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

[Spanx]

http://ceroart.revues.org/3248

Chris, as you know I am no expert but I would say you would have a better chance of saying the paint samples in the above link are nano thermite than in the Bentham paper.

 

[LSSBB]

http://ceroart.revues.org/3248

Chris, as you know I am no expert but I would say you would have a better chance of saying the paint samples in the above link are nano thermite than in the Bentham paper.

Great link. Argonne National Labs performs the same service for the Art Institute of Chicago, from what I remember.

 

[pgimeno]

Quoting Miragememories in another thread:

Who is totally neutral?

Having some bias is a far cry from falsifying scientific research.

MM

Interesting, in that you believe Dr. Millette had some bias and that made his scientific research questionable.

 

[Spanx]

http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf here you go rema, here is a bit more science abuse for you.

Be careful not to choke on your Bong water.

So you chose to ignore

The same as the other two thermite truthers on jref. LMFAO

 

[LudicFallacies]

So you chose to ignore

The same as the other two thermite truthers on jref. LMFAO

"was advanced by 68.1 °C and 76.8 °C respectively compared with simple mixtures"

hahaha

So the truther's beloved nano thermite only increased the temperature of the reaction 68 to 76 °C with the micro formula producing MORE ENERGY than the nano formula!

AH

HAHAHAHA

ROTFLMAO

 

[Spanx]

"was advanced by 68.1 °C and 76.8 °C respectively compared with simple mixtures"

hahaha

So the truther's beloved nano thermite only increased the temperature of the reaction 68 to 76 °C with the micro formula producing MORE ENERGY than the nano formula!

AH

HAHAHAHA

ROTFLMAO

Yep, along with no know thermite igniting at 430c

And of course thermite contains thermite Al which is missing in Truther thermite

 

[kid meatball]

Why move my original post to a different thread before replying?



On the subject of bias, if Chris Mohr has any genuine sincerity about his own investigation, he might consider asking Dr. Millette what he thinks about the quality of Dave Thomas's research methodology rather polling the JREF cesspool.



Campfires anyone?



Regarding Dr. Millette's bias; unlike the trash results from Dave Thomas's trash barrel work, Dr. Millette's bias did not show in the testing he did but in the testing he chose to avoid.



If Chris Mohr has any genuine sincerity about his own investigation, he might consider asking Dr. Millette what he thinks about the quality of Dave Thomas's research methodology rather polling the JREF cesspool.



Dr. Millette appeared to do quality research on 9/11 WTC dust samples.



But he refuses to confirm his samples are a match for those highlighted in 2009 Bentham paper even though he could do so very easily.



His bias does not lead him to do sloppy work in order to prove a point.



Dr. Millette's bias leads him to avoiding the trap of having to report findings that would make him unpopular professionally and personally.

​

Dr. Millette's company has performed a lot of contract work for the U.S. Government.



Supporting the 2009 Bentham paper would be seen as "biting the hand that feeds him".



As I have said previously, because he has his own lab, the missing heat test was easy for Dr. Millette to perform and he likely did that test.



But a residue that did not compare with that highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper would reveal that his samples were bogus.



That is a finding, his bias would not allow him to report.



Courage to reveal an unpopular truth is a rare commodity.



With no obvious motivation other than a respect for the truth, scientists like Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile etc. have shown such courage.



What kind of bias would temp a scientist to become a pariah?​

All that, and you don't even address the post just before yours, that's been sitting there for weeks.​

 

[NoahFence]

You didn't expect anything different did you?

 

[kid meatball]

No I didn't.

 

[DGM]

Dr. Millette appeared to do quality research on 9/11 WTC dust samples.

But he refuses to confirm his samples are a match for those highlighted in 2009 Bentham paper even though he could do so very easily.

His bias does not lead him to do sloppy work in order to prove a point.

Dr. Millette's bias leads him to avoiding the trap of having to report findings that would make him unpopular professionally and personally.

Dr. Millette's company has performed a lot of contract work for the U.S. Government.

Supporting the 2009 Bentham paper would be seen as "biting the hand that feeds him".

As I have said previously, because he has his own lab, the missing heat test was easy for Dr. Millette to perform and he likely did that test.

But a residue that did not compare with that highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper would reveal that his samples were bogus.

That is a finding, his bias would not allow him to report.

Courage to reveal an unpopular truth is a rare commodity.

Just so we're clear. You are accusing Dr Millette of lying in the reports he has released and he does this knowingly?

A simple yes or no will do. If no, I'd expect a retraction.

 

[pgimeno]

Why move my original post to a different thread before replying?

Because it was off-topic in that thread, and on-topic in this thread. To not further derail the original thread, I moved it.

Dr. Millette appeared to do quality research on 9/11 WTC dust samples.

But he refuses to confirm his samples are a match for those highlighted in 2009 Bentham paper even though he could do so very easily.

Unless you point us to a quote, direct or indirect, from Dr. Millette with his express refusal, I will consider that a lie. What I have seen instead is:

1) Him saying that he is interested in learning more about the microspheres.
2) Him stating that he's too busy running his lab at this point.
3) His characterization of the chips using sound scientific methods that leaves no doubt about the chips being the same as a-d in the paper, to a point that if there are thermitic and not-thermitic ones with that signature, the thermitic ones must be a hell of a good disguise, especially crafted to look like them.
4) You and other truthers giving excuses to claim that the chips are not the same anyway, independently of the test you're now pushing for.

His bias does not lead him to do sloppy work in order to prove a point.

Exactly, it doesn't, and he didn't. No truther has yet contended his methodology, data and results, because they are impeccable. But I gather from that sentence that you're admitting that the work in the ATM paper is sloppy and that the scientists were biased. That's a brave admission. Well done.

Dr. Millette's bias leads him to avoiding the trap of having to report findings that would make him unpopular professionally and personally.

"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the states as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone, you know?"

"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"

"Of course, it's the end of the story."

Proving Jowenko's lack of integrity in that field doesn't get you any closer to proving Millette's. Millette has stated that he has told his clients what he has found, whether they liked it or not. You have stated no reasons for not believing him, other than your own bias that disinclines you to believe him and make things up about his motivations.

As I have said previously, because he has his own lab, the missing heat test was easy for Dr. Millette to perform and he likely did that test.

You've made up that he likely did it, yes. Which doesn't mean that he did, and indeed it's unlikely given that it's not a proper materials characterization test. His task was to find out whether the material was thermite. He did so by looking for free aluminium, and he found none, which settled the question he was hired to answer. Regardless, he was curious about the microspheres, but time constraints impeded him to look further into that.

But instead of all that, it would have been much easier to settle the question if he was given chips considered thermitic by the ATM team, yet they refused on bogus grounds. Who's to blame for that?

With no obvious motivation other than a respect for the truth, scientists like Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile etc. have shown such courage.

They have shown sloppiness in their methods, as you admit, to a degree that invalidates their conclusions.

 

[Miragememories]

"Regarding Dr. Millette's bias; unlike the trash results from Dave Thomas's trash barrel work, Dr. Millette's bias did not show in the testing he did but in the testing he chose to avoid.

If Chris Mohr has any genuine sincerity about his own investigation, he might consider asking Dr. Millette what he thinks about the quality of Dave Thomas's research methodology rather polling the JREF cesspool.

Dr. Millette appeared to do quality research on 9/11 WTC dust samples.

But he refuses to confirm his samples are a match for those highlighted in 2009 Bentham paper even though he could do so very easily.

His bias does not lead him to do sloppy work in order to prove a point.

Dr. Millette's bias leads him to avoiding the trap of having to report findings that would make him unpopular professionally and personally.

"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the states as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone, you know?"

"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"

"Of course, it's the end of the story."

Dr. Millette's company has performed a lot of contract work for the U.S. Government.

Supporting the 2009 Bentham paper would be seen as "biting the hand that feeds him".

As I have said previously, because he has his own lab, the missing heat test was easy for Dr. Millette to perform and he likely did that test.

But a residue that did not compare with that highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper would reveal that his samples were bogus.

That is a finding, his bias would not allow him to report.

Courage to reveal an unpopular truth is a rare commodity.

With no obvious motivation other than a respect for the truth, scientists like Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile etc. have shown such courage.

What kind of bias would temp a scientist to become a pariah?"

"Just so we're clear.

You are accusing Dr Millette of lying in the reports he has released and he does this knowingly?

A simple yes or no will do.

If no, I'd expect a retraction.

You seem to have either serious comprehension issues DGM, or a strong willingness to distort.

Lying is permitted in the JREF forums but it is a serious liability in the professional world.

If I am accusing Dr. Millette of anything, it is 'avoidance' of the truth, which is not the same as lying.

 

[beachnut]

You seem to have either serious comprehension issues DGM, or a strong willingness to distort.

Lying is permitted in the JREF forums but it is a serious liability in the professional world.

If I am accusing Dr. Millette of anything, it is 'avoidance' of the truth, which is not the same as lying.

What are you waiting for; you have the evidence. Team with a newspaper and get the Pulitzer Prize for exposing the biggest inside job since the flat earth, no moon landing, and Bigfoot.

Millette's paper is science, Harrit's paper is a made up conclusion. Gullible is 911 truth followers key trait.

Pulitzer is waiting, 13 years and no one in 911 truth has the guts to go for the glory. Why is that MM

 

[DGM]

You seem to have either serious comprehension issues DGM, or a strong willingness to distort.

What part of this am I distorting?

As I have said previously, because he has his own lab, the missing heat test was easy for Dr. Millette to perform and he likely did that test.

But a residue that did not compare with that highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper would reveal that his samples were bogus.

That is a finding, his bias would not allow him to report.

He says he did not do that test. You call that a lie.

Based on this you claim he falsified his report.

If I am accusing Dr. Millette of anything, it is 'avoidance' of the truth, which is not the same as lying.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Justin39640]

If I am accusing Dr. Millette of anything, it is 'avoidance' of the truth, which is not the same as lying.

These two things mean the same thing.

 

[JSanderO]

It seems to me that this can be solved by the original authors or the Bentham paper getting together with other materials scientists... with no skin in the game and using the material from the Bentham study...(and other dust samples if they exist) and try to reproduce the study and get the same results.. or different results would be equally valid science.

Why they don't chose this route to verify their "scientific" claim/conclusions is telling (to me). What they have done is raise the specter that they did robust science which fuels "CD proponents" but avoid doing what is done in science... reproduce results! If it can't be, or has not been reproduced by independent labs/researchers... the findings are suspect regardless if they found some "journal" to "publish" their work (which I believe they paid to get published????)

Why is this verification taking so long? No interest from the scientific community.... or no interest from the original people who published in Bentham? or perhaps both!

 

[Africanus]

It seems to me that this can be solved by the original authors or the Bentham paper getting together with other materials scientists... with no skin in the game and using the material from the Bentham study...(and other dust samples if they exist) and try to reproduce the study and get the same results.. or different results would be equally valid science.

I think it is more likely that hell freezes over.

Why they don't chose this route to verify their "scientific" claim/conclusions is telling (to me). What they have done is raise the specter that they did robust science which fuels "CD proponents" but avoid doing what is done in science... reproduce results! If it can't be, or has not been reproduced by independent labs/researchers... the findings are suspect regardless if they found some "journal" to "publish" their work (which I believe they paid to get published????)

Exactly. I think Jones, Ryan et al. surely have some foreknowledge - they know that their study is crap.

Why is this verification taking so long? No interest from the scientific community.... or no interest from the original people who published in Bentham? or perhaps both!

I think, that this study is hardly knwon in the scientific community. I have never heard of Bentham Science/Open before, but of the well known publishers like ACS, Wiley, Elsevier, etc. If noone knows the study, noone will verify the study.

 

[pgimeno]

I think, that this study is hardly knwon in the scientific community. I have never heard of Bentham Science/Open before, but of the well known publishers like ACS, Wiley, Elsevier, etc. If noone knows the study, noone will verify the study.

Many people (scientists) have, but...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4619501&postcount=538

 

[WilliamSeger]

It seems to me that this can be solved by the original authors or the Bentham paper getting together with other materials scientists... with no skin in the game and using the material from the Bentham study...(and other dust samples if they exist) and try to reproduce the study and get the same results.. or different results would be equally valid science. I believe they paid to get published????)

It would be interesting if the results couldn't be reproduced, but reproducing them would only produce the same inconclusive evidence. The bias in the study isn't just the unfounded conclusions; it's the lack of any serious effort to disprove the thermite hypothesis, as proper scientific testing should do -- no test for elemental aluminum, no test for ignition without oxygen, no test for aluminum oxide production, etc. If any of those disprove the thermite hypothesis, there's no reason for further testing.

 

[chrismohr]

Why move my original post to a different thread before replying?

On the subject of bias, if Chris Mohr has any genuine sincerity about his own investigation, he might consider asking Dr. Millette what he thinks about the quality of Dave Thomas's research methodology rather polling the JREF cesspool.

Campfires anyone?

Regarding Dr. Millette's bias; unlike the trash results from Dave Thomas's trash barrel work, Dr. Millette's bias did not show in the testing he did but in the testing he chose to avoid.

If Chris Mohr has any genuine sincerity about his own investigation, he might consider asking Dr. Millette what he thinks about the quality of Dave Thomas's research methodology rather polling the JREF cesspool.

Dr. Millette appeared to do quality research on 9/11 WTC dust samples.

But he refuses to confirm his samples are a match for those highlighted in 2009 Bentham paper even though he could do so very easily.

His bias does not lead him to do sloppy work in order to prove a point.

Dr. Millette's bias leads him to avoiding the trap of having to report findings that would make him unpopular professionally and personally.

​

Dr. Millette's company has performed a lot of contract work for the U.S. Government.

Supporting the 2009 Bentham paper would be seen as "biting the hand that feeds him".

As I have said previously, because he has his own lab, the missing heat test was easy for Dr. Millette to perform and he likely did that test.

But a residue that did not compare with that highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper would reveal that his samples were bogus.

That is a finding, his bias would not allow him to report.

Courage to reveal an unpopular truth is a rare commodity.

With no obvious motivation other than a respect for the truth, scientists like Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile etc. have shown such courage.

What kind of bias would temp a scientist to become a pariah?​

MM once again you completely misrepresent Jim Millette. I directly confronted him on everything you talk about here. I asked him what he would do if he found thermite and he said, "If I find it I'll publish it." He also said he is used to presenting results his clients did not like. Regarding the EPA, he reported dangerous Ph readings and a veritable witches' brew of toxic substances in the dust, which were praised by Cate Jenkins and used as honest measurements in her allegations against the EPA (hear that, Kevin Ryan?). In so doing he also completely contradicted the government claim that the air was safe to breathe a couple weeks after 9/11. And BTW, he recommended to me people at other labs who could do DSC tests on the chips. He didn't have one in the office, but that would not have stopped him from doing the test if he thought it would be of any value. He said that he found no thermite in the chips using standard forensic tests, and if the thermitic paper authors wanted to say the chips were incendieries they would have to come up with a new hypothesis about whast these chips are "because they are not thermite."

As for your mockery of my campfire experiment, if YOU had a sincere interest you would like to know if iron-rich microspheres can be found in a regular campfire. That's the only question I am trying to answer. And again, my hypothesis is that we will not find them there. But we may both be wrong. You are setting the experiment up to be discounted in advance of it even being done, just in case we DO find the microspheres there.

It is not insincerity that keeps me from wasting Millette's time with asking his opinion of Dave Thomas's work. And I'd really appreciate your revoking the accusation that Millette did a DSC test and didn't report the results. That IS NOT TRUE. What IS true is that Kevin Ryan's FTIR results and Jeff Farrer's TEM results were not published or released. You can be soooooo irritating. You owe us an apology or at least a revocation of that accusation.

On one matter we do agree. I admire the courage of Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, etc. They have all paid a high price for publicly taking the stands that they have. But that does not make them right. Still, taking a strong stand for what they believe in, is a human attribute that is rare and which I support. Because sometimes people with that kind of courage are right.​