• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Wow very interesting Ivan! Better photos next week or so will be great as well. We' re actually getting some data which is a good thing...
 
Chris: Well, my sentence "I think there is hardly any doubt here: these objects should mostly originate from gray layers, like in Bentham paper" is not really supported, I forgot to edit it. I do not know it. The microscopic world is rather treacherous without thorough experience, as well as its presentation.
Anyway, after some ca two hours looking through microscopes with my fine colleagues, I am quite sure that some good "microspheres" can be found/photographed even in this paint ash made from four common red paints.
 
Last edited:
Josarhus said:
Chris,

Is it this one:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder:cool: And thanks a lot, Dave:cool: It seems that there is some real new investigation of 9/11 events on the way, providing new data and hints, which is extactly what truthers really do not want in fact;)
 
Last edited:
I wonder who will be the first to say they are the wrong iron-rich microspheres :D
 
chrismohr said:
Anyway I think Thursday or Friday all will be revealed... and yes Redwood it will be a nice birthday present for you. Three guesses: 1) a new experiment blowing away one of the central tenets of 9/11 Truth 2) revelation of formerly confidential insider information unflattering to the 9/11 Truth cause 3) a new experiment whose data adds ambiguity to the entire debate. Senenmut maybe not so much a birthday present for you, but I know you like challenges so you might enjoy it too.
Click to expand...

My birthday isn't until February! :);)
 
...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:

picture.php


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:

picture.php


picture.php


picture.php


picture.php


My best catch is perhaps still from yesterday:

picture.php


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:

picture.php


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.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Oh, an Aquarian! Soft, emotional, a little spacy, unfocused sometimes but compassionate, interested in metaphysical things... I bet this describes you PERFECTLY!
Click to expand...

June 29 here - which could explain why I often get a bit 'crabby'.

---provided the AU vernacular use of 'crabby' translates into US English.

:o
 
Ivan Kminek said:
...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.
Click to expand...

so are ya going to do an edx next????
 
Ivan Kminek said:
  • How did you prepare samples for SEM-EDX, you scrapped some burned paint from the beam?
  • Did you find more of these microspheres?
  • Did you measure/estimate the fire temperature and what was the fuel?
Click to expand...


Ivan and everyone, I've started a new thread on this very topic, so as not to derail the thread about the Millette work.

Let's continue the burn-barrel experiment here, OK?

Cheerio, Dave
 
Senenmut said:
so are ya going to do an edx next????
Click to expand...

No, I don't intend to bother my colleagues again with this ash.

I suspected that the formation of these shiny objects may not be a general phenomenon (that it could require e.g. some specific kind/morphology of rust, and/or a specific kind of paint), and the real experiment on four various red paints on rust basically confirmed this my "suscpicion". But, I am of course quite satisfied that such objects were created at least in some of the paint chips during heating;)

It would be now better to follow my "second plan", i.e. to prepare some "articifical WTC chips" of Laclede red primer imitation on several kinds of rust flakes and heat them, but I do not plan to do it in the near future.

Btw, Dr. Michal Babic is an expert on magnetic nanoparticles of iron oxides (check it by Google Scholar), used in conjuction with polymers in the diagnostics of diseases. Therefore, he has a pretty extensive experience with iron oxides and metal oxides generally.
When he saw these shiny things created in the paint(s) ash, he told me: "Well, they were probably formed by partial reduction/smelting of the rust by the pyrolyzed polymer from the paint, perhaps with the participation of pigments in the paint."
Which is exactly what we debunkers have claimed for several years here:cool:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom