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

[Oystein]

...
Is there anything I am missing with this suggestion of how to get a possible LaClede primer sample from the WTC debris?

Nothing I can think of at the moment.

Then again, I often fail to think of easy things.
For example, with our (well, my) tight focus on LaClede primer, I forgot to consider that looking at the unknown paints from other parts of the WTC (other than known Tnemec from 1+2 perimeters, and LaClede from floor joists; such as core columns, core girders, or material from Building 7 and other structures) may well be of interest and help to categorize the various kinds of red-gray chips. So any sample from any WTC steel part should be welcome

 

[Miragememories]

"…BTW in support of what MM said, when Kevin Ryan was still talking to me, he said that he has in his possession both red-grey paint chips and red-grey thermitic chips, "and I can tell you they are not the same." He claimed that they look different to the eye, but more importantly, that the thermitic chips have an exothermic quality that the paint chips don't. Unfortunately, he refused to release the samples to me or Millette, and our personal connection broke down around that time. I was never able to get samples of these different kinds of chips, or more info about them in relation to the Bentham paper. Nor did I know at that time about the two different types of paint primer in use at WTC. So MM is right that the Bentham authors knew there were paint chips, but his noncooperation has made it impossible to know what he actually has."

"...Problem is, they never put that into writing. Reading the Bentham paper, no carefulk reader would get the idea that they acknowledge the presence of red-gray chips that are paint, and use any method to avoid thise. Thus any follow-up researcher wouldn't know how to separate paint chips from "thermitic" chips. What are the objective criteria, short of burning them? I suppose Farrer knew which chips to put in the DSC - or did he test a lot of chips and only some showed the exothermic quality, and that's the sole criterion? How then do they know it is not some paint that happens to have an exothermic quality?

Jones and Legge suggest following the protocol described in the Bentham paper to select chips - but that is exactly what Millette did:
- Pull a magnet through the dust
- Under a microscope, separate those that are bi-layered red and grey
- Additionally, he chose some whose EDS spectra match Fig. 6 and 7

So I would like for Kevin, Frank, Steve, Niels or Jeff - or Mark - to please explain to all researchers interested in "replicating" the Harrit study what Millette did wrong, and how to do it right - apparently, the descriptions contained in the Bentham paper are not sufficient!…"

Problem?

Is it a problem that the authors did not itemize every possible substance that may or may not have existed in the WTC residue?

The paper was never presented as a How To.

It is common practise for followup researchers to correspond and/or collaborate with those who performed the original investigation before proceeding.

If scientists purporting to be doing followup corroborative research show bias and/or no interest in following the original test methods, than it is not surprising that they will receive little or no cooperation in return.

Dr. Harritt et al have made it clear that they wish to continue their research and are quite anxious to work with scientists who attempt to reproduce the Bentham Paper findings in a fair and open-minded manner.

MM

 

[Oystein]

...
It is common practise for followup researchers to correspond and/or collaborate with those who performed the original investigation before proceeding.
...

Here is a short correspondence with an author of the Bentham paper:

Question:

Mr. Legge,

you write "Millette's ... carefully selected some paint fragments on which to perform his analysis. He did not study the chips described in the Active Thermitic Materials paper."

Do I understand you correctly when I construe your words to imply
1. that there are different kinds of red-gray chips, i.e. different materials? Such that some may represent thermitic incendiaries/explosives, some may perhaps represent paint, and some may perhaps represent other mundane or not so mundane things?
2. that it is possible to select chips and pick out those that are not thermitic?
3. that, as a corrolary to 2., it would be possible to select thermitic chips from a mix of various kinds of red-gray chips?

If that is so, can you provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust? I believe this would be a great help for future studies, such as the one contemplated by Mark Basile (http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/proposal/index.htm) right now?

Reply by Bentham author:

Ronald and Millette

"you write "Millette's ... carefully selected some paint fragments on which to perform his analysis. He did not study the chips described in the Active Thermitic Materials paper."

Do I understand you correctly when I construe your words to imply
1. that there are different kinds of red-gray chips, i.e. different materials? Such that some may represent thermitic incendiaries/explosives, some may perhaps represent paint, and some may perhaps represent other mundane or not so mundane things?"

Of course!

"2. that it is possible to select chips and pick out those that are not thermitic?"

Of course

"3. that, as a corrolary to 2., it would be possible to select thermitic chips from a mix of various kinds of red-gray chips?"

Of course.

"If that is so, can you provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust? I believe this would be a great help for future studies, such as the one contemplated by Mark Basile (http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/proposal/index.htm) right now? "

Of course. Read the Active Thermitic Materials paper. It is all set out there.
Why do I bother when you people do not do your preparation before you jump into the ring.

Neither of you answer my questions or admit that some of my points are correct; you just change the subject. That is no way to carry on an educational debate.

I have done my best and will now retire to more productive activities.

So you see, the Bentham paper co-author thinks the "how-to" is set out in the paper.

Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM?

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!

 

[Miragememories]

Here is a short correspondence with an author of the Bentham paper:

Question:


Reply by Bentham author:

So you see, the Bentham paper co-author thinks the "how-to" is set out in the paper.

Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM?

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!

It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.

Legge appears to have no such issue, but of course, that's the world he lives in.

MM

 

[fitzgibbon]

Is there anything I am missing with this suggestion of how to get a possible LaClede primer sample from the WTC debris?

The dead certainty that no matter how bulletproof the manner of collection is, if any results contradict 'truther' received wisdom the process will be declared tainted (not so if it supports their arguments)

Fitz

 

[cjnewson88]

It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.

What a cop out. You're just as bad as Frank.

 

[Oystein]

It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.

Legge appears to have no such issue, but of course, that's the world he lives in.

MM

You didn't answer the question, MM. I asked:

Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!

Please answer the questions. You know, evasions only look bad on you

 

[Miragememories]

"It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.

Legge appears to have no such issue, but of course, that's the world he lives in."

"You didn't answer the question, MM. I asked:

Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!

Please answer the questions. You know, evasions only look bad on you "

Of course I answered your question.

A question that you no doubt will keep repeating until you receive an answer that you like.

Try as you might, you cannot reach beyond your grasp.

Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile et al, have had no difficulty finding thermitic red chips in the WTC dust samples.

I have no reason to believe that these scientists are collaborating in scientific fraud.

Looking at your 'quote' from Frank Legge, if I read it correctly (your method of quoting people is unorthodox), he claims you fail to respond to questions and ignore the correctness of his points.

Given your disingenuous behaviour, it is a wonder that Frank Legge bothered to give you any response.

The Bentham Paper authors put a great deal of time and effort into their work, and quite understandably are critical of Millette after he said he was going to follow the Bentham Paper methodology but because he was unequipped to do so, chose a testing method which his company was equipped to do.

MM

 

[fitzgibbon]

Cop-out noted. Stick to cutting

Fitz

 

[The Big Dog]

Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile et al, have had no difficulty finding thermitic red chips in the WTC dust samples.

MM

Of course they didn't, they found EXACTLY what they were looking for, and the fact that their own paper shows that it is not thermighty! that is not gonna stop intrepid researchers like your heroes here.

And that is why the truth movement is a *********** joke.

 

[beachnut]

...
Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile et al, have had no difficulty finding thermitic red chips in the WTC dust samples.

...
MM

A bunch of loons (on 911). Proof - zero steel damaged by thermite. You would have to use the steel cut after 911 by torches etc, which Jones used once as his fake proof of thermite, to have proof for the fantasy of thermite.

Jones made up thermite, got fired, had to make up a journal, and had to publish his lie about thermite in a vanity journal. They paid to publish their fake findings. Notice the thermite did not have the energy of thermite. Ironically the office fires produced more heat than 2,500 TONS of thermite.

Why is there zero damage by thermite to steel at the WTC? Answer the simple question and you see Jones is nuts. I have to think his best work is his book on Christ in the New World; what do you think?

 

[Sunstealer]

It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.

Legge appears to have no such issue, but of course, that's the world he lives in.

MM

Do you think Dr Millette understood the paper?

Do you think that Dr Millette used the same method rhat Harrit et al used to extract red/gray chips from the dust?

 

[ozeco41]

Why is there zero damage by thermite to steel at the WTC? Answer the simple question and you see Jones is nuts.

Yes...

...and it it is simple way beyond just the aspect of thermXte.

There was no CD. There is no evidence of CD by thermXte or any other demolition tool.

This whole excursion into dust analyses is because we are prepared to humour truthers. Some people enjoy the sciency stuff. Some enjoy baiting truthers or trolls. But the whole topic is a waste of time.

There was no CD.

Even if there had been 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte at each corner of both towers - complete with flashing lights and big signs saying "Get your thermXte here - help demolish the WTC!!!!" it wasn't used because there was CD.

The discussion is one of many which have gone down rabbit burrows leading nowhere. Why??? Because we are prepared to chase the truthers into any sort of nonsense.

 

[Oystein]

Of course I answered your question.

No, you didn't. I asked "Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect! "

A full enumeration of the possible answers to a question "Do you agree" is

1. Yes, I agree
2. No, I disagree
3. I don't know / undecided

Your reply inculded or implied none of these possibilities.

So please try againm, without evasions:


Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!

 

[cjnewson88]

He's dodged 3 times already by hiding up the skirt of personal attacks and tangents. This is the part where MM runs away and hides.

 

[Miragememories]

"No, you didn't. I asked "Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect! "

A full enumeration of the possible answers to a question "Do you agree" is

1. Yes, I agree
2. No, I disagree
3. I don't know / undecided

Your reply inculded or implied none of these possibilities.

So please try againm, without evasions:


Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect! "

I agree with Frank Legge.

How to find the red thematic chips, can be found, by reading and understanding the Bentham Paper.

Why?

Because I believe the authors of the Bentham Paper had far more to lose by lying than by telling the truth.

MM

 

[DGM]

.
Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile et al, have had no difficulty finding thermitic red chips in the WTC dust samples.

Naturally.

.
I have no reason to believe that these scientists are collaborating in scientific fraud.

I have no doubt.

.

The Bentham Paper authors put a great deal of time and effort into their work, and quite understandably are critical of Millette after he said he was going to follow the Bentham Paper methodology but because he was unequipped to do so, chose a testing method which his company was equipped to do.

MM

And they chose a method that would guarantee the results they wanted to achieve. That's why the chose to withhold the tests that would identify the materials they were telling you they were trying to detect. You're not claiming they are not doing this, right?

I agree with Frank Legge.

Why wouldn't you? It's what you want to hear.

.

Because I believe the authors of the Bentham Paper had far more to lose by lying than by telling the truth.

MM

I have no doubt you believe what you are told (as long as it supports your belief).

 

[Oystein]

I agree with Frank Legge.

How to find the red thematic chips, can be found, by reading and understanding the Bentham Paper.

Why?

Because I believe the authors of the Bentham Paper had far more to lose by lying than by telling the truth.

MM

Good. Thank you.

So, just to clarify: Reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - and it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics?

 

[cjnewson88]

I really don't see the point in this side show. The fact is, Bentham authors claimed chips a-d were nanothermite. Millette use the same method to find the same chips, which matched perfectly with chips a-d both visually and chemically. To argue that he selected and tested the wrong chips is nothing but desperate nonsense created by con artists to obscure the fact they're nothing but scientific frauds and liars.

 

[Tilorop]

If the findings of Harris et al. in the Bentham-paper were actual correct, I doubt the truthers would have made any reservations in sharing the samples they used in the paper to others, such as Miller. Also, they would probably have released all avaiable data to strengthen their position by now.

This is afterall Pulitzerstuff...