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

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan, I had asked about the Neils Harrit challenge to find the creation of iron-rich microspheres on known paint primer stuck to steel or iron during heating. I will also ask Dave Thomas and others about this, it seems like such an experiment should be possible to do.

Chris, you can find my last posts on this matter starting here - and posts 1947 and 1948 are continuation.

In the post 1948, I expressed my skepticism that I (we) would be so lucky and would observe the similar microspheres after heating, using some accidentally found rusted steel covered with some imitation of Laclede paint (provided that microspheres are created from gray layers). Perhaps I'm too skeptical, and I am still willing to heat such bi-layered samples in my institute and look at them after heating, but the experiments on authentic WTC red/gray chips would be much, much, much better.

If you like, ask Dave Thomas or others, why not You in the USA can buy contemporary Tnemec red primer, corresponding reasonably to WTC Tnemec (Oystein knows more), which is indeed one of the materials suitable for such experiments.

(Remark: in my post 2137 above, I denoted truthers basically as liars, cheaters, paranoid morons etc. Although I fully stand out that this is generally valid (after spending hundreds of hours reading truthers' "debates" and "arguments"), I did not mean the "Bentham team" itself in that post.
Harrit et al indeed "hide important data and refuse to bring additional evidence", but I cannot call these guys as straight "liars" or "cheaters" (except Kevin Ryan, who is a person absolutely disgusting to my taste).)

 

[jtl]

Mohr: I couldn't be happier with Jim Millette's work. He did over $6000 worth of work for $1000...has gotten more readership than many published papers

Ignorance is bliss they say. His unpublished paper is good for gossip, but nothing else. He knows, you don´t, and that´s how he could take you for a ride.

And to my knowledge, not one of these sharp grad students or his own forensic colleagues numbering in the hundreds at his lectures have disagreed with the conclusions of Millette's paper.

Millette chose chips that soften in MEK even though the Bentham authors warned that one of the way to distinguish between paint chips and their chips is that they remain hard after MEK while the paint softens, but Millette does not mention this in his lectures, and for good reason. He will not publish his paper for the same reason.

Ivan, I had asked about the Neils Harrit challenge to find the creation of iron-rich microspheres on known paint primer stuck to steel or iron during heating. I will also ask Dave Thomas and others about this, it seems like such an experiment should be possible to do.

You mean Millette is not up to refuting little old Harrit? For those $$$ you paid him, he did everything but addressing the challenge for some obscure reason, and you "couldn´t be happier".

 

[plague311]

Ignorance is bliss they say. His unpublished paper is good for gossip, but nothing else. He knows, you don´t, and that´s how he could take you for a ride.



Millette chose chips that soften in MEK even though the Bentham authors warned that one of the way to distinguish between paint chips and their chips is that they remain hard after MEK while the paint softens, but Millette does not mention this in his lectures, and for good reason. He will not publish his paper for the same reason.



You mean Millette is not up to refuting little old Harrit? For those $$$ you paid him, he did everything but addressing the challenge for some obscure reason, and you "couldn´t be happier".

I fail to understand why you can't grasp this, Millette wasn't responding to any "challenge" issued by Harrit. He was asked to identify the chips in the WTC dust, and he did that using the appropriate methods.

You do a great job at trying to discredite, or muddy the water, around Millette's study. However, his research speaks for himself.

 

[DGM]

.......... However, his research speaks for himself.

And so does Harrits.

 

[Spanx]

I think debunkers will look for any way to criticize the Active Thermitic Material paper without actually dealing with doing experiments or papers themselves. Our results are based on experiment, not on who published the results.

BTW, experiments continue, and future results will certainly be published in a non-Bentham journal next time. Note that the Ryan-Gourley-Jones paper was published last year in the Environmentalist, peer-reviewed and NOT a Bentham publication.

A quote from prof jones.



Is this true jtl ?

 

[jtl]

Kminek: Jim Millette surely deserves his money, and even much more, since he did exactly what he was ordered to do

It´s OK Kminek, you have no response to the data that destroys the Tnemec pet-theory of the JREF forumthat is the foundation for your paint-theory, and you think you can ignore it and pretend no-one notices.

And so with Kminek, the last bastion falls, officially branding this forum as a fortress of pseudoscience, just like Dr. Greening and others had warned me about.

Kminek´s transformation to desperate JREF-Troll is complete for everyone to see:

It's interesting how Jtl tries to attribute the typical dishonest behavior of truthers to Jim Millette
Since it is pretty normal that truthers are highly paranoid, endlessly accuse and attack each other, hide important data, refuse to bring additional evidence, distort the available evidence, it is pretty normal that truthers endlessly lie, cheat, make fakes, etc.

Put it in a paper and publish my dear

 

[DGM]

And so with Kminek, the last bastion falls, officially branding this forum as a fortress of pseudoscience, just like Dr. Greening and others had warned me about.

So why are you still here? Are we the only ones listening?

 

[Spanx]

Put it in a paper and publish my dear

Please forward a link to the future results that Jones promised would be in a non Bentham journal.

The jones quote above was 2009

 

[DGM]

Please forward a link to the future results that Jones promised would be in a non Bentham journal.

The jones quote above was 2009

I believe they said they did the work in 2010.


jtl doesn't mind when they refuse to release their work. Funny, I haven't seen Millette do this.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

It´s OK Kminek, you have no response to the data that destroys the Tnemec pet-theory of the JREF forumthat is the foundation for your paint-theory, and you think you can ignore it and pretend no-one notices.

Jtl: Incorrect "Tnemec theory" is not the foundation of paint theory, since (among others) MEK chip was not analyzed in sufficient detail, namely detailed micrographs of its microstructure on submicron level (showing inorganics in detail) are missing.
Our paint theory is based in the great part on "Laclede theory", since we have very detailed micrographs and very good XEDS spectra of clean surfaces available for chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper, and they are in accordance with this particular WTC paint I "discovered"

 

[Gamolon]

Millette chose chips that soften in MEK even though the Bentham authors warned that one of the way to distinguish between paint chips and their chips is that they remain hard after MEK while the paint softens, but Millette does not mention this in his lectures, and for good reason. He will not publish his paper for the same reason.

Answer something for me jtl.

Did Harrit and his posse say anywhere in the paper that they put any red/gray, magnet attracted chips in MEK and they softened like paint or were their MEK "softened" paint chips from external sources, chips from outside the initially isolated pile?

Can you site ONE sentence or example in that paper that shows they tested ONE of their red/gray, magnet attracted chips and found it to be paint?

I'll wait here...

 

[beachnut]

It´s OK Kminek, you have no response to the data that destroys the Tnemec pet-theory of the JREF forumthat is the foundation for your paint-theory, and you think you can ignore it and pretend no-one notices.

And so with Kminek, the last bastion falls, officially branding this forum as a fortress of pseudoscience, just like Dr. Greening and others had warned me about.

Kminek´s transformation to desperate JREF-Troll is complete for everyone to see:

Put it in a paper and publish my dear

Dr Greening says the iron rich micro-spheres are not indicative of thermite alone. Debunked by a contrarian. A Dr at that who knows chemistry debunks Jones. I love how you use Dr Greening, the perfect gentleman of the world, as your attack dog on JREF, and how you generalize so freely. Next-life, take chemistry, and save yourself from being in a movement of woo.

= your evidence for thermite being used at the WTC

The dust Jones has looks like a coating. How many iron rich micro-spheres were in the dust Jones has? Why do iron micro-spheres happen in fires?
RJ Lee says the sphere are normal, Jones and Harrit spread lies about sphere of iron. Why do they spread lies? You can't answer why. Real insanity, Harrit looks at the dust and says hundreds of Tons of thermite were used. That is special.

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf
Another report that found no thermite, which Jones and Harrit have to lie about. Make up excuses, to keep their idiotic fantasy.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
No thermite, iron found at the same percent as before 911. oops, do any 911 thermite nuts with papers look up stuff before making up fantasy?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf
Why are Jones and Harrit anti-government, anti-USA?

Jones and Harrit, have crazy claims about 911, they made up their conclusion on 911 lied; maybe they don't know they are liars, maybe they can't see the difference in DSC.
DSC looks like soil or carbonized wood, not thermite. What went wrong?

Why can't Millette find thermite in WTC dust? No thermite was used on 911, it is confined to the silly minds of old men with thermite in their fantasy. They see thermite, they see it every where. Do you think Jones and Harrit seeded dust with some thermite? Because the dust from ground zero does not look like their dust. Why are there no red/gray chips in real WTC dust?

 

[Gamolon]

My understanding is that Harrit and his group think that every single red/chip extracted from the dust pile samples using their "visually having red/gray layers and being attracted to a magnet" criteria, was thermitic.

I challenge any truther to read through their Bentham paper and show me otherwise. Show me where in their paper do they EVER say that any test they performed on the extracted/isolated chips showed said chips to be paint

Example:

The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection of the energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also
performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray
chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22)
or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were
also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately
reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the
case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World
Trade Center dust.

According to the above quote, the DCS did not turn up any paint chip characteristics.

Another example (Resistivity test):

We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:
Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2
); L
= thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31].

This test shows no red gray chips to have characteristics of paint as they had to go "outside the box" to get paint coating tabulations.

Another example (MEK test):

Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent.

No red/gray chips tested here showing characteristics of paint. They had to test paint samples, yet again, from "outside the box".

I have been emailing Jones and Harrit for a couple of weeks now and they both dance around my question as to whether they tested all their chips in the study using the resistivity tests.

Jones performed a resisitivity test on random chips under the assumption that ALL the red/gray chips they isolated were thermitic. If anyone wants to claim that Harrit and his groupseparated the initial isolated red/gray chips into paint and thermitic piles, please provide me your proof.

 

[Miragememories]

"My understanding is that Harrit and his group think that every single red/chip extracted from the dust pile samples using their "visually having red/gray layers and being attracted to a magnet" criteria, was thermitic."

In which case your understanding is wrong.

MM

 

[Gamolon]

In which case your understanding is wrong.

MM

Show me MM.

Put your money were your mouth is. I bet you that you can't.

Show me where in their Bentham paper that they tested red/gray, magnet attracted chips and that those chips showed characteristics of anything other then being thermitic or paint.

I sited you three examples above that show what you think is wrong.

Have at it.

 

[Sunstealer]

It's interesting to note that this thread has gone the way of so many others, namely down the toilet. This thread was to discuss Dr Millette's results, but no truther wants to do that because the results are not to their liking, so the thread has been polluted and turned into a mish mash involving the Harrit et al paper's failings.

Unless something new crops up or a proper input is required I'm not going to reply to any of the blatant trolling in this thread any more. I suggest others do the same.

 

[jtl]

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
It´s OK Kminek, you have no response to the data that destroys the Tnemec pet-theory of the JREF forumthat is the foundation for your paint-theory, and you think you can ignore it and pretend no-one notices.

Kminek: Incorrect "Tnemec theory" is not the foundation of paint theory, since (among others) MEK chip was not analyzed in sufficient detail, namely detailed micrographs of its microstructure on submicron level (showing inorganics in detail) are missing.
Our paint theory is based in the great part on "Laclede theory"

You can´t even face my post I linked to and it is pathetic, but at least you acknowledge that the MEK-Tnemec theory is bunk, so now it is official.
Do you think your buddies here will remember that for more than 2 minutes?
Prediction: They will keep pretending the Tnemec-MEK handwave is valid.

You imply that the LaClede theory works out without the Tnemec-MEK handwave, but you know that it is based on the handwave. You ignored my post because it points out that the chips have aluminum. LaClede does not have aluminum either, so there goes the LaClede theory down the drain as well.

Unless you can pull the third primer paint out of your hat, that has aluminum in it, you no longer have ANY candidate for that MEK handwave, and no more paint theory. Either you work on that or you move on like a grown up person.

Many pages ago I asked you all if there are any other proposed possibilities besides paint(plastics, wiring..etc?)but there was no response.

 

[Spanx]

Please forward a link to the future results that Jones promised would be in a non Bentham journal.

The jones quote above was 2009

Bump for jtl

Im guessing you missed it ?

 

[Gamolon]

It's interesting to note that this thread has gone the way of so many others, namely down the toilet. This thread was to discuss Dr Millette's results, but no truther wants to do that because the results are not to their liking, so the thread has been polluted and turned into a mish mash involving the Harrit et al paper's failings.

Unless something new crops up or a proper input is required I'm not going to reply to any of the blatant trolling in this thread any more. I suggest others do the same.

I will defend my postings of Harrit's paper and it's failings as I think it directly relates to Millette's paper and his results.

There are people who claim that Millette's results are based on the wrong red/gray, magnet attracted chips. They claim that Harrit and his group supposedly obtained thermitic and non-thermitic/paint, red/gray, magnet attracted chips using various tests such as MEK and resistivity test to separate them.

If that is the case, then why did they have to go outside of their isolated group to find paint samples to use in their comparative tests? According to them and everyone else who puts faith in that paper, they supposedly had paint chips right there in front of them! Not to mention that those paint chips were also red/gray, magnet attracted chips!

Why weren't these findings published in the paper or even mentioned? Isn't that significant?

The reason they are bringing up these tests that were supposedly used to further separate the initial isolated group is because Millette followed EXACTLY what Harrit and his group did to get the isolated pile of chips used in the study and got different results. Now they have to try and cover their butts.

Harrit and his group believed that all the chips that were gathered using the two criterion in the beginning of the paper generated a pile of chips that were ALL thermitic. That's how the paper reads.

That's why they state in their paper that they did certain tests on some chips and other tests on different chips. If they thought there was other types of red/gray chips mixed into their initial pile, they would have performed every test on every chip until they had the right thermitic chips.

That's why Jones and Harrit are dancing around my repeated questions about the resistivity tests and whether they were performed on every chip in their study. They won't give me a simple yes or no answer if they did or not.

So again, it's a double edged sword for them. If they DID separate the initial pile into non-thermitic/paint chips and thermitic paint chips suing various test, then they look pretty stupid for getting paint samples form other sources when they had some right there in front of them.

If they DIDN'T do other tests to separate out different red/gray, magnet attracted chips from each other, then Jones and Harrit's claims that Millette didn't have the right chips is pure bullcrap.

 

[jtl]

Sunstealer: This thread was to discuss Dr Millette's results, but no truther wants to do that because the results are not to their liking

I am sure Sunstealer is willingly trolling when he states that no truther has commented on Millette´s results, even though Jones has done so publicly, and that his comments have been discussed on this very thread.

I'm not going to reply to any of the blatant trolling in this thread any more

As most readers will have realized by now, Harrit et al do not respond much to Sunstealer et al for the same reason. It is a pity that Millette did not publish and reduced his paper to forum gossip.