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

[DGM]

Its the FORM the 911DUST's 5.87% 'iron' is in - Identified Fe spheroids- would deviate your argument.

And that would be identified by the same people that refuse to share their samples and are the only ones that have "proof" of their results?

 

[beachnut]

Its the FORM the 911DUST's 5.87% 'iron' is in - Identified Fe spheroids- would deviate your argument. Explicitly formed by thermitic reaction. With elemental Sulfur inside. Not a match scratch prairie fire.
The identified Spheres are result of chemical ignition. Reaction. Spitting Molten steel fluids into the churning atmosphere during ignition, cutting the beams and girders in symphony., in accord with the erupting pulverized DUST of concrete coming down., molten spit turning into spheres at the same RATE of the buildings disintegration.
The earths 'percentage of Iron' translating into the spheroids under question, is a broken wing flutter, off in the night time sage brush.

How many lies did you post?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/feats-1um.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/


The WTC dust was not 5.87 percent iron. You lied.
The iron was found to be from concrete, iron bearing substance in the WTC, rust from the steel. OOPS, you lied for 911 truth based on BS.

The spheres are from rust, and Jones failed, Jones lied about the iron spheres, fooling a few who refuse to think for themselves.

911 truth followers are unable, unwilling to comprehend reality.

911 truth, in the 13th year of spreading lies, mocking those murdered on 911.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Pine fueled campfire ash and Iron-rich spheroids?!

If I sat a thousand days to think of something less pertinent to the 911 conspiracy, I doubt I could have scouted something more ridiculous than a pine fueled picnic fire. But. Golly Gosh. Thas just me.

Looks like MM and Remo Tokay are so worried about someone finding out that there are ways to make iron-rich spheroids without thermite, that they will gleefully ridicule any serious attempt to answer this question.

That makes me want to do the experiment even more.

I got the ashes, Chris! Now to arrange some quality lab time before the forum closes.

 

[Redwood]

Around Chris Mohrs campfire, all agree. The earth has iron in its veins.

Convinced that the microspheres under discussion, at 5.87% of the gargantuan heated DUST clouds rampaging the canyons of Manhattan that terrible day

Here's your problem, Remo: Once you concede that any of the "iron rich spheres" can come from sources other than "nanothermite", how do you know that all of them didn't come from other sources?

Perhaps you could show that "5.87%" exceeds the physical limit possible in a fire. Maybe the physical limit is 4.12345%. How are you going to prove that?

Maybe these spheres have a unique property:

Its the FORM the 911DUST's 5.87% 'iron' is in - Identified Fe spheroids- would deviate your argument. Explicitly formed by thermitic reaction. With elemental Sulfur inside. Not a match scratch prairie fire.

Is that your final answer, Remo? Elemental sulfur? You do know what "elemental" means, right? And "thermate" is SO 2006!

 

[chrismohr]

Dave Thomas did a couple experiments to show what happens with ordinary fire. The second one is especially instructive because it shows iron-rich spheres arising from a regular fire of primer paint on steel. The campfire experiment is actually a response to Beachnut's claim that iron-rich spheres are commonplace even in a regular campfire. I am skeptical of that claim and my hypothesis is that we will NOT find iron-rich spheres there, that it requires diffrerent conditions. My attempt to test Beschnut's claim is being mocked, which I find ironic, since I expect it will call into question Beachnut's claim. I expect that if we DON'T find iron-rich spheres, Beachnut will withdraw his assertion. I also expect that if we DO find iron-rich spheres in this much maligned campfire ash collection, the mockery of my little experiment will continue. But how funny that my test of Beachnut's claim is accepted by Beachnut himself but not by MM and Remo!

 

[remo]

Cowboy tales.

I don't care either way Chris Mohr. The Bentham paper clearly identifies Fe Spheres WITH exothermic ignition/reaction of identified nano-composites from the DUST of 911.
LEE clearly finds well above normal amounts of Fe Spheres in the WTC dust samples, enough to name their unusual amounts a WTC Dust 'marker'.
EPA reports and FEMA clearly show extreme temperature events and eutectic attack on steel members from WTC way hotter than any jet fuel normal office furnishings fires.
There is clearly evidence of demolition process throughout the evidence and damage field of the 911 atrocity.
And clear and compelling evidence of a massive cover-up.

The campfire soliloquy is soporific. Adjunct. It mocks itself.

 

[MileHighMadness]

I don't care either way Chris Mohr. The Bentham paper clearly identifies Fe Spheres WITH exothermic ignition/reaction of identified nano-composites from the DUST of 911.
LEE clearly finds well above normal amounts of Fe Spheres in the WTC dust samples, enough to name their unusual amounts a WTC Dust 'marker'.
EPA reports and FEMA clearly show extreme temperature events and eutectic attack on steel members from WTC way hotter than any jet fuel normal office furnishings fires.
There is clearly evidence of demolition process throughout the evidence and damage field of the 911 atrocity.
And clear and compelling evidence of a massive cover-up.

The campfire soliloquy is soporific. Adjunct. It mocks itself.

The problem is, thermite, super-thermite, Nano-thermite, etc. is totally ineffective in the cutting of large steel members, required for Controlled Demolition. It doesn't matter how much or little of the stuff was found at any of the WTC sites, it's a totally worthless. You might as well be talking about peanut butter or magic pixie dust.

 

[remo]

In the houses of shadow.

You obviously do NOT know that. The events of the day and subsequent findings speak for the fact demolition took PLACE, and nano-composite materiel chips found in the DUST afterwards, speak to their effectiveness..
That we do not know original purpose or function of residual materiel found, would suggest that it was used successfully in some manner by 'those skilled in the arts' FOR the demolition process.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I don't care either way Chris Mohr. The Bentham paper clearly identifies Fe Spheres WITH exothermic ignition/reaction of identified nano-composites from the DUST of 911.

I read the Bentham paper, and I could not find mention of any labs where the authors had taken their samples to establish what elements the samples contained. (typical is to employ three independent labs) How does a paper "clearly identify" anything without lab results?

I LEE clearly finds well above normal amounts of Fe Spheres in the WTC dust samples, enough to name their unusual amounts a WTC Dust 'marker'.

How does he find this? I didn't see that reference in the paper. What are "normal amounts" because I didn't see that reference either.

What thermite or explosives expert or chemist reviewed this paper? Or do I just take the authors' word for it?

IEPA reports and FEMA clearly show extreme temperature events and eutectic attack on steel members from WTC way hotter than any jet fuel normal office furnishings fires.

Can you furnish me a link out to an EPA report that shows this because I can't find it, and I can't understand how a localized explosive would raise the temperature of a jet fuel and office fire that burns over time.

There is clearly evidence of demolition process throughout the evidence and damage field of the 911 atrocity.

Really? Do you have an independent demolition expert or explosives expert who will back that statement? Cause I'm reading through what the experts signed off on, the various published papers, and I can't find anybody endorsing your claim.

I guess the other question is, if there is "clearly evidence of a demolition process," that is it is clear, why don't you take this evidence to any of the dozens of professional demolition conferences held each year or alternately any of the dozens of Fire Chemist or physics conferences held every year and make your case. Would be an easy case to make if the evidence is clear. Then, Gage can stand on stage with the experts from the scientific and demolition community

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

The events of the day and subsequent findings speak for the fact demolition took PLACE, and nano-composite materiel chips found in the DUST afterwards, speak to their effectiveness.

But there is no evidence for nano-thermite and there is no evidence that thermite in any form can break steel beams apart or that it can break steel beams apart quickly enough for a controlled demolition. Presumably, you have consulted with explosives or demolition experts and they are telling you this? Who? Or are you just making this stuff up as you go?

That we do not know original purpose or function of residual materiel found, would suggest that it was used successfully in some manner by 'those skilled in the arts' FOR the demolition process.

And the demolition or explosives experts who told you this are....?

 

[ProBonoShill]

I don't care either way Chris Mohr. The Bentham paper clearly identifies Fe Spheres WITH exothermic ignition/reaction of identified nano-composites from the DUST of 911.
LEE clearly finds well above normal amounts of Fe Spheres in the WTC dust samples, enough to name their unusual amounts a WTC Dust 'marker'.
EPA reports and FEMA clearly show extreme temperature events and eutectic attack on steel members from WTC way hotter than any jet fuel normal office furnishings fires.
There is clearly evidence of demolition process throughout the evidence and damage field of the 911 atrocity.
And clear and compelling evidence of a massive cover-up.

The campfire soliloquy is soporific. Adjunct. It mocks itself.

The Benthem paper was so bad it stood no chance of being published in a respected peer reviewed journal, so the idiots that created it, resorted to a pay to publish site where even the editor of that publication quit in disgust.

Before embarrassing yourself further by citing that paper as evidence, I suggest you read here, here, here, and here.

 

[tsig]

You obviously do NOT know that. The events of the day and subsequent findings speak for the fact demolition took PLACE, and nano-composite materiel chips found in the DUST afterwards, speak to their effectiveness..
That we do not know original purpose or function of residual materiel found, would suggest that it was used successfully in some manner by 'those skilled in the arts' FOR the demolition process.

If you find unreacted materiel that means that the reaction was not very effective.

Since there were tons of supposedly non reacted thermite how many tons did they have to pack into the buildings?

 

[JSanderO]

I don't care either way Chris Mohr. The Bentham paper clearly identifies Fe Spheres WITH exothermic ignition/reaction of identified nano-composites from the DUST of 911.
LEE clearly finds well above normal amounts of Fe Spheres in the WTC dust samples, enough to name their unusual amounts a WTC Dust 'marker'.
EPA reports and FEMA clearly show extreme temperature events and eutectic attack on steel members from WTC way hotter than any jet fuel normal office furnishings fires.
There is clearly evidence of demolition process throughout the evidence and damage field of the 911 atrocity.
And clear and compelling evidence of a massive cover-up.

The campfire soliloquy is soporific. Adjunct. It mocks itself.

The chemical *goings on* did not end with the collapse of 7wtc... the fires raged on for days... the environment was a chemical soup which smoldered for a month or more spilling smoke and dust into the environment for miles and months!

You have no way of knowing when the effects or artifacts seen in dust samples were created... how they were created or where they were created or when they were created. To deny that MANY of the artifacts came POST collapse and had nothing to do with the mechanism(s) that caused the collapse is to take a very myopic view of the event.

Harrit's group had only 4 samples from 4 *civilians* and this is hardly a scientific approach to sample collecting. One of them, I know came from a building at 1 Hudson Street (@ Chambers St.) where I did architectural work years ago. His sample was collected from dust that came in his window and settled on I believe something in his loft.

Regardless of the rigor or lack thereof exercised by the Harrit group... I find their sample collection leaves much to be desired.

 

[chrismohr]

I don't care either way Chris Mohr. The Bentham paper clearly identifies Fe Spheres WITH exothermic ignition/reaction of identified nano-composites from the DUST of 911.
LEE clearly finds well above normal amounts of Fe Spheres in the WTC dust samples, enough to name their unusual amounts a WTC Dust 'marker'.
EPA reports and FEMA clearly show extreme temperature events and eutectic attack on steel members from WTC way hotter than any jet fuel normal office furnishings fires.
There is clearly evidence of demolition process throughout the evidence and damage field of the 911 atrocity.
And clear and compelling evidence of a massive cover-up.

The campfire soliloquy is soporific. Adjunct. It mocks itself.

Remo you also don't care about the sources you yourself cite. Did you ever talk to Jonathan Barnett, the author of your beloved Appendix C which first reported the eutectic steel? I have. I asked him personally if he thought CD could have been the cause of this and he said no, he thought it might be caused by battery acid, acid rain or burning gypsum wallboard. As for RJ Lee and your beloved report on iron-rich microspheres, someone else got a personal letter from him where Lee talked about the fact that this is well-researched and a phenomenon that is to be expected in intense fires. And as for evidence of demolition in the damage field, there are no huge piles of aluminum oxide, no record of vast blinding light during the collapse, no physical evidence brought forth from the hundreds of people combing through the debris (many of whom were hired because of their experience working on controlled demolitions becuase they knew well the hazards of debris piles). Oh yes, and Millette foujnd no evidence of thermite in the dust. Did it ever occur to you to talk to the people you quote to see if any of them agrede with your conclusions?

 

[Miragememories]

The chemical *goings on* did not end with the collapse of 7wtc... the fires raged on for days... the environment was a chemical soup which smoldered for a month or more spilling smoke and dust into the environment for miles and months!

You have no way of knowing when the effects or artifacts seen in dust samples were created... how they were created or where they were created or when they were created.
To deny that MANY of the artifacts came POST collapse and had nothing to do with the mechanism(s) that caused the collapse is to take a very myopic view of the event.

Harrit's group had only 4 samples from 4 *civilians* and this is hardly a scientific approach to sample collecting. One of them, I know came from a building at 1 Hudson Street (@ Chambers St.) where I did architectural work years ago. His sample was collected from dust that came in his window and settled on I believe something in his loft.

Regardless of the rigor or lack thereof exercised by the Harrit group... I find their sample collection leaves much to be desired.

BS.

Your prejudice against anything resembling 9/11 Truth has destroyed any objectivity you might have once had.

Private citizens (yes, *civilians*), believing they were acting in the public interest, provided Dr. Harrit et al with samples from 4 separate locations.

All were obtained shortly after 9/11.

The earliest sample 2 was obtained around the time of the collapse of WTC1. Mr. Frank Delessio collected a handful from the buildup on the railing of the pedestrian walkway near the end of the Brooklyn Bridge, about 10 minutes after the collapse. He provided a video testimonial as to the sample's acquisition history.

That freshly formed sample was clearly not contaminated by the WTC7 collapse, the passage of time, or cleanup operations.

On the morning of 9/11, a Ms. Janette MacKinlay was in her 4th floor apartment at 113 Cedar St. 1 when dust cloud from the collapsing WTC2 inwardly burst her windows and filled her apartment with dust. When she was allowed re-entry into her apartment a week later, she collected a large sealable bag of dust.

On the following day, 9/12, Mr. Stephen White entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of 1 Hudson St 4. On a stack of folded laundry in front of a window left open about 4 inches he found a layer of dust about 1 inch thick. He saved some of this dust and in February 2008 sent a sample to Dr. Jones, one of the authors of the 2009 Bentham paper.

Also on 9/12, at around 2 pm, a Mr. Jody Intermont at 16 Hudson St. 3 collected two samples from his apartment and sent them to Dr. Jones and Kevin Ryan along with a signed affidavit verifying their legitimacy.

A 5th sample was collected from the window sill of a building on Potter St. but since the individual involved did not give permission to have his name published, his sample was not included in the published study. It was found that his sample contained red/gray chips of the same general composition as the other described samples.

The very fact that these samples were collected when quite fresh, from random locations, backed by on the record collectors, and that they all contained red/gray chips with the same matching general composition, gives them legitimacy and makes them scientifically significant.

 

[LSSBB]

The very fact that these samples were collected when quite fresh, from random locations, backed by on the record collectors, and that they all contained red/gray chips with the same matching general composition, gives them legitimacy and makes them scientifically significant.

How many samples should they have tested in the study to acheive 95% confidence that their material was statistically similar to nanothermite, with which relevant test? Answering that question is the way to determine scientific significance. Note this is not a trick question: you have to formulate the hypothesis correctly, and then it is straightforward math. I have yet to see that done, so I see no basis for a claim of scientific significance.

 

[DGM]

The earliest sample was obtained around the time of the collapse of WTC1. Mr. Frank Delessio collected a handful from the buildup on the railing of the pedestrian walkway near the end of the Brooklyn Bridge, about 10 minutes after the collapse. He provided a video testimonial as to the sample's acquisition history.

That freshly formed sample was clearly not contaminated by the WTC7 collapse, the passage of time, or cleanup operations.

Within 10 minutes he was collecting and saving dust? Why would anyone do such a thing? Wouldn't saving your ass be a better priority.

Did anyone elses BS meter just explode?

 

[JayUtah]

Your prejudice against anything resembling 9/11 Truth has destroyed any objectivity you might have once had.

Whereas you are entirely unbiased?

The very fact that these samples were collected when quite fresh, from random locations, backed by on the record collectors, and that they all contained red/gray chips with the same matching general composition, gives them legitimacy and makes them scientifically significant.

Well, that's a judgment only a qualified scientist can make. Since you're not that, I must turn to real scientists to get a valid judgment on that question. Guess what they say?

 

[carlitos]

Why is MM writing in blue these days?

 

[Miragememories]

The Bentham paper clearly identifies Fe Spheres WITH exothermic ignition/reaction of identified nano-composites from the DUST of 911.

LEE clearly finds well above normal amounts of Fe Spheres in the WTC dust samples, enough to name their unusual amounts a WTC Dust 'marker'.

EPA reports and FEMA clearly show extreme temperature events and eutectic attack on steel members from WTC way hotter than any jet fuel normal office furnishings fires.

There is clearly evidence of demolition process throughout the evidence and damage field of the 911 atrocity.

And clear and compelling evidence of a massive cover-up.

Remo you also don't care about the sources you yourself cite.

Did you ever talk to Jonathan Barnett, the author of your beloved Appendix C which first reported the eutectic steel? I have. I asked him personally if he thought CD could have been the cause of this and he said no, he thought it might be caused by battery acid, acid rain or burning gypsum wallboard.

As for RJ Lee and your beloved report on iron-rich microspheres, someone else got a personal letter from him where Lee talked about the fact that this is well-researched and a phenomenon that is to be expected in intense fires.

And as for evidence of demolition in the damage field, there are no huge piles of aluminum oxide, no record of vast blinding light during the collapse, no physical evidence brought forth from the hundreds of people combing through the debris (many of whom were hired because of their experience working on controlled demolitions becuase they knew well the hazards of debris piles).

Oh yes, and Millette foujnd no evidence of thermite in the dust. Did it ever occur to you to talk to the people you quote to see if any of them agrede with your conclusions?

Mohr of the same old propaganda.

If you ask simple naive questions you can expect to get comparable answers.

I would much rather hear back from someone with legitimate science credentials, like Dr. Harrit, after he had conversation with Jonathan Barnett.

Do you really think investigators have much success asking your 'loaded' questions?

You have to discuss interesting data and gradually build up to the intriguing questions that are created. You might as well have just asked him outright if he thought 9/11 was an inside job.

So some un-sourced someone got a letter from RJ Lee where he says it is common for unspecified intense fires to create iron-rich microspheres.

What you should be saying (and you know this), is iron oxide spheres

From the WTC Dust Signature Report prepared by RJ LeGroup, Inc., c2003

"To evaluate the validity of the WTC Dust Signature as a unique identifier, dust samples were collected from a number of representative office buildings, “Background Buildings”, in typical urban locations including Midtown Manhattan, New York City, NY, Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, PA, and Florham Park, NJ. See RJ Lee Group “Background Levels in Buildings” report."

"Additionally, dust samples collected from the New York City area collected and analyzed prior to 9/11/2001 were reevaluated. The pre-WTC Event samples, collected in the spring of 2000, included materials from both the interiors of the World Trade Center Towers as well as exterior samples, taken in close proximity to the Towers."

"This WTC Dust evaluation represents the most extensive microscopic investigation related to WTC Dust ever performed. Over 400,000 particles were classified using SEM techniques with approximately 80,000 images collected."

"Detailed characterization of WTC Dust revealed that it possessed a unique set of characteristics by which it could be identified and differentiated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty from dust that had other origins. Thus, dust that was found as a pervasive contaminant in the Building was unequivocally identified as coming from the WTC Event."

"In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event."

"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

Lee pointed out that fly ash spheres (iron oxide) are present in normal dust (this is air pollution from furnaces) but that this was something like 100 or 200 times too many so the spheres were deemed as produced during the event and chosen as markers for the WTC dust!

The real significance of this is not realized until it is noticed that those spheres have iron not iron-oxide which means they are not fly ash spheres. All the papers on fly ash spheres are pretty clear, spheres with iron-phases are rare and those that have, contain iron-oxide not iron.

As for your "no huge piles of aluminum oxide", if you ever watch thermite reactions it becomes readily apparent that the white cloud formed (aluminum oxide) rapidly disperses. You simply will not find piles of aluminum oxide lying around near a previous thermite reaction.

The vast blinding light. Well once you get to the cores of the WTC towers, there is very little that those on the outside can see until the collapse begins its initiation.

WTC2 was an exception as we could clearly see the NE corner issuing forth a rain of molten iron as thermite ate away at that critical column. A number of very bright ignitions could were also observed in that general area.

In less than a minute after the thermitic activity appeared to cease, the south tower (WTC2) began to topple at this weakened point, quickly followed by global collapse induced by a crescendo of planted explosives.

And the "no physical evidence found in the debris".

http://my.firedoglake.com/members/sandero/

"“The official investigators (government) claimed they did not find any explosives because they didn’t look for them.

Essentially they decided to assemble a narrative without explosives so why look and find an inconvenient truth?


The evidence of explosive that is undisputed as far as I am concerned is that the building could not fall as quickly as they did UNLESS explosives destroyed the lower parts so the parts above could descend so fast and un impeded."

And finally you get to Millette who successfully did not find what he went to great lengths trying not to find.

It has been shown that Dr. Millette tested 9/11 WTC dust samples that failed to match the chips highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper he was supposedly attempting to verify.

The coup de grâce came when he refused to test his samples at 430C and failed to publish his research.

I pity anyone who cites you as a source for arguing the truth about 9/11.