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
 


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 james millette , kevin ryan , Niels Harrit , paint chips , richard gage , steven jones , wtc

Reply
Old 16th January 2013, 07:50 AM   #1281
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
I'm not sure if the comment on the below link are of any interest to anyone ?

http://911blogger.com/node/13090

Could be good for a laugh anyway ?
Spanx 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 16th January 2013, 09:57 AM   #1282
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"Dr. Millette does not address those DSC findings which argue against the credibility of his own findings.

He shows his ignorance of the DSC work performed by the research scientists, when he states that only the "thermal properties" of a substance are revealed.

Dr. Millette ignores the importance of the findings from the DSC post ignition red chip residue.

And sadly, he shows little curiosity."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"...At the very least, it is unnecessary to burn chips specifically in a DSC:..."
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"The red chips of interest, were not 'burned' in the DSC.

They were ignited in the DSC.

As you also know, the authors acknowledge and discuss in their report, the exceptional energy release when the red chips were ignited.

It would not suffice to "burn the chips" at the 400C Dr. Millette chose and then dig through the residue.

From my reading of the Bentham Paper, iron-rich spheres were always found in the residue produced by ignited red chips.

If Dr. Millette had heated the chips to at least 500C, the 430C threshold issue would at least be dealt with.

It would be expected that upon microscopic examination of the residue at least some of his [Dr. Millette] red chips would have ignited and produced iron-rich spheres, where previously none existed."
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
"MM, you completely and utterly dodged my question. What will a DSC of Millette's chips show besides "thermal properties"?"
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"The DSC produces valuable residue.

The residue supports a thermitic reaction."
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Putting aside the "burned" vs "ignited" question. a mor4e impprrtant point here is that MM and for that matter Steven Jones claim that iron-rich spheres were created in the burning of the chips in the Bentham paper where none were found before. The Bentham authors have admitted that the energy release is too high for thermite alone. The valuable residue does NOT include large amounts of aluminum oxide. So the value of the residue is now down to the existence of iron-rich spheres after the burning/igniting of the chips that Jones et al did. Am I right MM? I am asking you because I am not sure that in recent posts here at least the issue of the iron-rich spheres emerging FROM THIS EXPERIMENT has really been addressed. So let's address it now. MM and Steven Jones seem to be saying that these iron-rich spheres are evidence of thermite (due to 2700-degree temps allegedly required to create them), which Millette is ignoring this by not doing a DSC test. What are other explanations of why burning paint chips can also create iron-rich microspheres IN THIS EXPERIMENT?"
RE: "The Bentham authors have admitted that the energy release is too high for thermite alone."

And they provide a possible explanation and a research path to further explore the dramatic behaviour of the chips.

RE: "The valuable residue does NOT include large amounts of aluminum oxide."

The valuable residue DOES show iron-rich spheres which are formed as a result of the iron-melting temperature created by the aluminum oxide consuming thermitic reaction.

RE: "What are other explanations of why burning paint chips can also create iron-rich microspheres IN THIS EXPERIMENT?"

Paint in a flame test;

Originally Posted by Harrit et al
"Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust."
If heating the suspect red chips to approximately 430C triggers their ignition, DSC should not be required to produce a residue containing iron-rich spheres.

I suggested 500C maximum to generously allow for any temperature measurement error.

Even Dr. Millette should be able to handle that.

MM
Miragememories 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 16th January 2013, 10:14 AM   #1283
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
MM, if you burnt a small chip of paint with rust on it, would it produce iron rich micro spheres ?

A straight yes or no will do.

Last edited by Spanx; 16th January 2013 at 10:29 AM.
Spanx 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 16th January 2013, 11:13 AM   #1284
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It would not suffice to "burn the chips" at the 400C Dr. Millette chose and then dig through the residue.

From my reading of the Bentham Paper, iron-rich spheres were always found in the residue produced by ignited red chips.

If Dr. Millette had heated the chips to at least 500C, the 430C threshold issue would at least be dealt with.

It would be expected that upon microscopic examination of the residue at least some of his [Dr. Millette] red chips would have ignited and produced iron-rich spheres, where previously none existed.

MM
You have been told numerous times why Dr Millette chose 400°C yet every time you refuse to acknowledge the reason even when that reason is specifically written by Dr Millette himself.

Quote:
Low-temperature ashing (LTA) is an alternative to using solvents to extract inorganic constituents from an organic film or coating.6 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 400oC 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 there it is again for you to conveniently ignore.

Why do you ignore the reason for low temperature ashing?

Why do you want the temperature for LTA to tally with temperatures for DSC?

You talk about the 430°C as a threshold.

Do you understand why you wouldn't want to raise a sample to that "threshold" if you wanted to look at the non-organic particles in the matrix?

Heating to or above that temperature is likely to destroy the very thing you want to preserve.

There is absolutely no point in heating samples to satisfy your need for microspheres when you totally ignore the FTIR and TEM-SAED results.

If Millette had performed DSC to 700°C and no microspheres were found, you'd claim he didn't have the same material or he was falsifying data. If he did observe microspheres you would say ,"Look! Look! Proof of thermite!" even though the material had been shown to be paint adhered to oxidised steel.

If you ignite paint as the Harrit et al authors claim then you are unlikely to see microspheres because the microspheres come from the gray layer which is oxidised steel.

Remember that the DSC test went up to 700°C. That's very close to the A1 temperature of 723°C in the Fe-C phase diagram. We know that spheroidisation of pearlite occurs below this temperature and we also know that Mn segregation to cementite also occurs below this temp. We also know that Fe2O3--> Fe occurs below this temperature via reduction using H2 or CO.

There are far too many factors occurring in these samples to simply state that microspheres are a product of Fe melting due to a thermite reaction.

So lets actually analyse the SEM photos of post DSC residue. Here's one I had earlier that is labelled. Fig 21:



Remember that this sample has experienced 700°C. What can you see in the photo?

Truthers are concentrating on the sphere but they are blind to the other particles present. I have labelled these particles. They are exactly the same particles as observed pre-DSC testing.

Look at the SEM image below and compare the hexagonal platelets and the rhomboid shaped particles.



Identical!

So what does this tell us? What it tells us is 2 things.

1. Remember the authors claims that elemental Al is in the hexagonal platelet particles? Remember that these particles experienced temperatures of 700°C.

What is the melting point of elemental Aluminium?
660°C


If these hexagonal platelet particles contained elemental aluminium then that aluminium would have melted, destroying the hexagonal shape. If elemental Al was in these platelets then we would not observe any platelets after subjecting them to 700°C.

Ergo - the residue proves no elemental Al was present in the hexagonal platelets. This is confirmed by Millette's TEM analysis.

2. The authors claime that the hexagonal platelets contain elemental Al and the rhombohedral particles are Fe2O3 and are intimately mixed.

The thermite equation is

Fe2O3 +2Al --> 2Fe +Al2O3

Therefore they are saying that the hexagonal platelets are reacting with the rhombohedral particles in the above thermite equation.

Now look at that SEM photo again. What do you see?

Yep, that's right, you still see hexagonal platelets and rhomboids. This is supposed to be nano-thermite that ignites and reacts at 430°C, but there is no reaction between the intimately mixed particles otherwise we wouldn't be able to see them because their structures, their shapes would be destroyed. Even at 700°C these intimately mixed particles haven't reacted.

The residue shows that there is little reaction occurring between the particles. Therefore no thermite reaction.


It is self evident that the material that is forming these microspheres is predominantly coming from the gray layer. The red "thermite" layer is mostly remaining whilst the gray oxidised steel layer is missing. See below.

If the red layer was thermite then we wouldn't see any red material at all. All of the iron oxide would have reacted. If there were reactions between the particles in the red layer then the red layer wouldn't exist. Instead we see the loss of the iron oxide layer. It's obvious that this forms the basis of the iron spheres.

Post DSC residue shows that no thermite reaction occurred.

There is no point in performing DSC on Millette's samples when the DSC testing already performed disproves the thermite hypothesis.
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 16th January 2013, 11:24 AM   #1285
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,515
The "thermite hypothesis" was disproved by the lack of blinding white flashes, the complete lack of evidence, the lack of plausibility, the lack of a cohesive narrative of how it would happen, etc. No need to get all technical.
carlitos 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 16th January 2013, 12:31 PM   #1286
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
If heating the suspect red chips...
Ok. Which chips are "suspect"? How do you select them from the dust?

You have previously agreed with Frank Legge that "it is all set out" in the "Active Thermitic Materials paper" - meaning an actionable, definitive method for separating thermitic ("suspect") red-gray chips from non-thermitic chips such as paint (uhm yes, Legge also answered the question "some [red-gray chips] may perhaps represent paint, and some may perhaps represent other mundane or not so mundane things?" with the short affirmative words: "Of course!")


Assuming you still agree with Frank Legge that some red-gray chips are not "suspect", and that the method for separating those away from the "suspect" chips "is all set out" in the Bentham paper, please answer this then:

Is it necessary for a relevantly qualified expert to contact the authors of the Bentham paper if s/he wants to know the method? Yes or no, MM? Or don't you know?
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 16th January 2013, 01:13 PM   #1287
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"The red chips of interest, were not 'burned' in the DSC.

They were ignited in the DSC.

As you also know, the authors acknowledge and discuss in their report, the exceptional energy release when the red chips were ignited.

It would not suffice to "burn the chips" at the 400C Dr. Millette chose and then dig through the residue.

From my reading of the Bentham Paper, iron-rich spheres were always found in the residue produced by ignited red chips.

If Dr. Millette had heated the chips to at least 500C, the 430C threshold issue would at least be dealt with.

It would be expected that upon microscopic examination of the residue at least some of his [Dr. Millette] red chips would have ignited and produced iron-rich spheres, where previously none existed."
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"…There is absolutely no point in heating samples to satisfy your need for microspheres when you totally ignore the FTIR and TEM-SAED results…"
And there will never be any discussion until the occurrence of iron-rich microspheres is explained.

The existence of other microsphere mixes is not in question.

But evidence that shows ignited red chips produced iron-melting temperatures cannot be ignored.

MM
Miragememories 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 16th January 2013, 02:47 PM   #1288
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
And there will never be any discussion until the occurrence of iron-rich microspheres is explained.

The existence of other microsphere mixes is not in question.

But evidence that shows ignited red chips produced iron-melting temperatures cannot be ignored.

MM
Ok, let's not ignore the iron-rich microspheres (which are a common byproduct of combustion of mixed mineral/organic materials and perfectly ordinary in many types of ashes) and study thermitic red-gray chips.

Not non-thermitic red-gray chips.

Thermitic red-gray chips.



YOU said you agree with Frank Legge that the "how-to" for selecting such chips is all in the Bentham paper.

Do you think it is still necessary to contact the authors about it?
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 16th January 2013, 04:37 PM   #1289
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Ok, let's not ignore the iron-rich microspheres (which are a common byproduct of combustion of mixed mineral/organic materials and perfectly ordinary in many types of ashes) and study thermitic red-gray chips.

Not non-thermitic red-gray chips.

Thermitic red-gray chips.



YOU said you agree with Frank Legge that the "how-to" for selecting such chips is all in the Bentham paper.

Do you think it is still necessary to contact the authors about it?
Hey gang,

On behalf of Jim Millette, I DID contact Kevin Ryan and asked him for samples of the red-0grey chips they found and reported on in the Bentham paper. Jim Millette wanted the chips but was denied them. As Jim reported in his preliminary paper, when he was unable to obtain samples from Ryan/Jones/Harrit et al he followed their protocol and found the same kind of chips in the WTC dust himself. MM it is unfair for you to blame Millette for Ryan's refusal to cooperate. You can justify Ryan's refusal but at least dona't accuse Millette of going forth with his own samples when that's all he could get his hands on. And BTW I believe the protocol for finding those chips was clearly explained in the Bentham paper and Millette was successful in finding the same kind of samples... and many 9/11 Truth people agree that Millette did indeed find the same red-grey chips.
__________________
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 16th January 2013, 04:40 PM   #1290
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"And there will never be any discussion until the occurrence of iron-rich microspheres is explained.

The existence of other microsphere mixes is not in question.

But evidence that shows ignited red chips produced iron-melting temperatures cannot be ignored."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Ok, let's not ignore the iron-rich microspheres (which are a common byproduct of combustion of mixed mineral/organic materials and perfectly ordinary in many types of ashes) and study thermitic red-gray chips...."
Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C.

Materials, which upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of the 1535C producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.

MM
Miragememories 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 16th January 2013, 04:43 PM   #1291
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C.

Materials, which upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of the 1535C producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.

MM
You have absolutely zero evidence suggesting that the chips produced temperatures in excess of 1535 degrees C. Your "iron-rich microspheres" are perfectly capable of being artifacts of temperatures much lower than that.
thedopefishlives 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 16th January 2013, 04:49 PM   #1292
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Please...
After you, pal:

YOU said you agree with Frank Legge that the "how-to" for selecting such chips is all in the Bentham paper.

Do you think it is still necessary to contact the authors about it? Or would an expert with the relevant expertise be able to determine the correct method from reading the paper alone?
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 16th January 2013, 10:15 PM   #1293
Notinthemafia
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
You have absolutely zero evidence suggesting that the chips produced temperatures in excess of 1535 degrees C. Your "iron-rich micro spheres" are perfectly capable of being artifacts of temperatures much lower than that.
Yes correct, i posted earlier in this thread, iron(III)oxide(rust)+carbon monoxide+heat (~500C) will directly reduce iron from the rust. The iron is such a fine dust it is pyrophoric (ignites on contact with air). As we know burning is an oxidation reaction, so the iron burns (at high temp) and re-oxidizes into iron II oxide forming your iron rich micro spheres. Youtube pyrophoric iron for some cool demos with ferric oxcilate.

So simply put rust + carbon monoxide + heat = pyrophoric iron
when O2 hits this iron it rapidly oxidizes (burns) and creates iron rich microspheres.
Notinthemafia 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 17th January 2013, 02:42 AM   #1294
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the WTC dust, that would be expected to ignite around 430C.

MM
Hehe Incredible

MM: clear, perfect, typical, "archetypal", undisputable, absolutely ideal examples of materials commonly existed in the WTC dust, that would be expected to ignite around 430C, are.......(surprise):
Paints

To all, but mainly to Chris:
I think that we have basically no chance to explain in detail how these microspheres are formed from the gray rust attached to red paint layers below or at 700 degrees C. It would require very thorough research not only on genuine and closely analyzed/sorted WTC red-gray chips, but also on some model systems, like other paints/composites, other oxidized steel, single layers instead of bilayers, etc.
Although the system under discussion (heated red paint layers on rust flakes) looks simple at first glance, it is pretty complex in fact and detailed metallurgical, as well as polymer research, sophisticated instrumentation, cooperation of experts etc. would be necessary.
Here, we can only bring some/many partial hypotheses, "hints" and examples of low-temperature microspheres formation from the available literature. (And, btw, we have already brought several/many such examples, including iron-rich microspheres formation at room temperature in the past...)

We can (well, Jim Millette can) only prove that from some pre-sorted red-gray chips with basically known structure/composition, microspheres depicted in Bentham paper are really created below or at 700 degrees under air in some oven, DSC device or other heating apparatus.
Such finding could at least make silent those (well, some) truthers who are trying to stupidly claim that Jim has studied different red-gray chips than Harrit et al. But, the microsphere formation from red-gray paint chips wouldn't be scientifically explained in this way, would be only proven.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 17th January 2013 at 03:06 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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 17th January 2013, 05:12 AM   #1295
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
We should not forget that the "microspheres, therefore thermite" argument is older than the faux "finding" of "active thermitic material". To recap history (and yeah, the following is a bit on the sarcastical side
2005: The TMTM "discovers" the "explosive CD" of WTC7 as the "smoking gun"
2006: Everybody even within the TMTM realizes there were no explosions at WTC7 (it was eerily silent)
2007: Steven Jones invents "thermite" theory so the TMTM has some silent fantasy explanation. He bases this on nothing but "microspheres" found in the dust
2008: Magically, they find ATM in red-gray chips! Magically, it produces "microspheres"!
2009: A pay-to-pubish pariah journal accepts $800 and publishes the "paper"

We know there is no thermite in the red-gray chips:
- Farrer's work on chips a-d disproves thermite
- Jones' work on the MEK-chip disproves thermite
- Farrer's work on the DSC disproves thermite
- Harrit's letter in May 2009 corroborates chips a-d are LaClede paint (Sr-Chromate!)
- Farrer's work on the TEM corroborates LaClede paint
- The fact that FTIR, XRD and TEM results are held back speaks against thermite
- Jones' presentation in Australia corroborates MEK-chip is Tnemec
- HenryCo's tests disprove thermite
- Basile's "confirmation" tests disprove thermite
- Millette's preliminary report rules out thermite 100%

So there is a very large body of evidence that the chips are not thermitic.

And still, these guys wonder about microspheres.

Bottom line is: Microspheres don't prove thermite. Microspheres form from a number of different processes, most of them well below the melting temperature of iron.


And actually, the evidence that any actual elemental iron microspheres were found in their residue is rather thin, and they don't relate any quantities! The only bit of data that speaks for elemental iron is Figure 21:



"Fig. (21) Spheroid found in post-DSC residue showing iron-rich sphere and the corresponding XEDS spectrum. The carbon peak must be
considered indeterminate here since this sample was flashed with a thin carbon layer in order to preclude charging under the electron beam.
"

We are lead to believe that the XEDS spectrum is from the round thing in the center of the image, a ball ca. 4.5-5 microns across.

While the spectrum, supposedly done with a 20 keV beam, indeed seems to indicate too little O to oxidize all the Fe, I find that data questionable. Here's why: In the mass in the top left of the image, you can see many of the 100 nm faceted grains of iron oxide pigments present in the paint already before burning. They appear much more densely packed than in the unburned paint - so they must have agglomerated after much of the organic matrix decomposed and burned. You also see some of the hexagonal platelets of kaolin, that evidently experienced no melting at temperatures up to 700 degrees, proving they did not contain any free Al. So that mass of "thermite" evidently did not react chemically in any way, shape or form, except for the organics that vanished.
So how come there's an "iron" ball attached to that "thermite"? If that "iron" ball had been liquid and near the melting point of bulk iron at the time it solidified (froze), why did the heat not ignite the rest of the "thermite" it immediately touched?

My main problem however is the shade of gray: This is a BSE image. In BSE images, the brightness of a "pixel" is determined by the average atomic weight of the atoms. It would be near white for heavy atoms, and near black for very light atoms. As we can see, it is some light gray for the kaolin plates (Si-Al-O), which have an average atomic weight of 15 (including hydrogen; 19 excluding hydrogen), and somewhat brighter for the hematite grains - average atomic weight is 32. If the ball in the middle truly were mostly iron, its average atomic weight would be well above 40, and it should appear even brighter. But it doesn't. Why? Well, in that image, it appears to be behind the plane of focus. It may simply be a case of sloppy work on the SEM machine! And that is perhaps also the reason why that ball appears smoother and more uniform than the other mass - although it really isn't smooth! I tend to think that if the electron microscope had been properly focused on that ball, we'd see it consists of another agglomeration of hematite pigments, pulled together in a shape approaching a sphere by cooling remains of organic char. And the XEDS spectrum might look different, too.


Another Figure has the caption:
"Fig. (25). Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum (although spheres with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen in the post-ignition residue)."
Link:


Now that spectrum clearly shows an archetypical Si-Al-Fe glass sphere that is even more typical for ashed from mixed mineral/organic combustions than iron-rich spheres, and does not show an iron-rich sphere at all!
I strongly wonder: If "spheres [plural!!] with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen", why don't they just show them in the paper? Or is Fig 21, that dubious and sloppy piece of worl, really the only vague hint?


I think before we try to bend over backwards to explain iron spheres, we should ask for better proof there actually were any iron spheres at all - and ask for proof they made up a significant portion (say, >5% by weight) of the residue. And while we are at it: Find as much Al2O3 in the resdiue, too!



Oh and by the way: Steven Jones has declared:
Originally Posted by ProfJones
I (Dr. Jones) have searched Millette's plots and see no indication of strontium (Sr) or lead (Pb) in his samples, but he does report titanium (Ti) which we do not see. Thus, his samples do not appear to be the same material as what we reported on.
Well, in the DSC residue shown in Fig 25 I "see no indication of strontium (Sr) or lead (Pb) in his samples, but he does report titanium (Ti)". Thus, this sample does not appear to be the same material as what they reported on elsewhere in the paper.
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 17th January 2013, 06:13 AM   #1296
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Oystein: Thanks

You posted the same Fig. 21 as Sunstealer yesterday. Sunstealer thinks the he sees quite clearly kaolinite hexagonal platelet (and rhomboidal hematite crystals), but is it really that conclusive? I mean... could be this hypothesis (this platelet is kaolinite) used as a kind of evidence in some scientific debate, or in the serious debate with educated truthers? I still have some doubts. Other pigments (e.g. in Tnemec primer ) could have basically the same appearance here. (It is really pitty that we have no detailed micrographs of Tnemec primer available, but this is one of the things which can be corrected comparatively easily (it should not be really great problem to scratch some paint from some monument made of WTC perimeter columns and look at this sample with an electron microscope)).

But, if Sunstealer is right (and I tend to trust him because of his long practical experience), this chip (its remains) should be "Laclede paint" chip, as well as all other burned chips in Fig. 20 They look all the same, with all those similar shiny globules, they should be the same material.

Also: whereas we have very little direct evidence from Harrit et al that microspheres in Fig. 20 are really iron-rich (the less purely "iron"), they should originate from the gray layers, as Sunstealer pointed out again yesterday. From that point of view, they really should contain mostly iron stuffs, indeed in some mixture with Si, Al and other stuffs present originally in red layers, or even on them (as accidental surface contaminants).

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 17th January 2013 at 06:29 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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 17th January 2013, 06:42 AM   #1297
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Hey gang,

On behalf of Jim Millette, I DID contact Kevin Ryan and asked him for samples of the red-0grey chips they found and reported on in the Bentham paper. Jim Millette wanted the chips but was denied them. As Jim reported in his preliminary paper, when he was unable to obtain samples from Ryan/Jones/Harrit et al he followed their protocol and found the same kind of chips in the WTC dust himself. MM it is unfair for you to blame Millette for Ryan's refusal to cooperate. You can justify Ryan's refusal but at least dona't accuse Millette of going forth with his own samples when that's all he could get his hands on. And BTW I believe the protocol for finding those chips was clearly explained in the Bentham paper and Millette was successful in finding the same kind of samples... and many 9/11 Truth people agree that Millette did indeed find the same red-grey chips.
"
As you know Chris, Kevin Ryan has trust issues with Dr. Millette.

Having observed and financially contributed to the Millette research, I can quite understand Kevin Ryan's reluctance to participate.

The problem is not so much Kevin Ryan's refusal to provide relevant red chip samples, but Dr. Millette's refusal to test them in the same manner followed by Dr. Harrit.

Dr. Millette happily accepted $1,000 for work on a paper he had already started and was under obligation to produce anyway.

Dr. Millette used his own WTC dust samples, his own equipment, and his own time.

He also followed a methodology which appeared to duplicate the original study by Dr. Harrit et al only so far as the red chip separation and some preliminary microscopic analysis. Up until that point, his observations were pretty much in agreement with the original study.

But Dr. Millette's company does not own a DSC and he had no interest in sub-contracting one for comparison purposes.

Such a definitive approach would go to the heart of the Bentham Paper, but it would also expand the number of people familiar with those test results (re: DSC technician).

Assuming Dr. Millette actually read through the original Bentham Paper, he would have been well aware of the sensational nature of the DSC red chip residue.

Clearly, even without a DSC, if Dr. Millette had heated his collection of red chips to 430C or higher, he should have ignited some of those red chips and produced a similar residue containing iron-rich microspheres as those observed by Dr. Harrit et al.

But then, he would have a serious quandary.

MM
Miragememories 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 17th January 2013, 07:24 AM   #1298
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
He also followed a methodology which appeared to duplicate the original study by Dr. Harrit et al only so far as the red chip separation and some preliminary microscopic analysis. ...
Well, did he do that part right?
Did he use the method that was "all set out" in the Benthan paper, as Frank Legge said, and you agreed?
Or would he have to contact the authors to know exactly how to do the the red chip separation correctly? Cuz ya know, Professor Jones thinks that "his samples do not appear to be the same material as what we reported on"!
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 17th January 2013, 07:29 AM   #1299
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,399
I admire the dedication of many of you, but this thread should perhaps be renamed "A study into MM's evasion techniques".
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 17th January 2013, 07:32 AM   #1300
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C.

Materials, which upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of the 1535C producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.

MM"
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"Hehe Incredible

MM: clear, perfect, typical, "archetypal", undisputable, absolutely ideal examples of materials commonly existed in the WTC dust, that would be expected to ignite around 430C, are.......(surprise):
Paints
"
And Paints as you put it, upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of 1535C, producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.?

MM
Miragememories 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 17th January 2013, 07:33 AM   #1301
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
And Paints as you put it, upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of 1535C, producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.?

MM
You still haven't proven 1535 degrees C. I'm still waiting for evidence of this. And don't say "iron-rich microspheres", because it has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that they can be artifacts of much lower-temperature processes.
thedopefishlives 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 17th January 2013, 07:56 AM   #1302
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,399
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
You still haven't proven 1535 degrees C. I'm still waiting for evidence of this. And don't say "iron-rich microspheres", because it has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that they can be artifacts of much lower-temperature processes.
MM clearly is making that assumption. Iron-rich spheres prove such temperatures in MM land.
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 17th January 2013, 08:16 AM   #1303
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Perhaps someone will clarify for me as I am sure MM will not.

From what I can make out, MM is saying the only way to find if nanothermite is present in any substance is DSC testing ?

The only way to produce iron spheres is thermite ?

Does that sound about right ?
Spanx 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 17th January 2013, 08:36 AM   #1304
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
"You still haven't proven 1535 degrees C. I'm still waiting for evidence of this. And don't say "iron-rich microspheres", because it has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that they can be artifacts of much lower-temperature processes."
Originally Posted by Harrit et al
"…A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen…"
Originally Posted by Harrit et al
"…Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above the 700 ̊C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high temperatures indicate that a chemical reaction occurred…"
Originally Posted by Harrit et al
"…Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide.…"
I am not attempting to prove my research.

It is the work of the research scientists, Dr. Harrit et al, and their findings which I am addressing.

Unless you can demonstrate that their conclusions are not scientifically justifiable, I fail to see your point.

MM
Miragememories 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 17th January 2013, 08:39 AM   #1305
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Perhaps someone will clarify for me as I am sure MM will not.

From what I can make out, MM is saying the only way to find if nanothermite is present in any substance is DSC testing ?

The only way to produce iron spheres is thermite ?

Does that sound about right ?
From my reading, this is correct. Apparently thermite is capable of masquerading as ordinary paint until it is run through a DSC test in open air, then it suddenly reveals its thermite-ness. This, obviously, invalidates the otherwise more accurate tests that Dr. Millette did, because the super-duper-magic-nano-thermite stays hidden until ignited at precisely 430 degrees C.
thedopefishlives 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 17th January 2013, 08:44 AM   #1306
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I am not attempting to prove my research.

It is the work of the research scientists, Dr. Harrit et al, and their findings which I am addressing.

Unless you can demonstrate that their conclusions are not scientifically justifiable, I fail to see your point.

MM
Again, REALLY?
Dog Town 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 17th January 2013, 08:49 AM   #1307
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
You still haven't proven 1535 degrees C. I'm still waiting for evidence of this. And don't say "iron-rich microspheres", because it has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that they can be artifacts of much lower-temperature processes.
I am not attempting to prove my research.

It is the work of the research scientists, Dr. Harrit et al, and their findings which I am addressing.

Unless you can demonstrate that their conclusions are not scientifically justifiable, I fail to see your point.

MM
You're funny, MM: You first quote the statement that refutes the Harrit-claims you believe so naively and uncritically. I highlighted that part for you.



Now again: By what methods should a follow-up researcher select chips that you want to have tested in the DSC?
Is the method set out in the paper?
Or is it necessary to contact the authors about it?
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 17th January 2013, 08:50 AM   #1308
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
From my reading, this is correct. Apparently thermite is capable of masquerading as ordinary paint until it is run through a DSC test in open air, then it suddenly reveals its thermite-ness. This, obviously, invalidates the otherwise more accurate tests that Dr. Millette did, because the super-duper-magic-nano-thermite stays hidden until ignited at precisely 430 degrees C.
Thank you, so working along those lines would anyone be able to show me the 2005 DSC results carried out by Steven Jones ?
Spanx 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 17th January 2013, 08:50 AM   #1309
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Perhaps someone will clarify for me as I am sure MM will not.

From what I can make out, MM is saying the only way to find if nanothermite is present in any substance is DSC testing ?

The only way to produce iron spheres is thermite ?

Does that sound about right ?
Please, ask MM, and keep asking, until he gives you a positive and definitive answer. Enjoy the process, it will last for weeks and months if you really want
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 17th January 2013, 09:00 AM   #1310
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Please, ask MM, and keep asking, until he gives you a positive and definitive answer. Enjoy the process, it will last for weeks and months if you really want
Lol

MM has never replied to any of my very simple questions and I have not seen him answer anyone's questions

I wonder if semenut is also MM

That's the last time I boost his YouTube hits
Spanx 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 17th January 2013, 09:13 AM   #1311
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
And Paints as you put it, upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of 1535C, producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.?

MM
MM: in this my post, I responded to you with certainity and with some laugh only as for your first inquiry, which was: "Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C." Apparently, there were hundreds of materials in WTC based on carbon stuffs (not only paints) which basically fulfill this condition.

The response to your second question above is definitely more complex and I tried to express my current opinion in the second part of my post.

But, you basically inspired me to ask here another interesting, theoretical question (for me, Oystein and any other potential enthusiasts):

It is clear that bulk charges of thermite can reach extremely high temperatures when burning. But, is it even possible that burning of thermitic chip 20 micrometers "thick" (with attached iron oxide layer also ca 20 micrometers "thick", but this can be omitted for simplicity) could generate temperatures close to melting of steel or iron oxide?

I vaguely remember that someone (Dr. Greening?) calculated the elevation of steel temperatures caused by burning of such a layer (?) of nanothermite. but I cannot find the link now...

Some basic inputs for calculations can be like: 1) The active layer consists of well-packed pure nanothermite (no binder); 2) The burning of nanothemite is basically instantaneous. 3) For simplicity, chip is burning surrounded by standing air, therefore only radiation and convective heat losses in air take place.

Any ideas?

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 17th January 2013 at 09:35 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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 17th January 2013, 10:24 AM   #1312
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
MM: in this my post, I responded to you with certainity and with some laugh only as for your first inquiry, which was: "Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C." Apparently, there were hundreds of materials in WTC based on carbon stuffs (not only paints) which basically fulfill this condition.

The response to your second question above is definitely more complex and I tried to express my current opinion in the second part of my post.

But, you basically inspired me to ask here another interesting, theoretical question (for me, Oystein and any other potential enthusiasts):

It is clear that bulk charges of thermite can reach extremely high temperatures when burning. But, is it even possible that burning of thermitic chip 20 micrometers "thick" (with attached iron oxide layer also ca 20 micrometers "thick", but this can be omitted for simplicity) could generate temperatures close to melting of steel or iron oxide?

I vaguely remember that someone (Dr. Greening?) calculated the elevation of steel temperatures caused by burning of such a layer (?) of nanothermite. but I cannot find the link now...

Some basic inputs for calculations can be like: 1) The active layer consists of well-packed pure nanothermite (no binder); 2) The burning of nanothemite is basically instantaneous. 3) For simplicity, chip is burning surrounded by standing air, therefore only radiation and convective heat losses in air take place.

Any ideas?
A layer of 25 microns pure, stoiciometric thermite against a steel plate of inch (25 mm), that's 1:1000 in terms of volume.
Worse than that in terms of mass.
It's fairly easy to calculate that 1 mass unit of thermite can melt itself plus not much more than the same mass unit of steel. A 1:1 ration is a good practical approximation, accounting for some of the unavoidable losses.

But you have a 1:1000 ratio.
So instead of warming the steel by an average of 1500 °C, you warm it by - much less. Ok, much of the energy goes into fusion, which does not come into play when you just warm without melting.

Bottom line: You'll end up with a steel plate that's a few (single digits) degrees warmer than before. Why do exact modelling and calculations? It's insignificant.

The sun, shining from a bright blue september sky, can do a lot more, I think.
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 17th January 2013, 10:49 AM   #1313
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,399
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

Bottom line: You'll end up with a steel plate that's a few (single digits) degrees warmer than before. Why do exact modelling and calculations? It's insignificant.
After we failed to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, it comes down to this.

Even if this stuff were nanothermite it would be utterly ineffective as a destructive agent deliberately used to destroy a massive building.
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 17th January 2013, 10:56 AM   #1314
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
After we failed to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, it comes down to this.

Even if this stuff were nanothermite it would be utterly ineffective as a destructive agent deliberately used to destroy a massive building.
That's why the leader of this failed twoofer "theory", changed his tune.
Dr. Jones switched his story to, it was a match for explosives! Only the deeply deluded cling to the original "theory"!

Last edited by Dog Town; 17th January 2013 at 11:45 AM.
Dog Town 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 17th January 2013, 12:01 PM   #1315
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C.

Materials, which upon ignition, rapidly generate temperatures in excess of the 1535C producing molten iron, which cools into iron-rich microspheres.

MM"
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"MM: in this my post, I responded to you with certainity and with some laugh only as for your first inquiry, which was: "Please provide some examples of materials you believe should have commonly existed in the dust of the WTC, that would be expected to ignite around 430C." Apparently, there were hundreds of materials in WTC based on carbon stuffs (not only paints) which basically fulfill this condition.

The response to your second question above is definitely more complex and I tried to express my current opinion in the second part of my post."
bolding is mine

There was no second question.

It was one question with a condition added.

It was your choice to interpret and edit my post as two questions.

MM
Miragememories 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 17th January 2013, 12:09 PM   #1316
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Here is a post for MM to ignore.

From what I can make out, no DSC tests were carried out untill 2009. So how did Jones find thermite in 2004? If DSC is the only way to find thermite

I am happy to be corrected on my claim.

Last edited by Spanx; 17th January 2013 at 12:10 PM.
Spanx 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 17th January 2013, 03:41 PM   #1317
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
There was no second question.
..
There's, however, a second question for you, dear MM. The first (you may have seen this one in various wordings previously):
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Well, did he do that part right?
Did he use the method that was "all set out" in the Benthan paper, as Frank Legge said, and you agreed?
Or would he have to contact the authors to know exactly how to do the the red chip separation correctly? Cuz ya know, Professor Jones thinks that "his samples do not appear to be the same material as what we reported on"!
And now the second:
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Here is a post for MM to ignore.

From what I can make out, no DSC tests were carried out untill 2009. So how did Jones find thermite in 2004? If DSC is the only way to find thermite

I am happy to be corrected on my claim.
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 17th January 2013, 03:49 PM   #1318
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
I was a good boy yesterday and today and wrote a new blog post:

Asking Truth scientists: How do you tell energetic and mundane chips apart?

It documents the chip-selection procedure used by Harrit e.al. and Millette, and what Jones, Legge, Ryan and Basile have said about there being different kinds of red-gray chips and that some of them are not thermitic.

This makes me ask a few questions, mainly revolving around what I have been asking MM in recent days. His extreme fear of this question tells me it is a very good question:

  • When you have selected red-gray chips that are attracted by a magnet - by what method can you then separate thermitic from non-thermitic chips
and, in more detail:
  • Did the "thermite" proponents, when they did their study, separate thermitic from non-thermitic chips before doing SEM/XEDS/DSC etc tests?
  • If yes - how did they in fact do that separation?
  • If no - did they then also test non-thermitic chips, and where is the SEM/XEDS/DSC/etc data for those?
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 17th January 2013, 04:36 PM   #1319
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"...This makes me ask a few questions, mainly revolving around what I have been asking MM in recent days. His extreme fear of this question tells me it is a very good question:

When you have selected red-gray chips that are attracted by a magnet - by what method can you then separate thermitic from non-thermitic chips?
"

Heat.

You raise the ambient temperature to 430C or higher and the thermitic red chips will ignite.

The red chips that do not ignite are thus eliminated.

MM
Miragememories 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 17th January 2013, 05:33 PM   #1320
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,467
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
As you know Chris, Kevin Ryan has trust issues with Dr. Millette.

Having observed and financially contributed to the Millette research, I can quite understand Kevin Ryan's reluctance to participate.

The problem is not so much Kevin Ryan's refusal to provide relevant red chip samples, but Dr. Millette's refusal to test them in the same manner followed by Dr. Harrit.
I presume this would include, amongst other things, failure to quantify the organic resin matrix, and igniting the chip in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, which will allow the matrix to burn with far more energy than any putative thermite, rendering the DSC test useless, even on its own terms. Why replicate failure?
Redwood 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 06:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.