Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper

[chrismohr]

Hi all,

I'm spreading this around so everyone sees Jim Millette's latest response to accusations that "he didn;t do DSC therefore Chris Mohr wasted his money":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim

 

[plague311]

Thanks again for your dedication to this project Chris. Also, if you could pass my thanks onto Dr. Millette. I am sure dealing with having your findings constantly under a microscope by people with no education to do so can be tiring.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks again for your dedication to this project Chris. Also, if you could pass my thanks onto Dr. Millette. I am sure dealing with having your findings constantly under a microscope by people with no education to do so can be tiring.

Seconded. Thanks, Chris and Dr Millette, for your diligence and patience.

 

[grandmastershek]

Indeed...what I have noticed is that truthers are more or less harping on the DSC because thats what Jones et al did and their study confirms what they want to believe, so that must be the correct protocol. Meanwhile truthers never seem to realize, more like do not want to realize, that Jones et al have no experience in this area, nor are they an authority on developing or implementing such studies. Much as their "smoking gun" evidence changes as long as their conclusions do not, its pretty apparent that whatever Jones did will be hailed as the gold standard of testing.

 

[chrismohr]

More on the DSC test on the Millete dust study thread.

 

[cjnewson88]

Still no word on the responses from A&E911 or Harritt et al?

 

[chrismohr]

Still no word on the responses from A&E911 or Harritt et al?

Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette.

 

[Justin39640]

Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette.

I wonder what they'll say they're waiting for after that?

 

[grandmastershek]

Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette.

Someone should let them know the thinking world is waiting for them to do the same.

 

[Oystein]

Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette.

Here is what they actually claimed in public communication to all their signers and other supporters:

http://ae911truth.org/newsletter/2012/03/index.php

Editor’s note: The preliminary results of a new study of the red-gray chips, commissioned by Chris Mohr, a supporter of the official NIST reports about the destruction of the WTC skyscraper, and authored by Dr. James Millette, have recently been released. They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure. Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter.

This is pretty clear, and has not been retracted. Yet, in "next month’s Blueprint newsletter", not a word about it.

It also bears pointing out that the sentence "They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure." implies at least two falsehoods that at least some of the authors of the Harrit-paper (Legge, Jones, Ryan) and some of the leading people at AE911T (Ryan, Graham, Keogh) could or should well be aware of as false, because they participated in or read relevant posts and subsequent commentary on 911Blogger:

1. The false implication that there was only one steel primer in the towers
2. The false implication that Millette concluded "no steel primer"

I think they lied to all their supporters, and now run away from that lie. The obvious truths of the matter are:

1. There was at least one other primer in literally widespread use on WTC-steel, namely the LaClede shop primer
2. Millette's preliminare study shows that the red layer of the chips is entirely consistent with red paint, and that the gray layer is entirely consistent with structural steel; he just couldn't, as of yet, identify the paint product.

 

[WTC Dust]

It wasn't thermite. Great. Proved again.

But that doesn't get you an answer to what DID destroy the WTC. Every bit of study into thermite was a waste, including the time I spent on it, but also including your efforts.

Thermite is a distraction that has afflicted most 9/11 truthers, sadly.

 

[Miragememories]

"Still no word on the responses from A&E911 or Harritt et al?"

"Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette."

"Here is what they actually claimed in public communication to all their signers and other supporters:

http://ae911truth.org/newsletter/2012/03/index.php

"Editor’s note: The preliminary results of a new study of the red-gray chips, commissioned by Chris Mohr, a supporter of the official NIST reports about the destruction of the WTC skyscraper, and authored by Dr. James Millette, have recently been released. They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure. Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter."

This is pretty clear, and has not been retracted. Yet, in "next month’s Blueprint newsletter", not a word about it."

For someone who uses the english language so voluminously, your comprehension is often amazingly lacking.

"Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter."

'Look' does not mean 'find'.

My Translation: We hope to have a detailed analysis by next month's Blueprint newsletter.

Like too much of your analysis, it is over-mining of too little information.

"It also bears pointing out that the sentence "They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure." implies at least two falsehoods that at least some of the authors of the Harrit-paper (Legge, Jones, Ryan) and some of the leading people at AE911T (Ryan, Graham, Keogh) could or should well be aware of as false, because they participated in or read relevant posts and subsequent commentary on 911Blogger:

1. The false implication that there was only one steel primer in the towers
2. The false implication that Millette concluded "no steel primer"

Again, you are sucking far more out of that minimal quote than it contains.

"They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure."

My Translation: Based on his current research, Dr. Millette finds that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure.

"I think they lied to all their supporters, and now run away from that lie. The obvious truths of the matter are:

1. There was at least one other primer in literally widespread use on WTC-steel, namely the LaClede shop primer
2. Millette's preliminare study shows that the red layer of the chips is entirely consistent with red paint, and that the gray layer is entirely consistent with structural steel; he just couldn't, as of yet, identify the paint product.

He just couldn't, as of yet, find the necessary chemical signatures for LaClede.

The Bentham Paper and AE911 Truth have never denied the existence of LaClede paint in WTC.

And they are quite willing to concede it had to exist in the WTC dust and quite likely was in the surface residue of uncleaned red/gray chips.

But the Bentham Paper scientists never found out it in the cleaned red chips and neither has Dr. Millette.

MM

 

[Oystein]

My Translation: Based on his current research, Dr. Millette finds that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure.
...
He just couldn't, as of yet, find the necessary chemical signatures for LaClede.

You concede that there are at least TWO primers user on WTC steel, as Tnemec has always been out and known. Cool.

Then you MUST concede that the sentence "the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure." implies a FALSEHOOD as "the primer paint" appears in the singular, which implies that only ONE primer was used and needs to be considered.

The Bentham Paper and AE911 Truth have never denied the existence of LaClede paint in WTC.

They also have most studiously avoided any acknowledgement of it. I am glad you are beyond that childish state. If I am wrong and any of the authors, or any of the AE911T have ever anywhere acknowledged LaClede, please provide a link and quote!

And they are quite willing to concede it had to exist in the WTC dust and quite likely was in the surface residue of uncleaned red/gray chips.

How do you know they "quite willingly concede this"? Who? Where? The Blueprint newsletter looses no word on that, they are NOT quite willing to concede this to their trustful "members", it seems!

I think you make that stuff up. Please support your allegations with evidence!

But the Bentham Paper scientists never found out it in the cleaned red chips

They never looked. Because they never knew about LaClede till we told them, and they now studiously avoid looking, acknowledging and conceding anything.

 

[Redwood]

"Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter."

'Look' does not mean 'find'.

My Translation: We hope to have a detailed analysis by next month's Blueprint newsletter.

Like too much of your analysis, it is over-mining of too little information.


MM

To roughly quote H.L. Mencken, sometimes one horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.

 

[cjnewson88]

"Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter."

'Look' does not mean 'find'.

MM

This should be stundied.

 

[ergo]

They also have most studiously avoided any acknowledgement of it. I am glad you are beyond that childish state. If I am wrong and any of the authors, or any of the AE911T have ever anywhere acknowledged LaClede, please provide a link and quote!

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of Laclede primer paint, but why would they acknowledge it? Does NIST acknowledge it? Has it been confirmed anywhere that 1) Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel? and 2) that the red-grey chips in the WTC dust are Laclede paint chips? If so, where?

Thank you.

 

[plague311]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of Laclede primer paint, but why would they acknowledge it? Does NIST acknowledge it? Has it been confirmed anywhere that 1) Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel? and 2) that the red-grey chips in the WTC dust are Laclede paint chips? If so, where?

Thank you.

The reason AE911T would acknowledge it is because they did a study of the dust, and the chemical composition of the chips they found are primer. They tried to pass it off as Thermite. The reason NIST doesn't care is they didn't do a study of the dust, and all the organizations that did do a study for the dust didn't look for explosives. There was no need too. Yes, it has been confirmed Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel. In fact, there are a few running threads about it as well. It has also been proven it was paint but, iirc, it hasn't been stated exactly which paint it was. You'll have to find exactly where on Oysteins blog it is, I am tired and lazy.

 

[Miragememories]

"The reason AE911T would acknowledge it is because they did a study of the dust, and the chemical composition of the chips they found are primer. They tried to pass it off as Thermite. The reason NIST doesn't care is they didn't do a study of the dust, and all the organizations that did do a study for the dust didn't look for explosives. There was no need too. Yes, it has been confirmed Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel. In fact, there are a few running threads about it as well. It has also been proven it was paint but, iirc, it hasn't been stated exactly which paint it was. You'll have to find exactly where on Oysteins blog it is, I am tired and lazy."

AE911 Truth did not find the chips to be primer. Isn't it nice to be able to make up stuff and know that only the minority, the 9/11 Truth seekers will object?

Accredited scientists reached a conclusion of nanothermite and publicized their findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Other than your own bias, you have revealed no personal qualifications, or specific knowledge that justifies stating; "They tried to pass it off as Thermite.".

The NIST, in spite of their known familiarity with thermitic material, chose to believe that it was not to be found in a WTC debris analysis, so they never attempted to investigate whether or not that assumption was valid.

No one has disputed that among all the different paint formulations that existed in the WTC, LaClede primer was one of them.

Oystein has failed to prove that the cleaned red chips contained LaClede primer paint in spite of his thread title claiming he has done so. Having a thread title which is a blatant lie is like having a billboard for misinformation.

Recent investigative work by Dr. Millette failed to support Oystein's LaClede paint hypothesis.

MM

 

[tsig]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of Laclede primer paint, but why would they acknowledge it? Does NIST acknowledge it? Has it been confirmed anywhere that 1) Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel? and 2) that the red-grey chips in the WTC dust are Laclede paint chips? If so, where?

Thank you.

Why?

Your ignorance is self-inflicted. The answers to your questions have been covered extensively so if you haven't read them yet then repeating them seems a vain exercise.

 

[Miragememories]

"And they are quite willing to concede it [steel primer paint], had to exist in the WTC dust, and quite likely was in the surface residue of uncleaned red/gray chips."

"How do you know they "quite willingly concede this"? Who? Where? The Blueprint newsletter looses no word on that, they are NOT quite willing to concede this to their trustful "members", it seems!

I think you make that stuff up. Please support your allegations with evidence!"

This is why I know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust.

That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint.

http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf

"In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could
not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!)."

MM