ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Chris Mohr , james millette , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , richard gage , steven jones , thermite , wtc dust

Reply
Old 26th August 2015, 01:00 AM   #361
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,013
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
While you are working on those observations, do they include the presence of a large metal object or two, loaded with volatile, incendiary chemicals and traveling at 500 mph with intent to do grievous harm?
That's a derail, and intentional. Tsk tsk tsk...
What have the plane crashes got to do with the analytical methods and results of certain paint chips? What difference does it make whether and why planes crashed into the towers? Did they in any way change the composition and properties of the red-gray chips that any other method of demolishing the towers would not have? No? Then why do you try to distract from a task which is already complicated enough for a complete novice such as Notconvinced?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2015, 12:46 AM   #362
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Did they in any way change the composition and properties of the red-gray chips that any other method of demolishing the towers would not have? No? Then why do you try to distract from a task which is already complicated enough for a complete novice such as Notconvinced?

The planes compound the problems of the OTC, but they're not distracting.

Questions:

As I review the Millette study, I initially wonder two things. First, wouldn't water act as an oxidizer and preferentially reduce any Al before FeO might?

Also, if the purpose of the study was to refute the claims in the Harrit paper, why wasn't DSC performed?




Sent from my phone using a limiting App
Notconvinced is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2015, 03:30 AM   #363
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,013
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
As I review the Millette study, I initially wonder two things. First, wouldn't water act as an oxidizer and preferentially reduce any Al before FeO might?
No.
  • The chips have been subjected to air for years before Millette did the testing. Any elemental Al would long since have been fully oxidized at the surface, creating a passivation layer that water would not penetrate.
  • The vast majority of the particles allegedly containing elemental Al are embedded within the organic matrix that the water wouldn't penetrate
  • Even if all or most of an allegedly significant amount of elemental Al were indeed oxidized by the washinbg with water, Millette then would have found Al-oxide in the chips. He didn't. What he found was a species of Al-silicate that cannot be produced by such reactions. Kaolin clay is a mineral that forms in geological processes that take on the order of 1-10 million years.
  • Strangely, you never asked what bathing a chip in MEK would do to Al, or Al-oxide. As an organic solvent, which, according to Harrit et al makes the organic matrix swell to 5x times its original size, we know that MEK does penetrate the organic matrix. Please be consistent with your nitpicks and skepticism.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Also, if the purpose of the study was to refute the claims in the Harrit paper, why wasn't DSC performed?
  • No one seriously doubts the DSC results by Harrit et al
  • None of the positive claims in the conclusion of the Harrit paper actually depend on the DSC-test - they don't actually use the numerical DSC test results to support their "thermite" conclusion, nor does the alleged "production" of "molten iron" seem to depend in any way on the temperature regime that the DSC enforces.
  • As a matter of fact, the numerical DSC results speak AGAINST the conclusion - too much energy released at too low a temperature.
  • Most importantly, DSC is simply not a competent forensic method to positively identify materials.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 31st August 2015 at 03:33 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2015, 06:54 AM   #364
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
And PS the purpose of the paper was NOT to refute the Harrit et al paper. I asked the question, is there thermite in the red-grey chips? I asked for Millette's promise to give me an honest answer either way and he said "If I find it [thermite] I will publish it."
The Harrit DSC results show energy levels two to five times higher than known nanothermite with an ignition temperature over 100 degrees lower than nanothermite. How does this show evidence of thermite?
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2015, 08:35 AM   #365
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Also, if the purpose of the study was to refute the claims in the Harrit paper, why wasn't DSC performed?
The purpose was to identify whether or not the sample contained thermite. Normally one does not perform a study to disprove another study.

The starting point is a question of "what it is?" not "you're wrong!".
In some such investigations, running the exact same tests over again in another lab may be in order. This is not the case here. As Oystein states there's not much dispute in the DSC numbers. Its the conclusions drawn that at issue.

So it stands to reason that a second investigation in "what the chips are made of" be performed by a different method.
Millette found no reason to make a determination of thermite and as Chris points out, in fact neither did Harrit

Last edited by jaydeehess; 31st August 2015 at 08:40 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2015, 09:35 AM   #366
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,013
I forgot another most important reason why Millette did not, and should not have attempted to, replicate the DSC test: It is, quite simply, not possible to replicate the DSC test, as Harrit et al (or specifically Jeff Farrer, who executed this test) failed to leave any hints about which of the at least 6 different kinds of red-gray chips that they had in the their study were tested.

First, if you closely watch the four DSC curves, gathered from four different specimens, it is quite apparent that those must be at least two different materials:



(I have added the horizontal and vertical lines to help gauge the values associated with certain feaurers)

* The green curve and the black curve are each basically just one big wide smooth hump with few distinct features. They both go below 0 (i.e. endotherm reaction) beyond 550 °C
* The red and blue curves both have much narrower, but also smaller peaks (and much less total energy); they both have local minima around 410 °C, they both drop close to 0, but not below, soon after their peaks, near 480 °C.
* The red curve additionally has a local minimum near 450 °C and a second peak near 465 °C
Harrit et al do not discuss these details at all, but they are significant. For example, epoxy has little troughs near 410 °C before it fully ignites near 425 °C - as the red and blue curve do. Epoxy is kinda well defined in that way, as a fully synthetic polymer with closely controlled chemistry. An example of a purely epoxy-based WTC material is the LaClede shop primer paint specified for the floor trusses.
The broad traces of the green and black curves on the other hand speak for a more heterogeneous organic polymer, that's made of natural raw materials and possibly a mix of ingedients; such as; Tnemec primer paint, which has mainly linseed oil and aöcyd resin as matrix material.

It seems possible that the "black" and "green" material are the same, and that the "red" and "blue" curves come from the same material, but one can rule out with confidence that the "red" and the "green" material are chemically the same. The only feature where their values are at least near each other is the peak temperature - which is, as Harrit's Fig 29 shows, very different from that of known nanothermite.

It is also possible that these four curves represent three or four different chip materials.


Harrit et al show evidence of at least six (6) different kinds of red gray chips - chips that differe from one another in the elemental composition of either the red or the gray layer:
  1. Chips a-d are very similar to each other in terms of XEDS-signature of gray and red layer, microstructure of gray layer, and general appearance. Their gray layer is basically iron oxide, their red layer is characterized by having only 5 elements appearing in significant proportions: C, O, Al, Si and Fe. All others are trace amounts only (this is not to say that trace elements aren't valuable markers that can help identify a composite material)
  2. The MEK chip has significant amounts of additional elements: Mg, Zn, Ca, S and Cr. Harrit et al try to handwave this by claiming they come from "contamination", but don't actually show that this is so. Some contamination with gypsum is at least plausible and might explain the S and some of the Ca, but their fantasy that Zn and Cr are contamination from WTC paint is simply ridiculous
  3. They show residue of a chip with significant Ti, which none of the previous two kinds have
  4. The multi-layered chip, in addition to having the odd multiple layers, is said to be characterized by significant Pb, which didn't show in any of the previous three kinds of chips
  5. They remark that other chips contain significant Cu or Ba, which none of the previous chips did. (This should most likely be counted as two more kinds of chips, one with Cu, another with Ba, but perhaps they meant a fifth kind that has both Cu and Ba)
  6. Lastly, they present one chip which has a gray layer that contains only C, not Fe
There is, as I said, no hint whatsoever which of these six or more chemically different kinds of red-gray chips Farrer tested in the DSC, so how should Millette decide which ones to test?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 02:27 PM   #367
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Questions:

As I review the Millette study, I initially wonder two things. First, wouldn't water act as an oxidizer and preferentially reduce any Al before FeO might?

Also, if the purpose of the study was to refute the claims in the Harrit paper, why wasn't DSC performed?
As usual Oystein has got there before me and answered very fully. Chris has explained what the purpose of the (Dr Millette) study was.

As jaydeehess says the starting point is the question of what the material is. In materials science parlance this is called "characterisation". Essentially you have a material that is unknown and the object of the exercise is to find out what it is.

Harrit, Jones, Basile etc where convinced they had material containing thermite and therefore based their DSC testing on a paper by Tillitson and Gash. Tillitson prepared a sample of thermite using a sol-gel process and the use of the DSC was to observe the energy produced from the thermite reaction of this material. They did so in an inert atmosphere. They also confirmed that the thermite reaction had actually taken place by analysing the reaction products and confirming that both iron and alumina were present post DSC.

Harrit et al do not do this even though they cite this paper. They did so in an ambient atmosphere and there is no conformation of the presence of Al2O3 post DSC and hence no confirmation that a thermite reaction has taken place. Secondly the DSC curves that are produced in Harrit et al bear no resemblance to those in Tillitson et al yet the Harrit paper superimposes both and then uses this false equivalence as evidence for thermite in their paper.

DSC is not an experiment that will tell you exactly what the material is and as such is not required for characterisation of the material in this case. It simply isn't required to answer the question, "What is this material?"

The only thing that can be observed from the DSC data is that there is something burning with a maximum energy peak at around 430°C, which is too low a temperature for thermite, nano or otherwise. The late Ivan Kminek, a chemist, who posted here, as well as enlightening the rest of us to the presence of Laclade red primer paint in the towers, also showed that this temperature was consistent with the burning of epoxy resin and other organics.

Dr Millette's FTIR analysis shows that epoxy is present along with kaolin in the sample.

You can read the thread started by Oystein entitled: Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas? for more detail:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=214739
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2015, 01:27 PM   #368
TheSane
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 7
Hi, New Poster here. I wonder if someone can help me out. On another forum I was pointing out to a dedicated truth believer that Jones' MEK soaked chip showed an XEDS spectra that was a near perfect match for the primer paint scraped off the WTC column that Jones uses in his video presentation. This was the response I got. Can someone assist me with the rebuttal?

Quote: the XEDS spectra can only tell the elements present as well as their proportion to one another. The fact that two materials have the same XEDS spectra does not mean they are the same material, merely that they contain the same elements. Water would have a similar XEDS spectra to rocket fuel, which is liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Totally different materials. If you look closely on fig 14, you will see a spike in the oxygen spectrum. Would you have us believe that there is elemental oxygen present? I hope not.

Because of the inability for the XEDS spectra to determine the configuration of these elements (i.e. how they are bonded), this is why the authors perform a XEDS mapping (fig 15), which allows the reader to see where the indivual elements are, physically. When looking at the Fe and O maps, they overlap, which implies that they are chemically bonded in the form of iron oxide. Looking at the Si and Al maps after the soak, they are in different areas, which means the aluminum is not bonded with the silica, and is in elemental form. In primer paint, the two maps remain overlapping after a soak, which means the Si and Al are bonded as an aluminosilicate (kaolin clay), which is a totally different material than elemental aluminum and elemental silica.
TheSane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2015, 03:08 PM   #369
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,013
Originally Posted by TheSane View Post
Hi, New Poster here. I wonder if someone can help me out.
Welcome noob!

Originally Posted by TheSane View Post
On another forum I was pointing out to a dedicated truth believer that Jones' MEK soaked chip showed an XEDS spectra that was a near perfect match for the primer paint scraped off the WTC column that Jones uses in his video presentation. This was the response I got. Can someone assist me with the rebuttal?
Out of curiosity: Which forum? Got a link?
(You can't actually post a link here before you have 15 posts to your name, but if you cut away the http and the www and the //, that'll work.)

Originally Posted by TheSane View Post
Quote: the XEDS spectra can only tell the elements present as well as their proportion to one another. The fact that two materials have the same XEDS spectra does not mean they are the same material, merely that they contain the same elements. Water would have a similar XEDS spectra to rocket fuel, which is liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Totally different materials. If you look closely on fig 14, you will see a spike in the oxygen spectrum. Would you have us believe that there is elemental oxygen present? I hope not.
This is true. But the XEDS is not the only complex property where that chip matches primer paint; of course there are also properties such as that the red layer is red, the chip is ferromagnetic, the red layer has a certain thickness - all of which are consistent with primer paint on oxidized steel flake.

The same argument, that equal XEDS maps don't necessarily imply same material - could be held against Harrit's implication that the chips a-d in Figures 6 and 7 are the same material because their spectra match. Your debate partner ought to be consistent here.

However, if XEDS spectra are markedly different, then you can be pretty sure that you are NOT dealing with the same material.

Originally Posted by TheSane View Post
Because of the inability for the XEDS spectra to determine the configuration of these elements (i.e. how they are bonded), this is why the authors perform a XEDS mapping (fig 15), which allows the reader to see where the indivual elements are, physically.
Yes, this is the idea behind XEDS maps, but such maps are not as straightforward to interprete as this sentence makes it appear. In an XEDS map, for each element, a pixel is turned "on" when the XEDS returns x-ray photons above some threshold, like an absolute count, in that spot. Selecting that threshold is an art.

Originally Posted by TheSane View Post
When looking at the Fe and O maps, they overlap, which implies that they are chemically bonded in the form of iron oxide.
It is quite certainly true that Fe is bonded with O in that chip, but we don't actually know that from the XEDS map in Fig. 15. We know this more from the fact that the red layer is red: Iron(III)oxide simply is a very common red pigment. Fe also appears everywhere in that red layer - that's why it is red throughout.

The O-map actually fits best with the Si-map, but don't overestimate the relevance of that.


Originally Posted by TheSane View Post
Looking at the Si and Al maps after the soak, they are in different areas, which means the aluminum is not bonded with the silica, and is in elemental form.
Yes, it's true that the Al-distribution doesn't fit the Si-distribution. This can be no surprise - the primer paint that matches the MEK-chip is Tnemec Red, scratched from an external column. Tnemec Red contains no aluminium silicate, but it does contain silica (Si-oxide), and of course iron oxide pigment. Al is in Tnemec Red as calcium silicate. There is lots of calcium in the MEK-chip - it is unfortunate that Harrit et al do not show a Ca-map also.
The XEDS-map does NOT, and cannot, prove that the Al is elemental.

Originally Posted by TheSane View Post
In primer paint, the two maps remain overlapping after a soak, which means the Si and Al are bonded as an aluminosilicate (kaolin clay), which is a totally different material than elemental aluminum and elemental silica.
Bare assertion - Harrit et al did no XEDS map of any primer paint, and they also have no XEDS-map of any material that still has Al and Si overlapping after a soak.


Here's the rub:
They did XEDS-maps of chip a, which was never soaked in anything - it shows Si and Al associated in those spots where the BSE-image has those kaolin-looking platelets.
They did XEDS-maps of the MEK-chip after a soak which, admittedly, does not habe Si and Al associated.
BUT!!! The XEDS-spectrum of chip a (Fig 7a) is MUCH different from that of the MEK-chip (Fig 14), so those are almost certainly two different materials!
They did NOT show that the MEK-chip had kaolin-looking platelets before the soak, they did NOT show that Al and Si were associated within it before the soak, and they did NOT show that Al and Si would seperate in chips a-d after a soak.
Comparing chips a-d with the MEK-chip is fallacious because there is no evidence it's the same material, but some strong evidence it is a different material.

As it happens, the chips a-d are an excellent match for the second known primer paint formulation, which was painted on the floor trusses by LaClede Steel Company.

More info if you need. I am out of time and steam right now.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2015, 03:32 PM   #370
TheSane
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 7
Many thanks Oystein!

I am embarrassed to admit where the debate is taking place... you guessed it... youtube.

I thank you again for your time and I will let you know if I need more info. I have a sneaking suspicion my opponent may be taking the information to one of your friendly foes in this forum for a rebuttal.... for all I know the two of us are just going to regurgitate a conversation you had long ago with someone else here.
TheSane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 08:09 AM   #371
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,013
Originally Posted by TheSane View Post
...for all I know the two of us are just going to regurgitate a conversation you had long ago with someone else here.
MirageMemories?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 08:25 AM   #372
TheSane
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 7
Oystein perhaps his reply will help you identify him. He goes by the name Emvaz on youtube.... some of your words are paraphrased but here is his response. Clearly he is mixing and matching the chips and the different tests performed on them, trying to play the same Shell game Harrit did assuming chips a-d and the MEK chip are the same material. Care to respond? At your convenience of course.


Oystein: <XEDS is not the only complex property where that chip matches primer paint; there are also properties such as that the red layer is red, the chip is ferromagnetic, the red layer has a certain thickness - all of which are consistent with primer paint on oxidized steel flake.>

Emvaz: Sure. The chip is also solid. Comparisons can be drawn between any two objects. What is telling are the differences. Does the paint chip exhibit a violent exothermic reaction in a DSC test? Does it produce molten iron spheres once ignited? Does it exhibit a very low electrical resistivity? Does it remain hard to the touch after being soaked in paint solvent for many hours? Does it contain elemental aluminum (which allows for the reaction to take place and produce molten iron)? The Harrit paper covers all of this, and it is abundantly clear that the Harrit chips are no paint chips, and the two substances behave very differently.

Oystein: <The same argument, that equal XEDS maps don't necessarily imply same material - could be held against Harrit's implication that the chips a-d in Figures 6 and 7 are the same material because their spectra match.>

Emvaz: You're referring to XEDS spectra of the chips, not the XEDS map, which are two totally different analyses. Harrit never claims that because the spectra are similar, therefore it is proven that the material is the same. It takes further analysis, such a the MEK soak, the XEDS map, the DSC test, the recovery of iron spheres, and the electrical resistivity test, to determine that this is all the same material (as they all behave the same throughout all of these tests), and that it is not paint.

Oystein: <Its true that Fe is bonded with O in that chip, but we don't actually know that from the XEDS map in Fig. 15. We know this more from the fact that the red layer is red: Iron oxide simply is a very common red pigment. Fe also appears everywhere in that red layer - that's why it is red throughout.>

Emvaz: Yup, Harrit affirms all of this. We also know that it is iron oxide because molten iron is released during the aluminothermitic reaction, in which elemental aluminum scavenges the oxygen from the FE2O3, produces massive heat, and emits molten iron spheres. Good science involves redundant methods to prove the same point. Harrit satisfies these requirements.


Oystein: <There is lots of calcium in the MEK-chip - it is unfortunate that Harrit et al do not show a Ca-map also.>

Emvaz: ??? Figure 7, which is the XEDS spectra, shows no calcium whatsoever in 3 of the 4 chips. In the 4th chip, there is shown to be an extremely small, trace amount of Ca, as made evident by the almost nonexistent Ca spike in the spectra. Figure 15 shows a larger Ca spike, which he explains very easily, by postulating that the spectra is taken from the as-collected surface of the chip, which had likely been contaminated with crushed wallboard from the collapse, which is Ca-rich. Why go through the trouble of mapping Ca when there appears to be virtually none on most of the chips? As you said, your primer paint contains lots of calcium silicate. The XEDS spectra of the Harrit chip in figure 7 shows virtually no calcium present, so clearly it is not primer paint.

Oystein: <The XEDS-map does NOT, and cannot, prove that the Al is elemental.>

Emvaz: In conjunction with a couple other basic tests, Which Harrit performs, it CAN help prove the presence of elemental Al. Of the elements shown to be present in the Harrit chips via the XEDS spectra, (C, Al, Fe, Si, O), C, Si, and O, can all form aluminum compounds. The MEK soak ruled out the Si, because the regions migrate apart. The red color of the chip reveals that the O is bound with the Fe (because rust is red, so O being bound to Al is ruled out (or else the chip would be silver or grey, and not red)). The C is ruled out (as well as the O and Si again) during the DSC ignition test. If either the C or the O of the SI were bound to the Al, then it would not have reacted exothermically, and would not have been able to release molten iron spheres. The chip exhibits a violent exothermal spike, and emits molten iron, therefore the aluminum is elemental.

Oystein: <Bare assertion - Harrit et al did no XEDS map of any primer paint, and they also have no XEDS-map of any material that still has Al and Si overlapping after a soak. >

Ah, but your favorite Millette paper does conduct a MEK soak of a paint chip that contains kaolinite, and the XEDS map does not change, which means that a solvent soak is not going to be able to break the Al and Si bonds of kaolinite. One of the only useful things to come out of that (unpublished) paper (blog post).

Oystein: <Comparing chips a-d with the MEK-chip is fallacious because there is no evidence it's the same material, but some strong evidence it is a different material.>

Emvaz: Four separate chips are ignited in a DSC test, and their energy output is recorded in fig. 19. In all cases, the ignition occurs at the same temperature, and lasts for the same duration. The difference between the chips in the energy output during the ignition is explained by the presence of the inert grey layer. The chips that had the largest proportion of inert grey layer also had the lowest relative energy peak. Under a microscope, the composition and particle sizes of these chips all appear identical. The relatively slight difference in XEDS spectra of these ignited chips vs the MEK soaked chip in fig. 14 is explained by Harrit as follows:
"The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings."

If you would have us believe that the material being tested are two different types of primer paint, then you would have to produce a paper which proves that these paints contain elemental aluminum (they don't), they wouldn't soften or dissolve in a MEK solvent soak (they would), they would react exothermically in a violent manner consistent with known types of thermite (they wouldn't), they emit molten iron upon ignition (they wouldn't), and they exhibit a very low electrical resistivity (they wouldn't). Such a material would only pass fire codes and be sprayed all over a building if the inspector was fully retarded.
TheSane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2015, 09:07 AM   #373
zorro99
Muse
 
zorro99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 607
Can someone provide a link to the Millete study?
__________________
There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.
zorro99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2015, 12:22 PM   #374
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,013
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...12webHiRes.pdf
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2015, 01:40 PM   #375
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 645
Personally, the conclusions say everything you need to know...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2015, 10:13 PM   #376
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No.
[*]The chips have been subjected to air for years before Millette did the testing. Any elemental Al would long since have been fully oxidized at the surface, creating a passivation layer that water would not penetrate.
Novice question: Would the size or polarity of water aid it in penetrating a material when 02 couldn't? I know in cellular chemistry the presence of a single Oxygen molecule can make all the difference.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
[*]The vast majority of the particles allegedly containing elemental Al are embedded within the organic matrix that the water wouldn't penetrate
[*]Even if all or most of an allegedly significant amount of elemental Al were indeed oxidized by the washinbg with water, Millette then would have found Al-oxide in the chips. He didn't. What he found was a species of Al-silicate that cannot be produced by such reactions. Kaolin clay is a mineral that forms in geological processes that take on the order of 1-10 million years.
If there was AlO after washing with water, could the 'low temperature ashing' have initiated substitution of Si from O in the Al?

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
[*]Strangely, you never asked what bathing a chip in MEK would do to Al, or Al-oxide. As an organic solvent, which, according to Harrit et al makes the organic matrix swell to 5x times its original size, we know that MEK does penetrate the organic matrix. Please be consistent with your nitpicks and skepticism.
What would the MEK do to elemental Al? or AlSi?

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
  • No one seriously doubts the DSC results by Harrit et al
  • None of the positive claims in the conclusion of the Harrit paper actually depend on the DSC-test - they don't actually use the numerical DSC test results to support their "thermite" conclusion, nor does the alleged "production" of "molten iron" seem to depend in any way on the temperature regime that the DSC enforces.
  • As a matter of fact, the numerical DSC results speak AGAINST the conclusion - too much energy released at too low a temperature.
  • Most importantly, DSC is simply not a competent forensic method to positively identify materials.
DSC is a competant method to determine reaction however, and it did that quite well. The chips are highly exothermically reactive. The argument that the exothermic curve negates NT because it is more responsive seems like saying an AR-15 isn't a gun because it shoots farther and faster than a known gun, the musket.
Notconvinced is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2015, 01:32 AM   #377
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,013
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Novice question: Would the size or polarity of water aid it in penetrating a material when 02 couldn't? I know in cellular chemistry the presence of a single Oxygen molecule can make all the difference.
You are trying to make me score points for you - or I could say: You are reaching.
AFAIK, no, water does not usually penetrate the oxidation layer of aluminium. If it did, alu wrap couldn't be safely used on moist food, alu airplanes couldn't fly in rainy weather.
(You know perhaps that acidic foods react with alu wrap, but there is no reason to suspect an acid anywhere. Millette used pure water, and it is known already that the dust in general tends to be alkaline).

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
If there was AlO after washing with water, could the 'low temperature ashing' have initiated substitution of Si from O in the Al?
Where do you imagine the Si would come from? Do you imagine there is elemental Si in there? If anything, the reaction would be with SiO2 (silica). Kaolin clay can be thought of as alternating layers of Al2O3 and SiO2, with some hydrogen bonds thrown in for good measure. But Kaolin is a particular aluminium silicate, one of several, with a characteristic crystal structur, which you only find in geological deposits - kaolin is generetad in exceedingly slow geological processes involving pressure. It very certainly does not come about just like this if only you throw together some atoms.
More importantly, you could not expect practically all the Al and Si to form kaolin spontaneously, you'd still find both oxides seperately.
And most importantly: The characteristic thin, platelike hexagonal kaolin crystals are already there in the untreated chips that Harrit et al show (Fig. 8+9), and they also show that these plates have Al and Si in equal amounts (Fig 11), and that most, probably all, the Al and Si are found in the platelets (Fig 10).
In short, it looks like Kaolin (shape and size per electron microscope), quacks like kaolin (elemental composition per XEDS), walks like Kaolin (crystal fingerprint per SAED) and even flies like Kaolin (chemical bonds per FTIR), half of that without washing and without ashing.

It takes an extremely strong will and determination to deny reality at all costs to deny that these pigments are kaolin clay and are part of the red-gray chips from the outset.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
What would the MEK do to elemental Al? or AlSi?
I don't know. You expressed doubts about the validity of Millette's experiments, imagining that perhaps touching the chips with clean water is bad idea.
You do NOT express doubts about the validity of Harrit's experiments, failing to imagine that perhaps touching the chips with MEK is bad idea.

That's two different standards.

If you want to be consistent, you either accept both as valid and safe, or you reject both out of hand, or you doubt both and try to come up with actual reasons to reject or accept.

But don't go on a biased fishing expedition, trying to make me prove a point for you.

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
DSC is a competant method to determine reaction however, and it did that quite well. The chips are highly exothermically reactive. The argument that the exothermic curve negates NT because it is more responsive seems like saying an AR-15 isn't a gun because it shoots farther and faster than a known gun, the musket.
You don't get the problem yet. It is fundamental. Let me explain:

I don't know what an AR-15 is, but let's say that the farthest in can shoot, under the most ideal of conditions, is 1 mile.
Then you test a gun, and it shoots 6 miles under some real, less than ideal conditions.
Is that gun you test an AR-15?
I think the rational answer would be: No way. It HAS to be a different kind of weapon.


Or consider this:
Tofu has 1.5 calories per gram (actually: kcal)
Pure fats and oils have around 9 calories per gram.
Cucumbers have practically no calories.

When I present you with a meal that you know contains a considerably amount of some fat, but also a layer of cucumbers, and you find, experimentally, that it has, in total, 5 calories per gram (much more than tofu), would you blame the calories on the tofu - or would you not rather think that most of the calories must come from the fat?


It is exaxtly the same with thermite: Thermite is your low-calories tofu, and the organic matrix is the high-calories fat, and the gray layer is the cucumbers.
You find, experimentally, that the mix, despite the inert gray layer, still has two to five times the energy output that nanothermite is known to have - you can't blame that on nanothermite, it MUST mostly come from the "fatty" organic matrix.

The problem is fundamental, it rests in the universal law of "Conversation of Energy": Thermite cannot possibly release more than 3.96 Kilojoules of energy per gram.;There is no way in this universe to lift the thermite reaction above the 3.96 kJ/g value, while in practice it's always somewhere below that as educts are never totally pure and reactions never run to perfection.

Harrit et al measured 7.5 kJ/g in one instance. It can be shown[*] that, with a couple of reasonable assumptions, much more than 95% of the energy MUST come from reactions that release more energy than thermite possibly can, and thus NOT from thermite.
This leaves open a possibilty that perhaps somewhere in those DSC curves, a little bit of thermite reaction is hidden - but that is totally unnecessary to explain the experimental results. The height (power) and position (temperature) of the DSC peak, and all other features of the DSC curves, is dominated by organic combustion.

Harrit's DSC tests have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the chips are NOT "thermitic" in nature.



[*] In fact, let me show you: 7.5 kJ/g disproves thermitic material
Be warned, that article contains math!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 03:27 PM   #378
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,923
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
...
DSC is a competant method to determine reaction however,... The argument that the exothermic curve negates NT ...
Wait till you figure out paper has more heat energy than NT.
Or why we don't use the super duper NT to power cars; because gasoline has 10 times more energy.
What is plastic; some have 14 times the energy.
No wonder the "ordinary" office fire prior to collapse beat 2,700 tons of thermite in heat energy. Thermite sucks as a covert method of destroying what would fail due to the office contents burning.





Do you know what Jones said of the energy problem?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 05:04 AM   #379
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
DSC is a competant method to determine reaction however, and it did that quite well. The chips are highly exothermically reactive. The argument that the exothermic curve negates NT because it is more responsive seems like saying an AR-15 isn't a gun because it shoots farther and faster than a known gun, the musket.
You haven't read the paper have you?

Please tell us exactly which reactions the DSC determined. I'm expecting chemical equations here btw.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 08:46 PM   #380
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
AFAIK, no, water does not usually penetrate the oxidation layer of aluminium.
Yes, but the Al in the red/grey chips was shown to be elemental aluminum as it separated from Si in the MEK. Elemental Al by it's very nature isn't going to have an oxidation layer.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
If it did, alu wrap couldn't be safely used on moist food, alu airplanes couldn't fly in rainy weather. (You know perhaps that acidic foods react with alu wrap, but there is no reason to suspect an acid anywhere. Millette used pure water, and it is known already that the dust in general tends to be alkaline).
These chips by either your Kaolin, or my elemental Al, standard don't have sheets of oxidized layer so these analogies are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Where do you imagine the Si would come from?
I think the Si is a consequence of the sol-gel manufacturing process of NT. Whether it is a dioxide/monoxide/or elemental, idk. All I know from the available evidence is that it does not appear to be chemically bonded to the Al since it readily separates from Al by MEK soak. Millette's phase mapping post MEK soak shows many areas where Al is greater than Si and many areas where Si is greater than Al. This corroborates the Harrit paper if I'm not mistaken.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Do you imagine there is elemental Si in there? If anything, the reaction would be with SiO2 (silica). Kaolin clay can be thought of as alternating layers of Al2O3 and SiO2, with some hydrogen bonds thrown in for good measure. But Kaolin is a particular aluminium silicate, one of several, with a characteristic crystal structur, which you only find in geological deposits - kaolin is generetad in exceedingly slow geological processes involving pressure. It very certainly does not come about just like this if only you throw together some atoms.
I don't think that kaolin was created in any reaction of the chips. I think that if Millette did find kaolin, he did so by examining the surface of a chip using FTIR, and not the inner cross section as was done with XEDS. in the Harrit paper. The Harrit paper is very clear that their XEDS was targeted directly at the AL and Si containing flakes whereas iirc the Millette study never did FTIR on those plates specifically. Also, if I'm interpreting the FTIR data correctly, the specimens deviate substantially from kaolin signature. I don't think those plates are kaolin, and Millette bases his descriptive language of "kaolin chips", of the still unknown plates, on the FTIR of the surface of the chips, which may have included some form of paint. It is premature for Millette to describe the plates as kaolin.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And most importantly: The characteristic thin, platelike hexagonal kaolin crystals are already there in the untreated chips that Harrit et al show (Fig. 8+9), and they also show that these plates have Al and Si in equal amounts (Fig 11), and that most, probably all, the Al and Si are found in the platelets (Fig 10).
Yeah, I don't think kaolin formed during any reaction or treatment of the chips so we're getting off track here.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
In short, it looks like Kaolin (shape and size per electron microscope), quacks like kaolin (elemental composition per XEDS), walks like Kaolin (crystal fingerprint per SAED) and even flies like Kaolin (chemical bonds per FTIR), half of that without washing and without ashing.
I get from the Millette study that the first thing he did was to wash the chips. Then, I'm shocked to realize that after the low temp ashing, which appears to be just below the ignition threshold found in Harrit's DSC work, Millette again collected the residue in water???? Any question I had whether water could penetrate the polymer layer is gone as I now know that water was allowed to react directly with the plates. No wonder this study couldn't get peer reviewed!
Any analysis of the residue afterward would have to have oxidized Al.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It takes an extremely strong will and determination to deny reality at all costs to deny that these pigments are kaolin clay and are part of the red-gray chips from the outset.
There might have been some kaolin on the surface, and after reaction with water, the plates may have resembled kaolin, idk... but to go to such length to botch the analysis and help shape our perspective of the materiel.... wow.... thank you?


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I don't know. You expressed doubts about the validity of Millette's experiments, imagining that perhaps touching the chips with clean water is bad idea.
You do NOT express doubts about the validity of Harrit's experiments, failing to imagine that perhaps touching the chips with MEK is bad idea.

That's two different standards.

If you want to be consistent, you either accept both as valid and safe, or you reject both out of hand, or you doubt both and try to come up with actual reasons to reject or accept.
No, because they did not MEK soak all of their chips. By any standard, if Millette were to water wash/soak the chips, it should have been some select number of them. And if he were to contaminate the ashing residue again with water, he should have done it with some sub selection of product. instead, he contaminated all instances of potential elemental Al with water.

I will say this, I agree that the Harrit paper was sloppy in not better containing the reaction products and also in not clearly identifying the MEK chip's origin, as well as not MEK soaking a broader selection of chips. However... the results of the Harrit paper would certainly justify further examination if this were a mere criminal matter and not one of such magnitude.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You don't get the problem yet. It is fundamental. Let me explain:

I don't know what an AR-15 is, but let's say that the farthest in can shoot, under the most ideal of conditions, is 1 mile.
Then you test a gun, and it shoots 6 miles under some real, less than ideal conditions.
Is that gun you test an AR-15?
I think the rational answer would be: No way. It HAS to be a different kind of weapon.
We agree... it's not the known NanoThermite from that one leaked BNL specimen. It's configured in a way to yield more work by it's interface with the organic layer. Isn't that how most explosives work, by utilizing gas expansion and combustion of carbons?

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The problem is fundamental, it rests in the universal law of "Conversation of Energy": Thermite cannot possibly release more than 3.96 Kilojoules of energy per gram.;There is no way in this universe to lift the thermite reaction above the 3.96 kJ/g value, while in practice it's always somewhere below that as educts are never totally pure and reactions never run to perfection.
I'm listening, but if that kJ/g value is consolidated into an extraordinarily compact volume, you could get additional kJ/g from carbons and maintain a measured intermediate 7.5kJ/g reaction from an arbitrary volume.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
This leaves open a possibilty that perhaps somewhere in those DSC curves, a little bit of thermite reaction is hidden - but that is totally unnecessary to explain the experimental results. The height (power) and position (temperature) of the DSC peak, and all other features of the DSC curves, is dominated by organic combustion.
Yeah... it's pretty badass stuff actually.
Notconvinced is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 08:47 PM   #381
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Or why we don't use the super duper NT to power cars; because gasoline has 10 times more energy.
Or use nanotech to power rockets and missiles! oh wait... we do.
Notconvinced is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 09:13 PM   #382
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,923
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Or use nanotech to power rockets and missiles! oh wait... we do.
Oh wait, solid rocket fuel has less oomph than liquid fuels. Oh wait... what do we do now...
Solid rocket fuel has lower performance than liquids, and thus not used as primary propulsion in large launch vehicles used to get stuff to orbit, the bigger stuff. But they are used to help out as boosters, or used for little stuff into LEO.
You missed the point...
Paper has more heat energy than thermite; office contents have more heat energy, some office stuff, 14 times more heat released in fire... makes thermite a poor choice for use in the WTC for some evil idiots...

Nano technology is not new, nano stuff has been around a long time.

When 911 truth says thermite was used or found in WTC dust on 911 to destroy the WTC, or part of the plot, is insanity from Jones and other 911 truth dolts. ... know about rockets; point is what?

The WTC tower fires up to collapse had the heat energy of 2,700 tons of thermite, nano, or not. Nano does make the thermite have more heat energy.

Jones lied and gullible followers fall for it.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 11:29 PM   #383
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Paper has more heat energy than thermite; office contents have more heat energy, some office stuff, 14 times more heat released in fire... makes thermite a poor choice for use in the WTC for some evil idiots...
I often parody these energetics arguments by claiming "Santa's Custard caused the collapses" Parody obviously. (I hope so...)

But I would seriously like to know where "Santa's Custard" lies on the ranking of energy scale. Sure I would use the data in parodies...however.

Let's say that from an energy perspective Santa uses generic no brand/no frills custard. The only value added in the marketing sense would be the claim that Rudolph supervised the repackaging and re-branding, Same custard - the premium price resulting from the branding/packaging.

Shouldn't - couldn't - change the inherent energy.

It is way off my skill suite to do the calcs.

What is the likely energy of Santa's Custard and how does it compare to these other materials?
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 11:49 PM   #384
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,837
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
What is the likely energy of Santa's Custard and how does it compare to these other materials?
The dietary energy (kcals) output is damn nearly the same as the combustion output, so that's about 1.2 kcals/g, or some 5 kJ. However, I'm still on my first coffee of the day so someone might want to check that.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 12:04 AM   #385
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The dietary energy (kcals) output is damn nearly the same as the combustion output, so that's about 1.2 kcals/g, or some 5 kJ. However, I'm still on my first coffee of the day so someone might want to check that.
Thanks GlennB. The topic is way outside my expertise.

My "Santa's Custard Hypothesis" is supported by better - more rigorous - argument than most truther claims. Which doesn't say much for most truther claims.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 12:15 AM   #386
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,013
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...
But I would seriously like to know where "Santa's Custard" lies on the ranking of energy scale. Sure I would use the data in parodies...however.

...

What is the likely energy of Santa's Custard and how does it compare to these other materials?
I can only google - interpreting results made difficult by my total lack of expertise with anglosaxon sweets (I feel as uneasy right now as notconvinced must feel when he talks about red-gray chips). Anyway:

A Sainsbury Custard Slice has 298 calories per 90 gram serving size
That's 3.31 kcal/g
= 13.9 kJ/g

That's
  • 3.5 times the energy output of a theoretical perfect thermite reaction
  • ~9 times the energy output of experimental real nanothermite
  • 1.8 to 9 time the energy output of the four chips that Harrit et al measured in DSC

Custard slices are some devilish stuff!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 12:26 AM   #387
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,837
Yum! But you'd need nano sol-gel custard slices. The regular type are a bugger to ignite.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 01:17 AM   #388
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I can only google - interpreting results made difficult by my total lack of expertise with anglosaxon sweets (I feel as uneasy right now as notconvinced must feel when he talks about red-gray chips). Anyway:

A Sainsbury Custard Slice has 298 calories per 90 gram serving size
That's 3.31 kcal/g
= 13.9 kJ/g

That's
  • 3.5 times the energy output of a theoretical perfect thermite reaction
  • ~9 times the energy output of experimental real nanothermite
  • 1.8 to 9 time the energy output of the four chips that Harrit et al measured in DSC

Custard slices are some devilish stuff!
Thanks Oystein.
My original hypothesis was that Santa took his sleigh on a pre Xmas Test Run equipped with dummy loads and all the accoutrements of the real 24th December journey.

Which included the traditional Xmas Pudding beloved of UK folk. Now the true tradition is that the heavy boiled fruit pudding is served doused with a white sauce and sprinkled with brandy which is ignited as served. On this occasion US Air Safety Regulations overruled the tradition and barred the flaming material. And the alternate sauce is a custard replacing the white sauce.

A prosecution case launched against Reindeer R and Claus S alleging criminal negligence. The heads of the offence being that Reindeer R (AKA "Rudolph") stumbled whilst passing over NYC. Claus S ("Santa" and several other aliases including "Fr Xmas", "St Nicholas" "Père Noël" ) charged with aiding and abetting. It is an offence of strict liability so mens rea does not apply.

The remainder of the story you can flesh out.

There were diversionary ploys involving Wood J and Jones S also charged with accomplice after the fact. Both attempted distractions based on allegations of alternate sources of energy.

Rudolph pleaded guilty on a plea bargain - US jurisdiction applicable not UK Law so he faced a risk of class action which was not available in UK. The case ended up settled out of court. As part of the plea bargain charges against Wood J and Jones S were dropped.


BUT WTC Towers copped the spillage of custard which is more energetic than thermXte.

And that hypothesis I'm sure is more plausible than many truther claims.

Now the specifics as adduced in evidence from expert witnesses. (You will go down in history GlennB and Oystein - lecture tours await you and competition on the circuit is minimal and based on dubious science.):

The Custard slice has pastry top and bottom layers and the actual custard used in the slice is a denser semi solid mix compared to the fluid lower viscosity preparation used for pouring over hot Xmas Pud.

So the energy could be less. But even if reduced by 50% it still beats thermXte.

I rest my case.

Where do I collect the prize?

Last edited by ozeco41; 25th September 2015 at 01:19 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 01:40 AM   #389
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,013
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Thanks Oystein.
My original hypothesis was that Santa took his sleigh on a pre Xmas Test Run equipped with dummy loads
This would explain the antler-shaped holes in the towers!

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
and all the accoutrements of the real 24th December journey.
Chant with me:
12/24 was an Inside Job! 12/24 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! 12/24 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! 12/24 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Which included the traditional Xmas Pudding beloved of UK folk.
Ok, let me fade out here for a while - not my area of expertise
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
... Claus S ("Santa" and several other aliases including "Fr Xmas", "St Nicholas" "Père Noël" )
Wait - what was the name again of that orthodox church that was obliterated by the collapse of the south tower? O right - St. Nicholas!


Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...
Now the specifics as adduced in evidence from expert witnesses. (You will go down in history GlennB and Oystein - lecture tours await you and competition on the circuit is minimal and based on dubious science.):
Oy vey - zey vill all hear my Jörman äccent zen!

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Where do I collect the prize?
Uhm - North Pole?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 02:42 AM   #390
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,724
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Yes, but the Al in the red/grey chips was shown to be elemental aluminum as it separated from Si in the MEK. Elemental Al by it's very nature isn't going to have an oxidation layer.
You really don't know the most basic facts about the chemistry of aluminium, do you?

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I'm listening, but if that kJ/g value is consolidated into an extraordinarily compact volume, you could get additional kJ/g from carbons and maintain a measured intermediate 7.5kJ/g reaction from an arbitrary volume.
You may be listening, but you're clearly not understanding. Thermite cannot produce 7.5kJ/g, therefore at least some of the energy released by these chips is released by something other than a thermite reaction. We have therefore established that there is an exothermic reaction present that is producing between 3.5 and 7.5kJ/g. We have not established the presence of any other exothermic reaction; indeed, the nature of the peak strongly suggests a single reaction is taking place. Therefore, the simplest explanation consistent with the results is that the entire energy output is from this other exothermic reaction. This means that the DSC exotherm does not establish the existence of a thermite reaction. The burden of proof is not met.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 04:18 AM   #391
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Yes, but the Al in the red/grey chips was shown to be elemental aluminum as it separated from Si in the MEK. Elemental Al by it's very nature isn't going to have an oxidation layer.
Oh dear. You really do need to get an education. You need to actually go and do a couple of years basic chemistry classes because this sort of statement shows you as being totally ignorant and way, way out of your depth.

Aluminium forms a stable, cohesive, passive oxide layer when in contact with oxygen in the atmosphere or water. That's the reason why it doesn't rust. By it's very nature aluminium does have an oxidised layer!

Secondly there is no separation of Al and Si in any of these chips. Chips a-d have kaolin platelets which is Al2Si2O5(OH)4. Look at the structure of Kaolin and you'll see that Si and Al will not be separated using MEK.

What you are seeing in the MEK chip is particles of talc, calcium silicate and aluminates separating.



There is no compound with both silicon and aluminium in the chip soaked with MEK. It's a different composition to the chips a-d)

Until you have a basic grasp of chemistry there isn't much point in you being here.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 04:58 AM   #392
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I don't think that kaolin was created in any reaction of the chips. I think that if Millette did find kaolin, he did so by examining the surface of a chip using FTIR, and not the inner cross section as was done with XEDS. in the Harrit paper. The Harrit paper is very clear that their XEDS was targeted directly at the AL and Si containing flakes whereas iirc the Millette study never did FTIR on those plates specifically. Also, if I'm interpreting the FTIR data correctly, the specimens deviate substantially from kaolin signature. I don't think those plates are kaolin, and Millette bases his descriptive language of "kaolin chips", of the still unknown plates, on the FTIR of the surface of the chips, which may have included some form of paint. It is premature for Millette to describe the plates as kaolin.
Wow, just wow. You've been given links to how FTIR works yet you still seem to think that it a) is only a technique that looks at the surface and b) requires some sort of focusing onto specific areas to resolve material within those areas.

When I said you had no idea how FTIR works I at least expected you to go away and learn about the technique. It appears you haven't. And no you aren't interpreting the FTIR data correctly because you haven't the first clue what you are looking at.

1. Cross-section nonsense.

The very first sentence:
Quote:
FT-IR stands for Fourier Transform InfraRed, the preferred method of infrared spectroscopy. In infrared spectroscopy, IR radiation is passed through a sample. Some of the infrared radiation is absorbed by the sample and some of it is passed through (transmitted).
http://mmrc.caltech.edu/FTIR/FTIRintro.pdf

Do you understand what passed through means? Do you understand what "transmitted" means? Do you realise that when the IR radiation travels through the sample that it goes through the entire sample? There is no part of the sample that is missed. FTIR analyses the entire sample. That includes the kaolin platelets.

2. "the specimens deviate substantially from kaolin signature"

How are you determining this? How are you analysing the FTIR spectrum produced and then coming to the conclusion that kaolin is not present?

Here is the figure from Millette. Present your working.



You do realise that you are up against every single manufacturer of FTIR equipment in the world. Do you understand that the software for FTIR will compare the absorption at different wavelengths of the spectrum from the sample with thousands of other spectra from known samples that come as part of a library with the machine? You do realise that the parts of the spectrum that show kaolin to be present are due to the absorption at specific wavelengths and not the entire spectrum don't you? Ditto for epoxy. No mention of epoxy or is that not there either?

It is very easy to see with the eye just where the troughs for epoxy and kaolin are found in the top spectrum.

Your overconfidence is only bettered by your ignorance. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have no chemistry background, qualification or experience let alone any idea what FTIR is. Some of us have actually been trained and used this kit, yet here you are pontificating on things you have no clue about simply because you utterly refuse to acknowledge sound scientific conclusions because they go against your desire for conspiracy.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 05:28 AM   #393
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I get from the Millette study that the first thing he did was to wash the chips. Then, I'm shocked to realize that after the low temp ashing, which appears to be just below the ignition threshold found in Harrit's DSC work, Millette again collected the residue in water???? Any question I had whether water could penetrate the polymer layer is gone as I now know that water was allowed to react directly with the plates. No wonder this study couldn't get peer reviewed!
Any analysis of the residue afterward would have to have oxidized Al.


There might have been some kaolin on the surface, and after reaction with water, the plates may have resembled kaolin, idk... but to go to such length to botch the analysis and help shape our perspective of the materiel.... wow.... thank you?

No, because they did not MEK soak all of their chips. By any standard, if Millette were to water wash/soak the chips, it should have been some select number of them. And if he were to contaminate the ashing residue again with water, he should have done it with some sub selection of product. instead, he contaminated all instances of potential elemental Al with water.
This is beyond stupid. How on earth can you get anywhere near thinking this sort of nonsense? This shows how desperate you are to come up with anything to satisfy yourself that Millette didn't find paint.

I'm not even sure where to begin it's that ludicrous. All of it based upon simple ignorance.

Al has a stable, coherent, passive oxide layer and therefore will not react with water. Kaolin pigment will not react with water when being washed. Therefore washing with (de-ionized) water, which is standard practice in the chemistry lab, is not going to have any effect on the sample or residue post ashing.

If you had a couple of years of chemistry lessons at school you would know this, yet here you are spouting that somehow you know better and that Dr Millette, who works for http://mvascientificconsultants.com/ who specialise in analytical testing, investigative analysis" is somehow wrong and made a booboo by washing the samples in water. It beggars belief it really does. Have a look at that link and read what they do.

I'd be breaking forum rules if I wrote what I truly think of you.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 05:43 AM   #394
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You really don't know the most basic facts about the chemistry of aluminium, do you?
You can say that again!

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You may be listening, but you're clearly not understanding. Thermite cannot produce 7.5kJ/g, therefore at least some of the energy released by these chips is released by something other than a thermite reaction. We have therefore established that there is an exothermic reaction present that is producing between 3.5 and 7.5kJ/g. We have not established the presence of any other exothermic reaction; indeed, the nature of the peak strongly suggests a single reaction is taking place. Therefore, the simplest explanation consistent with the results is that the entire energy output is from this other exothermic reaction. This means that the DSC exotherm does not establish the existence of a thermite reaction. The burden of proof is not met.

Dave
I've asked him whether he's read the paper, but it's obvious he hasn't. If he had then he would have read this:

Quote:
6. What is the Energy Release of Super-Thermite Compared to Conventional Explosives?

A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials [21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3 composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.

Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive [6, 24]. As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component.
Essentially they were burning epoxy resin, which this very forum has shown to have an exothermic peak around 420-430°C. The stuff about it being highly energetic (it isn't) and providing gas for pressure work (it doesn't) is nonsense and can be ignored.
Although I bet a certain truther will start jumping all over the last one.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 07:13 AM   #395
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,724
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Aluminium forms a stable, cohesive, passive oxide layer when in contact with oxygen in the atmosphere or water. That's the reason why it doesn't rust. By it's very nature aluminium does have an oxidised layer!
In fact, it's worth pointing out that it's because Al reacts so strongly with oxygen that the thermite reaction works at all. It has such a high affinity for oxygen that it will grab it off iron oxide, itself a pretty stable compound, and release energy in the process; and any atmospheric oxygen will oxidise the surface and produce a coating of aluminium oxide, that grows until the diffusion rate through it of any more oxygen is negligible. You would think that someone so determined to argue for the existence of thermite would learn the basics of aluminium chemistry so as to appreciate that the thermite reaction and the native oxide layer are two consequences of the same property.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 08:57 AM   #396
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 455
All That Glitters Is Not Gold

Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Also, if the purpose of the study was to refute the claims in the Harrit paper, why wasn't DSC performed?

An excellent question Notconvinced.
I have read through the threads which discuss this point and the best explanation I can see is that Dr. Millette, acting with foreknowledge (2009 Bentham Paper), that the red material would ignite at around 430C, elected to avoid this observation by limiting his samples to a maximum temperature of 400C.
Unfortunately, it appears that most of the members here who disagreed with Dr. Millette’s findings have since been banned.
Based on those threads, and the current responders, don’t expect anything but heavily biased and misinformed responses that kowtow to Dr. Millette’s unpublished report.
You should read through the old threads. They are quite enlightening and much more informative.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 09:19 AM   #397
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,923
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
An excellent question Notconvinced.
I have read through the threads which discuss this point and the best explanation I can see is that Dr. Millette, acting with foreknowledge (2009 Bentham Paper), that the red material would ignite at around 430C, elected to avoid this observation by limiting his samples to a maximum temperature of 400C.
Unfortunately, it appears that most of the members here who disagreed with Dr. Millette’s findings have since been banned.
Based on those threads, and the current responders, don’t expect anything but heavily biased and misinformed responses that kowtow to Dr. Millette’s unpublished report.
You should read through the old threads. They are quite enlightening and much more informative.
Looking at the paper with the fake conclusion, the insane thermite conclusion; we see the DSC does not match. In fact, 911 truth thermite believers can't explain what a DSC is good for; and have no clue why it is not evidence for thermite; and in this case the curve for the dust samples does not match thermite. Big failure for Jones, who now off chasing over unity circuits, another impossible dream. A quixotic man mocking the murder of thousands with lies about 911, but he is so personable he has fooled a fringe few who can't see DSC curves are not a match.

Why would you do a DSC? Exactly, 911 truth follower have no clue what it is, or whey it is not needed.

Guess you failed to see in the paper the samples of dust don't match thermite. Or the fact thermite has less heat energy than many office contents burning. Some contents have 14 times more heat energy; this a big reason it was fire and not thermite that caused the collapse of the WTC. No one planted thermite, and proof was not found on one piece of steel.

Thus, Jones made up thermite and fools those who can't do chemistry, and the BS about DSC. No big deal, usually after a few minutes, most people see Jones paper is BS; with simple reading comprehension, we see no proof in the paper for thermite. The spew big talk, but no proof. Reading is fundamental. Plus math, reading curves so to speak, why are the DSCs not matching?

Why does paper have more heat energy than thermite? Is there paper in offices? Who planted the thermite in Jones' fantasy based on BS? Thermite which leaves no iron products behind, and never touched any WTC steel. Magical thermite... Where does 911 truth get this super magical stuff? Deep in the paranoid minds of the true believers.

Are you saying they were banned for disagreeing with the fact there was no thermite used on 911; and they got upset their fantasy was challenged. Don't worry, they come back as socks, and repeat the same failed lack of evidence apologies for the failure of Jones.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 25th September 2015 at 09:22 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 09:39 AM   #398
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
An excellent question Notconvinced.
It would be except that was not the stated objective of the Millette study. Their paper was self "debunking". The objective was to identify the makeup of the chips separated in the Harrit study and determine if they were "thermetic". You guys really need to read the papers you think you're criticizing.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 25th September 2015 at 09:46 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 09:42 AM   #399
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,322
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Also, if the purpose of the study was to refute the claims in the Harrit paper, why wasn't DSC performed?

An excellent question Notconvinced.
I have read through the threads which discuss this point and the best explanation I can see is that Dr. Millette, acting with foreknowledge (2009 Bentham Paper), that the red material would ignite at around 430C, elected to avoid this observation by limiting his samples to a maximum temperature of 400C.
That's a biased interpretation by one specific member. Reality is that Millette was not hired to refute the claims in the Harrit paper: he was hired to identify whether there was thermite or not in the chips. He was not told what methods to use for that purpose, and he chose competent forensic methods aimed at positively identify the chips' materials. One of these methods was low-temperature ashing (the 400° thing), aimed at getting rid of the carbon-based matrix in order to leave the rest of materials exposed.

Chris Mohr points that out several times in several threads. Since you missed that, it's obvious you had your blinders on when reading them.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2015, 10:53 AM   #400
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
An excellent question Notconvinced.
I have read through the threads which discuss this point and the best explanation I can see is that Dr. Millette, acting with foreknowledge (2009 Bentham Paper), that the red material would ignite at around 430C, elected to avoid this observation by limiting his samples to a maximum temperature of 400C.
Unfortunately, it appears that most of the members here who disagreed with Dr. Millette’s findings have since been banned.
Based on those threads, and the current responders, don’t expect anything but heavily biased and misinformed responses that kowtow to Dr. Millette’s unpublished report.
You should read through the old threads. They are quite enlightening and much more informative.
It isn't an excellent question at all. As others have said DSC is not required to positively identify the material in question nor ascertain whether thermite was present which was the point of the Millette study. He wasn't asked to refute the Harrit et al paper. The data presented by Millette certainly does however and as yet no truther has attempted to analyse such data. Most truthers have not read the results of either study.

Truthers also, even after being repeated told, refuse to understand why low temperature ashing (LTA) was carried out even though it is explicitly stated why in Millette's progress report.

It's right there on page 3:

Quote:
Low-temperature ashing (LTA) is an alternative to using solvents to extract inorganic constituents from an organic film or coating. LTA of the chips of interest was done using an SPI Plasma Prep II plasma asher. LTA was performed for time periods of 30 minutes to 1 hour depending on the size of the chip. The gray layer remained intact and the red layer residue was collected in clean water and drops of the suspension were placed on carbon-film TEM grids. After drying, the particulate was analyzed using a Philips CM120 TEM capable of SAED and equipped with an Oxford EDS system.

Chips of interest were ashed in a muffle furnace using a NEY Temperature Programmable furnace operated at 400°C for 1 hour. The gray layer remained intact and the red layer residue was prepared as described above and analyzed using a Philips CM120 TEM-SAED-EDS.
And results from pages 4 and 5:
Quote:
TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of the residue after low temperature ashing showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of kaolin clay. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment were also found (Figure 16) (Appendix E).

PLM analysis of the residue from red/gray chips after muffle furnace ashing at 400°C for 1 hour showed very fine red particles consistent with synthetic hematite (iron oxide) pigment particles (Figure 17). PLM also found possible clay present based on a micro-chemical clay-stain test. TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of another portion of the same muffle furnace residue showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron
oxide pigment, plates of kaolin clay and some aciniform aggregates of carbon soot consistent with incomplete ashing of a carbon-based binder (Figure 18). The SAED pattern of the kaolin particles (Figure 19) matched the kaolin pattern shown in the McCrone Particle Atlas 8 (Appendix E). The values for the d-spacings determined for the diffraction patterns matched those produced by reference kaolin samples.
Increasing the temperature to/above 430°C is going to cause problems when the resultant material is analysed using TEM-SAED because the gray iron layer is going to form spheres. We know that to be the case because the gray layer is present pre-DSC heating, but not present post-DSC heating as can be seen from Fig 20 in Harrit et al. Here is a SEM image of residue post DSC - Fig 21 of Harrit et al:



And that resultant material is going to be difficult to analyse using TEM SAED because the whole point of using TEM SAED is to analyse particles from the original material. You need to separate the particles to do that. Heating above 400°C does the exact opposite.

Millette identifies exactly what those hexagonal platelets are:

Quote:
The SAED pattern of the kaolin particles (Figure 19) matched the kaolin pattern shown in the McCrone Particle Atlas 8 (Appendix E). The values for the d-spacings determined for the diffraction patterns matched those produced by reference kaolin samples.
The very fact that the d-spacings match those of kaolin is unarguable evidence that kaolin is the material seen as hexagonal platelets.

There is nothing biased at all about that fact. All you are doing is poisoning the well. If you have an argument then present it. You are not going to be banned for putting forward a coherent and concise argument.

Perhaps you could start by analysing the above SEM image of post-DSC residue. Truthers claim that the hexagonal platelets are pure (elemental) aluminium. Al melts at 660°C. The DSC samples underwent temperatures as high as 700°C. Above the melting point of Al.

Why can we clearly see pure aluminium hexagonal platelets in Fig 21 after they have seen temperatures above the MP of aluminium?

Last edited by Sunstealer; 25th September 2015 at 11:16 AM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.