Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

[Edx]

If Kevin Ryan isnt going to provide any samples, then whats the point in gathering money to test samples that we can't get a hold of?

Did I miss something?

 

[DGM]

If Kevin Ryan isnt going to provide any samples, then whats the point in gathering money to test samples that we can't get a hold of?

Did I miss something?

Yes. Read back through the thread. The "Lab Guy" has original dust samples and believes he can match the chips found by Harret and Co.

 

[Edx]

Yes. Read back through the thread. The "Lab Guy" has original dust samples and believes he can match the chips found by Harret and Co.

WHAT! That seems pointless then! Truthers will simply say if they are not thermite its because they are not the same samples and that their samples are thermite, won't they??

Unless you can replicate absolutely everything Harrit and co documented with different samples AND show how these new samples are not thermite with these new tests, to prove that Harrit's results can't possibly prove thermite. Is that the plan?

 

[DGM]

WHAT! That seems pointless then! Truthers will simply say if they are not thermite its because they are not the same samples and that their samples are thermite, won't they??

Unless you can replicate absolutely everything Harrit and co documented with different samples AND show how these new samples are not thermite with these new tests, to prove that Harrit's results can't possibly prove thermite. Is that the plan?

Who cares? To disprove Harrit all you have to do is read his paper and look at the data. They will be shown to be chemically identical and will show how they did not do the tests that were needed to determine what they claim. Everyone already knows that Keven Ryan does not want to provide the samples because he already knows they are not what they claim. This is just the final nail, unless the test do find the magical "therm?te".

 

[Oystein]

WHAT! That seems pointless then! Truthers will simply say if they are not thermite its because they are not the same samples and that their samples are thermite, won't they??

Unless you can replicate absolutely everything Harrit and co documented with different samples AND show how these new samples are not thermite with these new tests, to prove that Harrit's results can't possibly prove thermite. Is that the plan?

I hope know that is the plan: To find red-gray chips that not only look similar in microphphotographs and SEM to Fig. 2 and 5 in the Bentham paper but also...

• that can be separated from the dust by magnet
• whose XEDS spectra match Fig 6 (gray layer)...
• ...and Fig. 7 (red layer)
• which have stacked platelets and dense rhombohedric particles of the size and appearance as can be seen in Fig. 8
• optionally: which show in a XEDS-map that Al and Si are strongly correlated with each other and with the platelets (Fig. 10)
• optionally: that ignite around 440°C under air (Fig. 19)

...to show they are the same material as chips a-d from Jones's/Harrit's samples, and then do some competent analysis of chemical bonding to prove whether or not there are significant amounts of elemental Al, and also figure out all the other chemical substances in these chips.

If it turns out that red-gray chips from WTC dust can exhibit all the properties of magneticism, optic inspection, XEDS, SEM, BSE, and ignition test, but do NOT contain any thermite at all, then there is nothing at all left in the Bentham paper that "proves" these chips were ever thermitic.


Of course, if Jim can't find chips that match reasonably closely chips a-d that Harrit e.al. looked at, then he shouldn't do any further analysis of them.


All this is still on-topic in this thread, as I have good hope that Jim's additional data will give us valuable new clues about whether or not the red layer is LaClede paint and the gray layer structural steel (A242 or similar). I know as well as practically everyone else in this thread that Harrit e.al. found no thermite, and don't need any more analysis to reinforce that conclusion. My interest is the type of paint, but Chris Mohr has been driving this and has all rights to call the shots.


ETA: Just read this:

...
I asked Jim Millette about my concerns that we find the right red-gray chips. I also mentioned cooking the chips as part of a replication of the Harrit experiments, maybe even with an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. Today he just wrote back, "Chris, It is our intent to find all the red-gray chips we can in several samples and characterize them all. We will only consider additional tests for ignitability on those that match the Harrit criteria. Jim"...

Great!
Edited my first sentence: "I hope know that is the plan"

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Thanks for the very good summary of "the state of the art", Oystein)

 

[chrismohr]

Hopefully everyone knows that Jim Millette has great dust samples with an unimpeachable chain of custody. Kevin's refusal to participate is not something every 9/11 Truth person agrees with, and some have told me this test will influence them because THEY believe it's being done fairly. But as I say, I can;t control people's reactions. I am confident we'll have some good science tho.

 

[carlitos]

Hopefully everyone knows that Jim Millette has great dust samples with an unimpeachable chain of custody. Kevin's refusal to participate is not something every 9/11 Truth person agrees with, and some have told me this test will influence them because THEY believe it's being done fairly. But as I say, I can;t control people's reactions. I am confident we'll have some good science tho.

Can you please confirm whether any of the "truther" community have agreed anything at all about these tests? Whether the samples are legit, whether your test could disprove Harrit et al, etc.?

 

[shure]

Í think the proposal from Chris is fantastic news. There are quite a few people interested in the truth who have been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time. Can someone please send me paypal info?

 

[Edx]

Thanks for the clarification, Oystein.

Does anyone know if they are testing nano thermite itself?

It seems to me they need an actual control of the stuff truthers say was used in order to say it isnt thermite. Sure we know what regular thermite is like, but we already know nano thermite to truthers is whatever they want it to be. So lets say it shows it isnt thermite, well nano thermite works differently, they will say, surely?

 

[Oystein]

Thanks for the clarification, Oystein.

Does anyone know if they are testing nano thermite itself?

It seems to me they need an actual control of the stuff truthers say was used in order to say it isnt thermite. Sure we know what regular thermite is like, but we already know nano thermite to truthers is whatever they want it to be. So lets say it shows it isnt thermite, well nano thermite works differently, they will say, surely?

There is no such substance as "the stuff truthers say was used" because truthers do NOT say what stuff was used, beyond the generic "nano-thermite".

The only reference they make to any real, tested nano-thermite is the material that Tillotson described in his 2001 paper (reference [28] in the Bentham paper), which was more about methodology than the material itself; and the only comparison they make with Tillotson's material is the DSC trace, which, indeterminate as it from the get-go, differs widely in peak height and peak location from Farrer's results. So Harrit e.al. have already proven (see data in Foig. 19 and 29) that their chips are different from Tillotson's nano-thermite in reaction kinetics. As they do not reference any other nano-thermite formulation, all their conclusions rest entirely on made-up speculation.

However, there is one thing we do know about nano-thermite: It must contain particles of (mostly) elemental Al (disregarding a few nm of Al-oxide surface). If Jim can show that (pretty much) all of the Al is already bound to O and/or Si, then there is no thermite of ANY kind in the chips.

nano-thermite really is just regular thermite, only coming in smaller particle size. There is no chemical difference, and also no physical difference on the atom/molecule scale.

The only problem that Jim might run into is if he uses methods that require particle size (or expanse) of uniform substance larger than the nano-size range that Harrit e.al. speculate about.

 

[chrismohr]

More responses to threads above... Carlitos there are several people I call "real Truthers" who have been contacting Jones, Harrit, and Ryan, telling them repeatedly that they really want to see independent confirmation of thermitic materials in the dust. One hard-core real Truther said to me, if your experiment doesn't find thermites, I'll never use thermitic dust as an argument again. Another said she hopes we don't find thermitics because she really doesn't want to believe 9/11 Truth claims! You have to realize how splintered the movement is... not only Richard Gage (CD) vs. Judy Woods (death rays?) but also right vs left wingers, neo-Nazis vs regular radicals, and True Believers vs. Real Truthers (my term). Also, some top people in the movement now trust me personally and know I'm doing the best I can to be fair. So when the test comes out, I will be able to cash in my (red-gray) chips whatever the result. That may be because for all my bias against thermXte in the dust, I'm no scientist, I can't do chemical analyses, and I must rely on an independent study by a chemist I trust before I can say with any confidence that Ryan/Jones/Harrit are right or wrong. At this point all I can say is, Oystein and Ivan and Sunstealer sure seem to make a lot of sense but I can't be certain they are right. Thus, the test is there for me to learn something... and if thermXte does show up, that would pass my threshold of suspicion and make me really wonder...

Oystein, I think you know, but Ryan/Jones/Harrit did talk with Tillotson personally before publishing the Bentham study, and also got information about sol-gel (?) or whatever materials the nanos are stored in for stabilization prior to use. This I think is what the 1,3 diphenylpropane is supposed to be about (not plastics in computer boxes as the EPA said when they found this). I could be way off on this. I don't know if Jim Millette plans to look at the sol-gel or whatever as the Bentham gang did, but I'm not sure it's necessary, because as Oystein said, the chemical composition of nanothermite is the same, just in nano sizes.

 

[chrismohr]

Í think the proposal from Chris is fantastic news. There are quite a few people interested in the truth who have been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time. Can someone please send me paypal info?

Hi Shure,
Go back to page 32 of this thread... Carlitos just made the offer to use his PayPal as a way to get money internationally to me. He's made some 7,000 posts and I believe his honesty can be trusted. If you're in the U.S., a check or money order to me is fine (just write me personally or look at my post #1257).

 

[shure]

DGM has offered to help with the paypal so I'm all set

 

[DGM]

Hi Shure,
Go back to page 32 of this thread... Carlitos just made the offer to use his PayPal as a way to get money internationally to me. He's made some 7,000 posts and I believe his honesty can be trusted. If you're in the U.S., a check or money order to me is fine (just write me personally or look at my post #1257).

Chris:
I have also extended the offer to shure and said if he want's to pool some of his friends donations I would have no problem with that.

I've already sent you one check with ozeca41 and my contribution.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Carlitos and DGM,

Thanks so much for helping with PayPal-ing money for this. Just a reminder that money matters should remain confidential. Some people have said "I'll send $100" or "I'll send $20" on this thread and that's fine. But who sends how much should remain confidential otherwise. I'll be thanking everyone who contributes individually but each person has the right to decide how much to send. There are a couple people who are literally able to send $5 (fixed income retiree, unemployed, etc) and are a little embarrassed by this. We also have one "up to $200" offer. That's a fantastic range. I'm happy to see the show of support of any size and don't want anyone ever to be put down for their "paltry" donation. Thanks all!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hopefully everyone knows that Jim Millette has great dust samples with an unimpeachable chain of custody. Kevin's refusal to participate is not something every 9/11 Truth person agrees with, and some have told me this test will influence them because THEY believe it's being done fairly. But as I say, I can;t control people's reactions. I am confident we'll have some good science tho.

Nothing is unimpeachable to a twoofer....remember they think FDNY are covering up the CD of WTC7.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Can you please confirm whether any of the "truther" community have agreed anything at all about these tests? Whether the samples are legit, whether your test could disprove Harrit et al, etc.?

Carlitos, why we should confirm that truthers have agreed with "our" tests? We can discuss the results (and it could be lot of fun), but the choice of the tests (analytical methods) is purely "our" deal (deal of Jim Millette and his team now).

As I understand, the dust samples are in possession of Jim Millette since he was one of the authors of important official "WTC dust study", e.g. here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240917/. Personally, I have no doubt on the chain of custody here. As I know, Jim has already separated some red-gray chips which look similarly to Bentham chips. At least it means that such chips are really abundant in the dust (which is expected e.g. for Laclede primer paint) and, therefore, they can be thoroughly analyzed.

Of course the experimental work of Jim Millette can disprove claims of Harritt et al, clearly and unambiguously. But... let's wait...

Concerning me, debunking of nanothermite hypothesis is a kind of (rather strange) hobby during last months. And since any real hobby costs something, I am willing to pay something to see some real progress in this interesting matter

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein, I think you know, but Ryan/Jones/Harrit did talk with Tillotson personally before publishing the Bentham study, and also got information about sol-gel (?) or whatever materials the nanos are stored in for stabilization prior to use. This I think is what the 1,3 diphenylpropane is supposed to be about (not plastics in computer boxes as the EPA said when they found this). I could be way off on this. I don't know if Jim Millette plans to look at the sol-gel or whatever as the Bentham gang did, but I'm not sure it's necessary, because as Oystein said, the chemical composition of nanothermite is the same, just in nano sizes.

Chris, up to now, I have never been interested in "suspicious 1,3-diphenylpropane (DPP) matter", but anyway just shortly:

If some significant concentrations of DPP were detected after WTC fires/collapses, no wonder, since this compound is one of the typical products of thermal degradation of polystyrene (among others). And this polymer had to be present in huge amounts in WTC, not only as a homopolymer (e.g. Styrofoam or so), but e.g. also as a component of ABS terpolymers (computer cases etc.). There is no real need to look for other sources of DPP in pollutants after WTC disaster.
At first glance (after quick googling) I see that "DPP from nanothermite" hypothesis had been already thoroughly debunked elsewhere and there is no need to mention or discuss it again.

 

[carlitos]

Carlitos, why we should confirm that truthers have agreed with "our" tests? We can discuss the results (and it could be lot of fun), but the choice of the tests (analytical methods) is purely "our" deal (deal of Jim Millette and his team now).

As I understand, the dust samples are in possession of Jim Millette since he was one of the authors of important official "WTC dust study", e.g. here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240917/. Personally, I have no doubt on the chain of custody here. As I know, Jim has already separated some red-gray chips which look similarly to Bentham chips. At least it means that such chips are really abundant in the dust (which is expected e.g. for Laclede primer paint) and, therefore, they can be thoroughly analyzed.

Of course the experimental work of Jim Millette can disprove claims of Harritt et al, clearly and unambiguously. But... let's wait...

Concerning me, debunking of nanothermite hypothesis is a kind of (rather strange) hobby during last months. And since any real hobby costs something, I am willing to pay something to see some real progress in this interesting matter

Thanks. Good points. I tuned out for a while, so didn't read the chain of custody. I am also participating in this "hobby" after much deliberation. Looking forward to the results.