WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[moorea34]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

No, I don't mean to torture you, I just want to give everyone a heads-up that some actual new data is coming very soon, and don't just burn out and drop away from this thread before it arrives! Anyway I think Thursday or Friday all will be revealed... and yes Redwood it will be a nice birthday present for you. Three guesses: 1) a new experiment blowing away one of the central tenets of 9/11 Truth 2) revelation of formerly confidential insider information unflattering to the 9/11 Truth cause 3) a new experiment whose data adds ambiguity to the entire debate. Senenmut maybe not so much a birthday present for you, but I know you like challenges so you might enjoy it too.

1) was Dave's video ?

and for 2) and 3) ??

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by moorea34

1) was Dave's video ?

and for 2) and 3) ??

Those were other options for the guess, I believe.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Btw, Dr. Michal Babic is an expert on magnetic nanoparticles of iron oxides (check it by Google Scholar), used in conjuction with polymers in the diagnostics of diseases. Therefore, he has a pretty extensive experience with iron oxides and metal oxides generally.

When he saw these shiny things created in the paint(s) ash, he told me: "Well, they were probably formed by partial reduction/smelting of the rust by the pyrolyzed polymer from the paint, perhaps with the participation of pigments in the paint."
Which is exactly what we debunkers have claimed for several years here

It's very reassuring, from a professional point of view, to have other, eminently qualified people, echo one's ideas. Such comment shows that we are on the right track with regard to explaining the formation of observed micro-spheres.

When I first encountered the Harrit et al paper and wrote my criticisms on JREF, I never thought that my analysis would ever be tested empirically. Dr Millette's work has not only shown that my original analysis of the data in Harrit et al was correct, but has gone further by identifying the carbon based matrix.

I've tossed the Harrit et al paper onto a few desks of people with vast experience in the field of materials engineering, chemistry or other related fields in the last few years and every single one of them has laughed at the paper.

I'm grateful to everyone who has spent the time and effort on this. Your experiments, along with the recent one by DaveThomasNMSR, show that the production of metallic spheres are not unusual.

I hope that Oystein is quietly looking on (and smiling).

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

It's very reassuring, from a professional point of view, to have other, eminently qualified people, echo one's ideas. Such comment shows that we are on the right track with regard to explaining the formation of observed micro-spheres.

When I first encountered the Harrit et al paper and wrote my criticisms on JREF, I never thought that my analysis would ever be tested empirically. Dr Millette's work has not only shown that my original analysis of the data in Harrit et al was correct, but has gone further by identifying the carbon based matrix.

I've tossed the Harrit et al paper onto a few desks of people with vast experience in the field of materials engineering, chemistry or other related fields in the last few years and every single one of them has laughed at the paper.

I'm grateful to everyone who has spent the time and effort on this. Your experiments, along with the recent one by DaveThomasNMSR, show that the production of metallic spheres are not unusual.

I hope that Oystein is quietly looking on (and smiling).

[Miragememories]

DELETED DUPLICATE

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

"It's very reassuring, from a professional point of view, to have other, eminently qualified people, echo one's ideas.

Such comment shows that we are on the right track with regard to explaining the formation of observed micro-spheres.

When I first encountered the Harrit et al paper and wrote my criticisms on JREF, I never thought that my analysis would ever be tested empirically.

Dr Millette's work has not only shown that my original analysis of the data in Harrit et al was correct, but has gone further by identifying the carbon based matrix.

I've tossed the Harrit et al paper onto a few desks of people with vast experience in the field of materials engineering, chemistry or other related fields in the last few years and every single one of them has laughed at the paper.

I'm grateful to everyone who has spent the time and effort on this. Your experiments, along with the recent one by DaveThomasNMSR, show that the production of metallic spheres are not unusual.

I hope that Oystein is quietly looking on (and smiling)."

Your eagerness to grossly distort the truth in a forum that does not censure liars makes reasoned responses a waste of time.

An example of this behaviour is displayed in your post #3514.

Dr. Harrit took Fig, (7a) from the 2009 Bentham paper and used it to make a point in his paper;
"Why Are the Red/Gray Chips Not Primer Paint".

He expanded the intensity of the SEM XEDS spectra so high (20 keV) that many of the observed peaks were now off the scale and clipped.

Of course the noise levels in the display were equally raised.

Dr. Harrit points out that only at the level of noise, minute signals of S, Ca, Cr and Sr can be observed.

They simply do not exist in the normal calibrated display shown in the original Fig. 7.

But you took Dr. Harrit's example and put your own spin on it.

For you, noise = reality.

MM

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Your eagerness to grossly distort the truth in a forum that does not censure liars makes reasoned responses a waste of time.

An example of this behaviour is displayed in your post #3514.

Dr. Harrit took Fig, (7a) from the 2009 Bentham paper and used it to make a point in his paper;
"Why Are the Red/Gray Chips Not Primer Paint".

He expanded the intensity of the SEM XEDS spectra so high (20 keV) that many of the observed peaks were now off the scale and clipped.

Of course the noise levels in the display were equally raised.

Dr. Harrit points out that only at the level of noise, minute signals of S, Ca, Cr and Sr can be observed.

They simply do not exist in the normal calibrated display shown in the original Fig. 7.

But you took Dr. Harrit's example and put your own spin on it.

For you, noise = reality.

MM

if this is indeed true:

Quote:

I've tossed the Harrit et al paper onto a few desks of people with vast experience in the field of materials engineering, chemistry or other related fields in the last few years and every single one of them has laughed at the paper.

Then how do you explain that reception? Is Sunstealer lying? Are Sunstealer's colleagues in on it?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Your eagerness to grossly distort the truth in a forum that does not censure liars makes reasoned responses a waste of time.

An example of this behaviour is displayed in your post #3514.

Dr. Harrit took Fig, (7a) from the 2009 Bentham paper and used it to make a point in his paper;
"Why Are the Red/Gray Chips Not Primer Paint".

He expanded the intensity of the SEM XEDS spectra so high (20 keV) that many of the observed peaks were now off the scale and clipped.

Of course the noise levels in the display were equally raised.

Dr. Harrit points out that only at the level of noise, minute signals of S, Ca, Cr and Sr can be observed.

They simply do not exist in the normal calibrated display shown in the original Fig. 7.

But you took Dr. Harrit's example and put your own spin on it.

For you, noise = reality.

MM

LOL, you are fooled by Harrit pointing to what he wants to present, not what was found. The paper is a joke. Here you are making excuses for a failed paper. Apologizing for failure, fooled by nonsense.

Lucky Millette was not looking for thermite; because rational people can't find thermite at the WTC in the dust because it was not used on 911. 19 terrorists did 911, they did not bring thermite, the brought murder. Your faith based support of a lie is getting old, and only serves as typing practice. Why are you unable to see the fraud of Jones' paper?


It is funny you explained how Harrit and Jones presented the stuff to fool you. They selectively picked the samples which had iron and A, to weave a fantasy. Then Harrit makes up the noise stuff. Harrit is like the Wizard of Oz, ignore the stuff in our samples, etc. etc. lol

Harrit and Jones are politically motivated to make up lies about 911. Gage is motivated by money, Jones and Harrit are anti-war, and try to discredit the theory of 19 terrorists; using thermite. Kind of fails with Flight 93, and Flight 77. What do Jones and Harrit say about the rest of 911? What is your theory? Thermite failed, now what? 12 years of failure.

[Spanx]

So Millette does experiments and truthers say he has the wrong chips.

Dave Thomas does experiments and truthers say he has the wrong iron rich microspheres due to contamination.

Ivan does experiments with paint chips from his college and they are definitely not wtc samples although they do resemble the "thermite" chips in the Bentham paper.

Truthers say absolutely nothing. strange that.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by remo

Luckily Millette wasn't looking for thermite otherwise he would have found it.

Not quite - Basile and Harrit were determined to find thermite so they did.

[Ivan Kminek]

Ziggi Zugam wrote me that Kevin Ryan presented some new FTIR of some WTC red/gray chip, which "definitely debunks" Millette's study.

I'm not sure but Ziggi probably pointed to the FTIR in the article on Debunking the Debunkers, titled "Answering Youtube Troll ctcole77's '3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM'"

Here is a screenshot, look at the upper part here:



The spectrum of some red/gray chip is the upper one, reference spectrum is taken from the paper of Gash et al.

For unknown reason, Ryan chose to record his spectrum on the dark side of the chip, with "singed-like appearance". Like before, spectrum of the chip is almost unreadable, and is almost "featureless". Just some band corresponding to hydroxyl groups (above 3000 cm^-1) is visible, some vibrations at ca 2800 - 3000 cm^-1) corresponding to C-H, and the bands at ca 1600 cm^-1 and 1300 cm^-1 can be recognized.
This spectrum does not correspond to epoxy resin, but since it was taken on the "dark side", we can expect that the spectrum of some soot was basically recorded.

Here is for comparison FTIR of soot of carbon black and soot from biomass:



Bands at ca 1600 and 1300 cm^-1 are visible, as well as that band of hydroxyls. So, this may be some hint, what Ryan really measured.

Anyway, since we naturally expect that various kinds of red/gray chips can be found in WTC dust, this FTIR of very bad quality indeed does not debunk anything, the less the Millette's study. I present it here just for the record

(And it is indeed fruitless to compare WTC red/gray chips with prevailing polymer binder with energetic nanocomposites made by Gash et al, since they do not contain any polymer, but just minute amounts of low molar stuffs like alcohols or residual propylene oxide instead.)

[Ivan Kminek]

Please, do you see photos and micrographs in my posts 3540 and 3554?

Ziggi Zugam and ScootleRoyale wrote me that they do not see them.

If you don't see them either (or you see them but you know what could be a problem for these two truthers), any advice, pls? I'm definitely not a kind of "IT man"

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Please, do you see photos and micrographs in my posts 3540 and 3554?

Ziggi Zugam and ScootleRoyale wrote me that they do not see them.

If you don't see them either (or you see them but you know what could be a problem for these two truthers), any advice, pls? I'm definitely not a kind of "IT man"

I can see them fine.

[AsbjornAndersen]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Please, do you see photos and micrographs in my posts 3540 and 3554?

Ziggi Zugam and ScootleRoyale wrote me that they do not see them.

If you don't see them either (or you see them but you know what could be a problem for these two truthers), any advice, pls? I'm definitely not a kind of "IT man"

I couldn't see them, when I wasn't logged in.

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen

I couldn't see them, when I wasn't logged in.

Thanks, this should be the solution

[chrismohr]

I see the pix OK too. I wonder tho if Ziggi and Scootle aren't logged in... not sure why that would be a probloem tho.

[Spanx]

Hey Ivan, any chance you could scrape a bit of rust and paint off that old trolley and send it to me

Quote:

Ziggi
Scootle, Kminek has nothing but fuzzy images of something he thinks "might be" circular, and his faith in his own result is not good since he refuses to let others test his chips. He has refused an offer to make his result part of Basile´s study, which would include confirmation by an independent lab. Let him publish data or keep silent. Also, he does not claim his red layer makes anything, only the gray layer, but he knows Basile has confirmed that Harrit´s chips form spheres in the red layer

[Ivan Kminek]

Spanx:
Ziggi added:
"And by the way, you JREF guys must work hard now to preserve image of Chris Mohr and Millette, as u know that we now have the famous Harrit FTIR and that it does not match Millette´s. Millette does not study the right chips, his study is bunk, which is why he never published. 4 years and all you guys have is chatroom non-sense and childish youtube videos. Pure Comedy."

I don't know what FTIR Ziggi has in mind - this miserable one, which I commented above in post 3571?

As for this spectrum, I wrote in my e-mail to Ziggi:

"FTIR (FTIR microscopy) is indeed pretty important method here! We had emphasized it many times (with Sunstealer etc.), when we had thought about planned Millette's study.

Concerning FTIR, let me start it with a natural (and now, thanks mostly to JREF, generally accepeted) supposition that several kinds of red/gray chips were present in WTC dust (and some of them must be red steel primers, not nanothermite).

1) We don't know what was a detailed structure/composition of Ryan's chip JM5, we only see its bad FTIR spectrum. So, we have no idea whether this chip corresponds to Bentham chips (a) to (d).

2) On the other hand, we have a lot of detailed analyses (from both Harrit and Millette study), what is a structure/composition of red/gray chips of kind (a) to (d), and thanks to this, Millette was able to attribute these chips to some "kind of chips" and to assign them measured FTIR spectra.

In short, any FTIR spectra of WTC chips are welcome, even this one taken on the otherwise uncharacterized chip, but it itself does not proof anything extraordinary, except that it is disctinctly different from Millette's spectra."

Anyway, it was before Ziggi started to be again so obnoxious, nervous and upset on YouTube comment page of Dave Thomas' experiment, that any further "debate" was impossible...

[Ivan Kminek]

Spanx, Chris:
And some remark for Ziggi's sentences: "And his faith in his own result is not good since he refuses to let others test his chips. He has refused an offer to make his result part of Basile´s study, which would include confirmation by an independent lab."

In our e-mails, Ziggi was not asking for samples of my already heated unknown paints on rust, he was interested only in my Laclede paint imitation samples (and I agree that such samples would be more suitable for further "heating tests").

I wrote him that for such a purpose, I will have to prepare new samples of such WTC paint imitation, now on several kinds of rust (he agreed that the rust must be a part of samples), but I do not plan to do it in the near future, but perhaps after some weeks or months (as I wrote here as well).

This my sentence was interpreted as "refusing to send the samples" by Ziggi, as you can see above.

(Btw, Basile's primitive heating element is totally unusable for any well-defined heating experiment, which must follow the conditions of DSC in Bentham paper, I do not need it and I have incomparably better heating apparatus, namely this precisely controlled oven at hand)

[chrismohr]

Ivan et al,
Here are some quotes from several recent emails of Ziggi (who always addresses me as "Mohr"):

You don´t think Dave´s new video is BS, do you????...
You see Mohr, I told you this would happen! Apparently there are so many different red chips that the FTIR is meaningless, according to Kminek! And you are still going to refuse us saying that Millette does not have the same chips as Harrit et al? But it is OK for you to use the same "different chips" argument????...
Dear Mohr, your concern for insults is charming, especially given the company you keep at your beloved JREF forum...
Millette is refusing to publish because he knows he has not got the right chips...
- Keep on the winning smile if you are going to take part in that, with your Bible in hand...
I am sorry for my anger towards you in the past, I simply thought you were willingly being a shill, shoveling ****. But I have heard from several people that either know you or know someone who knows you that you are simply deluded and that you honestly believe the official non-sense and the JREF crowd.
If none of this is enough to wake you up, you never will.... [I have apologized to people in the past for my mistakes, but never like this]

And my last email to him included this: Good luck in your research Ziggi. I just don't want to interact with someone as abusive as you. And BTW I've volunteered in prison with child molesters, bank robbers and mass murderers for 20 years so swear words don't bother me. You do bother me, because you are abusive.

His response: I just apologized for having been angry at you in the past in another letter, but you respond by describing me as worse than child molesters, and you say I am the abusive one?

Yes, I do say you are being abusive Ziggi. And THAT is why I say Good Bye now. And good luck in your research, I really do mean that.

[Ivan Kminek]

...And yet one more remark for the Ryan's (or Harrit's?) FTIR spectrum, which is again here:



It seems to be quite obvious, why Ryan chose to present this spectrum taken on "singed-like" (dark?) side of the red layer of this chip: it somehow resembles included Gash' spectrum recorded on real sol-gel nanothermite.

The region above 2800 cm^-1 does not frequently say a lot, many materials/polymers which contain hydroxyls/are hygroscopic/contain water etc. have such FTIR bands there, the region below ca 1000 cm^-1 is unreadable, but still, in both spectra, they are two bands at similar positions: at ca 1300 cm^-1 and at ca 1600 cm^-1 (I am lazy to analyze it more precisely using some graphic program).

It is indeed the full right of any author to present any such a comparison as a kind of proof, and Jim Millette did not do anything else with his spectra of epoxy resin and red WTC chip - besides the fact that much more bands coincided in his comparison.

Comparison of just two bands does not really say a lot, and this is why I presented as some "funny illustration" above another comparison, namely with FTIR of soot, which works "as well as" comparison with superthermite)

As I wrote to Ziggi: "Based on this spectra, I do not insist that Ryan recorded soot, you should not insist that he recorded superthermite." And Ziggi basically agreed

(Gash himself in the relevant paper wrote: "the absorption at 1630 cm-' is likely due to the bending mode of water.... absorptions present from 1400-800 cm-' (including this one at ca 1300, I.K.) are probably due to ethanol (solvent used), residual propylene oxide, or side products of the ring opening of the propylene oxide)". )

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Ivan et al,
Here are some quotes from several recent emails of Ziggi (who always addresses me as "Mohr"):

You don´t think Dave´s new video is BS, do you????...
You see Mohr, I told you this would happen! Apparently there are so many different red chips that the FTIR is meaningless, according to Kminek! And you are still going to refuse us saying that Millette does not have the same chips as Harrit et al? But it is OK for you to use the same "different chips" argument????...
Dear Mohr, your concern for insults is charming, especially given the company you keep at your beloved JREF forum...
Millette is refusing to publish because he knows he has not got the right chips...
- Keep on the winning smile if you are going to take part in that, with your Bible in hand...
I am sorry for my anger towards you in the past, I simply thought you were willingly being a shill, shoveling ****. But I have heard from several people that either know you or know someone who knows you that you are simply deluded and that you honestly believe the official non-sense and the JREF crowd.
If none of this is enough to wake you up, you never will.... [I have apologized to people in the past for my mistakes, but never like this]

And my last email to him included this: Good luck in your research Ziggi. I just don't want to interact with someone as abusive as you. And BTW I've volunteered in prison with child molesters, bank robbers and mass murderers for 20 years so swear words don't bother me. You do bother me, because you are abusive.

His response: I just apologized for having been angry at you in the past in another letter, but you respond by describing me as worse than child molesters, and you say I am the abusive one?

Yes, I do say you are being abusive Ziggi. And THAT is why I say Good Bye now. And good luck in your research, I really do mean that.

Chris: Just forget Ziggi He looks quite desperate...

Perhaps the only important question in this rather silly "nanothermite debate" is:

Are we happy (well, am I happy) with the paint truth? I can easily answer: "Yes, I am quite happy with it for these two years, otherwise I would hardly spent so many hours in these discussions and with the search of needed data. It is even a source of some inner strength and optimism for me"

And... is Ziggi happy with his Nanothermite Truth:? Who knows, but I doubt...

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"Ivan et al,
Here are some quotes from several recent emails of Ziggi (who always addresses me as "Mohr"):

Originally Posted by Ziggi Zugam

"You don´t think Dave´s new video is BS, do you????...

You see Mohr, I told you this would happen!

Apparently there are so many different red chips that the FTIR is meaningless, according to Kminek!

And you are still going to refuse us saying that Millette does not have the same chips as Harrit et al?

But it is OK for you to use the same "different chips" argument????...

Dear Mohr, your concern for insults is charming, especially given the company you keep at your beloved JREF forum...

Millette is refusing to publish because he knows he has not got the right chips...

- Keep on the winning smile if you are going to take part in that, with your Bible in hand...

I am sorry for my anger towards you in the past, I simply thought you were willingly being a shill, shoveling ****. But I have heard from several people that either know you or know someone who knows you that you are simply deluded and that you honestly believe the official non-sense and the JREF crowd.

If none of this is enough to wake you up, you never will.... "

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"[I have apologized to people in the past for my mistakes, but never like this]

And my last email to him included this: Good luck in your research Ziggi.

I just don't want to interact with someone as abusive as you.

And BTW I've volunteered in prison with child molesters, bank robbers and mass murderers for 20 years so swear words don't bother me.

You do bother me, because you are abusive.

Originally Posted by Ziggi Zugam

"I just apologized for having been angry at you in the past in another letter, but you respond by describing me as worse than child molesters, and you say I am the abusive one?"

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"Yes, I do say you are being abusive Ziggi. And THAT is why I say Good Bye now. And good luck in your research, I really do mean that."

Certainly Ziggi shows great frustration at your continued willingness to take counsel from people with no reputation at risk.

Dr. Millette is your only reputable counsel.

Unlike the chest-beating 'pseudo-experts' in JREF, Dr. Millette also shows enough self discipline to avoid abusive language.

Unfortunately for those seriously interested in Dr. Millette's work, heat testing, post ignition residue analysis, and FTIR findings, reveal that all the 9/11 WTC dust chips which Dr. Millette isolated were likely Tnemec steel primer paint.

A paint already accounted for in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Fortunately, Mark Basile's study should 'clear the air' regarding Dr. Millette's findings vs. the 2009 Bentham paper findings.

MM

[Spanx]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Certainly Ziggi shows great frustration at your continued willingness to take counsel from people with no reputation at risk.

Dr. Millette is your only reputable counsel.

Unlike the chest-beating 'pseudo-experts' in JREF, Dr. Millette also shows enough self discipline to avoid abusive language.

Unfortunately for those seriously interested in Dr. Millette's work, heat testing, post ignition residue analysis, and FTIR findings, reveal that all the 9/11 WTC dust chips which Dr. Millette isolated were likely Tnemec steel primer paint.

A paint already accounted for in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Fortunately, Mark Basile's study should 'clear the air' regarding Dr. Millette's findings vs. the 2009 Bentham paper findings.

MM

Are you not going to give your expert opinion on Ivan's experiment ? Or are you just going to sit there beating your chest ?

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Certainly Ziggi shows great frustration at your continued willingness to take counsel from people with no reputation at risk.

Dr. Millette is your only reputable counsel.

Unlike the chest-beating 'pseudo-experts' in JREF, Dr. Millette also shows enough self discipline to avoid abusive language.

Unfortunately for those seriously interested in Dr. Millette's work, heat testing, post ignition residue analysis, and FTIR findings, reveal that all the 9/11 WTC dust chips which Dr. Millette isolated were likely Tnemec steel primer paint.

A paint already accounted for in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Fortunately, Mark Basile's study should 'clear the air' regarding Dr. Millette's findings vs. the 2009 Bentham paper findings.

MM

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ivan_Kminek/

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Unfortunately for those seriously interested in Dr. Millette's work, heat testing, post ignition residue analysis, and FTIR findings, reveal that all the 9/11 WTC dust chips which Dr. Millette isolated were likely Tnemec steel primer paint.

MM

Oh dear, completely and utterly wrong again MM. You never seem to understand or manage to learn do you?

Dr Millette positively identifies kaolin and epoxy in the red layer of his correctly isolated chips.

There is no kaolin or epoxy in Tnemec Red 99 primer paint. If you knew your stuff like we do then you would know this. Here's the spec for the 100th time:



whereas Laclade red joist primer paint does contain kaolin (kaolin is an aluminosilicate) and epoxy:



This is why you and other truthers are continually derided, chastised and laughed at. You never get anything right even after it's been painfully explained to you dozens of times.

[Robrob]

This:

Quote:

Unfortunately for those seriously interested in Dr. Millette's work, heat testing, post ignition residue analysis, and FTIR findings, reveal that all the 9/11 WTC dust chips which Dr. Millette isolated were likely Tnemec steel primer paint.

Vs:

Quote:

Oh dear, completely and utterly wrong again MM. You never seem to understand or manage to learn do you?

Dr Millette positively identifies kaolin and epoxy in the red layer of his correctly isolated chips.

There is no kaolin or epoxy in Tnemec Red 99 primer paint. If you knew your stuff like we do then you would know this. Here's the spec for the 100th time:

The two are mutually exclusive. One has to be false. Wonder if there's any chance the poster of the falsehood will actually address their falsehood or not?

[moorea34]

Originally Posted by Robrob

This:


Vs:


The two are mutually exclusive. One has to be false. Wonder if there's any chance the poster of the falsehood will actually address their falsehood or not?

After over 3500 posts, it's always the same
ignorance, dishonest and lies

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

"Oh dear, completely and utterly wrong again MM.

You never seem to understand or manage to learn do you?

Dr Millette positively identifies kaolin and epoxy in the red layer of his correctly isolated chips.

There is no kaolin or epoxy in Tnemec Red 99 primer paint. If you knew your stuff like we do then you would know this. Here's the spec for the 100th time:

Whereas LaClede red joist primer paint does contain kaolin (kaolin is an aluminosilicate) and epoxy:

This is why you and other truthers are continually derided, chastised and laughed at.

You never get anything right even after it's been painfully explained to you dozens of times."

Someone is completely and utterly wrong.

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE.

It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it.

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede..."

MM

[Ivan Kminek]

MM:
In this respect, it is not so critically important whether the specific material (paint) of Bentham chips (a) to (d) (and corresponding Millette's chips) was unambiguously identified in every detail, including e.g. tiny amount of strontium chromate.

Those chips simply contained only one pigment as a source of Al and Si, therefore they cannot be Tnemec red primer. Millette thinks so (and he adds that the polymeric binder in these chips is not alkyd-based like in Tnemec, but epoxy-based), Harrit et al thinks so, most of truthers thinks so (although they do not agree that this pigment is kaolinite), as well as all debunkers here and everywhere, but still... you wrote: "Unfortunately for those seriously interested in Dr. Millette's work, heat testing, post ignition residue analysis, and FTIR findings, reveal that all the 9/11 WTC dust chips which Dr. Millette isolated were likely Tnemec steel primer paint."

So, are you trying to open a "new battle" against the whole world with this sentence, like in the case of your pretty confused claims about resistivity tests used for pre-selection of "right chips"?
Try to concentrate next time

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

"Dr Millette positively identifies kaolin and epoxy in the red layer of his correctly isolated chips.

There is no kaolin or epoxy in Tnemec Red 99 primer paint. If you knew your stuff like we do then you would know this.

Whereas LaClede red joist primer paint does contain kaolin (kaolin is an aluminosilicate) and epoxy:

This is why you and other truthers are continually derided, chastised and laughed at. You never get anything right even after it's been painfully explained to you dozens of times."

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

"Those chips simply contained kaolinite as only source of Al and Si (and as only white pigment detected), therefore they cannot be Tnemec red primer."

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE.

It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it.

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede..."

NOT Tnemec and NOT LaClede primer paints.

Nor could Dr. Millette match his chip selects with 140 other paint configurations.

Dr. Harrit et al have actually made a finding and they agree, the chips they highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, are not composed of Tnemec or LaClede primer paint.

MM

[kid meatball]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Dr. Harrit et al have actually made a finding and they agree, the chips they highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, are not composed of Tnemec or LaClede primer paint.

MM

Must be thermite then.

[chrismohr]

Hey gang,

I asked this before and I'll ask again. Around 2011 or maybe 2012, Neils Harrit was quoted as saying something like, two years with no response from the scientific community to our thermite paper is somehow support for the paper's claims. Anyone have the quote? I am looking all over for it to include in a summary I am organizing. No luck yet.

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: I somehow googled-out this sentence: "No such scientific rebuttal to the Harrit et al paper has yet appeared", with this link.

But for unknown reason, the sentence itself is not in the interview, I stay confused

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Someone is completely and utterly wrong.



MM

Yep.

(emphasis in the original)

[pgimeno]

I've asked Ivan permission to host the images he uploaded so they can be hotlinked to my site so they're available to non-members too. Here they are. The first one (that he repeated in a later post):



The second one:



Hope that helps.

ETA: Permission is hereby granted to hotlink to them within this forum. I reserve the right to limit access if hotlinked from other sites.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

NOT Tnemec and NOT LaClede primer paints.

Nor could Dr. Millette match his chip selects with 140 other paint configurations.

Dr. Harrit et al have actually made a finding and they agree, the chips they highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, are not composed of Tnemec or LaClede primer paint.

MM

Could not match, or has not matched, to a particular primer?

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Chris: I somehow googled-out this sentence: "No such scientific rebuttal to the Harrit et al paper has yet appeared", with this link.

But for unknown reason, the sentence itself is not in the interview, I stay confused

Yeah I read that article in my search as well. I think the quote is somewhere on a JREF thread but I couldn't find it anywhere here either. Anyone know about the Harrit quote about how two years with no response is support for his thermite paper?

[Ivan Kminek]

Well, if this Harrit's sentence is so difficult to be found on the net, perhaps it is not ideal source of e.g. quotes for your video

[Redwood]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miragememories
NOT Tnemec and NOT LaClede primer paints.

Nor could Dr. Millette match his chip selects with 140 other paint configurations.

Dr. Harrit et al have actually made a finding and they agree, the chips they highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, are not composed of Tnemec or LaClede primer paint.

MM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Could not match, or has not matched, to a particular primer?

And it doesn't match any known formulation of thermite, what with all the Si in it. Which means it must be Top-Sekrit Super-Duper Thermite.