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

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted... I misunderstood Senenmut in this case.

 

[Julio]

like i said before it helps to rule out what material you have. you guys can NOT say that what millette tested is the same material that jones tested before you do a dsc. will it react at 430 or will it be like henryco's chips and NOT react to produce iron and silicon rich microspheres even at 900C. henryco did not do a dsc but when he heated up his chips they did not react.

Simply put, setting the criteria on a flawed test is rather stupid.

 

[chrismohr]

Ivan,
You asked on a different thread why Jim Millette didn't ID Laclede paint but instead said the chips he looked at were not yet precisely identified. As you may remember, before the preliminary results came out, he did his tests and experiments based on the Bentham paper. I didn't want to give too much input before he did his own independent analysis. Now that the preliminary report has come out, he has received Oystein's white paper, as well as several of Sunstealer's and Almond's and yours and other posts etc on this subject. He is looking at this data, and if I remember correctly I think he may take the best hypotheses and test them using actual samples before final publication.

 

[Oystein]

... you guys can NOT say that what millette tested is the same material that jones Farrer tested before you do a dsc ...

You are correct, with a slight correction as indicated.

The reason we can't say whether or not Millette tests the same material as Farrer put in the DSC is: Farrer forgot to characterize his material both before and after the DSC test, so it is completely unknown which of the several differend kinds of red-gray chips ignite with a peak around 430°C.

You point out that HenryCo had different chips. So you admit there WERE different chips. I am glad you understand that. You are now one step ahead of Farrer, Harrit, Legge, Jones, Ryan in understanding the problem with DSC. You are still several steps behind Sunstealer and myself. But ask questions, be ready to listen and learn, and I might help you.



In fact, I am currently composing the lengthy OP to a new thread dedicated to discussing DCS-testing of red-gray chips!
So please bear with me, it's still in the making.

 

[Oystein]

...
You answered How? How exactly does it help to rule out other materials? Go into detail. ...

May I answer this?

1. The integral of the area under the curves indicates an energy density of up to 7.5 kJ/g, almost twice that of ideal thermite, and 6x that of a nanothermite reference. This despite the known fact that a substantial portion of the mass in the DSC is inert, and a substantial portion of the rest is organic material, prone to burn anywhere between 300 and 500 °C. From this follows: A) The heat release cannot possibly be fully explained by presence of thermite B) The vast majority of the heat release comes from exotherm reactions other that thermite
2. The ignition point of the chips, or rather peak temperature, is substantially (~100°C) lower than that of a known nanothermite reference, and even more drastically lower than the ignition temperature of ordinary thermites

These observations aloow us to rule out that the chips are thermitic in nature.

See, that was easy. I think using DSC ti rule out things can be valuable, and I am glad Farrer dit

 

[Miragememories]

"Ivan,
You asked on a different thread why Jim Millette didn't ID Laclede paint but instead said the chips he looked at were not yet precisely identified. As you may remember, before the preliminary results came out, he did his tests and experiments based on the Bentham paper. I didn't want to give too much input before he did his own independent analysis. Now that the preliminary report has come out, he has received Oystein's white paper, as well as several of Sunstealer's and Almond's and yours and other posts etc on this subject. He is looking at this data, and if I remember correctly I think he may take the best hypotheses and test them using actual samples before final publication."

And while your at it Chris, you might like to explain why you and Dr. Millette never made it clear from the very beginning [November 2011] that DSC testing was off the table?

As we all know, the most sensational findings from the 2009 Bentham Paper came out of the DSC testing.

It was not until his February presentation that it became clear that Dr. Millette's company had no ability to perform DSC testing and never had any intention of performing this testing elsewhere.

You might like to consider this more recent post from January 24, 2012 where you re-affirmed to us how Dr. Millette was going to repeat the work performed by Dr. Harrit et al for the 2009 Bentham Paper;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7961510&postcount=1677

"1.) His intention is to replicate the tests done in the Bentham study... The Bentham paper does not report on having done a normal envirnmental forensic study of the components so Dr. Millette will do that, plus everything they did, plus other tests as needed."

formatting changes are mine

You gave one very deceptive hint at that time that that DSC testing would not be performed.

"2.) He will look for evidence not only of unignited thermitic materials but for unignited nanothermitic materials, using some of the same protocols as used in the Bentham paper."

formatting changes are mine

How could you claim there was any degree of fairness and value in this supposed parallel investigation of the 2009 Bentham Paper research when you must have know its most significant findings were not being re-tested?

And this is not deception?

MM

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan,
You asked on a different thread why Jim Millette didn't ID Laclede paint but instead said the chips he looked at were not yet precisely identified. As you may remember, before the preliminary results came out, he did his tests and experiments based on the Bentham paper. I didn't want to give too much input before he did his own independent analysis. Now that the preliminary report has come out, he has received Oystein's white paper, as well as several of Sunstealer's and Almond's and yours and other posts etc on this subject. He is looking at this data, and if I remember correctly I think he may take the best hypotheses and test them using actual samples before final publication.

OK, Chris The problem is that even if Jim is convinced enough that Laclede paint is a good candidate as for material of the most of his chips, truthers will still have some "counter-arguments", like the lack of any evidence of strontium chromate so far. Therefore I suggested some "additional" analyses looking for the presence of strontium.

 

[Gamolon]

If I give you a random sample of something, why would you put it in a DSC to find out what it's not rather than use dozens of other techniques that actually tell you what it is?

You should just continually post the above quote. Maybe they'll get it someday...

 

[chrismohr]

MM, sigh, I thought Jim Millette was going to do a DSC test and he later decided not to because there was no evidence of thermitic material. He is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors, and I keep asking him about the tests. His most recent response: here are some DSC testers if you want to hire them but I am not interested in pursuing it because it isn't relevant to the question of thermitic materials. I do keep nudging him, believe it or not, though I believe he's right when he says the test is not necessary.

Sigh. Stop accusing me of lying. Please?

 

[Miragememories]

"MM, sigh, I thought Jim Millette was going to do a DSC test and he later decided not to because there was no evidence of thermitic material. He is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors, and I keep asking him about the tests. His most recent response: here are some DSC testers if you want to hire them but I am not interested in pursuing it because it isn't relevant to the question of thermitic materials. I do keep nudging him, believe it or not, though I believe he's right when he says the test is not necessary.

Sigh. Stop accusing me of lying. Please?"

I've been nice and used the less evil term, deceptive.

You were the person in direct communication with Dr. Millette, and you were the person making the claims about how good the investigation was going to be, and how closely it would follow the original testing performed for the 2009 Bentham Paper.

How did Dr. Millette make you think he was going to perform a DSC test?

You could say that Dr. Harrit et al, also felt there was not sufficient evidence to prove thermitic material, at least until they performed DSC testing.

And why at this late hour is Dr. Millette saying that "he is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors"?? For the most part, everyone in this thread has read that Bentham Paper. Are you suggesting that Dr. Millette has never bothered to at least read it?

Everything from Dr. Millette indicates he never had any such intention of seeing that DSC testing was performed, that he has no capability of performing DSC tests, and that he lacks the ability to perform such testing.

Like I said, the DSC testing was the most sensational aspect of the 2009 Bentham Paper. It was the DSC testing, that at least the 9/11 Truth seekers here, were most anxious to hear the results from.

Now you and the rest of the gang Official Story supporters appear quite content to accept the results, and investigative approach taken by Dr. Millette in his self-serving investigation, as being definitive.

It gave him a 'safe', 'nothing new', 9/11 paper to present for his company, and it gave you a bogus claim of sponsoring a legitimate investigation into the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

MM

 

[DGM]

Like I said, the DSC testing was the most sensational aspect of the 2009 Bentham Paper. It was the DSC testing, that at least the 9/11 Truth seekers here, were most anxious to hear the results from.


MM

Can you document what chips they tested in the Bentham Paper? It seems in their quest for truth they forgot to identify what they were actually testing.

Any luck getting your buddy Harrit to release the data he's holding back?

 

[The Big Dog]

I've been nice and used the less evil term, deceptive.

You were the person in direct communication with Dr. Millette, and you were the person making the claims about how good the investigation was going to be, and how closely it would follow the original testing performed for the 2009 Bentham Paper.

How did Dr. Millette make you think he was going to perform a DSC test?

You could say that Dr. Harrit et al, also felt there was not sufficient evidence to prove thermitic material, at least until they performed DSC testing.

And why at this late hour is Dr. Millette saying that "he is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors"?? For the most part, everyone in this thread has read that Bentham Paper. Are you suggesting that Dr. Millette has never bothered to at least read it?

Everything from Dr. Millette indicates he never had any such intention of seeing that DSC testing was performed, that he has no capability of performing DSC tests, and that he lacks the ability to perform such testing.

Like I said, the DSC testing was the most sensational aspect of the 2009 Bentham Paper. It was the DSC testing, that at least the 9/11 Truth seekers here, were most anxious to hear the results from.

Now you and the rest of the gang Official Story supporters appear quite content to accept the results, and investigative approach taken by Dr. Millette in his self-serving investigation, as being definitive.

It gave him a 'safe', 'nothing new', 9/11 paper to present for his company, and it gave you a bogus claim of sponsoring a legitimate investigation into the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

MM

ZOMG! The worthless test that the Bentham knuckleheads performed was THE TEST, the make or break, the Sensational test, and the only one that makes the slightest bit of difference. We can now hand wave away the results of every other test, because the one worthless test that was not performed!

Sensational!

By the way, MM, how your boys coming along with resulting the rest of the results like they promised? lulz.

 

[plague311]

What part of "the brainiacs in the Bentham paper didn't outline (in any way, shape, or form) what they were testing in the DSC experiment" are you seriously not understanding? Furthermore, Chris, why do you care what MM thinks about you? He endorses lies, glorifies people that make a living off of lying to the uneducated, and has no issues character assassinating people when he deems fit. I guess it's just me, but I only value the opinion of those that are worth it.

That aside, I see that the desire to have a DSC is still lingering around. Despite there being absolutely no way to confirm what the actual chip was. I think it's foolish, but I'll be curious to see the outcome as well.

 

[chrismohr]

What part of "the brainiacs in the Bentham paper didn't outline (in any way, shape, or form) what they were testing in the DSC experiment" are you seriously not understanding? Furthermore, Chris, why do you care what MM thinks about you? He endorses lies, glorifies people that make a living off of lying to the uneducated, and has no issues character assassinating people when he deems fit. I guess it's just me, but I only value the opinion of those that are worth it.

That aside, I see that the desire to have a DSC is still lingering around. Despite there being absolutely no way to confirm what the actual chip was. I think it's foolish, but I'll be curious to see the outcome as well.

You're right! I don't care what MM thinks. Responding to his accusations is a waste of time. I do believe in responding to technical questions and challenges tho.

Still working on the DSC issue. Will let you know after my next conversation with Jim Millette.

 

[plague311]

You're right! I don't care what MM thinks. Responding to his accusations is a waste of time. I do believe in responding to technical questions and challenges tho.

Still working on the DSC issue. Will let you know after my next conversation with Jim Millette.

Not to blow sunshine up your *** but you've stepped up more than most others. You've earned the respect of people that are actually after the truth of what happened, I'd say you're good, keep doing what you do!

 

[cjnewson88]

MM is missing several key points..

1. What part of 'No Thermitic Material' do you not understand? The chips contain no trace of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size. They are not thermite. Are you choosing to ignore this fact?

2. No one knows what material Harrit tested.

3. Harrit never released any other data to 'prove' his theory, even though he promised to, nor does it seem he is likely to do so.

4. DSC is not a good method of identifying anything, compared to the far advanced methods used by Millette.

5. Anyone who looks at the following table can clearly see the DSC test that was done DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO MATCHING THE THERMITE LINE!

Thermite shows endothermic reaction until 370C! It doesn't even become exothermic until JUST BEFORE THE TESTED MATERIAL IS HITTING IT'S PEAK!

Themite peaks OVER 100C HIGHER than the tested material.

This has been explained to you countless times.

Harrit's DSC only shows that what ever material they tested WAS NOT THERMITE. SO HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY IT IS THERMITE?

The test is irrelevant. It is not needed. You make yourself look dumber and dumber and more sheep like every time you bring it up.

 

[Tezro]

Hey MM-
When are Harritt et al going to release those FTIR results they promised over 3 years ago?

The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which
characterize this energetic material. We have performed
these same tests and will report the results elsewhere.

Have they done the analysis or not? Where are the results?

 

[ergo]

MM is missing several key points..

1. What part of 'No Thermitic Material' do you not understand? The chips contain no trace of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size. They are not thermite. Are you choosing to ignore this fact?

It's not a fact yet. It's a finding that contradicts a previous finding.

2. No one knows what material Harrit tested.

He tested the red-gray chips. What did Millette test?

3. Harrit never released any other data to 'prove' his theory, even though he promised to, nor does it seem he is likely to do so.

They published what they felt best presented their case with the space limitations they had. What does FTIR of nanothermite look like? When is Millette going to provide a proper comparison?

4. DSC is not a good method of identifying anything, compared to the far advanced methods used by Millette.

You appear to be merely parroting bunk that you've read here.

Harrit and Jones in fact did more tests than Millette did. Millette did not do DSC. Harrit and Jones did. Tillotson and Gash did. Millette failed to replicate this part of the study.

5. Anyone who looks at the following table can clearly see the DSC test that was done DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO MATCHING THE THERMITE LINE!
[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png[/qimg]

You are looking at one result based on a certain engineered type. A xerogel. Nanothermites can be engineered in many different ways. There is no one nanothermite. The graph is representative only of a particular type tested.

Thermite shows endothermic reaction until 370C! It doesn't even become exothermic until JUST BEFORE THE TESTED MATERIAL IS HITTING IT'S PEAK!

Themite peaks OVER 100C HIGHER than the tested material.

See above.

 

[cjnewson88]

Nanothermites can be engineered in many different ways. There is no one nanothermite.

Gage says this a lot too. He often claims nanothermite can go both hush-a-boom and silent incendiary. What evidence is there for this? Or are you just being a sheeple?

 

[NoahFence]

I've been nice and used the less evil term, deceptive.

You were the person in direct communication with Dr. Millette, and you were the person making the claims about how good the investigation was going to be, and how closely it would follow the original testing performed for the 2009 Bentham Paper.

How did Dr. Millette make you think he was going to perform a DSC test?

You could say that Dr. Harrit et al, also felt there was not sufficient evidence to prove thermitic material, at least until they performed DSC testing.

And why at this late hour is Dr. Millette saying that "he is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors"?? For the most part, everyone in this thread has read that Bentham Paper. Are you suggesting that Dr. Millette has never bothered to at least read it?

Everything from Dr. Millette indicates he never had any such intention of seeing that DSC testing was performed, that he has no capability of performing DSC tests, and that he lacks the ability to perform such testing.

Like I said, the DSC testing was the most sensational aspect of the 2009 Bentham Paper. It was the DSC testing, that at least the 9/11 Truth seekers here, were most anxious to hear the results from.

Now you and the rest of the gang Official Story supporters appear quite content to accept the results, and investigative approach taken by Dr. Millette in his self-serving investigation, as being definitive.

It gave him a 'safe', 'nothing new', 9/11 paper to present for his company, and it gave you a bogus claim of sponsoring a legitimate investigation into the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.

MM

enough.