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

[tsig]

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 been 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.

FTFY
Admiring people who lie and dance on the grave of 3000 others is disgusting. If these are your heroes you won't have to look far for villains.

 

[chrismohr]

Hey! I said "They have all paid a high price." For a minute there I thought you caught me in a major blooper. And if it helps any, they're not heroes in my mind. A hero is both courageous and right. They ARE courageous tho, they HAVE paid a high price for their stands, and they are NOT dancing on the graves of the 3000 dead. They think they are helping expose the truth about what really happened to them. As do we.

But anyway, back to Millette and MM's smear against him. I have told a story of a man I consider both courageous and right. MM you owe us a retraction of your accusation that he did a DSC on the dust and never reported it. Not only do you have no evidence of this, but now I have told you why I am confident your baseless, mean spirited accusation is untrue. Your turn. Please apologize or at least just retract. You know that no one here will let you off the hook on that one.

 

[carlitos]

Including Gage as someone who has "paid a price" is reprehensible. Shame on you. He's done 2 or three books and has a six figure travel budget precisely by dancing on graves. This is the jerkoff that hijacked a memorial ceremony by shining a third spotlight in the sky over lower Manhattan on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 to commemorate a *********** empty building.

ETA -

They think they are helping expose the truth about what really happened to them

No.

Also, I think you missed the point of tsig's "FYFY" - he is not agreeing with your sentiment. He added "been" to your post and highlighted it.

 

[LSSBB]

Hey! I said "They have all paid a high price." For a minute there I thought you caught me in a major blooper. And if it helps any, they're not heroes in my mind. A hero is both courageous and right. They ARE courageous tho, they HAVE paid a high price for their stands, and they are NOT dancing on the graves of the 3000 dead. They think they are helping expose the truth about what really happened to them. As do we.

But anyway, back to Millette and MM's smear against him. I have told a story of a man I consider both courageous and right. MM you owe us a retraction of your accusation that he did a DSC on the dust and never reported it. Not only do you have no evidence of this, but now I have told you why I am confident your baseless, mean spirited accusation is untrue. Your turn. Please apologize or at least just retract. You know that no one here will let you off the hook on that one.

Not to derail this any further, however Chris I have to note that you don't know what they think. They may be trying to right wrongs, or they may be seeking attention, or maybe something else. We don't know their thoughts, only their words, and more importantly their actions. Right now, as far as actions, they are holding on to information and refusing to acknowledge the flaws in their case.

 

[carlitos]

Openly announcing your ignorance

... is a lot more honest than feigning knowledge.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

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.

1. Why did Harrit refuse to report his DSC findings regarding the Delassio/Breidenbach sample? Was he afraid that this would reveal that this sample was bogus and did not compare to the other three highlighted in his own paper?

2. Why did Harrit only test one chip for resistivity and report it in his paper? Why did he not test ALL of the the chips used in his paper for resistivity? Was it because he was afraid that this would reveal these samples were bogus and did not compare with those highlighted in his own paper

3. Why did Harrit refuse to report the composition of the regular paint chips? Why did he have to go to outside published sources to get these compositions when he had paint chips in his very hands?

4. Why did Harrit refuse to perform his MEK on more than one chip? He tested one chip from sample 2. Was he afraid that testing more than one chip would reveal that the other samples were bogus and did not compare to those highlighted in his own paper?

Your support of Harrit's paper is ridiculous. He did random testing on random chips and used those random results to stereotype all chips contained in his paper. Garbage scientific method was used for this paper. Example. How can Harrit claim that the Delassio/Breidenback sample contained thermtic chips when Harrit failed to perform a DSC test on any samples from it? How can Harrit claim all chips from each sample were thermitic when he failed to do resistivity tests on any chips from the other three samples. We don't even know which sample the lone chip he performed the resistivity test on came from.

You're going to give Harrit a pass when he skipped certain tests on certain chips? Yet you expect Millette to perform ALL tests in the Harrit paper on every chip when Harrit himself didn't even do this.

You have been asked time and time again to reveal which tests in Harrit's paper are important in determining thermitic chips and you continually dodge the question.

Why?

Because your only answer is that there was/were no specific test/s used to determine which chips were thermitic. Not one single chip in Harrit's paper had every test listed performed on it.

 

[Gamolon]

MM,

If you're going to nitpick Millette for not doing certain tests on his chips to determine if any contained thermitic material, then I challenge you to do the followng.

Go to Harrit's paper and pick a chip/sample. Then go through and show me which chip/sample can be followed thoughout the entire paper and to show that each and every test listed was performed on that one chip/sample you picked.

I dare you.

If you're going to nullify certain chips in Millett's study based on not having certain tests performed on certain chips, then we get the same privilege.

 

[carlitos]

Again, I am embarrassed to have helped fund this nonsense. As others predicted, it accomplished exactly nothing. Let the truthers wallow in their ignorance. They aren't worth engaging.

 

[chrismohr]

MM if you think it's OK to say, "the missing heat test was easy for Dr. Millette to perform and he likely did that test" then there is nothing more to say. My corrected quote above (and I did misquote you by accident in my anger at you) is unacceptable. Retract it now or you will never hear the end of it.

Carlitos the big picture is that way more 9/11 Truth people than you know have been deeply affected by the Millette study, and it has created a major rift in the 9/11 Truth movement. You'll see what I mean in my farewell video, which I'll get around to hopefully before too terribly long. Don't think that MM is representative of everyone on "the other side."

 

[DGM]

I never claimed Dr. Millette used a DSC but you accused me of claiming that.

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.

Yeah, you're right, it was just an accusation.

 

[tsig]

Again, I am embarrassed to have helped fund this nonsense. As others predicted, it accomplished exactly nothing. Let the truthers wallow in their ignorance. They aren't worth engaging.

It's worse than that, it gave validity to the original paper as witness MM here using it.

 

[DGM]

It's worse than that, it gave validity to the original paper as witness MM here using it.

A shallow victory at best. Outside of the "truther" world, no one gives this paper any credit despite Millete introducing it to many more scientists then had heard of it before. "Truthers" believed in the paper before and they still do.

Nothing really has changed. We all knew this going in. We do however know more about what the chips really were.

 

[Redwood]

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.

Absolutely. Aside from it's unwarranted conclusions, the problem with the Bentham paper isn't what was done, it what wasn't done. Dr. Millette DID test for elemental aluminum, and having found none, the thermite hypothesis is conclusively disproved, and nothing further needs to be done.

A DSC under an inert atmosphere will be like cutting the head off the monster after it's already dead. Unnecessary, but reassuring. But even that won't convince the last remnants of the dying "Truth" movement.

 

[Justin39640]

Again, I am embarrassed to have helped fund this nonsense. As others predicted, it accomplished exactly nothing. Let the truthers wallow in their ignorance. They aren't worth engaging.

I tend to disagree. I noticed a lot of infighting and truthers actually questioning their beliefs as a result of the study. More so than anything else I've seen since 2006. I think it turned a lot of opinions and really hurt the truth movement. Might have been the death nail for relatively sane truthers staying on board.

This is why there was/is such a furious attack on it. It hurt a certain Dick's wallet. I think it was a highly successful study in more than just identifying what was in the dust.

 

[beachnut]

Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Boston bombers, and Tim McVeigh. They all take the stands they have. Gee, they are like Hitler, he had courage to take his stand; one of, hate, and murder. Liars, mislead others, and inspire nuts to act, based on lies.

Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, etc, all super people spreading lies, and inspiring nuts like the Boston bombers with the ammo to fuel hate, bias and ignorance. Gage is the worse, he made $500,000 last year, and could hire the best engineers to learn he is low life liar, and has no clue.

 

[Gamolon]

MM,

If you're going to nitpick Millette for not doing certain tests on his chips to determine if any contained thermitic material, then I challenge you to do the followng.

Go to Harrit's paper and pick a chip/sample. Then go through and show me which chip/sample can be followed thoughout the entire paper and to show that each and every test listed was performed on that one chip/sample you picked.

I dare you.

If you're going to nullify certain chips in Millett's study based on not having certain tests performed on certain chips, then we get the same privilege.

So how about it MM? Were you able to follow a single chip throughout Harrit's paper where he performed all tests mentioned in the paper to determine if it was indeed thermitic?

Do you not see the problem with Harrit's paper? Or DO you see the problem with Harrit's paper and you just don't want to respond because you're trying to save face?

At the very basic level, Harrit's results cannot be reproduced by anyone because no chip within Harrit's paper was tested with ALL tests. The paper tests random chips with random tests. How is anyone supposed to reproduce the conclusion that chips contain a thermitic material when no definitive tests are used to make that conclusion?

As I stated before, you have been asked I don't know how many times to list the tests within Harrit's paper that should be used to determine if a chip has a thermitic material within it and you balk every time.

Harrit's paper is a sham for the very reasons listed above and you don't want to address it.

Why not?

 

[Gamolon]

Promises to test the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper remain broken, and the excuses for not performing the simple 430C heat test are extremely weak.

Can you explain why Harrit didn't perform a DSC test on the Delassio sample and publish the results? If that was as important as you seem to think it was, why are you not all over Harrit about this? He still declares that all four samples, including the Delassio sample he "missed" doing a DSC test on, as containing thermitic material.

Why is it ok in your book for Harrit to not perform certain tests, but you crucify Millette for not dong certain tests?

Are you biased in some way?

 

[MileHighMadness]

At this point, the great thermite hoax fails on so many levels, I don't know why we are even discussing the issue. Dr. Millette has killed it, now and forever...

 

[LSSBB]

At this point, the great thermite hoax fails on so many levels, I don't know why we are even discussing the issue. Dr. Millette has killed it, now and forever...

The "issue" was never alive to begin with. The Harrit paper would probably never have passed peer review at a reputable journal and with serious reviewers who didn't have a conflict of interest. It's conclusions are in no way supported by it's meager and sloppily performed "evidence". As far as I can tell, the whole thing is a sham designed to lure in the marks for donations and adulation.

 

[GlennB]

One problem with your hypothesis is that the evidence indicates they are not trying to avoid such a test.

What evidence? You have no more evidence of such a thing than you do that Millette failed to publish the results of tests he actually performed.

My evidence is that they failed to perform the most obvious and simplest test possible, and one that even I could manage despite being out of a laboratory for some 40 years.

"- DSC analysis of red/gray chips focusing on exothermic/endothermic reactions near 400 degrees C. Some chips to be scanned in inert atmosphere and some in air or oxygen containing gas stream."

Proposed, years later, when it should have been the very first test to be performed?

"Get some dust and look for the metallic microspheres and red/gray chips. The spheres are evidence of temperatures beyond the capability of jet fuel, and the chips produce molten iron droplets when ignited!"

Wow. That's some reputable scientist you have there. Would you seriously look to a person capable of making that tripe public and quote him in support of your case?

p.s. I see no date. Inspecting a photo tells me Jan 2014. I'm sure the $5k he's raised could pay for this simple test many times over.