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

[Oystein]

Hi again gang,
I have a request: if anyone's willing to help procure dust

I could ask Mark Basile; and perhaps he'd be interested to have Millette provide samples from his dust in turn.

My understanding is that Basile has a few table spoons of dust from Janette McKinlay, who also provided one of the four dust samples in the Harrit study, but that Basile got his directly from her, not through Jones; but I'd have to check.

http://markbasile.org/ - which is hosted by Rick Shaddock - has a test proposal which talks at one point about "red chips of suspected primer from building dust" and "known thermitic red/gray chips", so apparently, Basile can tell paint chips and thermitic chips apart.

(As an iside: Basile's page has a little fund raiser that was stuck at $500 for months, but now is at $603, so something seems to be happening)

and known paint LaClede samples from whatever sources (such as the traveling 9/11 memorials or anywhere else), ... Since Jim Millette is interested in actual samples of paint etc, that would be a great thing to look for. ... 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.

Difficult, I had asked for that before we had hired Millette. Trouble is that few, if any, of the memorials will have the relatively (compared to columns) flimsy floor trusses, the vast majority of which will be tangled and crushed and just not impressive. The best chance would be to go to NYC where hopefully somewhere there is a hangar or a campus with an assortment of building remains. That would certainly require some bureaucratic process. I think the best person to start that process would actually be Millette himself, in his capacity as forensicist, entrepreneur and scientist who has previoiusly been hired to analyse WTC aftermath for the EPA.

LaClede Steel Company doesn't exist any longer, so no contact there, it would thus be difficult to locate other of their projects from the time where the same shop primer may have been applied.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: I agree with Oystein, "Hangar 17" at JFK Airport is the "best" potential source of remnants of floor trusses. Otherwise I cannot substantially help here, since there are no WTC memorials in the Czech Republic

I have checked the web of this "Traveling 911 Memorial" , but it seems that they have no WTC steel available. No wonder, since this museum is basically some bus or so, with not enough room for such items.

"Laclede primer" was not manufactured by Laclede Steel Company, but (probably) by former Pittsburgh Plate Company, now PPG Industries. Sadly, my direct e-mail inquiry sent to their Electrocoating division was not answered, perhaps since I stupidly mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theories.
My (our) other search as for WTC steel manufacturers showed that these companies mostly do not held documents concerning their very old products/jobs, the less e.g. paint/steel samples

 

[dafydd]

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

Ornithology is your hobby but you can't spell it?

 

[Josarhus]

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.

As I remember it, Harrit stated during one of his lectures a couple of years ago, that they are out of the original dust samples.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

...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.

Just additional question, Chris: who has some doubt that he (Millette) has the same kinds of samples we saw in Bentham study? Jim Millette himself? You?

 

[Spanx]

Just additional question, Chris: who has some doubt that he (Millette) has the same kinds of samples we saw in Bentham study? Jim Millette himself? You?

Hi Ivan,
I think it may have been me that planted that seed in post 969

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Spanx: well, my question in the previous post was not clever. Jim Millette has no doubt in this respect, as well as Chris, I think.
Of course, truthers have such doubts and would ever have, since they live in the completely different, "alternative thermitic history", as is again very clear from the "document" of Talboo and Siggi "Super". In this kind of history, absolutely everything and everybody (including Oystein and me) confirms thermite and excludes paint. It's their problem and their Super lifes, who cares

 

[Oystein]

Just additional question, Chris: who has some doubt that he (Millette) has the same kinds of samples we saw in Bentham study? Jim Millette himself? You?

1. Prof Jones stated in September:

More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.

(Do a local search for "Millette" to find several reasons why Jones thinks so. Of course the same criticism must be levied against himself: They did not make sure they looked at the same material; in fact, it is abundandly clear that they looked at several different materials, but lumped results together to form invalid conclusions)


2. Mark Basile told me on the phone, and implies in his study proposal, that some chips are paint, some are "thermitic". So this implies that Millette may have looked at the wrong chips, even if the dust is "right".
I asked him to provide us either with objective, repeatable criteria by which to identify thermitic chips, or provide us wuth chip specimens he deems thermitic.

 

[DGM]

or provide us with chip specimens he deems thermitic.

The problem with this is it would be outside of the original paper that the "truthers" regard as fact.

A far simpler tact would be for them to release the data they say they already have. The fact they haven't (IMHO) is more damning then anything they could offer up in form of a sample.

Let's face it "truthers". They say they did the same tests a Millette but refuse to show the data. Why would that be?

 

[Oystein]

The problem with this is it would be outside of the original paper that the "truthers" regard as fact.

A far simpler tact would be for them to release the data they say they already have. The fact they haven't (IMHO) is more damning then anything they could offer up in form of a sample.

Let's face it "truthers". They say they did the same tests a Millette but refuse to show the data. Why would that be?

True, but that's a somewhat different topic and objective. In this thread, we are discussing Millette's study, and Millette wants samples, so I see to what I can do about that.


For now, however, Basile is an asset on "their" side. His face is prominently placed on the starting page of ae911truth (left column, just off the first screen on my 1680x1050 display), because he is featured in their films as having "seen" thermite in the dust. If Basile's "thermitic" chips prove to be paint, then not only is Basile in trouble, and AE911Truth, but the Harrit team as well - of course! They all have claimed at one time or another that Basile "confirmed" their findings (and I think he did ).

 

[Spanx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature

The above link is oysteins featured in their films link.

I notice Chris sarns is on the message board spreading false claims about Jim Millette

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by 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.

As I remember it, Harrit stated during one of his lectures a couple of years ago, that they are out of the original dust samples.

IIRC, at the "Toronto Hearings", either Harrit or Ryan claimed to have at least 5 gallons (about 20 liters) of WTC dust samples. I downloaded the presentations, but I'm not feeling masochistic enough at present to sit through them again. Perhaps someone with a tougher temperament might try.

 

[Josarhus]

IIRC, at the "Toronto Hearings", either Harrit or Ryan claimed to have at least 5 gallons (about 20 liters) of WTC dust samples. I downloaded the presentations, but I'm not feeling masochistic enough at present to sit through them again. Perhaps someone with a tougher temperament might try.

And they probably do, but as I wrote, Harrit stated a few years back that they are out of the ORIGINAL dust samples used in their 2009 Bentham paper. They can very well have gotten new samples since.

 

[Miragememories]

1. Prof Jones stated in September:

(Do a local search for "Millette" to find several reasons why Jones thinks so. Of course the same criticism must be levied against himself: They did not make sure they looked at the same material; in fact, it is abundandly clear that they looked at several different materials, but lumped results together to form invalid conclusions)


2. Mark Basile told me on the phone, and implies in his study proposal, that some chips are paint, some are "thermitic". So this implies that Millette may have looked at the wrong chips, even if the dust is "right".
I asked him to provide us either with objective, repeatable criteria by which to identify thermitic chips, or provide us wuth chip specimens he deems thermitic.

You provide no context for his agreement that "some chips are paint".

We know primer paint chips had to co-exist in the WTC dust and for all we know Mark was simply acknowledging that fact.

At what point did he hang up on you?

MM

 

[NoahFence]

You provide no context for his agreement that "some chips are paint".

We know primer paint chips had to co-exist in the WTC dust and for all we know Mark was simply acknowledging that fact.

At what point did he hang up on you?

MM

Why don't you just come out and explicitly state what lie you're looking to hear, so we can just type it and move on?

 

[Oystein]

You provide no context for his agreement that "some chips are paint".

We were talking about red-gray chips in the WTC dust that Basile studied. He said without hesitation, and with an intonation that means "of course" that some of these chips are surely paint. In fact, he also found blue paint.

We know primer paint chips had to co-exist in the WTC dust and for all we know Mark was simply acknowledging that fact.
...

We? Who, specifically, is "we"?

Please name names, and provide evidence that these individuals KNOW that some of the red-gray chips are paint!

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Some speculations as for potential exchange of samples with truthers (where "samples" are either bags of WTC dust, or chips chosen by truthers to be thermite):

1) Our deal: We can give (well, Jim Millette can give) any samples of the dust or the chips to truthers to check their composition/structure/origin. We have enough of direct and indirect clues and proofs that all red chips are just paints (or perhaps some other innocent red layered stuffs in some cases), starting with the plain fact that alleged "auxiliary" controlled demolition of WTC is just an utter idiocy and paranoid delusion without any acceptable logic. We have absolutely no reason to cheat.

2) As for engaged truthers, I am quite sure that e.g. Mark Basile would provide "us" (Jim Millette) also with only authentic dust samples with authentic chips. But in the case of Steven Jones (or other co-authors of Bentham paper), I wouldn't be so sure. To considerable extent, his credibility among truthers is dependent on the credibility of nanothermite "theory". I do not believe that he believes in nanothermite anymore (if he had ever believed in it), so hypothetically (!), he may even thing to add some red thermitic chips to his samples of dust (not necessarily from WTC) for exchange. Or, he can "improve" in the similar way the samples obtained from Millette.

3) In this case (hypothetically!) Jones would be forced to add thermitic chips which have similar look, composition, stucture and bilayered arrangement as chips (a) to (d) or MEK chip, since just these closely analyzed chips were declared to be nanothermite particles in Bentham paper.

4) I'm trying now to be in the position of Steven Jones in such attempt to cheat: Jones knows (or should know) that in Bentham chips mentioned above, some polymer binder prevailed, which is not fluoropolymer usable even as oxidant in thermites (fluorine was not detected by anyone by XEDS). To make such chips pyrotechnic (not really thermitic), Jones will have to add a lot of some proper strong oxidant for polymer (some nitrate, e.g.), which would by easily detected by XEDS. Therefore, this is not a feasible way of cheating.

5) What else Jones could do? He can try to prepare chips, in which kaolinite stacking platelets present in chips (a) to (d) are replaced with a similar form of aluminium. I personally do not know such form of aluminium, but let say it exists and Jones will acquire it. In this way, Jones could prepare chips with aluminium as thermitic component. But what about silicon, clearly detected by XEDS in chips (a) to (d)? Well, aware of this, Jones could add even some nanosized silicon stuff for credible XEDS spectra or even prepare some "mixed platelets" with both metallic aluminium and silicon oxide, whatever. The great problem with such chips, made with some extreme effort, is that they would have finally composition similar to chips (a) to (d), but they would not behave like thermites (or pyrotechnics) anyway They would again behave just like PAINTS e.g. in DSC device, just because of prevailing polymer binder

Summary: Jones (or any other truther) basically cannot cheat and adulterate chips, which can be similar to Bentham chips (a) to (d) and be thermitic/pyrotechnic simultaneously
Apology for truthers who could read it: remember that the text above is just my speculation, and I'm aware that it's not really "politically correct".

 

[Oystein]

Ivan,

speculation, and rather baseless. I see no indication of Jones fabricating samples or inventing data, thus committing outright scientific fraud.
To the contrary, I see lots of indications that their data so far has been genuine. The latest exchange in september on 911Blogger, where Jones included notes from Farrer, further shows that they are not making stuff up - as far as samples and data is concerned.

However, they hold back data, cherry-pick data, misinterprete data, and combine data to conclusions that don't belong together. These techniques won't work when they release specimens with claimed properties: Outside of their control, they will know that Millette can extract any property, and refute any false claim made about any specimen.


So I am sure they will simply refuse to release any specimens! And no doubt use the same ploy that Kevin Ryan has alreade employed: Declare that Millette is the fraudster!

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan,

speculation, and rather baseless. I see no indication of Jones fabricating samples or inventing data, thus committing outright scientific fraud.
To the contrary, I see lots of indications that their data so far has been genuine. The latest exchange in september on 911Blogger, where Jones included notes from Farrer, further shows that they are not making stuff up - as far as samples and data is concerned.

However, they hold back data, cherry-pick data, misinterprete data, and combine data to conclusions that don't belong together. These techniques won't work when they release specimens with claimed properties: Outside of their control, they will know that Millette can extract any property, and refute any false claim made about any specimen.


So I am sure they will simply refuse to release any specimens! And no doubt use the same ploy that Kevin Ryan has alreade employed: Declare that Millette is the fraudster!

I know as well as you and further debunkers that Jones/Harrit et al have not fabricated any data so far and analyzed genuine chips from genuine WTC dust. Without such assumption, we could hardly spend months on this matter and order/pay the verification of Bentham paper.
My rather wild speculation above was just a kind of "exercise" with the aim: could be (hypothetically) prepared some red/gray chips which may have the look and composition of chips (a) to (d) and still be thermitic/pyrotechnics?
Indeed, it was not clever that I mentioned Jones as a person who could (hypothetically) commit such a fraud... Sorry for that

 

[chrismohr]

A few comments... This request for funds for a new study has the same old ad hominem attacks I spent hours refuting last year: http://911debunkers.blogspot.cz/2012/11/a-2009-paper-claims-to-have-found.html

This is the blog post from Kevin Ryan that Talboo et al continue to refer to:

http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/whe...n-response-to-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc/

And here is my response: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212725&page=86 (start 2/3 of the way down, on post 3435-3437). Kevin Ryan's ad hominem attack against both me and Jim Millette was staggerringly false. The EPA whitleblower who praised Millette's scientific integrity was used as evidence that Millette had no integrity! This is unbelievable and inexcusable. Kevin and I originally had a friendly connection after a personal meeting and several respectful emails but this shattered it. If anyone is in contact with Talboo and others, please tell them to read this post and my response to Kevin Ryan's ad hominem attacks. They have no place in this WTC dust discussion.