• 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.

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

remo said:
Dr Jim, while studying dust samples from the 911 demolitions for at least the fourth time ; avoiding all chips that ignite at 430ºC ejecting high-speed, high temperature iron rich spheres just like those found after thermitic reaction, 'didn't look at the iron rich spheres in his preliminary study'

in favor of primer paints .....

could be the very definition of 'science abuse' .
Click to expand...

http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf here you go rema, here is a bit more science abuse for you.

Be careful not to choke on your Bong water.
 
ergo said:
You've posted this a couple of times. Could you clue me in as to what debunking point you believe it makes?
Click to expand...

If you understand the Bentham paper you should understand this one ?

What's the difference between this link and the Bentham paper ?

At least you asked
 
Spanx said:
If you understand the Bentham paper you should understand this one ?

What's the difference between this link and the Bentham paper ?
Click to expand...

Hmm, let me see... one did a thermal analysis using DSC and... oh wait, the other one did too.
 
ergo said:
Hmm, let me see... one did a thermal analysis using DSC and... oh wait, the other one did too.
Click to expand...
That would be important if you had baseline information for DSC. You do know the Harrit DSC is way off for any known thermite formula (that's why they "theorize" it must be "special")?

Matches burning organics nicely though. ;)
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
That would be important if you had baseline information for DSC. You do know the Harrit DSC is way off for any known thermite formula (that's why they "theorize" it must be "special")?

Matches burning organics nicely though. ;)
Click to expand...

So the Al in the truthers material evaporates into white smoke and the Al in known nano and micro thermite doesn't.

Yes the truthers have a very special substance ;)
 
ergo said:
Hmm, let me see... one did a thermal analysis using DSC and... oh wait, the other one did too.
Click to expand...
Jones dust samples published in a silly paper in a vanity journal does not match thermite. Jones DSC looks like dust. Why no match to thermite? No match for micro thermite, or nano thermite. Why? Why can't 911 truth read and comprehend?

Why are all 911 truth followers chemistry and physics free?

Jones paper debunks itself showing a DSC for the dust and thermite, and they don't match. Like reading comprehension, or inability to read a graph are skills lacking in 911 truth followers.

Why can't 911 truth refute Millette's paper?
 
ergo said:
It does? Am I misreading the data on the post-reaction microspheres in the Bentham paper?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me and why are you talking about microspheres ?

How would I know what you are reading or thinking if you don't tell me.
 
Miragememories said:
What is your difficulty in understanding that particle size effects ignition-temperature and energy density?

There is a lot of scientific literature revealing how 'nano' or 'super' thermite materials can be highly tailorable.

Dramatic narrow exothermic spikes are a normal, expected 'characteristic'; whereas ignition temperatures and energy densities are customizable variables.

MM
Click to expand...

Can you show me a know thermite that ignites at 430c
 
Miragememories said:
The material described in the 2009 Bentham paper now qualifies as a "known" thermite that ignites at ~430C.

MM
Click to expand...

By this logic Bigfoot now qualifies as a mammal because some nutjobs reckon they caught it on video.
 
Miragememories said:
The material described in the 2009 Bentham paper now qualifies as a "known" thermite that ignites at ~430C.

MM
Click to expand...
Like paper? My paper is thermite? My paper has more heat energy than thermite. Do you know any science at all, or do you let 911 truth failed experts like Jones make your decisions? 13th year of woo, and you have failed to prove anything directly.

Why does 911 truth bring thermite to an office fire which had more heat energy than 2,700 TONS of thermite? Why is 911 truth math free, and anti-science.

The Bentham paper? A vanity journal fooled you? That is special.


Another post proving no 911 truth followers can refute Millette's findings.
Millette 1, Jones 0
 
Spanx said:
http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf here you go rema, here is a bit more science abuse for you.

Be careful not to choke on your Bong water.
Click to expand...
Has anyone taken the time to really look at Spanx's link? Ergo and MM are tiptoeing, but no one else is taking a shot at it so what the hey... This study shows that nanothermite has large Al peaks in the EDX, and as we all know, the ignition point is higher than regular thermite. Where as Harit/Jones didn't find aluminum and their dchips ignite at a much lower temperature. Their thermite produces iron spheres. And here I get confused, because it looks like this experiment shows a wide variety of microspherical byproducts: iron, iron oxide, Al and Al-oxide spheres etc. In fact, the final words, "practical reactions are much more complex" [than the theoretical chemical model of the thermite reaction], makes me feel a little better about my own confusion about the wide array of byproducts of ignited nanothermite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom