Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper

[BasqueArch]

I spotted Albert Einstein immediately, so I researched a minute. We see the participants of the Solvay Conference (1911), and other well-known geniuses are in the photo, too (year of Nobel Prize in parentheses):
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1902, physics), seated, 4th from left
Marie Curie (1903, physics and 1911, chemistry), seated, 2nd from right
Henri Poincaré, seated, 1st from right
Max Planck (1918, physics), standing, 2nd from left
Maurice de Broglie, standing, 5th from left (pioneerd X-ray diffraction spectroscopy!)
Ernest Rutherford (1908, chemistry), standing, 4th from right
Albert Einstein (1921, physics)

Other who went on to become Nobel laureats that I don't even know are
Walther Nernst (1920, chemistry)
Jean Baptiste Perrin (1926, physics)
Wilhelm Wien (1911, physics)
Heike Kamerlingh Onnes (1913, physics)

What an impressive line-up! Arnold Sommerfeld never won the Nobel prize, but was nominated 81 (1) times, and, more importantly, was doctoral advisor to several Nobel laureates, including Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Hans Bethe, Peter Debye.

I picked that photo because I collect Nobel physics autographs and I have a number of those pictured.
I also have Feynman, one of my faves.
I don't know what it is about the Germans, but I have a plethora of their Nobel physics signed pictures also.

Check out Nobel physics winners by country- Germany 2nd after the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics

 

[fourtoe]

Everyone's acting all slick 'cause they can pick out so-called "legit" scientists but none of you noticed that this is actually Gage (bald, in the suit), Fetzer (big guy) and Jones (bowl cut)....Einstein, Curie, pfffft.

 

[tsig]

The irony is that Jones et al could have had us thinking…….if only they had given their little scheme a bit more thought. They weren’t smart enough to get their lies straight from the outset. Baffling the gullible with bollox is all they have achieved. What they should have done was to get their lies straight by actually finding some dust with true thermite in it, then getting it tested to be sure (seems that they could have done that with just $1,000 to Dr Millette but decided upon an ‘in house’ test that won’t be duplicated). But no…….they jumped in like an Irish mine detector…both feet first.

How dumb can one be to conjure up such a wacky idea without actually having the ingredients to prove it? If I didn’t laugh at such stupidity I would……..well, laugh louder. Akin to testing mortar mix that has no cement but saying that it does. Would anyone bother to argue on a forum about this? Probably!!! Plenty of takers for such crap.....thankfully the givers are becoming fewer.

Jones et al could search until their hearts content but still wouldn’t be smart enough, even today, to find any dust anywhere with thermite in it. They’re not smart enough even to be that deceitful…..are they?

Give us ya dust Ryan. (Switch to a scene of Ryan asking the guys from Mythbusters for some samples for an 'experiment' )……lol.

The paper did serve it's purpose, it got everyone talking about nano-nanu-thermite instead of the impossibility of controlled demolition.

 

[grandmastershek]

The paper did serve it's purpose, it got everyone talking about nano-nanu-thermite instead of the impossibility of controlled demolition.

Absolutely...just some way to distract away from the insanity of 9/11 Truth by giving the gullible some multi-syllable words to sit in awe of.

In related news, the fake family member Cosmo quickly gets set straight on his straw grasping, then cries incessantly.

 

[uke2se]

In related news, the fake family member Cosmo quickly gets set straight on his straw grasping, then cries incessantly.

Those comments are not readable to me. Too many insults.

 

[grandmastershek]

Those comments are not readable to me. Too many insults.

Yeah the threads ove there quickly degrade into a **** storm.

Edited by LashL: 

To properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

 

[Kent1]

Yeah the threads ove there quickly degrade into a **** storm.

Yea its almost impossible to read those SC threads anymore.
Although the 911blogger thread is continuing. Its interesting to see them talk about the RJ Lee letter and claiming that melting point depression only occurs below 50 nm. Based of course on the wikipedia article without looking into the many other sources and examples regarding the burning of steel dust and steel wool at temps such as 430C.

http://www.analytyka.com.mx/tabla%20periodica/MSDS/Fe/IRON%20POWDER.htm

https://www.google.com/search?q=bur...t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox

 

[Kent1]

New reply here: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

I love the claims about Mohr's video long debunked.
His claims "by experimentation", regarding aluminum, gypsum were laughable the day they came out. I guess he's never heard of the emissivity or that yes gypsum wallboard does aid in Corrosion. Long debunked topics with many threads around here.


The claims after Mohr's video mention have long since been refuted.
But the claims in the first few paragraphs I'll have to look at closer when I have more time.

That said how much sulfur did he find in his red paint, err I mean thermite, uh I mean thermite fuse residue that was supposed to melt the steel at below 1000C again.
And if this isn't the magical stuff that was supposed to do the melting/blowing up as Jones now claims, where are the samples for this supposed phantom materical?

 

[Jackanory]

The paper did serve it's purpose, it got everyone talking about nano-nanu-thermite instead of the impossibility of controlled demolition.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. don't tell anyone, but it served a purpose largely within the confines of a few obscure forums and got the attention of a few die hard nutjobs and rattled the cages of some bored arguementative scientist types.

Ended as expected....again. Cool.

 

[Oystein]

New reply here: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

I love the claims about Mohr's video long debunked.
His claims "by experimentation", regarding aluminum, gypsum were laughable the day they came out. I guess he's never heard of the emissivity or that yes gypsum wallboard does aid in Corrosion. Long debunked topics with many threads around here.


The claims after Mohr's video mention have long since been refuted.
But the claims in the first few paragraphs I'll have to look at closer when I have more time.

That said how much sulfur did he find in his red paint, err I mean thermite, uh I mean thermite fuse residue that was supposed to melt the steel at below 1000C again.
And if this isn't the magical stuff that was supposed to do the melting/blowing up as Jones now claims, where are the samples for this supposed phantom materical?

You should not link to the top of the blog, but to individual blog posts. You are referring to this:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/03/millette-versus-harrit-et-al-mek-test.html
Title: "Millette Versus Harrit et al: The MEK Test"

They start off with an excellent analysis of Fig. 10 of the Bentham paper - the XEDS maps of a red layer region on chip (a). They see, correctly, that "the maps for aluminium and silicon are pretty much identical - meaning wherever there's aluminium, there's also silicon. The regions high in aluminium and silicon correlate very well with the locations of plate-like particles.", and this leads them to realize that "it leads to the obvious hypothesis that these plate-like particles may be some form of aluminosilicate, such as kaolin. Steven Jones claims that this was their initial thought."

And then they commit the usual blunder: They leave chip (a) and turn to an entirely different chip: The one they treated with MEK.

Sonebody needs to tell these people that there is absolutely zero data that would indicate that the red material of chip (a) and the red material of the MEK-chip are the same.

They show that, after MEK soaking, Al and Si are not associated with each other. BUT they never showed that Al and Si were associated before MEK soaking, so they really have not shown that the soaking "separated" Al and Si. They assume, without evidence, that chip (a) and the MEK chip are the same material, but ALL the evidence actually shows they are different!


More nonsense:

For Dr Millete's samples, there's no established chain of custody, so the different results may be due to the fact that the chips in his samples were deactivated in some way.

It's the other way round: Millette's samples are accounted for precisely for every day since they were collected. Jones's samples on ther other hand were collected without protocol, and were stored under no controlled conditions for years.
This talk about "deactivation" is a cheap handwave and pure speculation.

They repeat the Cate Jenkins allegations. We talked about these before (she does not claim at all that Millette did anything improper).

Talking about hematite particles:

Dr Millette's report did confirm the presence of rhomboidal iron oxide nanoparticles about 100-200 nm in diameter. What's particularly interesting about this find is the consistency in terms of the size and shape of the particles. ... It seems unlikely that such remarkable consistency and crystallinity would occur randomly and be found in a paint pigment.

Nonsense. If only they had informed themselves about iron oxide paint pigments.
Look here:
http://books.google.de/books?id=rC_n7RWgNVoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false
Go to page 262 and learn: hematite pigments are brownish if larger than 1µm, and transparent below 100nm. Only opaque and coloured between 100 and 1000nm (Fig. 5.36)
Fig 5.38 then shows an image of such pigments. Compare with Millette's hematite: Same size distribution.
Hematite pigemnts closer to 1000nm are purple; closer to 100nm they are yellowish. between 150 and 500nm, they are bright red. Just what we need.

It turns out that hematite pigments with nicely controlles particle size in the range we see in Harrit's and Millette's images have been produced industrially sincer at least the 1920s (Laux process).

And obviously we know the chips do something when heated. We have video! Perhaps Dr Millette could repeat Mark Basile's experiment, video and all, and do a DSC test.

The stupid hurts.
Millette DID burn some chips - calls it "ashing". And of course the organic matrix burned!
It can easily be shown that Basile's data points to <5% thermite but >80% organic matrix. Since organic polymers have at least 3 times the energy density of thermite, this means that at least 98% of the energy released when burning Basile's chips is from organic combustion. FAIL!
Basilke didn't do a DSC by the way, and Harrot e.al. failed to characterize the stuff they put in the DSC - we have no idea what it was. Worthless data.


I wonder who are these people who put so much effort into writing such long and such dumb blog posts??

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Here I have found a longer truther text on Millette's study written by your German fellow-citizen (?) Dirk Gerhardt, named "Kritik an Dr. Millette und seiner angeblichen Widerlegung"

Google translation into English is quite horrible in this case, but still main points are understandable.

As can be expected, the text repeats the same complaints that without DSC "test", nobody can really know if the chips (containing kaolinite, iron oxide and epoxy) are thermitic, etc.

Gerhardt cited some e-mail of Niels Harrit:
"Millette ignores the thermite reaction, like he has ignored the iron spheres for 10 years. So he has very good reasons to ignore the iron sphere formation, since it would contradict his previous work with Paul J. Lioy. The formation of iron spheres in the reaction is the key observation. Everything else is secondary."
Etc, nothing new under the sun

What is quite new are shocking Gerhardt's sentences that Jim Millette washed his chips with water before measurements in order to "mask" somehow the thermitic nature of the material (although no thermal analysis was performed on it, btw).
A quote (after some necessary editing): "When the sample is washed (with water, I.K.) and dried, this could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to deceive, since this operation has the ability to limit the reactivity of chips or completely destroy them. True science certainly looks different."

So, whereas we discuss in the Paint thread and in the Jim Millette study thread if the washing of chips with water is good enough for removal of all surface contaminants for XEDS measurements, the same cleaning procedure is regarded as a potential part of 911 inside job by your fellow-citizen, Oystein

 

[Oystein]

OMG
*hurries over to Belgium to seek political asylum*

I believe Dirk Gerhardt is also known as "Sitting Bull" in the blogosphere. I don't follow him though, and I might mix up something here.

So washing with water is no-no, but washing with MEK is yes-yes? On what professional or scientific experience with forensic particle analysis do these hobos base their stuff on? I'll check my McCrone particle atlas in a bit if it has any redommendations on sample preparation...

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Funny that Gerhardt admits that thermite can work even under water.

But, according to him, evil nanothermite can behave differently when investigated by James Millette, who is just a shill paid by US government:
Water can quickly diffuse into the nanothermite epoxy matrix (heavily crosslinked and completely insoluble in water, I.K.) and react with the elemental aluminum particles with the miraculous formation of typical kaolinite (Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄) platelets

 

[Oystein]

Well, Ivan, to you it all sounds like magic, but you'd understand if only you knew as much as Dirk Gerhardt! You and I and us mere mortals never heard of the super-secret "FLIR-test", but evil servant Millette uses it, and Dirk knows why that's evil!

You maybe think it was just FTIR, but don't be fooled. FLIR is a military thing!

 

[Oystein]

Der Hauptpunkt von Dr. Millette ist, dass im FLIR-Test kein elementares Al nachgewiesen werden konnte bzw. die sich ergebenden Graphen den von Kaolinit und Epoxydharz ähneln. Dies erscheint nicht nur mir zu dünn, weil die Interpretation der Daten falsch sein kann, sein muss, sofern eine Reduktion von FeO (wie auch immer) zu reinem, metallischen Eisen (Fe) wie von Harrit und Basile beschrieben statt findet. Kaolinit kann das nicht- worauf Prof. Jones in einer früheren Stellungnahme auch schon mal explizit hingewiesen hatte.

Dr. Millette's main point is that the FTIR test didn't demonstrate any elemental Al, and that the resulting graphs are similar to those of kaolinite and epoxy. This appears too thin not only to me, because the interpretation of this data could be wrong, must be wrong, provided a reduction of FeO (in whatever way) to pure, metallic iron (Fe) happened as described by Harrit and Basile. Kaolinite can't do that - which Prof. Jones had already pointed to in an earlier statement.

So much wrong here.
1. Handwave: Of course any interpretation "could" be wrong. The same goes for all the silly interpretations of Harrit and friends. Why doesn't Dirk handwave their results?
2. Strawman: No one claims that it was the kaolin that reduced anything. In fact, Harrit and Jones have not at all shown that any reduction took place, and didn't show any Al2O3 as a result of a thermitic redox-reaction. So the assertion that the finding of kaolin "must" be wrong is itself totally invalid. They keep forgetting about those ~70% organic matrix.
3. False dichotomy: IF (and that's a big fat if!) any reduction of FeO took place, could it not have been done by oxidation of organic material, or by products of the degradation of the epoxy (CO, perhaps)? Gerhard, Jones, Harrit don't rule out other possibilities. Another possibility: When they discuss the MEK-soaked chip, they claim that Zn, Ca, S imn Fig. 14 are all contaminations that wash off from MEK treatment. So the question naturally arises: Did Farrer test cleaned or uncleaned chips in the DSC? If cleaned, how did he clean them? Why then doesn't Gerhardt call the hiding of this step "fraud", when he call's Millette's openly admitting that he cleaned the chips "fraud"? If Farrer didn't clean the chips, how do they rule out any reactions of or with contamination materials?

 

[Kent1]

Looks like ScootleRoyale responded to Oystein and myself.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-last-post-wasnt-really-intended-as.html

I am well aware that JREFers have nitpicked these videos of experiments that test their claims. My point was that Chris Mohr parrots these claims in his videos while neglecting to mention that these tests have been done. It wouldn't be so bad if he had said "The molten metal pouring out of the south tower could have been aluminium. Stephen Jones believes he has refuted this, but here's the problem with his experiment ...". But he doesn't say that. He completely ignores Jones' experiment. Same thing with John Cole's gypsum experiment. By acting like these videos don't exist, Chris Mohr is being deceptive.

If this was your new standard of debate, the blog wouldn't look anything like it does now.

Maybe Mohr can make an addition at the end of his videos called "A list of Steven Jones goofball experiments". My favorite one is where he dropped concrete 12 feet onto another block, and because it didn't pulverize into powder like the Twin Towers, it must of likely been explosives.
He says you can try it yourself.
(No joke)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x55542

 

[Oystein]

Oh they are reading what we write hehehe


Hey, ScootleRoyale, I got some questions for you, Harrit, Jones:

• The Bentham paper says they were doing FTIR analysis on the chips and would show the results elsewhere. Where are these results? Why have we not seen them yet? What are they hiding?
• Harrit and Jones have said on several occasions that Farrer did TEM analysis on the particles in the red layer. They identified hematite (in particle sizes of 100-300nm a very common pignent, see McCrone, Delly: The Particle Atlas, Volume III, Edition Two, page 763, "Paint chips") Where are these results? Why have we not seen them yet? What are they hiding?
• Aren't you a bit suspicious that they did those tests, but never showed any results? Would be so nice to compare them Millette's...

ETA Oh dear they ARE responding directly to this - and make fools of themselves:

An XEDS spectrum was acquired prior to soaking (Figure 14), and the authors concluded based on that that it was a red/gray chip.

Alright, ScootleRoyale, let's compare the XEDS spectra.
Here's chips (a)-(d):

Please notice the similarities:

• All are dominated by C (second highest peak is O at 13-35% of C, average 27%)
• All have O as second highest peak (except (d), where O is barely beaten by Si)
• Very important: All have nearly equal peaks for Al and Si (Si slightly higher in 3 of 4)
• All have Fe at roughly 2/3 the peak hight of Si.
• None contain Zn, none contain Mg, only one contains labeled traces of other elements (although more traces are actually there: Cr, Sr, Ti...)

In addition to all these similarities, Harrit e.al. show more proof that they are probably all the same material:

• Fig. 2 shows photographs - color and finish appear the same on all four chips
• Fig 5 shows BSE images of the red layers with scale bars of 5-10 µm. All four chips appear to have the same kinds of particles in about the same density embedded into a similar looking kind of matrix
• Fig 6 shows XEDS graphs for the four gray layers: They are all very similar in that they have large O- and Fe-peaks, small C-peaks (and also 3 of the 4 have a tiny, unlabeled signal for Mn))
• Fig 8 shows higher magnification BSE images of all four chips - again we see the same kinds of whitish, rhombic grains and greyish platelets, which are sometimes stacked

So yes, indeed, these 4 chips have been shown by Harrit e.al. to very probably be the sane material.

Now on to Fig 14:

Let's see if we find the same similarities:

• Dominated by C? No. O is the highest peak
• O follows in second place? No. See above. O is 166% of instead of 27%, or ~6 times too high
• Si and Al have about same peak hight? No. Si is nearly twice as high as Al
• Fe has about 2/3 the peak height of Si (or Al)? No. Fe is higher than both Al and Si
• Zn and Mg are absent? No. Both are present (Mg is the peak between the first Zn and Al. You might want to ask Harrit why he didn't label it, it is clearly there. Don't you suspect fraud?)
• All other elements are traces at most? No. Ca is the second highest peak and very dominant.

So in fact this XEDS graph is different from the graphs of chips (a)-(d) in every single way!
And you say they concluded from THIS that it was the same??? Honestly??

But let's go on - what other data do we have to confirm that this MEK chip is the same as (a)-(d)?

• Photograph: Fig 13 is totally out of focus. We see it's red, bit we can't assess finish or hue due to bad quality
• BSE-images: None. No way to tell if the same grains and platelets are present. However, Fig 12b allows us to at least assess the thickness of the red layer: It is here some 300µm thick - after swelling to about 5 times its former size due to MEK soaking. So that layer was initially about 60µm. We can measure the thickness of the red layer for chips (a) and (b) in Fig. 5a+b, and for chip (d) in Fig. 2d: Betweem 15 and 30µm. Much thinner.
• XEDS-graph of gray layer: Missing

So my claim was correct: There is not a single measurement of the MEK chip that allows us to compare it to chips (a)-(d) and conclude it's the same material. The only two measurements that allow such a comparison, the XEDS spectrum and layer thickness, have results that significantly differ from each other.
Conclusion: The MEK chip is a different material.




Now some claim that perhaps the XEDS in Fig 14 is contaminated with gypsum, i.e. calcium sulfide. Problem with that: Gypsum has an S-peak that is equal to and sometimes higher than Ca-peak. In Fig 14 however, Ca is 3x S. So if you remove the S and say it's gypsum, then you are still left with 2/3 of the Ca, with no explanation! Ca peak is then still higher than Fe, higher than Al, higher than Si! What else do you want to remove then from the graph? Perhaps some clacium silicate? Let's try! Let's reduce the Si peak down to the hight of the Al peak, and pretend that this takes care of the rest of the Ca. Then your Fe-peak is suddenly quite dominant: 266% of the Al peak, instead of only 66%! So now you nee to take off 75% of all the iron to fix that problem. And you are still left with unwanted Zn and Mg.

Basically, to use "contamination" to explain why Fig 14 is so very different from Fig. 7, you need to remove

• >80% of the oxygen (highest peak)
• all of the major metal (calcium, 2nd highest peak)
• 75% of the iron(4th highest peak)
• 50% of the silicone (5th-highest peak)
• all of the sulfur (6th-highest peak)
• all of the Zn
• all of the Mg
• most of the Cr

In other words: With the exception of Al and C, you must declare more than 50% of everything in this chip to be "contamination".

Wow. What a handwave Harrit, Jones and Farrer tried there! And ScootleRoyale apparently fell for it!

 

[Julio]

So much wrong here.
1. Handwave: Of course any interpretation "could" be wrong. The same goes for all the silly interpretations of Harrit and friends. Why doesn't Dirk handwave their results?

He, he..., it's indeed very easy to make wrong interpretations when what you are looking for is a confirmation of your bias, instead of honestly trying to find out what you have.

No one of the tests Harrit et al conducted was directed to identify the nature of their samples:
SEM + EDX: Gives data of elemental composition. Can help to determine, but data is not conclusive.
MEK soaking: Does not give any direct data to know about the composition
DSC: Does not give any direct information about the composition of the sample. If you are biased to think you have thermite, it's easy to take the leap to think a exothermic reaction corresponds to the "ignition"

So, the conclusion of the presence of (nano)themite is only after interpreting data of several tests, none of them capable to identify the molecular composition of samples.

On the other side, Millette addressed the point directly:
FTIR: Gives information about the IR signature of compunds. Much like EDX gives the X-Ray signature of elements, and so it's difficult to confuse Si from Al, or Fe, FTIR data makes it difficult to misidentify kaolin and the epoxy matrix.
SEM+EDX: Helps to confirm the presence of the elements that make up kaolin that shows up in FTIR
TEM+SAED: helps to confirm the presence of kaolin


Harrit et al: 3 tests, mix all data, and get a wrong interpetation due to bias.

Millette: 1 test that clearly identifies the sample + 2 tests that confirm the result.

 

[Oystein]

I got more for you, ScootleRoyale!

The fact that red/gray chips are present in all 9 of these samples, which were all collected from different places, suggests that red/gray chips were likely present in every cubic decimeter of those massive dust clouds produced that day. If these red/gray chips are just paint chips (the red layer) attached to a flakes of steel (the gray layer), then why - considering how prevalent they are in the dust - do they not match any of Tnemec's 177 coating products (as Millette concluded)?

Easy, buddy: Cuz Tnemec wasn't the only primer used on the twin towers. In fact, it is only known to have been applied to the perimeter columns. These account for roughly 30% of the total painted steel surface. 45% are the floor joists - NOT painted with Tnemec, I'll come to that in a bit - and for 25% of the total steel surface (core columns and beams, hat truss...) the primer is not know.

You truthers must really stop using the STUPID argument that if a paint is not Tnemec, then it is not primer! Tnemec was NOT the only primer used in the twin towers, there was at least one other! This is not conjecture, this is documented fact! Stop ignoring reality!

Millette found that the chips weren't Tnemec because we asked him to specifically look for the kind of chips that we already knew to not be Tnemec: Those that resemble Harrit's and Jones's chips (a)-(d).

Besides nanothermite, the only other explanation is that the entire steel structure of the World Trade Center was coated in some mysterious paint that nobody can seem to identify.

Not so mysterious:

NIST NCSTAR 1-6B, Appendix B (page 157 of the PDF file) describes the paint formulation that LaClede Steel Company used to paint the floor joists with - remember, that's 45% of all the painted steel area:

• Epoxy (Millette found epoxy, Harrit e.al. failed to identify the organic matrix)
• Iron oxide (Millette and Harrit found iron oxide - Fe2O3, hematite)
• aluminium silicate (Millette found Al-silicate (kaolin); Harrit e.al. also show kaolin in their data for chips (a)-(d), they were and still are just too stupid to notice)
• Traces of Strontium chromate (Harrit found traces of both Sr and Cr in chip (a) according to his letter, Fig. 5)
• In addition, Harrit e.al. Fig 6 shows the gray layer, with traces of C and Mn (unlabeled, still there in 3 of the 4 spectra) is consistent with the A242(66) steel that LaClede used the most on the joists

So it seems that yes, we found us some "mystery" primer.

There will be some chips left unidentified, but Harrit, Jones e.al. have a huge problem: They haven't shown that any chip contained significant elemental Al (no, the way they butchered that one chip with MEK, that result is totally inconclusive. Remember, Al was only the 7th-most abundant element in that chip; it should be the 2nd most abundant in thermite. They didn't DSC that chip, and never showed that it resembles any other chip, so there is precisely zero documented and reproducible proof that this kind of chip, high in Ca, with much more Fe than Al, burns and leaves Fe-spheres. Sloppy science! Bad Science!).

 

[Africanus]

I believe Dirk Gerhardt is also known as "Sitting Bull" in the blogosphere. I don't follow him though, and I might mix up something here.

Yes, he is. I currently participate in a discussion on 9/11 with him in a german forum.

So washing with water is no-no, but washing with MEK is yes-yes?

I just recalled that aluminum reacts with MEK, too.