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

[Dog Town]

No surprise, Mohr gave the same lapse of memory excuse, so common for this forum. So impressive!

No lapse. Why replicate a failed study? I wanted a proper one.

 

[Spanx]

Well, it looks like DSC is off the menu now

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: Thanks for the news from Jim Millette. Personally, I'm still willing to pay some more money for some additional experiments, namely for the heating of some chips. But, I am satisfied with this study even in its preliminary form

Jtl:We debunkers have a lot of time and I do not care what you do think, you are just unimportant anonymous truther, distinctive only by your behavior of untutored brat "Bentham team" allegedly worked on their "paper" for about two years. After those two years, they came with closer analyses of just four chips, which were in perfect agreement with one WTC paint, and of another one chip, which was in very good agreement with another WTC paint. Really epic, catastrophic fail, after two years of "scientific research on WTC nanothermite"

 

[Miragememories]

"Chris: Thanks for the news from Jim Millette. Personally, I'm still willing to pay some more money for some additional experiments, namely for the heating of some chips. But, I am satisfied with this study even in its preliminary form

Jtl:We debunkers have a lot of time and I do not care what you do think, you are just unimportant anonymous truther, distinctive only by your behavior of untutored brat "Bentham team" allegedly worked on their "paper" for about two years. After those two years, they came with closer analyses of just four chips, which were in perfect agreement with one WTC paint, and of another one chip, which was in very good agreement with another WTC paint. Really epic, catastrophic fail, after two years of "scientific research on WTC nanothermite""

The 'news' from Jim Millette boils down to; drumroll, there is no new news from Jim Millette, and from all indications he will state that he is "too busy" indefinitely.

With very minimal time, effort and expense, Millette could have detected "chips of interest", ignited them at around 430C (instead of his chosen 400C), and then examined the residue. Actually, given how easy it would be for him, I suspect he already has and is not happy with what he observed.

You are a self-proclaimed debunker but so far you are batting zero.

Because you have no proof to back up your pet hypothesis that the chips are all paint, you've resorted to a debunking based on lies.
Not just four chips, numerous chips from four sample locations.
Not perfect or any agreement with WTC paint.

Amazing.

Using sketchy, unproven work, you, as a self proclaimed authority in a related scientific field, have incredible gall claiming that peer-reviewed paper produced by reputable scientists is a "catastrophic fail"?

The "Bentham Team" actually did the work, did get peer-reviewed, and have never been debunked by anyone!

MM

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

The "Bentham Team" actually did the work, did get peer-reviewed, and have never been debunked by anyone!

Three-way wrongness

 

[DGM]

Using sketchy, unproven work, you, as a self proclaimed authority in a related scientific field, have incredible gall claiming that peer-reviewed paper produced by reputable scientists is a "catastrophic fail"?

The "Bentham Team" actually did the work, did get peer-reviewed, and have never been debunked by anyone!

MM

Yeah, the Harrit paper was a huge success. Exactly what impact did it have?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM: I wrote "closer analyses of just four chips... and (closer analyses) of another one chip".

All other chips shown in Bentham paper were not closely analyzed (namely by XEDS), in contrast to Millette's chips, or at least we do not see the results (particular spectra) in the paper. Some chips were partially analyzed after burning, but there is a fatal lack of their analyses prior burning.

 

[Miragememories]

MM: I wrote "closer analyses of just four chips... and (closer analyses) of another one chip".

All other chips shown in Bentham paper were not closely analyzed (namely by XEDS), in contrast to Millette's chips, or at least we do not see the results (particular spectra) in the paper. Some chips were partially analyzed after burning, but there is a fatal lack of their analyses prior burning.

You have no idea how many chips were closely analyzed.

The paper used the necessary number of examples to present their findings.

Only an idiot or a someone with their own agenda would assume that only four individual chips were ever given close analysis.

"When doing a scientific, instrumental investigation, there always is a great number of control experiments, which are implicit to every serious worker in the field. It is understood by the experienced reader, that these tests have been done, since you cannot put every basic control test image or report every bit of supporting data in a journal article. The articles would be so enormous that no one would bother reading them and no journal would possibly care to print them. There are some things that are implied."

When you consider that Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit and Dr. Ferrer to name a few, were closely examining these chips, it is even more ludicrous to assume only "four chips" were ever closely examined in the making of the paper.

Where is your professional objectivity?

MM

 

[tsig]

You have no idea how many chips were closely analyzed.

The paper used the necessary number of examples to present their findings.

Only an idiot or a someone with their own agenda would assume that only four individual chips were ever given close analysis.



When you consider that Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit and Dr. Ferrer to name a few, were closely examining these chips, it is even more ludicrous to assume only "four chips" were ever closely examined in the making of the paper.

Where is your professional objectivity?

MM

How is anyone supposed to evaluate chips that were not written up?

You seem to be saying that they based their conclusions on data that was not included in the report.

 

[thedopefishlives]

How is anyone supposed to evaluate chips that were not written up?

You seem to be saying that they based their conclusions on data that was not included in the report.

This appears to be MM's argument all along. First there is an additional selection criterion that was not specified as such in the Bentham paper but clearly was used to separate chips into thermitic and non-thermitic. (Despite later assurances to the contrary by Dr. Harrit himself.) Now, there are additional chips not named in the published paper that bolster the paper's conclusions. And MM thinks we're the ones trying to divine the authors' intentions.

 

[Oystein]

MM: I wrote "closer analyses of just four chips... and (closer analyses) of another one chip".

All other chips shown in Bentham paper were not closely analyzed (namely by XEDS), in contrast to Millette's chips, or at least we do not see the results (particular spectra) in the paper. Some chips were partially analyzed after burning, but there is a fatal lack of their analyses prior burning.

You have no idea how many chips were closely analyzed.
...
When you consider that Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit and Dr. Ferrer to name a few, were closely examining these chips, it is even more ludicrous to assume only "four chips" were ever closely examined in the making of the paper.

Where is your professional objectivity?

MM

Ivan, I am afraid MM is correct this time and you are wrong

Harrit closely analyzed not just four chips, they closely analyzed at least five chips! We have XEDS data, photos and EDS-maps for the MEK-chip! Ok, not as closely, and with lesser quality, as chips a-d, but good enough to determine that
- Harrit et al. studied more than one kind of chips...
- ...representing two identifiable primer paint formulations
which destroys their base premise, that all chips are essentially the same material, and the first four are representative of all.

 

[jtl]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

which were in perfect agreement with one WTC paint, and of another one chip, which was in very good agreement with another WTC paint.

You say "perfect agreement" but you don´t have documented evidence for a match, or the "agreement" with the ignition results. And for the "other chip" you are still referring to the old hand-wave about the MEK chip being Tnemec despite the lack of Zn and Ca, as we have been through many times, but you ignore data that does not agree with you: All of the above is a perfect display of pseudoscience, and it is always sad to see a scientist stoop down to this level.

Some chips were partially analyzed after burning, but there is a fatal lack of their analyses prior burning.

You make funny statements, but you are basically trying to hand-wave all the data in the Bentham paper by assuming that the MEK results and the ignition results are based on chips different from the ones analyzed in the paper.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

 

[beachnut]

...

Harrit is a full blown loony tune conspiracy theorist on 911. You hooked up with a group of nuts who made up thermite.

There was no thermite at the WTC, so your Harrit expert is nuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6fErDUlCuU
Harrit is nuts. Exhibit one. 911 truth can't use the steel as evidence for thermite, there is no thermite damage. So 911 truth has make up findings, and fool people like you by saying thermite. They hope you don't take the time to check the DSC, or look at it, or look up other materials spectrum.

You try to say Millette was associated with fraud and can't explain why. When I looked up the claim of fraud, I found it was false, and meant nothing. But you can't look it up because you don't do research. You don't have a clue DSC means nothing, and you can't see the chips in the failed paper do not match thermite. But you support Harrit because he has a background with the Max Planck Institute, and ignore he is nuts on 911.

Millette found no thermite, now you want 10 seconds back on the clock so you can back in thermite. You can't look up spectrum for materials, so you fall for lies from the loony Harrit.

How many years will it take for you to see Jones and Harrit were nuts on 911? No thermite damage found at the WTC. Can you explain how the 100 Tons of thermite Harrit says were at the WTC can't be found? What is the product of thermite? You don't know. Where is it?

 

[remo]

Say it ten thousand times just makes no difference to the truth.
Harrit/Jones examined and published a paper finding active thermitic material in the DUST of 911. LEE found in independent DUST study 6% by mass iron rich spheroids, WAY out of kilter to normal 'collapse' dust ratio., the spheres by precedent evidence of violent ejections of molten iron, forensic of thermite reaction. Evidence of other extremely high temperature attacks on the steel were reported by FEMA, LEE and others witnessing molten steel 'running down the channel rails' in the pile, where incendiary events continued for WEEKS producing boiled metallic aerosols into the air. Molybdenum microsphere indicated temperatures thousands of degrees above anything 'normal office furnishings fires' could achieve, plainly showing the real fraud to be the NIST computer driven hypothesis relying on creatioNIST data producing 'Pinnochio' Sunders infamous 'walking girder'. Over 250 acres of concrete flooring was turned into ppm DUST clouds in SECONDS, in MIDAIR [airborne] as the sequences brought the great towers down close to and at actual FREE FALL for WTC7. How did gravity kinetics dissolve hundreds of acres of concrete in MIDAIR might be a question better to employ ...

Edited by LashL: 

Edited. Do not change a member's name in order to insult.

 

[Redwood]

Suggestions for Remo

Say it ten thousand times just makes no difference to the truth.
Harrit/Jones examined and published a paper finding active thermitic material in the DUST of 911. LEE found in independent DUST study 6% by mass iron rich spheroids, WAY out of kilter to normal 'collapse' dust ratio., the spheres by precedent evidence of violent ejections of molten iron, forensic of thermite reaction. Evidence of other extremely high temperature attacks on the steel were reported by FEMA, LEE and others witnessing molten steel 'running down the channel rails' in the pile, where incendiary events continued for WEEKS producing boiled metallic aerosols into the air. Molybdenum microsphere indicated temperatures thousands of degrees above anything 'normal office furnishings fires' could achieve, plainly showing the real fraud to be the NIST computer driven hypothesis relying on creatioNIST data producing 'Pinnochio' Sunders infamous 'walking girder'. Over 250 acres of concrete flooring was turned into ppm DUST clouds in SECONDS, in MIDAIR [airborne] as the sequences brought the great towers down close to and at actual FREE FALL for WTC7. How did gravity kinetics dissolve hundreds of acres of concrete in MIDAIR might be a question better to employ the vast intellect ...

Try to focus. Gish Gallops like this one don't convince any but credulous individuals pre-disposed to believe you anyway.

Your formatting is poor. Try putting up a series of points and develop your ideas. Example:

1.

Over 250 acres of concrete flooring was turned into ppm DUST clouds in SECONDS, in MIDAIR [airborne] as the sequences brought the great towers down close to and at actual FREE FALL for WTC7.

2. This indicates that explosives were placed in the floors.

3. Explosives in the floors were necessary for the demolition because.....

4. No sounds of explosives were heard because.....

You might also try following up on things. Why don't you interview Phil Ruvoli of FDNY, whose remark about dripping metal has been recycled from the Naudet film into countless Argumenta Youtubea? You do know he's now retired, don't you? Maybe he has photos, videos, or even samples that he has been holding back out of fear! (Or maybe not.) So any fears of losing his job are gone. As a matter of fact, a large percentage of FDNY who were at the WTC on 9-11 are now retired. Plenty of potential interviews!

Why do truthers repeat the failed tactics of almost 12 years? Remember, "If you always do what you've been doing, you'll always get what you've been getting."

 

[beachnut]

Say it ten thousand times just makes no difference to the truth.

911 truth has the Big Lie, 911 truth followers repeat the lie as if they were programmed by Jones, and other failed 911 truth pushers.


And Millette found no thermite.

Harrit/Jones examined and published a paper finding active thermitic material in the DUST of 911.

Reading the paper carefully, we find they found dust with some clay in it, I cheated and looked up other spectrum to match Jones work. Why can't 911 truth. Jones and Harrit made up the lie of thermite, no surprise... Millette found no thermite.

LEE found in independent DUST study 6% by mass iron rich spheroids, WAY out of kilter to normal 'collapse' dust ratio., the spheres by precedent evidence of violent ejections of molten iron, forensic of thermite reaction.

RJ Lee says the iron is from stuff in the WTC, not thermite. 911 truth could ask him but their insane fantasy will dissolve.

Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents are expected in fires. OOPS, 911 truth is debunked again, and again...

Where does 911 truth get the 6 percent? Gee, Fe is 6 percent of the earth's crust, what does it mean? There was no melted steel. A lie from 911 truth.

Lie, RJ Lee found the results of fire and iron stuff. It is that simple. 911 truth is fooled by insane old guys, Jones and Harrit.

RJ Lee says 911 truth claims are nonsense, all the stuff found in the dust came from the WTC not thermite.

Building materials from which the WTC Towers were constructed include structural steel, asbestos-containing insulation material, other insulating fibrous material (mineral wool and glass fibers), cement and aggregate (concrete), wallboard, ceiling tiles, ducts, wiring, paint, plate glass, and other components. Building contents of the WTC included computers and other electronic equipment, fluorescent lights, furniture, office supplies, and a myriad of other items. The brittle and friable components of these materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires.
RJ Lee report...

And Millette found no thermite.

Evidence of other extremely high temperature attacks on the steel were reported by FEMA, LEE and others witnessing molten steel 'running down the channel rails' in the pile, where incendiary events continued for WEEKS producing boiled metallic aerosols into the air.

1000 C was the highest attack, and the steel was corroded in fire. There was no steel running anywhere, it would kill whoever was close to it, the heat would start them on fire. 911 truth, fooled by hearsay, and nonsenses.
And Millette found no thermite. Office contents burned for a long time, no thermite. Thermite burns out in seconds.
And Millette found no thermite.

Molybdenum microsphere indicated temperatures thousands of degrees above anything 'normal office furnishings fires' could achieve,

Molybdenum? Source? It is found in computers, paint, etc. LOL, 911 truth can't do simple research. Molybdenum, playing the Molybdenum card means 911 truth has lost it.
What a bunch of nonsense. Normal office fires did it - but 911 truth does not do science, they do woo.

How many ppm was Mo found at, and what was the compound? Where did it come from? Computer chips? lol, 911 truth does not do research, or read.

And Millette found no thermite.

plainly showing the real fraud to be the NIST computer driven hypothesis relying on

Fraud? NIST? Too bad only a few fringe nuts fall for this lie, no matter how many times you say it. 911 truth repeats lies as if the old tell a lie enough and people believe it will come true... ironic

And Millette found no thermite.

creatioNIST data producing 'Pinnochio' Sunders infamous 'walking girder'.

Lucky for NIST 911 truth can't expose anything using physics and math; 911 truth stuck with woo, 11 years of failure with insane leaders.
And Millette found no thermite.

Over 250 acres of concrete flooring was turned into ppm DUST clouds in SECONDS, in MIDAIR [airborne] as

How many seconds? What number goes with that ppm? Does 911 truth know what ppm means?

And Millette found no thermite.

the sequences brought the great towers down close to and at actual FREE FALL for WTC7.

The towers were not near free fall speed. WTC 7 took over 16 seconds to collapse, free fall from that height is 6.5 seconds 911 truth can't do the math.

And Millette found no thermite.

How did gravity kinetics dissolve hundreds of acres of concrete in MIDAIR might be a question better to employ the vast intellect of the ******** ***.

The concrete did not dissolve. E=mgh was released, and since Jones and Harrit ignore reality, ignore the energy greater than 130 2,000 pound bombs, you are fooled, 911 truth followers refuse to do the math, the physics to join reality.
And Millette found no thermite.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited quote of moderated content.

You say "perfect agreement" but you don´t have documented evidence for a match, or the "agreement" with the ignition results. And for the "other chip" you are still referring to the old hand-wave about the MEK chip being Tnemec despite the lack of Zn and Ca, as we have been through many times, but you ignore data that does not agree with you: All of the above is a perfect display of pseudoscience, and it is always sad to see a scientist stoop down to this level.

You make funny statements, but you are basically trying to hand-wave all the data in the Bentham paper by assuming that the MEK results and the ignition results are based on chips different from the ones analyzed in the paper.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited quote of moderated content.

Jtl: This was my very first post in which I used "ugly words" addressed to you. And can be the last one, if you are able to change your horrible "diction" (which is highly questionable)

Oystein explained in detail here, that recorded XEDS of unsoaked MEK chip is in good agreement with the Tnemec paint contaminated with 11 % of calcium sulfate. It is your problem that you do not understand.
The claim of Bentham authors that this chip is nanothermite is a pure and apparent nonsense, with the ridiculously low level of Al.
You are still not able to understand very basics like: without proper oxidant (e.g. some nitrate, perchlorate etc.), polymer binder as a prevailing material cannot be active component of efficient thermitic mixtures (with a few exceptions like fluorinated polymers).

I did not write that chips burned in DSC were different material than chips (a) to (d) or MEK. Quite contrary, I think that they were the same materials, just because chips of these kinds seem to prevail in the dust. But Oystein and Sunstealer pointed out, e.g., that DSC curves may indicate two different materials. Anyway, even you agreed in the past, that Harrit et al had to show us chips burned in DSC also prior burning.

Your attack on my scientific credits (through the credits of Czech science) is ridiculous For your info, I spent three months in the Max Planck Institute and one of the outputs was this paper. I also spent almost one year in another highly prestigious German scientific institute, former Hahn-Meitner Institute, with about 6 very good papers as results.
It is fully possible that other papers of Niels Harrit are as good as that of mine, I have not checked them But, so called "Bentham paper" is an apparent scientific fail and even personal tragedy for this guy.

 

[jtl]

Kminek: This was my very first post in which I used "ugly words" addressed to you. And can be the last one, if you are able to change your horrible "diction" (which is highly questionable)

Oystein explained in detail here, that recorded XEDS of unsoaked MEK chip is in good agreement with the Tnemec paint contaminated with 11 % of calcium sulfate. It is your problem that you do not understand.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

Why are you still ranting about the unwashed chip matching your Tnemec? Do you expect me to believe that you have forgotten about all the previous discussion about what happens after the chip has been washed? The Zn and the Ca and a lot of other stuff disappear, so they are obviously contaminants, hence no Tnemec. Pour yourself a nice hot cup of coffee and take a good look at figure 17, which is a close-up of a region of aluminum in the MEK chip. Your boys have ranted that the lack of Zn in those figures could be because Harrit et al did not focus on the right spots, which is hogwash, but even that excuse will never work for a region of aluminum because if it is Tnemec then there would be Ca along with the aluminum, since they would be bound in a compound. There is no Ca in figure 17 so it is absolutely impossible that this is Tnemec. Get over it and move on. Leave it up to Sunstealer and Oystein to repeat their hogwash theory until the end of days, but you should respect your credentials and your days at the MPI.

Your attack on my scientific credits (through the credits of Czech science) is ridiculous For your info, I spent three months in the Max Planck Institute and one of the outputs was this paper.

I did it to make you think about the assumptions you and others have been making here about How Harrit et al conducted their research and which data was included and not included. This refers to the stuff about the aluminum signal somehow coming from the sample holder, assumptions that they cherry picked regions with aluminum(even spots outside the chips)and spots without Zn and Ca, the MEK and ignition chips not being the same as the ones analyzed, and other such rubbish. Harrit has very impressive credentials including Max Planck Institute and decades of experience conducting research and putting out reviewed papers, so I think you know the those assumptions have no basis. You have been exposed to JREF forum for too long.

so called "Bentham paper" is an apparent scientific fail

This statement would be lot more credible if you had an actual paper in your hands that has refuted Harrit´s paper, instead of your "ugly words" and repeat of invalid assumptions from your buddies. It is pity that Millette refused to address Harrit´s results and that there will most likely never be any paper, but that is in my opinion the reason why you have resorted to the "ugly words". In the end there is no fail if no-one successfully challenges the results of the Bentham paper with a published paper, and I think we can agree that Harrit with his credentials won´t give a **** about gossip at some stupid forums, and that he is justified waiting for a proper response.

Edited by LashL: 

To properly mask profanity as per Rule 10 and for civility.

 

[Oystein]

...Harrit has very impressive credentials...

@ Everybody: Note that none of our arguments use or doubt in any way the credentials and past achievements of the involved scientists. Most of us also do not doubt the genuineness of their data. Our arguments rest squarely on the data (all of it). This is where we are different from truthers.

 

[jtl]

Oystein: @ Everybody: Note that none of our arguments use or doubt in any way the credentials and past achievements of the involved scientists. Most of us also do not doubt the genuineness of their data. Our arguments rest squarely on the data (all of it). This is where we are different from truthers.

The old JREF lapse of memory yet again.
Oystein less than 2 weeks ago:

The only "lying" there are actually Harrit et al.
Well, perhaps not lying - being the bloody amateurs they are, they may simply be unqualified to read DSC curves.

Typical for JREF forum, an anonymous amateur calling Harrit of Max Planck Institute an amateur, and then pretending he does not "doubt in any way the credentials".

How Pathetic, but this is what this forum is famous for.