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 17th January 2013, 05:58 PM   #1321
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,863
Elephant or Zebra?

White Kaolin Clay Profile
Origin- USA
Extraction- 100% naturally occurring quarry mined and water washed
Other Common Names- White Cosmetic Clay, China Clay, Ceramic Clay and Kaolin Clay
…..
Specifications
Color- White
Mesh Size- US #100 Mesh
Moisture- 1-2%
pH - 6.0
Bulk Density (lb/cu.ft) - 25.3

Typical Mineral Content
Total Kaolinite- 97%
Silicon Oxide- 46%
Aluminum Oxide- 37%
Iron Oxide- 0.79%
Titanium Oxide- 0.37%

From the Bentham paper:
“…..
All of the dust samples that were inspected were found to
contain red/gray chips. The chips are characterized by a red
layer in which XEDS analysis identifies carbon, oxygen,
aluminum, silicon, and iron, and a gray layer in which
mainly iron and oxygen are found.
…..
CONCLUSIONS
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant
numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center
destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods
to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature
of these chips, especially of their red component. The
red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:
1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and
carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive
elements are sometimes present, such as potassium,
sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
…..
The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron
oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm,
and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.”

Conclusions:
1. Harrit et al, Millette elements and compounds match those of primer paint atop iron rust.

2. Harrit et al chips do not match their literature of sol-gel thermite compositions referenced in their papers.

3. The thin red layer of Harrit et al. “super nano-thermite” chips cannot significantly warm steel, let alone melt it.

4. The silicon and aluminum oxides plates are the paint filler kaolinite. (Sunstealer, Oystein, Ivan Kminek, Millette).

5.
No “super nano-thermite” formulae contain kaolinite because kaolinite is inert.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

Elephant of Zebra?
Zookeper to elephant: Why did you destroy my car?

Elephant: I didn’t. I couldn’t have done it. I was asleep in my cage all day.

Zookeeper: Yes you did. I have your picture from my security camera.




Elephant: It couldn’t have been me. It was the zebra that destroyed your car.

Ravens to zookeeper: You must not rush to a hasty conclusion. We’ll examine the evidence, scientifically match the animal that destroyed your car and rationally come to the right conclusion.

Next day:

Ravens to zookeeper: The animal pictured atop your car has four legs, a tail, two eyes and two ears, as does the zebra.
We whacked the zebra’s hind with a 2x4 and the zebra complained. This fits the zebra perfectly. All zebras complain when whacked with a 2x4, that’s their nature.


We also weighed the elephant and the zebra, measured the footprints on the car and whacked the elephant’s hind with a 2x4, but we forget where we placed the results.
The zebra crushed your car.

Owls to zookeeper: Wait a minute. The elephant also has four legs, a tail, two eyes and two ears. The photograph has the appearance of an elephant, not a zebra.
We additionally weighed the elephant and the zebra, and the zebra doesn’t weigh enough to have crushed your car. Tusk scratches on the car paint and the footprints also match the elephant’s, not the zebra. It was the elephant that crushed your car.


Ravens to zookeeper: But … But it could have been a “Super Mega-Zebra”! It’s not the same test ! The owls didn’t whack the elephant’s hind with a 2x4 ! We don’t know if the elephant would have complained !

Zookeeper: Well, the evidence is sufficient to prove it was the elephant, not the zebra that destroyed my car.
No more mud baths for you, elephant!


__________________
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.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 17th January 2013 at 07:00 PM.
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 17th January 2013, 05:59 PM   #1322
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Heat.

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

The red chips that do not ignite are thus eliminated.

MM
Ok.

Let's look at the MEK-soaked chip. Figures (12)-(18) in the Bentham paper.

What do you think - was it heated to 430 °C or higher by Jones or Farrer?
Was it a thermitic chip, or a non-thermitic chip?


Or, for that matter: Chips a-d - were they heated to 430 °C or higher by Jones or Farrer?
Were they thermitic chips, or a non-thermitic chips?


Or, for that matte, the multi-layered chip - was it heated to 430 °C or higher by Jones or Farrer?
Was it a thermitic chip, or a non-thermitic chip?

Last edited by Oystein; 17th January 2013 at 06:02 PM.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2013, 06:07 PM   #1323
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post

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

It is clear that bulk charges of thermite can reach extremely high temperatures when burning. But, is it even possible that burning of thermitic chip 20 micrometers "thick" (with attached iron oxide layer also ca 20 micrometers "thick", but this can be omitted for simplicity) could generate temperatures close to melting of steel or iron oxide?
Well, here's your data: Heat capacity of iron is 0.45 J per degree per gram.

Melting point of iron is 1811 K.

Heat of fusion of iron is 247 J/g.

Density of iron is 7.9 g/ml.

Enthalpy of thermite is 4,000 J/g

Thermal conductivity of iron is 80 J/second/degree per meter.

IIRC, the thinnest steel used in the WTC was about 6.5mm or 6500 microns.
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 17th January 2013, 07:28 PM   #1324
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Heat.

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

The red chips that do not ignite are thus eliminated.

MM
MM,

This reminds me of the old Salem witch test. Dunk a woman and if she drowns she is not a witch. Burn the chips and no further tests on them are possible.
__________________
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 17th January 2013, 07:39 PM   #1325
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
As you know Chris, Kevin Ryan has trust issues with Dr. Millette.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But then, he would have a serious quandary.

MM
To clarify: Jim Millette said DSC testing was unnecessary because his other tests conclusively showed chemical signatures that were NOT consistent with thermite. But he did give me a list of names of labs I could approach for a DSC test, and I even found some financial backing for it from a 8/11 Truth guy. But every place I called refused to do the test. As one guy said, "if there's any chance it's thermite, I won't risk it burning through the crucible i would be holding it in during the test." I gave up, but if anyone wants to organize and pay for a DSC test, neither I nor Jim Millette has the slightest concern about the results.

MM your assumption that Millette would have a problem with finding thermite is simply false. I asked him repeatedly, by email and by phone, if he is ready to "take the heat" if he finds thermite. he said he's used to upsetting his customers in forensic exams when he finds something that does not support their case. As Millette said about thermite, "if I find it I'll publish it." I believe him because I asked him nine ways to Sunday about this very issue. I was fully prepared to find thermite and wanted to make sure the person I hired was ready too.

Also false: he had not already started the paper on thermitic material. I approached him and my offer of $1000 got the ball rolling. And BTW Millette IS interested in the iron-rich spheres. We'll see if it appears in the final report abut I will continue to ask him to look into this.
__________________
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

Last edited by chrismohr; 17th January 2013 at 07:42 PM. Reason: further correction of MM's false statements again
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 17th January 2013, 09:10 PM   #1326
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
I was hoping this study would end the debate, why drag this on with a study seen as incomplete? Truthers have suggested Millette has the wrong chips so why not rule that out by following Harrit´s study to the letter? I am no expert but it seems there are some more clues in the paper, such as chips remaining hard after MEK and no titanium which Millette chips seem to have. And twoofies will never accept a paper without all the tests, so it seems obvious that Millette will have to arrange DSC testing. Won´t all whole chips produce those spheres anyway, if they have a gray layer?
jtl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2013, 09:26 PM   #1327
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I was hoping this study would end the debate...
This must be your first Rodeo!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2013, 09:56 PM   #1328
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Well, here's your data: Heat capacity of iron is 0.45 J per degree per gram.

Melting point of iron is 1811 K.

Heat of fusion of iron is 247 J/g.

Density of iron is 7.9 g/ml.

Enthalpy of thermite is 4,000 J/g

Thermal conductivity of iron is 80 J/second/degree per meter.

IIRC, the thinnest steel used in the WTC was about 6.5mm or 6500 microns.
Thanks for the data. I probably did not formulate well my question, which should be like: "Is it even possible that burning of thermitic chip 20 micrometers "thick" ("free standing" purely nanothermitic chip, surrounded only by standing air and not attached to anything including gray layer and sample holder) could generate temperatures close to melting of steel or iron oxide?"

I don't know at present how to calculate such temperature, do you?
It seems to be natural that even in such flat chip, temperatures reached would be high enough to melt steel or iron oxide, but is it true? Heat losses should be really high for such very thin chip.

Imagine the case when such calculated temperature is conclusively and significantly lower than melting point of steel of iron oxide. This would instantly stop arguments of truthers (e.g. MM) that temperatures around 1500 degrees C had to be reached in chips heated in DSC device (because of the microspheres formation). Indeed, the real situation in DSC device was in favor of much lower temperatures reached in burning chips, since the heat of thermitic reaction would be absorbed by gray layer and sample holder as efficient heat sinks.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 17th January 2013 at 10:34 PM.
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 18th January 2013, 12:37 AM   #1329
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Well, here is the post of Dr. Greening, who attempted to calculate the elevation of steel temperature caused by burning of 100 micrometers "thick" thermite layer:

"Metamars:

Is this what you want:

Calculation of the Heating Effect of a Thermite Coating on a Steel Column:

The thermite reaction of interest is Fe2O3 + 2Al = Al2O3 + 2Fe

The energy released by 1 kg of a stoichiometric mixture of ferric oxide and aluminium undergoing this thermite reaction is 3988 kJ/kg.

Consider a 100-micron layer of this mixture coated on a steel column on an upper floor of one of the Twin Towers.

For simplicity we shall assume the coated surfaces are on all four sides of a box column that is 20 cm wide spanning one 3.7-meter high floor. Thus we have a total surface area per column of 3.7 x 0.2 x 4 = 2.96 m^2. (We could also consider an equivalent wide-flange column)

The volume of our 100-micron coating is then = 2.96 x 100 x 10^-6 m^3 = 296 x 10^-6 m^3

The density of the thermite mixture is assumed to be ~ 4500 kg/m^3, so the mass of our thermite coating per one floor column length is = 4500 kg/m^3 x 296 x 10^-6 = 1.332 kg

Using the 3988 kJ/kg heat release of the thermite reaction we have a total heat release per one floor column length of 1.332 kg x 3988 kJ/kg = 5312 kJ.

Next we need to calculate the mass of steel that was exposed to this 5312 kJ of heat energy.

Column specifications for the upper floors of WTC 1 indicate the typical mass of structural steel per column per floor was about 1500 kg.

The heat capacity of steel is 0.45 kJ/kg so 1 kg of steel requires 0.45 kJ to be heated by 1 deg C.

Therefore 1500 kg requires 675 kJ.

The heat released by our 200-micron layer of thermite is 5312 kJ. Thus the expected temperature increase is (5312/675) x 1 deg C, or about 8 deg C."


Good start, but what I need to know is what would be the temperature increase of the thermite layer itself, without any contact with anything except air (and having thickness only 20 micrometers, not 100 micrometers).

(On the other hand, the situation regarded by Frank Greening is not so far from the situation in DSC device, where the most of heat of alleged thermitic reaction would be anyway absorbed by sample holder and the whole apparatus. I think)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 18th January 2013 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 18th January 2013, 12:57 AM   #1330
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
After we failed to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, it comes down to this.

Even if this stuff were nanothermite it would be utterly ineffective as a destructive agent deliberately used to destroy a massive building.
Hehe You are of course right, but try to consider some attempts to calculate possible temperatures reached in thin thermite layer etc. as some exercise in physical chemistry/thermochemistry, perhaps good as a task for university students or so.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 18th January 2013 at 01:00 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 18th January 2013, 01:46 AM   #1331
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
MM,

This reminds me of the old Salem witch test. Dunk a woman and if she drowns she is not a witch. Burn the chips and no further tests on them are possible.
There is actually an easy way around this, at least for chips of sufficient size: Cut it in 2 pieces; test one piece in the DSC, and do all other tests on the other piece.

But this is NOT what the Bentham authors did with their chips. It most certainly is not what Jones did with the MEK chip. Farrer describes in an AE911Truth interview how they did SEM-work and found this and that, and then they thought "well what else can we do", thought of DSC, and then had to go search around for a lab that has a DSC. So the temporal order is such that the DSC test almost certainly came last, but the paper makes it clear that the author consider all red-gray chips selected by a magner to be similar and essentially the same - they do NOT mention DSC as a selection method!
Also, if DSC is the selection method, and they could not have known prior to the DSC test which chips would turn out energetic and which not. So I'd expect them to have put non-energetic chips in the DSC, too, and make a mention of it.
Mark Basile, in his recent radio interview with Bernie Suarez, says that "the vast majority of them actually are primer paint, from what I'm finding". "Them" meaning "red chip you're gonna pull out of there" (WTC dust). (Note to MM: See the quotation marks? Yes, these are actual and verbatim quotes from Basile. Find them in my blog, along with a precise source reference.) So in fact Farrer ought to have put mostly mundane chips in the DSC, if that was the actual method to distinguish them.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 02:09 AM   #1332
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I was hoping this study would end the debate, why drag this on with a study seen as incomplete? Truthers have suggested Millette has the wrong chips so why not rule that out by following Harrit´s study to the letter?
Millette DID follow Harrit's study to the letter: The paper has a section on Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination that describes how they selected the chips to be studied:
1. pull particles out with a magnet that are attracted by it.
2. By visual inspection, select those that are chips and that have a gray and a red layer

Millette did exactly that. In addition, he selected chips whose XEDS spectra from the gray and from the red layer had the same elemental composition as chips a-d.

So yes, he did follow the paper to the letter.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I am no expert but it seems there are some more clues in the paper, such as chips remaining hard after MEK
But
- The MEK-soaked chip wasn't tested in the DSC
- Chips a-d weren't tested in the DSC
- The elemental composition, as per XEDS spectrum, of the MEK chip does not match that of chips a-d at all
- Chips a-d were not soaked in MEK
So there is zero proof that
* Chips a-d were energetic
* The MEK-soaked chip was energetic
* The MEK-soaked chip was the same material as chips a-d
In fact, all the data actually published indicates that the MEK-soaked chip was markedly different from chips a-d, i.e. a different material.

So no, you are mistaken, none of properties seen in this one MEK-soaked chip can be construed as being typical for "energetic" chips and untypical for mundane chips.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
and no titanium which Millette chips seem to have.
This is incorrect.
Fig (25) of the Harrit paper (link) shows "Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum (although spheres with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen in the post-ignition residue)." Obviously, the authors think this is one of the "thermitic" chips, with the spherical iron residue. And look what you see at ca. 4.5 keV: A clear peak for titanium! So clearly, at least SOME of the "energetic" chips must contain titanium. That is not a criterium to toss out specimens.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
And twoofies will never accept a paper without all the tests, so it seems obvious that Millette will have to arrange DSC testing.
Millette is doing his stuff for serious academics, not for "twoofies". It is us who are doing this for "twoofies".

Mark Basile has a test proposal that includes DSC both under inert gas and air, and is collecting money for it. I am all for it.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Won´t all whole chips produce those spheres anyway, if they have a gray layer?
Difficult to say. That would mean that the gray layer alone, stripped off the red layer, would produce such spheres if slowly heated to 700 °C? I think the iron-rich blobs that Harrit e.al. found are not all from the same source and process. Some may be agglomerations of iron oxide pigments pulled together by cooling organic char. Some may be the result of a purely metallurgical transformation found in alloys with manganese. Some may be the result of interaction of the gray iron oxide layer with reducing gases formed when the organic matrix of the red layer decomposed. That's three processes; one only depends on the nature of the gray layer; one only on the composition of the red layer; and the third comes from the interaction of both and would thus depend on the composition of both.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 03:55 AM   #1333
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...what I need to know is what would be the temperature increase of the thermite layer itself, without any contact with anything except air (and having thickness only 20 micrometers, not 100 micrometers).

(On the other hand, the situation regarded by Frank Greening is not so far from the situation in DSC device, where the most of heat of alleged thermitic reaction would be anyway absorbed by sample holder and the whole apparatus. I think)
Good question, good thinking. I can't answer it.

You are surely on a right track: The entire method of the DSC is premised on the idea that the specimen is kept at a tightly controlled temoerature, and you measure how much heat you have to add or take away to keep it at that temperature. This only works, or the results only make sense, if in fact the specimen has the same temperature as the crucible (or, more to the point, as the inert sample on the other crucible that it is being compared to. Remember - Differential SC?). Part of the reason the DSC device can control the temperature is that the crucible has a mass far far greater than the specimen. The largest chips Harrit e.al. tested were under 1 mg, the crucible certainly weighs more tha gram, so there a proportion of more than 1000:1.

Here is an article in French that criticizes the Harrit study - and has some more detailed information on how DSC works:

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1698

Running it through Google translate, first about the author:
Originally Posted by Philippe Gillard
Philippe Gillard is a professor at the University of Orléans, team leader Risks, Explosions, PRISM Institute Structures (Multidisciplinary Institute for Research in Systems Engineering, Mechanics and Energetics), expert in the field of energetic materials.
And then just one bullet point on the question you ask:
Originally Posted by Philippe Gillard
  • characteristics of the exothermic peak does not suggest that there could be a deviation between the setpoint temperature and the temperature of the sample, we can consider that the measured DSC signal is valid and that the temperature of the sample did not exceed the set temperature of 700 ° C;
Note the premise: "we can consider that the measured DSC signal is valid".

The argument really seems to be: IF the DSC signal is valid, THEN the sample never got hotter than 700 °C

Formally: IF a THEN b
The correct reverse of this is:
IF NOT b THEN NOT a

Here:
IF the sample temperature exceeded 700°C (and by a wide margin!) THEN the DSC signal is NOT valid!

In other words, if the authors are correct that their sample got to melting point of iron, then they are fools to present the DSC traces in the paper.


I think it is an established fact that none of the authors, and specifically not Jeff Farrer, who actually carried out the DSC test, had any prior experience whatsoever with doing DSC. Presumably, they had little to no prior experience with interpreting DSC results. They are to be considered in that regard as much amateurs as you and I ought to be. So MM's constant attempt to invoke the scientific or professional authority of these men fails at least in the case of DSC. As it turns out, the test was not properly performed, and test results were incorrectly interpreted.

(And I'd bet a few bucks that MM, if he responds to this post, will only respond to the last paragraph, and not the meat of the argument I present, by citing Prof. Gillard)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 04:31 AM   #1334
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,263
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
[...] the paper makes it clear that the author consider all red-gray chips selected by a magner to be similar and essentially the same - they do NOT mention DSC as a selection method!
That's indeed supported by the link provided by Spanx in #1281:
At the Boston Tea Party conference last Saturday, I announced that I had found peculiar "red chips" in the WTC dust, and the possible significance of the findings. The chips are bi-layered, red on one side, gray on the other -- and present in all four samples that I and colleagues are exploring in depth at this time.
http://911blogger.com/node/13090

It seems to me that only after writing the paper they realized that there were many kinds of chips.
__________________
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 18th January 2013, 04:33 AM   #1335
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,263
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Good start, but what I need to know is what would be the temperature increase of the thermite layer itself, without any contact with anything except air (and having thickness only 20 micrometers, not 100 micrometers).

(On the other hand, the situation regarded by Frank Greening is not so far from the situation in DSC device, where the most of heat of alleged thermitic reaction would be anyway absorbed by sample holder and the whole apparatus. I think)
Remember the chips burned (er, sorry, "ignited") in the DSC had a gray layer attached that also acted as a heat sink.
__________________
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 18th January 2013, 04:53 AM   #1336
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
...
It seems to me that only after writing the paper they realized that there were many kinds of chips.
Well, I would rather word is as "only after writing the paper seeing that Chris Mohr was about to debunk them they realized reluctantly started to acknowledge explicitly that there were many kinds of chips".

They certainly realized it before writing the paper. In fact, they explicitly mention the fact that some chips show significant differences in their elemental composition:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al
We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers.
So what this says is:
  • There is one kind of chip that is different from the others (expecially chips a-d and "MEK" which we present in detail as "representative" of all chips) in that it has significant Pb, while the other chips do not have significant Pb
  • There are, in addistion, one or two kinds of chips that are different from the others (expecially chips a-d and "MEK" which we present in detail as "representative" of all chips) in that they have significant Ba and/or Cu, while the other chips do not have significant Ba or Cu
  • And then there are of course the "other" with no significant Pb, no significant Ba and no significant Cu
(Plus: That chip in Fig 32 and 33, which has an additional carbon layer in between the red layer and the gray iron oxide layer).

So they are basically saying: "We found different chips, but we think they are all the same." Find the error
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 05:01 AM   #1337
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I was hoping this study would end the debate, why drag this on with a study seen as incomplete? Truthers have suggested Millette has the wrong chips so why not rule that out by following Harrit´s study to the letter? I am no expert but it seems there are some more clues in the paper, such as chips remaining hard after MEK and no titanium which Millette chips seem to have. And twoofies will never accept a paper without all the tests, so it seems obvious that Millette will have to arrange DSC testing. Won´t all whole chips produce those spheres anyway, if they have a gray layer?
Truthers will never accept any result that doesn't conclude thermite. Even if Harrit and Jones came out and said it is a fake paper and a hoax they would still believe that thermite was found. MM is evidence of this.

As I've said before - if Millette did DSC and microspheres where found post testing then truthers will claim thermite even though all the other data shows that the material is paint adhered to oxidised steel and that it's paint adhered to oxidised steel that produces microspheres. Truthers will ignore any result that doesn't fit with their fantasies.

The fact of the matter is the material that Millette analysed is the same material as samples a-d in the harrit paper. There is no getting away from this.

If you accept that the authors of the paper say that samples a-d are the same material then you must conclude that Millette's material is the same stuff because you have to judge the similarities between a-d by thesame criteria that you'd have to judge Millette's spectra.

MM will not even commit to agreeing with Harrit et al that samples a-d are the same material because he knows that to do so must lead him to conclude that Millette's samples are the same stuff. It's a weird situation whereby MM agrees with the false conclusion of thermite, but refuses to agree that the samples a-d in the Harrit paper are the same even though that's what the authors of the paper rightly conclude.

The same reasoning led Senenmut to conclude that the samples are the same material.

Any forensic metallurgist will conclude that the material is the same stuff because the data shows that it is. It's only truthers that will rule that out because they simply cannot admit that they are wrong.

DSC is a worthless test because other methods have categorically proven what the material consists of. Only in lala trutherland is this conclusion not accepted even though the data is there in black and white.

Notice how no truther will ever analyse or challenge Millette's data. Notice how none of them even discuss these results.

Take the time to go through Millette's data and check it against Harrit et al. Simple pattern recognition is all that is needed.

This one shows that these 4 samples are the same material:



And this one tells you what that material is



If you are still unconvinced because you think that the material cannot be the same then you have to show how Millette's method is wrong and why this is - Remember he followed Harrit et al's method of separation and used Harrit's EDX spectra as the criteria for making sure the material was the same (along with visual and SEM microscopy)

Just because he didn't perform a pointless DSC test doesn't mean you can just chuck his data in the bin and ignore it like truthers do.

Is this


not the same as this




Or how is this



different from



Or how the hexagonal platelet EDX spectra in Harrit



differs from the spectra from Millette



Now I could go on and on and on and on and on showing you and the truthers the similarities between the data in Harrit et al and the data in Millette's progress report - conclusive proof that samples a-d are the same as the vast majority of samples Millette separated and analysed.

It will make zero difference to the truthers like MM. Even though it's staring them in black and white on the page they will never accept it. Never.

The similarities can be spotted by a young child because the only tool being used is pattern recognition. i.e. does this look like this? Truthers have such ingrained cognitive dissonance that even though the eyes see that the data proves that the material is the same they will simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Notice how none of them ever quote Millette in any topic even when discussing his data. Note how none of the truthers ever post a picture or a graph from Millette or analyse any of his data. Note how truthers always evade and never answer the simplest of questions.

This should tell you everything you need to know.
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 18th January 2013, 05:22 AM   #1338
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
pgimeno: I'm aware of this and I've mentioned it

Oystein:
Gash et al showed us, how the really rapid nanothermitic reaction curves should look like (Fig. 6):



Well, this peak at ca 550 degrees C is pretty sharp! We see genuine nanothermite ignition/burning here! (not those boring very broad peaks from Bentham paper) But it was not recorded by DSC, but by DTA (differential thermal analysis) instead. Here, the increase of temperature is recorded, which is what we want to know in this respect....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And back to my thinking about increase of temperature during burning tiny chips of thermite.

Following Greening's calculations, it is easy to roughly calculate the temperature reached in bulk thermite charge (considering adiabatic conditions, so as there are no heat losses).

Let's have (for simplicity) the cube of thermite 1x1x1 m, i.e. 1 m3

Such cube would have mass 4500 kg.

According to Greening, : "The energy released by 1 kg of a stoichiometric mixture of ferric oxide and aluminium undergoing this thermite reaction is 3988 kJ/kg" (roughly 4000 kJ/kg[/i]).
Hence, the overal heat released by thermitic reaction of this cube would be 4000x4500 = 18 000 000 kJ.

Heat capacity of aluminium is 0.9 kJ/kg, heat capacity of hematite is 0.78 kJ/kg, therefore heat capacity of thermite should be around 0.8 kJ/kg (iron oxide prevails in thermite by weight)

Therefore, heat necessary for the heating of 1 kg of thermite by one degree should be ca 0.8 kJ.
Hence, heat necessary for heating of 4500 kg of thermite by one degree should be ca 0.8x4500 = 3600 kJ

Therefore, finally: the temperature increase caused by complete thermitic reaction in this cube should be 18 000 000 divided by 3600, which equals to 5000 degrees (C or K, whatever, the difference is almost negligible).

Although this value sounds comparatively realistic for bulk thermite, it has absolutely nothing common with the conditions for the tiny thermitic chips with the thickness of mere 20 microns. And I fear that such a system, burning tiny chips, with sharp temperature changes and very high heat losses by radiation and convection is too complex for some calculations (at least to me)...
Here, some direct measurements (recording of real temperatures of chip e.g. by DTA mentioned above) would be much better

(Note: as in the case of MCC (microscale combustion calorimetry) I mentioned several days ago, DTA is again more suitable for some specific task than DSC. But truthers would never think so, since according to them, all badly chosen methodology in Bentham paper must be scrupulously followed in any falsification of the paper.)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 18th January 2013 at 05:50 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 18th January 2013, 05:44 AM   #1339
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Ivan, again: The principle of the DSC method is premised on keeping temperature of specimen equal to that of the inert control sample. If the temperature of the specimen exceed that of the inert control sample by a significant margin (anything > 1°), that immedieatly renders the DSC curve invalid.

Harrit e.al. did and do not know that.

When Tillotson and Gash did their DSC test, they presumed it would be valid. Gash has in the meantime qualified that somewhat - he thinks that DSC is not a very good method to measure the heat if such a reaction, and I think part of the reason is that indeed they can't control the temperature as tightly.

However, keeping deviations low enough (say, <1 °C), and having them run away to >800 °C are massively different things.

The truth is somewhere in the large middle. So while I don't have absolute proof that temperature of the sample in the DSC never exceeded 1500 °C or even 1000 °C, everything speaks for that assumption.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 07:04 AM   #1340
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Thanks, Sunstealer. This your last post (response to jtl) is something which should be even published elsewhere, not only here. Perhaps on ScrewLooseChange?

Although I indeed know all this stuff quite well, your comparison of micrographs of chips cross-sections from Bentham paper and Millette's report is something new, and very telling

You wrote: "Truthers will never accept any result that doesn't conclude thermite. Even if Harrit and Jones came out and said it is a fake paper and a hoax they would still believe that thermite was found."

Do you really think that "nanothermite meme" would survive even such event? The deep belief of nanotruthers seems to be quite tightly bound to some nanothermite proponents like Jones, Harrit or Ryan...
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 18th January 2013, 07:14 AM   #1341
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Thanks, Sunstealer. This your last post (response to jtl) is something which should be even published elsewhere, not only here. Perhaps on ScrewLooseChange?

Although I indeed know all this stuff quite well, your comparison of micrographs of chips cross-sections from Bentham paper and Millette's report is something new, and very telling
I could repost that for posterity on my blog, with proper reference to here, if Sunstealer allows?

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
You wrote: "Truthers will never accept any result that doesn't conclude thermite. Even if Harrit and Jones came out and said it is a fake paper and a hoax they would still believe that thermite was found."

Do you really think that "nanothermite meme" would survive even such event? The deep belief of nanotruthers seems to be quite tightly bound to some nanothermite proponents like Jones, Harrit or Ryan...
I remember that Harrit has already stated somewhere, last year, that the 2009 nanothermite paper is no more than a "footnote". I got this from one of my Danish contacts, Steen Svanholm probably. Don't recall if that was published, or in private communication. Anyway, the Dane said it was framed a bit as if Harrit was already retreating from the paper, basically meaning "even if we are wrong on this, and yeah I know we are, but I can't say outright, some of the other **** we produce hopefully will stick".
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 07:35 AM   #1342
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"MM,

This reminds me of the old Salem witch test. Dunk a woman and if she drowns she is not a witch. Burn the chips and no further tests on them are possible.
"
Which is maybe why you don't/won't get it.

Speaking as an atheist, I cannot fathom the religious ignorance that leads people to believe in witches and subject them to such a barbaric practise.

The Bentham Paper shows that the scientists studied the red chips extensively before igniting them.

Not being fools, the scientists documented their findings before subjecting each red chip to an ignition temperature.

In this manner, they would have a record for each red chip, regardless of whether it ignited or not.

Assuming they halved each sample, they would also have an un-ignited portion available for further investigation.

After ignition there proved to be a lot more to be observed than a dead witch.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 18th January 2013 at 08:25 AM.
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 07:40 AM   #1343
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Oystein - You (or anyone else) are more than welcome to post a link or copy my posts.

I could correlate all the Harrit data with the relevant Millette equivalent (and some Henryco), but it's a lot of work copying the photos and graphs from both, resizing if necessary, saving and uploading it all and then writing commentary. I might try and correlate all the SEM photo data together and post that and then do the same for each set of say, red layer, gray layer, hexagonal platelets, rhomboids etc at a later date. The question is: Is anything accomplished by doing that?

A while ago I came across two papers whilst searching for the effect of particle size on ignition temperature which showed a direct correlation between the two. Unfortunately I didn't bookmark them, suffice to say the particle sizes in the Harrit et al paper are too large for the reaction temperature of 430°C. Remember Tillitson's prepared particles sizes where 3-10nm Fe2O3 and ~25nm Al and their DSC curve had a maximum at @ 530°C. In contrast Harrit et al had Fe2O3 at 100nm in size!

All this sort of thing takes huge amounts of time. I can post something that has taken me two hours to write, check and reference, then a truther will write 10 words ignoring the post so I don't see the point too much these days.

Quote:
Do you really think that "nanothermite meme" would survive even such event?
Yep, truthers would just claim that Harrit and Jones had been "got to", bribed or threatened or some such.
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 18th January 2013, 07:48 AM   #1344
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The Bentham Paper shows that the scientists studied the red chips extensively before igniting them.
Ok. Can you please quote any passage from the paper that identifies a chip that was first "studied extensively" and then ignited?
(Your answer should be: "No, I can't")

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Not being fools, the scientists documented their findings before subjecting each red chip to an ignition temperature.
Ok. Did they in fact subject each red chip to an ignition temperature?
How do you know?
Is any of that documented in the paper?
Did they subject chip a to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip b to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip c to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip d to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject the MEK-spoaked chip to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject that multi-layered chip with significant Pb to an ignition temperature?
(You answers should be, in order: "No. I don't know. No. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.")

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
In this manner, they would have a record for each red chip, regardless of whether it ignited or not.
Ok. Where is this record? Is there any mention in the paper that such a record exists?
(Your answers should be, respectively: "There is no such record. No.")

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Assuming they halved each sample, they would also have an un-ignited portion available for further investigation.
Ok. Did they in fact halve (or is that half) any of their red chips, particularly those presented in the paper?
(Your answer should be: "I don't know, probably not")

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
After ignition there proved to be a lot more to be observed than a dead witch.
Well, what did they ignite? A witch? A duck?
(Your answer should be: "I have no *********** clue, because that DSC-amateur Farrer failed to tell us")


You see, all those answers would be "I, MM, don't know" or "no, these scientists didn't in factr do what I assert".

I expect that every question you don't address in your next reply is answered by you the way I tell you. So you may limit yourself to addressing those questions where you disagree with me prescribed answers)


(Oh, and I'd bet a rack of beer that MM will ignore these questions )

Last edited by Oystein; 18th January 2013 at 07:51 AM.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 08:01 AM   #1345
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Well, Sunstealer, it basically depends if you would have at least some fun, writing such a summary (comparison of papers). If not, forget it

Another remark as for Fig. 6 from the paper of Gash et al:



Doesn't this curve actually show what I have been interested today in, i.e. the temperature elevation of (authentic) nanothermite chips when ignited? Unfortunately, there are no data about the mass of this sample.

The temperature increase/difference is 50 degrees (very, very low increase in fact), but it is related to 1 mg of sample. I stay confused so far, not sure what it means in fact.

Btw, typical WTC red-gray chip (its red layer) has dimensions 0.1x0.1x0.002 cm, i.e. its volume is 0.00002 cm3. Its mass should therefore be around 0.00002 g, which is only 0.02 milligram! Pretty tiny sample (corresponding e.g. to the higher dose of LSD), and heat losses must be really huge during its burning.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 18th January 2013 at 08:14 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 18th January 2013, 08:07 AM   #1346
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,863
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Ok. Can you please quote any passage from the paper that identifies a chip that was first "studied extensively" and then ignited?
(Your answer should be: "No, I can't")


Ok. Did they in fact subject each red chip to an ignition temperature?
How do you know?
Is any of that documented in the paper?
Did they subject chip a to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip b to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip c to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip d to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject the MEK-spoaked chip to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject that multi-layered chip with significant Pb to an ignition temperature?
(You answers should be, in order: "No. I don't know. No. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.")


Ok. Where is this record? Is there any mention in the paper that such a record exists?
(Your answers should be, respectively: "There is no such record. No.")


Ok. Did they in fact halve (or is that half) any of their red chips, particularly those presented in the paper?
(Your answer should be: "I don't know, probably not")


Well, what did they ignite? A witch? A duck?
(Your answer should be: "I have no *********** clue, because that DSC-amateur Farrer failed to tell us")


You see, all those answers would be "I, MM, don't know" or "no, these scientists didn't in factr do what I assert".

I expect that every question you don't address in your next reply is answered by you the way I tell you. So you may limit yourself to addressing those questions where you disagree with me prescribed answers)


(Oh, and I'd bet a rack of beer that MM will ignore these questions )
Oystein's new Socratic method is so much more efficient than the previous version.

And the winner of the
2012 JREF-Charles Ives most "Unanswered Questions" is:

Oystein
!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

(1906)


__________________
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.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
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 18th January 2013, 08:17 AM   #1347
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...Pretty tiny sample, and heat losses must be really huge during its burning.
Especially considering that the exotherm (heat release) was spread out over a span of several MINUTES. Plenty of time for such tiny probes to revert to ambient temperature every time a few molecules react. (For fun, we could estimate how many iron oxide grains there were in an average specimenm and how many of those would have reacted per second if they had reacted at all - which they, of course, did not, as evidenced by the red color of much of the residue and the visible presence of rhombic grains in Fig. 21)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 08:17 AM   #1348
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Well, Sunstealer, it basically depends if you would have at least some fun, writing such a summary (comparison of papers). If not, forget it

Another remark as for Fig. 6 from the paper of Gash et al:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=7265

Doesn't this curve actually show what I have been interested today in, i.e. the temperature elevation of (authentic) nanothermite chips when ignited? Unfortunately, there are no data about the mass of this sample.

The temperature increase/difference is 50 degrees (very, very low increase in fact), but it is related to 1 mg of sample. I stay confused so far, not sure what it means in fact.

Btw, typical WTC red-gray chip (its red layer) has dimensions 0.1x0.1x0.002 cm, i.e. its volume is 0.00002 cm3. Its mass should therefore be around 0.00002 g, which is only 0.02 milligram! Pretty tiny sample, and heat losses must be really huge during its burning.
From the paper

Quote:
At approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7mg
You could possibly get an idea of weight from those dimensions and Fig 2.
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 18th January 2013, 08:18 AM   #1349
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"To clarify: Jim Millette said DSC testing was unnecessary because his other tests conclusively showed chemical signatures that were NOT consistent with thermite."
If Dr. Millette is so certain that his testing was infallible, where is the expected professional curiosity when a strong contradiction occurs?

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

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

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

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

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

So turn up the damn oven and take a look.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 08:25 AM   #1350
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If Dr. Millette is so certain that his testing was infallible, where is the expected professional curiosity when a strong contradiction occurs?
That should tell you something!

You're doing it wrong, AGAIN!
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 18th January 2013, 08:30 AM   #1351
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Here's a thought experiment you can all try to show how MM's reasoning is faulty.

Imagine you have no senses - no taste, no smell, no hearing, no touch and no sight.

Those are your 5 available tests you can perform, but currently you don't have any of them.

Now, imagine that someone puts an apple on the table in front of you and says you can choose to use 2 out of 5 of your available senses in order to identify the object.

Which two senses would you choose? Logically you'd pick the senses that would give you the most information to deduce what the object was.

MM is telling you that because Millette didn't listen to the apple then we must disregard the data obtained by using sight and taste.

Why would you put your ear to the apple and listen to it in order to find out what it was when you'd already opened your eyes and taken a nice big juicy bite?
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 18th January 2013, 08:36 AM   #1352
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Why would you put your ear to the apple and listen to it in order to find out what it was when you'd already opened your eyes and taken a nice big juicy bite?
Religious agenda?
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 18th January 2013, 08:54 AM   #1353
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Sunstealer, as for "From the paper, Quote: At approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7mg."

OK, but I considered only red layer in this my estimate (which has much lower density than gray layer) and "my" dimensions were lower (1x1 mm). Does not really matter... We can simply conclude that all chips had a mass below 1 mg.


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If Dr. Millette is so certain that his testing was infallible, where is the expected professional curiosity when a strong contradiction occurs?

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

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

(The rest of your post is again weird. There is simply no way how the chips with the composition of paints (kaolinite as pigment, no proper oxidant for polymeric binder) can be miraculously transformed into deadly pyrotechnics. These chips were materials employed for the protection of WTC steel, not for its destruction.)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 18th January 2013 at 09:25 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 18th January 2013, 09:22 AM   #1354
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,863
Speaking of tests :

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The Bentham authors claim in their paper they have FTIR data.
They have held it back for almost 4 years now.
Why?
Because Millette - http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/...aper/index.htm

"The FTIR spectra of the red layer were consistent with reference spectra of an epoxy resin and kaolin clay (Figure 8) (Appendix C)."

Quote:
Jeff Farrer has TEM-data.
He has held it back for over 3 years.
Why?
Because Millette - "TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 19 and 20). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F)."


Quote:
Steven Jones claims he has XRD data from an independent lab.
He has held it back for 3 years.
Why?
Because Oystein http://67.228.115.45/showthread.php?t=231314&page=30

"So this shows that not only did Tillotson and Gash find the expected thermite reaction products, it also shows that the reactants are mostly gone. Remember T&G knew exactly that their material contained 90% thermite (ca. 23% Al, ca. 67% Fe2O3, if they aimed at a stoichiometric mix - the rest organic residue of the gel process), so there is their proof that thermite changed into thermite products - all four substances are accounted for.

Contrast this to Harrit e.al. who
- did not prove metallic Al before the DSC test
- did not prove Al2O3 after the DSC test
- did not prove absence of metallic Fe before the DSC test
- only have vague evidence of some possible metallic Fe after the reaction
All they have is some proportion (of unknown quantitiy) of iron oxide before the test - AND they also have some proportion (again, of unknown quantity) of iron oxide after the test, so they
- did not prove that Fe2O3 was reduced during the test"
__________________
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.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 18th January 2013 at 09:25 AM.
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 18th January 2013, 09:24 AM   #1355
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"The Bentham Paper shows that the scientists studied the red chips extensively before igniting them."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Ok. Can you please quote any passage from the paper that identifies a chip that was first "studied extensively" and then ignited?
(Your answer should be: "No, I can't")
"
That is such an amateur question. Proper and accurate record keeping is foremost in any research scientist's mind. Certainly you do not expect them to publicly prepare and publish all their records?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"Not being fools, the scientists documented their findings before subjecting each red chip to an ignition temperature."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Ok. Did they in fact subject each red chip to an ignition temperature?
How do you know?
Is any of that documented in the paper?
Did they subject chip a to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip b to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip c to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject chip d to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject the MEK-spoaked chip to an ignition temperature?
Did they subject that multi-layered chip with significant Pb to an ignition temperature?
(You answers should be, in order: "No. I don't know. No. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.")
"
In plain english, I am saying that after making this sensational discovery, the scientists quickly realized the comparison importance of the pre-ignition records.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"In this manner, they would have a record for each red chip, regardless of whether it ignited or not."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Ok. Where is this record? Is there any mention in the paper that such a record exists?
(Your answers should be, respectively: "There is no such record. No.")
"
That question was covered by my previous answer.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"Assuming they halved each sample, they would also have an un-ignited portion available for further investigation."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Ok. Did they in fact halve (or is that half) any of their red chips, particularly those presented in the paper?
(Your answer should be: "I don't know, probably not")
"
It really would depend on how many positive sample run-throughs they wanted to completely document.

Certainly it should be reproducible.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"After ignition there proved to be a lot more to be observed than a dead witch."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Well, what did they ignite? A witch? A duck?
(Your answer should be: "I have no *********** clue, because that DSC-amateur Farrer failed to tell us")


You see, all those answers would be "I, MM, don't know" or "no, these scientists didn't in factr do what I assert".

I expect that every question you don't address in your next reply is answered by you the way I tell you. So you may limit yourself to addressing those questions where you disagree with me prescribed answers)


(Oh, and I'd bet a rack of beer that MM will ignore these questions )
"
You certainly have your own way of seeing things.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 18th January 2013 at 09:32 AM.
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 09:59 AM   #1356
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Sunstealer:
Quote:
if Millette did DSC and microspheres where found post testing then truthers will claim thermite even though all the other data shows that the material is paint
Not if we beat them at their own game and isolate and identify both kinds of chips and test them. They have admitted that some are paint so we test those and make sure they have a gray layer so we get the iron spheres. Game Over.

Quote:
There is no getting away from this.
MM will not even commit to agreeing
Truthers have pointed out a way to "get away" by claiming Millette has not identified the right chips. Chips "a to d" should be the same but I agree with MM up to a point, that truthers dispute Millette chips, with titanium and lack of tests.

Quote:
samples a-d are the same as the vast majority of samples Millette separated and analysed.
Maybe Millette chips are not all the same? His paper is not as neat as Harrit paper and this is a weakness. Why give twoofies the ammo? This is why I suggest Millette follow Harrit "to the letter", and maybe he could actually narrow down the pool of chips that match Harrit
jtl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 10:11 AM   #1357
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,378
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

You certainly have your own way of seeing things.

MM
This is precious. You're proof is that they are "scientists so they must have".

That's called a belief.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 10:37 AM   #1358
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This is precious. You're proof is that they are "scientists so they must have".

That's called a belief.
Funny how I things go in circles

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=25

I noted in that post nearly 4 years ago now that their paper lacked any way of following which chip had been subject to which test. It's a major failing in the paper and one that would have been picked up before a peer review was even sought.
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 18th January 2013, 10:48 AM   #1359
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Oystein:
Quote:
Millette DID follow Harrit's study to the letter...

In addition, he selected chips whose XEDS spectra from the gray and from the red layer had the same elemental composition as chips a-d.
I do not agree; The ignition tests are missing, and I think Millette could have followed other tests more closely, such as showing that chips remain brittle after MEK and as I already told Sunstealer I think there is too much XEDS clutter to rule out differences.

Quote:
- The MEK-soaked chip wasn't tested in the DSC
- Chips a-d weren't tested in the DSC
...with the spherical iron residue. And look what you see at ca. 4.5 keV: A clear peak for titanium!
I am not so sure this is a strong argument. It seems to assume that there was no structure to Harrit paper and that chips a to d somehow did not represent chips tested via MEK and ignition. And isn´t the main spectra for chips "a to d" supposed to be clean surface(no ti) vs contaminated MEK and ignition chips?
jtl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2013, 10:58 AM   #1360
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,102
In the Bentham paper, page 23, they state:
Quote:
Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite” reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred to as “super-thermite” [20, 22]. We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study

Then, on page 29 of the Bentham paper, they state:
Quote:
As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 ˚C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 ˚C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
Have they done this "future study/comparison"? If not, how can anyone use this paper as proof that ANY form of thermite was used? They already state that conventional thermite was NOT found, yet have not done a study/test (that I know of) that shows similarities to "super-thermite".

Have they done tests on other materials, suspected of providing the same results (paint, resin, etc.), to prove that it was NOT any of those?
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
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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