Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper

[Ivan Kminek]

When considering the contents of the red chip surface contamination, all the materials that previously existed in the WTC are open to consideration.

When considering the content of the 'cleaned' red chips, testing has shown that
primer paint is not a valid consideration.

MM

In this case, I will respond to you.

Although the surface contamination of chips is apparently a serious matter, in the discussion of both Millette's and Harrit's results, not "all the materials are open to consideration".

Take e.g. just paints. By design, they must be tough/ductile/slightly flexible (must have proper mechanical properties) and therefore their layers should be disintegrated mostly to comparatively large pieces during collapses, not to some extremely fine dust. They should form pieces e.g. like these red-gray chips we all know

Therefore, Harrit's idea that MEK chip was contaminated somehow with the super-fine dust of Tnemec (or other paint) is not plausible. At least to me

OK., MEK chip could be hypothetically contaminated with some comparatively larger Tnemec particles, but we do not see any visual proof of it - chip looked homogeneous before swelling/soaking.
Moreover (once again): how this nanothermite chip (according to you) might be contaminated just with the Tnemec paint? We can exclude the possibility that these materials, comparatively rare in WTC, can "meet each other" by accident; and only remaining possibility is that nanothermite was somehow applied directly on the Tnemec primer layers on WTC perimeter columns. The reason why anybody should bother with painting of thin nanothermite layer over Tnemec primer layer remains unknown. At least to me

In this context, I'd like to remind "our" truther Poseidon, who has contributed in Oystein's blog. He is educated in the materials matter and clever, he basically accepted our paint theory, but just because of high Al peak in the Fig. 17 (Bentham paper), he came with a brand new hypothesis: nanothermite was not inside the red MEK chip, but outside (as a contaminant).

In fact, there is no reason to consider both nanothermite/on/paint and paint/on/nanothermite "hypotheses". All we know can be reasonably explained using the obvious hypothesis that red chips are just paint chips contaminated with expected stuffs like fine powders of gypsum and concrete

 

[Miragememories]

"...Does any primer paint to your knowledge?"

"Any primer paint that contains iron oxide as a pigment will leave iron-rich microspheres in its residue when ignited."

Any?

You do know that the red chips were igniting around 430C and that the samples of Tnemec steel primer paint remained chemically stable even at a temperature of 800C.

When the Tnemec steel primer paint (contains iron oxide as a pigment) was burned in a flame, the scientists found ash as expected. They did not find your iron-rich microspheres.

When the red chips ignited in the DSC at 430C, it was not the same story.

Whether it be Tnemec or the infamous LaClede steel primer paint, it remains to be answered; why would anyone use a primer paint that could be ignited by a match, cigarette lighter, a spark, a small fire etc.?

And how would such a volatile paint ever get regulatory approval?

MM

 

[Oystein]

...
When the red chips ignited in the DSC at 430C, it was not the same story.

Couple of questions:

• What colors do you see on all the chip before ignition?
• How do you explain these colors?
• What colors do you see on this chip after ignition?
• How do you explain these colors?
• What has changed chemically during ignition (which reaction took place)?
• Does the reaction somehow have a bearing on your explanation of the colors?

Whether it be Tnemec or the infamous LaClede steel primer paint, it remains to be answered; why would anyone use a primer paint that could be ignited by a match, cigarette lighter, a spark, a small fire etc.?

And how would such a volatile paint ever get regulatory approval?

This question is very stupid.

Here is a little experiment that you can do at home:

1. Light a candle. Let it burn for minute or two till a little pool of molten candle wax has formed around the bottom of the wick.
2. Cut a little strip of aluminium wrap.
3. Hold it with a metal wrench and quickly dip it into the molten wax and pull out. This will cover the aluminium (typically a mil / 25 micrometers, or less, thick) with a very thin layer of wax. Let cool for a moment.
4. Now hold that wax-cover Al-strip over the burning candle - maybe a cm / 5/16" above the tip of the flame
5. Observe, and tell us what happens!
6. Now dip the metal wrench itself into the hot wax and let cool
7. Hold the wax-covered wrench over the flame as before
8. Observe, and describe what happens now!

I just did that. In the first case, the wax burst into a big flame after one or 2 seconds, and burned out very quickly. In the second case, the wax just melted, but never ignited.

[ETA]I filmed myself the second time. Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L33llq2S4lE (my first ever YouTube upload Nevermind the speech - I sound a little drunk I think, but it's because I forgot to prepare mentally, my spoken English is rusty and always needs a minute or so to wake up )[/ETA]

Can you explain the differences in observation?

For that matter, why can you light a candle only at the wick, not at the shaft?




Now try to transfer the results of this little experiment to paint on structural steel / paint on 1-mil-thin rust chips



(There is of course a second reason why flammable paint is no problem: Paint is extremely thin compared to the steel it's painted on, it could never pose a hazard. It would warm the steel by a few degrees, max)

 

[Miragememories]

"...You do know that the red chips were igniting around 430C and that the samples of Tnemec steel primer paint remained chemically stable even at a temperature of 800C.

When the Tnemec steel primer paint (contains iron oxide as a pigment) was burned in a flame, the scientists found ash as expected. They did not find your iron-rich microspheres.

When the red chips ignited in the DSC at 430C, it was not the same story.

[qimg]http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7706/ignitedredchip.png[/qimg]

Whether it be Tnemec or the infamous LaClede steel primer paint, it remains to be answered; why would anyone use a primer paint that could be ignited by a match, cigarette lighter, a spark, a small fire etc.?

And how would such a volatile paint ever get regulatory approval?"

"Couple of questions:

• What colors do you see on all the chip before ignition?
• How do you explain these colors?
• What colors do you see on this chip after ignition?
• How do you explain these colors?
• What has changed chemically during ignition (which reaction took place)?
• Does the reaction somehow have a bearing on your explanation of the colors?

"

????

I made no remarks about any colors.

Are you feeling okay?

"...You do know that the red chips were igniting around 430C and that the samples of Tnemec steel primer paint remained chemically stable even at a temperature of 800C.

When the Tnemec steel primer paint (contains iron oxide as a pigment) was burned in a flame, the scientists found ash as expected. They did not find your iron-rich microspheres.

When the red chips ignited in the DSC at 430C, it was not the same story.

[qimg]http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7706/ignitedredchip.png[/qimg]

Whether it be Tnemec or the infamous LaClede steel primer paint, it remains to be answered; why would anyone use a primer paint that could be ignited by a match, cigarette lighter, a spark, a small fire etc.?

And how would such a volatile paint ever get regulatory approval?"

"This question is very stupid.

Here is a little experiment that you can do at home:

....(There is of course a second reason why flammable paint is no problem: Paint is extremely thin compared to the steel it's painted on, it could never pose a hazard. It would warm the steel by a few degrees, max)"

We are not talking about 'structural steel wax candles'.

The points are;

- the heat test results provide a useful reference guide for what to expect from the structural steel primer paint used at the time of the WTC construction.

- the NIST, as well as the Bentham scientists, heat-tested the most common steel primer paint formulation used in the WTC, and it tolerated 800C without igniting.

- no approval agency is likely to pass a structural steel primer paint which would have self-destructed and therefore failed the NIST test at 430C

MM

 

[Oystein]

????
I made no remarks about any colors.
Are you feeling okay?

You don't understand, do you?
I'll give you a hint:
The red layer of the red-gray chips is red before and after heating.
The gray layer is dark gray before and after heating.
The red layer is red because it contains iron oxide in 100 nm pigments
The gray is dark grey because it consists of iron oxides, but not pigments
They don't change color because the iron oxide doesn't react. In particular, the iron oxide in the red layer does not react

The spheroid bulb has formed from the inert gray layer, not as a result of a thermite reaction, which didn't take place.

We are not talking about 'structural steel wax candles'.

The points are;

- the heat test results provide a useful reference guide for what to expect from the structural steel primer paint used at the time of the WTC construction.

I am sure we have been through this many times before. Why do you lie here? You know damned well there wasn't just "the" structural steel (Tnemec).

- the NIST, as well as the Bentham scientists, heat-tested the most common steel primer paint formulation used in the WTC, and it tolerated 800C without igniting.

Can you prove this claim that Tnemec was "the most common steel primer formulation used in the WTC"? Or did you just invent that? LaClede may very well have been more common (i.e. painted on a larger surface)

See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8058454&postcount=2109
Tnemec is only known to have been painted on the perimeter columns. The total surface area of the perimeter columns is smaller than the total area of the LaCLede floor joists.

- no approval agency is likely to pass a structural steel primer paint which would have self-destructed and therefore failed the NIST test at 430C

Which "approval agency" would get to approve structural steel primer paints, and can you show that their criteria include performance when heated?
Can you explain why that would be important (to keep the anti-corrosion coat intact after the steel heated to 430°C)? I'd be willing to bet serious money again that you cannot back up these claims at all

 

[Oystein]

Back to topic:

At 911Blogger they had silenced those who read the Millette interim report correctly and were critical about the handwaving, lies and ignorance with which it wa met by AE911T and other 911Bloggers.

Now a poster who I haven't seen before has managed to pass the censors - in a blog about sone Jonathan Cole video:

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-06-...expert-vs-expert-ae911truthorg#comment-256939

Needs updating

A good program, but it needs some editing to bring it up to date. Specifically, the study conducted by Dr. James Millette makes it appear unlikely that the red-gray chips are nanothermite, or any other thermitic material. Media referencing nanothermite and/or the red-gray chips, as is the case with this video, should be edited to remove these assertions or withdrawn from public view, since it can be used to cast doubt upon the credibility of those seeking the truth about 9//11.

Reference: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231314
According to Millette, the chips do not contain elemental aluminum, which would be an expected component if the chips are thermitic. Also according to Millette, the chips contain materials which match known components in paints.

Even a link to JREF

Obviously, this criticism also applies to the big "Experts Speak Out" "movie" with which Gage is currently touring the USA.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Back to topic:

At 911Blogger they had silenced those who read the Millette interim report correctly and were critical about the handwaving, lies and ignorance with which it wa met by AE911T and other 911Bloggers.

Now a poster who I haven't seen before has managed to pass the censors - in a blog about sone Jonathan Cole video:

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-06-...expert-vs-expert-ae911truthorg#comment-256939

Btw, John Michael P. Talboo added this comment to the article of ScootleRoyale:

"I agree with you that ae911 should have waited to see how things panned out with Millette before releasing their film, but the claim by Pat that Experts Speak Out "relies heavily on the nanothermite claim" is an overstatement. In the final edition, the thermite related evidence section takes up approximately 18 minutes of a roughly 96 minute film. The majority of time is devoted to the undebunkable physical evidence I cited in my Millette article, which will soon to be updated with a short reply to Oystein. Couple this with the fact that the 9/11 truth movement survived the early versions of Loose Change and I think things will be just fine no matter what.

Also, Pat says he has "been rather critical of the folks over at the rebunking 9-11 blog." In reality, he has mostly avoided our rather substantial criticism of him as well as our rebuttals to the small amount of criticism he has levied at us (example)."


Even a link to JREF

Obviously, this criticism also applies to the big "Experts Speak Out" "movie" with which Gage is currently touring the USA.

Oystein: This morning, I noticed the new article Scootle Not Bound, Just Lazy.... in ScrewLooseChange blog.

I would say that even truther snug.bug, who addressed really disgusting offenses as for your person soon after the first announcement of Jim Millette's results, is now being calmer and is somehow able to discuss. At least these days. His main point now: "Goystein, if you knew anything about the truth movement you'd know that a lot of people have been skeptical of the Jones gang all along... etc." Could be a sign that even snug.bug is not so sure how it is with all this nanohermite in WTC

Sadly, most of other "debates" on ScrewLooseChange seem to be oriented only to ad-hominem attacks, both from the side of truthers and debunkers; and are seldom factual or bringing anything new...

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Btw, John Michael P. Talboo added this comment to the article of ScootleRoyale:

"I agree with you that ae911 should have waited to see how things panned out with Millette before releasing their film, but the claim by Pat that Experts Speak Out "relies heavily on the nanothermite claim" is an overstatement. In the final edition, the thermite related evidence section takes up approximately 18 minutes of a roughly 96 minute film. The majority of time is devoted to the undebunkable physical evidence I cited in my Millette article, which will soon to be updated with a short reply to Oystein. Couple this with the fact that the 9/11 truth movement survived the early versions of Loose Change and I think things will be just fine no matter what.

Also, Pat says he has "been rather critical of the folks over at the rebunking 9-11 blog." In reality, he has mostly avoided our rather substantial criticism of him as well as our rebuttals to the small amount of criticism he has levied at us (example)."

 

[Oystein]

18 of 96 minutes is 19% - 8 times as much as the absolute max. Al-content of the red chip layers. If 19% isn't significant, how could they ever have believed that there was significant elemental Al anywhere??

 

[ElMondoHummus]

His main point now: "Goystein, if you knew anything about the truth movement you'd know that a lot of people have been skeptical of the Jones gang all along... etc."

Yes, as I recall, Judy Woods is one of those skeptics . Trading one kind of crazy for another is neither critical nor sound thinking.

 

[chrismohr]

In that blogger post Oystein mentions, there's a video I haven't seen before by Jonathan Cole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h_oEs33VD5A
Around 9+ minutes into it, Cole quotes a paper that talks about how thermitic materials can be used to design a hush-a-boom demolition. Anyone know more about this? It's also linked in one of my debating points on chrismohr911.com. I am certainly willing to acknowledge this is possible if true, as I have been agreeing with the debunker consensus that explosions MUST be loud to do their work.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

In that blogger post Oystein mentions, there's a video I haven't seen before by Jonathan Cole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h_oEs33VD5A
Around 9+ minutes into it, Cole quotes a paper that talks about how thermitic materials can be used to design a hush-a-boom demolition. Anyone know more about this? It's also linked in one of my debating points on chrismohr911.com. I am certainly willing to acknowledge this is possible if true, as I have been agreeing with the debunker consensus that explosions MUST be loud to do their work.

What I read in the video at 9+ minutes are two patent numbers.

One patent should be 5,532,499, Murakami, July 1996. I have not found any such patent by googling. US patent with this number deals with "Beam spot position detector having a detector moving mechanism". Perhaps Cole means a Japanese patent, not available.

The second patent should be 4,996,992, from 1991. Such US patent exists, but deals with "Automatic blood pressure measurement in hyperbaric chamber".

Therefore I'm confused

 

[chrismohr]

What I read in the video at 9+ minutes are two patent numbers.

One patent should be 5,532,499, Murakami, July 1996. I have not found any such patent by googling. US patent with this number deals with "Beam spot position detector having a detector moving mechanism". Perhaps Cole means a Japanese patent, not available.

The second patent should be 4,996,992, from 1991. Such US patent exists, but deals with "Automatic blood pressure measurement in hyperbaric chamber".

Therefore I'm confused

Things keep getting curiouser and curiouser. Does anyone know if this quote about thermitic materials having potential hush-a-boom qualities is real?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chrismohr: Sorry, I put a wrong number in the first case. A patent 5532449 deals with Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete. So this should be relevant, except that WTC were not concrete buildings. I will read the text...

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chrismohr: As I understand, cited patent (here is an original patent with Figures) describes a quite complex system for delivering thermite powder continuously into the surface of concrete where plasma torch creates high temperature arc, igniting the incoming thermite, or so.

According to Figures, system is usable only for the horizontal concrete surfaces. And without gradual supply of thermite (when all thermite would be already put on the concrete), the plasma arc would simply ignite all thermite at once, causing usual spectacular and quite loud thermite "firework".

Probably such system can cut/damage steel as well as concrete, who knows. I do not care. My business here are paints, not thermites

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chrismohr: Aha! Whereas I made a mistake in the number of the first patent, J. Cole himself made mistake in the number of the second patent

Instead of 4,996,992 should be 4,996,922.

This patent, named Low profile thermite igniter is e.g. here:

As for me, I can't see the images, since I don't have necessary plugin (here in my work).
It seems that patent describes a kind of thermite "torch" capable of orienting of the heat to the substrate, I'm too lazy to read it.

Perhaps tens of similar patents exist, but I do not care at all

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Btw, as for thermite cutting steel, about two weeks ago I found older long debate "Thermite Cuts Steel Columns, Reproduces Several WTC Anomalies, National Geographic Debunked" in the "white nationalists" and antisemitic website Stormfront.

I was quite amused by responses of the guy nicked LionAxe I do not know him, but his answers/explanations in the "battle" with several antisemitic truthers were simply clever and mostly well-based, although he claims somewhere that he has "no academic degree".
Notably, so called "Pittsburgh paint" is mentioned somewhere in this thread, which might be perhaps the very first notion about "our" Laclede paint (probably manufactured by Pittsburgh Plate and Glass Company), but my search did not found anything specific.
I would not agree with all the things LionAxe wrote, but it was still a quite good reading

 

[Ivan Kminek]

ChrisMohr: What I read now in Experts Speak Out Tour 2012 Blog:

"Chris Mohr, one of the most outspoken opponents of 9/11 Truth, also attended the event. Richard Gage had this to say about their meeting:

We invited him to share his thoughts about the evidence that had just been presented by the experts. He was quite polite, as usual, regarding his disagreement with us. He noted that Jim Millette's study of the WTC dust samples was going to continue with a DSC (heater) experiment to determine what happens when the red-gray chips are heated to over 430° centigrade. We reminded Chris to also make sure that the study includes an analysis of the actual size of the iron oxide particles, which an international team of scientists originally determined by scanning electron microscope analysis to be just 40 nanometers across – a feature not present in paint!"

Interesting news to me, I have not known that you attended this truther session Have these truthers read Jim Millette's preliminary report? If yes, why they try to remind you (or Jim Millette) "to make sure that the study includes an analysis of the actual size of the iron oxide particles"? Iron oxide particles are shown in the report (e.g. in Fig. 18 in detail) and they have sizes around 200 nm and are perhaps about 50 nm "thick".

Well, they seem to be generally slightly larger than in Fig. 8 in Bentham paper, but they are still clearly nanosized. Like many other iron oxide pigments used in paints for decades or even centuries

And is it right that Jim Millette plans to do some experiments with heating of chips in DSC?

 

[chrismohr]

The conversation I remember with Richard Gage that night was very different. Firstly, I said that Millette is NOT doing the DSC test but that someone else is trying to get one going (a 9/11 Truth guy I'm working with). The problem, I said publicly, is that when I tried to find someone to do the test, he said that if there is any chance of there being thermite, it would melt through the crucible he has so he refused.

As for the iron-rich spheres, I said publicly that Millette will be doing more research on them. In a private conversation Gage told me that the microspheres were about 100 atoms across and Millette should look into this.

 

[DGM]

The problem, I said publicly, is that when I tried to find someone to do the test, he said that if there is any chance of there being thermite, it would melt through the crucible he has so he refused.

The problem really is a DSC is in no way reasonably way to identify an un-known compound. Harrit et. al chose this method because they could fool the target audience.

As you noticed by the lack of attention in the relevant fields (and only attention in the conspiracy market), they have succeeded.

No competent chemist could read their "paper" and come up with the same results. I have tested this with two PhD level chemists, both say their data does not support their results.

I challenge any "truther" to submit the Harrit et al paper for any peer review. It will fail, period, end of story.