• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper

Cadre of scientists discussing Millette's SEM-EDS, FTIR,TEM,SAED,LTA, FLIR,ETM results.

1911_Solvay_conference.jpg






Harrit and Jones discussing with Farrer the DSC protocol and results.​

stooges_pull_tooth_ds.jpg
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Wow it sure is nice here in Cabo San Lucas! Wish you were here!

;)

Hey, why did Oystein get all the credit?
Click to expand...

I had crossed blades with that poster, SnowCrash, at the 911forum before. I guess I got too close to his bone. He is not unreasonable and quite intelligent and has already understood that much of the evidence truthers advance in support of CD doesn't actually support CD. But deep down in his heart, he just KNOWS it was CD - somehow. It appears that he WANTS to believe in thermite, because he has already understood that explosives won't carry the day. So he has this need and urge to portray those who challenge that believe as somehow evil.
tsig said:
Hilited it for you.
Click to expand...
Hehe.
It has happened perhaps twice before that I was perceived as Jewish based on the suffix of my internet handle, even though "Oystein" is in fact an old nordic name - you can hardy get more Norse than that! Of course I am neither Jewish nor Norse, and I don't mean to pretend to be either. There is a personal story behind my choice of that name that has nothing at all to do with my preferences in culture or religion.

However, I have not perceived SnowCrash to be motivated by anti-semitism. I consider your post a joke ;)
 
+1

A Solvay congress, wasn't it? Humble figures like Curie, Rutherford, Lorentz.... and a bloke called Einstein.
 
BTW, has anyone noticed what a surprisingly high percentage of posters on various 9/11 blogs are at least partially supportive of the Millette study? Also, when people make weird accusations they get quickly corrected too. We can expect the hard-cores to be unswayed and some to even resort to ad hominem attacks (as they have, in spades) but what surprises me is that they don't completely dominate the blogs with poisonous attacks.
 
fitzgibbon said:
Ya see, that's where you went sideways and south from the start! :D

Fitz
Click to expand...

Hehe, I especially like this comment of Millette study on Abovetopsecret, written by Glargod:

"Are they serious? The closest sample was 0.2 miles away from ground zero and taken 17 days later. after 6 days of rain and 1 day of snow.

totally useless IMO. I'm glat it puts you to bed. but does nothing for me. Inside job.

NYC weather
Historical weather data
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
11 12 6 1 1 -3 -5 72 57 41 1020 1015 1010 16 16 14 32 11 53 0.00
12 8 3 -1 3 -5 -10 100 57 28 1026 1022 1014 16 16 14 19 13 29 0.25 Rain
13 8 4 2 8 6 2 100 99 89 1012 1001 996 16 8 3 27 14 37 32.26 Rain
14 8 7 6 6 0 -4 97 65 42 1013 1005 999 16 16 14 29 16 47 0.00
15 11 8 6 7 2 0 96 67 52 1016 1013 1010 16 16 16 16 8 - 0.00
16 13 9 5 6 3 -1 100 70 45 1014 1012 1010 16 15 10 21 8 34 4.06 Rain
17 8 6 3 6 4 2 100 91 68 1015 1013 1012 16 14 8 21 13 32 5.33 Rain
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
18 7 4 1 5 -2 -8 100 66 39 1024 1018 1012 16 16 16 29 14 42 0.00
19 11 6 1 -4 -7 -9 61 41 25 1030 1027 1024 16 16 16 23 13 37 0.00
20 12 7 3 3 -1 -5 76 57 43 1033 1031 1028 16 16 16 19 10 - 0.00
21 7 5 4 7 4 2 100 94 82 1028 1017 1004 16 13 2 50 26 74 26.16 Rain
22 7 6 4 7 4 -1 100 93 70 1003 999 996 16 11 2 35 21 53 32.51 Rain
23 14 9 4 -1 -4 -8 70 45 26 1007 1003 1000 16 16 16 40 26 64 0.25
24 11 7 1 2 -3 -12 70 49 37 1014 1008 1004 16 16 16 27 16 53 0.00
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
25 6 2 -1 -9 -12 -13 47 36 27 1016 1015 1014 16 16 16 27 18 40 0.00
26 3 0 -3 0 -7 -15 100 62 34 1020 1016 1014 16 11 1 27 11 39 1.27 Fog , Snow
27 5 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 50 40 29 1024 1022 1020 16 16 16 24 13 35 0.00
28 9 4 -1 2 -6 -8 86 52 34 1026 1025 1022 16 16 16 19 11 32 0.00
29 7 4 2 4 0 -4 100 76 58 1028 1026 1021 16 14 6 32 14 45 5.33 Rain
30 6 4 3 6 4 3 100 99 89 1019 1007 1001 16 10 2 42 29 66 39.12 Rain
31 8 6 3 4 2 1 100 80 68 1010 1009 1007 16 16 8 13 8 - 1.52 Rain

:rolleyes:
 
Myriad said:
He carried the credit away in a beer mug?
Click to expand...

Those sneaky Germans!

Although it is a good point. More than a few posters have pointed out the (presumably evil) "German JREFer" as being all the evidence they need to dismiss the results of the study. However, it is always nice to know what side the bigots, racists, and other ignorant goofballs are on. That way, I can make certain not to be on that side.

Jones's admission that he's not doing 9/11 research anymore is really telling. I mean, cold fusion was garbage, but at least he was being paid for it. It's clear that this noble crusader for the "truth" doesn't really think it's worth his time anymore.
 
BasqueArch said:
Cadre of scientists discussing Millette's SEM-EDS, FTIR,TEM,SAED,LTA, FLIR,ETM results.​

1911_Solvay_conference.jpg
Click to expand...

I spotted Albert Einstein immediately, so I researched a minute. We see the participants of the Solvay Conference (1911), and other well-known geniuses are in the photo, too (year of Nobel Prize in parentheses):
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1902, physics), seated, 4th from left
Marie Curie (1903, physics and 1911, chemistry), seated, 2nd from right
Henri Poincaré, seated, 1st from right
Max Planck (1918, physics), standing, 2nd from left
Maurice de Broglie, standing, 5th from left (pioneerd X-ray diffraction spectroscopy!)
Ernest Rutherford (1908, chemistry), standing, 4th from right
Albert Einstein (1921, physics)

Other who went on to become Nobel laureats that I don't even know are
Walther Nernst (1920, chemistry)
Jean Baptiste Perrin (1926, physics)
Wilhelm Wien (1911, physics)
Heike Kamerlingh Onnes (1913, physics)

What an impressive line-up! Arnold Sommerfeld never won the Nobel prize, but was nominated 81 (1) times, and, more importantly, was doctoral advisor to several Nobel laureates, including Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Hans Bethe, Peter Debye.
 
Dr. Jones said:
My best wishes to the 9/11 truth community. FYI, my main research focus at this time remains on seeking alternative energy sources for the benefit of mankind.
Click to expand...

Why does he bother? Doesn't he know his discovery will simply be co-opted by the NWO, so it can be used to secretly vaporize skyscrapers?
 
You see, I'm absolutely convinced that there are only two possible explanations for the data in the Harrit et al paper:

1.The red/gray chips are nanothermite.

2.The data is fraudulent.

Those are the only two possibilities. Accepting the data as real, there is absolutely no way it can be reconciled with any theory other than nanothermite.... So either the data is real and the red material is nanothermite, or it isn't nanothermite and Harrit, Jones, Farrer et al are scientific frauds.
Click to expand...

Or, the data is real, it never showed it was nanothermite in the first place, and Harrit, Jones, Farrer et al are scientific frauds because they lied and said it was nanothermite when their own data said it wasn't.

In summary, there are several upsides to Dr Millette's work:
...
4.He's debunked the primer paint hypothesis:
"At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers."
Click to expand...

Do truthers deliberately ignore the fact that there were far more than just one or two formulas of primer painted used in the wtc complex?
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212725&page=86

Start at post 3435. This of course is the ultimate response, from Kevin Ryan's DigWithin blog. Could someone tell me if my last post on here rebutting the Cate Jenkins assertion etc. is readable by you? It's been "awaiting moderation" for over a week.
Click to expand...

Chris: What do you mean by "last post"? I see there your 3 long posts on the "Cate Jenkins matter". Do not spend so much time on this marginal matter, Chris, at least now:cool:
I think, looking at the reactions of the smarter truthers, that they have mostly little suspicions that Jim Millette has done some deceptive work.
I think that it happened what was expected here in JREF: Jim Millette's samples of dust simply look authentic, as well as the red-gray chips, he reasonably explained their origin etc.
 
Last edited:
The irony is that Jones et al could have had us thinking…….if only they had given their little scheme a bit more thought. They weren’t smart enough to get their lies straight from the outset. Baffling the gullible with bollox is all they have achieved. What they should have done was to get their lies straight by actually finding some dust with true thermite in it, then getting it tested to be sure (seems that they could have done that with just $1,000 to Dr Millette but decided upon an ‘in house’ test that won’t be duplicated). But no…….they jumped in like an Irish mine detector…both feet first.

How dumb can one be to conjure up such a wacky idea without actually having the ingredients to prove it? If I didn’t laugh at such stupidity I would……..well, laugh louder. Akin to testing mortar mix that has no cement but saying that it does. Would anyone bother to argue on a forum about this? Probably!!! Plenty of takers for such crap.....thankfully the givers are becoming fewer.

Jones et al could search until their hearts content but still wouldn’t be smart enough, even today, to find any dust anywhere with thermite in it. They’re not smart enough even to be that deceitful…..are they?

Give us ya dust Ryan. (Switch to a scene of Ryan asking the guys from Mythbusters for some samples for an 'experiment' )……lol.
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Hehe, I especially like this comment of Millette study on Abovetopsecret, written by Glargod:

"Are they serious? The closest sample was 0.2 miles away from ground zero and taken 17 days later. after 6 days of rain and 1 day of snow.totally useless IMO. I'm glat it puts you to bed. but does nothing for me. Inside job.

NYC weather
Historical weather data
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
11 12 6 1 1 -3 -5 72 57 41 1020 1015 1010 16 16 14 32 11 53 0.00
12 8 3 -1 3 -5 -10 100 57 28 1026 1022 1014 16 16 14 19 13 29 0.25 Rain
13 8 4 2 8 6 2 100 99 89 1012 1001 996 16 8 3 27 14 37 32.26 Rain
14 8 7 6 6 0 -4 97 65 42 1013 1005 999 16 16 14 29 16 47 0.00
15 11 8 6 7 2 0 96 67 52 1016 1013 1010 16 16 16 16 8 - 0.00
16 13 9 5 6 3 -1 100 70 45 1014 1012 1010 16 15 10 21 8 34 4.06 Rain
17 8 6 3 6 4 2 100 91 68 1015 1013 1012 16 14 8 21 13 32 5.33 Rain
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
18 7 4 1 5 -2 -8 100 66 39 1024 1018 1012 16 16 16 29 14 42 0.00
19 11 6 1 -4 -7 -9 61 41 25 1030 1027 1024 16 16 16 23 13 37 0.00
20 12 7 3 3 -1 -5 76 57 43 1033 1031 1028 16 16 16 19 10 - 0.00
21 7 5 4 7 4 2 100 94 82 1028 1017 1004 16 13 2 50 26 74 26.16 Rain
22 7 6 4 7 4 -1 100 93 70 1003 999 996 16 11 2 35 21 53 32.51 Rain
23 14 9 4 -1 -4 -8 70 45 26 1007 1003 1000 16 16 16 40 26 64 0.25
24 11 7 1 2 -3 -12 70 49 37 1014 1008 1004 16 16 16 27 16 53 0.00
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
25 6 2 -1 -9 -12 -13 47 36 27 1016 1015 1014 16 16 16 27 18 40 0.00
26 3 0 -3 0 -7 -15 100 62 34 1020 1016 1014 16 11 1 27 11 39 1.27 Fog , Snow
27 5 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 50 40 29 1024 1022 1020 16 16 16 24 13 35 0.00
28 9 4 -1 2 -6 -8 86 52 34 1026 1025 1022 16 16 16 19 11 32 0.00
29 7 4 2 4 0 -4 100 76 58 1028 1026 1021 16 14 6 32 14 45 5.33 Rain
30 6 4 3 6 4 3 100 99 89 1019 1007 1001 16 10 2 42 29 66 39.12 Rain
31 8 6 3 4 2 1 100 80 68 1010 1009 1007 16 16 8 13 8 - 1.52 Rain

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: 30 days in SepBrainless job.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom