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

[Redwood]

Quote:
MEK dissolved some purported silicon compound associated with purported metallic aluminum in the chips, please cite your source. For the sake of intellectual curiousity, feel free to speculate as to the purpose of this silicon compound.

I would REALLY like to know if the above level of IGNORANCE is prevalent on this forum after almost 4 years of arguing about Harrit´s paper. Do none of you know what the purpose of covering the aluminum with a silicon based coating would be?

The world waits with bated breath, O Great One. I, more than most, as a retired chemist. Perhaps you have MEK solubility data for this compound, too.

Still waiting to see the part of Harrit's paper where he characterizes this compound, and his procedures for removing it from the surface of his aluminum platelets by dissolving in MEK. You can just cite the page and line - most here have copies.

 

[jtl]

I would REALLY like to know if the above level of IGNORANCE is prevalent on this forum after almost 4 years of arguing about Harrit´s paper. Do none of you know what the purpose of covering the aluminum with a silicon based coating would be?

It is easy to believe that most of the members here do not have a clue, but for goodness sake, is there not a single one that knows? NOT ONE?

 

[beachnut]

911Truth fantasy thermite beat by office fires, heat > 2,500 TONS of thermite

It is easy to believe that most of the members here do not have a clue, but for goodness sake, is there not a single one that knows? NOT ONE?

To have your thermite fantasy come true, you need to have evidence of thermite damage. Do you have evidence? No. You have a fantasy conclusion paper, published in a vanity journal. Oops.

Harrit fooled a fringe few. You think DSC is good for identifying thermite, and when it is used and the graph is different from thermite, you fall for the fake conclusion it is thermite. No thermite on 911, and only thermite in the minds of Jones and Harrit, who fool the gullible, the anti-skeptics.

Clue? Do you know what DSC is used for? No. Critical thinking time.
Jones and Harrit are saying they found Fe, and Al in the dust, no clue what compound Al is part of, and no clue what compound the Fe is part of. Then Jones and Harrit declare, thermite. Sadly, there is no evidence of damage done by thermite at the WTC. There were to planes with 66,000 pounds of jet fuel (more heat energy than 315 TONS of thermite), two planes with KE equal to 1300 and 2000 of TNT, no thermite. Office fires up to the collapse with heat energy equal to over 2,500 Tons of thermite, no thermite. No melted steel, only damage from, Fire. No thermite. Is Harrit a liar, or unable to make rational conclusions?

With Millette, he tells you what is in the dust, and it was not thermite.

 

[Miragememories]

"Jtl: it’s indeed you who stubbornly tries to hand-wave critically important results

1) Author of Bentham paper provided excellent XEDS spectra and micrographs of chips (a) to (d) which indicate nanosized iron oxide particles and typical platelets of kaolinite.

2) Millette proved kaolinite in the same kind of chips (with the same kind of iron oxide) by several methods: TEM-SAED-EDS, SEM-EDS, FT-IR.

No other sources of Al and Si signals were found by Jim Millette.
I repeat, Millette proved only..."

It is not as simple as saying chips (a) to (d).

A lot of red/gray chips in the WTC dust approximately resembled the 'chips of interest'.

Basically, Millette collected any dust chip containing iron, or any other magnetically attracted material, including paints etc.

Once collected, to be accepted by Millette, a qualifying chip had to appear red/gray.

That left a lot of chips to pick through.

[~00:01:00 speaking about red/gray chips of interest.]

"they are small, less than, well..there are a few which are bigger than a mm. But the vast majority, maybe 1/10th of a mm. So it takes a microscope to find them-- and some skill."

If Millette ever read the Bentham Paper, he would have made note of the simple Resistivity test it described for easily locating 'chips of interest' amongst an otherwise large pile of non-candidate chips.

But he makes no mention of having used the suggested Resistivity test.

Millette had the time, the equipment, and the opportunity, to extract 'resistivity-measured' chips and let his oven go another +30C to 430C.

So easy to check but oddly, he is not curious.

Here he has a golden opportunity to blow a peer-reviewed paper out of the water.

All he has to do is select a few of his red/gray chips that have a low resistivity of ~10 ohms, heat to 430C and examine the residue.

And if he was curious -- and peeked.

He is remaining awfully silent about what he saw.

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

MM - what criteria did Millette use to ensure he had the same chips as found in the Harrit et al paper? Hint: He states this explicitly in his progress report.

 

[dafydd]

It is easy to believe that most of the members here do not have a clue, but for goodness sake, is there not a single one that knows? NOT ONE?

All of them, except you. Why do you twoofers get so het up when others do not buy in to your fantasy?

 

[Dog Town]

But the vast majority, maybe 1/10th of a mm. So it takes a microscope to find them

How the Hell do you perform a resistivity test, on such small chips?

 

[jtl]

Sunstealer: what criteria did Millette use to ensure he had the same chips as found in the Harrit et al paper? Hint: He states this explicitly in his progress report.

WOW, are you REALLY this desperate?
It has been just a couple of days since you tried the old JREF "I remember nothing" trick:

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

jtl: 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.

It was actually Oystein that brought us these comments by Jones, maybe 5 or 6 weeks ago, and there was a big discussion for days even weeks about how Millette actually failed in just about every way possible to meet the criteria for the correct chips.

Anyone can go back a few pages to see all that discussion about the composition and the MEK results not matching, but for a little reminder I quote Jones:

Why would he not measure the electrical resistivity of his red material (discussed in our paper) right off? That's what gets me – he could have saved himself a lot of time. Finally he gets to TEM analysis, and finds that he has titanium oxide! How can he claim its the same material? What a waste of time.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.

 

[Redwood]

Still waiting for enlightenment from Jtl as to the purpose of silicon compounds in Harrit's putative thermite chips.

 

[Oystein]

It was actually Oystein that brought us these comments by Jones, maybe 5 or 6 weeks ago, and there was a big discussion for days even weeks about how Millette actually failed in just about every way possible to meet the criteria for the correct chips.

Anyone can go back a few pages to see all that discussion about the composition and the MEK results not matching, but for a little reminder I quote Jones:

Edited by LashL: 

Edited breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.

I know you are trolling, so just for the fun, a few questions:

1. Did Harrit et al. perform any MEK-soaking on chip a to determine it has the right behaviour im MEK and can be included in the study?
2. If you say yes, how do you know this? Quote the passage in the paper that informs you to give that answer!
3. If you say no, do you agree that chip a could be the wrong kind of chip, as you don't know whether it conforms to the MEK-criterion that Jones talked about?
4. Did Harrit et al. perform any electrical resistivity measurement on chip a to determine it has the right electrical resistivity and can be included in the study?
5. If you say yes, how do you know this? Quote the passage in the paper that informs you to give that answer!
6. If you say no, do you agree that chip a could be the wrong kind of chip, as you don't know whether it conforms to the electrical resistivity criterion that Jones talked about?
7. Did Harrit et al. determine for chip a, via TEM-EDS perhaps, that it does have Pb, Cr and Sr but no Ti to determine it has the right elemental composition and can be included in the study?
8. If you say yes, how do you know this? Quote the passage in the paper that informs you to give that answer!
9. If you say no, do you agree that chip a could be the wrong kind of chip, as you don't know whether it conforms to the "Pb, Cr and Sr yes, but Ti no" criterion that Jones talked about?

Then the same 9 questions for chip b
Then the same 9 questions for chip c
Then the same 9 questions for chip d
Then the same 9 questions for the MEK-soaked chip (well, minus the 3 for MEK-soaking)
Then the same 9 questions for the MacKinlay 1 specimen in the DSC test
Then the same 9 questions for the MacKinlay 2 specimen in the DSC test
Then the same 9 questions for the Intermont specimen in the DSC test
Then the same 9 questions for the White specimen in the DSC test

Or would you argue that Harrit et al. have determined that all red-gray chips selected by the method described in the section "Chip Isolation" have the same properties with regard to electric resistivity, MEK-soaking and content if Pb, Sr, Cr and Ti? What then makes you think the same is not the case for Millette's chips?

 

[Miragememories]

"I know you are trolling, so just for the fun, a few questions:
-----------------------------------------
"

Just for fun?

That pretty much sums up the 'reason d'etre' for everything you have submitted to this forum.

To what extremes are you prepared to go with all these inane questions?

Do we also need to know things like; bathroom regularity, dietary changes, personal happiness, how often the scientists clean their glasses, etc. etc. etc

Your rank amateurism has made it quite clear why only a peer-reviewed paper can truly question the Bentham Report.

MM

 

[thedopefishlives]

Just for fun?

That pretty much sums up the 'reason d'etre' for everything you have submitted to this forum.

To what extremes are you prepared to go with all these inane questions?

Do we also need to know things like; bathroom regularity, dietary changes, personal happiness, how often the scientists clean their glasses, etc. etc. etc

Your rank amateurism has made it quite clear why only a peer-reviewed paper can truly question the Bentham Report.

MM

MM, you are the one that is claiming to know what Harrit et al. did or didn't do to separate the chips into "thermitic" and "non-thermitic", so why don't you stop dodging and answer the questions? I, for one, am actually looking forward to the answers.

 

[Oystein]

Just for fun?

That pretty much sums up the 'reason d'etre' for everything you have submitted to this forum.
...

No. That pretty much sums up the 'reason d'etre' for engaging trolls like ergo and you It is really fun seeing you squirm and wail as you find yourself caught in self-spun web of lies, knowing that my questions are to the heart, and answering them will kill your ploys.

Oh, and it's "raison d'être"

 

[Gamolon]

MM, you are the one that is claiming to know what Harrit et al. did or didn't do to separate the chips into "thermitic" and "non-thermitic", so why don't you stop dodging and answer the questions? I, for one, am actually looking forward to the answers.

He cannot answer this, nor will he.

The paper clearly shows that the entire Harrit team was under the belief that every single red/gray chip extracted from the dust piles using a magnet, were thermitic. That is why, throughout their entire paper, they could RANDOMLY pick a red/gray chip out of their isolated pile and perform a random test on it.

Then, with the RANDOM test results of RANDOM red/gray chips, they stereotyped the ENTIRE isolated red/gray chip pile as having the same properties as those RANDOM chips.

 

[Gamolon]

MM,

From the Bentham paper's conclusion:

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.

Not "some" of the red/gray chips, not "a couple" of the red/gray chips, ALL OF THEM.

 

[plague311]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I am asking myself a few questions while reading the back-and-forth going on in this thread. As far as the separation, I am under the impression that to take tall 3 towers down using *insert thermite here*, that there would have to be hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds of this stuff. If it's paint on, or planted, or whatever the case. So with that amount of this stuff, wouldn't it be fair to say that whether Millette followed the separation process or not, he would have stumbled onto at least 1 piece using the techniques he did?

 

[tsig]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I am asking myself a few questions while reading the back-and-forth going on in this thread. As far as the separation, I am under the impression that to take tall 3 towers down using *insert thermite here*, that there would have to be hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds of this stuff. If it's paint on, or planted, or whatever the case. So with that amount of this stuff, wouldn't it be fair to say that whether Millette followed the separation process or not, he would have stumbled onto at least 1 piece using the techniques he did?

If there was as much thermite as they say was there I'd think the first workman that causally tossed down a lit cigarette would find it.

 

[DGM]

If there was as much thermite as they say was there I'd think the first workman that causally tossed down a lit cigarette would find it.

Not so much. Thermites are actually hard to get going. The "nano" makes it easier but still not a casual thing. The funny part is even Jones has backed off this "paint" could take down the towers. It was now just a "fuse" for the high explosives.

Naturally he's back to square one where he invented the "thermite theory" to explain the lack of noise. "Truthers" haven't noticed this yet.

 

[jtl]

Oystein: I know you are trolling, so just for the fun, a few questions:

....What then makes you think the same is not the case for Millette's chips?

You return a day after Sunstealer <SNIP>:

Anyone can go back a few pages to see all that discussion about the composition and the MEK results not matching, but for a little reminder I quote Jones: "Why would he not measure the electrical resistivity of his red material (discussed in our paper) right off? That's what gets me – he could have saved himself a lot of time. Finally he gets to TEM analysis, and finds that he has titanium oxide! How can he claim its the same material? What a waste of time."

You forget everything like Sunstealer so there is no point trying to reason with you, it´s a waste of time. And like him you like to call people names, and you think you can afford to call others trolls. You also conveniently disappeared when I and Kminek buried the Tnemec-MEK handwave, just like Sunstealer, presumably in an effort to give yourself an excuse to ignore it just like everything else.

So Oystein, if you think you can keep up the act then I wish you well. Don´t think I will spend the time to repeat yet again all the discussion from days and even weeks ago. In the words of MM:

Your rank amateurism has made it quite clear why only a peer-reviewed paper can truly question the Bentham Report.

It is a real pity Millette was not able to do this. I will keep an eye on this forum in case someone actually does experiments or publishes, but I am fed up with the BS gossip on this forum.

SNIPed, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Dog Town]

The funny part is even Jones has backed off this "paint" could take down the towers. It was now just a "fuse" for the high explosives.

Naturally he's back to square one where he invented the "thermite theory" to explain the lack of noise. "Truthers" haven't noticed this yet.

I've pointed this out, a number of times, as well. Twoofers run from this.
I would love to see them face up to this. It will never happen though.

MM, care to explain?