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

[Oystein]

Yeehah!

 

[plague311]

That is great news Chris! I am excited to see it is growing legs again, thanks for your dedication.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: Good news, thanks again to Jim Millette and to you) So our original financing of the research is still sufficient for the completing this study?

"Travelling 9/11 Memorial"... could it be this one? I will check this web anyway, if they are some interesting details or photos...

 

[cromleckderennes]

This is smoke and mirrors (no pun intended)

One study
From a sample - No thermite was found

Another study - Thermite was found

Here's the philosphy

Once there were no black swans - All swans were white

Then they discovered Australia were black swans are common.

Nice long study - Blown away in an instance.

Moral

You have to look in the right place before you reach a conclusion.

 

[BasqueArch]

This is smoke and mirrors (no pun intended)

One study
From a sample - No thermite was found

Another study - Thermite was found

Here's the philosphy

Once there were no black swans - All swans were white

Then they discovered Australia were black swans are common.

Nice long study - Blown away in an instance.

Moral

You have to look in the right place before you reach a conclusion.

I like swans. Neither of the two studies found thermite.

 

[Oystein]

This is smoke and mirrors (no pun intended)

One study
From a sample - No thermite was found

Another study - Thermite was found...

Well, that is plain wrong.

That other study...
...failed to realize they were looking at different kinds of materials
...invalidly lumped together data from different kinds of materials to form one conclusion
...failed to identify even one of the many components of their samples^[1]...used extreme bias to invent a conclusion that is refuted by their own data

The Millette study was done to improve on some of those earlier failures.
And it already did - though yet falling short of improving everything (e.g. Millette is not yet clear on differentiating the different materials)



[1] This is really astounding: E.g. chips a-d: These are described as consisting of plate-like and grain-like particles embedded in an organic matrix, and this attached to a gray layer. Yet the study...
...failed to identify the chemical compounds that make up the plate-like particles
...failed to identify the chemical compounds that make up the grain-like particles
...failed to identify the chemical compounds that make up the organic matrix
...failed to identify the structure and nature of the gray layer and admits to remaining clueless about it.
With regard to the MEK-soaked specimen, they didn't even manage to show the finer structure, and again failed to identify even a single chemical compound, except for a slightly dubious claim to what must have been a tiny proportion of elemental aluminium.
To then go on and claim they have evidence that a specific chemical reaction took place borders on preposterous.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

This is smoke and mirrors (no pun intended)

One study
From a sample - No thermite was found

Another study - Thermite was found

Here's the philosphy

Once there were no black swans - All swans were white

Then they discovered Australia were black swans are common.

Nice long study - Blown away in an instance.

Moral

You have to look in the right place before you reach a conclusion.

Indeed incorrect
They can even be some "black swans", i.e. thermite particles in the WTC dust, but Harrit et al, Basile, Henryco (and Millette) have not found/identified any thermite (black swans). All swans closely investigated are white.
"Thermitic" conclusions of Harrit et al are utterly wrong for countless reasons, which have been debated "ad nauseam" here, and are being reluctantly admitted even by some more educated truthers at present.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris: Good news, thanks again to Jim Millette and to you) So our original financing of the research is still sufficient for the completing this study?

"Travelling 9/11 Memorial"... could it be this one? I will check this web anyway, if they are some interesting details or photos...

Yes he has not asked for more funding. He wants to complete the study and publish it out of scientific interest (and of course it creates visibility for his company).

As far as finding "black swans," the people who claim they have found the black swans (thermite) refused to give samples of their evidence to Millette. They have also failed to release all of their test results. I will ask them again for both because Millette is willing to test the chips from Harrit et al.

 

[Spanx]

It would be interesting to see what results Jones & Co get from Millette's chips.

 

[Oystein]

It would be interesting to see what results Jones & Co get from Millette's chips.

I am in contact with Mark Basile, who wants to find funding for more independent testing.

I can try and ask him if he would be interested in trading chip specimens: For example, he could give chips that he believes to react in an unexpected (too hot and vigorous) fashion to Millette, and vice versa Millette could give him chips that he has determined to be paint, so that Basile can test their thermal properties.

@ Chris Mohr: Would it make sense to propose such a thing? (Don't ask Millette yet, I'd want to ask Mark first).

 

[pgimeno]

You have to look in the right place before you reach a conclusion.

Millette looked in the right place. Many people have already pointed out that the Jones et al. paper does not prove any "black swan", but if there were "black swans", Millette should have found them.

From the Jones et al. paper:

For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4. The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). Samples of WTC dust from these and other collectors have been sent directly from collectors to various scientists (including some not on this research team) who have also found such red/gray chips in the dust from the World Trade Center destruction.

[...]

RESULTS

1. Characterization of the Red/Gray Chips

Red/gray chips were found in all of the dust samples collected. An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips.
​

Millette went through the exact same process of selection and characterization as the authors of the paper. Given that such chips are claimed to be ubiquitous, it makes no sense to claim that Millette didn't analyze chips of the same nature. The nature of the chips analyzed by Millette matches exactly the nature of the chips analyzed by Jones et al., and while the Jones et al. paper fails to prove any free aluminium in the samples in question (and fails to properly characterize all of the chips analyzed, making their results invalid), the Millette study unequivocally disproves it.

Also, as Chris has said, the Jones et al. group refused to give their samples to Millette for an independent analysis when asked.

 

[Miragememories]

Hi gang,

I just talked with Jim Millette today. After being overwhelmed with work for several months, he has now hired more help. He says that he is lining things up to complete his WTC dust study and publish the results. He's hoping to have his work situation in better control early next year so he can get back to this study, which he remains very interested in completing.

he also is interested in WTC dust samples, and more importantly, LaClede and other primer paint samples. He himself had someone scratch off a bit of paint from a traveling 911 memorial exhibit when it went through Atlanta but hasn't yet studied the flakes that were collected! he was most interested in other paint chip sources from known WTC beams and columns...

Anyway I say let's start lining these samples up. He is most interested in primary research on actual samples. Wow this may yet be completed!!

bolding is mine

Regretfully, it, (being a laboratory investigation into reproducing the Harrit et al Bentham Paper findings using the same investigative tools), never started.

Because his company specializes in research that uses different, very expensive test equipment, Millette does not own those required investigative tools.

He would have to contract that work out to another lab which owned the equivalent test equipment used by Dr. Harrit et al for their Bentham Paper findings.

Therefore, Millette has shown, by only using the tools he owns, he is unable to debunk the findings of the Harrit et al Bentham Paper fairly.

As I have said before. If I had not been deceived into thinking Millette was going to truly attempt a recreation of the Bentham Paper by following the same testing methods, I would have never contributed to his wallet.

Dr. Harrit and his fellow scientists performed testing on the red chips from the WTC dust that amongst other things, revealed that when a cleaned red-chip sample was gradually warmed in its electrically heated crucible, a powerful exothermic ignition always occurred around the same crucible temperature.

The same testing on available WTC primer paint samples showed no similarity in appearance or in residue.

In addition, where they were not found in the red chips prior to ignition, the post ignition debris revealed many microspheres, some of which were iron-rich.

Sufficiently iron-rich as to provide proof of molten iron.

Those findings are what Millette should be concerned with, otherwise he is going back to his same old dust samples that he has been looking at for years and using the same research tools.

If he disproves the Bentham Paper findings, using true copycat testing, and not just his financially-biased interpretation of what are valid testing substitutions, then the Bentham Paper authors do have some answering to do.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

^^
Pathetic.

 

[Spanx]

^^
Pathetic.

Your not wrong

 

[pgimeno]

Dr. Harrit and his fellow scientists performed testing on the red chips from the WTC dust that amongst other things, revealed that when a cleaned red-chip sample was gradually warmed in its electrically heated crucible, a powerful an energetic exothermic ignition always occurred around the same crucible temperature.

Fixed that for you. Big difference.

At about the temperature that epoxy resin burns. With about the amount of energy output expected from carbon combustion. In the presence of an external oxidizer (atmospheric oxygen).

The same testing on available WTC primer paint samples showed no similarity in appearance or in residue.

What of all the kinds of primer paint used in the WTC was tested? We don't know. What of all the kinds of chips were in the DSC? We don't know. That comparison is bogus: it's comparing something we don't know what it is with something we don't know what it is, except that both are red.

In addition, where they were not found in the red chips prior to ignition, the post ignition debris revealed many microspheres, some of which were iron-rich.

That, again, proves nothing. The red layer with iron oxide (remember iron oxide is what makes it red) was still there, therefore whatever the origin of the microspheres was, it was not a thermite reaction. Most likely the microspheres came from the gray layer, which is thought to be oxidized structural steel.

Those findings are what Millette should be concerned with,

He is, according to what Chris said after Millette's preliminary report was made public.

If he disproves the Bentham Paper findings, using true copycat testing, and not just his financially-biased interpretation of what are valid testing substitutions, then the Bentham Paper authors do have some answering to do.

If he did that, he'd not be following the scientific method. The scientific method formulates hypotheses and seeks for means to disprove them. Following the same procedure someone has followed in past does not provide answers to the crucial questions; see e.g. the case of Blondot and the N-rays. Millette sought answers to questions such as, "is there iron oxide?", "is there elemental aluminium?", "is there epoxy resin?", "is there kaolinite?" and found his answers. The answer is, there is no thermite. Face it.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I am in contact with Mark Basile, who wants to find funding for more independent testing.

I can try and ask him if he would be interested in trading chip specimens: For example, he could give chips that he believes to react in an unexpected (too hot and vigorous) fashion to Millette, and vice versa Millette could give him chips that he has determined to be paint, so that Basile can test their thermal properties.

@ Chris Mohr: Would it make sense to propose such a thing? (Don't ask Millette yet, I'd want to ask Mark first).

You are in contact with Mark Basile? Interesting news It's of course your private communication, but could you give me/us some hint what he thinks about Millette's study? And does he is still firmly believe that his chips were nanothermite, although he himself clearly excluded this possibility with his "quantitative" XEDS analysis?

As regards some proposal of mutual exchange of samples and some "joint truthers-debunkers study", I'm rather skeptical. First of all, such hypothetical study would be hardly accomplished in just few months like Millette's study, and even I'm not patient enough to wait for some more years. Enough is enough, this marginal matter does not deserve such an extraordinary joint effort, which would be inevitably accompanied by various misunderstandings, accusations etc. I think

 

[Starving for Truth]

Everyone lies in the dark shadow government house

bolding is mine

Regretfully, it, (being a laboratory investigation into reproducing the Harrit et al Bentham Paper findings using the same investigative tools), never started.

Because his company specializes in research that uses different, very expensive test equipment, Millette does not own those required investigative tools.

He would have to contract that work out to another lab which owned the equivalent test equipment used by Dr. Harrit et al for their Bentham Paper findings.

Therefore, Millette has shown, by only using the tools he owns, he is unable to debunk the findings of the Harrit et al Bentham Paper fairly.

As I have said before. If I had not been deceived into thinking Millette was going to truly attempt a recreation of the Bentham Paper by following the same testing methods, I would have never contributed to his wallet.

Dr. Harrit and his fellow scientists performed testing on the red chips from the WTC dust that amongst other things, revealed that when a cleaned red-chip sample was gradually warmed in its electrically heated crucible, a powerful exothermic ignition always occurred around the same crucible temperature.

The same testing on available WTC primer paint samples showed no similarity in appearance or in residue.

In addition, where they were not found in the red chips prior to ignition, the post ignition debris revealed many microspheres, some of which were iron-rich.

Sufficiently iron-rich as to provide proof of molten iron.

Those findings are what Millette should be concerned with, otherwise he is going back to his same old dust samples that he has been looking at for years and using the same research tools.

If he disproves the Bentham Paper findings, using true copycat testing, and not just his financially-biased interpretation of what are valid testing substitutions, then the Bentham Paper authors do have some answering to do.

MM

Excellent post. Hereby I, Starving for Truth - performance artist and hobby ornitologist - officially peer-review you as being a hero of truth and nanochemistry.

 

[leftysergeant]

Excellent post. Hereby I, Starving for Truth - performance artist and hobby ornitologist - officially peer-review you as being a hero of truth and nanochemistry.

Do you think you can explain why all of the chips studied by either side found kaolin, which is not used in any kind of useful thermite, but which is a major component of just about any bulk-produced PAINT?

That is ask, what, in your un-trained opinion, differentiates these chips from PAINT?

 

[beachnut]

This is smoke and mirrors (no pun intended)

One study
From a sample - No thermite was found

Another study - Thermite was found

...
Nice long study - Blown away in an instance.

Moral

You have to look in the right place before you reach a conclusion.

You left out many more studies which did not find thermite, how did you miss them?

Not a single piece of evidence on anything from the WTC shows thermite was used. Thermite would leave fused iron on the steel, it would stand out like a sore thumb. Please study 911 before you join idiots who made up the claim of thermite based on delusions from a physics whose best work is a study of Christ in the New World, a more likely event than thermite used on 911. Good luck, you seem to like the fantasy world of 911 truth.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi again gang,
I have a request: if anyone's willing to help procure dust and known paint LaClede samples from whatever sources (such as the traveling 9/11 memorials or anywhere else), I will ask Steven Jones for dust samples from his original ETC dust experiment. Since Jim Millette is interested in actual samples of paint etc, that would be a great thing to look for. Plus, if he can get a sample of dust from Jones or anyone else on the original sample, there can be no doubt that he has the same kinds of samples we found in the Bentham study. If I work on the Jones crew, is anyone else able to try to get actual LaClede primer samples? I know I'm asking a lot but that would be extremely helpful.