• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

chrismohr said:
MM and others,

To save time and preserve sanity I will not chase around for answers to your suspicious questions. I will respond only to proof that Jim Millette publishes dishonest material, using his own words from his own studies, with specific quotes, in context, properly linked to original source material. Kevin Ryan made one attempt to demonstrate this in an EPA-funded paper Millette wrote about hazardous materials in the WTC dust. All he could show me was that Millette said "lots of iron" instead of "iron-rich microspheres." The accusation failed but at least it was an attempt to show dishonesty. No more speculating about me or him. Show me where he lied. And if you can't, back off. If you are setting yourself up to reject his data because I didn't answer long strings of insane questions, that is no longer my concern. The fact is, several 9/11 Truth people are eagerly awaiting the report... the ones who are actually interested in the truth.

As just one example of why I have lost all patience with you, consider your accusation that I am being dishonest because I allowed Dr. Millette two more weeks to give us a better report after forensic scientists give him peer-reviewing. You say this is because he'll have more time to distort the data with his fellow evildoers? And that I am in on the conspiracy to distort the data by giving him two more weeks?!?!?!
Oh
My
God!
Such an accusation does not deserve to be dignified with an answer.
Click to expand...

Well done.

The conspiratorial mindset views everything with suspicion. If you explain, the explanation is proof there's something there and if you don't explain the the conspiracy stands unchallenged. Since they know the truth anyone who disagrees must be lying and must be attacked with any weapon possible.

Remember, no good deed goes unpunished.:)
 
chrismohr said:
"MM and others,

To save time and preserve sanity I will not chase around for answers to your suspicious questions."
Click to expand...

I will take that as an acknowledgement that Mr. Anonymous was indeed Dr. Millette.

No chasing required as the answer was readily available to you Chris.

chrismohr said:
"I will respond only to proof that Jim Millette publishes dishonest material, using his own words from his own studies, with specific quotes, in context, properly linked to original source material. Kevin Ryan made one attempt to demonstrate this in an EPA-funded paper Millette wrote about hazardous materials in the WTC dust. All he could show me was that Millette said "lots of iron" instead of "iron-rich microspheres." The accusation failed but at least it was an attempt to show dishonesty. No more speculating about me or him. Show me where he lied. And if you can't, back off. If you are setting yourself up to reject his data because I didn't answer long strings of insane questions, that is no longer my concern. The fact is, several 9/11 Truth people are eagerly awaiting the report... the ones who are actually interested in the truth."
Click to expand...

I think your dodging response is just a show of your true colors.

It is important that all this be on the record before Dr. Millette determines what he wishes to make known to the public.

That said, I still eagerly await Dr. Millette's findings.

chrismohr said:
"As just one example of why I have lost all patience with you, consider your accusation that I am being dishonest because I allowed Dr. Millette two more weeks to give us a better report after forensic scientists give him peer-reviewing. You say this is because he'll have more time to distort the data with his fellow evildoers? And that I am in on the conspiracy to distort the data by giving him two more weeks?!?!?!
Oh
My
God!
Such an accusation does not deserve to be dignified with an answer."
Click to expand...

Now that is a lie Chris.

You know better than that. Even though it is permissible here in JREF.

I am only accusing you of deception and bias.

Such behavior is not in itself conspiratorial, but it does play into the hands of those who conspire.

Believe it or not, I still think you are inherently honest, but I feel your emotional attachment to the Official Story clouds your vision of reality.

I was under the impression that you are an investigative journalist after you cited having previously investigated stories like the JFK assassination?

Speaking as a documentary editor, I am surprised that you are reluctant to defend the credibility to your research efforts?

MM
 
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed previously moderated material


Then, by MM's own criteria, as he just showed in his post to Chris, that allows me to draw any conclusion I want from it!

They do not because they know the Harrit/Jones paper is junk science and it will be readily exposed in an independent lab!

Thank you for agreeing with me MM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chrismohr said:
To Kevin Ryan's credit, he is posting my responses to his writings about the upcoming Millette study. This may help MM and others understand me better as well. I'm obviously stung by accusations of deceptiveness on my part:
http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/whe...o-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc/#comment-327
Click to expand...

Thanks for this reminder, Chris.
Hehe, I doubt that anyone (including truthers) have ever read the whole lengthy and boring complaint of lady (?) named Cate Jenkins. As I remember, it contained mostly very marginal, not interesting and highly questionable details about alleged intended errors made by several teams in pH measurements of some WTC samples in the order of ca 2 units (!) of pH. To me, Jenkins is just a very nonessential "grumbler", who should have much better and more useful things to deal with (if she is a chemist).

And now, the same insignificant/vanity document becomes a defense weapon in the hands of people who would like to discredit the work of Jim Millette, including the upcoming WTC dust study.

Jim Millette (and the interested scientific community) may become even angry because of these silly accusations. But, more probably, he will not care at all what truthers think in this matter:cool:
 
Last edited:
The Cate Jenkins study CONFIRMS the integrity of Dr. Millette

Ivan Kminek said:
Thanks for this reminder, Chris.
Hehe, I doubt that anyone (including truthers) have ever read the whole lengthy and boring complaint of lady (?) named Cate Jenkins. As I remember, it contained mostly very marginal, not interesting and highly questionable details about alleged intended errors made by several teams in pH measurements of some WTC samples in the order of ca 2 units (!) of pH.
Click to expand...
I doubt it too. There are four citations that mention Dr. Millette: references 52, 65, 89, and 138.

The text for reference 52 reads:

An EPA-funded research team headed by Rutgers University/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School found pH levels as high as 11.5 for one WTC dust sample collected outdoors on 9/16/01 or 9/17/01. 52 This is right at the 11.5 presumptive trigger level for tissue corrosivity. However, the other 2 samples tested had substantially lower pH levels of 9.2 and 9.3. All three of these pH results are questionable.

The study itself described taking the precaution to find outdoor samples that had been protected from rain, so as to reassure readers of their study that the original caustic WTC dust would not have been neutralized by contact with water and carbon dioxide from the air (a reaction called "carbonation"). However, if the study is read closely, before testing the samples for pH, the Rutgers team first added water to the samples, inverted the tubes several times, soaked them "several days" at room temperature, and then stored them in the refrigerator for an unknown time period before pH testing.53 Thus, by their own admission, the Rutgers research team was intentionally and deliberately neutralizing the samples before testing the pH.
​
So, they revealed a dangerous pH! Good for them. As for the accusation of "deliberately neutralizing the samples", the text for the pH of the samples reads (as cited by the Jenkins report):

The pH of an aqueous suspension of each sample was > 7; the Cortlandt Street sample had a pH of 11.5. Both the Cherry and Market Street samples had a pH of 9 (Table 1). ...
​
(Emphasis added. The full report is here: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.02110703).

How is that deception? They indicate clearly that it's the pH of the aqueous suspension! They are not claiming that it's the original pH of the dust. It's raw scientific data not subject to any interpretation. The article also deals with how the Senate offered a twisted interpretation of the results. How is that Dr. Millette's fault?

Even more, I need to ask, is it even possible to test the pH of the dust by any other means? I am illiterate in this field but it seems to me that the measuring devices would not work properly if they're in contact with the dust, and thus the dust needs to be submerged in a fluid to take the measurement, just as they did. Maybe someone here can confirm or deny this.

Let's see the other three citations of Dr. Millette. As for reference 65:

There was a second EPA-funded WTC dust study headed by Rutgers University/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.65 This study including most of the same original researchers in the Rutgers outdoor WTC dust study, above. This time, the dust was collected from indoor locations near Ground Zero on 11/19/01. Not surprisingly, the highest reported pH level was only 11. The reason that this is no surprise is the fact that the researchers yet again soaked the samples in water for several days and stored them in a refrigerator for an indeterminate period before testing. See the discussions above on the first Rutgers study of WTC dust, showing that this
procedure pre-neutralizes the samples.
​
This time no quotation is given, but just as above, I doubt there is any reason to consider the results deceptive. I could not access the article from the given link (http://www.awma.org/journal/ShowAbstract.asp?Year=&PaperID=1214).

Reference 89 is exactly the same as reference 52. But the interesting part of it is that it's brought up in support of a higher pH than stated in another report!

The third false claim in the Landrigan et al. publication was that bulk samples of WTC dust only had a pH level as high 11.0. Again, the same 2 studies (McGee et al. and Lioy et al.) were cited as a basis for this claim. Because the McGee et al. study only reported a maximum pH level of 10.0, the Lioy et al. study would need to be the source for the claim that the highest pH was only 11. This also was a deliberate misrepresentation. The Lioy study89 found a pH level as high as 11.5 for one sample, which is over 3 times as alkaline as a pH of 11.0. Claiming that the pH was only 11.0 conveniently gets the pH level under the universally accepted trigger level for corrosivity to human tissues (pH 11.5). It would have been hard to overlook the pH level of 11.5 in the Lioy et al. publication, because it appeared in bold-faced type in the abstract, as well as being in the text of the article and also a table as well. This third falsification makes it clear that the other falsification of the pH levels for the smallest particles was no casual error in the Landrigan et al. paper.
​
Wow. From villain to hero. Yes, the very same reference, the very same pH level, is now praised for revealing the (purported) deception in another study (in which Dr. Millette did not participate, by the way).

Reference 138 is again the very same study of references 52 and 89, and the text mentioning it reads:

OSHA's laboratory test methods (either ICAP or AA) would simultaneously reveal a large range of metals, including calcium, sodium, and potassium.136, 137 OSHA cannot claim that it did not find calcium, sodium, or potassium. Calcium, sodium and potassium compounds have always being found and reported in WTC dust and air by all other researchers, government and private, both near and far outside the boundaries of the Ground Zero epicenter, using the same laboratory methods. See the references for 8 studies showing calcium, sodium, and potassium compounds in settled dusts, air, and the fire plume from the WTC.138​
Once again, for villain to hero.

If anything, this speaks very well of the integrity of the Paul Lioy et al. team, including Dr. Millette, who indeed revealed a pH in the aqueous suspension that is right in the 11.5 level of dangerousness!
 
pgimeno, you just don't get it. The point really is this: Anybody who has ever collaborated with any branch of government on anything has been in bed with mass murderers, lost any credibility, can't be trusted to make an honest cup of coffee and should probably be jailed indefinitely.

[/truther mode]
 
pgimeno said:
........

Even more, I need to ask, is it even possible to test the pH of the dust by any other means? I am illiterate in this field but it seems to me that the measuring devices would not work properly if they're in contact with the dust, and thus the dust needs to be submerged in a fluid to take the measurement, just as they did. Maybe someone here can confirm or deny this.
.................
Click to expand...

I haven't followed this discussion in detail, but you are quite correct in your analysis. The dust collected was presumably an inhomogeneous sample. It contains many compounds, some of which were water soluble. The solution obtained from extracting the dust with water evidently contained many salts, whose dissolution would influence the acidity (or basicity) of that solution. Potassium salts (probably potash) would be present as KOH, or perhaps potassium carbonate, both of which would affect pH substantially.

I am not trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, but pH represents -log10[H+] - that is, it is a measure of the concentration of H+ ion in solution (which in water is governed by a set of very well known relationships). pH is a solution phenomenon; it is not intrinsic to the dust itself; it refers to concentration. And of course, depending on how much water one used for the initial extraction (i.e. the volume of water that the dust was extracted with), one could easily modify pH by diluting it with water.
 
pgimeno said:
...As for the accusation of "deliberately neutralizing the samples", the text for the pH of the samples reads (as cited by the Jenkins report):

The pH of an aqueous suspension of each sample was > 7; the Cortlandt Street sample had a pH of 11.5. Both the Cherry and Market Street samples had a pH of 9 (Table 1). ...
​
(Emphasis added. The full report is here: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.02110703).

How is that deception? They indicate clearly that it's the pH of the aqueous suspension! They are not claiming that it's the original pH of the dust. It's raw scientific data not subject to any interpretation. ...

Even more, I need to ask, is it even possible to test the pH of the dust by any other means? I am illiterate in this field but it seems to me that the measuring devices would not work properly if they're in contact with the dust, and thus the dust needs to be submerged in a fluid to take the measurement, just as they did. Maybe someone here can confirm or deny this.
...
Click to expand...

Totally valid question, and the answer is: Of course it is not possible to measure the pH of dust without making an aqueous suspension, because the pH is "a measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution". As we all know, "dust" is characterized by being dry. As Lioy e.al. point out, the took pains to make sure they collected dry, not aqueous, dust samples.

To go to another source: The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) defines "pH" in their "IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology - the Gold Book" as follows:
IUPAC definition said:
The quantity pH is defined in terms of the activity of hydrogen(1+) ions (hydrogen ions) in solution:
pH = − lg[a(H+)] = − lg[m(H+)γm(H+) / m⦵]
where a(H+) is the activity of hydrogen ion (hydrogen 1+) in aqueous solution, H+(aq), γm(H+) is the activity coefficient of H+(aq) (molality basis) at molality m(H+), and m⦵ mol kg −1 is the standard molality.
Click to expand...
So: No aqueous solution -> no pH
 
Ok, it's open again. Keep it civil and on topic. The topic is never other posters.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
...............
If anything, this speaks very well of the integrity of the Paul Lioy et al. team, including Dr. Millette, who indeed revealed a pH in the aqueous suspension that is right in the 11.5 level of dangerousness!
Click to expand...

In support of her hypothesis, Cate Jenkins praises Millette and MVA as credible and prestigious:

http://peer.org/docs/ny/9_8_11_PEER_WTC_dust_petition.pdf

Another independent research group, MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc., also found that the smallest WTC dust particles (0.5 to 2.5 microns) contained 26.5% cement particles in samples about ½ mile away from Ground Zero..............
...............
104
This hypothesis is consistent with the allegations of co-petitioner Dr. Jenkins in her October 13, 2008 complaint to the FBI,99 wherein she alleged the laboratory test results of WTC dust for its pH had to be both suppressed and falsified. When testing was performed by EPA months later, the laboratory methods were rigged and intentionally designed to give false neutral results, both by diluting the WTC dust nearly 600 times with water before testing, obviously diluting any corrosivity, and testing only after the sample had time to neutralize by atmospheric exposure.100 There are 2 credible studies that determined the concentration of concrete in the smallest WTC dust particles, and the concentrations of concrete in the larger particles. 102


102 Both the Delta Group at the University of California at Davis, and MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc. are highly prestigious groups, having received numerous EPA grants for similar studies on fine particulates. MVA was a major contract laboratory to EPA in the evaluation of WTC dust after 9/11, but performed its study of the concrete content of WTC dust independently. Dr. Millette of MVA was an expert witness on behalf of the Department of Justice and EPA suit against W.R. Grace for the Libby, MT asbestos Superfund site.
See The DELTA Group, for the Detection and Evaluation of the Long-Range Transport of Aerosols. University of California at Davis at http://everest.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/faculty_profiles/thomas_cahill.html
http://daviswiki.org/DELTA_Group
See also MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc. at
http://www.mvainc.com/
http://www.mvainc.com/staff/jim-millette/
 
Last edited:
Pgimeno,
A thousand thanks for doing what I couldn't... actually slogging through the Ph falsification claims. Wow. And the verification of the fact that Ph testing can be done only on liquid solutions, not dry dust, by two other posters.
Does anyone on the 9/11 Truth side have a careful and scientifically valid rebuttal of this interpretation of the Ph falsification paper?
 
Thanks, pgimeno, you are clearly hero of today:cool: And thanks, BasqueArch.

Now, I almost like Cate Jenkins (if you are right in your analyses, I'm not in the shape to check it). I still consider this elaborate complaint as rather weird and useless, but... if it contains a praise of Jim Millette's work, it just has gained some historical significance:blush:
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
I originally asked Dr. Harrit that very question at the Toronto 9/11 Hearings last September.

He stated emphatically that the Bentham Paper research team had had clear communication with Tillotson and were told that the DSC testing was conducted in open air.

I have brought your assertion and accusation of lying to their attention and received a prompt reply that they would never engage in such a charade and that their information came directly from Tillotson and Gash.

MM
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure thats just hearsay and so not admissible as evidence.......and given the repeated evidence of twoofers misinterpreting even the simplest of conversations I see nothing strange about Harrit getting this wrong too.

LOL, Maybe Harrit was having his leg pulled :D
 
So, let's hope that someone will summarize why Jim Millette was not really criticized in Jenkins' study (although this study was not really important, to my opinion).

But, according to Kevin Ryan, Jim has another problem, before releasing of any results: his study is suspiciously cheap (actually, this objection of truthers has been expected here).

Quote:
"The question remains — why did Mohr give Millette $1,000 (if he did)? It couldn’t possibly be for the actual lab work which would require several times that amount. Millette does get much more than that from the federal government each year ($117,000 in 2002 alone) so maybe he doesn’t need the money.

More importantly, Mohr didn’t even send Millette samples!

It seems we’re all going “hmmm” already."

Hmmm...:cool::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
So, let's hope that someone (not me) will summarize why Jim Millette was not really criticized in Jenkins' study (although this study was not really important, to my opinion).
Click to expand...

Really, one could hardly say that Millette was mentioned in Jenkins' piece. He is never mentioned in the text. His name appears four times in the references as co-author of two different reports (one of which is cited three times). There is also a photograph of him, for no obvious reason. The allegation that Jenkins' write-up "prominently features" him is risible, if one is in a good mood.
 
Ivan Kminek said:
So, let's hope that someone will summarize why Jim Millette was not really criticized in Jenkins' study (although this study was not really important, to my opinion).

But, according to Kevin Ryan, Jim has another problem, before releasing of any results: his study is suspiciously cheap (actually, this objection of truthers has been expected here).

Quote:
"The question remains — why did Mohr give Millette $1,000 (if he did)? It couldn’t possibly be for the actual lab work which would require several times that amount. Millette does get much more than that from the federal government each year ($117,000 in 2002 alone) so maybe he doesn’t need the money.

More importantly, Mohr didn’t even send Millette samples!

It seems we’re all going “hmmm” already."

Hmmm...:cool::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well old Kevin is certainly giving up any pretense of scientific analysis isn't he with his grossly misleading blog posts, isn't he.

"Three years ago, an international team of scientists published a scientific paper that established the presence of thermitic residues in the dust from the World Trade Center (WTC) catastrophe."

Curiously, Water Boy does not mention that he was one of the cracker jack international team of scientists who conclusively proved that whatever they were studying, it was not therm*te.

Man, Kevin, I hope you use one of those water proof keyboards, because the flop sweat from your fear of being exposed by a scientific analysis of your test results is obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom