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

[The Big Dog]

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

They had nothing to lose, none of them had any career left to speak of and they were already pariahs due to their intellectual dishonesty in shilling for the hucksters of the truth movement. Further, they have insulated themselves from charges of outright fraud because they won't release their samples to be tested independently.

What silliness.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Why do we have to worry about the motives of the authors? Regardless of whether they knew they were full of it or were legitimately fooled by their own incompetence, the fact of the matter is that the paper's flaws are damning to the point of negating the conclusions the authors drew.

So it's either that the authors were willing to be dishonest, or that they're foolish, but either way nothing about their motives rescues the work or their reputations.

 

[Justin39640]

It looks like the only way they mention on how they isolated these chips was with a magnet.

 

[Oystein]

It looks like the only way they mention on how they isolated these chips was with a magnet.

...and visually select red-gray bi-layered chips, as opposed to, say, blue balls or yellow-green-checkered pyramids.

 

[Sunstealer]

It looks like the only way they mention on how they isolated these chips was with a magnet.

Exactamondo! Reading the paper

2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination

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.

Note the word "isolation".

And that is all they did. There is no mention in the paper of finding chips that were paint, nor is there any mention of the method used to isolate thermite chips from paint chips. Funny how Millette uses the exact same method, finds red/gray chips with the same EDS spectrum for both layers, but concludes the material is paint with no thermite in sight.

It always amazes me that truthers can be so dishonest and wilfully blind when the facts are printed in black and white in a paper they champion, staring them in the face.

MM - please quote the relevant part in the Harrit et al paper where they discuss the method of isolating thermite chips from paint chips.

(I think he still has me on ignore btw)

 

[chrismohr]

Does anyone live in or near central Massachussetts? If so please send me a private message.

 

[Oystein]

It looks like the only way they mention on how they isolated these chips was with a magnet.

Exactamondo! Reading the paper

2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination

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.

Note the word "isolation".

And that is all they did. There is no mention in the paper of finding chips that were paint, nor is there any mention of the method used to isolate thermite chips from paint chips. Funny how Millette uses the exact same method, finds red/gray chips with the same EDS spectrum for both layers, but concludes the material is paint with no thermite in sight.

It always amazes me that truthers can be so dishonest and wilfully blind when the facts are printed in black and white in a paper they champion, staring them in the face.

MM - please quote the relevant part in the Harrit et al paper where they discuss the method of isolating thermite chips from paint chips.

(I think he still has me on ignore btw)

Here is what Millette did to isolate his chips:

...the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.

1. The dust sample particles contained in a plastic bag were drawn across a magnet and those attracted to the magnet were collected (Figure 5).
9119ProgressReport022912s Page 3 of 21
2. Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water.
3. The particles were dried and mounted on a carbon adhesive film on an SEM stub and photographed (Figure 5).
4. Analysis of the surfaces of the chips was done by SEM-EDS at 20 kV without any added conductive coating (Figures 6 and 7).

Red/gray particles that matched the criteria (attracted to a magnet and an EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum) were then considered particles of interest and subjected to additional analytical testing.

Note the green and purple text both in the Harrit protocal and the Millette protocol: They are essentially the same.

Millette went one step further and selected chips with an "EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum". This is perfectly in line with the section "RESULTS - 1. 1. Characterization of the Red/Gray Chips" (p. 10-15), which talks at length about how they compared chips from all four dust samples, of which chips a-d are said to be "representative". Please read the entire section for context, but here are some key sentences:

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.
...
All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet. ... Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs.
...
... Fig. (5). These four cross sections are representative of all the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples. The BSE images illustrate the finding that all of the red layers studied contained small bright particles or grains characterized by a high average atomic number. ...
...
(XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared
from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7). The four spectra in Fig. (6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon. The chemical signatures found in the red layers are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and a significant carbon (C) peak as well.

At still higher magnifications, BSE imaging of the red layer illustrates the similarity between the different dust samples.

It is clear from a close and educated reading of this section that the authors want to make it abundant clear that, in their opinion, ALL the red-gray chips isolated by the method described earlier, which ONLY involves magnetic attraction and visual separation of red-gray chips based on color and shape, are essentially the same.

Now everyone's backpaddeling and pretending they knew all along they were different - but no-one admits they were wrong! What a freaking bunch of lying hypocrites!

Millette's additional step of focusing on chips with EDS spectra rich in Fe, Si and Al is of course justified by Harrit e.al.'s affirmation that the representative chips have just that composition, AND Millette finds the very same 100 nm faceted grains that appear bright in the BSE, and the very platelets of 1 micron x 40 nm.






So Miragememories: What are we missing here? Which step was left out by Millette? Or what did he do wrong? Please be entirely specific, and make your explanation actionable for an expert researcher - or admit that you have no *********** clue!

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"…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?"

You need further clarification?

No wonder Legge does not want to converse with you.

Did Legge say every red chip they found in the WTC dust was found to be thermitic?
No.

Did Legge say every red chip that responded to magnetic attraction was found to be thermitic?
No.

Were there are other red chips in the WTC dust that responded to magnetic attraction but were not thermitic?
Yes

Could someone with zero qualifications and equipment for performing such research, someone like yourself, could they successfully know when they had obtained the right red chips for DSC testing?
No.

Should would-be researchers like Millette collaborate with the Bentham Paper authors in order to sincerely investigate their claims?
Yes.

Does it make sense for the Bentham Paper authors to refuse to cooperate with scientists whom they feel are too biased to be objective?
Yes.

MM

 

[Oystein]

You need further clarification?
...

Yes. Perhaps I am dense

Why don't you answer the question instead of making up questiomns I didn't ask? I asked:

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?
This is technically two questions, each of which can be answered "Yes", "No" or "Don't know", which completely enumerates the possibilities.

1. Do you assert that 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 - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
2. (If yes to 1.) Do you assert that it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?

 

[BasqueArch]

............
It always amazes me that truthers can be so dishonest and wilfully blind when the facts are printed in black and white in a paper they champion, staring them in the face.
.............

By their logic tree, being right about their paper is secondary to what pleases them most - to believe they are right about the US inside job conspiracy. When their righteous ends justifies their lying means (misinterpreting data, invalid logic, hiding the falsifying chips testing), their cognitive dissonance is abated.
This dissonance is also decreased by running away, like Jones and Legge did in the face of Oystein's persistent analysis of their claims.
They can plausibly deny having read Sunstealer's analysis, and therefore need not rebut.

 

[ozeco41]

^^^ concisely and well stated.

 

[Redwood]

Why don't you answer the question instead of making up questio[ns] I didn't ask? I asked:

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?
This is technically two questions, each of which can be answered "Yes", "No" or "Don't know", which completely enumerates the possibilities.

1. Do you assert that 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 - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
2. (If yes to 1.) Do you assert that it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?

You should have been a lawyer, Oystein!

 

[Miragememories]

Yes. Perhaps I am dense

Why don't you answer the question instead of making up questiomns I didn't ask? I asked:

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?
This is technically two questions, each of which can be answered "Yes", "No" or "Don't know", which completely enumerates the possibilities.

1. Do you assert that 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 - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
2. (If yes to 1.) Do you assert that it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?

Your questions, understandably, are too simplistic.

In my opinion,The Bentham Paper provides sufficient direction for any competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors.

The collection method uses a magnetic filter which isolates all the red chip material with thermitic properties, AND, any other material, red or otherwise, that is magnetically attracted.

They still have to examine the red chips they've collected.

No doubt someone who has already performed this selection process will work much faster than a fellow scientist having to familiarize themselves with the 'look' of the thermitic red chips amongst all the red chips.

MM

 

[Oystein]

Your questions, understandably, are too simplistic.

My questions cut too close to you bone, you're bleeding silly, everybody can see it, and you know everybody can see it

However this...

In my opinion,The Bentham Paper provides sufficient direction for any competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors.

...appears to answer this question...

1. Do you assert that 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 - yes, no, or don't know, MM?​

... in the affirmative:
"Yes, I, MM, am of the opinion that reading and understanding the Bentham paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them".

Now please attend to the second question also:

2. Do you assert that it is thus not necessary (for a competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors) to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?

The collection method uses a magnetic filter which isolates all the red chip material with thermitic properties, AND, any other material, red or otherwise, that is magnetically attracted.

We'll get to this later

They still have to examine the red chips they've collected.

We'll get to this later.

No doubt someone who has already performed this selection process will work much faster than a fellow scientist having to familiarize themselves with the 'look' of the thermitic red chips amongst all the red chips.

What a silly, useless assertion.


Please do yourself a favor, MM, and answer only the 2. question in your reply. I won't engage you on anything else.

Stop the dodging already

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: Some additional info about WTC1/2 steel/floor trusses:

1) According to this article from 2009, "more World Trade Center wreckage joined the collection the Port Authority already kept at Kennedy International Airport this week. Pieces were trucked in from the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland." Altogether 25 trailers were employed, hence a lot of steel had to be moved from NIST to Hangar 17...

2) Here is a Table A-8 from NCSTAR 1-3b report:

These specific samples are numbered/catalogued, so perhaps NIST should know where they are now (?)

 

[Sunstealer]

They still have to examine the red chips they've collected.

So where in the paper do they state that they have separated thermitic red chips from non-thermitic red chips? Where is the analysis on non-thermitic red chips?

There is no mention of any other material other than thermite being removed from the dust by magnet.

If these people were competent then they would have not only made this clear in the paper, but also given evidence for it. Therefore, there should be EDX spectra and SEM photos of at least one paint sample or other red material in order to distinguish that material from the thermite.

Thanks for pointing out failure number 245 in the paper.

 

[Miragememories]

"...They still have to examine the red chips they've collected."

"So where in the paper do they state that they have separated thermitic red chips from non-thermitic red chips?..."

Many of the red chips in the WTC dust were not attracted magnetically.

The scientists learned that by using magnetism, all the thermitic red chips could be easily separated from a large all-residue WTC dust sample.

But Is it really necessary for them to state the obvious, as in; "oh, fellow scientists who wish to peer-review our work, this is also a major separation of 'red chips from non-thermitic red chips'?

Of course there would be some remaining non-thermitic red chips.

In the laboratory the thermitic red chips and the non-thermitic red chips revealed themselves during DSC testing.

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

Many of the red chips in the WTC dust were not attracted magnetically.

The scientists learned that by using magnetism, all the thermitic red chips could be easily separated from a large all-residue WTC dust sample.

But Is it really necessary for them to state the obvious, as in; "oh, fellow scientists who wish to peer-review our work, this is also a major separation of 'red chips from non-thermitic red chips'?

Of course there would be some remaining non-thermitic red chips.

In the laboratory the thermitic red chips and the non-thermitic red chips revealed themselves during DSC testing.

MM

Here is Dr Millette's method which mirrors Harrit et al.

Methods

In order to confirm that the samples chosen had the characteristics of WTC dust, the samples were examined by stereomicroscope and by polarized light microscopy (PLM) according to the procedures described in Turner et al., 20054 (Figures 2 and 3). The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives5 and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison.6 The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al.1 are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4). The spectrum may also contain small peaks related to other elements. To that end, the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.

1. The dust sample particles contained in a plastic bag were drawn across a magnet and those attracted to the magnet were collected (Figure 5).9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web Page 3 of 21

2. Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water.

3. The particles were dried and mounted on a carbon adhesive film on an SEM stub and photographed (Figure 6).

4. Analysis of the surfaces of the chips was done by SEM-EDS at 20 kV without any added conductive coating (Figures 7 and 8).

Red/gray particles that matched the criteria (attracted to a magnet and an EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum) were then considered particles of interest and subjected to additional analytical testing. The additional tests included: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); SEM-EDS of cross-sections; low temperature ashing and residue analysis by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) with selected area electron diffraction (SAED) and EDS; muffle furnace ashing and residue analysis by PLM and TEM-SAED-EDS; ultra-microtome sectioning of the red layer and analysis by TEM-SAED-EDS; and solvent tests.

So Millette uses the exact same separation technique AND matches the red EDX spectrum to samples a-d in the Harrit paper.

Do you agree that samples a-d and Millette's samples are the same material?

Where is the DSC thermograph for non-thermitic red/gray chips in Harrit et al?

 

[chrismohr]

Chris: Some additional info about WTC1/2 steel/floor trusses:

1) According to this article from 2009, "more World Trade Center wreckage joined the collection the Port Authority already kept at Kennedy International Airport this week. Pieces were trucked in from the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland." Altogether 25 trailers were employed, hence a lot of steel had to be moved from NIST to Hangar 17...

2) Here is a Table A-8 from NCSTAR 1-3b report:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=982&pictureid=7240[/qimg]

These specific samples are numbered/catalogued, so perhaps NIST should know where they are now (?)

Thanks Ivan I will ask NIST about this!

 

[Oystein]

But Is it really necessary for them to state the obvious, as in; "oh, fellow scientists who wish to peer-review our work, this is also a major separation of 'red chips from non-thermitic red chips'?

Of course there would be some remaining non-thermitic red chips.

Yes, it is necessary.


You seem to have answered this question...

1. Do you assert that 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 - yes, no, or don't know, MM?​

... in the affirmative:
"Yes, I, MM, am of the opinion that reading and understanding the Bentham paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them".

Now please attend to the second question also:

2. Do you assert that it is thus not necessary (for a competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors) to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?​

And stop the dodging already. Be a man of conviction, and state what you believe.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.