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

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes, it is so

1 quart International havester red paint,
16 bucks.

I sillicon carbide aluminum silicate cuting wheel
1dollor 98 cents. Scrap Al and steel free.
1 tank argon gas 85 dollars.

Creates an energtic paint chip that ignites
In argon.

My way was just slightly less expensive
And debunks Jones for good.

Because I have a natural source for energetic chips
Wet paint in the buildings.

 

[chrismohr]

Chainsaw,
How great that you did this! I want whatever info you have: photos, etc. Feel free to write me on the private correspondence here. I'm putting out a video about all this and this is an experiment I may wish to include. Chris

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chainsaw,
How great that you did this! I want whatever info you have: photos, etc. Feel free to write me on the private correspondence here. I'm putting out a video about all this and this is an experiment I may wish to include. Chris

As soon as I can I will recreate and videotape
The experiment.

I simply have to redesign the argon containment
Vessel a converted propane tank from a gas
Grill to one with a larger plexiglass window
To allow observation and videotaping.

The window was only 3 Inches by 2 inches in the oridginal
Experiment. That allowed me to observe
But not to videotape.

I borrowed an optical stereo microscope
And found several microspheres left over,
However it did not have photographic
Or video capibillity.
It was just an old scope used by a geologist
To identify minerals.
I am working with no resourses, just what I have. while working
12-16 hours 7 days a week trying to make
A living as an artist and heavy equipment operator.
Oh the cutting disk was a mantibo on a 4
Inch grinder.
. Simply cutting, Al and directing the dust
Towards drying paint makes the paint energetic
Same fuel and Oxidizer as thermite.

 

[remo]

In the houses of appropriation.

Yes. Good idea. Chris M. can make a movie of it. It will be as relevant to the demolitions of WTC as the cartooNIST animation was to the observable Free Fall of Number 7.
I can make - have made and recorded -'thermite' reaction using a 4" cutter wheel thru stainless steel screws into aluminum joinery, too. While it made a flash and a flame that startled the camp, it is not likely to effect Dr. Jims hard work on the back burner; and to equate-extrapolate that basic into 5.87% iron spheroids of the DUST of 911 Free-Fall, is like suggesting the elemental Sulfur found around the Evaporated steel beam ends was formed from Gypsum wallboard and battery acid.
You might also try address how your finding squares with the amounts of energy required to a) explosively disintegrate all concrete flooring, office furniture and over 1000 souls into unidentifiable ppm DUST while mid-air, in an accelerating downward charge through the strongest undamaged structure beneath, and b) fuel the vast underground furnaces burning molten steel for a 13 week post demolition period.

The international skeptics arguing FOR the commission/creatioNIST reports (a wizardry of media all of itself) , would be better employed picking up the Architects and Engineers CHALLENGE to credentialed building experts in arguing the actual science/evidence of demolition.

 

[Iamafalser]

You might also try address how your finding squares with the amounts of energy required to a) explosively disintegrate all concrete flooring,

Apparently you're implying that all of the concrete flooring in the WTC towers was disintegrated with explosives as part of purposeful controlled demolition. This notion is laughable on its face for several reasons:

* The purpose of CD is to remove vertical structural support so that a building collapses of its own weight. Blowing up flooring that mostly only supports lateral loading (it does support some vertical loading but only the relatively minor load of people, furniture, office equipment. etcetera... on each floor) would be a complete waste of time, effort and money since once the structure's vertical support is gone gravity takes care of the rest.

* The concrete used for the flooring was a special lightweight concrete designed to hold a relatively light compressive load (people and office furniture) and, since it was supported by corrugated steel plate and trusses, a minimal tensile load. Therefore, it would turn to dust/disintegrate rather easily in the collapse of a 110 story half million metric ton building once the collapse had initiated.

office furniture

If you know of any office furniture than can withstand having a half million metric tons from an average of 55 stories dropped on it and still look like office furniture then please provide me a link to who makes it.

and over 1000 souls

It's a rather gruesome topic but according to the NY medical examiner, roughly 290 bodies were recovered mostly intact. Many other body parts were found of various sizes but given the amount mass dropped on them many were recovered as small bone fragments.

into unidentifiable ppm DUST

PPM refers to very dilute concentrations of materials (usually gases or liquids) and has nothing to do with particle size.

while mid-air

I would hardly describe being in middle of the collapse of a half million metric ton 110 story building as being in mid-air.

accelerating downward charge

That's how gravity works. Always has, always will.

through the strongest undamaged structure beneath

Once the columns at the damaged floors have buckled, the columns of the upper upper tilting part of the structure are no longer aligned with their corresponding structural member below. (nor attached) They punch through the floors and the kinetic energy greatly exceeds the loading capacity of further lower ones as they loads on them are both assymtrical and,.even if they did line up, way beyond their design load.

fuel the vast underground furnaces burning molten steel for a 13 week post demolition period.

What is the source of heat you're proposing here? Steel does not remain molten for 13 weeks without an energy source. This is a most basic law of physics and thermodynamics. Maybe it's that 13 week burning version of thermite - ya think?

Evaporated steel beam ends

Evaporating steel? Never heard of that before. At what temperature does steel evaporate? I suppose it's possible at very high temperatures (maybe in a vacuum) however, being an alloy, I suspect that it would most likely break down and its individual elements would evaporate at their own unique temperatures.

 

[GlennB]

You might also try address how your finding squares with the amounts of energy required to a) explosively disintegrate all concrete flooring, office furniture and over 1000 souls into unidentifiable ppm DUST while mid-air...

Haven't you learned by now that every time you repeat this "ppm dust" nonsense you come across as totally ignorant?

 

[MileHighMadness]

The international skeptics arguing FOR the commission/creatioNIST reports (a wizardry of media all of itself) , would be better employed picking up the Architects and Engineers CHALLENGE to credentialed building experts in arguing the actual science/evidence of demolition.

The AE Challenge is a lie and a con. They have no intention to debate anyone. It is just another ploy to energize the faithful and keep the money flowing to AE Truth.

I have sent AE Truth numinous emails on this subject, and haven’t gotten a single email in response.

 

[chrismohr]

Yes. Good idea. Chris M. can make a movie of it. It will be as relevant to the demolitions of WTC as the cartooNIST animation was to the observable Free Fall of Number 7.
I can make - have made and recorded -'thermite' reaction using a 4" cutter wheel thru stainless steel screws into aluminum joinery, too. While it made a flash and a flame that startled the camp, it is not likely to effect Dr. Jims hard work on the back burner; and to equate-extrapolate that basic into 5.87% iron spheroids of the DUST of 911 Free-Fall, is like suggesting the elemental Sulfur found around the Evaporated steel beam ends was formed from Gypsum wallboard and battery acid.
You might also try address how your finding squares with the amounts of energy required to a) explosively disintegrate all concrete flooring, office furniture and over 1000 souls into unidentifiable ppm DUST while mid-air, in an accelerating downward charge through the strongest undamaged structure beneath, and b) fuel the vast underground furnaces burning molten steel for a 13 week post demolition period.

The international skeptics arguing FOR the commission/creatioNIST reports (a wizardry of media all of itself) , would be better employed picking up the Architects and Engineers CHALLENGE to credentialed building experts in arguing the actual science/evidence of demolition.

Hiya Remo,
What a guy you are! You know very well that not being a scientist, I ask scientists. Interesting that not one scientist or engineer I have contaced has agreed with any aspect of your CD theory. Nada. Zip.
For example: rather than go through Tony's calculations or just believe my buddies here, on the question of whether there was enough energy in the Towers to bring them down once collapses initiated, I asked dozens of physicists. The 14 who were willing to talkj to me said yes there is enough energy once gravity takes over to do it, no question about it. Every one!
As for your pooh-pooh-ing "suggesting the elemental Sulfur found around the Evaporated steel beam ends was formed from Gypsum wallboard and battery acid," I didn't make that up. I went to Jonathan Barnett, the Appendix C author, and those were HIS hypotheses! Why don't you come out of your little coccoon and ask scientists at local universities who are not in this debate, as I have, hundreds of times?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes. Good idea. Chris M. can make a movie of it. It will be as relevant to the demolitions of WTC as the cartooNIST animation was to the observable Free Fall of Number 7.
I can make - have made and recorded -'thermite' reaction using a 4" cutter wheel thru stainless steel screws into aluminum joinery, too. While it made a flash and a flame that startled the camp, it is not likely to effect Dr. Jims hard work on the back burner; and to equate-extrapolate that basic into 5.87% iron spheroids of the DUST of 911 Free-Fall, is like suggesting the elemental Sulfur found around the Evaporated steel beam ends was formed from Gypsum wallboard and battery acid.
You might also try address how your finding squares with the amounts of energy required to a) explosively disintegrate all concrete flooring, office furniture and over 1000 souls into unidentifiable ppm DUST while mid-air, in an accelerating downward charge through the strongest undamaged structure beneath, and b) fuel the vast underground furnaces burning molten steel for a 13 week post demolition period.

The international skeptics arguing FOR the commission/creatioNIST reports (a wizardry of media all of itself) , would be better employed picking up the Architects and Engineers CHALLENGE to credentialed building experts in arguing the actual science/evidence of demolition.

Iron microspheres.are a form of pollution,
They can be found anywhere human have been.

 

[Spanx]

Haven't you learned by now that every time you repeat this "ppm dust" nonsense you come across as totally ignorant?

Haven't you learned that a show of ignorance is the goal for remo and fellow truthers

 

[Spanx]

Heating of red/gray chips of four red paints from the yard of our chemical institute
Hi, all
As for me, I have had basically two remaining questions, regarding “mysterious” WTC red/gray chips investigated by Harrit et al and Millette:

1) If Bentham chips (a) to (d) were specifically Laclede primer paint on rust (which is very probable for many pretty good reasons), where are the strontium chromate crystals?

2) Is it a common phenomenon, that when the chips of red paints on rust flakes are heated up to 700 degrees C (heating rate 10 degrees per min), some shiny spherical/round objects are created from the rust („grey layers“)?


Whereas the first question remains basically unanswered, I have finally dediced to arrange some simple experiments, which can help to solve the second, pretty “important” question.

First, here is a repost of my contribution No 3491:
I just visited once again our yard and this time, I scrapped off using lancet only red paints from the rusted steel, from four independent sources, more specifically from some fence, some gate and two kinds of trolleys. Namely in the case of these trolleys, I would expect that the paint is a high quality primer, so perhaps with epoxy or alkyd binder. As for the red color, it can be caused by iron oxides, but can be also caused by lead stuffs.

Here is a photo of the chips, which were attracted with the magnet (about half of them). Then, I transferred them from the magnet to the beaker:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1115&pictureid=8118[/qimg]

This tuesday, I asked Dr. Slouf from our Polymer Morphology Department to shot some photos of the chips shown above (these were attracted with magnet, therefore, they are chips of paints on pieces of “magnetically active” rust). Here are shots at two magnifications, chips are placed on brass pedestal: (At the lower magnification, the viewing field is ca 10 mm, at the higher magnification, it is ca 1 mm)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1121&pictureid=8127[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1126&pictureid=8128[/qimg]

As you can see, they look quite similar to Bentham chips:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1126&pictureid=8130[/qimg]

(No wonder, all red paint chips can look quite similar, although they originate from different sources, should have different composition and could be applied using different methods -including electroocoating (for Senenmut.)

You may notice that the rust layers are not well apparent above. It is just matter of playing with the photo. Here is a photo after a simple correction, using just function AutoAdjust colors in IrfanView:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1126&pictureid=8129[/qimg]

Rust layers are already well visible, but other colors are not so realistic. This shows (among others), how easily can be the colors in micrographs changed and that it is nonsense to compare colors from various microscopes (to MM).

At higher magnification, nothing extraordinary. Just paint chips, like in Bentham paper or Millette study

Yesterday, I asked colleagues from the Department of Conductive Polymers to heat my “fine collection” of red/gray chips in their oven (I used this oven already two years ago for the heating of my Laclede paint imitation). They kindly heated my chips up to 700 degrees (heating rate 10 degrees/min, like in DSC experiments in Bentham paper. Looking just through magnifying glass, the most of chips were still red after heating, but generally darker.

Unfortunately, Dr. Slouf left for his holiday today, so I asked another colleague, Dr. Babic, who kindly microscoped my chips after heating. His microscope is not so good, but basically suffices. (For better photos, we have to wait some week or so. Dr. Babic again microscoped chips at two magnifications:
Here is a scale for the lower magnification:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1128&pictureid=8137[/qimg]

It follows from this shot that the whole viewing field corresponds to 700 microns, since the distance between larger ticks is 100 microns.
Some photo of chips at this magnification is here:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1126&pictureid=8132[/qimg]

After a closer look, some shiny round objects are hardly visible, but they are somehow resolved at 8x higher magnification:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1126&pictureid=8133[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1128&pictureid=8138[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1121&pictureid=8134[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1128&pictureid=8139[/qimg]

And here is for comparison the “infamous” Fig. 20, Bentham paper

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1128&pictureid=8140[/qimg]

I would say that in all these photos, some shiny round objects (formed from the rust layers) are somehow visible. Therefore, their formation from red paints (or perhaps from any paint) on rust, when heated up to 700 degrees C, seems to be a quite common phenomenon) My results so far are not conclusive (I have to wait for the better microscope), round objects in Fig. 20 from Bentham are definitely better "developed"). But I am quite sure that when looking really closely (with a better microscope), I would find the better "examples", it's just a matter of patience... For now, that's all, Dr. Babic was in hurry and had to left for the rest of week...

Thank you for your attention
(And many thanks also to my colleagues, which helped me quite a lot with these “groundbreaking experiments”)

(It would be interesting to measure XEDS of these round objects, we have necessary device in our institute, but I think there is hardly any doubt here: these objects should mostly originate from gray layers, like in Bentham paper And it does not really matter if the content of iron is higher in them because of some partial reduction).

Although Ivan is no longer with us, it's always nice to show his iron rich microspheres.

 

[Spanx]

...Continuation of my post 3540, since Dr. Babic allowed me to use his microscope.

Here is a better overall view on my “red paints ash” at low magnification:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1130&pictureid=8144[/qimg]

Problem with higher magnification is that "chips" are not really flat, they have some "depth", so it is not easy to focus, some part of the viewed area/chip is inevitably "fuzzy" and two objectives for the highest magnification are unusable.

Here are nevertheless some more details:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1130&pictureid=8143[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1134&pictureid=8147[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1134&pictureid=8146[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1132&pictureid=8145[/qimg]

My best catch is perhaps still from yesterday:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1126&pictureid=8133[/qimg]

Except the second picture, those shiny objects are not resolved sufficiently well to consider them as microspheres or even clearly rounded objects, but some resemblance to Bentham chips can be seen. I think. This microscopy lesson showed me that such objects can have metallic shine, only if the ash is illuminated basically from above (using two lightguides in this cases). So apparently, also “Bentham guys” employed such illumination.

Btw, here is a screenshot from the video of Kevin Ryan, where burned Bentham chips are shown on the left, whereas on the right side, there is an ash after burning of real nanothermite:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1134&pictureid=8148[/qimg]

Ryan put a comment in the sense “Are you able to recognize some differences/to say what is what”?

I’d like to add that my paint ash looks basically like nanothermite ash as well, and perhaps more than the ash from burned Bentham chips Such comparisons are baseless and can have some value only for devoted nanotruthers.

My conclusion would be anyway something like: when heating chips of four accidentally chosen red paints on steel rust flakes, attracted to magnet, up to 700 degrees C (heating rate 10 degrees per minute), some shiny objects with sizes ca between 1 and 5 microns are formed in the ash in some of the chips.

The follow up, if you go to the page mentioned in this post pictures are shown rather than links.

 

[Spanx]

I've asked Ivan permission to host the images he uploaded so they can be hotlinked to my site so they're available to non-members too. Here they are. The first one (that he repeated in a later post):

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/user50683_pic8155_1377503263.jpg[/qimg]

The second one:

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/user50683_pic8156_1377507324.jpg[/qimg]

Hope that helps.

ETA: Permission is hereby granted to hotlink to them within this forum. I reserve the right to limit access if hotlinked from other sites.

Hi pgimeno,
Did you managed to upload Ivan's images of his red paint chip experiment ?

I know it's on page 89 on this thread where they are visible to members.

It would be nice for all to see and perhaps even have some comments from ae911 truth now they are commenting in this forum.

If there there is a link to your site please can you provide.

Thanks

 

[pgimeno]

Hi pgimeno,
Did you managed to upload Ivan's images of his red paint chip experiment ?

I know it's on page 89 on this thread where they are visible to members.

It would be nice for all to see and perhaps even have some comments from ae911 truth now they are commenting in this forum.

If there there is a link to your site please can you provide.

Thanks

Thanks for reminding me, I forgot about that! Yes he gave me permission to host them, I just didn't have time to get on it.

I'll quote Ivan's posts below with the images replaced. As before, permission is granted for hotlinking within this forum only, and I reserve the right to block other sites.

 

[pgimeno]

Post 1 of 2:

Heating of red/gray chips of four red paints from the yard of our chemical institute
Hi, all
As for me, I have had basically two remaining questions, regarding “mysterious” WTC red/gray chips investigated by Harrit et al and Millette:

1) If Bentham chips (a) to (d) were specifically Laclede primer paint on rust (which is very probable for many pretty good reasons), where are the strontium chromate crystals?

2) Is it a common phenomenon, that when the chips of red paints on rust flakes are heated up to 700 degrees C (heating rate 10 degrees per min), some shiny spherical/round objects are created from the rust („grey layers“)?


Whereas the first question remains basically unanswered, I have finally dediced to arrange some simple experiments, which can help to solve the second, pretty “important” question.

First, here is a repost of my contribution No 3491:
I just visited once again our yard and this time, I scrapped off using lancet only red paints from the rusted steel, from four independent sources, more specifically from some fence, some gate and two kinds of trolleys. Namely in the case of these trolleys, I would expect that the paint is a high quality primer, so perhaps with epoxy or alkyd binder. As for the red color, it can be caused by iron oxides, but can be also caused by lead stuffs.

Here is a photo of the chips, which were attracted with the magnet (about half of them). Then, I transferred them from the magnet to the beaker:

This tuesday, I asked Dr. Slouf from our Polymer Morphology Department to shot some photos of the chips shown above (these were attracted with magnet, therefore, they are chips of paints on pieces of “magnetically active” rust). Here are shots at two magnifications, chips are placed on brass pedestal: (At the lower magnification, the viewing field is ca 10 mm, at the higher magnification, it is ca 1 mm)

As you can see, they look quite similar to Bentham chips:

(No wonder, all red paint chips can look quite similar, although they originate from different sources, should have different composition and could be applied using different methods -including electroocoating (for Senenmut.)

You may notice that the rust layers are not well apparent above. It is just matter of playing with the photo. Here is a photo after a simple correction, using just function AutoAdjust colors in IrfanView:

Rust layers are already well visible, but other colors are not so realistic. This shows (among others), how easily can be the colors in micrographs changed and that it is nonsense to compare colors from various microscopes (to MM).

At higher magnification, nothing extraordinary. Just paint chips, like in Bentham paper or Millette study

Yesterday, I asked colleagues from the Department of Conductive Polymers to heat my “fine collection” of red/gray chips in their oven (I used this oven already two years ago for the heating of my Laclede paint imitation). They kindly heated my chips up to 700 degrees (heating rate 10 degrees/min, like in DSC experiments in Bentham paper. Looking just through magnifying glass, the most of chips were still red after heating, but generally darker.

Unfortunately, Dr. Slouf left for his holiday today, so I asked another colleague, Dr. Babic, who kindly microscoped my chips after heating. His microscope is not so good, but basically suffices. (For better photos, we have to wait some week or so. Dr. Babic again microscoped chips at two magnifications:
Here is a scale for the lower magnification:

It follows from this shot that the whole viewing field corresponds to 700 microns, since the distance between larger ticks is 100 microns.
Some photo of chips at this magnification is here:

After a closer look, some shiny round objects are hardly visible, but they are somehow resolved at 8x higher magnification:

And here is for comparison the “infamous” Fig. 20, Bentham paper

I would say that in all these photos, some shiny round objects (formed from the rust layers) are somehow visible. Therefore, their formation from red paints (or perhaps from any paint) on rust, when heated up to 700 degrees C, seems to be a quite common phenomenon) My results so far are not conclusive (I have to wait for the better microscope), round objects in Fig. 20 from Bentham are definitely better "developed"). But I am quite sure that when looking really closely (with a better microscope), I would find the better "examples", it's just a matter of patience... For now, that's all, Dr. Babic was in hurry and had to left for the rest of week...

Thank you for your attention
(And many thanks also to my colleagues, which helped me quite a lot with these “groundbreaking experiments”)

(It would be interesting to measure XEDS of these round objects, we have necessary device in our institute, but I think there is hardly any doubt here: these objects should mostly originate from gray layers, like in Bentham paper And it does not really matter if the content of iron is higher in them because of some partial reduction).

 

[pgimeno]

Post 2 of 2:

...Continuation of my post 3540, since Dr. Babic allowed me to use his microscope.

Here is a better overall view on my “red paints ash” at low magnification:

Problem with higher magnification is that "chips" are not really flat, they have some "depth", so it is not easy to focus, some part of the viewed area/chip is inevitably "fuzzy" and two objectives for the highest magnification are unusable.

Here are nevertheless some more details:

My best catch is perhaps still from yesterday:

Except the second picture, those shiny objects are not resolved sufficiently well to consider them as microspheres or even clearly rounded objects, but some resemblance to Bentham chips can be seen. I think. This microscopy lesson showed me that such objects can have metallic shine, only if the ash is illuminated basically from above (using two lightguides in this cases). So apparently, also “Bentham guys” employed such illumination.

Btw, here is a screenshot from the video of Kevin Ryan, where burned Bentham chips are shown on the left, whereas on the right side, there is an ash after burning of real nanothermite:

Ryan put a comment in the sense “Are you able to recognize some differences/to say what is what”?

I’d like to add that my paint ash looks basically like nanothermite ash as well, and perhaps more than the ash from burned Bentham chips Such comparisons are baseless and can have some value only for devoted nanotruthers.

My conclusion would be anyway something like: when heating chips of four accidentally chosen red paints on steel rust flakes, attracted to magnet, up to 700 degrees C (heating rate 10 degrees per minute), some shiny objects with sizes ca between 1 and 5 microns are formed in the ash in some of the chips.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The spheres in paint ash unless contaminated by construction dust are FeO Fe304 the spheres from thermite are Fe with an
FeO coating. Thus the smaller oxygen peak under
EDX. Fire will create FeO Fe3O4 microspheres.
A simple compression test shows the difference.
Between the specimens Jones not
Doing that and the argon test tells me he is
a fraud.

 

[Ziggi]

Post 2 of 2:

Ah the old Ivan Kminek paint experiment brought back to live, and again readers are led to believe he burned paint containing iron-oxide and that he ended up with iron-bearing spheres like Harrit et al in the nanothermite paper.

There are a couple of problems with this presentation:

1) Ivan did not have any proof that his experiment produced spheres. This is what he actually said:

Except the second picture, those shiny objects are not resolved sufficiently well to consider them as microspheres or even clearly rounded objects, but some resemblance to Bentham chips can be seen. I think.

He actually thought he might have one sphere out of that whole batch of paint chips. Harrit got multiple spheres from each tiny (microgram) chip. If Ivan found one anomalous sphere in that whole batch, that is exactly what he found: an unexplained anomaly (most likely contamination).

2) Ivan had no idea if his "shiny objects" or that one possible sphere were actually metallic objects, let alone iron or iron-oxide bearing:

(It would be interesting to measure XEDS of these round objects, we have necessary device in our institute, but I think there is hardly any doubt here: these objects should mostly originate from gray layers, like in Bentham paper)

Yes, getting the composition confirmed would have been interesting, but that was not done, and speculation/wishful thinking was allowed to rule instead.

3) Ivan never claimed that his alleged sphere could be iron-bearing like the ones found by Harrit et al. Ivan did acknowledge that if his burning (oxidizing of) of paint would net spheres, that they would be oxidized by definition, meaning iron-oxide spheres. Ivan was not dishonest like some of his followers. Speaking of Harrit´s iron spheres, Ivan said:

And it does not really matter if the content of iron is higher in them because of some partial reduction).

Ivan´s declaration that the iron content did not matter is obviously silly to anyone who understands the subject, as it is the reduction of iron-oxide to iron that proves the thermite reaction, and this data in Harrit et al is very clear and conclusive to anyone that understands.

As for Ivan and his experiment, the last thing anyone needs to know is that I personally made the effort to offer him to join forces with the Mark Basile chips study to confirm his alleged finding. I asked him to send Basile a sample of his burned paint for EDS analysis, and to send him some unburned chips as well. He refused.

And neither Ivan nor anyone else here made any effort to get Jim Millette to repeat Ivan´s experiment either. And Millette lost all of his interest in publishing the preliminary report once he got to researching the issue of the iron spheres after the release of the preliminary report.

In short, neither Ivan nor his closest associates thought an independent test would confirm his wishful thinking.

He will be missed though. He was the last bastion of the chance for a reasonable discussion on this forum.

I will not waste time arguing about this on this forum, but it is about time that I write up an article for Talboo´s blog about Ivan´s experiment.

 

[Ziggi]

The spheres in paint ash unless contaminated by construction dust are FeO Fe304 the spheres from thermite are Fe with an
FeO coating. Thus the smaller oxygen peak under
EDX. Fire will create FeO Fe3O4 microspheres.
A simple compression test shows the difference.
Between the specimens Jones not
Doing that and the argon test tells me he is
a fraud.

You don´t know what you are talking about. Thermite can leave a wide variety of spheres behind, including iron and partially reduced iron-oxide, and all kinds of iron-oxide-aluminum compounds and mixtures.

The ignition of the chips in air would not help anyone fake a thermite result, and your post does sort of reveal the reason: If you are trying to show that your sample is going through a thermite reaction it would be better to eliminate the presence of air, to prevent a normal burn from occurring, that is the oxidation.

If you actually study the data you can see that Harrit finds typical post ignition spheres with a 2 to 1 FE to O ratio, and others with up to 4 to 1. Even with the 2 to 1 ratio the presence of pure iron is evident, along with some iron-oxide.

You should be a little more careful about what you say. This forum had its chance when Millette was still thinking about publishing, but that ship has sailed.

I am not going to argue about this on the forum, but maybe I´ll time to write up a post for the blog..

Have a nice day.

 

[beachnut]

... iron-bearing spheres like Harrit et al in the nanothermite paper. ...
I will not waste time arguing about this on this forum, but it is about time that I write up an article for Talboo´s blog about Ivan´s experiment.

Yes, woo is perfect for Talboo's blog to support 911 truth lies based on ignorance. What is the theory from Talboo's blog? Where is the comprehensive theory located on what happened according to "Talboo's Blog"? ... there is no evidence for anything 911 truth has, only evidence of 19 terrorists who did 911. Argue, your fantasy of CD and thermite; how do you argue for a fantasy, right attack NIST. Who needs NIST, you do, to fool the gullible by attack the NWO NIST... lol

Yes, it is best to go where you can post BS, lies, nonsense and fantasy about 911. Where you can post unopposed BS based on ignorance.

Why was no steel damaged by thermite? What that answered yet at the Talboo Woo site?

The iron spheres from from 911, are due to fire, not the dumbed down fantasy of thermite.

13 years, 911 truth has a faith based following based on anti-intellectual gullibility - 911 truth failed, proof, 14th year of hiding out on the Internet posting BS.

Run back to Talboo's blog, where lies mislead people like the Boston bombers, dumbed down followers in 911 truth. Why has 911 truth failed? No evidence.

Who did the CD fantasy? What, 911 truth and you can't answer the simple questions and give details for your fantasy? ... never will.

What does Talboo's blog say about flight 93 and 77? Was there thermite at the Pentagon too? Do you guys have engineers to help you, or one non-paranoid conspiracy theorist lay person.

14th year of making sure the Internet is overwhelmed with BS and lies about 911, 911 truth and Talboo's blog of woo. The wasteland of anti-intellectual claptrap, know as 911 truth on the Internet.

All 911 truth can do is attack other peoples' work, no evidence to prove their claims; thus stuck with the CD fantasy. Who did the CD in your theory?

UBL must of been laughing to see the dumbed down 911 truth followers - he was an engineer, and 911 truth has no rational engineers, no evidence.