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 18th January 2013, 11:15 AM   #1361
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Oystein:Millette is doing his stuff for serious academics, not for "twoofies".
To be fair, some twoofies are serious academics, including Harrit and some ae911 truthers. My annoying ginger cousin is a rather serious academic, and serious about this stuff although I donīt know if he is registered with any group. He is very smart but also crazy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtl
Wonīt all whole chips produce those spheres anyway, if they have a gray layer?
Quote:
Oystein: Difficult to say. That would mean that the gray layer alone, stripped off the red layer, would produce such spheres if slowly heated to 700 °C? I think the iron-rich blobs that Harrit e.al. found are not all from the same source and process.
No, not gray layer alone, the red and gray together. Why would Millette chips not produce spheres given they have a gray layer? Do you think that some chips will while others wonīt and that they are all paint? This is something my cousin keeps telling me, the paint/steel chips wonīt produce spheres in 700(C) DSC.
jtl 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 18th January 2013, 11:35 AM   #1362
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Gamolon: Have they done tests on other materials, suspected of providing the same results (paint, resin, etc.), to prove that it was NOT any of those?
It has been said Millette will show us that the suspected culprit, paint, will provide the same results. Harrit says his chips are mixed like superthermite and perform like it with sharp energy release, with molten iron spheres after ignition.

This should not be a problem as long as the test is done in air and the samples have a gray layer. The twoofies donīt get it.
jtl 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 18th January 2013, 11:51 AM   #1363
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,054
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
It has been said Millette will show us that the suspected culprit, paint, will provide the same results. Harrit says his chips are mixed like superthermite and perform like it with sharp energy release, with molten iron spheres after ignition.

This should not be a problem as long as the test is done in air and the samples have a gray layer. The twoofies donīt get it.
From the Bentham paper:
Quote:
We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study.
Couldn't they determine the "form" this particular "superthermite" that was used based on the analysis of the unreacted material? I am assuming "form" means composition right?

Another question for someone to answer. How does Harrit suppose this "superthermite mixture was applied to the steel, or in what order? Was it mixed with the primer paint? Or was it applied directly on the steel and then the primer paint over it? Was it applied alone in certain areas between the primer paint?
Gamolon 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 18th January 2013, 11:53 AM   #1364
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"If Dr. Millette is so certain that his testing was infallible, where is the expected professional curiosity when a strong contradiction occurs?

It would appear that all Dr. Millette has to do is pop a few more red chip selects into the oven (now set at 430C plus), and then observe and explain that 'ash'.

You know, like Dr. Harrit and his group of scientists did.

The beauty of complex chemical engineering is that you can create unexpected yet dramatic behaviour.

Take C4 for example. It can catch fire and burn itself out. It will never detonate that way.

But ignite it properly, and you have an incredibly powerful explosive.

So turn up the damn oven and take a look."
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"Here, I can agree with you. Millette can do this simple experiment. Only I doubt that he can really explain expected microspheres in the "ash" in detail (which processes exactly took place), but I can be wrong This is just my opinion.
Just a question (to be sure): do you believe that chips would do exactly the same things when heated in DSC device and in ordinary oven, respectively (considering the same/very similar heating rate)?

(The rest of your post is again weird. There is simply no way how the chips with the composition of paints (kaolinite as pigment, no proper oxidant for polymeric binder) can be miraculously transformed into deadly pyrotechnics. These chips were materials employed for the protection of WTC steel, not for its destruction.)
Regarding your question; "do you believe that chips would do exactly the same things when heated in DSC device and in ordinary oven, respectively (considering the same/very similar heating rate)?"

With the DSC, the scientists reported using a "rising temperature method of ignition", but they also tested with flame-ignition.

Originally Posted by Harrit et al
"In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image inFig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semi-spherical shapes shows that the residue had been melted, enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical shapes. However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses is more compelling that a thermitic reaction actually occurs as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is heated to no more than 430 ̊C."
Based on my reading of the paper, I would expect a finding of iron-rich microspheres and/or iron-rich debris.

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…"
I hope this answers your question.

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 18th January 2013, 01:41 PM   #1365
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Gamolon:

Quote:
Couldn't they determine the "form" this particular "superthermite" that was used based on the analysis of the unreacted material? I am assuming "form" means composition right?
Apparently they already said the chips look like "sol gel superthermite" but that is a very broad term, like "alcohol". I think their actual hypothesis is even more vague "active thermitic material".

Quote:
Another question for someone to answer. How does Harrit suppose this "superthermite mixture was applied to the steel, or in what order? Was it mixed with the primer paint? Or was it applied directly on the steel and then the primer paint over it? Was it applied alone in certain areas between the primer paint?
He does not say at all, only offers possibilities. I am not sure how much an issue this is, if they would actually prove the chips are explosive or "thermitic" it would be hard to deny that they had to be used for demolition, but that seems so incredible it can hardly be true. Millette should be able to make this all go away with some DSC tests and paint with gray metal layer.
jtl 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 18th January 2013, 01:49 PM   #1366
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Millette should be able to make this all go away with some DSC tests and paint with gray metal layer.
Do you think that if Millette does some DSC tests, truthers are going to lay down and turn off the money making machine

Just to add: If my understanding is correct ? Al was missing from theses chips, how can DSC testing produce Al ?

Last edited by Spanx; 18th January 2013 at 02:03 PM. Reason: Just to add:
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 18th January 2013, 03:07 PM   #1367
Stamuel
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 539
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Do you think that if Millette does some DSC tests, truthers are going to lay down and turn off the money making machine
I think we should not completely dismiss the impact this kind of study can have. Often belief or curiosity about conspiracy theories is along the lines of, "Hey, did you hear that...[something]?" If word gets around that an independent study found that the "nano-thermite" was actually paint all along, that can make a difference. Perhaps.

I admit, I am influenced here by recently looking back at birther claims. Before Obama released the photocopy of the original form of his birth certificate, many skeptics said that doing so would make no difference. While there are still birthers, releasing the copy made a difference.

I suppose that was a bit more high profile, to put it mildly. But still, the Harritt et al paper was so important to truthers because it was just about the only thing they could point to that was not an out of context quote or a dubious cui bono argument. Tangible evidence of something the military uses to destroy stuff! A clear refutation won't convince the hard core, but it can help put it over the edge for those who have been intrigued by "The Truth" but have become disappointed by the failure. After all, aren't several members here former truthers?

Wait, does this have anything to do with DSC? Maybe not. Umm.
Stamuel 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 18th January 2013, 03:18 PM   #1368
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,399
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Based on my reading of the paper, I would expect a finding of iron-rich microspheres and/or iron-rich debris.

I hope this answers your question.
MM, are you aware of any suggestions among the 9/11 Truth community on how such a thin layer of thermitic material might eat through much greater thicknesses of steel?

What I'm getting at here is that a spark of static electricty or a spark from a kiddies' sparkler might run to a very high temperature indeed, but they won't even damage your hand. Just as tinfoil straight from a hot oven will be handleable in a few seconds whereas the steel or ceramic baking tray will burn you for some minutes after you take it out.

High temperature <> lots of heat.

Just a link would do.
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 18th January 2013, 04:41 PM   #1369
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"MM, are you aware of any suggestions among the 9/11 Truth community on how such a thin layer of thermitic material might eat through much greater thicknesses of steel?"
The most interesting conjecture that I've heard, and I'm sure you've encountered it as well, is that the nanothermite discovered in the WTC dust by Dr. Harrit et al, was actually designed to ignite around 430C.

As the conjecture goes, the purpose was not to; "eat through much greater thicknesses of steel", but to create a momentary flash temperature high enough to trigger the self-sustaining ignition of a large volume of thermite or thermate which would eat through much greater thicknesses of steel.

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 18th January 2013, 06:49 PM   #1370
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Spanx: Do you think that if Millette does some DSC tests, truthers are going to lay down and turn off the money making machine
He might at least stop the rumors about bombs. It might stop the hoard of "truthers" from growing more. Maybe the government could do something also to stop the theories. I do agree with truthers up to a point about some issues, like that it is possible that there was some cover-up of incompetence and corruption, and that the investigations may have been fishy. This is the kind of stuff that breeds conspiracy theories. And I agree that fishy investigations may be convenient to keep the wars going. Still no inside job.

Quote:
GlennB: how such a thin layer of thermitic material might eat through much greater thicknesses of steel?
Why should the layer have been so thin? Maybe itīs just a fragment of a thick piece? Maybe just meant to ignite something bigger? I think this sort of assumption is a dead end.

We show that redgray paint chips do the same as Harrit chips and thats it.
jtl 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 18th January 2013, 07:59 PM   #1371
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,211
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
He does not say at all, only offers possibilities. I am not sure how much an issue this is, if they would actually prove the chips are explosive or "thermitic" it would be hard to deny that they had to be used for demolition, [...]
Explosive = boom - not heard during the collapse. Denied.
Thermitic = bright flashes - not seen during the collapse. Denied.

No matter whether it was either explosive or thermitic, it was not used to demolish anything.

Just a reality check.

ETA: And if that's not enough, as Beachnut puts it in a different thread:
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
No steel shows signs thermite was used. No steel shows blast effects.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 18th January 2013 at 08:03 PM.
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 19th January 2013, 12:19 AM   #1372
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
He might at least stop the rumors about bombs. It might stop the hoard of "truthers" from growing more. Maybe the government could do something also to stop the theories. I do agree with truthers up to a point about some issues, like that it is possible that there was some cover-up of incompetence and corruption, and that the investigations may have been fishy. This is the kind of stuff that breeds conspiracy theories. And I agree that fishy investigations may be convenient to keep the wars going. Still no inside
Millette doing DSC tests will not stop anything, truther will say he has the wrong chips, or he was paid off etc. Truthers want to believe in bombs, have a look on YouTube comments that's where they breed.

It's simple no Al no thermite

As far as I am aware Millette's studies are not fully complete ? As far as the thruthers response, what scientific explanation has been given. " he didn't do DSC and has the wrong chips " what about the fact there is no Al. Jones on 911 blogger says he is to busy to talk about it.

Why won't truthers share there chips ?

Last edited by Spanx; 19th January 2013 at 12:47 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 19th January 2013, 01:51 AM   #1373
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,399
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The most interesting conjecture that I've heard, and I'm sure you've encountered it as well, is that the nanothermite discovered in the WTC dust by Dr. Harrit et al, was actually designed to ignite around 430C.

As the conjecture goes, the purpose was not to; "eat through much greater thicknesses of steel", but to create a momentary flash temperature high enough to trigger the self-sustaining ignition of a large volume of thermite or thermate which would eat through much greater thicknesses of steel.

MM
Presumably not, though, as a passive trigger that would happen to ignite when the local temperature reached 430. That would make whether and when the triggers fired a very unpredicatable event. In fact the initial fireballs would set off a good deal of it and a good deal more might never reach that temperature.

So, a trigger set off by what? A radio-controlled device? If so then the thin layer of nano-thermite is worse than redundant, it's a hindrance. It's also a lot of unnecessary work. Just rely on the 'device'.

No, this proposed reason for the presence of the layer still makes no sense.

Any more ideas?
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 19th January 2013, 02:30 AM   #1374
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
jtl:
Thanks for joining us

You should read not only this whole thread, but also some older red-gray chips threads to have some closer idea what we know, what is not so sure etc.

Anyway, some remarks regarding your posts from my points of view:

"Maybe Millette chips are not all the same? His paper is not as neat as Harrit paper and this is a weakness. Why give twoofies the ammo? This is why I suggest Millette follow Harrit "to the letter", and maybe he could actually narrow down the pool of chips that match Harrit."

Indeed, it is very natural/plausible presumption that Millette's chips are not all the same (as well as Harrit's chips). After analyzing results here, it seems that most of Millette's chips are Laclede paint, some others are perhaps Tnemec paint. There are perhaps also some other paint chips (e.g.with Ti stuffs), but we are not sure. Ti can be contaminant. Harrit's paper perhaps look neater than Millette's one, since Harrit et al presorted results/chips with the aim to come to some specific conlusion ("thermite"). This is not basically a wrong approach (choosing only some results), it's quite normal in science. Anyway, fortunately for us, Harrit's results as for chips (a) to (d) indicate one specific paint (Laclede). On the other hand, Millette's results are not so unambigous in some respects (namely, various methods of purificication of chips prior XEDS measurements lead to different results and only XEDS spectra taken on freshly cut surfaces seem to be reliable).

"The ignition tests are missing, and I think Millette could have followed other tests more closely, such as showing that chips remain brittle after MEK and as I already told Sunstealer I think there is too much XEDS clutter to rule out differences."

Millette indeed tested some chips in contact with MEK (and also with other solvents); they behaved like "MEK chip" in Bentham paper. i.e. they were only swollen/softened in MEK. I'm a polymer chemist with a long experience, so I can tell you for sure: not only Tnemec paint, but also Laclede paint and any other paint with crosslinked polymer binder are supposed to behave exactly like this: they can only swell in any solvent (they can not be dissolved). After the solvent evaporation, they can be brittle.
And yes, there is some "clutter" in Millette's XEDS results and Sunstealer chose only spectra corresponding to Laclede (exactly like Harrit). This "clutter" is apparently connected with the manner of chips preparation/purification prior measurements and you would know more after reading this whole thread. Without doing this, you are necessarily confused.

"It seems to assume that there was no structure to Harrit paper and that chips a to d somehow did not represent chips tested via MEK and ignition. And isnīt the main spectra for chips "a to d" supposed to be clean surface(no ti) vs contaminated MEK and ignition chips?"

You are basically right and all this stuff has been debated here ad nauseam. Juts one detail: we do not know anything about "ignition chips" prior ignition, Harrit forgot to tell us what was their composition/how they looked. Anyway, "ignition tests" in Bentham papers belong to the badly chosen tests with zero scientific value (similarly to eletrical conductivity tets). Tests were done using oxyacetylene torch with extremely hot flame (ca 3000 degrees C and more), which should easily ignite/melt anything.

"Why would Millette chips not produce spheres given they have a gray layer? Do you think that some chips will while others wonīt and that they are all paint? This is something my cousin keeps telling me, the paint/steel chips wonīt produce spheres in 700(C) DSC"

We simply do not know. There is zero scientific literature available dealing with the behavior of paints on rust heated to 700 degrees (except Bentham paper. This is not interesting topic, so nobody has cared so far. Personally, I think that some rust scales attached to some paints would be transformed into microspheres, some others would not be. But this is just my guess. And the meaning of your cousin is simply irrelevant.

"Harrit says his chips are mixed like superthermite and perform like it with sharp energy release, with molten iron spheres after ignition."

Whereas the second part is basically correct, the first part is a pure, utter nonsense! You seem to try to stay neutral here, so please, do not repeat/do not believe apparent lies of Harrit et al. There was no sharp energy release shown anywhere in Bentham paper! The release of heat took several minutes (according to DSC device)! Please, try to come back to the plain facts/reality, otherwise no rational debate is possible.

"Apparently they already said the chips look like "sol gel superthermite" but that is a very broad term, like "alcohol". I think their actual hypothesis is even more vague "active thermitic material".

They said that, but this is again lie/nonsense/wishfull thinking, since chips don't look like any "sol gel superthermite" at all. In any sol-gel thermite preparation, only low molar mass stuffs are created, no polymer is formed. And, in all red-gray chips closely analyzed, some polymeric binder strongly prevailed (which is incompatible with any pyrotechnics without proper oxidant for this polymer, if the polymer is not fluorinated, which is not the case here).

"I do agree with truthers up to a point about some issues, like that it is possible that there was some cover-up of incompetence and corruption, and that the investigations may have been fishy. This is the kind of stuff that breeds conspiracy theories. And I agree that fishy investigations may be convenient to keep the wars going. Still no inside job."

I agree

"Why should the layer have been so thin? Maybe itīs just a fragment of a thick piece?"

This possibility (chips can be fragments of thick piece) had been torn apart into tiny pieces long ago here. There is simply no even closely reasonable truthers explanation, why active thermite layers should be diluted by inactive iron oxide (rust) layers, which can "serve" only as heat sinks and can only stop/preclude any thermitic reaction. (For me, there are also some other strong contra-arguments available, e.g.: alleged "thick piece" consisting of many multilayers in a fashion "red-gray-red-gray-red-gray-etc. layer) cannot be "delaminated" only to bilayers "red-gray", which we see in Bentham paper as well as in Millette's report. In such a case, also some other objects with more than two layers should be always and frequently found in WTC dust. At least I think so.)

I hope that this will help to understand our findings/opinions here (well, at least my findings/opinion)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 19th January 2013 at 03:57 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 19th January 2013, 04:32 AM   #1375
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The most interesting conjecture that I've heard, and I'm sure you've encountered it as well, is that the nanothermite discovered in the WTC dust by Dr. Harrit et al, was actually designed to ignite around 430C.

As the conjecture goes, the purpose was not to; "eat through much greater thicknesses of steel", but to create a momentary flash temperature high enough to trigger the self-sustaining ignition of a large volume of thermite or thermate which would eat through much greater thicknesses of steel.

MM


I dare you to provide a link! Don't worry, I know you won't!
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 19th January 2013, 08:55 AM   #1376
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"…Indeed, it is very natural/plausible presumption that Millette's chips are not all the same (as well as Harrit's chips). After analyzing results here, it seems that most of Millette's chips are Laclede paint, some others are perhaps Tnemec paint. There are perhaps also some other paint chips (e.g.with Ti stuffs), but we are not sure. Ti can be contaminant. Harrit's paper perhaps look neater than Millette's one, since Harrit et al presorted results/chips with the aim to come to some specific conlusion ("thermite"). This is not basically a wrong approach (choosing only some results), it's quite normal in science. Anyway, fortunately for us, Harrit's results as for chips (a) to (d) indicate one specific paint (Laclede). On the other hand, Millette's results are not so unambigous in some respects (namely, various methods of purificication of chips prior XEDS measurements lead to different results and only XEDS spectra taken on freshly cut surfaces seem to be reliable).
Unquestionably, since the structural steel in the WTC was coated with primer paint, a lot of primer paint chips would exist in the WTC dust.

But the chips that Dr. Harrit et al found to be thermitic, do not behave the same way as chips from steel primer paint.

You have decided that all the red chips are either Tnemec or LaClede primer paint, despite contrary evidence provided by both Dr. Harrit (tested original WTC-sourced steel primer paint, Tnemec, and a study on epoxy paint, both of which produced basically ash in the DSC, and no iron-rich microspheres), and Dr. Millette (could not find evidence of LaClede).

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 19th January 2013, 09:01 AM   #1377
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You have decided that all the red chips are either Tnemec or LaClede primer paint, despite contrary evidence provided by both Dr. Harrit (tested original WTC-sourced steel primer paint, Tnemec, and a study on epoxy paint, both of which produced basically ash in the DSC, and no iron-rich microspheres), and Dr. Millette (could not find evidence of LaClede).

MM
Are you claiming that the chips that produced the "micro-spheres" did not include the gray layer? Do you have evidence of this?

Can you tell us what chips did produce the "micro-spheres"?
__________________
"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; 19th January 2013 at 09:05 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 19th January 2013, 12:13 PM   #1378
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Ivan Kminek: You should read not only this whole thread, but also some older red-gray chips threads to have some closer idea what we know, what is not so sure etc.
My cousin introduced me to all these debates years ago, and I have checked on them once in a while so I am familiar with most theories. Given my cousinīs education and research into this I have a pretty high standard.
I am educated also but in other fields, but I do know what good research is about, and real data.

Quote:
Indeed, it is very natural/plausible presumption that Millette's chips are not all the same (as well as Harrit's chips). After analyzing results here, it seems that most of Millette's chips are Laclede paint, some others are perhaps Tnemec paint. There are perhaps also some other paint chips (e.g.with Ti stuffs), but we are not sure.
But this will not do. This implies there are at least 3 unidentified kinds of redgray chips that are lumped together into one, and leaves open the claim that some chips are evidently not paint (when ignited). This is not the way to close the case.

Quote:
they behaved like "MEK chip" in Bentham paper. i.e. they were only swollen/softened in MEK.
I canīt remember, does Millette say that chips remain hard? Then was that all the different kinds of chips?

Quote:
Juts one detail: we do not know anything about "ignition chips" prior ignition, Harrit forgot to tell us what was their composition/how they looked. Anyway, "ignition tests" in Bentham papers belong to the badly chosen tests with zero scientific value (similarly to eletrical conductivity tets). Tests were done using oxyacetylene torch with extremely hot flame (ca 3000 degrees C and more), which should easily ignite/melt anything.
I commented on this before, and again I donīt think this is a strong argument because it just assumes that the ignited chips are not the ones described in the paper. This would be fraud. There was also DSC with only 700 degrees.

Quote:
There is zero scientific literature available dealing with the behavior of paints on rust heated to 700 degrees (except Bentham paper. This is not interesting topic, so nobody has cared so far.
I donīt agree, the main point of Harrit paper seems to be that the chips ignite and make very high temperatures while paint does not. We donīt need literature to falsify those claims, some tests will do the trick. Someone could have shut up those truthers long ago with these tests.

Quote:
There was no sharp energy release shown anywhere in Bentham paper! The release of heat took several minutes (according to DSC device)! Please, try to come back to the plain facts/reality, otherwise no rational debate is possible.
The paper compares the DSC release to known superthermite paper and it seems like a fact that they are similar. Harrit does not compare it to paint so I canīt be sure that there is anything special about it. Millette also fails to do this
jtl 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 19th January 2013, 12:44 PM   #1379
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Ivan Kminek: They said that, but this is again lie/nonsense/wishfull thinking, since chips don't look like any "sol gel superthermite" at all. In any sol-gel thermite preparation, only low molar mass stuffs are created, no polymer is formed.
It seems the chips are similar on the surface, with same basic ingredients and looks, but paints do have some similarities also. The solgel process may have started as a way to make paints. The best way to confirm there is nothing special about the chips would be to show that there is nothing special about the ignition results.

Quote:
This possibility (chips can be fragments of thick piece) had been torn apart into tiny pieces long ago here.
It is just my opinion that these sort of arguments are weak. If there had been larger pieces then it does not seem impossible that explosive force could leave behind tiny fragments of the material and whatever it was attached to. Arguing about this kind of stuff gets us nowhere because it looks like avoiding Harrit. Much better to just falsify his hypothesis.
jtl 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 19th January 2013, 01:01 PM   #1380
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
@jtl

Perhaps you could explain some thing to me. What is written below is from the bentham paper. I am assuming it relates to MM,s post above.

Why would it be necessary to use this thermite to ignite high explosives after exploding an aircraft in the building ? It also states that NIST admits it did not look for high explosives residue. If NIST was hiding something, why not just say they looked for explosive residue and could not find any ?




[The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determi- nation of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ig- nite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches [30]. Hav- ing observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues [11].]

Last edited by Spanx; 19th January 2013 at 01:04 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 19th January 2013, 01:20 PM   #1381
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
It seems the chips are similar on the surface, with same basic ingredients and looks, but paints do have some similarities also. The solgel process may have started as a way to make paints. The best way to confirm there is nothing special about the chips would be to show that there is nothing special about the ignition results.



It is just my opinion that these sort of arguments are weak. If there had been larger pieces then it does not seem impossible that explosive force could leave behind tiny fragments of the material and whatever it was attached to. Arguing about this kind of stuff gets us nowhere because it looks like avoiding Harrit. Much better to just falsify his hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
You don't mean falsify his hypothesis, that is supporting his hypothesis.

There was no thermite used on 911. This means Harrit was wrong before they started the paper.
Because.
No steel had fused iron on it from thermite; the big product of thermite, iron.
No blast effects on steel.

The paper can be dismissed due to evidence found on 911. Learning that dust burns at 430C, also debunks the thermite claim in Harrits own paper.

Using DSC is not useful. In Harrit's paper, they don't match. And how will 560C thermite do anything?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...esDelusion.jpg

Quote:
The paper compares the DSC release to known superthermite paper and it seems like a fact that they are similar. Harrit does not compare it to paint so I canīt be sure that there is anything special about it. Millette also fails to do this
Similar? Not. Why would you use DSC for this? What is DSC for? Discuss.

Read the paper, see the lie. Easy to see the paper is nonsense, because no evidence of thermite on any steel at the WTC complex. The steel they used as evidence was corrosion below 1,000 C.
The steel was studied by rational engineers...

The worse corrosion found...

Not melted, corroded. No thermite. This is their only chance so 911 truth lies. Why?


Why did rational engineers not find thermite?
Why has Gage not used part of his million dollars in donations to study the dust? Because Gage does not have to do anything to fool people into donating money.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
... I do agree with truthers up to a point about some issues, like that it is possible that there was some cover-up of incompetence and corruption, and that the investigations may have been fishy. ...
Why do you slander people without facts?
Oh, so you rant so sweetly about things you offer zero evidence for. Declaring people were incompetent when their throats were cut by terrorists acting like other passenger but rising up to kill people without notice?
Accusing unknown people of a cover-up, corruption, and fishy investigations. You make the claims without evidence.

What was covered up with regards to thermite?
What incompetence? What corruption? What was fishy about 911 investigations.

I discussed the paper, and why does the DSC not match thermite? Why does Harrit and Jones lie about 911?
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 19th January 2013, 02:46 PM   #1382
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
With the DSC, the scientists reported using a "rising temperature method of ignition", but they also tested with flame-ignition.
And heating to 3000°C+ is indeed the ultimate proof that a thermite reaction was started at 430°C.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I canīt remember, does Millette say that chips remain hard? Then was that all the different kinds of chips?
Dr. Millette stated in his progress report:

Quote:
The solvents had no effect on the gray iron/steel layer. Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within. SEM-EDS phase mapping (using multivariate statistical analysis) of the red layer after exposure to MEK for 55 hours did not show evidence of individual aluminum particles (Appendix G).
Dr. Millette tested MEK, DCM (Dichloromethane) and two paint strippers (mixtures of several organic solvents).

Quote:
I donīt agree, the main point of Harrit paper seems to be that the chips ignite and make very high temperatures while paint does not. We donīt need literature to falsify those claims, some tests will do the trick. Someone could have shut up those truthers long ago with these tests.
Harrit was falsified by Millette. Millette detected only chemically bond aluminum and not elemental aluminum. As the presence of elemental aluminum is fundamental condition for the existence of thermite, the thermite hypothesis has been successfully falsified. The truther claim, that Dr. Millette missed an important experiment is pure (and a very successful) disinformation.

Last edited by Africanus; 19th January 2013 at 03:24 PM.
Africanus 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 19th January 2013, 03:01 PM   #1383
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Quote:
The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determi- nation of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ig- nite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches [30]. Hav- ing observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues [11].
The other question is, why is the above quote in the Bentham paper ? MM seems to think it is fact. To me it looks like conspiracy feed.
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 19th January 2013, 03:28 PM   #1384
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Quote:
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
Another quote from the Bentham paper.^

Now let's have a look how explosive this material is and what sort of effect it has on steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwV...eature=youtube

Mmmm
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 19th January 2013, 03:33 PM   #1385
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Why use thermite? Why use explosives? Why crash the airplanes? I guess you could get the same answer to all three, but I think it is more productive to debunk Harrit paper directly. Was there any reason for NIST to look for this residue? I am not sure but if it had looked for explosives it would had to have a reason and maybe this would have fueled more conspiracy theories?
I debunked the Harrit et al paper days after it was published. The paper is self debunking, it's only the uneducated and gullible that believe that the paper has any merit at all.

Start reading this thread and pay very close attention to all my posts. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=139293

When you've done that start reading this thread and pay close attention to all my posts. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140017

That will take you some time, but when you have read the debunking come back and comment.
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 19th January 2013, 03:42 PM   #1386
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Rational discussions about Harrit paper and Millette. I am not an expert on explosive but I have read both papers, and expect to discuss them with people who have also read them. Not angry rants about liars with this kind of stuff
I have read both papers and sent the Harret et al paper to two independent "peer reviewers" (both PhD chemists) . They both said the same thing, "the papers data does not support their conclusions" .

At this point, what are we "rationally discussing" and with whom?
__________________
"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; 19th January 2013 at 03:44 PM.
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 19th January 2013, 05:07 PM   #1387
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
@jtl

Unfortunately you are using the truther trait. (saying a whole lot about nothing)

Why not just come out and say the problem you have with Millette or Harrits work.
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 19th January 2013, 05:18 PM   #1388
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Sunstealer: I debunked the Harrit et al paper days after it was published. The paper is self debunking, it's only the uneducated and gullible that believe that the paper has any merit at all.

Start reading this thread and pay very close attention to all my posts.
It is not really helpful or true to call them uneducated and gullible. If you really think you have debunked the paper why donīt you publish your findings? I have read some of your posts but I donīt know if I read them all. I donīt think you have answered my questions, and you donīt seem to acknowledge any problems with Millette paper. I am sure you are ultimately right about Harrit chips but I would like to see it confirmed with published research and including all the tests. I would like more comments from you and Kminek on my posts.
jtl 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 19th January 2013, 05:37 PM   #1389
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
It is not really helpful or true to call them uneducated and gullible. If you really think you have debunked the paper why donīt you publish your findings? I have read some of your posts but I donīt know if I read them all. I donīt think you have answered my questions, and you donīt seem to acknowledge any problems with Millette paper. I am sure you are ultimately right about Harrit chips but I would like to see it confirmed with published research and including all the tests. I would like more comments from you and Kminek on my posts.
Just a suggestion , why not clearly set out your questions in a fresh post ?

It will make it alot easier than picking though your last 18 posts
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 19th January 2013, 05:39 PM   #1390
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Africanus: The solvents had no effect on the gray iron/steel layer. Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within. SEM-EDS phase mapping (using multivariate statistical analysis) of the red layer after exposure to MEK for 55 hours did not show evidence of individual aluminum particles (Appendix G).
Does it say anywhere that the chips remain brittle or hard like Harrit chips?
This seems to give chance to open up the debate about the chips being the same or not. Why do Millette and Harrit get opposite results with MEK and individual aluminum?
jtl 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 19th January 2013, 06:01 PM   #1391
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Does it say anywhere that the chips remain brittle or hard like Harrit chips?
This is what Harrit says about the MEK test:

Quote:
2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent

By employing some means to separate the different components of the material, the chemical compositions of the different particles in the red layer were more accurately determined. The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of
the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution.
In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK. It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess
whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form.
So the Harrit match the Millette Chips in at least one behaviour: both chips could not be dissolved by MEK.

Quote:
This seems to give chance to open up the debate about the chips being the same or not. Why do Millette and Harrit get opposite results with MEK and individual aluminum?
Although Harrit claims, that his results prove the segregation of aluminum from the platlets, he has only unsufficient data. His claim is only based on the EDX map of a chip after MEK treatment. But if you want to prove a dynamic process, you should also record the EDX map before the MEK treatment.
Africanus 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 19th January 2013, 06:51 PM   #1392
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,211
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
The paper compares the DSC release to known superthermite paper and it seems like a fact that they are similar.
In context they are not.



The most likely reason for the lowest peaks would be that they were attached to bigger pieces of gray layer. And all have gray layers attached according to the paper, which means the peaks would have been even bigger, which would be an even clearer difference with the known superthermite trace.

Note also the endothermic stage of the superthermite until ~270°C.

And there's no aluminium oxide found in the residue, which the known superthermite paper does find. Whatever burned in the DSC was not thermite. Most probably epoxy, given the trace and the total energy release.

ETA: Look at this image: http://www.springerimages.com/Images...3-010-0833-6-3

What does it remind you?

And some of the peaks here also look similar, don't they?

http://www.springerimages.com/Images...3-010-1046-8-0

Or look at this one: http://www.rsc.org/ej/CE/2009/b907224a/b907224a-f9.gif

Or this one: http://ars.sciencedirect.com/content...018518-gr2.gif

Why is the comparison of DSC traces significant?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 19th January 2013 at 07:11 PM.
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 19th January 2013, 09:16 PM   #1393
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Africanus: This is what Harrit says about the MEK test:
It says more than that:
Quote:
Harrit: The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure
One swells and remain hard, other softens.

Quote:
So the Harrit match the Millette Chips in at least one behaviour: both chips could not be dissolved by MEK.
See above answer. Millette could also be a bit more clear on the no dissolution part. But both could still be paint.

Quote:
Although Harrit claims, that his results prove the segregation of aluminum from the platlets, he has only unsufficient data. His claim is only based on the EDX map of a chip after MEK treatment. But if you want to prove a dynamic process, you should also record the EDX map before the MEK treatment.
I just read up on the paper, it has the data for before and after MEK. But does it matter, could the paint not have al? Could the MEK split the kaolin into al and si in some strange circumstances?
jtl 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 19th January 2013, 09:23 PM   #1394
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I have read both papers and sent the Harret et al paper to two independent "peer reviewers" (both PhD chemists) . They both said the same thing, "the papers data does not support their conclusions" .

At this point, what are we "rationally discussing" and with whom?
This is not an appeal to authority, it is rational confirmation the paper has a failed conclusion. When chemists say the paper failed, it is confirmation, the paper failed.

The paper confirms they failed to find thermite when they added the DSC.

When I researched the paper, I found kaolin from Europe matched the elements listed in the paper. BS artists had to pay to publish their paper. No legitimate paper would publish the nonsense.

Millette paper found no thermite. RJ Lee, no thermite. USGS, no thermite. 911 truth found thermite, in their heads, in their heads, zombie, zombie
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 19th January 2013, 09:34 PM   #1395
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
pgimeno: In context they are not.
I think the main thing is they are all about as narrow as the comparison. But they donīt actually show a paint curve for comparison so this is where Millette could improve on Harrit.

Quote:
ETA: Look at this image:
Have to same X and Y to compare. Would be really nice to get a known paint sample with same parameters and compare.

Quote:
And there's no aluminium oxide found in the residue, which the known superthermite paper does find.
This does not seem to be an issue. The paper does report aluminum oxide after ignition, or at least al and oxide, and they do compare directly to known thermite residue. But al melts below 700 so I donīt see a problem, unless paint cant have it?
jtl 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 19th January 2013, 09:40 PM   #1396
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
...
This does not seem to be an issue. The paper does report aluminum oxide after ignition, ...?
Then there is no thermite.
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 19th January 2013, 09:58 PM   #1397
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
The thermite DSC they added to their paper to prove they did not find thermite. Kind of silly on Harrit's part, he debunks himself with little effort.
The DSC are not the same. Proof it is not thermite. But I know Jones made up thermite, I have his first letter where he ranted about 911, and made delusional statements.

Anyone upset with the homage to THE CRANBERRIES?
911 truth does keep repeating the same failed nonsense, like zombies.

Last edited by beachnut; 19th January 2013 at 10:36 PM. Reason: took out the math so Balsamo and 911 truth might follow
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 20th January 2013, 02:58 AM   #1398
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
It says more than that:


One swells and remain hard, other softens.
This doesn't contradict Millette's results. Millette's Chip remained hard, too as neither the kaolin nor the epoxy was dissolved.

Quote:
See above answer. Millette could also be a bit more clear on the no dissolution part. But both could still be paint.
I think, that his statement is clear enough.

Quote:
I just read up on the paper, it has the data for before and after MEK. But does it matter, could the paint not have al? Could the MEK split the kaolin into al and si in some strange circumstances?
No, it hasn't:

1. We don't know where the EDX spectrum prior soaking was collected. Usually the region of spectrum collection is specified in scientific papers.

2. Harrit claims, that he was able to seperate elemental aluminum from the platelets. But it is a fact, that his data is insufficient. There is no EDX map of the Chip prior soaking. His paper contains two EDX maps. The first one is depicted in Fig. 10 on page 16, the examined chip is from dust sample 1 (MacKinlay). The second is depicted in fig. 15 one page 18. This map shows the MEK chip after soaking, the chip is from dust sample 2 (Delessio/Breidenbach).

BTW, MEK cannot split kaolin. If you want to free the aluminum of the kaolin you have to reduce it to elemental aluminum. MEK does the opposite, it reacts with aluminum as MEK is an acidic compound and produces aluminum ions.
Africanus 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 January 2013, 03:52 AM   #1399
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,211
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I think the main thing is they are all about as narrow as the comparison. But they donīt actually show a paint curve for comparison so this is where Millette could improve on Harrit.
Why? DSC has not been proven to be any good method for material identification and characterization. FTIR and TEM are, and Millette used them. Jones et al. also did but they are holding the data.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Have to same X and Y to compare. Would be really nice to get a known paint sample with same parameters and compare.
You are applying different standards to compare. The shapes of several of the pictures I posted are essentially the same: a large peak after a slower increment. You should be aware by now that the expected total energy release of thermite is much less than that observed in the DSC traces of the chips, therefore what the DSC trace shows can not materially be thermite. It is a physical impossibility. On what basis do you dare to compare the DSC traces if it is self-evident they do not show the same material burning to start with? What significance does it have that the width matches, if the height, the shape, the peak temperature and the endothermic areas don't? There are more differences than similarities.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This does not seem to be an issue. The paper does report aluminum oxide after ignition, or at least al and oxide, and they do compare directly to known thermite residue. But al melts below 700 so I donīt see a problem, unless paint cant have it?
From the superthermite paper:
To verify that the reaction observed in Figs. 2 and 3 was indeed the thermite reaction the solid products from the DSC analysis reaction were analyzed using PXRD. The pattern of these products is shown in Fig. 4. The major constituents identified were metallic Fe and Al2 O3 , which are the expected products if the thermite reaction had occurred.
Presence of aluminium and oxygen is no surprise. The aluminium is in kaolin and the oxygen is in iron oxide and kaolin. Those elements were there at the start. If there was aluminium oxide, they should have shown it.

But they fell short of doing this, therefore they didn't really show that a thermite reaction occurred. They are hiding their FTIR/TEM data. Significantly, the red layer in their post-DSC images is still there, meaning the iron oxide has not reacted. Their micrographs show iron oxide crystals, as Sunstealer noted. Their own data refutes any thermite reaction. Even the chip subject to flame test (~3000°C) is still red. What kind of thermite reaction does leave the iron oxide intact?

In my world, if something is not proven, it can not be used to accuse anyone. Is your world different?

Did the authors clearly prove that a thermite reaction occurred? If you are honest enough you have to answer that with a resounding NO.

The ball is in their field. Why do you insist that Millette should do or have done this or that, if the ATM paper is a piece of crap proving nothing?


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Why is it important? Two Harrit chips also have endothermic stage around ca 650 to 670 which could be aluminum I think.
Why is it not? You are the one claiming they are similar. I am pointing out the differences. That one strikes me as an important difference. Thermite absorbs heat during the first ~300°C, the chips do not. Can you explain it and why it doesn't matter in the comparison? (I mean besides the fact that what is burning is a different thing, as evidenced by the total energy releases)
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 20th January 2013 at 04:10 AM.
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 20th January 2013, 05:39 AM   #1400
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I just read up on the paper, it has the data for before and after MEK. But does it matter, could the paint not have al? Could the MEK split the kaolin into al and si in some strange circumstances?
The data before MEK soaking is an EDX spectrum of the red layer. The data after soaking is an EDX mapping of the sample for individual elements. These are chalk and cheese and cannot be considered the same thing.

Secondly the chip soaked in MEK is most likely Tnemec Red primer paint



which has a different composition to Laclade joist primer paint



which is the most likely candidate for samples a-d.

Click my sig for evidence of the MEK chip being Tnemec red
and http://oystein-debate.blogspot.co.uk...paint-not.html *

What Harrit et al are observing in their MEK test is the migration of aluminates in the sample. This has been discussed in some depth before.

When we look at the Millette EDX data for the red layers then those of us who have spent some time on this subject can spot potential Tnemec red primer paint candidates. In the samples a-d and many of Millette's red layer EDX spectra we see that Al and Si have equal peak height ratios. That's a tell tale sign for an aluminosilicate in this case kaolin. Laclade paint contains kaolin but Tnemec red doesn't. When we look at the MEK chip red layer EDX we don't see this characteristic, the Si peak is higher.

Here is EDX from top to bottom of Millette (Page 26, Sample L1560 9119-4795L1560-red(2)), Harrit et al (Fig 14 MEK chip) and Jones (Tnemec Red from a talk * see above for source). N.B. I've adjusted the x-axis scale so the KeV matches.



Notice anything jtl?

There are other potential signs. See Oystein's thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ighlight=paint



We know Millette has Tnemec and most likely Laclade, however, his criteria was to look at the chips red layer EDX spectra and match them to samples a-d in the Harrit paper and then take those chips and analyse them further so he wouldn't have looked at the chip 9119-4795L1560 in any detail because it wasn't required and time and money was scarce.

Millette used exactly the same method that Harrit et al used to separate chips from the dust, that is via a magnet.

This post proves that this method of separation will mean that known paint chips are separated by this method yet nowhere in the Harrit et al paper is this important fact mentioned. Care to comment MM? lol

Last edited by Sunstealer; 20th January 2013 at 05:43 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 07:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Đ 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.