perhaps just post it on a blog or somewhere for all to see.

BTW the link to this quote is not functioning, but I still appreciate the quote.

As for my "inneundo" etc, another way of framing my recent posts is that I'm putting out "teasers" for my upcoming YouTube video. It's true that I am witholding information for awhile longer, but this information will be in my next video.

 

[DGM]

BTW the link to this quote is not functioning, but I still appreciate the quote.

The quote is from here:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/04/listening-to-debunker-arguments-is-like.html

A couple of other points I'd like to make. To include everything in this paper would have been unreasonable. One of the peer-reviewers even warned us that the paper was too long and that we were trying to include too much data in an earlier version of the paper, so we cut it way down. Unfortunately this will always raise questions and criticisms in a paper with a controversial topic or conclusions. I have always shown the additional data to those that have requested it. I have absolutely nothing to hide with the data that was collected for this paper.

 

[Miragememories]

"nowhere in Millette's report is there any finding of Strontium (Sr)"

"And his Millette's analysis most likely wouldn't….Oystein comprehensively showed through the use of the composition of LaClede and his subsequent Monte-Carlo simulations that Strontium would not be picked up at the same resolution even though the element was used in the data."

I believe the operative words are "picked up at the same resolution" vs zero picked up.

Combined with the comment;

OK but Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE. It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede...

Of course you would rather have us believe that you and Oystein know far more about the subject from your armchair amateur perspectives than Dr. Millette working in his lab with actual 9/11 WTC dust.

As I have pointed out, if Millette's chips are LeClede primer paint and Dr. Harrit's chips are LeClede primer paint, there should be a comparable chemical match.
Millette could not make such a connection.

"Millette's TEM data is primarily used to analyse particles after the sample has been subjected to low temperature ashing in order to separate out constituent particles from the carbon matrix…So the likelihood of any particles remaining after this is very low."

"NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE."

capitalization was Chris Mohr's

"It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it.

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede…"

Since this thread is about Dr. Millette's analysis and not your armchair theorizing, I have to defer to what he had to say and not what you want us to believe Sunstealer.

"In order to have any legitimacy, Millette's investigation required his test chips be a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper."

"And he does as shown in his progress report. The method to obtain red/gray chips was follwed as per the Harrit et al paper. It's only you and other truthers who disagree because the conclusions do not support your wishes."

Well your wishes are certainly obvious.

Yes Millette followed, but only as far as it suited his needs, and his wishes.

You continue to accept Millette's findings when they support your wishes and discount them when they reject your fervent beliefs.

"And you are comparing the EDX spectrum from the surface of a red chip soaked in MEK to the EDX spectrum of a red chip which has been cross-sectioned to expose an uncontaminated inner surface."

"You can only observe the data that is presented.

In the Harrit et al paper this:[Fig.7] is claimed to be the same as this: [Fig.14]."

More misrepresentation on your part.

You do know what "the same as" means, do you not?

Dr. Harrit et al in their paper make it perfectly clear that those two figures are not the same and they explain why.

"There is absolutely no way that the red layer of the chip in Fig 14 can match the red layer of chips a, b, c, and d as seen in Fig 7. Contamination cannot explain the discrepancy.

When we look at the data obtained from Millette's progress report we can also see that he obtained chips that match the data from Fig 14 and the talk from Jones where he shows us an EDX spectrum from Tnemec red primer paint:

And don't forget that those chips were cleaned."

We can?

I am not sure what you are trying to show us here.

From Results; "The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca."

The spectrums you cite list elements that are not mentioned in Millette's red layer RESULTS.

The elements Na, Zn, Mg, S, and K are shown but he does not list them as red layer RESULTS.?

Surprisingly, he mentions Ti but the spectrum you chose to cite does not show that at all.

One thing about the 2009 Bentham paper, is that it is not difficult to correlate their graphics with their text.

MM

 

[Spanx]

"nowhere in Millette's report is there any finding of Strontium (Sr)"



I believe the operative words are "picked up at the same resolution" vs zero picked up.

Combined with the comment;


Of course you would rather have us believe that you and Oystein know far more about the subject from your armchair amateur perspectives than Dr. Millette working in his lab with actual 9/11 WTC dust.

As I have pointed out, if Millette's chips are LeClede primer paint and Dr. Harrit's chips are LeClede primer paint, there should be a comparable chemical match.
Millette could not make such a connection.





capitalization was Chris Mohr's


Since this thread is about Dr. Millette's analysis and not your armchair theorizing, I have to defer to what he had to say and not what you want us to believe Sunstealer.

"In order to have any legitimacy, Millette's investigation required his test chips be a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper."



Well your wishes are certainly obvious.

Yes Millette followed, but only as far as it suited his needs, and his wishes.

You continue to accept Millette's findings when they support your wishes and discount them when they reject your fervent beliefs.

"And you are comparing the EDX spectrum from the surface of a red chip soaked in MEK to the EDX spectrum of a red chip which has been cross-sectioned to expose an uncontaminated inner surface."



More misrepresentation on your part.

You do know what "the same as" means, do you not?

Dr. Harrit et al in their paper make it perfectly clear that those two figures are not the same and they explain why.



We can?

I am not sure what you are trying to show us here.



The spectrums you cite list elements that are not mentioned in Millette's red layer RESULTS.

The elements Na, Zn, Mg, S, and K are shown but he does not list them as red layer RESULTS.?

Surprisingly, he mentions Ti but the spectrum you chose to cite does not show that at all.

One thing about the 2009 Bentham paper, is that it is not difficult to correlate their graphics with their text.

MM

MM, as you seem to be the main spokes person for Harrit et al, why don't you ask them to match Millette's chips? They must have lots of them because they didn't go through the DSC and they obviously put them to one side.

Surely this would solve the problem of identification ?

 

[Miragememories]

MM, as you seem to be the main spokes person for Harrit et al, why don't you ask them to match Millette's chips? They must have lots of them because they didn't go through the DSC and they obviously put them to one side.

Surely this would solve the problem of identification ?

Why should they officially recognize someone who promised to get his research published 2 years ago and has not followed up?

I have to agree with Sunstealer in that I believe Millette selected chips which were likely contaminated paint.

MM

 

[Spanx]

Why should they officially recognize someone who promised to get his research published 2 years ago and has not followed up?

I have to agree with Sunstealer in that I believe Millette selected chips which were likely contaminated paint.

MM

So your are speaking on their behalf ?

Why can't they speak for themselves ?

 

[NoahFence]

So your are speaking on their behalf ?

Why can't they speak for themselves ?

Because they're cowards, like all truthers like them.

 

[Miragememories]

Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.

Please take note that once cleaned and cross-sectioned, the now uncontaminated surface reveals a more accurate XEDS spectrum for the red material's surface.

Gone are; Zn, S, Ca, and Cr.

"TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 20 and 21). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).”

There was no calcium Ca found in the clean cross-sectioned red material shown in Fig.7 of the 2009 Bentham paper.

Note: Tnemec steel primer paint 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.

"Left Figure 7 in Harrit et al.1 [2009 Bentham paper], [shows frame (a) at 10 keV]

Right: The same spectrum as in [Figure 7 frame (a)] with intensity (vertical) and horizontal scales expanded [20 keV]. Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium."

"But that does not mean that those elements were not detected by the SEM. It's only you that wishes to twist the meaning and imply that the presence of those elements is false.

I've shown in previous posts why the idea that these elements have been falsely identified by the equipment is nonsense. If SEM-EDX was so inaccurate then we'd expect to see a whole host of elements present in that part of the spectrum and the user would have to then go through a hugely time consuming process of elimination in order to remove falsely identified elements."

Why do you persist in ignoring what your eyes are showing you Sunstealer?

Not only is the gain in right Figure 7 frame (a) pushed to the point where substantial noise is elevated, the signals for C, O, Fe, Al, and Si are pushed to the point that they are 'clipping' and no longer accurately proportional in amplitude to each other as easily observed in the left Figure 7 frame (a) at 10 keV.

In the normal 10 keV display for frame (a), the elements at the level of noise are no longer revealed.

Gone are; S, Ca, Cr, and that lowest of all the noise amplitudes, Sr.

"Using methods which Sunstealer has previously stated were superior to those used by Dr. Harrit et al, Dr. Millette found that his test material was not a chemical match for any of the listed 177 listed formulations for Tnemec steel primer paint."

"As you well know Millette did not have the composition of LaClede red joist paint when he made that observation."

My statement explicitly referred to Tnemec steel primer paint formulations used at the WTC.

Whether Millette knew about the LeClede formulation at that time is irrelevant.

Since you again bring up the other possible paint, LeClede steel primer paint used on the joists, must I remind you that during Millette's investigation, he did explore the possibility of the LeClede formulation matching his findings.

"NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE."

capitalization was Chris Mohr's

"It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it."

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede…"

No means NO Sunstealer.

I do hope Chris is paying careful attention before he embarrasses himself by using you as an expert in his upcoming video.

It is Chris Mohr that the world will laugh at and not some anonymous poser in a public forum.

MM

 

[Spanx]

MM, you are an anonymous truther who claims to be speaking on behalf of Harrit et al.

The 'evidence' you claim to be presenting is BS. Why don't you compare Millette's work against the Bentham paper and explain why the chips are different ?

Sunstealer is managing to do this and you just ignore it.

 

[Africanus]

Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.

Please take note that once cleaned and cross-sectioned, the now uncontaminated surface reveals a more accurate XEDS spectrum for the red material's surface.

Gone are; Zn, S, Ca, and Cr.

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

Wrong! Sample c shows signals for Ca and S which were even labelled, sample d shows a unlabelled signal for Cr.

Note: Tnemec steel primer paint only has aluminum bound to calcium.

Tnemec also contains zinc.

Samples a to d are not Tnemec pigment! This is quite obvious if you compare the spectra to the recipe for Tnemec.

Gone are; S, Ca, Cr, and that lowest of all the noise amplitudes, Sr.

The Sr L peaks appear at 1.58 - 2.20 keV and therefore masked by the Al and Si peak.

Since you again bring up the other possible paint, LeClede steel primer paint used on the joists, must I remind you that during Millette's investigation, he did explore the possibility of the LeClede formulation matching his findings.

Millette identified three components of the LaClede primer paint - iron oxide, kaolinite and epoxy resin, he did not identify the crucial component of thermite - elemental aluminum.

 

[chrismohr]

MM I assure you I am reading very carefully. To clarify, Millette did not want to assert one way or the other whether he was looking at LaClede unless he could find a known sample of the unburned, undamaged product. He's very conservative in what he says. An international search through paint samples of forensic labs and our attempts to get LaClede have turned up nothing. He is confident he has some kind of kaolinite-epoxy paint and not thermite, and he is confident he has a match for the red-grey chips in spite of Kevin Ryan's refusal to provide any of his own samples for this project. Sunstealer has some good-sounding explanations for why Millette did not find the Strontium Chromate. Very small amounts of SrCr are much less important to me than the fact that Jones/Harrit/Farrer/Ryan never found significant elemental aluminum in the unignited chips. It's a little like claiming you found water when there are no hydrogen atoms in the EDX. But I will most certainly acknowledge the SrCr discrepancy, report on Sunstealer's explanation as to why this might be, and let the reader decide what importance this has.

 

[tsig]

Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.

Please take note that once cleaned and cross-sectioned, the now uncontaminated surface reveals a more accurate XEDS spectrum for the red material's surface.

Gone are; Zn, S, Ca, and Cr.

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



There was no calcium Ca found in the clean cross-sectioned red material shown in Fig.7 of the 2009 Bentham paper.

Note: Tnemec steel primer paint 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.




[qimg]http://imageshack.com/a/img62/4941/7iic.png[/qimg]



Why do you persist in ignoring what your eyes are showing you Sunstealer?

Not only is the gain in right Figure 7 frame (a) pushed to the point where substantial noise is elevated, the signals for C, O, Fe, Al, and Si are pushed to the point that they are 'clipping' and no longer accurately proportional in amplitude to each other as easily observed in the left Figure 7 frame (a) at 10 keV.

In the normal 10 keV display for frame (a), the elements at the level of noise are no longer revealed.

Gone are; S, Ca, Cr, and that lowest of all the noise amplitudes, Sr.




My statement explicitly referred to Tnemec steel primer paint formulations used at the WTC.

Whether Millette knew about the LeClede formulation at that time is irrelevant.

Since you again bring up the other possible paint, LeClede steel primer paint used on the joists, must I remind you that during Millette's investigation, he did explore the possibility of the LeClede formulation matching his findings.


capitalization was Chris Mohr's


No means NO Sunstealer.

I do hope Chris is paying careful attention before he embarrasses himself by using you as an expert in his upcoming video.

It is Chris Mohr that the world will laugh at and not some anonymous poser in a public forum.

MM

The horse has died and has been beaten so long we are now analyzing the dust of the dead horse.

 

[Miragememories]

Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.

Please take note that once cleaned and cross-sectioned, the now uncontaminated surface reveals a more accurate XEDS spectrum for the red material's surface.

Gone are; Zn, S, Ca, and Cr.

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

"Wrong! Sample c shows signals for Ca and S which were even labelled, sample d shows a unlabelled signal for Cr."

The anomaly of some signals at noise level in one sample means nothing.

The TEM is used to clear up this kind of disagreement and again the TEM for Harrit´s team has confirmed strontium and chromium in tiny amounts and also ruled out calcium, titanium and zinc.

Note: Tnemec steel primer paint 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.

[qimg]http://imageshack.com/a/img62/4941/7iic.png[/qimg]"

"Samples a to d are not Tnemec pigment! This is quite obvious if you compare the spectra to the recipe for Tnemec."

Agreed!

But equally obvious is the fact that the MEK chip is also not Tnemec because it does not have any zinc or calcium once it has been cleaned up in the MEK!*

It also has elemental aluminum!

Why do you persist in ignoring what your eyes are showing you Sunstealer?

Not only is the gain in right Figure 7 frame (a) pushed to the point where substantial noise is elevated, the signals for C, O, Fe, Al, and Si are pushed to the point that they are 'clipping' and no longer accurately proportional in amplitude to each other as easily observed in the left Figure 7 frame (a) at 10 keV.

In the normal 10 keV display for frame (a), the elements at the level of noise are no longer revealed.

Gone are; S, Ca, Cr, and that lowest of all the noise amplitudes, Sr.

"The Sr L peaks appear at 1.58 - 2.20 keV and therefore masked by the Al and Si peak."

You can imagine anything you like but the evidence is not there to support you.

My statement explicitly referred to Tnemec steel primer paint formulations used at the WTC.

Whether Millette knew about the LeClede formulation at that time is irrelevant.

Since you again bring up the other possible paint, LeClede steel primer paint used on the joists, must I remind you that during Millette's investigation, he did explore the possibility of the LeClede formulation matching his findings.

"NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE."

capitalization was Chris Mohr's

"It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it."

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede…"

No means NO Sunstealer.

I do hope Chris is paying careful attention before he embarrasses himself by using you as an expert in his upcoming video.

It is Chris Mohr that the world will laugh at and not some anonymous poser in a public forum.

"Millette identified three components of the LaClede primer paint - iron oxide, kaolinite and epoxy resin, he did not identify the crucial component of thermite - elemental aluminum."

Harrit on the other hand found chips with iron-oxide and aluminum within a red matrix that remains hard after the MEK, which is consistent with a product called "superthermite".

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Look Before You Leap Chris

"MM I assure you I am reading very carefully.

To clarify, Millette did not want to assert one way or the other whether he was looking at LaClede unless he could find a known sample of the unburned, undamaged product. He's very conservative in what he says. An international search through paint samples of forensic labs and our attempts to get LaClede have turned up nothing.

He is confident he has some kind of kaolinite-epoxy paint and not thermite, and he is confident he has a match for the red-grey chips in spite of Kevin Ryan's refusal to provide any of his own samples for this project."

Finding some paint chips in the 9/11 WTC dust has little meaning. Millette might as well have said he found salt in the ocean.

As you have previously admitted, Kevin Ryan informed you before Millette´s study was initiated that both paint chips and thermite chips would be readily found in the dust.

And you also revealed that Kevin Ryan told you that it is important to confirm they are the right chips by igniting them. A simple, easy to perform test that Millette insists he does not need to do and refuses to perform. For the thousand bucks we contributed, surely he could have indulged us such a small request.

Your confidence that Millette analyzed the right chips means nothing in light of his failure to publish his 2 year old paper and give it credibility in the scientific community.

"Sunstealer has some good-sounding explanations for why Millette did not find the Strontium Chromate."

Sunstealer makes "good sounding" but meaningless statements about the possibility of the XEDS not reading the elements he WANTS to be there.

Millette himself has checked with TEM, which is better at reading faint signals, and told you they are simply not there.

Please rely on your experience as an investigative journalist (and not your bias as an anti-9/11 truther), to figure out if you should rely on Dr. Millette or some anonymous person on an internet forum.

You would never see a story in the Washington Post giving unsupported weight to the words of an anonymous Internet source over the words of fully accountable 'named' scientists.

"Very small amounts of SrCr are much less important to me than the fact that Jones/Harrit/Farrer/Ryan never found significant elemental aluminum in the unignited chips. It's a little like claiming you found water when there are no hydrogen atoms in the EDX.

But I will most certainly acknowledge the SrCr discrepancy, report on Sunstealer's explanation as to why this might be, and let the reader decide what importance this has."

Harrit´s MEK test rules out kaolin and confirms aluminum.

That is why Sunstealer has been so desperate to claim the MEK chip is Tnemec paint and not the same as the other chips.

Tnemec has aluminum and calcium bound together which would refute Dr. Harrit's claim if Sunstealer can prove the chip is Tnemec.

Sunstealer's problem is that although the uncleaned contaminated chip does resemble Tnemec, all the required Tnemec elements are washed away after the chip has been cleaned in MEK.

The zinc and calcium disappear, which rules out Tnemec.

More importantly, it means there is no calcium to bind with aluminum, which confirms what Harrit says: "the chips have elemental aluminum."

Reading the interview with Farrer clearly reveals that he debunked Sunstealer´s armchair Tnemec claims in 2011 and that Sunstealer avoids any acknowledgement. Whatever Sunstealer can't hand wave away with textbook jargon he simply ignores.

Getting back to your claim of no "significant" aluminum Chris.

That is a misguided belief.

The amount is definitely significant if the chips ignite and reduce the iron-oxide into iron rich spheres.

This is why page 19 of Harrit´s paper says; "If the material does not react vigorously it may be argued that although ingredients of thermite are present, the material may not really be thermitic".

As you know the chips have a DSC spike that is as at least as narrow as a known sample of nanothermite, so the chips do react as vigorously, and as you know they leave behind iron spheres not iron-oxide spheres which confirm a thermite reaction and rule out a conventional combustion.

The spike is the key and not the temperature it occurs at. It has been shown that nanothermite formulations can be fashioned to behave far differently than standard thermite.

In addition, I recently came across this post-publication statement from Dr. Harrit;
http://board.gulli.com/thread/1537495-die-sich-abzeichnende-neue-weltordnung/307/#post13593325

"We do not claim that the red/grey chips are the same material as Tillotson et al. described. Actually, we are pretty sure it is NOT for the same - for reasons given above.

Your statement about activation energies is nonsense. An activation energy is a thermodynamic quantity referring to standard conditions in solution or in the gas phase.

That some people take this lightly is another matter. But to postulate a unique correlation between ignition temperature and activation energy in a two-phase solid reaction is ridiculous.

Well, maybe you can expect a lower ignition temperature the smaller the particles – as observed.

Of course, all samples have a different ignition temperature (Fig. 19), and of course, different preparations with different compositions will have different ignition temperatures.

And what do you mean by “the temperature for the thermite reaction”? You are going to have a very hard time if you try to search the literature for a well-defined ignition temperature of conventional thermite mixtures.

Please, provide a reference next time you come up with such a statement.

Furthermore, in the paper we hypothesize that the organic matrix (plus atmospheric oxygen) is decisive for the low ignition temperature and the overall energy output."

Regarding the finding of aluminum.

"TEM wide-field studies aimed at determination of stoichiometric compositions of the red and the grey layers were carried out after publication.

However, the samples were mounted on a copper holder and these measurements also confirm the presence of aluminum in the red material (in the platelets). If money and time permit, the TEM studies may be completed and published.

The spread of the electron beam inside the samples was tested and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to get an idea of the interaction volume of the electron beam within the sample.

To suggest that there is no aluminum in the red layer is ludicrous."

Remember Chris; "There's no fool like an old fool".

MM

 

[Africanus]

The anomaly of some signals at noise level in one sample means nothing.

These signals are well above noise level.

The TEM is used to clear up this kind of disagreement and again the TEM for Harrit´s team has confirmed strontium and chromium in tiny amounts and also ruled out calcium, titanium and zinc.

Sorry, but where did Harrit oder Jones publish the TEM?

But equally obvious is the fact that the MEK chip is also not Tnemec because it does not have any zinc or calcium once it has been cleaned up in the MEK!*

That's wrong, as in the spectrum depicted in Fig. 18 of the Bentham paper a peak for sodium is labelled. The sodium and the zinc signal appear nearly at the same energy, so this might resemble zinc.

It also has elemental aluminum!

Harrit's claim that aluminum was seperated from silicon is not backed up by actual evidence. We don't know the elemental distribution of the chip prior soaking.

You can imagine anything you like but the evidence is not there to support you.

It's not imagination, it's a fact!

Harrit on the other hand found chips with iron-oxide and aluminum within a red matrix that remains hard after the MEK, which is consistent with a product called "superthermite".

That's interesting. Where is the data of the nanothermite reference sample that was used to make this claim?

 

[chrismohr]

No fool like an old fool? Hey MM, I may have turned 60, but around my birthday I also rode my bicycle to the top of a 14,255' peak! Go easy on the ageism, neither me nor Steve Jones are exactly young ya know.

As for the strontium debate, it looks like Harrit found it at the level of noise (so he thinks he didn't really find it or it was contamination) and Farrer says he did find it in his unreleased TEM. Millette did NOT find it, as I have said, and he released all his data in his preliminary report. So who found it? Finding Strontium Chromate strengthens the argument for LaClede but seems to have no effect on the thermite case. Not finding an unstable compound (Millette) does not seem to have much effect on the question of whether Millette found the right chips.

Yes, Kevin Ryan said there were two kinds of chips: paint and thermite. Wish he had said so in the 2009 paper. We here also agree there are two kinds of chips. Paint and ????

 

[Miragememories]

Ageism was not my intention.

If it makes you feel any better Chris I am older. And while I doubt I could match you on the mountain climb, I can still drop for 75 pushups.

I did not mean to suggest you "were an old fool". It was a warning to not let other anonymous members turn you into one.

MM