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

[DGM]

They know the truth comes with a high pricetag.

It isn't called the 'status quo' for nothing.


MM

Has the possibility ever crossed your minds these people are right? It might explain why this paper has not had any impact in the world outside of a very small group of believers. This is a better explanation than accusing them all of being afraid to stand up for what you claim is right.

You should be praising Chris and Millette for introducing this paper do far more professionals then would ever had seen it. Instead you guys berate the effort. Seems to me, you guys are the ones that are afraid of the truth. Why else would they refuse to cooperate and release data?

 

[Stamuel]

<snip>

Is there no importance behind the chemists, those who have read the paper, speaking for A&E911Truth?

<snip>

So you've 'approached and asked' over 12 chemists if they would read the 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al.

10-11 chemists gave no response
1 chemist said he was not interested but his students were welcome.
2 chemists had previously made up their minds and were not interested in further response.

None of the 12-13 chemists did what you asked.

None of the 12-13 chemists acknowledged having read the 2009 Bentham Paper by Harrit et al?

<snip>

A few things to point out: First of all, chemists associated with 9/11 Truth are a self-selected group, united by the common belief that 9/11 was in some way an inside job. While their opinions of the Bentham paper do not count for literally nothing, they come close.

Presumably Chris Mohr approached chemists based on looking through faculty lists of nearby institutions (I am assuming here, Chris can correct me if I am wrong). This approach is more likely to provide an idea of what professional chemists think of the paper.

Now, how do we interpret the responses or non-responses of the chemists mentioned? Lack of response from most is expected. Unsolicited emails from people outside the field can be ignored with exactly zero consequences for one's career and reputation as an academic, and so such emails will be ignored by people who don't feel like spending time on random projects. Lack of response does not necessarily reflect a negative view of the work. On the other hand, if the Bentham paper had truly Earth-shattering results, one might expect a chemist seeing it for the first time to take notice and respond to that effect. The fact that this has not happened is (admittedly weak) evidence that the paper is not Earth-shattering.

As for those who responded that the paper is pseudo-science, this counts for more. If one is well-versed in a subject, it can be easy to spot pseudo-versions of it. If an author claims that the Axiom of Choice from ZFC set theory has implications for the abortion debate, a mathematician doesn't need to read in detail to figure out the author is blowing it. So far, several people here have shown the Bentham paper to chemist relatives and friends, and the unanimous assessment is that the data does not support the conclusion. Many here have claimed the wrong tests were performed given the goal of determining the composition of the chips. The rejection of the Bentham paper as pseudo-science by two more chemists confirms this, to some degree: a paper using the wrong methods to generate data that conflicts with the conclusion of the paper would be easily identified as pseudo-science.

This is all pretty weak, but if we want an idea of how most experts view the matter, a picture seems to be emerging.

 

[ergo]

As for those who responded that the paper is pseudo-science, this counts for more. If one is well-versed in a subject, it can be easy to spot pseudo-versions of it. If an author claims that the Axiom of Choice from ZFC set theory has implications for the abortion debate, a mathematician doesn't need to read in detail to figure out the author is blowing it. So far, several people here have shown the Bentham paper to chemist relatives and friends, and the unanimous assessment is that the data does not support the conclusion.

Yes, but these people would be from a self-selected group, united by the common belief that steel-framed highrises are capable of plummeting to the ground in under 15 seconds from upper level structural damage. While their opinions of the Bentham paper do not count for literally nothing, they come close.

The rejection of the Bentham paper as pseudo-science by two more chemists confirms this, to some degree

Not at all. These two chemists had clearly already made up their minds, perhaps from their own personal beliefs about 9/11.

 

[DGM]

This is all pretty weak, but if we want an idea of how most experts view the matter, a picture seems to be emerging.

As one of those who has actually shown this paper to chemists, I would add:

MM, bring the paper to a local university and do this for yourself. There's a real good reason the Harrit team has not actively pursued independent conformation (or atleast talked about these efforts with any detail).

 

[beachnut]

And how would you 'weigh' the importance of what a given chemist has to say?

911 truth does not do chemistry, they do woo. Harrit and Jones proclaim termite, making up their conclusion because Al and Fe is in dust. 911 truth followers eat it up and repeat the lie as if programed, brainwashed.

Should the chemist have read the 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al?

Another fake paper? It is sad when science says no thermite, you can't attack the evidence; you have to do what you are doing; nothing. 11 years of nothing but repeating lies and fantasy - that is your 911 truth, the dead movement.

Is there no importance behind the chemists, those who have read the paper, speaking for A&E911Truth?

Where is your list of chemists in AnE911Nuts? Does Gage support the fantasy of thermite?

How does a thin layer of thermite do anything? It is incredibly silly, and you can't produce how the thin layer of thermite was used on 911. You can't produce any steel damaged by thermite on 911. Zero evidence of thermite, but you believe your heroes who made up the lie of thermite. Faith based science. You don't do the chemistry, you believe the lies.

Particularly in the security-obsessive times we live in, very few of thousands and thousands of 'rank 'n file' chemists are going to seek unpopular attention.

Paranoia strikes. What? Anyone can say anything. Look at 911 truth spewing out lies faster than free-fall, and not one has been silenced by your paranoia imaginary bad guys who can plant thermite which does not cause damage to steel.
Rank and file chemists? The majority would not waste time reading the stuff you have accepted as truth - it is nonsense. One class in chemistry can debunk Harrit and Jones.

They know the truth comes with a high pricetag.

Do you believe this nonsense based on paranoia? Are you a lifer for 911 truth?

It isn't called the 'status quo' for nothing.

Paranoia.

So you've 'approached and asked' over 12 chemists if they would read the 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al.

How many have you asked? Do you do anything beside falling for lies from 911 truth; 11 years of no action.

10-11 chemists gave no response
1 chemist said he was not interested but his students were welcome.
2 chemists had previously made up their minds and were not interested in further response.

How many read the paper when you asked?

None of the 12-13 chemists did what you asked.

How many of your chemist friends support the paper?

None of the 12-13 chemists acknowledged having read the 2009 Bentham Paper by Harrit et al?

How many have you got?

So moving on, you opine that you got similar responses from "about 14 physicists/engineers".

I find it funny, the ones who read the paper found it to be fantasy, pseudoscience.
How many chemists have you got to support your fantasy? Do you do anything besides support fantasy thermite? Got any evdience yet?

A group that firstly required you did not disagree with their point of view.

MM

You have no idea what a DSC is for. You could ask the chemists who you have not approached. Are you a chemist, so you don't need input to help you see the fraud of Jones and Harrit?

Why do you fall for nonsense?

Personally, I would dearly love to believe that 9/11 was not an inside job but so far the evidence argues strongly that it must have been.
...MM

What evidence?

You ignore evidence. You can't debunk Millette; oh, you are a truther, a followers who knows it was an inside job because of the evidence... evidence.

Millette found no thermite - you found woo.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Senenmut
... silicon can be used in thermitic reactions:
http://www.amazingrust.com/Experimen...mite.html#SiO2

lol, google your way to support the dumbest claims on 911. Thermite is a fantasy made up my Jones.

Now you add sand to your thermite to make it? Dumber? Cooler? More sandy? Hotter? Better to hide in your idiotic inside job fantasy pile of fantasy evidence?

The thermite tent of 911 truth is as bad as the beam weapon camp, or nukes, or silent explosives which leave no blast effects.

Now we have silicon added, which kids do to make a thermite mess, anyone can do it, but since it is possible, 911 truth followers have to add the silicon to the their failed fantasy because Si shows up in the dust?

Goes to show, no matter how much evidence against the silly thermite fantasy, like Millette's study, 911 truth gish gallops on, to dumber stuff to seal the deal on 11 years of failure spreading nut-case claims of thermite.

Yes, anyone can google sand can be used as the metal, so you add it to your failed fantasy. Good job; fooled by Jones and presenting evidence you were fooled.

Poor old Senenmut is digging Jtl and himself into an even deeper hole. If one actually follows Senenmut's link, one sees that they aren't using "silicon" in the thermitic reaction, they are producing elemental silicon by reacting elemental aluminum with silica, SiO₂.

Heaven knows why the Vast Conspiracy needs their thermite to produce elemental silicon! This isn't merely the last nail in the coffin of Harrit's thermite; it's a concrete (melted, maybe? ) encasement of the coffin!

Question for the last remaining Truthers on the S.S. Harrit-Jones: Where is the elemental silicon in the dust samples? (Oh, and where is the alumina necessarily produced by reacting aluminum with either hematite or silica?)

 

[chrismohr]

Yes, but these people would be from a self-selected group, united by the common belief that steel-framed highrises are capable of plummeting to the ground in under 15 seconds from upper level structural damage. While their opinions of the Bentham paper do not count for literally nothing, they come close.




Not at all. These two chemists had clearly already made up their minds, perhaps from their own personal beliefs about 9/11.

Ergo is right that the two chemists who responded negatively had already made up their minds. Both used the argument from authority, trashing the Bentham paper and saying it had been rejected by other scientists. One even linked me to THIS VERY THREAD as evidence that the Bentham paper was pseudoscience! I'm not interested in the opinion of a chemist who rejects the paper out of hand and links me to myself... I do want a purely scientific analysis (if such a thing is possible)...

 

[Stamuel]

Originally Posted by ergo
Yes, but these people would be from a self-selected group, united by the common belief that steel-framed highrises are capable of plummeting to the ground in under 15 seconds from upper level structural damage. While their opinions of the Bentham paper do not count for literally nothing, they come close.

Not at all. These two chemists had clearly already made up their minds, perhaps from their own personal beliefs about 9/11.

Ergo is right that the two chemists who responded negatively had already made up their minds. Both used the argument from authority, trashing the Bentham paper and saying it had been rejected by other scientists. One even linked me to THIS VERY THREAD as evidence that the Bentham paper was pseudoscience! I'm not interested in the opinion of a chemist who rejects the paper out of hand and links me to myself... I do want a purely scientific analysis (if such a thing is possible)...

I retract my interpretation of their statements. I was tentatively assuming they gave a cursory glance at the paper before rejecting it. I was wrong.


--Ben

 

[beachnut]

Ergo is right that the two chemists who responded negatively had already made up their minds. Both used the argument from authority, trashing the Bentham paper and saying it had been rejected by other scientists. One even linked me to THIS VERY THREAD as evidence that the Bentham paper was pseudoscience! I'm not interested in the opinion of a chemist who rejects the paper out of hand and links me to myself... I do want a purely scientific analysis (if such a thing is possible)...

ergo is not right, 911 is not a belief, it is an event. It is easy to reject a paper on face value when you understand 911. ergo can't do physics, so she can't comprehend 911, an easy target for the fantasy 911 truth produces.

Rejecting the paper is not an opinion; we can reject this paper by it's title; if we can't, then we don't know anything about 911.


Don't need to read the paper, the title is delusional nonsense.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe"

Debunked by the title.

 

[BasqueArch]

ergo is not right, 911 is not a belief, it is an event. It is easy to reject a paper on face value when you understand 911. ergo can't do physics, so she can't comprehend 911, an easy target for the fantasy 911 truth produces.

Rejecting the paper is not an opinion; we can reject this paper by it's title; if we can't, then we don't know anything about 911.


Don't need to read the paper, the title is delusional nonsense.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe"

Debunked by the title.

 

[Miragememories]

"And how would you 'weigh' the importance of what a given chemist has to say?

Should the chemist have read the 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al?

Is there no importance behind the chemists, those who have read the paper, speaking for A&E911Truth?

Particularly in the security-obsessive times we live in, very few of thousands and thousands of 'rank 'n file' chemists are going to seek unpopular attention.

They know the truth comes with a high pricetag.

It isn't called the 'status quo' for nothing."

"Has the possibility ever crossed your minds these people are right?"

What crosses my mind, other than academic titles, none of the chemists acknowledged familiarity with the peer-reviewed 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al.

You might as well ask their opinions on beer.

"It might explain why this paper has not had any impact in the world outside of a very small group of believers. This is a better explanation than accusing them all of being afraid to stand up for what you claim is right.

You should be praising Chris and Millette for introducing this paper do far more professionals then would ever had seen it. Instead you guys berate the effort. Seems to me, you guys are the ones that are afraid of the truth. Why else would they refuse to cooperate and release data?"

Well we have certainly observed a failure to publish, in any peer-reviewed publication, a debunking paper that addresses the key points presented in the 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al.

It is amazes me that Millette, head of his own company lab, a man with a long history researching WTC dust for the U.S. government, a man with his own WTC dust collection, gets so close to possibly debunking a 'contrary' peer-reviewed paper about WTC dust--- and he stops.

MM

 

[chrismohr]

Maybe I already said this, but Carl Sagan once spent many hours seriously investigating and publishing a response to the astronomical claims of "Planets in Collision" Velikovsky. He made careful calculations showing the physics of what would have to happen for Velikovsky's theories to be true. There is value in that kind of research, because it demonstrates to the public why most astronomers blow Velikovsky's theories off. But I certainly am neither surprised nor disappointed that most physicists blow off the claims of CD bringing down the WTC buildings, or chemists blowing off the claims of Harrit/Jones. I'm looking for that rare chemist who may want to explain, independently of JREF people, what he/she thinks of the paper.

 

[chrismohr]

It is amazes me that Millette, head of his own company lab, a man with a long history researching WTC dust for the U.S. government, a man with his own WTC dust collection, gets so close to possibly debunking a 'contrary' peer-reviewed paper about WTC dust--- and he stops.

MM

Stay tuned my friend.

 

[DGM]

What crosses my mind, other than academic titles, none of the chemists acknowledged familiarity with the peer-reviewed 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al.

You might as well ask their opinions on beer.



Well we have certainly observed a failure to publish, in any peer-reviewed publication, a debunking paper that addresses the key points presented in the 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al.

It is amazes me that Millette, head of his own company lab, a man with a long history researching WTC dust for the U.S. government, a man with his own WTC dust collection, gets so close to possibly debunking a 'contrary' peer-reviewed paper about WTC dust--- and he stops.

MM

What's the rush? The Harrit paper has gained zero traction since it was published. Chemist have commented on it several times. Never anything good.

What's your views on Harrit et al refusing to cooperate and release the data they said they had? All of Millettes data is out there for everyone to see, Harrit et al produced a paper without even enough information to duplicate it's findings (something you have shown over and over).

 

[Sunstealer]

The Harrit et al paper is only good for one thing ..... wiping your arse on (if you can be bothered to print it out)

It has no merit whatsoever, just as a paper claiming the earth is flat has no merit whatsoever.

Debunking it was a professional curiosity for me and no more. The data in the paper indicates the material is red paint. Millette's study goes further proving the material is red paint, but nothing will ever change the minds of MM, ergo and jtl. Nothing.

Truthers will never accept the fact no matter how many people are consulted for their professional opinion any way. They aren't interested in the answer.

If people want to believe that 1+1=78.8575 then that's their problem. There is no need to continue asking mathematicians for an independent opinion on the question.

 

[ozeco41]

The Harrit et al paper is only good for one thing ..... wiping your arse on...

Citation?

In my experience (Torn sheets of newspaper on a nail behind the door circa later 1940's through 50's)

Most alternate papers utilised for that purpose have poor physical characteristics for the "job in hand" (in fact they often result in "job in hand".)

Two examples:
a) shiny, slippery surface with poor adhesion of material to be transferred;
b) poor resistance to penetration by blunt objects such as tip of finger.

Meanwhile back on the current issue:

...It has no merit whatsoever, just as a paper claiming the earth is flat has no merit whatsoever.

...There is no need to continue asking mathematicians for an independent opinion on the question.

Those are two of several issues where Chris's post IMO drifts off the proper reasoning.
1) The two chemists were not arguing so their responses are not appeals to authority. The true situation seems to be that we have a default hypothesis of "The Bentham Paper is Junk" and there is no substantive case that it is not junk. There is no obligation on any professional to support an existing hypothesis or to try to rebut same whether or not they agree with it or simply have not formed a conclusion. Anyone wanting to oppose the default hypothesis is free to put forward an alternate hypothesis. So that leads to:
2) There is no need at this stage for additional support of the default.

If Chris wants to add extra layers of support - that is a different matter. He could well have sound reasons for doing so BUT those reasons are his - not the result of flawed use of "scientific method".

AND
3) Stating that "ergo is right" based on a narrow reading of his statement quote mined to remove the blatant bits where ergo was wrong does little to add to discussion. Going along with ergo - to accommodate him at some cost to clear reasoning - adds nothing IMO. He is big enough to look out for himself without tacit implied acceptance of his nonsense based on a narrow reading of a bit of his claim.

 

[beachnut]

... It is amazes me that Millette, head of his own company lab, a man with a long history researching WTC dust for the U.S. government, a man with his own WTC dust collection, gets so close to possibly debunking a 'contrary' peer-reviewed paper about WTC dust--- and he stops.

MM

Failed to source his history of anything. Is that more hearsay from your paranoid 911 truth sources?

The Jones/Harrit paper was debunked on 911. There was not thermite used. This is not the first pay to publish paper done by the nuts in Jones Thermite Club.

In another paper the nuts make up this statement, debunking their paper right away. They ignore the 220 acres of offices in the debris pile, let alone the cars trapped by the collapse, and go for the woo.

"Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials"
"The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel
and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants."

They claim this is peer reviewed? By who, idiots? Fraud.

Total nonsense. 220 acres of offices are confined to a big pile, the fires will burn, burn hot until they are put out, or run out of fuel. They want to invoke thermite, but the plastic, wood and paper have more heat energy than thermite. In addition thermite would quickly burn out, in minutes. This is a NAZI like Big Lie, Thermite.

Not the first open access paper produced by the pushers of the Big Lie. Jones and company published this paper by paying 300 bucks. Looks like 911 truth can't get their lies published in real journals, they have to remain with vanity journals, where money drives the, how did the journal put it; peer review is "quickly produced". With idiots doing the peer review, no wonder it is quickly produced, and silly claims based on nothing are quickly peer reviewed.

These nuts have to pay to get their "peer review". Two papers with idiotic claims, believed by a few 911 truth followers who refuse to think for themselves.

Millette's paper is only confirmation of the paranoid minds in 911 truth. Proof?

... Well we have certainly observed a failure to publish, in any peer-reviewed publication, a debunking paper that addresses the key points presented in the 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al.
...
MM

weak attack, the results are out, and debunk your fantasy again.

Millette's findings debunk Jones, but in the paranoid minds of 911 truth it confirms their delusional fantasy. Reason and evidence ignored. The science mind of 911 truth followers is about 3 years old. We have the moon size debris pile can't crush the towers, or "got to do a DSC" delusion, and the 911 truth follower has no clue the purpose of DSC.
Harrit and Jones are spreading nonsense on 911, and inside job know it alls are on board attacking reason and science blindly, unarmed.

Millette's dust study will fuel the delusional fantasy, and proof is posted by die hard anti-science 911 truth followers.

For those who don't do chemistry. There was no steel damaged by thermite on 911.

We don't need to waste time debunking your fantasy with science, you debunk yourself. Millette's results are published, as are your failed fantasies on 911.

11 years of failure, and the best effort by 911 truth followers is attacking the person, with a very weak attack. Anyone who knows 911, can debunk the paper by it's title. A big reason why Jones' fantasy conclusion papers never made it to a real journal, or outside of open access. They had to pay, to get the "peer review", as promised, "quickly produced". Money gets your paper "peer review quickly produced". The conspiracy here is how peers were so stupid to let the paper say the lies and false information which fools those who can't read for comprehension. Both papers clearly debunk themselves. But the 911 truth followers don't do science.

30 years ago we would never see the 911 truth woo factory papers, they would not have a means to be published in the millions of copies, in virtual copies. The only reason we see 911 truth is due to google, or the slim chance you see the insane inside job posters at the corner with gullible people ranting about 911.

11 years of failure, a steady course to forever.

911 truth and infowars, a marriage of delusional nonsense and woo.
http://www.infowars.com/energetic-m...l-cause-of-the-911-first-responder-illnesses/

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4#
Another failed paper made up to fool 911 truth followers. Why are you gullible?

 

[GlennB]

What crosses my mind, other than academic titles, none of the chemists acknowledged familiarity with the peer-reviewed 2009 Bentham Paper by Dr. Harrit et al.

Would this be the same journal that published (because it had been paid to do so) the following ? -

"In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9]."

If so, please stop quoting "peer-review" at Bentham as if it actually supports the plausibility of the work in question.

If you're still here, who were the "peer-reviewers" of the Harrit paper?

 

[Oystein]

If you're still here, who were the "peer-reviewers" of the Harrit paper?

One (perhaps the only one) was David L. Griscom, a fellow truther who had already published in Jones's own "Journal of 9/11 Studies". I have zero doubt that Jones himself (or Harrit, or Ryan) suggested or picked Griscom, and that the actual editors of the journal had no say in it.

 

[GlennB]

One (perhaps the only one) was David L. Griscom, a fellow truther who had already published in Jones's own "Journal of 9/11 Studies". I have zero doubt that Jones himself (or Harrit, or Ryan) suggested or picked Griscom, and that the actual editors of the journal had no say in it.

Thanks for that. If true, this would be the same Griscom who wrote:

"So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts)."

?

i.e. the passengers were part of the conspiracy are all still (or were for a time) alive somewhere?

i.e. batcrap crazy?

Note my bolding