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

[Crazy Chainsaw]

@ LSSBB: Presence or absence of iron-rich microspheres resulting from office fires would not depend much on the structural framing - it's not so much the steel that burns and produces ashes.

@ Chris: Difficult for us to guess as we haven't talked with that metallurgist. Does he routinely study ashes using visual light and electron microscopy?

Sorry Oystein on this I have to disagree with
You the collapses are the most energetic
Phenomina of 9/11/2001 so LSSBB was right
To ask that question.
The more energetic the environment the
Greater chance micro spheres of pure iron
Will be formed.

 

[Oystein]

Sorry Oystein on this I have to disagree with
You the collapses are the most energetic
Phenomina of 9/11/2001 so LSSBB was right
To ask that question.
The more energetic the environment the
Greater chance micro spheres of pure iron
Will be formed.

No, you are wrong, on two counts:

First, you missed the context. Context was Chris Mohr asking: "why did the forensic metallurgist who understood about the iron-rich microspheres tell me that he had never found them when analyzing fire debris from regular office fires?" Note that this is asking about the effects of office fire, not collapse. And certainly not collapse of large towers. Which is why I was careful in my wording: "...microspheres resulting from office fires would not depend much on the structural framing...".

Second, "the collapses are the most energetic Phenomina of 9/11/2001" is wrong by about one order of magnitude:
Each collapse released about 5 * 10^11 Joules, from potential energy
That's less than half the chemical energy of the jet fuel aboard either plane (ca. 1.2 * 10^12 J).
And that in turn was less than the chemical energy of office contents that burned: NIST estimated 3-4 GJ per workstation (cubicle), and there were typically 150-200 workstations per floor, for a combined 6 * 10^11 J (plus/minus) per floor. With what - 7? - floors burning before collapse, we have fire events releasing up to 4 * 10^12 J - about ten times as much as the collapse mechanics.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No, you are wrong, on two counts:

First, you missed the context. Context was Chris Mohr asking: "why did the forensic metallurgist who understood about the iron-rich microspheres tell me that he had never found them when analyzing fire debris from regular office fires?" Note that this is asking about the effects of office fire, not collapse. And certainly not collapse of large towers. Which is why I was careful in my wording: "...microspheres resulting from office fires would not depend much on the structural framing...".

Second, "the collapses are the most energetic Phenomina of 9/11/2001" is wrong by about one order of magnitude:
Each collapse released about 5 * 10^11 Joules, from potential energy
That's less than half the chemical energy of the jet fuel aboard either plane (ca. 1.2 * 10^12 J).
And that in turn was less than the chemical energy of office contents that burned: NIST estimated 3-4 GJ per workstation (cubicle), and there were typically 150-200 workstations per floor, for a combined 6 * 10^11 J (plus/minus) per floor. With what - 7? - floors burning before collapse, we have fire events releasing up to 4 * 10^12 J - about ten times as much as the collapse mechanics.

You can quantify both the gravitational and chemical
Energy released in the collapses?
I didn't believe that was possible, even Dr. Greening
and Dr.Benson did not do that.
There are variables that make the exact
Energy produced in the collapses impossible
To quantify other than gravitational potential
Which does not take into account reactions
Induced by the collapses themselves.
Without experimental data on possible.energy
Values induced by the collapses any.attempt to
Quantify them is pointless. Past collapse initiation.

Ps. I.was refering to.energy released.over time.
LSSBB'S whole point was that the collapses changed
The dynamics and there fore theses were not normal
Office fires
As was pointed out to me years ago,
You can not even know the amount of unburned
Carbon dust in.the towers that might be
Likely to produce dust explosions and
Reduction reactions in the collapses.

 

[LSSBB]

@ LSSBB: Presence or absence of iron-rich microspheres resulting from office fires would not depend much on the structural framing - it's not so much the steel that burns and produces ashes.

@ Chris: Difficult for us to guess as we haven't talked with that metallurgist. Does he routinely study ashes using visual light and electron microscopy?

I am not saying the spheres so found would come from ashes, I am saying it would come from heated, painted steel on heated, painted steel friction during the collapse, although in retrospect the painted (or primed) steel itself in the framing exposed to the fire would also be subject. Maybe even exposed steel also. So, you have experimentally analyzed these potential effects yourself and ruled them out as a source, or have references to such work?

ETA: Chemical reactions also during the collapse, as CC says.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I am not saying the spheres so found would come from ashes, I am saying it would come from heated, painted steel on heated, painted steel friction during the collapse, although in retrospect the painted (or primed) steel itself in the framing exposed to the fire would also be subject. Maybe even exposed steel also. So, you have experimentally analyzed these potential effects yourself and ruled them out as a source, or have references to such work?

ETA: Chemical reactions also during the collapse, as CC says.

A good reference for some of those is Doe-HDBK-1081-2014.PDF.
Unless you have experimental data of your
Own.

 

[Oystein]

You can quantify both the gravitational and chemical
Energy released in the collapses?

I didn't know you'd require to consider the 15 seconds of collapse only. The question is: Where did the iron-rich microspheres in the post-collapse dust come from? Several alternatives are proposed:
1. Thermitic demolition charges planted by the evil government - that's what truthers think
2. Office fires and the heat they generated - that is what RJ Lee, who quantified these spheres, thinks; and so do I
3. They were already in the buildings before 9/11 (fly ash, dust from cutting and welding) - that's what you think
4. Sparks, friction and collisions of steel members during the collapse - that's what you and LSSBB currently wonder
5. Clean-up work after the collapse
And probably more possibilities exist. Two of the least likely, that nonetheless demonstrate that it doesnt't take extremely hot chemical reactions are
6. Star dust
7. Burning steel wool

When Chris Mohr asked a metallurgist, that man said that he had never observed such spheres in the debris from office fires. Chris does not mention collapses. So I spoke only of spheres from fires.

I didn't believe that was possible, even Dr. Greening
and Dr.Benson did not do that.
There are variables that make the exact
Energy produced in the collapses impossible

Oh the source of energy are rather easily quantified - I just did, didn't I? Again, no need to restrict consideration to the 15 seconds of collapse - spheres could have been created, during collapse as well as before and even after.

What Greening struggled to quantify was the energy sinks: How much of the potential (gravitational) energy went into cold-crushing concrete, how much into cold-bending and breaking steel, how much into seismic waves, how much into heat? Especially the energy expended to break concrete is very sensitive to assumptions: It scales with the area of break surfaces, and that scales with the inverted square of average particle size. What Greening lacked reliable and sufficiently exact data on was particle size distribution.

To quantify other than gravitational potential
Which does not take into account reactions
Induced by the collapses themselves.

Chris and I were clearly talking about office fires. I quantified the avaible chemical energy for those. 35 tons of combustible office contens per floor (order of magnitude). You won't add significantly to that if you are going to speculate about steel surfaces and paint reacting - total paint mass on the steel was 75 tons (order of magnitude), but surely only a very small fraction of that, if any, reacted the way you think, and only 10% or so of that paint was iron from iron oxide - we are talking about much less than a ton - a tiny fraction of total dust.

Without experimental data on possible.energy
Values induced by the collapses any.attempt to
Quantify them is pointless. Past collapse initiation.

I disagree - orders of magnitude and upper and lower limits can be estimated.
For example: To create a "spark" from a collision of a piece of steel, you need to heat the spark (a small mass of iron or iron oxide) to a certain temperature at which it glows. The heat would come from kinetic energy, which in turn came originally from potential energy.
On average, steel fell from a height of 200 meters, so it had a potential energy of (m*g*h)/m = g*h = 9.8*200 J/kg = 2000 J/kg = 2 J/g.
Iron has a heat capacity of 25.1 J/mol/°C. With 1 mol iron = 56 g, that's 0.45 J/g/°C. The potential energy of the steel is thus enough to heat the same steel to 2/0.45 = 4.4 °C.
The heat capacity of iron oxide (Fe2O3) is even larger (0.6 J/g/°C).

I don't know how to procede from here, but I think it is safe to say that only tiny tiny amounts of the available energy was expended to chip off surface material and heat it to red-hot and more.

Ps. I.was refering to.energy released.over time.

That's power

LSSBB'S whole point was that the collapses changed
The dynamics and there fore theses were not normal
Office fires

For 99.8% of their duration, those were "normal" office fires ("normal" in the sense that they were purely chemical events), and RJ Lee and I contend that many of the iron-rich spheres that ended in the dust were created by those fires.
The collapse dynamic may have added some more, but indeed you cannot, and more importantly: have not quantified if friction could have added significant amounts.

As was pointed out to me years ago,
You can not even know the amount of unburned
Carbon dust in.the towers that might be
Likely to produce dust explosions and
Reduction reactions in the collapses.

Now that is of course both true and highly relevant: There are myriads of chemical pathways in such large fires involving a very heterogenous mix of chemical substances that very little can be ruled out, very little can be proven or quantified.

Unless by experiment.

And here comes the main thrust of what I argue:
RJ Lee says that microspheres are expected from the "high temperature" event at the WTC - i.e. the fires.
McCrone shows iron-rich particles that he deems typical for various types of ashes and industrial and urban environments.

Even if they, or we, can't explain how these spheres are produced, it seems to be a matter of experience related by these eminent microscopy experts that dusts from high-temperature events, including large fires, leave iron-rich microspheres as a significant marker in the resulting dust. And this in the absence of thermite and collapses.

Chris has one metallurgist who says he does not find such spheres after fires. It's one expert against other experts.

I am not saying the spheres so found would come from ashes, I am saying it would come from heated, painted steel on heated, painted steel friction during the collapse, although in retrospect the painted (or primed) steel itself in the framing exposed to the fire would also be subject. Maybe even exposed steel also. So, you have experimentally analyzed these potential effects yourself and ruled them out as a source, or have references to such work?

There are paints involved in office fires too - you heat and burn them, you get ash.
I doubt this would add a significant quantity, but I could be wrong.
Paint layers are only 50 µm or so. There was less than 1 ton of steel primer per floor, and only a small percentage of that would heat suffiently to burn off.

ETA: Chemical reactions also during the collapse, as CC says.

Possible contribution, but pales in scale to the real fires.




Let me stress that you are all not wrong - no doubt paint and friction and chemical reactions sparked by collapse forces may contribute to the sphere count - it all strengthens the overall argument LSSBB made elsewhere: It is silly beyond telling that truther believe spheres must come from thermite. Plenty of other possible sources are available and have not been ruled out by truthers.

 

[LSSBB]

I raised my question to Chris precisely because the metallurgists opinions were possibly constrained to a situation not completely reflective to the situation we are discussing, to wit: office fires in a multi-story, collapsing steel skyscraper. Maybe office fires in a strip mall somewhere, or in a house firse, or some other non-skyscraper environment do not exhibit the spheres - and that is not the situation we are discussing.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I didn't know you'd require to consider the 15 seconds of collapse only. The question is: Where did the iron-rich microspheres in the post-collapse dust come from? Several alternatives are proposed:
1. Thermitic demolition charges planted by the evil government - that's what truthers think
2. Office fires and the heat they generated - that is what RJ Lee, who quantified these spheres, thinks; and so do I
3. They were already in the buildings before 9/11 (fly ash, dust from cutting and welding) - that's what you think
4. Sparks, friction and collisions of steel members during the collapse - that's what you and LSSBB currently wonder
5. Clean-up work after the collapse
And probably more possibilities exist. Two of the least likely, that nonetheless demonstrate that it doesnt't take extremely hot chemical reactions are
6. Star dust
7. Burning steel wool

When Chris Mohr asked a metallurgist, that man said that he had never observed such spheres in the debris from office fires. Chris does not mention collapses. So I spoke only of spheres from fires.


Oh the source of energy are rather easily quantified - I just did, didn't I? Again, no need to restrict consideration to the 15 seconds of collapse - spheres could have been created, during collapse as well as before and even after.

What Greening struggled to quantify was the energy sinks: How much of the potential (gravitational) energy went into cold-crushing concrete, how much into cold-bending and breaking steel, how much into seismic waves, how much into heat? Especially the energy expended to break concrete is very sensitive to assumptions: It scales with the area of break surfaces, and that scales with the inverted square of average particle size. What Greening lacked reliable and sufficiently exact data on was particle size distribution.


Chris and I were clearly talking about office fires. I quantified the avaible chemical energy for those. 35 tons of combustible office contens per floor (order of magnitude). You won't add significantly to that if you are going to speculate about steel surfaces and paint reacting - total paint mass on the steel was 75 tons (order of magnitude), but surely only a very small fraction of that, if any, reacted the way you think, and only 10% or so of that paint was iron from iron oxide - we are talking about much less than a ton - a tiny fraction of total dust.


I disagree - orders of magnitude and upper and lower limits can be estimated.
For example: To create a "spark" from a collision of a piece of steel, you need to heat the spark (a small mass of iron or iron oxide) to a certain temperature at which it glows. The heat would come from kinetic energy, which in turn came originally from potential energy.
On average, steel fell from a height of 200 meters, so it had a potential energy of (m*g*h)/m = g*h = 9.8*200 J/kg = 2000 J/kg = 2 J/g.
Iron has a heat capacity of 25.1 J/mol/°C. With 1 mol iron = 56 g, that's 0.45 J/g/°C. The potential energy of the steel is thus enough to heat the same steel to 2/0.45 = 4.4 °C.
The heat capacity of iron oxide (Fe2O3) is even larger (0.6 J/g/°C).

I don't know how to procede from here, but I think it is safe to say that only tiny tiny amounts of the available energy was expended to chip off surface material and heat it to red-hot and more.


That's power


For 99.8% of their duration, those were "normal" office fires ("normal" in the sense that they were purely chemical events), and RJ Lee and I contend that many of the iron-rich spheres that ended in the dust were created by those fires.
The collapse dynamic may have added some more, but indeed you cannot, and more importantly: have not quantified if friction could have added significant amounts.


Now that is of course both true and highly relevant: There are myriads of chemical pathways in such large fires involving a very heterogenous mix of chemical substances that very little can be ruled out, very little can be proven or quantified.

Unless by experiment.

And here comes the main thrust of what I argue:
RJ Lee says that microspheres are expected from the "high temperature" event at the WTC - i.e. the fires.
McCrone shows iron-rich particles that he deems typical for various types of ashes and industrial and urban environments.

Even if they, or we, can't explain how these spheres are produced, it seems to be a matter of experience related by these eminent microscopy experts that dusts from high-temperature events, including large fires, leave iron-rich microspheres as a significant marker in the resulting dust. And this in the absence of thermite and collapses.

Chris has one metallurgist who says he does not find such spheres after fires. It's one expert against other experts.


There are paints involved in office fires too - you heat and burn them, you get ash.
I doubt this would add a significant quantity, but I could be wrong.
Paint layers are only 50 µm or so. There was less than 1 ton of steel primer per floor, and only a small percentage of that would heat suffiently to burn off.


Possible contribution, but pales in scale to the real fires.




Let me stress that you are all not wrong - no doubt paint and friction and chemical reactions sparked by collapse forces may contribute to the sphere count - it all strengthens the overall argument LSSBB made elsewhere: It is silly beyond telling that truther believe spheres must come from thermite. Plenty of other possible sources are available and have not been ruled out by truthers.

Finely divided steels unless in an air stream
Produce mostly Fe O Fe 3O4. Not Fe nano spheres.
If
your talking Fe 3O4 feO micro spheres then
You are correct that fires would have created
The most of those.
However Chris is refering to Iron micro spheres,
The FeO Fe304 microspheres were about
95 percent of the micro spheres found
By Jones. A little over 5 percent was of
The low Oxygen Iron Type.
I must point out that combustion of zinc
Galvanized steel and in the floor pans and in other
Reaction could account for large numders of
Those as well as other reactions that most
People do not even consider.

A Fe 3O4 macro sphere from oxidized Coaxial cable.

The more work, energized the environment the more unusual
The reactions results will be.

 

[Oystein]

Finely divided steels unless in an air stream
Produce mostly Fe O Fe 3O4. Not Fe nano spheres.
If
your talking Fe 3O4 feO micro spheres then
You are correct that fires would have created
The most of those.

Yes.

The FeO Fe304 microspheres were about
95 percent of the micro spheres found
By Jones.

I have not come across such a number, but it doesn't surprise me the least.

However Chris is refering to Iron micro spheres, ...
A little over 5 percent was of
The low Oxygen Iron Type.

It's news to me that such data exists. Got a link? I am not sure that Chris is consciously and specifically referring to Fe spheres, as contrasted to FeO_x spheres.

I must point out that combustion of zinc
Galvanized steel and in the floor pans and in other
Reaction could account for large numders of
Those as well as other reactions that most
People do not even consider.

A Fe 3O4 macro sphere from oxidized Coaxial cable.

The more work, energized the environment the more unusual
The reactions results will be.

Sounds reasonably plausible.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Retrying to post the picture.

1 Fe 3O4 macro sphere of Fe 3O4 from coaxial cable oxidation.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes.


I have not come across such a number, but it doesn't surprise me the least.


It's news to me that such data exists. Got a link? I am not sure that Chris is consciously and specifically referring to Fe spheres, as contrasted to FeO_x spheres.


Sounds reasonably plausible.

The source is Dr. Jones directly before I sent him the sphere in the picture in 2006.
That information has never been made public.
Jones has always only been interested in solid or mostly solid Fe particles.
He also was interested in pure aluminum micro spheres, that he thought were non reacted
Thermite.
The chips were just his last try to prove his Idiotic Ideas to his worshippers.
That sphere formed in an energetic reaction with thousands of other mico spheres some were decarbonized steel Iron.
A larger mass of steel has to be converted to Fe 3O4 to form nano spheres that occurs in hydrogen, Or carbon monoxide blasts where steel is ignited and the steel and combustion gases prevent small particles of Iron molten from Oxidizing.
Or in reduction reactions in those blasts that convert Iron oxides back to Iron.
micro spheres.
Welding and grinding micro spheres decarbonized also, to iron.

 

[chrismohr]

I just got this email from Ziggi, who gave me permission to reprint it here. His letter in italics, my responses in regular type:


Mister Chris Mohr, your responses at times are quite astounding.

You now talk about Millette´s study as a potential valuable direct evidence for CD, had he found the red-gray chips to be thermitic, but you ignore Harrit´s report even though it found a thermite material. Harrit´s report is a published peer-reviewed paper while Millette´s report is nothing but a document posted on an internet forum, which also happens to have been thoroughly debunked. He never addressed or even attempted to refute Harrit´s data, and you can´t even say for sure that he tested the same chips as Harrit. Harrit´s paper presents direct forensic evidence for CD, and you cannot refute it.

As you will see when my video comes out, I have a high degree of confidence that Millette found the correct chips. You’ll see exactly what I mean when my video is released. And far from ignoring Harrit’s report, I organized a study attempting to either refute or validate Harrit/Jones/Ryan/Farrer et al’s claims. My video goes into great depth re Jones’s accusations against the Millette study. And quit trying to claim that Millette’s unpublished study is somehow of an inferior order of credibility to the 2009 thermitic paper. Millette is a specialist with decades of experience in chemical forensic analysis; Jones, Ryan and most of the other signatories to the thermitic paper are not operating in their area of expertise. I try not to diss them as being unqualified, because what I really care about is whether they found thermite in the dust or not. And may I remind you that it was my mistake to say Millette would “replicate” the experiments (sorry sorry sorry as I have said); Millette ended up answering one question: is there thermite in the WTC dust? The answer: NO. He released FTIR and TEM data, tests which were also conducted by the thermitic paper team but which have never been fully released by the authors.

You recently admitted that experts told you personally that iron rich spheres are not found after office fires, yet you still do not see any CD evidence there, even though the USGS and RJ Lee and Steven Jones all documented the finding of iron rich spheres in the WTC dust. This is the second direct forensic evidence for CD, and you cannot refute it.

Not true. RJ Lee himself refuted your claims. I take very seriously the fact that a forensic metallurgist has said he doesn’t find iron-rich microspheres in the fire debris he has studied. That is why I goaded Dave Thomas to burn primer paint on steel (he DID find iron-rich spheres), why I tried to get an analysis of campfire ash, etc. The USGS never said the iron rich spheres were evidence of CD. RJ Lee refuted your claims directly. Steven Jones found the spheres, I know that, but it’s not proof of CD. Sorry.

This data also happens to support Harrit´s finding, since these spheres are the by-product of thermite-use. You cannot refute that.

I don’t have to refute that. You have to prove that only thermite can create iron-rich spheres. But BTW, I talked with two fire chemists who told me that using laser thermometers, it is possible to discover near-adiabatic temperatures in the range of over 3500F in highly localized areas (micro-areas) in regular fires. More on this in my next video. Tiny spots of super-heated areas in regular fires can indeed melt micro-flakes of steel. Bashing two rusty cannonballs together, one covered in aluminum foil, creates micro-thermite reactions. There were tons of aluminum and abundant rust in the collapsing towers that could well have collided during collapse. I did refute Harrit’s claim, and quite well, and with a lot of research independent of the people on this forum.

The third piece of direct forensic evidence for CD are the reports of molten steel/iron by FEMA and various first responder eye witnesses. Again this supports the first two pieces of evidence because thermite materials leave behind molten iron and when used to cut steel beams you would end up with reports of molten iron/steel, as observed.

I asked a metallurgist personally if he could tell what a molten metal was by looking at it and he said absolutely not, that materials characterization protocols must be used in such a case. Where are the blobs of the melted steel at the ends of the failed columns? Where are the tons of aluminum oxide from the spent thermite? Where is a single metallurgical analysis of the “molten steel” that can prove your claims, when there are over a dozen other metals in the Towers that can melt at temperatures below 1400F?

Each one alone represents extremely strong forensic evidence for CD; all 3 together are conclusive evidence for CD.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This “conclusive evidence for CD” has been challenged, even trashed, by an amazing number of your own people on the 9/11 CD side. I think you will be shocked when you watch my upcoming video and see how many people on “your” side reject or at least are doubtful about the thermitic paper.

There is such a thing as a federal guide to forensic evidence and fire inestigations Chris, and it is called the NFPA 921 manual. If you had researched this issue, you would know by now that it lists high temperature evidence such as the above mentioned stuff as evidence for "exotic accelelerants" and it even specifically lists thermite as one thing to look for.

Yes, actually I did research this a bit. In fact, the NFPA 921 manual is a guide, not a law or a mandatory procedure. I don’t know every detail about why this protocol was not followed, but I would be a lot more upset about this is I could find any actual evidence of thermite in the dust, which there is not.


It also lists witnesses that hear or see explosions as cause for changing an investigation from being a fire investigation into one that is looking for explosives/incendiaries. And you know there were also plenty of witnesses hearing and seeing explosions, and again we have a fourth piece of evidence that supports the other evidence for CD.

Explosions are common in large building fires and you know it. One of my YouTube videos lists all the possible causes of explosions in fire. In a CD, the explosions are massively louder. If you think thermite was used and that would make the explosions softer, they would still go off in a very organized fashion. Not randomly as they did on 9/11.

The NFPA 921 may be a joke to you Chris, but it is a much more reliable guide than you, as to what constitutes as evidence.

Please stop telling me I consider the NFPA 921 a joke. Where do you get off saying such, uh, solid excrement?

NIST was supposed to follow the NFPA guide and it was supposed to list and address and explain all the evidence. But it did not. Instead it pretended it did not exist. Truthers had to get into lawsuits to get documented witness records made public, including first responders on record hearing and or seeing explosions. You may be forgiven for not seeing the evidence yourself, because you simply may not understand it, but you cannot tell me that you do not understand that the act of burying/hiding/ignoring evidence is clear proof of misconduct that invalidates any investigation.

I do know that NIST is ignoring what they do not consider evidence of CD. I have asked them repeatedly in phone conversations about what they are supposedly hiding (asking them directly some of the exact questions Kevin Ryan has been posing) and I am not convinced they are hiding anything except some security-related information that they say terrorists could use to destroy other skyscrapers. That’s their answer. If they are lying to me, I couldn’t see it. And apparently no other scientific institution, university or other investigative body including the 7000 FBI agents who did their own investigation, found evidence of NIST maliciously covering up evidence. I have to rely on experts who have also thoroughly studied the events of 9/11. NONE of them make claims anywhere near the kinds of claims you are making about NIST.

The exposure of this kind of misconduct is all that is needed to justify a new investigation. Anyone can do the exposure. A single journalist can do that by exposing buried evidence, such as hidden witness records, or simply exposing "systematic lying." Remember Daniel Ellsberg and Vietnam?

I took Dan out to lunch back in the 1980s. A courageous and compassionate man. I also was ready to move to Canada in 1972 if I had a bad draft number. Please stop being so condescending.

And Chris, you keep asking for a declaration of support by an investigation by a major institutions such as MIT, but there are two major problems here:

1) To get such an investigation the public DEMAND must FIRST be gathered via education about the issue. This is what AE911Truth is trying to do by exposing NISTs misconduct. You are asking for the result of the new investigation before the investigation is allowed to happen.

Not true. What you need is an independent investigation of a few technical aspects of the NIST Report from a major institution anywhere in the world. And BTW there have been several, as you well know, by Purdue, University of Hawaii, CTBUH, Cardiff and MIT professors, to name but a few. All of them have come to the same basic conclusion. Not one has concluded CD or a coverup by NIST.

2) The new investigation must be performed by independent investigators, and especially ones with no ties to potential suspects such as the military industrial complex, which means you need an international team of carefully selected experts with complete access to all data, all records. Not the MIT.

You can help make this happen. Let´s get people like Richard Gage, Dwain Deets, David Griscom, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, and others on CNN and Fox and all those stations.

You need more solid evidence before you can take your claims to the major media outlets. Very few of them have the slightest interest in your theory, because it is simply not supported by science. Even very radical people like Noam Chomsky reject your theory.

Let´s get the whistleblowers on there too. You still think AQ and Osama went rogue? Are you aware that Daniels Ellsberg has said that Sybil Edmunds has revelations on offer that are more important than his Pentagon Papers exposure? Do you think the American public should know about an FBI whistle-blower that says she found out that Osama was still on your payroll on 9/11? Why did the hijackers get their US visas through the Yemen embassy just like the mujahideen did back in the day, as noted by whistle-blower Michael Springman?

How again did the 9/11 Commission explain this anomaly? Hmm. Not at all? This evidence did not exist, right? Just like NIST did not know about any CD evidence. Nothing to see here. Right? You see nothing?

I have not studied the 9/11 Commission Report as much as I have the technical stuff like NIST. That’s because Richard Gage uses his technical claims as the gateway into the whole 9/11 Truth movement. I do remember being thoroughly disgusted with Bush/Cheney for their resistance to even having a 9/11 Commission, and I have heard the “designed to fail” claims of people on the Commission itself. That is disturbing, but as I have said, I am keeping my focus on the question of CD, which as you well know I have found no real evidence for.

I don´t have time for this anymore Chris. You have been told about this stuff and so much more so many times, but you have never allowed yourself to see it. This is denial. You alone can make the decision to see.

In my area of research, which is 9/11 CD, I have been skeptical but open. I have found NO evidence of CD. The right choice is to report what I have found. We’re both burned out on each other. I hope I can get this last video out before too long so I can begin to fade away from this whole thing and do something else with my spare time.

Make the right choice.

- Ziggi

 

[Oystein]

Mister Chris Mohr, your responses at times are quite astounding.

You now talk about Millette´s study as a potential valuable direct evidence for CD, had he found the red-gray chips to be thermitic, but you ignore Harrit´s report even though it found a thermite material. ... you can´t even say for sure that he tested the same chips as Harrit. Harrit´s paper presents direct forensic evidence for CD, and you cannot refute it. ...

My two main issues:

1. How can Ziggi say "for sure" that Harrit et al themselves "tested the same chips as Harrit"? They tested several chips, and employed different sets of tests on different chips. So Ziggi ought to state very clearly and unambiguously, such that his reply would provide an objective and uncontested protocol for researchers planning to "replicate" the study:
By what objective criteria did Harrit et al decide that chips a-d, the MEK chip, the four chips tested in the DSC and the various chips whose residues are shown, and the chip that underwent the flame test, are all "the same chips"? Please list ALL criteria now, do not leave one away. And make sure that all these criteria have indeed been applied to all of these chips!

2. There is no compelling chain of reasoning that would link the presence of thermite in the dust to the collapse of the towers - no evidence that anything like it was actually used to destroy steel. For example, Harrit et al have not shown, and do not claim, that the chips they allege to be thermitic are explosive, and they offer nothing but vague speculation on how this material could have been used to destroy steel. If Ziggi disagrees with this statement, he should now construct this unbroken chain of reasoning. His claim, his burden of proof. I'd give him one chance. If he fails the first time around, we shall all know that he has no such evidence and reason, and his claim can be rejected without further ado.

Now is the time to put up or shut up.

 

[chrismohr]

I have suggested before that they get independent verification of their claims from foreign institutions if they don't trust anyone in the US. One claim at a time should be affordable. DO the independent investigation you want. I even did one such investigation for you: the Millette study.

 

[NoahFence]

I have suggested before that they get independent verification of their claims from foreign institutions if they don't trust anyone in the US. One claim at a time should be affordable. DO the independent investigation you want. I even did one such investigation for you: the Millette study.

They won't do it because of their knowing, massive dishonesty. They know they're wrong. It's about taking money from gullible people, it has nothing to do with wanting a new investigation. That's the LAST thing these last few truthers want.

 

[Sunstealer]

This entire sentence is full of falsehoods and simply not true.

You now talk about Millette´s study as a potential valuable direct evidence for CD, had he found the red-gray chips to be thermitic, but you ignore Harrit´s report even though it found a thermite material. Harrit´s report is a published peer-reviewed paper while Millette´s report is nothing but a document posted on an internet forum, which also happens to have been thoroughly debunked. He never addressed or even attempted to refute Harrit´s data, and you can´t even say for sure that he tested the same chips as Harrit. Harrit´s paper presents direct forensic evidence for CD, and you cannot refute it.

1. The reason for the Millette study was the Harrit report so it was not ignored.

2. Harrit et al was comprehensively debunked a few weeks after publishing in 2009.

3. The paper did not go through peer review as understood by the scientific community. It was read by non-independent truthers who didn't posses the required knowledge in the field for a solid peer review.

4. Harrit et al was published in a pay to publish journal of little repute whose own Editor-in-Chief resigned in disgust.

5. Millette's report may not be peer reviewed but it is chock full of data. Far more data than Harrit et al.

No truther has ever analysed that data. They will not do it because a) they can't and b) if they could they would have to acknowledge that teh red/gray material is paint adhered to steel.

6. No truther has debunked Millette because no truther has ever analysed the data. All they do is put up ludicrous questions about DSC that are inapplicable.

7. Millette's investigation smashed the Harrit et al paper to pieces. The investigation is solid and uses multiple complimentary techniques which show the same results. In contrast Harrit et al refuse to publish FTIR and TEM data to back their claims.

8. They are obviously the same chips because the method of isolation was the same, the red layer of the chips show the same particle morphology as confirmed by SEM and EDX, the matrix is visually the same and the gray layer matches with all the other criteria too.

I asked many truthers to compare EDX data and SEM visual data between the a-d) chips in Harrit et al and Millette. Not a single one could produce an argument based on analysis of the data (which is simple pattern matches that children have mastered by the age of 4). In fact it took pages to get MM to admit that the red material in chips a-d in Harrit et al were the same!:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9792202&postcount=3785

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9792034&postcount=3780

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9231437&postcount=2810

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9099719&postcount=2482

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9098341&postcount=2448

9. Last point is just bluster and putting fingers in the ears from someone who refuses to learn and when asked simple questions refuses to answer them.

Look at the length of this post. Now I can do this off the top of my head because I've knowledge of the subject yet it refutes just one small paragraph. It take huge amounts of time to refute people like Ziggi because they can spout 10 lies which have been long debunked in a single paragraph. It's why I don't post so much - what's the point? The data and the analysis has already been done so just point him to the start of the threads and ask him to read.

I'm still waiting for the likes of Ziggi and Jay Howard to answer these simple 5 questions which will take no more than 10 minutes:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10515887&postcount=643

No takers yet. And I bet there never will be.

 

[chrismohr]

Sunstealer, I have information regarding your point #8 that you will especially enjoy when my video comes out. They are "obviously the same chips" all right, as you will see with even greater clarity.
We all need to give more credit to the 9/11 Truth community than we have been doing. My half-hour video will be loaded with believers in 9/11 CD who were really shaken up by the Millette report, and several who rejected the thermitic paper as far back as 2009. I have talked with so many people in 9/11 Truth, and there is nothing being advanced by AE911 Truth that is more controversial and divisive than this 2009 Thermitic paper. Two people whose names are known to almost everyone here have told me, in confidence, that "I am neutral on the thermitic paper," and "That paper has done more damage to the Truth movement than anything else we've ever done." I can't say who told me these things, but again, Ziggi's attempt to create the impression that the 9/11 Truth movement is a unified front standing behind this paper is completely false. And Ziggi, you can assert all you want that "Harrit´s paper presents direct forensic evidence for CD, and you cannot refute it." That too is utterly false. Have you studied Sunstealer's analysis? Have you slogged through the blog put together by Oystein (slog through a blog sounds like someone exploring a swampy tundra doesn't it)?
Oh, and I found someone eager to help edit it and make it ready for YouTube!

 

[Sunstealer]

My two main issues:

1. How can Ziggi say "for sure" that Harrit et al themselves "tested the same chips as Harrit"? They tested several chips, and employed different sets of tests on different chips. So Ziggi ought to state very clearly and unambiguously, such that his reply would provide an objective and uncontested protocol for researchers planning to "replicate" the study:

By what objective criteria did Harrit et al decide that chips a-d, the MEK chip, the four chips tested in the DSC and the various chips whose residues are shown, and the chip that underwent the flame test, are all "the same chips"? Please list ALL criteria now, do not leave one away. And make sure that all these criteria have indeed been applied to all of these chips!

Yep, I'd like to give Ziggi a helping hand using the data in Harrit et al:

And the EDX for the gray layer in the chip above:

Now lets play the simple child's game called Snap.

EDX for gray layer in chips a-d)

Are they the same or different? Does this mean that the material in the gray layer of chip in Fig 31 is different to the gray layers in chips a-d)

Now remember folks, that chip in Fig 31 underwent the same isolation process that all the other chips underwent yet they are obviously not the same.

Right that's me, we've got beautiful sunshine and clear skies today so I'm off out to find a pub garden somewhere.

 

[Oystein]

Yep, I'd like to give Ziggi a helping hand using the data in Harrit et al:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=991[/qimg]

And the EDX for the gray layer in the chip above:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=869[/qimg]
...

Akh ... it's been a whole, hasn't it?
Fig 33 shows the gray layer for the chip in Fig 32, not Fig 31.

However, the red layer of the chip in Fig. 31 (the "multi-layer" chip) is specifically characterized by that it "shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers". So there's two criteria by which it is different from chips a-d, and also different from the MEK-soaked chip.

 

[chrismohr]

eek! In post 4812, all the Ziggi letter (in italics) loaded in fine and worked for about 12 hours, then the italics part (Ziggi's letter) evaporated. So here is Ziggi's letter and my responses interspersed with C and Z to represent each of us:

I just got this email from Ziggi, who gave me permission to reprint it here.


Z: Mister Chris Mohr, your responses at times are quite astounding.

You now talk about Millette´s study as a potential valuable direct evidence for CD, had he found the red-gray chips to be thermitic, but you ignore Harrit´s report even though it found a thermite material. Harrit´s report is a published peer-reviewed paper while Millette´s report is nothing but a document posted on an internet forum, which also happens to have been thoroughly debunked. He never addressed or even attempted to refute Harrit´s data, and you can´t even say for sure that he tested the same chips as Harrit. Harrit´s paper presents direct forensic evidence for CD, and you cannot refute it.

C: As you will see when my video comes out, I have a high degree of confidence that Millette found the correct chips. You’ll see exactly what I mean when my video is released. And far from ignoring Harrit’s report, I organized a study attempting to either refute or validate Harrit/Jones/Ryan/Farrer et al’s claims. My video goes into great depth re Jones’s accusations against the Millette study. And quit trying to claim that Millette’s unpublished study is somehow of an inferior order of credibility to the 2009 thermitic paper. Millette is a specialist with decades of experience in chemical forensic analysis; Jones, Ryan and most of the other signatories to the thermitic paper are not operating in their area of expertise. I try not to diss them as being unqualified, because what I really care about is whether they found thermite in the dust or not. And may I remind you that it was my mistake to say Millette would “replicate” the experiments (sorry sorry sorry as I have said); Millette ended up answering one question: is there thermite in the WTC dust? The answer: NO. He released FTIR and TEM data, tests which were also conducted by the thermitic paper team but which have never been fully released by the authors.

Z: You recently admitted that experts told you personally that iron rich spheres are not found after office fires, yet you still do not see any CD evidence there, even though the USGS and RJ Lee and Steven Jones all documented the finding of iron rich spheres in the WTC dust. This is the second direct forensic evidence for CD, and you cannot refute it.

C: Not true. RJ Lee himself refuted your claims. I take very seriously the fact that a forensic metallurgist has said he doesn’t find iron-rich microspheres in the fire debris he has studied. That is why I goaded Dave Thomas to burn primer paint on steel (he DID find iron-rich spheres), why I tried to get an analysis of campfire ash, etc. The USGS never said the iron rich spheres were evidence of CD. RJ Lee refuted your claims directly. Steven Jones found the spheres, I know that, but it’s not proof of CD. Sorry.

Z: This data also happens to support Harrit´s finding, since these spheres are the by-product of thermite-use. You cannot refute that.

C: I don’t have to refute that. You have to prove that only thermite can create iron-rich spheres. But BTW, I talked with two fire chemists who told me that using laser thermometers, it is possible to discover near-adiabatic temperatures in the range of over 3500F in highly localized areas (micro-areas). More on this in my next video. Tiny spots of super-heated areas ian regular fires can indeed melt micro-flakes of steel. Bashing two rusty cannonballs together, one covered in aluminum foil, creates micro-thermite reactions. There were tons of aluminum and abundant rust in the collapsing towers that could well have collided during collapse. I did refute Harrit’s claim, and quite well, and with a lot of research independent of the people on this forum.

Z: The third piece of direct forensic evidence for CD are the reports of molten steel/iron by FEMA and various first responder eye witnesses. Again this supports the first two pieces of evidence because thermite materials leave behind molten iron and when used to cut steel beams you would end up with reports of molten iron/steel, as observed.

C: I asked a metallurgist personally if he could tell what a molten metal was by looking at it and he said absolutely not, that materials characterization protocols must be used in such a case. Where are the blobs of the melted steel at the ends of the failed columns? Where are the tons of aluminum oxide from the spent thermite? Where is a single metallurgical analysis of the “molten steel” that can prove your claims, when there are over a dozen other metals in the Towers that can melt at temperatures below 1400F?

Z: Each one alone represents extremely strong forensic evidence for CD; all 3 together are conclusive evidence for CD.

C: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This “conclusive evidence for CD” has been challenged, even trashed, by an amazing number of your own people on the 9/11 CD side. I think you will be shocked when you watch my upcoming video and see how many people on “your” side reject or at least are doubtful about the thermitic paper.

Z: There is such a thing as a federal guide to forensic evidence and fire inestigations Chris, and it is called the NFPA 921 manual. If you had researched this issue, you would know by now that it lists high temperature evidence such as the above mentioned stuff as evidence for "exotic accelelerants" and it even specifically lists thermite as one thing to look for.

C: Yes, actually I did research this a bit. In fact, the NFPA 921 manual is a guide, not a law or a mandatory procedure. I don’t know every detail about why this protocol was not followed, but I would be a lot more upset about this is I could find any actual evidence of thermite in the dust, which there is not.


Z: It also lists witnesses that hear or see explosions as cause for changing an investigation from being a fire investigation into one that is looking for explosives/incendiaries. And you know there were also plenty of witnesses hearing and seeing explosions, and again we have a fourth piece of evidence that supports the other evidence for CD.

C: Explosions are common in large building fires and you know it. One of my YouTube videos lists all the possible causes of explosions in fire. In a CD, the explosions are massively louder. If you think thermite was used and that would make the explosions softer, they would still go off in a very organized fashion. Not randomly as they did on 9/11.

Z: The NFPA 921 may be a joke to you Chris, but it is a much more reliable guide than you, as to what constitutes as evidence.

C: Please stop telling me I consider the NFPA 921 a joke. Where do you get off saying such, uh, solid excrement?

Z: NIST was supposed to follow the NFPA guide and it was supposed to list and address and explain all the evidence. But it did not. Instead it pretended it did not exist. Truthers had to get into lawsuits to get documented witness records made public, including first responders on record hearing and or seeing explosions. You may be forgiven for not seeing the evidence yourself, because you simply may not understand it, but you cannot tell me that you do not understand that the act of burying/hiding/ignoring evidence is clear proof of misconduct that invalidates any investigation.

C: I do know that NIST is ignoring what they do not consider evidence of CD. I have asked them repeatedly in phone conversations about what they are supposedly hiding and I am not convinced they are hiding anything except some security-related information that they say terrorists could use to destroy other skyscrapers. That’s their answer. If they are lying to me, I couldn’t see it. And apparently no other scientific institution, university or other investigative body including the 7000 FBI agents who did their own investigation, found evidence of NIST maliciously covering up evidence. I have to rely on experts who have also thoroughly studied the events of 9/11. NONE of them make claims anywhere near the kinds of claims you are making about NIST.

Z: The exposure of this kind of misconduct is all that is needed to justify a new investigation. Anyone can do the exposure. A single journalist can do that by exposing buried evidence, such as hidden witness records, or simply exposing "systematic lying." Remember Daniel Ellsberg and Vietnam?

C: I took Dan out to lunch back in the 1980s. A courageous and compassionate man. I also was ready to move to Canada in 1972 if I had a bad draft number. Please stop being so condescending.

Z: And Chris, you keep asking for a declaration of support by an investigation by a major institutions such as MIT, but there are two major problems here:

1) To get such an investigation the public DEMAND must FIRST be gathered via education about the issue. This is what AE911Truth is trying to do by exposing NISTs misconduct. You are asking for the result of the new investigation before the investigation is allowed to happen.

C: Not true. What you need is an independent investigation of a few technical aspects of the NIST Report from a major institution anywhere in the world. And BTW there have been several, as you well know, by Purdue, University of Hawaii, CTBUH, Cardiff and MIT professors, to name but a few. All of them have come to the same basic conclusion. Not one has concluded CD or a coverup by NIST.

Z: 2) The new investigation must be performed by independent investigators, and especially ones with no ties to potential suspects such as the military industrial complex, which means you need an international team of carefully selected experts with complete access to all data, all records. Not the MIT.

You can help make this happen. Let´s get people like Richard Gage, Dwain Deets, David Griscom, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, and others on CNN and Fox and all those stations.

C: You need more solid evidence before you can take your claims to the major media outlets. Very few of them have the slightest interest in your theory, because it is simply not supported by science. Even very radical people like Noam Chomsky reject your theory.

Z: Let´s get the whistleblowers on there too. You still think AQ and Osama went rogue? Are you aware that Daniels Ellsberg has said that Sybil Edmunds has revelations on offer that are more important than his Pentagon Papers exposure? Do you think the American public should know about an FBI whistle-blower that says she found out that Osama was still on your payroll on 9/11? Why did the hijackers get their US visas through the Yemen embassy just like the mujahideen did back in the day, as noted by whistle-blower Michael Springman?

How again did the 9/11 Commission explain this anomaly? Hmm. Not at all? This evidence did not exist, right? Just like NIST did not know about any CD evidence. Nothing to see here. Right? You see nothing?

C: I have not studied the 9/11 Commission Report as much as I have the technical stuff like NIST. That’s because Richard Gage uses his technical claims as the gateway into the whole 9/11 Truth movement. I do remember being thoroughly disgusted with Bush/Cheney for their resistance to even having a 9/11 Commission, and OI have heard the “designed to fail” claims of people on the Commission itself. That is disturbing, but as I have said, I am keeping my focus on the question of CD, which as you well know I have found no real evidence for.

Z: I don´t have time for this anymore Chris. You have been told about this stuff and so much more so many times, but you have never allowed yourself to see it. This is denial. You alone can make the decision to see.

C: In my area of research, which is 9/11 CD, I have been skeptical but open. I have found NO evidence of CD. The right choice is to report what I have found. We’re both burned out on each other. I hope I can get this last video out before too long so I can begin to fade away from this whole thing and do something else with my spare time.

Z: Make the right choice.

- Ziggi