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

[chrismohr]

A few other comments: Neither Millette nor I have ever said that we are confident that LaClede primer is the source of the red-grey chips. Millette didn't find strontium chromate in his analysis. However, the small quantities of the chemical may mean he could have missed it. Apparently it may have been found by the authors of the Bentham study. The only way we can know for sure is to get a known sample of the LaClede primer and compare it in the lab, which Millette is willing to do if he can find it. He is asking around.

What Millette is certain of is that there is no thermite of any kind in the samples he studied, and his research is compelling. Millette doesn't make public his hypotheses about what a dust sample really is without thorough lab analysis.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Link, quote and a couple of recommendations forwarded to Talboo

 

[pgimeno]

Can't NIST be asked for samples? They have abundant material. Or did they return it?

 

[chrismohr]

Can't NIST be asked for samples? They have abundant material. Or did they return it?

Good idea. I will ask NIST as well as Steven Jones.

 

[ergo]

Harrit et al ruled out paint using several different methods. Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint.

Harrit et al deduced elemental aluminum both from chemical observation and the results of DSC testing. Millette stopped at his assumption of kaolinite, therefore did not do DSC testing.

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.

Is anyone bored yet?

Who is it that keeps this "debate" going? As you can see by these threads, it's overwhelmingly the "debunkers". Why can't they just debunk the damn thing and get it done with? Because they're either incompetent, or because they're not able to debunk a factual, methodical finding, and they're satisfied with simply muddying the waters.

And, again, for the record: Millette did not report on iron microspheres in his initial WTC dust study for the EPA. No amount of Chris Mohr wringing his hands and complaining about Kevin Ryan is going to change that fact.

 

[DGM]

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.

Why? It's known what would happen. Why don't your heroes release their hidden data?

They did the same tests but don't want you to see the results. That's not a problem to you. Why?

 

[Spanx]

Harrit et al ruled out paint using several different methods. Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint.

Harrit et al deduced elemental aluminum both from chemical observation and the results of DSC testing. Millette stopped at his assumption of kaolinite, therefore did not do DSC testing.

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.

Is anyone bored yet?

Who is it that keeps this "debate" going? As you can see by these threads, it's overwhelmingly the "debunkers". Why can't they just debunk the damn thing and get it done with? Because they're either incompetent, or because they're not able to debunk a factual, methodical finding, and they're satisfied with simply muddying the waters.

And, again, for the record: Millette did not report on iron microspheres in his initial WTC dust study for the EPA. No amount of Chris Mohr wringing his hands and complaining about Kevin Ryan is going to change that fact.

So what your saying is. The only way to establish if thermite is present in the wtc chips is to heat them in a DSC device ?

If Millette does a DSC test and doesn't produce the same results, What then, you say he has the wrong chips?, didn't do the test correctly ? Was paid to cover up? The list goes on.

Why won't Mark Basile allow anyone to test his chips? Would it be that Basile likes to make it look like he has something to hide ?

 

[BasqueArch]

My highlight

Harrit et al ruled out paint using several different methods. Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint.

Harrit et al deduced elemental aluminum both from chemical observation and the results of DSC testing. Millette stopped at his assumption of kaolinite, therefore did not do DSC testing.

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.

Is anyone bored yet?

Who is it that keeps this "debate" going? As you can see by these threads, it's overwhelmingly the "debunkers". Why can't they just debunk the damn thing and get it done with? Because they're either incompetent, or because they're not able to debunk a factual, methodical finding, and they're satisfied with simply muddying the waters.

And, again, for the record: Millette did not report on iron microspheres in his initial WTC dust study for the EPA. No amount of Chris Mohr wringing his hands and complaining about Kevin Ryan is going to change that fact.

You might be referring to thisenvironmental health report:

Paul J. Lioy, Clifford P. Weisel, James R. Millette, Steven Eisenreich, Daniel Vallero, John Offenberg, Brian Buckley, Barbara Turpin, Mianhua Zhong,
Mitchell D. Cohen, Colette Prophete, Ill Yang, Robert Stiles, Glen Chee, Willie Johnson, Robert Porcja, Shahnaz Alimokhtari, Robert C. Hale, Charles Weschler,
and Lung Chi Chen (July 2002) Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the
Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001. Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 110, NUMBER 7, 703.
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF


Iron microspheres are not an environmental health hazard. Many people ingest iron, like dihydrogen monoxide which Millette also did not report on, without any harmful health consequences,
Skip to 2:45

 

[cjnewson88]

Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint

Does thermite get spread paper thin and contain an epoxy resin and kaolin?

Does paint?

Do you care?

 

[Miragememories]

"So what your saying is. The only way to establish if thermite is present in the wtc chips is to heat them in a DSC device ?

If Millette does a DSC test and doesn't produce the same results, What then, you say he has the wrong chips?, didn't do the test correctly ? Was paid to cover up? The list goes on..."

Why don't we deal with that should it happen?

If Millette is correct in his belief, than it should be easy to put this matter to rest by showing the original Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible.

But no potential debunker wants to challenge the Bentham Paper using the same methodology.

I can only assume they are afraid they might end up with results that reinforce the findings of the Bentham Paper.

MM

 

[Oystein]

...
Why won't Mark Basile allow anyone to test his chips? Would it be that Basile likes to make it look like he has something to hide ?

Could it be that you are mixing up Basile with either K. Ryan or Jones? Basile wants to send some of his chips to an independent lab for testing as soon as he has raised the funds. I asked him a couple of days ago if he would also send some specimens to Millette, and he hasn't refused yet (I am waiting for a reply)

 

[Spanx]

Why don't we deal with that should it happen?

If Millette is correct in his belief, than it should be easy to put this matter to rest by showing the original Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible.

But no potential debunker wants to challenge the Bentham Paper using the same methodology.

I can only assume they are afraid they might end up with results that reinforce the findings of the Bentham Paper.

MM

It sounds like your saying, the only way to establish if thermite is present in wtc chips is using the same methodology as the Bentham paper.

Please correct if I am wrong, I was under the impression Jim Millette used the approach of finding what materials the chips are made of to start. He did not find aluminium and was able to rule out thermite. I am also under the impression the Jim Millette is working on finding what materials the chips are made of and not trying to make them look like an explosive compound.

I have no reason to believe Millette is a debunker and I personally would except his word if he said he found thermite.

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/index.htm

 

[Oystein]

...
If Millette is correct in his belief, than it should be easy to put this matter to rest by showing the original Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible.
...

MM, can you please give me a preview of how you will inteprete the possible outcomes should Millette ever do DSC tests?

For each individual specimen, you can classify all possible test results in one of these two categories:

1. Test result basically matches that of Farrer
2. Test result basically doesn't match Farrer's

So please, MM, tell us what case 1 would mean, and what case 2 would mean - in conjunction with Millette's and Farrer's other results of course!

When you have answered that specifically, you can also give us your take on the 3 possible outcomes for several specimens:

1. All of Millette's chips basically perform like Farrer's
2. None of Millette's chips basically perform like Farrer's
3. Some perform like Farrer's, others don't

I just want to test if any possible outcome of a DSC test by Millette would result in you accepting that Farrer's and Harrit's conclusions are refuted and debunked! If you cannot specify a DSC test outcome that would falsify the Harrit e.al. theory, then I hope you understand that it would be useless test in the framework of scientific logic!

 

[Spanx]

Could it be that you are mixing up Basile with either K. Ryan or Jones? Basile wants to send some of his chips to an independent lab for testing as soon as he has raised the funds. I asked him a couple of days ago if he would also send some specimens to Millette, and he hasn't refused yet (I am waiting for a reply)

Sorry Oystein, I was under the impression Basile had already been asked and refused.

 

[Oystein]

Sorry Oystein, I was under the impression Basile had already been asked and refused.

Chris Mohr asked Kevin Ryan about a year ago, and Kevin refused.

 

[Spanx]

Chris Mohr asked Kevin Ryan about a year ago, and Kevin refused.

My bad, thanks for the clarification.

Let's hope Mark Basile does the right thing.

 

[Miragememories]

"...If Millette is correct in his belief, than it should be easy to put this matter to rest by showing the original Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible.

But no potential debunker wants to challenge the Bentham Paper using the same methodology.

I can only assume they are afraid they might end up with results that reinforce the findings of the Bentham Paper."

"It sounds like your saying, the only way to establish if thermite is present in wtc chips is using the same methodology as the Bentham paper...."

What I am saying, is that if their Bentham Paper's findings are so fallacious, than it should be possible to prove them wrong using identical methodology.

"Please correct if I am wrong, I was under the impression Jim Millette used the approach of finding what materials the chips are made of to start. He did not find aluminium and was able to rule out thermite. I am also under the impression the Jim Millette is working on finding what materials the chips are made of and not trying to make them look like an explosive compound.

I have no reason to believe Millette is a debunker and I personally would except his word if he said he found thermite."

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/index.htm

Last year, Chris Mohr deceived many when he claimed;

"His [Millette] intention is to replicate the tests done in the Bentham study."

bolding is mine

So what does replicate mean?

Well, according to the dictionary; "make an exact copy of; or reproduce. To repeat a scientific experiment or trial to obtain a consistent result."

But Millette's company did not have the necessary test equipment to attempt a replication of the Bentham Paper research so he substituted tests which he did have the equipment for.

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

Here's the choice. Pick one.

1. Do a test that determines exactly what the material is. (FTIR) (TEM-SAED)
2. Do an ambiguous test that doesn't tell you much about the material. (DSC)

Truthers always pick number 2 and then argue that if you perform test 1, but not 2, then you haven't concluded anything. There is no point in replicating a flawed method. DSC is flawed as it tells you virtually nothing.

There is absolutely no point in performing method 2 when you've done method 1 and know EXACTLY what the material is.

It amazes me how stupid truthers are and how their dogmatic stance precludes them from understanding the simplest logic.

 

[Miragememories]

"...If Millette is correct in his belief, than it should be easy to put this matter to rest by showing the original Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible.

But no potential debunker wants to challenge the Bentham Paper using the same methodology.

I can only assume they are afraid they might end up with results that reinforce the findings of the Bentham Paper."

"MM, can you please give me a preview of how you will inteprete the possible outcomes should Millette ever do DSC tests?..."

Until I see a different outcome, I have no idea how I should interpret it.

Having said that, I am quite prepared to change my mind about the Bentham Paper findings if they cannot be replicated.

MM

 

[Spanx]

What I am saying, is that if their Bentham Paper's findings are so fallacious, than it should be possible to prove them wrong using identical methodology.



Last year, Chris Mohr deceived many when he claimed;


bolding is mine

So what does replicate mean?

Well, according to the dictionary; "make an exact copy of; or reproduce. To repeat a scientific experiment or trial to obtain a consistent result."

But Millette's company did not have the necessary test equipment to attempt a replication of the Bentham Paper research so he substituted tests which he did have the equipment for.

MM

Is that the best you can offer as an explanation as to why Millette did not find aluminium ?