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 14th January 2013, 12:18 PM   #1241
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"...Where is the DSC thermograph for non-thermitic red/gray chips in Harrit et al?"
Are you suggesting that Dr. Harrit et al never performed any DSC testing on known non-thermitic materials for comparison?

That they never tested relevant materials like steel primer paint?

Do you honestly expect a finished report to contain all the laboratory documentation accumulated over the course of their research?

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 14th January 2013, 12:38 PM   #1242
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,828
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Are you suggesting that Dr. Harrit et al never performed any DSC testing on known non-thermitic materials for comparison?...
You are losing focus again. We are talking about how to distinguish between magnetic red-gray chips that are thermitic and magnetic red-gray chips that are not [correction on edit:]magnetic thermitic[/correction on edit].

The authors claim that the data they present is representative for ALL red-gray chips that are thermitic, and don't mention even the possibility that some of them may nonetheless be non-thermitic.

So yeah, from the Bentham paper we must conclude that indeed they never performed any DSC testing on magnetic red-gray chip that they consider to be non-thermitic.


Now before you lose focus again, let me remind you that we are discussing here the point: How can a follow-up researcher distinguish between thermitic magnetic red-gray chips and non-thermitic magnetic red-gray chips - before doing further testing.


Previously, you seem to have answered this question...
1. Do you assert that reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
... in the affirmative:
"Yes, I, MM, am of the opinion that reading and understanding the Bentham paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them".
Now please attend to the second question also:
2. Do you assert that it is thus not necessary (for a competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors) to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
I have been asking this for at least the fourth time. Every reader can clearly see how you are running away from answering this question.

Why don't you just leave the growing embarrassment behind and just answer it? A "yes", a "no" or a "don't know" will do.

Everything else will not do.

Last edited by Oystein; 14th January 2013 at 01:12 PM. Reason: Correction as tagged and formatted
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2013, 12:46 PM   #1243
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Are you suggesting that Dr. Harrit et al never performed any DSC testing on known non-thermitic materials for comparison?

That they never tested relevant materials like steel primer paint?

Do you honestly expect a finished report to contain all the laboratory documentation accumulated over the course of their research?

MM
Why don't you answer the questions?

Do you agree that samples a-d and Millette's samples are the same material?

Where is the DSC thermograph for non-thermitic red/gray chips in Harrit et al?

We are talking about how thermitic and non-thermitic material is distinguished.

Stop trying to weasel your way around things and answer the questions from myself and Oystein.
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 14th January 2013, 01:29 PM   #1244
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,056
Am I understanding that the claim from Legge/Harritt is that only thermitic red/gray chips were/are magnetic?
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 14th January 2013, 01:36 PM   #1245
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,828
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Am I understanding that the claim from Legge/Harritt is that only thermitic red/gray chips were/are magnetic?
Legge recently has said that "of course" some of the red-gray chips are not thermitic; not totally sure if that applies to red-gray chips that have been pulled out by a magnet - he wouldn't answer the question. But I strongly suppose this is so.

By the way: The Bentham paper, and none of its authors, have yet answered the following questions:

1. What in the red-gray chips makes them magnetic?
2. What is the gray layer composed of in detail (which iron oxide phases, etc)?

I think answering both would clear a few things up.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2013, 01:40 PM   #1246
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
It's interesting that no truther has dared to perform any analysis of Dr Millette's preliminary results- either agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. None of them is analysing the FTIR or TEM-SAED data. It could be total nonsense for all a truther knows.

I wonder why that is?
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 14th January 2013, 01:57 PM   #1247
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,828
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
It's interesting that no truther has dared to perform any analysis of Dr Millette's preliminary results- either agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. None of them is analysing the FTIR or TEM-SAED data. It could be total nonsense for all a truther knows.

I wonder why that is?
The Bentham authors claim in their paper they have FTIR data.
They have held it back for almost 4 years now.
Why?

Jeff Farrer has TEM-data.
He has held it back for over 3 years.
Why?

Steven Jones claims he has XRD data from an independent lab.
He has held it back for 3 years.
Why?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2013, 02:13 PM   #1248
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,056
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Legge recently has said that "of course" some of the red-gray chips are not thermitic; not totally sure if that applies to red-gray chips that have been pulled out by a magnet - he wouldn't answer the question. But I strongly suppose this is so.
But based on the paper and what was said by Legge, doesn't one have to draw the conclusion that:

1. All the chips to be tested were magnetic as that's how they gathered their test samples

and

2. All the chips that were magnetically gathered tested to be thermitic

Thus, according to them, all thermitic red/gray chips are magnetic.

All the other non-magnetic chips were assumed to be non-thermitic, left in the pile, and never tested.

That's the conclusion to be drawn from their paper without asking questions correct?

Last edited by Gamolon; 14th January 2013 at 02:22 PM.
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 14th January 2013, 02:18 PM   #1249
Starving for Truth
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 194
MM, run away from the shills, I'll give you cover and employ a clever diversionary tactic so they focus their attention on me!

HEY, SHILLS!!! YES, YOU SHILLS!! LOOK OVER HERE!

lala-la-la-la-la-laaa-la (C major)

debunk me if you caan-- (C major)
debunk me if you caaa-aaa--an (walking bass line down to G major)
shiiii--lll----sssss (ba-dum-ts)

RUN, MM, RUN, WE FOOLED THEM!
Starving for Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2013, 02:46 PM   #1250
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,828
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
But based on the paper and what was said by Legge, doesn't one have to draw the conclusion that:

1. All the chips to be tested were magnetic as that's how they gathered their test samples
Yes - as in "all the chips they in fact tested were in fact magetic".
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
and

2. All the chips that were magnetically gathered tested to be thermitic
Yes, that is what a close reading of much of the text suggests.
They do report on some unusual chips, with different composition and look, but provide too little detail to allow any determination whether or not these are thermitic, and whether or not these are magnetic.

Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Thus, according to them, all thermitic red/gray chips are magnetic.
No. See below.

Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
All the other non-magnetic chips were assumed to be non-thermitic, left in the pile, and never tested.
No. I don't see that they state or imply any assumptions at all about particles they didn't test - whether non-magnetic, or non-red-gray.

Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
That's the conclusion to be drawn from their paper without asking questions correct?
The conclusion to be drawn is that all particles in the dust that have the 2 properties
  1. Being attracted to a magnet
  2. Being chips having a red and a gray layer, each tens of microns thin
are all very similar and share all key properties they tested for, and are thus all concluded to be thermitic.


That doesn't rule out the possibility that other particles, not sharing the 2 selection criteria, might be thermitic or whatever.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2013, 04:49 PM   #1251
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"It's interesting that no truther has dared to perform any analysis of Dr Millette's preliminary results- either agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. None of them is analysing the FTIR or TEM-SAED data. It could be total nonsense for all a truther knows.

I wonder why that is?
"
I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

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 14th January 2013, 05:07 PM   #1252
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM
There isn't any need and there is no fear at all, it's a meaningless test. FTIR and TEM-SAED shows catagorically what the material is.

No truther has bothered to even look at the FTIR trace because they don't know how to.

DSC is meaningless as you have been told time and time again, especially since no one knows which samples where tested, the test was conducted in air, the chips in the DSC data included the oxidised steel layer and the DSC data in the Harrit et al paper shows that thermite couldn't possibly be present due to too much energy being released. What's more the FTIR trace and the TEM-SAED data trump any DSC nonsense because those methods characterise the material - DSC can never do so.

Focus MM. Focus, focus on the questions put to you. Stop evading. Why will you not answer the simple questions:

Do you agree that samples a-d and Millette's samples are the same material?

Where is the DSC thermograph for non-thermitic red/gray chips in Harrit et al?

Last edited by Sunstealer; 14th January 2013 at 05:09 PM.
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 14th January 2013, 05:18 PM   #1253
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM
That's the conclusion you've reached, through all of this?



* we really need a WOOSH smilie!
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 14th January 2013, 05:51 PM   #1254
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM, when I asked Jim Millette last year why he didn't do a DSC test, here is the email he sent back, verbatim and unedited:

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim
__________________
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 14th January 2013, 08:40 PM   #1255
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,242
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM
The "fear" is that it would be useless. See posts #1061 and #1062. No result would be conclusive of anything.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...90#post8815790
__________________
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 14th January 2013, 09:20 PM   #1256
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
There isn't any need and there is no fear at all, it's a meaningless test. FTIR and TEM-SAED shows catagorically what the material is.
This bears repeating for emphasis. FTIR gives bond information, TEM-SAED gives structure. DSC measures heat absorption capability. The first two gives you information that you can use to narrow down the possibilities by giving you very specific chemical and structural data. DSC gives you a characteristic that would belong to a number of possible materials.

Since you've already got chemical bond and structural information, what need have you of what it takes to boil the sample? Or in the case of the Jones test, incinerate it? You already know how it's put together with the first two methods.

The cry for DSC data is ridiculous in the face of tests that clearly identify what the material is. Pretending that it's more relevant to the debate is akin to saying that a listen with a stethoscope's going to tell the doctor more than a blood workup will.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 14th January 2013 at 09:36 PM. Reason: Too long for my point; deleted reference and suggestion to Googlewhack for compounds
ElMondoHummus 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 15th January 2013, 12:50 AM   #1257
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM
Hehe Are you serious, MM?

Some info for you again:

- About one year ago we predicted that all red-gray chips analyzed by Jim Millette will be compatible with paints (on rust flakes). This really happened, all chips contained only kaolinite instead of aluminum. Such composite cannot be thermite.

- Because of these finding we can easily predict that these red/gray chips would behave like paints in DSC device under air, i.e. they will show similar curves as in Fig. 19 in Bentham paper.

E.g., here are calorimetry curves for cured pure epoxy resin Epon 862 (left) and its mixture with 5 % of silica (right). (HRR means heat release reate):



And here is a Fig. 19 from Bentham paper:



As you can see, curves in Fig. 19 are compatible with the combustion of epoxy resin just shown. Hence, all these results, including Fig. 19, are compatible with epoxy paints

(Note: HRR for epoxy are much higher than in Fig. 19, and I don't know the reasons at the moment; one factor is anyway clear: all red-gray chips burned in Bentham paper contained gray incombustible layer of iron oxides, which substantially lowered heat released from one gram of sample.)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 15th January 2013 at 01:10 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 15th January 2013, 01:18 AM   #1258
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,828
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I wonder -- why all the fear about DSC testing?

MM
I wonder -- why all the fear about answering a simple questiom?

2. Do you assert that it is thus not necessary (for a competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors) to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
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 15th January 2013, 03:08 AM   #1259
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Oystein (and others who may be interested):

I've been pointed out several times here that DSC is not a good/common method for determining the heat release during thermal-oxidative degradation/combustion of polymers since, among others, the mass of sample is dramatically changing during measurements and combustible vapors/gases are(can be) blown out with the stream of air, hence they can "escape" from the measured "space" prior their ignition/combustion). This is why it is so difficult to find papers showing e.g. DSC curves of thermally decomposed epoxy resins.

However, other, more suitable methods are available.

In the paper I've just cited above, a quite new device/method was employed for examining heat release rate (and overal released heat).
A device called Microscale Combustion Calorimeter, MCC was employed for the combustion of epoxy resin composites.

A quote from here: "A very small quantity of sample (1–4 mg) is pyrolyzed under nitrogen flow at a constant heating rate (typically 1 K/s) and the released gases are sent to an oven and burnt in presence of oxygen at 900 C. These conditions allow complete combustion. The heat release is calculated according to the Huggett’s relation (1 kg of consumpted oxygen corresponds to 13.1 MJ of released energy)."

Here are some more curves obtained using MCC:

A typical "MCC curve" for polymers (caption: Fig. 1. Typical HRR curve using MCC apparatus (example: Polyamide 6)):



Some more MCC curves for epoxy resins/their composites:





We can see that "MCC curves" can be/are similar for various polymers and they basically indicate: at temperatures around 400 degrees C, polymers are massively degraded under inert and their combustible/vaporized degradation products are then burned in air/oxygen.

Question is why DSC curves in Fig. 19 (Bentham paper) are so similar to all these MCC curves. It seems to me that just accidentally (?), the most/substantial part of flammable vapors/gases formed by thermal-oxidative degradation of polymer binder in these red-gray chips was really combusted closely to the chips; therefore the thermal effect of these processes was recorded by DSC device, at least partially.

(Note: quite clearly, MCC device is much more suitable for measurements of thermal effects during heating of red-gray chips than DSC. This method allows in principle - among others - to determine if the thermal effect belongs to thermitic reaction, since no flammable gaseous products, which can be then ignited in air, are formed during burning of (pure) thermites. Hence, "MCC curve" for pure thermites should be basically flat. But can I recommend this method as very suitable substitute of DSC? Probably not, since truthers would cry, looking at the results: common, you used different method than our scientific gods Harrit et al! Another fraud of debunkers!)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 15th January 2013 at 04:03 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 15th January 2013, 07:36 AM   #1260
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Some more boring remarks as for DSC and MCC:

1) MCC basically uses an approach of "oxygen consumption calorimetry": the released reaction heat is not measured directly, but it is derived from the amount of oxygen consumed by burning of combustible products in the oven.

2) Heating rates in MCC are typically 1 K/s, i.e. 60 degrees (Celsius or Kelvin) per minute, i.e. 6x higher than during DSC measurements in Bentham paper. This should basically mean that polymer binder here is degraded more quickly, releasing more quickly volatile/flammable products. But, the conditions are not directly comparable anyway, since in MCC device, samples are first degraded/pyrolyzed under inert (whereas they were degraded, pyrolyzed and also burned under air in Bentham paper).

3) Alumina pans as sample holders were open in Bentham paper (exposed to surrounding atmosphere). I've just asked our "TGA/DSC lady" Dr. Kovarova and she basically told me: "When measuring DSC under inert, we usually employ closed sample holders, especially if there is no possibility/danger that sample would release a lot of vapors. When measuring under air, this gas should indeed have a contact with the sample. In this case, we usually also employ closed sample holder, but we puncture its cover several times, in order to allow air to come/exchange in the measured space."

4) This point, dealing with released heat in DSC and MCC, is currently "under construction"

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 15th January 2013 at 09:24 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 15th January 2013, 09:46 AM   #1261
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"MM, when I asked Jim Millette last year why he didn't do a DSC test, here is the email he sent back, verbatim and unedited:"
Originally Posted by Dr. James Millette
"Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim
"
Dr. Millette does not address those DSC findings which argue against the credibility of his own findings.

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

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

And sadly, he shows little curiosity.

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 15th January 2013, 09:51 AM   #1262
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Millette does not address those DSC findings which argue against the credibility of his own findings.

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

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

And sadly, he shows little curiosity.

MM
Why don't you contact Millette yourself and ask him your questions ?
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 15th January 2013, 10:59 AM   #1263
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Millette does not address those DSC findings which argue against the credibility of his own findings.

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

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

And sadly, he shows little curiosity.

MM
Okay, MM, I'll bite. Exactly what does a DSC show besides thermal properties?
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2013, 11:15 AM   #1264
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
Okay, MM, I'll bite. Exactly what does a DSC show besides thermal properties?
.....

__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.
BasqueArch 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 15th January 2013, 11:31 AM   #1265
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,292
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
Okay, MM, I'll bite. Exactly what does a DSC show besides thermal properties?
"Your honor, the body was not Mrs. Smith's, it was Ms. Jones. Although the DNA is Mrs. Smith's, we burnt the body and the thermal properties also match those of Ms. Jones."
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 15th January 2013, 11:39 AM   #1266
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,828
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Millette does not address those DSC findings which argue against the credibility of his own findings.

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

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

And sadly, he shows little curiosity.

MM
At the very least, it is unnecessary to burn chips specifically in a DSC: Harrit e.al. don't really use the DSC results (the curves, the numbers). In fact, they admit they realize the numbers pose a problem, as the energy release is too high to be explained by thermite. Do you understand that they admit this problem, and do you understand why that is a problem, MM?


If you are only interested in the residues, then it would suffice to burn the chips, without measuring heat flux.

The problem with connecting the heat flux with the residue is that the main peak in the DSC curves is clearly generated by organic combustion - see Ivan's latest posts for some comparisons - and there is no thermal event in the DSC graphs that can be tied to a thermite reaction. This can only mean two things:
  • Either there was no reaction that created these residue particles of interest - i.e. they were in fact already present in the sample before the test, contrary to the authors' claims
  • Or the reactions that produced the residue particles of interest were so weak, or involved such a tiny fraction of the total mass, as to be entirely insignificant

In short: The DSC results presented by Harrit e.al. alone are sufficient to rule out that the material is thermitic.

Now since Millette had figured out with absolute certainty by other, non-destructive methods that the material is not thermitic, why bother doing a DSC test?

If you lost your dog, and now you are returned a dog that looks similar, and you can rule out 100% that this is your dog (because, for example, your dog had only 3 legs, this one has four), why do an autopsy and kill the poor dog just to make sure?
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 15th January 2013, 11:56 AM   #1267
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
"Your honor, the body was not Mrs. Smith's, it was Ms. Jones. Although the DNA is Mrs. Smith's, the body has been identified by 10 of Mrs. Smith's relatives, finger prints match Mrs. Smith,Mrs. Smith's dentures have been identified by her dentist, we burnt the body and the thermal properties also match those of Ms. Jones."
Actually it's more like this - my additions in red.

It's massive wilful ignorance and dishonesty not to acknowledge that the material Millette has contains epoxy and kaolin when the actual results and data are laid out in black and white for anyone to examine.

This is why the truthers will never try to analyse the FTIR or TEM-SAED data because they know it shows paint. Instead they concentrate on something that has no importance to the task at hand, namely: what is this material?

MM also refuses to answer very simple questions because he knows answering them will completely undermine his position. He won't answer these:

Do you agree that samples a-d and Millette's samples are the same material?

Where is the DSC thermograph for non-thermitic red/gray chips in Harrit et al?

Secondly Ivan has shown categorically that epoxy is a good candidate for the exothermic DSC curve presented in Harrit et al. Again MM and other truthers will ignore this evidence.

Truther "logic": If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck then it must be a banana.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 15th January 2013 at 11:57 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
Old 15th January 2013, 01:20 PM   #1268
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"At the very least, it is unnecessary to burn chips specifically in a DSC:…"
The red chips of interest, were not 'burned' in the DSC.

They were ignited in the DSC.

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

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

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

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

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

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 15th January 2013 at 01:22 PM.
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 15th January 2013, 01:44 PM   #1269
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
MM, you completely and utterly dodged my question. What will a DSC of Millette's chips show besides "thermal properties"?
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2013, 01:49 PM   #1270
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,828
MM, I respond to almost your entire post. I ask you to please at least answer the questions that I formatted in large, blue, bold fond. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The red chips of interest, were not 'burned' in the DSC.

They were ignited in the DSC.


Wha....??

Wiktionary entry "ignite":
Originally Posted by Wiktionary
Verb

ignite (third-person singular simple present ignites, present participle igniting, simple past and past participle ignited)

(transitive) to set fire to (something), to light (something)
(transitive) to spark off (something), to enthuse
(intransitive) to commence burning.
Merriam-Webster entry "ignite":
Originally Posted by M-W
Definition of IGNITE
transitive verb
1
: to subject to fire or intense heat; especially : to render luminous by heat
2
a : to set afire; also : kindle
b : to cause (a fuel) to burn
3
a : to heat up : excite <oppression that ignited the hatred of the people>
b : to set in motion : spark <ignite a debate>
Merriam-Webster entry "burn":
Originally Posted by M-W
transitive verb
1
a : to cause to undergo combustion; especially : to destroy by fire <burned the trash>
b : to use as fuel <this furnace burns gas>
c : to use up : consume <burn calories>
Wiktionary entry "burn":
Originally Posted by M-W
Verb

burn (third-person singular simple present burns, present participle burning, simple past and past participle burned or burnt (mostly UK))

(intransitive) To be consumed by fire, or at least in flames.

He watched the house burn.

(intransitive) To become overheated so as to make unusable.

The grill was too hot and the steak was burned.

(intransitive) To feel hot, e.g. due to embarrassment.

Her cheeks burned with shame.

(intransitive) To sunburn.

She forgot to put on sunscreen and burned.

(intransitive, curling) To accidentally touch a moving stone.
(transitive, ergative) To cause to be consumed by fire.

He burned his manuscript in the fireplace.

(transitive, ergative) To overheat so as to make unusable.

He burned the toast.
To ignite something means to make it combust.
To burn something means to make it combust.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
As you also know, the authors acknowledge and discuss in their report, the exceptional energy release when the red chips were ignited.
Take away the higlighted word, and what you say is true. But you added that word, and make the statement FALSE. Nowhere in the paper do they state or suggest that the energy release is "exceptional". Exception from what? In fact, the energy release is normal and mundane for a wide range of organic polymers.

Here is how the Bentham paper comments the energy content measured in the DSC:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al
[page 28]
We observe that the total energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red material would promote understanding.
Please point out how you determined that the energy release is "exceptional"!

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It would not suffice to "burn the chips" at the 400C Dr. Millette chose and then dig through the residue.
I don't claim that Millette attemped to replicate any burn test, imn fact he chose a method that would preclude the ignition of thermite, if any were present!

So that's a strawman.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
From my reading of the Bentham Paper, iron-rich spheres were always found in the residue produced by ignited red chips.
You admitted earlier that there are non-thermitic red-gray chips in the dust. Were these also burned? Did they produce iron-rich spheres? If not, how were they separated from the "thermitic" chips BEFORE the DSC test was done? Is the method described in the paper? Can the method be discerned from the paper without consulting the authors?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It would be expected that upon microscopic examination of the residue at least some of his [Dr. Millette] red chips would have ignited and produced iron-rich spheres, where previously none existed.
Which, MM? What properties do the chips have that ignite and produce iron-rich spheres, which the other chips do not have?
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 15th January 2013, 05:07 PM   #1271
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
"MM, you completely and utterly dodged my question. What will a DSC of Millette's chips show besides "thermal properties"?"
The DSC produces valuable residue.

The residue supports a thermitic reaction.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 15th January 2013 at 05:10 PM.
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 15th January 2013, 05:40 PM   #1272
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The residue supports a thermitic reaction.

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 15th January 2013, 05:44 PM   #1273
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,678
Congratulations MM!

You've successfully managed to avoid all important questions, graphs and statements, and have succeeded in dragging the entire thread back to arguing about the DSC test, yet again!

Now excuse me and while I go back 30, 20 and 10 pages in this thread to see how, yet again, this DSC argument is going to pan out.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 15th January 2013, 06:40 PM   #1274
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,828
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The DSC produces valuable residue.

The residue supports a thermitic reaction.

MM
The residue of ALL red-gray chips?
Including those magnetic red-gray chips that are non-thermitic?

Or did they sort out the magnetic yet non-thermitic red-gray chips before the DSC test?
How?
Is the method to sort out those magnetic red-gray chips that are not thermitic described in the paper? Such that one wouldn't need to ask the authors?





(Oh, and by the way: NO, the residue does NOT support a thermitic reaction - no Al2O3 at all has been shown to be present. Which is required - showing Al2O3 is how the referenced LLNL scientists prove a thermite reaction occurred.)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2013, 02:21 AM   #1275
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
1) Some very approximate comparison of total heat release during combustion of epoxy resin in MCC apparatus and during heating of red-gray chips in DSC apparatus (Bentham paper).

Here is again MCC curve for pure epoxy resin (left curve):



...and DSC curves in Fig. 19, Bentham paper:



The total heat release (THR) corresponds to area delimited by peak, where x-axis is recalculated into time (in seconds). I'm lazy to integrate the areas more precisely, so let me take the MCC curve as a triangle with the base corresponding to 130 degrees K, i.e. to 130 seconds (heating rate was 1 K/s). The height of triangle is ca 360, therefore its area is (130x360)/2 is ca 23 000 J/g, i.e. 23 kJ/g. This is in a quite good accordance with published values for epoxy resins (about 20 kJ/g, if I remember correctly from Oystein's blog).

As for Bentham curves, total heats released were calculated by Harrit et al and were from 1.5 to 7.5 kJ/g. The range of results here is so wide than any comparison almost does not make sense, but let me take an average value 4.5 kJ/g for comparison. This seems to be basically in accordance with the "typical chip" in which red and gray layer have similar thicknesses; but incombustible gray layer has indeed significantly higher mass (magnetite has a density around 5 g/ml, whereas primer paint could have density between ca 1 and 1.5 g/ml. (Well, red paint layer also contains some incombustible pigments, but let me neglect them in these rough estimates...) .
Hence, the average value 4.5 kJ/g corresponds quite reasonably to the combustion of such red/gray chips with epoxy red layer and can be perhaps regarded as some "hint" that the most of reaction heat (heat of combustion in fact) was recorded by DSC device in Bentham paper.

2) It's quite probable that we have already discussed the following (but I'm not sure):
In all red-gray chips heated in DSC machine by Harrit et al, shown in Fig. 20, we see these shiny spherical things, which were created from gray layers. Basically, this transformation of gray layer into microspheres should be accompanied with the "heat of fusion", which is negative, and could be recorded by DSC device. We do not see clearly any such endothermic processes in published DSC curves, but they can be easily too weak for recording and/or they can proceed during quite a broad range of temperatures.
(E.g., magnetite, which could be the main material of gray layers, has a heat of fusion ca 140 kJ/mol, i.e. ca 0.6 kJ/g, which is not a high value. Note: transformation of gray layers into microspheres can not be regarded as a melting of a some pure material (magnetite itself cannot melt below 700 degrees C), but the process was anyway somewhat similar to melting, since the material(s) was/were transformed from more to less ordered state during heating. I think)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th January 2013 at 02:36 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 16th January 2013, 04:41 AM   #1276
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,828
Ivan,

1.) Yes, in my blog I sourced a tabulated value for "effective heat of combustion" of epoxy of just over 20 kJ/g.
And yes, their calculated values for energy density of red-gray chips are consistent with roughly equal thickness / volume of the red and the gray layer and 70% epoxy as the only reacting agent in the red layer. Of course, even if that epoxy had embedded the maximum amount of thermite that would be possible from the elemental composition they publish, that thermite would add so little heat, it would be lost in rounding error.

2.) Yes, transitions of all kinds, including solid-solid and liquid-liquid (glass transitions, amorph-chrystal...), show in DSC traces - in fact, DSC is used much more commonly to measure those than to measure chemical reactions. Their specific heat differential is lower than that of true phase transitions, and of oxidations.
Note that the round shapes might not have formed during the heating phase of the DSC test, but perhaps durin the cooling phase. They'd show an endotherm (trough) upon cooling then, but possibly an exotherm (peak) during the heating phase, which we are looking at in the plots.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2013, 05:20 AM   #1277
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGRTd...eature=youtube

A truther land favourite ^

Oops posted in the wrong thread !

On second thoughts maybe not.

Last edited by Spanx; 16th January 2013 at 05:23 AM. Reason: Posted in wrong thread
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2013, 06:36 AM   #1278
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The red chips of interest, were not 'burned' in the DSC.

They were ignited in the DSC.

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

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

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

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

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

MM
Putting aside the "burned" vs "ignited" question. a mor4e impprrtant point here is that MM and for that matter Steven Jones claim that iron-rich spheres were created in the burning of the chips in the Bentham paper where none were found before. The Bentham authors have admitted that the energy release is too high for thermite alone. The valuable residue does NOT include large amounts of aluminum oxide. So the value of the residue is now down to the existence of iron-rich spheres after the burning/igniting of the chips that Jones et al did. Am I right MM? I am asking you because I am not sure that in recent posts here at least the issue of the iron-rich spheres emerging FROM THIS EXPERIMENT has really been addressed. So let's address it now. MM and Steven Jones seem to be saying that these iron-rich spheres are evidence of thermite (due to 2700-degree temps allegedly required to create them), which Millette is ignoring this by not doing a DSC test. What are other explanations of why burning paint chips can also create iron-rich microspheres IN THIS EXPERIMENT?
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2013, 07:22 AM   #1279
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
And now for something completely different. (It belongs perhaps to another red-gray chips thread, but doesn't really matter).

...At the beginning of year, our grant account in my institute is closed, so I have a lot of time to look at various net pages.
I've just looked again into the old thread on sciforums.com, in which a guy nicked Trippy (probably some scientist) had been cleverly debating with several truthers and semi-truthers.

In his post No. 2052 (yes, it was a pretty long debate), Trippy pointed out that XEDS of nanosized alumina (aluminum oxide) looks (or may look) exactly like "infamous" XEDS spectra of alleged elemental aluminium in Fig. 17 (Bentham paper).

And he was right.

Here is a Fig. 17, which is in fact the only "evidence" of elemental Al in Bentham paper:



Here is a Fig. 3 in the paper Trippy reffered to (caption: EDS spectrum of the nano alumina half-nanotubes.)



And finally, this is Fig. 2 from this paper (Caption for Fig. 2a: Fig. 2. EDX spectra of (A) pure nano-alumina):



So, what we can see here (neglecting impurities and Au present owing to method): although O peak should be even higher than Al peak in alumina (Al2O3), XEDS spectra of these nanosized alumina forms do not follow this expectation and oxygen peak can be very little in fact.

Currently, I have no idea why it is so.
And, well, Fig. 17 shows XEDS spectrum of MEK chip, which is probably Tnemec primer chip and shouldn't contain any alumina (according to specification). It should contain some "calcium aluminate", CaAl2O4 or similar, instead. But Trippy at least showed me that XEDS spectra of nano-stuffs can be distinctly different from the spectra taken on "macro-stuffs".

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th January 2013 at 08:20 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 16th January 2013, 07:34 AM   #1280
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
(Sorry, Chris, I've overlooked your previous post. But in this matter - how can microspheres be formed from red/gray paint chips -, I have basically nothing new to add. It has been discusses here in the past thoroughly, but we have only various working hypotheses, how these microspheres could be created.)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th January 2013 at 08:26 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
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 01:20 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.