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 5th December 2012, 02:51 PM   #1121
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Iron-rich microspheres were identified, which are a product of thermite
No. You don't understand the word "product" in the chemical equation sense.

Equation - Fe2O3 + 2Al --> Al2O3 + 2Fe

Fe2O3 and Al on the LHS are reactants.

Al2O3 and Fe on the RHS are products.

Go back to school and learn some basic chemistry that is taught around the age of 11.
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 5th December 2012, 02:53 PM   #1122
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You didn't ask for a calculation. You asked for a reference for Harrit and Jones' hypothesis about the thermitic material being embedded in a paint-like organic matrix.
Yes I did:

Quote:
Reference? Show how a thin layer of paint equivalent to the thickness shown in Harrit et al can have any effect on steel. (Hint: Dr Greenman already did the calculation)
So we can add basic reading comprehension to basic chemistry amongst you failings.
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 5th December 2012, 03:02 PM   #1123
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Err how is nano-thermite different?
I don't know. Do you?


Quote:
Ergo's very question shows he has no idea what thermite is nor does he have any idea of basic chemistry. He obviously has no idea what the nano prefix means either
I have some idea of what thermite is. I also know what the nano prefix means, which is much more than you can say for 95% of bedunkers who post here.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 5th December 2012, 03:03 PM   #1124
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Question:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Are chips a-d and the Millette chips the same material? (Very probably yes)
Answer:
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Are chips A - D the same as the chip soaked in MEK? Very probably, yes.
Why are you not answering the question? Where has Oystein mentioned the MEK chip in his question?

You have already stated that the chips a-d and the Millette chips are the same material so why are you obfuscating? This looks dishonest. Surely if you are going to take time to respond to a poster you ought to actually take the time to read and digest the question.

I'll leave it there. It's cruel to continue.
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 5th December 2012, 03:08 PM   #1125
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't know. Do you?
Yes I do. The equation is the same. It cannot be anything different.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I have some idea of what thermite is. I also know what the nano prefix means, which is much more than you can say for 95% of bedunkers who post here.
No you don't, because if you did then you would know that the particle size has no bearing on the underlying chemical equation for the reaction.

This is basic stuff ergo, real basics. How can you argue when you have no fundamental understanding?
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 5th December 2012, 03:08 PM   #1126
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Why are you not answering the question? Where has Oystein mentioned the MEK chip in his question?

You have already stated that the chips a-d and the Millette chips are the same material so why are you obfuscating? This looks dishonest.


Yes, I think all the chips that display the same properties are essentially the same. This includes the MEK chip. I don't care if Oystein doesn't want to mention it.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 5th December 2012, 03:20 PM   #1127
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post


Yes, I think all the chips that display the same properties are essentially the same. This includes the MEK chip. I don't care if Oystein doesn't want to mention it.
Then there is no other conclusion. You say Millette's chips are essentially the same.

So if you conclude they are then you must accept that they are paint as Millette's detailed analysis shows.

Why are you trying to argue when you agree with the findings?
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 5th December 2012, 03:27 PM   #1128
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
How about for nanothermite?
No difference - stoichiometric (look it up if you don't know what the word means) proportions of reactants are not dependent on particle size. Al-content is insuffucient for both regular (micro-) and and nano-thermite.

Therefore, neither the MEK-chip nor Basile's chip can't be thermitic, meither nano nor micro

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Iron-rich microspheres were identified, which are a product of thermite.
24. Are iron-rich microspheres the only product of the thermite reaction? (No, you must also prove Al2O3)
25. Has anybody identified Al2O3 after the reaction? (No)
26. Were iron-rich particles already present before heating? (Yes)
27. It the thermite reaction the only reaction that can produce iron-rich microspheres? (No, many reactions do this, including many that occur in combustion of ordinary materials mixed of organic and inorganic components)
28. Has anyone proven that a thermite reaction occurred by determining its reaction products? (No - it has not been shown that iron was produced that wasn't there before, and aluminium oxide has't been shown at all)

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Are chips A - D the same as the chip soaked in MEK? Very probably, yes.
WRONG
The MEK chip contains elements that chips a-d- don't. It's Al-Si ratio is significantly different. In chips a-d, Al and Si are obviously bound together, as they appear in unity proportion in the kaolin plates. In the MEK-chip, Al and Si have been shown to be distributed unequally.

All your problems dissolve once you realize that the MEK chip is essentially a different materiall

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, the MEK chip analysis suggested no other possibility.
I wasn't talking about the MEK chio. I was talking about chips a-d.
18. Has anybody shown elemental Al in any of them? (No.)

You must not put the assumption that chips a-d are the same material as the MEK chip before the conclusion!

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I think that was an excellent summary of the bedunker argument with regard to red-grey chips. Thank you. As you can see above, I answered with regard to the MEK chip.
Youi only told us your unfounded and wrong assumption that the MEK-chip is the same material as chips a-d. It isn't

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Interesting. I guess he would also have to disagree with your conclusions in post #1089.
That each chip is either paint or thermite, but not both? No, he would not. He is pretty clear that paint chips are not thermitic chips.
Different materials
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 5th December 2012, 03:28 PM   #1129
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Then there is no other conclusion. You say Millette's chips are essentially the same.

So if you conclude they are then you must accept that they are paint as Millette's detailed analysis shows.

Why are you trying to argue when you agree with the findings?
I guess it hasn't occurred to you yet that I don't agree with Millette's findings.

I believe his analysis was incomplete and that therefore his findings are inconclusive. I wouldn't try to argue that he didn't find some kind of organic matrix. But that doesn't prove no thermite.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 5th December 2012, 03:31 PM   #1130
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
All your problems dissolve once you realize that the MEK chip is essentially a different materiall
I think you mean all YOUR problems.

Like I said, demonstrate it and your argument will be much more convincing.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 5th December 2012, 03:34 PM   #1131
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
With my amateur understanding on the matter, I would guess ...
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't know. Do you?
Keep this in mind when you talk back to us:

You are an amateur
You don't know.

Never forget that: You don't know.

Sunstealer is a professional
Sunstealer knows.

I am an amateur, but I know anyway.

And you don't.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I have some idea of what thermite is. I also know what the nano prefix means, which is much more than you can say for 95% of bedunkers who post here.
No, you have no idea of what nano-thermite is, or else you would have known.

By the way, Niels Harrit also didn't know what nanothermite is. When he had finiished that paper under his name, he
  • had not yer tealized that the 100 nm grains were hematite
  • thought that such 100 nm grains would have to come from a high-tech lab
  • did not know that 100 nm hematite grains are common and cheap red pigments
Did you know better than he? If not, you are not qualified to answer any questions here. You should then ask us to pretty please explain things to you - and accept the explanations, because we know, and you don't.

Because:
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
With my amateur understanding on the matter, I would guess ...
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't 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 5th December 2012, 03:37 PM   #1132
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Originally Posted by ergo View Post


Yes, I think all the chips that display the same properties are essentially the same. This includes the MEK chip. I don't care if Oystein doesn't want to mention it.
Liar. I did mention it. Several of my 23 questions talk about the MEK-chip, and I give answers.

Stop lying. It's frowned upon all over the world.


Then, please explain which same properties the MEK chip has as chips a-d!
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 5th December 2012, 03:38 PM   #1133
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I guess it hasn't occurred to you yet that I don't agree with Millette's findings.

I believe his analysis was incomplete and that therefore his findings are inconclusive. I wouldn't try to argue that he didn't find some kind of organic matrix. But that doesn't prove no thermite.
How can you come to such a belief when...

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
With my amateur understanding on the matter, I would guess ...
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't 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 5th December 2012, 03:41 PM   #1134
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I guess it hasn't occurred to you yet that I don't agree with Millette's findings.

I believe his analysis was incomplete and that therefore his findings are inconclusive. I wouldn't try to argue that he didn't find some kind of organic matrix. But that doesn't prove no thermite.
OK so even though you say that chips a-d are the same as Millette's chips you are now saying that the conclusions gained from the data he has produced from experiments on the very same material are wrong.

Show how Millette's data does not support his conclusions.

You cannot say you disagree with his findings unless you show why. Why is his FTIR data wrong? He has provided the graph for the red material and he has provided the graphs for both kaolin and epoxy. I want to see why you think kaolin isn't present in the FTIR data. Show why you disagree.

We'll go onto the TEM analysis when you've answered the question.
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 5th December 2012, 03:42 PM   #1135
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I think you mean all YOUR problems.

Like I said, demonstrate it and your argument will be much more convincing.
Here:
Why red-gray chips aren't all the same

Abstract:
In this post I will show that one particular chip in ATM, the one they soaked in MEK and present in Fig. 12-18, cannot possibly the same kind of material as the four chips they present in Fig. 2-11. Assuming that both represent the same material is preposterous. The most benign explanation for why the authors make that assumption is wishful thinking. We can rule out simple error or that they overlooked something, because it has been pointed out to them more than once in the past that the chips are different. A less benign, but perhaps more probable explanation would be outright fraud.
And the conclusion:
A much better explanation is in order: Since no data exists, other than the base color and magnetic attraction, that shows that the MEK-chip is the same material as chips (a)-(d), since the visual appearance is doubtful, since the layer is too thick, and since the XEDS data shows that at least 65% of the mass of this chip is different from chips (a)-(d), the best and obvious conclusion is:

The MEK-chip is of a different material than chips (a)-(d). The assumption that the differences can be explained as contamination does not survice scrutiny and must be firmly rejected.
Check out the argument in between.
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 5th December 2012, 05:55 PM   #1136
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives
Millette didn't HAVE to test the "behaviour of the chips". He examined them with more reliable means and determined that they were paint. What part of this are you still not getting?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, he didn't. When you're looking for energetic materials you obviously want to test the behaviour of the chips. Millette didn't do this.
(Deep sigh) To repeat again, Harrit, et al failed to control for energy release from simple air combustion of the organic matrix in their samples. Because of this, none of the energy released in their tests can properly be attributed to a thermite reaction. Some or all came from simple air combustion. A DSC test done under a nitrogen or argon atmosphere will exclude that possibility. Any large energy release would then have to be attributed to some other exothermic reaction, possibly a thermite reaction.

Harrit et al have had several years to do a proper DSC test, or to pay an analytical laboratory to do it for them. Their failure to do so is indicative of their lack of confidence in their assertions.

Remember, we skeptics aren't trying to persuade the Truthers. It's the truthers who must persuade the scientific community and the general public. All they have for their efforts are years of 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
Old 5th December 2012, 06:11 PM   #1137
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
. But that doesn't prove no thermite.
The double negative shows that there was no thermite. We're making progress.
dafydd 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 5th December 2012, 06:24 PM   #1138
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Here:
Why red-gray chips aren't all the same

Abstract:
In this post I will show that one particular chip in ATM, the one they soaked in MEK and present in Fig. 12-18, cannot possibly the same kind of material as the four chips they present in Fig. 2-11. Assuming that both represent the same material is preposterous. The most benign explanation for why the authors make that assumption is wishful thinking. We can rule out simple error or that they overlooked something, because it has been pointed out to them more than once in the past that the chips are different. A less benign, but perhaps more probable explanation would be outright fraud.
And the conclusion:
A much better explanation is in order: Since no data exists, other than the base color and magnetic attraction, that shows that the MEK-chip is the same material as chips (a)-(d), since the visual appearance is doubtful, since the layer is too thick, and since the XEDS data shows that at least 65% of the mass of this chip is different from chips (a)-(d), the best and obvious conclusion is:

The MEK-chip is of a different material than chips (a)-(d). The assumption that the differences can be explained as contamination does not survice scrutiny and must be firmly rejected.
Check out the argument in between.
Harrit et al attribute the large calcium peak to surface contamination with gypsum, commonly used in wallboard; but for some reason they never attempted to remove it by washing with water. While gypsum is not greatly soluble in water, it is soluble enough to be easily removed by ultrasonic water washing. In the real world, gypsum often forms beautiful crystals by dissolving in ground water and then recrystallizing by evaporation. Sometimes, they weigh many tons: http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...Naica_mine.jpg

Such washing would not affect any organic matrix, hematite, or elemental aluminum.

Last edited by Redwood; 5th December 2012 at 06:26 PM. Reason: Better punctuation and phrasing.
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
Old 5th December 2012, 08:11 PM   #1139
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,119
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Is that why it's called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in [World Trade Center] Dust?
Again, sad/hilarious here.

Their data rules out thermite, but they conclude it anyway.
OCaptain 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 5th December 2012, 11:13 PM   #1140
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sunstealer, I'm not sure what you're not understanding. You asked me if I thought all the chips were essentially the same. I said I thought that is a very reasonable conclusion. I include the MEK chip in that assumption.
I'll tell you why that conclusion is wrong.

The selection methodology in the ATM paper was using a magnet and looking at the color of the chips:
A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color.
(p.9)

That's the criterion used to separate the chips. Now, we know that many red paint chips would have iron oxide adhered, and therefore be attracted by a magnet.

We also know that there are at least two types of paints used in the WTC steel (probably more): LaClede (applied to floor trusses) and Tnemec (applied to columns).

It is therefore expectable to find both kinds of paints in the dust. The separation method used in the paper is not sufficient to identify chips all made of the same material, as both would be red and both would be attracted by a magnet.

Furthermore, the spectrum of the MEK chip matches quite well that of known Tnemec paint, and does not match that of chips a-d.

That reasoning should be enough to conclude that the probability of the MEK chip being the same kind of material as that of chips a-d is nearly zero. The burden of proof is therefore on your side.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 12:43 AM   #1141
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Oh my god ergo you almost got it.

I hope you don't mind me asking a personal question?

Do you suffer from DID ?
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 6th December 2012, 01:14 AM   #1142
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Harrit et al attribute the large calcium peak to surface contamination with gypsum, commonly used in wallboard; but for some reason they never attempted to remove it by washing with water. While gypsum is not greatly soluble in water, it is soluble enough to be easily removed by ultrasonic water washing. ...
But that doesn't cut it. As I have shown, there is way too much clacium relative to sulfur, so even if you allow that all the sulfur comes from surface gypsum, you are still left with half the calcium peak, which would still be bigger than the Si and Al peaks. There is too much iron relative to Si, but too little Al. And gypsum doesn't explain Zn, Cr, and Mg. But Tnemec does!

Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Such washing would not affect any organic matrix, hematite, or elemental aluminum.
When Millette's prelim report came out, that was about the first thing some truther jumped on: They claimed that washing the chips was wrong, even fraudulent, und would passivate the elemental Al.

Poor truthers know-nothings: Steven Jones now regrets he didn't wash his:
Originally Posted by ProfJones
it is unfortunate that we did not CLEAN the chip that was soaked in MEK, so as to obtain clear and unambiguous detail BEFORE the MEK run, regarding its elemental content. This is one of my regrets in the first 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 6th December 2012, 01:15 AM   #1143
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
And you have no access to a lab ??

Ergo:
Yes, I have an access to all necessary labs/equipment in my institute in Prague, including DSC and all kinds of microscopy, XEDS, FTIR etc.
But would you (or any other nanothermite truther) consider any WTC dust research done in my institute as independent (since I am a devoted nanothermite debunker)? Hardly.
Remember that Jim Millette as a respected forensic scientist has been already accused to be "gubmint shill" by e.g. K. Ryan, and the same person (and also S. Jones I think) speculates that Millette even did not measured the same kind of red chips like Harrit et al, etc. As for the last point: WTF? Harrit et al separated chips from 4 samples of WTC dust, collected in 4 places in Manhattan. Jim Millette did the same (but 4 dust samples were collected in different places). What is the statistical probability that Harrit found entirely different kind of chips than Millette, considering that samples were taken from 8 distant places in Manhattan? It is equal to zero, I would say, since dust must contain various particles basically in some "random cocktail"

As for my institute, I would like to remind you that I already used its services last year for some very basic study on my "Laclede paint imitation" (an epoxy composite with the similar composition as genuine primer for WTC1/2 floor trusses).

Namely, my colleague measured TGA curves of this epoxy paint imitation both under air and under nitrogen, up to 800 degrees C.

Here is a TGA curve under air:



Here is a TGA curve under nitrogen:



As you can see, both under air and nitrogen, epoxy polymer binder is massively degraded (mass of the sample is quickly decreased) at about 400 degrees C, which is close to the temperature of the burning of chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper. Above ca 500 degrees C, the most of epoxy is missing since its degradation products were "vaporized"/burned out. And just inorganic pigments remain (according to curves). This is a quite typical behavior of epoxy resins, as well as of other polymers.
(Unfortunately, although we have 4 DSC devices in the institute, none of them is currently usable for measurements under air up to 700 or 800 degrees; it would require a purchase of some special sample holders)

Finally, here is a micrograph of my Laclede paint imitation taken after heating up to 700 degrees C under air (magnification ca 200x):



In our institute, we are able to do basically same research as Jim Millette (except perhaps the plasma ashing), but it would of course require some official contract.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 6th December 2012 at 02:02 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 6th December 2012, 02:17 PM   #1144
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
As I have shown, there is way too much clacium relative to sulfur, so even if you allow that all the sulfur comes from surface gypsum, you are still left with half the calcium peak, which would still be bigger than the Si and Al peaks. There is too much iron relative to Si, but too little Al. And gypsum doesn't explain Zn, Cr, and Mg. But Tnemec does!
Out of curiosity, what is the source of the calcium in Tnemec primer? Some form of calcium aluminum silicate, I suppose?

Quote:
When Millette's prelim report came out, that was about the first thing some truther jumped on: They claimed that washing the chips was wrong, even fraudulent, und would passivate the elemental Al.

Poor truthers know-nothings: Steven Jones now regrets he didn't wash his:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfJones
it is unfortunate that we did not CLEAN the chip that was soaked in MEK, so as to obtain clear and unambiguous detail BEFORE the MEK run, regarding its elemental content. This is one of my regrets in the first paper.
Next time, he should use the services of a reputable analytical chemist! Someone like.....Jim Millette, maybe! (But then, maybe he wouldn't get the results he was looking for .)

BTW, congratulations on your report . Very sharp.

Last edited by Redwood; 6th December 2012 at 04:11 PM. Reason: Fixed link.
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
Old 6th December 2012, 03:04 PM   #1145
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Out of curiosity, what is the source of the calcium in Tnemec primer? Some form of calcium aluminum silicate, I suppose?
Check out Niels Harrit's May 2009 letter:
http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf

(Beware of two things:
a) I haven't strictly verified that he pulled up the correct MSDS
b) His calculations are rubbish - he didn't notice that, in Fig. 3, pigments add up to 100% and vehicle ingredients also add up to 100%, but that no proportion pigment:vehicle is given. He subsequently overestimates weight loss due to loss of volatile imngedients, and pigment content)

The proprietary Tnemec pigment supposedly contains calcium cilicates and aluminates (Fig. 4)

Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Next time, he should use the services of a reputable analytical chemist! Someone like.....Jim Millette, maybe! (But then, maybe he wouldn't get the results he was looking for .)

BTW, congratulations on your report . Very sharp.
Thanks, but you got the link wrong, that's as Jones comment at 911Blogger
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 6th December 2012, 04:13 PM   #1146
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

Thanks, but you got the link wrong, that's as Jones comment at 911Blogger
D'oh! Fixed it.
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
Old 7th December 2012, 01:04 AM   #1147
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Ivan,
Thanks for your leads. Can anyone follow up on this and make the request? Time is tight for me. I have pursued NIST to the Port Authority and just yesterday I emailed the person who manages the WTC remains. I'll keep following through on that. Anyone (Oystein? Ivan?) willing to find out if these possible sources could help? Real LaClede primer from a WTC truss would be very very useful, and Millette will test it if he can find it.
Chris: I am not a proper person for any such inquiry/reguest. I can help basically only with some googling of the possible sources of floor trusses.

Remember that about year ago, I sent some inquiry to PPG Industries as for Laclede paint; and Oystein sent another inquiry to NIST (I already forgot what was the topic). In both cases, no answers followed. We do not exactly why, but at least I mentioned 911 conspiracy theories in my e-mail, which could be easily the main reason.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 7th December 2012 at 01:05 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 7th December 2012, 02:31 AM   #1148
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...
Remember that about year ago, I sent some inquiry to PPG Industries as for Laclede paint; and Oystein sent another inquiry to NIST (I already forgot what was the topic). In both cases, no answers followed. We do not exactly why, but at least I mentioned 911 conspiracy theories in my e-mail, which could be easily the main reason.
I think I asked about where to find and how to obtain LaClede/floor truss material. I think I mailed to the generic address they had on the WTC study, something like "wtc@nist.gov", and not any named individuals. Indeed, no reply received, ever.


ETA: Yes, that is the email address for "General Public and Technical Professionals" according to this page. I think Chris wrote to Michael E. Newman, the contact for News Media. Perhaps one could go more directly to the Investigation Team, specifically Frank Gayle, Project Leader "Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel".

Last edited by Oystein; 7th December 2012 at 02:40 AM. Reason: eta
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 7th December 2012, 07:24 AM   #1149
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I think I asked about where to find and how to obtain LaClede/floor truss material. I think I mailed to the generic address they had on the WTC study, something like "wtc@nist.gov", and not any named individuals. Indeed, no reply received, ever.


ETA: Yes, that is the email address for "General Public and Technical Professionals" according to this page. I think Chris wrote to Michael E. Newman, the contact for News Media. Perhaps one could go more directly to the Investigation Team, specifically Frank Gayle, Project Leader "Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel".
Actually I've made some progress. Michael Newman was able to tell me that NIST has not kept any samples and referred me to the NY/NJ Port Authority. I had a couple email contacts there and just got the name, email and phone of the person who directly manages the remaining steel pieces of WTC, most of which have been given over to various memorial objects: statues, traveling exhibits, etc. But whatever remains, I am now talking to the person who manages the steel. Just wrote an email yesterday and will follow up with a phone call next week if I don;t hear back.

Does anyone else have the time and energy to follow up on Ivan or Oystein's other possible leads for LaClede paint samples, from any source (either from WTC steel or from another known source)?
__________________
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 7th December 2012, 08:36 AM   #1150
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Oh my god ergo you almost got it.

I hope you don't mind me asking a personal question?

Do you suffer from DID ?
More likely TS*

*troll syndrome
tsig 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 7th December 2012, 08:45 AM   #1151
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Actually I've made some progress. Michael Newman was able to tell me that NIST has not kept any samples and referred me to the NY/NJ Port Authority. I had a couple email contacts there and just got the name, email and phone of the person who directly manages the remaining steel pieces of WTC, most of which have been given over to various memorial objects: statues, traveling exhibits, etc. But whatever remains, I am now talking to the person who manages the steel. Just wrote an email yesterday and will follow up with a phone call next week if I don;t hear back.

Does anyone else have the time and energy to follow up on Ivan or Oystein's other possible leads for LaClede paint samples, from any source (either from WTC steel or from another known source)?
Chris: Thanks a lot for your effort and good luck indeed
As we have already discussed, perhaps "WTC meteorite(s)" stored in Hangar 17 by NY/NJ Port Authority contain some remains of floor trusses.

Here is a quite good set of photographs.

It seems that some flat rusted steel pieces visible may be twisted floor trusses. Some particles of paint can be even preserved on them, but who knows?

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 7th December 2012 at 09:03 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 9th December 2012, 04:23 AM   #1152
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Chris (and all):

Here is a photo of floor trusses stored in some large/tall hall.



Hangar 17? Could anyone help to identify this place?
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 9th December 2012, 06:44 AM   #1153
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Wow very interesting Ivan. I'll pass this truss picture on to my contact at Port Authority.
__________________
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 9th December 2012, 06:50 AM   #1154
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
As many of you know, 9/11 Truth researcher Mark Basile and advocate Rick Shaddock are trying to get another WTC dust study off the ground. Rick is making the rounds of various talk show hosts and speaking highly of both me and Jim Millette. I need to find time to listen to this:

I also mentioned you (favorably of course) and Dr. Millette's study on 9/11 Free Fall show on No Lies Radio.
www.NoLiesRadio.org/archives/54612

Thanks for the inspiration to get the new WTC dust study done. We have raised about $761 so far.
www.MarkBasile.org

And in an earlier email also from Rick, these links and info:

It was my pleasure to be interviewed on Dr. James Fetzer's show and acknowledge your contributions.
This week's guest on the internet radio show, The Real Deal, hosted by Captain James Fetzer PhD (Philosophy, Professor Emeritus, Univ. Minnesota), is Rick Shaddock, who is doing a doctoral research study on Critical Thinking, Open-Mindednes s and Transcendental Meditation. They discuss similarities between TM and Plato's Dialectic, their different theories about the Pentagon plane, plus the rise of Collective Consciousness about 9/11, JFK, GMOs, and other truth awareness topics.
www.RadioFetzer.blogspot.com
November 28
In the first quarter section of the 2 hour talk. Near 7:30, 13:45 minute points
__________________
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 9th December 2012, 07:09 AM   #1155
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Chris,

1. Put QUOTE tags around Rick's words

2. Mark Basile doesn't reply to my emails. Doesn't smell right

3. JM Talboo continues to misinform about the Basile project, announcing it in very one-sided terms today again. Not a good sign, either.

I shall write more emails later today.
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 20th December 2012, 02:50 AM   #1156
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
Hi folks

Just to understand a minor detail correctly:

If Harrit had did his experiment in an inert atmosphere, and if it turned out, actually, to be a thermitic reaction, he would find elemental iron microspheres (in abundance) in the residue, right?
But would he be able to measure it? I mean, will the elemental Iron remain elemental long enough to be measured? Or will it oxidize too fast?

I expect the answer is something like:
1. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue still in an inert atmosphere, he would clearly find and prove elemental iron.

2. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue taken out of the inert atmosphere (i.e. in plain air), he would have to do the measuering soon after, or the iron would oxidize and be indistinguishable from other iron oxide microspheres.

Is that correct?

My question clearly reveal that I do not know what the practical the procedure in a lab is. Can you measure everything (work the electron microscope) in an inert atmosphere or not?

One thing is clear, though: Since Harrit did not do the experiment in an inert atmosphere, there is no doubt that the iron sphere would oxidize almost as part of the process, since they are glowing hot or at least soon after. So the time span from ignition to measuring is vital. Did he do straight after or did he wait several days?

Look forwarding to hearing your expert responses.

Kindly,
Steen
Steen Svanholm 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 December 2012, 04:01 AM   #1157
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,811
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
Hi folks

Just to understand a minor detail correctly:

If Harrit had did his experiment in an inert atmosphere, and if it turned out, actually, to be a thermitic reaction, he would find elemental iron microspheres (in abundance) in the residue, right?
But would he be able to measure it? I mean, will the elemental Iron remain elemental long enough to be measured? Or will it oxidize too fast?

I expect the answer is something like:
1. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue still in an inert atmosphere, he would clearly find and prove elemental iron.

2. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue taken out of the inert atmosphere (i.e. in plain air), he would have to do the measuering soon after, or the iron would oxidize and be indistinguishable from other iron oxide microspheres.

Is that correct?

My question clearly reveal that I do not know what the practical the procedure in a lab is. Can you measure everything (work the electron microscope) in an inert atmosphere or not?

One thing is clear, though: Since Harrit did not do the experiment in an inert atmosphere, there is no doubt that the iron sphere would oxidize almost as part of the process, since they are glowing hot or at least soon after. So the time span from ignition to measuring is vital. Did he do straight after or did he wait several days?

Look forwarding to hearing your expert responses.

Kindly,
Steen
Hi Steen, let me try:

1. The immediate products of the thermite reaction are iron (elemental) and aluminium oxide, so yes, you "would clearly find ... elemental iron". And yes, it is likely that you would find some of that iron in spherical shapes, and micron sizes, given the small sample size (red layer 25 microns thin, only roughly 10% by weight, 2% by volume iron; iron oxide grains going into the reaction 100 nm small)

2. You are correct that surely the iron would oxidize fast, but I doubt it would oxidize completely.
For reference, Tillotsond Gash (reference [28] in Harrit e.al.) write, after DSC-testing their actual nanothermite under inert gas: "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 Al2O3..." - and indeed the two major expected PXRD peaks for elemental Fe are pretty prominent in Fig. 4.

Now you can't measure the DSC reaction products under the same inert atmosphere, or even in place. You have to take the probe out of the DSC device and put it into the electron microscope. Both devices have their hermetically closed chambers that contain the probe, and they are separate devices. Conventionally, electron microscopes are operated with the probe in a high vacuum, so that will protect the iron from oxidation in ambient air, but I can very well imagine, and expect, that they had their probe exposed to air for at least a brief transition time. I do not doubt though that they took it out of the DSC only after it had largely cooled down to near room temperature. In DSC experiments, it is not unusual to also have a cool-down phase during which you continue to measure, so the device has a way of cooling down controlledly.


In the case of Harrit e.al. we know that serious time must have passed between the DSC test and the SEM analysis of the residues, because in an AE911Truth interview, Farrer describes how they didn't have a DSC machine in the physics department at BYU and he had to go find a lab that has one. So he took the chip specimens to an entirely different lab, although we don't know where exactly. Since they write, on page 9 in the "Materials and Methods" section "An FEI XL30-SFEG scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to perform secondary-electron (SE) imaging and backscattered electron (BSE) imaging.", and indicate no exception for the residue analysis, we must assume that they used the same SEM, which is in Farrer's own lab (he is the lab manager there), to analyse the DSC residue. So that means there was a delay due to transport from DSC lab to SEM lab (on top of possible other delays, and time to prepare the samples)
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 20th December 2012, 05:26 AM   #1158
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
Hi folks

Just to understand a minor detail correctly:

If Harrit had did his experiment in an inert atmosphere, and if it turned out, actually, to be a thermitic reaction, he would find elemental iron microspheres (in abundance) in the residue, right?
But would he be able to measure it? I mean, will the elemental Iron remain elemental long enough to be measured? Or will it oxidize too fast?

I expect the answer is something like:
1. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue still in an inert atmosphere, he would clearly find and prove elemental iron.

2. If he measures the iron spheres in the residue taken out of the inert atmosphere (i.e. in plain air), he would have to do the measuring soon after, or the iron would oxidize and be indistinguishable from other iron oxide microspheres.

Is that correct?

My question clearly reveal that I do not know what the practical the procedure in a lab is. Can you measure everything (work the electron microscope) in an inert atmosphere or not?

One thing is clear, though: Since Harrit did not do the experiment in an inert atmosphere, there is no doubt that the iron sphere would oxidize almost as part of the process, since they are glowing hot or at least soon after. So the time span from ignition to measuring is vital. Did he do straight after or did he wait several days?

Look forwarding to hearing your expert responses.

Kindly,
Steen
Hi, Steen, I'm definitely not an expert on corrosion of metals, so just few remarks after some googling (mostly without any guarantee):

- Oxidation (rusting) of iron is dependent on so many factors that its kinetics at certain conditions is hard to predict. Here is some paper. It seems that at room temperature, some passivation layer tens of angstroms "thick" is formed in seconds; and it seems that, naturally, it is created more quickly at e.g. several hundreds degrees C.

- As for your point 1.: I'm not so sure. Look e.g. at the "infamous" XEDS of microsphere formed during burning of commercial thermite (Fig. 24, Bentham paper):



Of course this microsphere was exposed to air, but you can see quite large contamination with Si and Al stuffs which contain a lot of oxygen - hence they are partially responsible for a large oxygen peak in this spectrum. In short: even when kept strictly under inert, this particular microsphere (regarded as a "typical" by Harrit et al) would show some oxygen signal.

- As for your point 2: I'm not sure, since some passivation layer of oxidized iron can be formed pretty quickly. If such layer is formed during seconds or minutes, microsphere transferred trough air e.g. to DSC device will be always oxidized before next measurements.

Regarding a work under inert atmosphere: as an organic/polymer synthetic chemist, I'm forced to do most of my reactions under inert atmosphere, with occasional transfer of intermediates again under strict inert. In this respect I can tell you that such technologies (transfer of samples from one device/apparatus to another one under inert) are necessary and highly developed at present.
Concerning electron microscopy, such technologies, e.g. lockable sample holders also exist, see e.g. here.
In fact, necessity of complex work on several subsequent devices under strictly inert atmosphere is frequently solved using so-called "glove boxes". We have such glove box in our lab, btw, which is used only for physical measurements, not for any chemistry

Note: if I remember correctly, Tillotson, Gash and others have not characterized/identified products of "nanothermite" burning by XEDS, probably since this method does not give reliable results; they have used a kind of x-ray diffraction (powder XRD) to prove both Fe and alumina in the thermitic residues e.g. here.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 20th December 2012 at 05:38 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 20th December 2012, 05:59 AM   #1159
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
Thanks guys.

So it all takes us back to the fact:

We simply cannot be sure what Harrit has found but he definitely has not proved thermitic material. If he had done it in an inert atmosphere, he would have a had much better piece of evidence.
Steen Svanholm 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 December 2012, 06:10 AM   #1160
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
Hi Oystein

You said: "You are correct that surely the iron would oxidize fast, but I doubt it would oxidize completely."

My point was if it would oxidize enough to not be disinguishable from any iron oxide sphere.

But I guess from Ivans answer that even elemental iron residue from an actual thermitic reaction is difficult to distinguish from other iron oxide spheres.

Thus, it is a much better proof to perform the reaction in an inert gas.

Kindly,
Steen
Steen Svanholm 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 06:58 PM.
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.