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 20th January 2013, 07:16 AM   #1401
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
So lets knock another claim down.

Quote:
For general surface analysis in the SEM, dust samples were mounted to carbon conductive tabs. The samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified. In order to more closely observe the characteristics of the red and gray layers, and to eliminate the possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles, several red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples were fractured.
The clean, cross-section surfaces were then studied by
BSE imaging and XEDS.
Page 9 from Harrit et al.

and

Quote:
Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be
due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard
material in the buildings.
So they don't break the chip in half and perform EDX on the fresh red surface.

In the Harrit et al paper Fig 14 says



again re-iterating that they think contamination is present.

Truthers have been arguing that the chip soaked in MEK was contaminated and that's the reason why it has a different EDX spectrum for the red layer than samples a-d.

So lets read Millette.

Quote:
Methods

In order to confirm that the samples chosen had the characteristics of WTC dust, the samples were examined by stereomicroscope and by polarized light microscopy (PLM) according to the procedures described in Turner et al., 20054 (Figures 2 and 3). The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives5 and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison.6 The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al.1 are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4). The spectrum may also contain small peaks related to other elements. To that end, the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.

1. The dust sample particles contained in a plastic bag were drawn across a magnet and those attracted to the magnet were collected (Figure 5).


2. Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water.

3. The particles were dried and mounted on a carbon adhesive film on an SEM stub and photographed (Figure 6).

4. Analysis of the surfaces of the chips was done by SEM-EDS at 20 kV without any added conductive coating (Figures 7 and 8).
So there we have it - Millette washed all of his red/gray chips that he separated using the same method as Harrit et al. Therefore, the chips would be free from contamination when EDX of the red layer is performed. Therefore, if contaminants have been removed then we would not expect to see any EDX spectra of the red layers matching Fig 14 in Harrit et al because the Ca and S would be washed away. We would also have spectra that would more readily match samples a-d rather than Fig 14.

So lets have a look at some of Millette's red layer EDX spectra and see if any match Fig 14 in Harrit et al.



Yep, loads do and that's just the ones that have Zn in the spectrum. N.B. Many of Millette's samples show Na and sometimes Na and Zn for the same peak. This is the EDX programme labelling these peaks. They will be Zn in reality.

So there you have it - they same separation method used, chips cleaned, but the same spectrum comes up time and time again that matches Fig 14. We can therefore conclude that Fig 14 is not contaminated to any significance.

That therefore means that Fig 14 material is not the same as a-d yet Harrit, Jones and the truthers maintain that it's the same material and it's thermite. This is impossible.

I won't wait for MM to comment. lol.
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 20th January 2013, 08:04 AM   #1402
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"Here, I can agree with you. Millette can do this simple experiment. Only I doubt that he can really explain expected microspheres in the "ash" in detail (which processes exactly took place), but I can be wrong This is just my opinion.
Just a question (to be sure): do you believe that chips would do exactly the same things when heated in DSC device and in ordinary oven, respectively (considering the same/very similar heating rate)?"
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"With the DSC, the scientists reported using a "rising temperature method of ignition", but they also tested with flame-ignition."
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
"And heating to 3000°C+ is indeed the ultimate proof that a thermite reaction was started at 430°C. "
I mentioned the flame test in response to Ivan Kminek's query about whether another method of heating heating ("ordinary oven") would produce similar results.

In that test, the scientists applied a small small oxyacetylene flame for a few seconds before obtaining the expected reaction which produced debris containing melted iron-rich semi-spherical shapes. But they acknowledge that more definitive results were obtained by the DSC because it accurately revealed a temperature around 430C at which ignition consistently occurred producing iron-rich microspheres and iron-rich semi-spherical shapes in the resulting debris.

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 20th January 2013, 08:52 AM   #1403
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Dr. Ferrer
"After igniting these chips in the DSC, we found micro-spheres that were very shiny in appearance. Some of them were almost glassy, a little translucent and we found that these micro-spheres had the identical or very similar composition as the spheres that Steve [Dr. Jones] was finding in the dust samples. They were also very similar to spheres found in commercial thermite. Once you ignite commercial thermite you also get micro-spheres and the composition was very very similar. And that lead to the conclusion of the paper which was, we've got some form of thermite in these red/gray chips. And I think it is a very strong conclusion."
Look for yourself.




The top XEDS spectrum (Fig. (24) is for ignited commercial thermite.
The bottom XEDS spectrum (Fig. (25) is for an ignited red/gray chip.

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 20th January 2013, 09:23 AM   #1404
Starving for Truth
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Look for yourself.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5...andfig25r1.png


The top XEDS spectrum (Fig. (24) is for ignited commercial thermite.
The bottom XEDS spectrum (Fig. (25) is for an ignited red/gray chip.

MM
Looks like nanothermite.
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 20th January 2013, 09:31 AM   #1405
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
As quoted by Sunstealer;

Originally Posted by Harrit et al
"…to eliminate the possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles, several red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples were fractured. The clean, cross-section surfaces were then studied by BSE imaging and XEDS."
The actual quote in its full context;

Originally Posted by Harrit et al
"For general surface analysis in the SEM, dust samples were mounted to carbon conductive tabs. The samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified. In order to more closely observe the characteristics of the red and gray layers, and to eliminate the possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles, several red/graychips from each of the four WTC dust samples were fractured. The clean, cross-section surfaces were then studied byBSE imaging and XEDS."
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"…So there we have it - Millette washed all of his red/gray chips that he separated using the same method as Harrit et al. Therefore, the chips would be free from contamination when EDX of the red layer is performed. Therefore, if contaminants have been removed then we would not expect to see any EDX spectra of the red layers matching Fig 14 in Harrit et al because the Ca and S would be washed away. We would also have spectra that would more readily match samples a-d rather than Fig 14."
bolding is mine

So there you have what?

I see a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the truth.

Interesting how you deliberately left out the part about Dr. Harrit et al, NOT washing the chips?

And you believe that because Dr. Millette's chips were; "washed in clean water", that they were now free from surface contamination?

Only the physical removal of the surface layer (as performed by Dr. Harrit et al) could be expected to remove most of the embedded surface contaminants.

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 20th January 2013, 09:45 AM   #1406
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
MM - go back and read my post because your reading comprehension as usual is poor. In post http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1402

I clearly quote Harrit et al on page 9.

Quote:
For general surface analysis in the SEM, dust samples were mounted to carbon conductive tabs. The samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified. In order to more closely observe the characteristics of the red and gray layers, and to eliminate the possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles, several red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples were fractured.
The clean, cross-section surfaces were then studied by BSE imaging and XEDS.
So why are you trying to divert the thread? I'll ask the mods to remove your post because it adds nothing. And yes washing in water will remove the surface contaminant - if you had worked in a metallurgical or forensic lab you'd know this was the case.

You are doing your usual tactics of trying to nit pick rather than address the point which is that Millette and Harrit had the same paint samples which I have proven by analysis of the data in both papers. Everyone can see that you will do everything in your power to never address the argument.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 20th January 2013 at 09:50 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 20th January 2013, 09:48 AM   #1407
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Look for yourself.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5...andfig25r1.png


The top XEDS spectrum (Fig. (24) is for ignited commercial thermite.
The bottom XEDS spectrum (Fig. (25) is for an ignited red/gray chip.

MM
What are we supposed to be looking at? These two are not the same.
__________________
"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 20th January 2013, 09:52 AM   #1408
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,952
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Look for yourself.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5...andfig25r1.png


The top XEDS spectrum (Fig. (24) is for ignited commercial thermite.
The bottom XEDS spectrum (Fig. (25) is for an ignited red/gray chip.

MM
Thanks for joining the debunkers finally, MM!

Or did you forget your glasses?
__________________
"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 20th January 2013, 09:57 AM   #1409
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

What MM is now kinda claiming, the reason Millete did not find thermite is because he washed the chips ?

Well in my reckoning, that is saying the chips are not thermite and it was a residue on the chips
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 20th January 2013, 10:32 AM   #1410
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Sunstealer: The data before MEK soaking is an EDX spectrum of the red layer. The data after soaking is an EDX mapping of the sample for individual elements. These are chalk and cheese and cannot be considered the same thing.
I donīt agree about chalk and cheese. Both maps show which elements go together, but the paper does not show spectra of clean surface of that chip before MEK and that is a weakness because it is harder to make sure it is the same as the other chips.

Quote:
What Harrit et al are observing in their MEK test is the migration of aluminates in the sample. This has been discussed in some depth before.
That's a tell tale sign for an aluminosilicate in this case kaolin. Laclade paint contains kaolin but Tnemec red doesn't. When we look at the MEK chip red layer EDX we don't see this characteristic, the Si peak is higher.
Your charts say both paints have aluminates, but are they not the same? Why do you say only LaClede has kaolin? Can one or both aluminates separate with MEK and leave al?


Quote:
We know Millette has Tnemec and most likely Laclade
You do not seem sure about the LaClede, why? Millette does not seem to agree with you about Tnemec:

Quote:
According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17 55 out of the 177 different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments. However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.
This seems like a definite weakness, no positive id. How many paints were used and why the focus on these two brands?

Quote:
Yep, loads do and that's just the ones that have Zn in the spectrum. N.B. Many of Millette's samples show Na and sometimes Na and Zn for the same peak. This is the EDX programme labelling these peaks. They will be Zn in reality.

So there you have it - they same separation method used, chips cleaned, but the same spectrum comes up time and time again that matches Fig 14. We can therefore conclude that Fig 14 is not contaminated to any significance.
There are some major flaws here. You use washed Millette chips to show similarity to one Harrit chip that is supposed to be contaminated, this is not a very strong argument. If the Zn in fig 14 in not contamination why does it disappear after MEK? Fig 16, 17, 18, no Zn, so again not a very strong argument. No Zn no Tnemec?
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 20th January 2013, 10:46 AM   #1411
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Africanus: This doesn't contradict Millette's results. Millette's Chip remained hard, too as neither the kaolin nor the epoxy was dissolved
What? There is definitely a contradiction because Millette notes his chips soften. Harrit says his chips remain hard but the compared paint samples soften.
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 20th January 2013, 11:14 AM   #1412
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
What? There is definitely a contradiction because Millette notes his chips soften. Harrit says his chips remain hard but the compared paint samples soften.
Please can you quote your reference to chips staying hard.
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 20th January 2013, 11:21 AM   #1413
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Starving for Truth View Post
Looks like nanothermite.
Except for that thermite reaction, why didn't the chips after ignition burn like thermite?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 11:27 AM   #1414
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
pgimeno: You are applying different standards to compare. The shapes of several of the pictures I posted are essentially the same: a large peak after a slower increment. You should be aware by now that the expected total energy release of thermite is much less than that observed in the DSC traces of the chips, therefore what the DSC trace shows can not materially be thermite. It is a physical impossibility. On what basis do you dare to compare the DSC traces if it is self-evident they do not show the same material burning to start with? What significance does it have that the width matches, if the height, the shape, the peak temperature and the endothermic areas don't?
You canīt call your peak "large" without having the same Y-axis, as it might as well be a tiny blimp that would hardly register on the Harrit graph. The point of the comparison seems quite clear also, to show that Harrit chips have similarly narrow peak as known superthermite and I think everyone agrees that no one has actually compared paint. Maybe this DSC method to compare is not very accurate so this seems like an easy chance for Millette to debunk Harrit.

The other factors are probably not important, because there are so many variations of superthermite with different compositions and then you have the additional organic elements to consider. The ignition temperatures, total output and endothermic peaks should vary accordingly. But maybe it is possible to find faults with some of those factors with careful research. Another possibility for Millette.

Quote:
But they fell short of doing this, therefore they didn't really show that a thermite reaction occurred
They do show molten iron and they do compare directly to known thermite residue. This kind of nit pick seems weak without Millette ignition results.

Quote:
On what basis do you dare to compare
Really?
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 20th January 2013, 11:40 AM   #1415
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Spanx: Please can you quote your reference to chips staying hard.
Already quoted Harrit yesterday, in this post.

Thats Harrit page 27

It would also be helpful if you all would give me links to truther arguments against your points, especially technical stuff.
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 20th January 2013, 11:47 AM   #1416
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I donīt agree about chalk and cheese. Both maps show which elements go together, but the paper does not show spectra of clean surface of that chip before MEK and that is a weakness because it is harder to make sure it is the same as the other chips.
That's the point. A map taking in the entire area of the chip is not the same as a spot. Methinks you need to look up information on what a SEM is, it's operation and the additional tools that accompany the machine.

It isn't the same as the other chips period. There is no way it can be. Resolution of the SEM will easily pick out particles of contaminant so you'd never select an area or spot with contamination in to perform EDX (unless you were specifically interested in the contaminant particle). Basic stuff there.

Remember that there are people on this forum who have worked with SEM and other scientific tools. JREF forum member "The Animus" has extensive experience and has commented numerous times.

If you go to the origin of paint thread you'll see he even produces a EDX spectrum of what Laclade paint should look like using standard industry software based on the composition in the given specification. They match very well.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Your charts say both paints have aluminates, but are they not the same?
No they don't. Don't know how you are getting that info. Aluminosilicate is not an aluminate.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Why do you say only LaClede has kaolin?
Because the specification for Tnemec red does not contain kaolin or any other aluminosilicate. Laclade doesn't contain any aluminates.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Can one or both aluminates separate with MEK and leave al?
It's possible that particles of aluminate will separate from other particles due to density differences. They aren't picking up pure Al but Al from an aluminate - the O in the spectrum gives it away. Again there has also been debate regarding a false positive for Al due to the SEM stub being made of Aluminium and most of the Al is seen near the sample edge.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You do not seem sure about the LaClede, why? :
I'm perfectly sure it's Laclade and I'd bet everything I own on it. I was right about kaolin being present days after the pape was released - Millette confirms this. I was right about the rhombohedral Fe2O3 before Harrit et al even though I used the data in their paper - they needed TEM to confirm it. I was right about the matrix being epoxy days after the paper came out and Millette confirms this. I was right about the gray layer being oxidised steel before Harrit et al knew what it was, even though I was using the same data as them, Millette confirms this.

I've been right all along, why would I not be sure about Laclade? The only reason I don't say it is, is because I'm 99.5% sure it's Laclade, but data from Millette cannot confirm this 100%. However, if you look at the Laclade paint specification we observe all the components bar Strontium Chromate.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Millette does not seem to agree with you about Tnemec:
How could he?

Thought experiment.

In front of you is a bowl of fruit containing Apples, pears, oranges and bananas.

Pick out all the apples and put them in another bowl. Throw the other bowl away. Now examine the apples in detail. Are they apples? Now answer this - do you have any bananas?

If you can reason that out then you will know why Millette will rule out Tnemec.

Millette had a criteria, a specification to stick to. He had to separate chips by magnet. He had to then look at all the chips through a microscope and remove only red chips. He then had to look at the EDX for each red layer and discard all the red chips that didn't match EDX spectra from samples a-d in Harrit et al. He then analysed these chips further.

This is very simple to understand why the samples he further analysed were not Tnemec.

If Millette had been given the criteria to match EDX spectra to Fig 14 instead then he wouldn't find any Laclade. Guess what he would find? Yep, Tnemec. He can only comment on what he has analysed that match the criteria. Tnemec didn't match the criteria. That's why I have used Fig 14 as the criteria and matched half a dozen EDX spectra from Millette's chips that match.

Harrit et al separated both Laclade and Tnemec. So did Millette. That's not surprising because they both used the same method!


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This seems like a definite weakness, no positive id.
You sound like a truther. Remember the apples above? Does it matter whether the apples are granny smiths or golden delicious or cooking apples? No, they are all apples and not pears.

Same with the paint, doesn't matter whether you can find a perfect match or not, even though we have got an exceptionally good match to two known paints that were used on the WTCs, what matters is the samples are paint and not thermite. The data says the chips are paint adhered to oxidised steel.

Focus on what Millette says when he concludes it's paint. Paint, paint, paint. He doesn't say anything else. If he concludes it's paint then why is there any weakness? It's paint, get over it.



Originally Posted by jtl View Post
How many paints were used and why the focus on these two brands?
No one knows how many paints were used. We don't focus on any brands. What we have done is come to the conclusions that the data points us to.

We know of only two paints used in the WTC from the NIST report. They are Laclade and Tnemec red. Why would we focus on Duluxe egg shell blue gloss when the data points us in the direction of the two paints known to have been used?

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
There are some major flaws here. You use washed Millette chips to show similarity to one Harrit chip that is supposed to be contaminated, this is not a very strong argument.
No, there are no major flaws at all.

The point is that truthers claim the MEK chip is contaminated. I have shown that some of Millette's chips are exactly the same material as this MEK chip even after they have been washed. This means that there is no contamination on the MEK chip and therefore it is significantly different from chips a-d. a-d = Laclade. MEK chip = Tnemec.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
If the Zn in fig 14 in not contamination why does it disappear after MEK? Fig 16, 17, 18, no Zn, so again not a very strong argument. No Zn no Tnemec?
Oh, the Zn is there. Definitely there in Fig 18. You can't see it because you don't know what you are looking at. I can see it and I suspect that Oystein will too as will anyone else who's educated themselves in SEM EDX. You see this is where amateurs just get completely stuck because they don't have the specialist knowledge. Can you work out why it's there but you can't see it?

Just because there is a label on a peak it doesn't mean that the peak is labelled correctly.

The peak at 1KeV is labelled as Na. This is wrong. It should be Zn. In fact most EDX packages will label this peak both Na and Zn, because these two elements k-alpha and k-beta lines fall in the same place namely at 1 KeV and the software cannot separate them. You can see this on Millette's EDX spectra.

This is a handy site for comparing x-ray energies for SEM EDX http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html)


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 20th January 2013, 11:51 AM   #1417
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Quote:
The initial objective was to compare the behav- ior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong or- ganic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK. It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form.
To clarify, you are talking about the 10 hour MEK soak test and not the 55 hr soak?

Last edited by Spanx; 20th January 2013 at 11:52 AM.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 12:21 PM   #1418
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
... They do show molten iron and they do compare directly to known thermite residue. This kind of nit pick seems weak without Millette ignition results.

Really?
The old iron sphere scam? Did you fall for that one?

Melted iron? Where? The stuff they had was never hot enough to melt iron. Iron spheres are not proof of thermite, they are proof Harrit and Jones lie about things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ9wSD4Hcys

Millette found no thermite, Harrit and Jones make up delusions about 911.
What is a delusion, thinking Harrit's paper is a factor on 911. There was no thermite evidence on any WTC steel. Makes the paper a lie when you understand Harrit claims tons of thermite was used to destroy the WTC. Is Harrit a liar? Don't need Millette paper to understand there was not thermite.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 02:02 PM   #1419
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Sunstealer: It's possible that particles of aluminate will separate from other particles due to density differences. They aren't picking up pure Al but Al from an aluminate - the O in the spectrum gives it away. Again there has also been debate regarding a false positive for Al due to the SEM stub being made of Aluminium and most of the Al is seen near the sample edge.
So this could perhaps explain the MEK chip but I donīt think the part about the "o in the spectrum" is right. Harrit says there is always some al oxidized along with pure al in superthermite and that they calculated the ratios to show there must be some pure al. Could the MEK somehow purify some of the al?

I remember the debate about the aluminum stub but I also remember getting a beating for it because the authors rule it out. There was some debate somewhere where Harrit argues with some other scientist who brought it up, canīt remember the name right now.

I am pretty sure there is some pure al in there but why is that a big deal? Could you really not find it in paint?

Quote:
No, there are no major flaws at all.
Common, you canīt use washed Millette chips to compare to the Harrit dirty chip before MEK. You have to compare clean Harrit chip to clean Millette chip.
And the argument falls apart when the signals start disappearing after MEK. Your statement is not true:
Quote:
there is no contamination on the MEK chip
Quote:
Oh, the Zn is there. Definitely there in Fig 18. You can't see it because you don't know what you are looking at. I can see it and I suspect that Oystein will too as will anyone else who's educated themselves in SEM EDX. You see this is where amateurs just get completely stuck because they don't have the specialist knowledge. Can you work out why it's there but you can't see it?
You are way to sure about yourself. You compared dirty chip fig14 to some Millette chip and also known Tnemec chip from Jones. To begin there is an obvious problem because the Tnemec chip has much bigger Zn peak than fig14 and Millette chip, so that alone casts doubt on Zn in chip = Tnemec.
But the real problem starts when the Zn starts to disappear after MEK. You may think you can see some Zn traces there but it is obvious that there is no longer as much Zn there. This seems a lot more consistent with the Zn being surface contamination than it being part of the chip. But the real point is that if you think those figures show same level of Zn before and after MEK, you should publish or give the info to Millette and let him do it.

Quote:
jtl: Millette does not seem to agree with you about Tnemec:
Sunstealer: How could he?
You sometimes appear as someone very scientifically minded but other times you just make authoritative statements. Tone it down a bit. You should not claim to know for sure that Milletta has Tnemec when he rules it out it seems.

Quote:
No one knows how many paints were used. We don't focus on any brands. What we have done is come to the conclusions that the data points us to.

We know of only two paints used in the WTC from the NIST report. They are Laclade and Tnemec red.
These are very conflictive statements and not at all in line with Millette and Harrit who both focus on Tnemec.
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 20th January 2013, 02:20 PM   #1420
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
What? There is definitely a contradiction because Millette notes his chips soften. Harrit says his chips remain hard but the compared paint samples soften.
1. No, Harrit doesn't say that his chips remained hard. Futhermore I'd like to know how aluminum should be set free from the platelets, if you are not able to remove the organic matrix. Harrit's result contradicts his claim of the successful separation and migration of aluminum.

2. The paint sample is not specified in the paper, so the comparison is just nonsense.

3. You are focussing on one side effect instead of the important thing: Neither Harrit nor Millette were able to remove the organic matrix.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I donīt agree about chalk and cheese. Both maps show which elements go together, but the paper does not show spectra of clean surface of that chip before MEK and that is a weakness because it is harder to make sure it is the same as the other chips.
As I stated before, the two maps in Harrit's paper show chips from different samples.

Quote:
Your charts say both paints have aluminates, but are they not the same? Why do you say only LaClede has kaolin? Can one or both aluminates separate with MEK and leave al?
Sunstealer says this, because he knows the composition of the Tnemec and the LaClede primer. If you want to know them, take a look in the NIST report:

Tnemec Primer: NCSTAR1-3C, Table D1, p. 438

LaClede Primer: NCSTAR1-6B, Appendix B

Quote:
There are some major flaws here. You use washed Millette chips to show similarity to one Harrit chip that is supposed to be contaminated, this is not a very strong argument. If the Zn in fig 14 in not contamination why does it disappear after MEK? Fig 16, 17, 18, no Zn, so again not a very strong argument. No Zn no Tnemec?
Sorry, but what source tells you that the Zinc disappeared ofter soaking in MEK?

Last edited by Africanus; 20th January 2013 at 02:37 PM.
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 02:32 PM   #1421
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Sunstealer:

It isn't the same as the other chips period. There is no way it can be.

I've been right all along, why would I not be sure about Laclade?

You sound like a truther.

Focus on what Millette says when he concludes it's paint. Paint, paint, paint. He doesn't say anything else. If he concludes it's paint then why is there any weakness? It's paint, get over it.
If I sound like a truther you must sound like an arrogant preacher, and it is disappointing. I am trying to get you all to improve Millette paper, but it seems to be very difficult to even get any of you to admit to any problems, or even weak points. You say paint, period. By the way, there seem to be about three people here that actually know anything about Harrit paper and the debate.
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 20th January 2013, 02:40 PM   #1422
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Africanus: No, Harrit doesn't say that his chips remained hard.

what source tells you that the Zinc disappeared ofter soaking in MEK?
I already provided reference w page number for hard chips. Already referred graphs in Harrit paper for evident disappearance of Zn.
Save you comments for the WC, you donīt know what you are talking about.

Last edited by jtl; 20th January 2013 at 02:44 PM.
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 20th January 2013, 02:46 PM   #1423
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
It is not really helpful or true to call them uneducated and gullible. If you really think you have debunked the paper why donīt you publish your findings? I have read some of your posts but I donīt know if I read them all. I donīt think you have answered my questions, and you donīt seem to acknowledge any problems with Millette paper. I am sure you are ultimately right about Harrit chips but I would like to see it confirmed with published research and including all the tests. I would like more comments from you and Kminek on my posts.
You, jtl, are uneducated and gullible if you repeat the stupid truther question "why hasn't Millette done a DSC test", but refuse to accept the answer already given: "because he already had answered the question if the chips are thermitic already with a loud and clear NO. DSC test is incompetent and unnecessary to corroborate that result, and incapable of falsifying it. Therefore, it ought not be done."

Millette will eventually publish his findings. Please state NOW if you will accept that Harrit has been refuted once Millette has fully published a papet that unequivocally refutes Harrit!

Several of your questions are inane.

There are no real problems with Millette's preliminary report to be acknowledged. It is therefore a very good, thorough, systematic piece of scientific work that already answered our main question, and satisfied the reason why we commissioned his study in the first place: He confirmed that Harrit's chips a-d are paint, and not thermitic, and thus refuted the Harrit paper. If you don't understand that this is so, then you are insufficiently informed, or lack the ability to understand, or are in denial.

You ask questions of us, about Millette. Would you also want to ask Harrit and his co-authors some questions about their work? If yes, which?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 03:07 PM   #1424
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I am trying to get you all to improve Millette paper, but it seems to be very difficult to even get any of you to admit to any problems, or even weak points.
To gain some focus: Can you please give us a list of no more than three main weaknesses that you perceive in the Millette paper, and why you think they are weaknesses? Please make sure you argue your opinion in the context of the objective of the Millette paper!

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You say paint, period.
Yes, Harrit's chips a-d are paint, period.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
By the way, there seem to be about three people here that actually know anything about Harrit paper and the debate.
Can you give us the about three names?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 03:09 PM   #1425
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by jtl View Post

This sort of thing does not help you:
Help to achieve what? You do acknowledge the fact no one gives a rats ass about the Harrit paper? It has not found any academic following.
__________________
"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 20th January 2013, 03:13 PM   #1426
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post

It would also be helpful if you all would give me links to truther arguments against your points, especially technical stuff.
Mmmm I thought you were the one with all the knowledge, or at least that's what you keep telling everyone.

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 20th January 2013, 03:23 PM   #1427
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Common, you canīt use washed Millette chips to compare to the Harrit dirty chip before MEK. You have to compare clean Harrit chip to clean Millette chip.
You are wrong again, Millette compared his chips to the fractured chips of the Harrit paper. It seems that you don't even know the basics.

Quote:
But the real problem starts when the Zn starts to disappear after MEK. You may think you can see some Zn traces there but it is obvious that there is no longer as much Zn there.
1. What is the source for your disappearance claim?

2. Why is it obvious, that no more Zinc is in the chip after MEK soaking?

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I already provided reference w page number for hard chips. Already referred graphs in Harrit paper for evident disappearance of Zn.
Save you comments for the WC, you donīt know what you are talking about.
I think that I know exactly what I am talking about. But it seems, that you are the one, who doesn't know what he is talking about. Your accusations of Millette and Sunstealer are hilarious. You make claims based on Harrit's paper, although Harrit's results are very shaky. You trust him although he never links his spectra to a given chip, you argue with the EDX map of the MEK chip although this map represents only a very small part of the chip and although it is not clear, if this part is representative of the chip. Millette's approach is in marked contrast of Harrits'. He always links the spectra to a particular chip, he always shows the area of the cross section, where the spectrum was recorded and he made EDX maps of a complete chip (and this chip has nearly the same size as Harrit's MEK chip).
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 03:29 PM   #1428
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You got to be kidding. I already said I dont believe the bomb conspiracy
I don't believe you.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
but that is no reason not to criticize Millette, especially glaring DSC omissions
Not an omission. Millette not doing DSC is a clear sign he is a cometent researcher with lots of expertise in just the right disciplines.

DSC test is stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, jbl.

Need that any clearer?

It is moronic, idiotic, the mark of imbeciles.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
and weak points like titanium chips.
Nothing weak about titanium chips.

Look, Harrit e.al. found Titanium in their chips:
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...rial_Fig25.jpg

Look, Harrit e.al. found more Ti:
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...07-labeled.jpg
There's an unlabeled bump in the spectrum of chip d right where the Ti-signal is expected. There is a bit of Titanium in their chips. It's a common and expected trace contamination in kaolin, due to it being a natural mineral and thus subject to natural impurities.

(We already know that Harrit e.al. did not reproduce all the element labels in their spectra that their device and software found. Compare this (top) to this - those are both the exact same spectrum from the same specimen: chip a. One only shows C, O, Al, Si and Fe, the other also shows S, Ca, Cr and Sr)

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
The paper as is will not refute Harrit. The DSC alone will refute Millette if he does not have tests that show known paint can do the same things as Harrit chips.
jbl, please answer the following two questions with YES or NO, so I can see how much or little you understand already:
1. Do you understand and acknowledge that Harrit e.al. probably looked at different kinds of red--gray chips?
2. Do you understand and acknowledge that Harrit e.al. did NOT provide any indication at all which kind or kinds of chips they tested in the DSC?

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This sort of thing does not help you:
You quote-mined me.
Do you understand that I didn't say "You, jtl, are uneducated and gullible"? Can you please quote what I said instead? This is a test of your reading abillity and your honesty.
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 21st January 2013, 06:50 AM   #1429
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
jtl: Hehe Since you've been already successful to offend almost all participants in this debate, I'm almost tempted to tell you: Just Enjoy the Truth

But, let me go back to two of your points.

1) You wrote: "The paper compares the DSC release to known superthermite paper and it seems like a fact that they are similar."

Do you think that all DSC peaks so broad (heat release in several minutes) can be regarded as proofs of thermitic reaction? No, since thermitic reaction, when triggered, must be extremely rapid. Therefore, no curve in Fig. 29, including this one for authentic nanothermite, can be regarded as some evidence of thermitic reaction. They are just general broad exotherms, which could indicate many various exothermic processes. Real, triggered thermitic reaction (DTA) curve should look like this (sharp peak):



And again Fig. 29:



And typical calorimetric (MCC) curve for epoxy resins:



Please, look at these curves and compare them. Isn't the curve for authentic epoxy much more similar to curves for Bentham heated chips than the curve for authentic nanothermite? Bentham chips contained a lot of some organic/polymer, hence DSC had to record its burning as exotherm for sure. And, even when (hypothetically) there was some thermitic reaction, its exotherm must be "hidden" in the exotherm of polymer burning. You do not agree?

We can easily agree that real experiments would be better than indirect data from the literature, so let us wait for possible further experiments of Jim Millette...

----------------------------------------------------------------
2) You wrote: "Does it say anywhere that the chips remain brittle or hard like Harrit chips? This seems to give chance to open up the debate about the chips being the same or not. Why do Millette and Harrit get opposite results with MEK... One swells and remain hard, other softens."

I'm going to be rather repetitive, but once again for some basics on behavior of cross-linked polymers (e.g. epoxy resins /Laclede paint/, some polyesters, polyurethanes, alkyds /Tnemec paint/, melamine and phenolic resins etc.)


Typical cross-linked polymer, e.g. epoxy resin, consists of 3-dimensional network of mutually chemically bonded polymer chains. Network can be loose, but it is usually dense. Such dense network connected by chemical cross-links cannot be disrupted by any solvent (cannot be dissolved), and can only swell in it, which means that solvent goes inside the network and forces polymer chains between cross-links to elongate to maximal possible lengths.
Therefore, polymer increases its volume (the increase is dependent on the density of cross-links). In the swollen form, polymer is usually softened somehow (solvent acts as a kind of "plasticizer").

When such swollen polymer is removed from the solvent, this solvent (e.g. MEK) indeed slowly evaporates. During this evaporation, the polymer is being gradually de-swollen, it decreases its volume, but since polymer chains between cross-links cannot adopt the same shapes like before swelling, the de-swelling usually does not go to original sample volume.
Anyway, de-swollen samples with no solvent inside are usually again hard and usually more brittle than before. This can be connected also with some extraction of some linear/shorter polymer chains.

In summary, swollen cross-linked polymer is softened (more or less), de-swollen (dried) polymer is usually again hard/brittle. Although Millette did not write that, I suppose that also his dried chips were again hard/brittle (e.g. like MEK chip). But Millette can be asked in this respect. Note, that Harrit et al did not write if the MEK chip was softened when swollen, but it is something which can be supposed from the general and well-known rules of polymer chemistry/physics.
Is this issue more clear for you now?
Anyway, all MEK tests on red/gray chips (their results described, i.e. softening/swelling) are compatible with the behavior of some paints with cross-linked polymer binder. On the other hand, results are not compatible with known nanothermites (at least I do not know any example of nanothermite with prevailing crosslinked polymer, which can be used as pyrotechnics e.g. for cutting the steel, do you?)

Btw, more than year ago, I prepared some imitation of Laclede paint, which is described here (post 277) and has this composition, reasonably close to the authentic Laclede paint:

Used chemicals:
- Epoxy: Pattex Repair Universal Epoxy (Henkel, 5 min hardening time), 2.45 g
Fillers:
- Iron oxide, particle size between 1 and 3 μm; dark red-brownish powder (Lachema), 0.55 g
- Nanoclay, an aluminosilicate (hydrophilic bentonite) in the very fine platelet form (Sigma Aldrich), whitish powder, 0.41 g.
- Potassium chromate, yellow powder (Lachema), 0.04 g.


You have just inspired me to perform one extremely simple experiment. About 3 hours ago, I put several chips of this epoxy sample into MEK solvent and... let's wait ca 50 hours what will happen with it. Note: since I have no idea how dense is cross-linking in this particular epoxy, the real result (the extent of swelling) is impossible to predict; up to now, chips only slightly increased their volume and indeed, they are insoluble in MEK...)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 21st January 2013 at 08:45 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 21st January 2013, 07:24 AM   #1430
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Quote:
You have just inspired me to perform one extremely simple experiment. About 3 hours ago, I put several chips of this epoxy sample into MEK solvent and... let's wait ca 50 hours what will happen with it
Hi Ivan, it may be worth removing some chips after 10 hours. This will simulate the test jtl is describing.

We wouldn't want jtl to be telling you that you don't know what you are talking about
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 21st January 2013, 08:02 AM   #1431
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Hi Ivan, it may be worth removing some chips after 10 hours. This will simulate the test jtl is describing.

We wouldn't want jtl to be telling you that you don't know what you are talking about
Thanks, but I'll have to be at home at the time t+10 h. I think that checking the chips next morning (after ca 19 hours of swelling) would suffice

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 21st January 2013 at 09:27 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 21st January 2013, 09:51 AM   #1432
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,211
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You canīt call your peak "large" without having the same Y-axis, as it might as well be a tiny blimp that would hardly register on the Harrit graph. The point of the comparison seems quite clear also, to show that Harrit chips have similarly narrow peak as known superthermite and I think everyone agrees that no one has actually compared paint. Maybe this DSC method to compare is not very accurate so this seems like an easy chance for Millette to debunk Harrit.
First, just so you understand this graph, it is an overlay of figures 19 and 29 from the ATM paper, with the axes adjusted to match. The blue lines (corresponding to the MacKinlay 1 chip) overlap. The known thermite curve is one of the red curves, the one that is completely different to the rest:



Second, the DSC trace does yield a definitive conclusion: the energy density of the material is bigger than the maximum theoretical energy density of thermite, therefore what burned in DSC is not thermite. Quoting again from the superthermite paper (note that Fig. 3 is the Xerogel curve represented in the above graph):
Integration of the exothermic peak in Fig. 3 resulted in a heat of reaction value of 1.5 kJ/g. This is significantly lower than the theoretical value of 3.9 kJ/g. One potential explanation involves the aluminum fuel itself. We know from HRTEM analysis that the UFG Al used in this sample has an oxide coating of ~5 nm. With 30 nm diameter Al this oxide coating represents a large amount of the mass of the sample. In fact, a simple calculation, based on the volume of the oxide coating, indicates that the UFG aluminum used is actually 70% Al2 O3 weight.
However, the authors have to say this about the energy density of their chips:
The energy release for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. Variations in peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising, since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal, shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. 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.
That means that:

1. in two of the samples the energy release is shown to be greater than that of thermite, meaning it physically can not be thermite and therefore comparing the DSC trace of thermite with something that is not thermite does not make sense;

2. in the other two samples, the DSC curves are invalidated by the presence of an unquantified mass of gray layer that does not contribute to the exotherm, and therefore they can not be used to compare the curves to anything, even assuming (which is a too generous assumption) DSC to be a reliable method for material identification.

tl;dr version: It makes no sense to push any DSC trace similarities as proof that the chips can be thermite.

Third, you keep pushing for Millette to debunk the paper instead of pushing for the original authors to fix their blatant methodological mistakes and to publish the data they are holding. That is the wrong approach. The ATM paper is self-debunking. Millette merely used the correct analysis methods to prove beyond any doubt that chips a) to d) in the paper consist solely of kaolin, iron oxide and epoxy, IOW paint. The DSC test is a farce: misguided and inconclusive. Millette would have shown little scientific integrity if he did that test as an analysis method. Fortunately he didn't. Now go tell Farrer, Harrit, Jones, Ryan and the rest to release the FTIR and TEM data and to do an actual analysis that fixes all of their amateurish errors, instead of suggesting ways for Millette to debunk what is already debunked.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
They do show molten iron and they do compare directly to known thermite residue. This kind of nit pick seems weak without Millette ignition results.
It's not nitpicking. Tillotson and Gash did their PXRD test for a reason: without showing that, other reactions could have happened among the constituents of the mix. The main suspect for what happened in the DSC is that the carbon-based epoxy burned in air. Figure 21 in the paper shows kaolin platelets and iron oxide crystals intact, as shown by Sunstealer. How can you say that looking for the known residues of a thermite reaction is nitpicking, when there are such strong indications that it did not happen at all?


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Common, you canīt use washed Millette chips to compare to the Harrit dirty chip before MEK. You have to compare clean Harrit chip to clean Millette chip.
The spectrum shown in figure 14 matches that of red Tnemec plus maybe some gypsum. What are the chances of contamination having that spectrum?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 21st January 2013 at 09:55 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 10:00 AM   #1433
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,211
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
You are wrong again, Millette compared his chips to the fractured chips of the Harrit paper. It seems that you don't even know the basics.
The MEK chip, which is under question here, was not fractured. See paragraph immediately above fig. 14.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 21st January 2013 at 10:01 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 10:42 AM   #1434
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
If I sound like a truther you must sound like an arrogant preacher, and it is disappointing. I am trying to get you all to improve Millette paper, but it seems to be very difficult to even get any of you to admit to any problems, or even weak points. You say paint, period. By the way, there seem to be about three people here that actually know anything about Harrit paper and the debate.
Millette found no thermite. There is no evidence of thermite used on 911. There are zero piles of thermite product, big ugly piles of iron. There is no thermite iron fused to WTC steel, like in the idiotic videos produced by nuts like Cole. Where did the pounds, or in Harrit's case TONS of thermite product, called iron, go? The idiots in 911 truth, which you call
My truther nutcase of a cousin tells me
, and twoofies ignore the fact no thermite was used, and go with the fantasy of thermite. They can't produce evidence.

The Millette paper says no themite, hard to improve on reality.
The Harrit/Jones paper says no thermite, the DSC does not match, not even close. What we have here is 911 truth has no clue what DSC is used for, and a few nuts in 911 truth have fooled them. There is no way to make more studies that followers of 911 truth will suddenly become educated and believe. The problem is with what you call nutcase truthers.

It is crazy to chase down the idiotic claims of 911 truth. There are no rumors of bombs except in the minds of anti-intellectual, what did you call them? twoofies? Millette's study is supported with RJ Lees study, and USGS study of WTC dust. No thermite was found. No matter how much 911 truth lies, even if they plant thermite in the dust, there was no thermite used on 911.

What chemical engineering/chemist stuff does Millette's paper which found no thermite need? It would be interesting to hear from a chemist or chem engr what could be done to improve the paper. Are you a chem engr? Do you have some input from a chemist?

Last edited by beachnut; 21st January 2013 at 10:54 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 10:58 AM   #1435
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Africanus
You are wrong again, Millette compared his chips to the fractured chips of the Harrit paper. It seems that you don't even know the basics.

pgimeno: The MEK chip, which is under question here, was not fractured. See paragraph immediately above fig. 14.
I donīt know why you guys make this look so complicated. Africanus was misunderstanding my reply to Sunstealer. I know millette has clean chips to compare to clean harrit chips, but it was sunstealer who picked the only harrit chip that was not clean and tried to compare it to some clean millette chip and this tnemec paint. This does not look good and it seems invalid since it is based on the assumption that the dirty chip is not dirty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtl: Common, you canīt use washed Millette chips to compare to the Harrit dirty chip before MEK. You have to compare clean Harrit chip to clean Millette chip.

pgimeno: The spectrum shown in figure 14 matches that of red Tnemec plus maybe some gypsum. What are the chances of contamination having that spectrum?
You say it "matches" but as i pointed out to Sunstealer the match may not be that good considering small Zn peak. The real point is that most of this Zn disappears after MEK washing according to figures 16 to 18 in Harrit, so there is no longer a match after the dirty chip has been cleaned. The dirty chip is dirty for sure and does not seem to match Tnemec once clean.

Why is this such a big deal, can it not be laclede or some other paint? Are there any other options besides paint, such as insulation for fire proofing or maybe electrical cables, wiring?
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 21st January 2013, 11:49 AM   #1436
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
pgimeno: 1. in two of the samples the energy release is shown to be greater than that of thermite, meaning it physically can not be thermite and therefore comparing the DSC trace of thermite with something that is not thermite does not make sense
This is an old argument that I used on some truthers long ago, but I no longer try it because it seems debunked. The 3.9 yield is for straight old school thermite but it does not apply to new mixtures with added materials that may increase the yield, and Harrit does mention the organic part. But maybe it is possible to show that 7.5 is too much?

Quote:
in the other two samples, the DSC curves are invalidated by the presence of an unquantified mass of gray layer
it would invalidate it if the gray could be suspected of overpowering the red layer, but it is not so, instead it reduces the total output so it should make it more difficult for the red layer to appear like superthermite.

Quote:
It makes no sense to push any DSC trace similarities as proof that the chips can be thermite.
You have to do it to show that Harrit is wrong about the traces supporting superthermite. He compares to known superthermite so obviously he is not the only one to do this test. The results are there so any challenger will have to repeat the tests.

Quote:
It's not nitpicking. Tillotson and Gash did their PXRD test for a reason: without showing that, other reactions could have happened among the constituents of the mix. The main suspect for what happened in the DSC is that the carbon-based epoxy burned in air.
it is obvious nitpick when millette has no tests. Harrit shows match for thermite residues, with iron spheres and al. he did not specify al oxide? Where does the al in the spheres come from, laclede kaolin or tnemec al oxide? Both have very high melting temperatures like iron so I would like to see it confirmed with actual dsc tests that epoxy does this. These igniton results are the main thing is harrit paper so millette can not ignore them.

Quote:
Third, you keep pushing for Millette to debunk the paper instead of pushing for the original authors to fix their blatant methodological mistakes and to publish the data they are holding. That is the wrong approach.
No it would be wrong to ignore millette mistakes and weak points, but that seems to be what you all are doing. If harrit made mistakes with the assumptions about his results then millette should show it by repeating the tests.
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 21st January 2013, 11:56 AM   #1437
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
jtl - you simply haven't understood a word I've said. It is very, very, very simple.

Chips a-d from Harrit et al

These chips were broken in half and the red layer analysed with EDX.

Millette washed his chips and found EDX spectra that exactly matched the clean broken surface EDX for chips a-d.

Ergo Millette's wahsed chips contain no contamination. None.

MEK chip

Since Millette's chips contain no contamination and at least 6 of his chips match the MEK chip before soaking we can safely say that the MEK chip was not contaminated otherwise the spectra wouldn't match.

Therefore when truthers claim that the MEK chip was contaminated they are wrong. The paper is wrong to claim possible contamination.

If you can't understand that reasoning then I won't bother writing lengthy posts for you.



On the subject of the "missing Zn peak" - I've already told you that the Na peak is labelled incorrectly and should be Zn in fig 18. This was written in the spoiler section - click on it to read the explanation.


If you are worried about a missing Zn peak in the other figs post MEK then there is absolutely no help for you because you don't understand the writing below figs 16 & 17. Guess what they don't find any Fe in fig 16 and 17 so why aren't you bleating about that?

You are sounding more and more like a truther every day. i.e. someone who knows nothing about the subject but trying to argue with those that do. Remember you already told everyone you are not an expert.
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 21st January 2013, 12:02 PM   #1438
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This is an old argument that I used on some truthers long ago, but I no longer try it because it seems debunked. The 3.9 yield is for straight old school thermite but it does not apply to new mixtures with added materials that may increase the yield, and Harrit does mention the organic part. But maybe it is possible to show that 7.5 is too much?



it would invalidate it if the gray could be suspected of overpowering the red layer, but it is not so, instead it reduces the total output so it should make it more difficult for the red layer to appear like superthermite.



You have to do it to show that Harrit is wrong about the traces supporting superthermite. He compares to known superthermite so obviously he is not the only one to do this test. The results are there so any challenger will have to repeat the tests.



it is obvious nitpick when millette has no tests. Harrit shows match for thermite residues, with iron spheres and al. he did not specify al oxide? Where does the al in the spheres come from, laclede kaolin or tnemec al oxide? Both have very high melting temperatures like iron so I would like to see it confirmed with actual dsc tests that epoxy does this. These igniton results are the main thing is harrit paper so millette can not ignore them.



No it would be wrong to ignore millette mistakes and weak points, but that seems to be what you all are doing. If harrit made mistakes with the assumptions about his results then millette should show it by repeating the tests.
You haven't got the faintest clue what you are talking about.

Yep, definite truther. You routinely fail to comprehend. DSC is not required because Millette has already proven 100% what the material is.

The material is red paint composing kaolin and iron oxide pigment in an epoxy matrix adhered to oxidised steel.


Do you disagree with this conclusion?

Only idiot truthers think that this conclusion isn't supported because DSC wasn't done. FTIR trumps DSC. TEM-SAED trumps DSC. DSC does nothing to identify the material. Nothing.
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 21st January 2013, 12:08 PM   #1439
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This is an old argument that I used on some truthers long ago, but I no longer try it because it seems debunked. The 3.9 yield is for straight old school thermite but it does not apply to new mixtures with added materials that may increase the yield, and Harrit does mention the organic part. But maybe it is possible to show that 7.5 is too much?
...
How can thermite have more energy than thermite has. There is no new way to change the energy found in thermite. What are you talking about. No 911 truth member has debunked anything except themselves.
What new mixtures? You can't get more energy out of thermite. Are you saying chemistry is debunked?

They should have used office fires in their fantasy. Office fires had the heat energy of 2,500 tons of thermite.

Not sure which part of Millette found no thermite, RJ Lee, no thermite, and the USGS found no thermite. 911 truth has no clue what DSC is used for, and thus they can't comprehend the Jones paper shows no thermite.


The samples don't match thermite, and don't have much energy.

The chips don't match thermite in energy. With the office fires equal in heat to over 2,500 TONS of thermite, ignoring the jet fuel had the heat over 260 TONS of thermite, we have an inefficient office fires heating the WTC to failure in an hour or so.

Are you saying you can get more energy out of Al/Fe2O3? You can't, and it means Harrit did not find thermite, he found dust with more or less energy than thermite.

Hard to improve Millette's paper finding no thermite. Why is DSC needed? What it the purpose of DSC? Why does the DSC in the failed Harrit paper published in a vanity journal show their samples are not thermite? How can they be that insane to include proof in their own paper it was not thermite?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 12:53 PM   #1440
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,211
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You say it "matches" but as i pointed out to Sunstealer the match may not be that good considering small Zn peak. The real point is that most of this Zn disappears after MEK washing according to figures 16 to 18 in Harrit, so there is no longer a match after the dirty chip has been cleaned. The dirty chip is dirty for sure and does not seem to match Tnemec once clean.
They don't show the same thing. They focus the beam on different areas of the heterogeneous chip. Read carefully the captions of figures 16 to 18 and compare them to that of figure 14.

We have no overall scan of the whole red layer post-MEK. Your claim that the chip does not seem to match Tnemec after soaking is not supported by any data in the paper.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This is an old argument that I used on some truthers long ago, but I no longer try it because it seems debunked. The 3.9 yield is for straight old school thermite but it does not apply to new mixtures with added materials that may increase the yield, and Harrit does mention the organic part. But maybe it is possible to show that 7.5 is too much?
Same argument applies: they are comparing a known thermite that essentially has no added materials, with their red chips that yield more energy than thermite alone can yield, making it obvious that they are comparing different materials which are expected to have different thermal properties, therefore using the DSC curves to claim that the similarity means they are thermite is utterly stupid. You can return to using that comfortably; it is only "debunked" if you are gullible enough as to fall for such poor reasoning abilities. The argument is not substantially different to your claim that the comparison of the unwashed Tnemec chip with the chips washed by Millette is not valid (although we differ on the likeliness of that one). Follow the same reasoning here and you'll understand why the DSC traces are not comparable in order to claim that the material is thermite. Even if the chips were thermite + organic matrix, comparing the traces would still make no sense, because they show different materials in action with different thermal properties. Understood now?


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
it would invalidate it if the gray could be suspected of overpowering the red layer, but it is not so, instead it reduces the total output so it should make it more difficult for the red layer to appear like superthermite.
It invalidates all of the traces for the purposes of considering the total energy density of the red layer, which is the one considered to be thermitic. Even then, two of them still show an average energy density (including the gray layer) greater than that of thermite, proving it is not thermite alone. That the other two are within the theoretical range of thermite can't therefore be taken into account, given that without the gray layer their energy density would in all likeliness be shown to be much bigger.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You have to do it to show that Harrit is wrong about the traces supporting superthermite. He compares to known superthermite so obviously he is not the only one to do this test. The results are there so any challenger will have to repeat the tests.
I don't follow the logic that leads you to claim that any challenger will have to repeat the tests. Why repeat a flawed test? If someone claims that they used a thermometer and it shows that it is 7:30am, the way of disproving that it is 7:30am is not to use another thermometer. Millette used the right analysis methods. He used a clock.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
it is obvious nitpick when millette has no tests. Harrit shows match for thermite residues, with iron spheres and al. he did not specify al oxide? Where does the al in the spheres come from, laclede kaolin or tnemec al oxide? Both have very high melting temperatures like iron so I would like to see it confirmed with actual dsc tests that epoxy does this. These igniton results are the main thing is harrit paper so millette can not ignore them.
It is still the original authors' task, not Millette's, to prove that what they claim that happened, actually happened. Ask them to repeat their work and show (1) that there is iron oxide and aluminium at start, and (2) that there is aluminium oxide and iron after they burn the chips in pure nitrogen, as the original thermite paper authors did. They have a result over an unidentified material; we don't know what they put in DSC to start with, except that it was red/gray and attracted by a magnet. The post-ignition residue can look similar to other stuff for a myriad of reasons. It proves nothing. Aluminium oxide is the result of a thermitic reaction. The authors are not showing that there is aluminium oxide, as the superthermite paper authors readily showed "[t]o verify that the reaction observed [...] was indeed the thermite reaction". That is a competent way of proving that the reaction was the purported one.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
No it would be wrong to ignore millette mistakes and weak points, but that seems to be what you all are doing. If harrit made mistakes with the assumptions about his results then millette should show it by repeating the tests.
I can understand that you call "weak points" the fact that he didn't do an unnecessary DSC test, but what mistakes are you talking about?

I have already discussed why repeating flawed tests is flawed methodology. Look above.
__________________
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
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 03:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Đ 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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