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

[LSSBB]

I always was under the impression that if Harrit and Jones investigated other major fires besides the WTC, they would declare that ALL fires are caused by thermite.

Wouldn't be too hard for them to check some other fires. They could even contract with a dedicated company such as UL to stage a fire with similar materials and test it (although there might be some trouble with UL, based on prior history). Wonder why they don't? Then again, I wonder why the folks who will nitpick NIST, et al., literally down to the inch, readily accept the Harrit and Jones material at face value. In fact, they defend it tooth and nail to the point of reading into it tests that they don't even explicitly state they did, such as a complete set of resistance measurements.

 

[JSanderO]

Oystein raises in an interesting concept when someone or group step into the ring and advance some sort of technical research without have the requisite credentials.

Doesn't this imply that all this must be done by experts and handed down to non experts who apparently are not qualified to be in the ring but only watch the show from the outside.

I certainly think it's pretty odd when people without a history and background, training and so forth publish technical papers about some *thing*. There is usually attempt to assemble impressive resumes even when those resumes don't apply.

On the other hand... how can intelligent educated people participate in the discussion if the bar is set so high? The collapse dynamics are a physics problem. But how many physicists have backgrounds in forensic engineering? How many forensic engineers have background in physics?

I do find it very odd when someone like Graeme MacQueen whose background is in theology studies is a co author of a technical paper on *Missing Jolt* which seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the expertise that a person whose academic career was limited to theological studies. What could his contribution be? Doesn't his inclusion as a co author reflect on the credibility of the work or the likelihood that it will be taken seriously?

Just sayin'

 

[chrismohr]

JSanderO,

There are ways for nonexperts to discern what is going on in science. It has to happen because the results of scientific inquiry have such a huge impact on public policy. Just like lawyers have to explain their cases to a nonexpert jury, so too do scientists have to interface with nonexperts who then must decide what to do with their work. This is where my professional training and experience as a journalist have come in handy, and in a healthy society, journalists do in fact convey scientific information to the public. It's why I also worry about how our government interfaces with science. The global warming deniers, the creationists, and the former deniers of the carcinogenic effects of cigarettes have all warped public policy in our courts and legislatures.

So let's look at the political question raised by 9/11 Truth: should we have another investigation of what happened on 9/11? This call for action has gained no traction, in part because journalists as a group have not accepted the evidence presented to them for controlled demolition from the 9/11 Truth faction (and believe me, they DO get exposed to it). More importantly, when congresspeople are on the receiving end of a letter-writing campaign from 9/11 Truth, their aides look into it, inquiries go to NIST and other scientific sources, and it ends there.

 

[Oystein]

Sander,

non-experts can participate in the debate. Non-expert can even do scientific experiments, interprete them, and have their results published. I am no targuing against the participation of non-experts.


The specific argument (or kind of argument) I had in mind when I wrote my previous post was this:

• Harrit, Jones and their defenders claim that such and such microspheres are proof of temperatures that cannot be reached by hydrocarbon fires such as office building fires or burning paint chips.
• RJ Lee writes that microspheres characterized by high content of iron or aluminium and silicon are expected to form in a fire event like the WTC catastrophe.

Both groups don't cite expert sources to back up their claim.
But RJ Lee is himself an expert on just that sort of thing, Harrit et al are not.

It is easy to verify that such microspheres are common in various types of ashes - open the McCrone Particle Atlas for example, it shows number of examples. So even if we can't, for the moment, explain each and every microsphere that Harrit et al. present, we know from experts, that empirically, they are not unexpected.

This is a valid Argument from Authority: It is never absolutely right, but heuristically good, to trust the judgement of someone who is an actual authority, or expert: That would be someone with relevant expertise and sufficient information about the case at hand.
Since Harrit et al. don't present evidence that only thermite can explain certain microspheres, they basically make an Argument from Authority, saying "we are natural scientists, so we know". But they have no actual expertise in the relevant fields of science, which would be forsensics. Hence their Argument from Authority is invalid: They are not, in fact authorties.


Another example:

• Harrit et al. imply that a DCS test to measure the enthalpy of a redox reaction occurring in an as yet uncharacterized, "unknown" composite material is a competent method to figure out its constituents
• Millette doesn't even have a DSC in his lab, and uses other methods to directly identify constituents
• Harrit et al. accuse Millette of employing the wrong methods / of not doing the right test (DSC)

Again, neither side cites expert sources to justify their choice of methods, but again Millette is the expert, and Harrit is not.

So who should I trust to use the better method? Absent any better arguments, I am going with the expert.



(Now we DO have arguments for why DSC is not essential, and we do have arguments why their DSC data actually disproves their claims, just as we DO have arguments for why microsphere formation does not require extraordinary temperatures - but that was not what my post was about. It was about the FALSE Argument from Authority that Harrit et al., or their fans, imply)

 

[twinstead]

So who should I trust to use the better method? Absent any better arguments, I am going with the expert.

This is a critical point when it comes to non experts. For this layman, for example, I need to have a reason to trust a non expert over an expert, even more so if it's a consensus among experts. So far, I also have been given NO reason to suspect that the experts are wrong concerning 9-11, especially the final conclusion that fire and damage only was responsible for the collapses that day.

IMO it's the ONLY rational way a true skeptic can approach the issue

 

[JSanderO]

What I found troubling about Harrit, for example, is his wandering afield from his own expertise in opining about fields he is not an expert in... engineering, physics and so forth such as declaring X is impossible because of *physics*. And also find that some of the co authors of the papers of 9/11 truth science have no scientific background at all such as MacQueen. I wonder what is the reason for adding these names to these papers? Do more names add credibility? I think not

 

[ozeco41]

...So let's look at the political question raised by 9/11 Truth: should we have another investigation of what happened on 9/11? This call for action has gained no traction, in part because journalists as a group have not accepted the evidence presented to them for controlled demolition from the 9/11 Truth faction (and believe me, they DO get exposed to it)...

That is the big issue of truth movement strategy which I find puzzling.

The expressed concerns are about Government mis/mal or nonfeasanse - i.e. issues in the domain of social/political misconduct. It is an area where I readily accept that there can be legitimate concerns. My own view, and using the jargon, I do not accept any overall MIHOP plan however given the nature of governance and agency workings there must have been bits of LIHOOI and probably agency level LIHOP. All "behavioural" things.

BUT we see strategies and "truth marketing plans" built on technical claims - CD at WTC, not that plane at Pentagon and shoot down at Shanksville.

All of those technical claims shallowly based and readily rebutted.

So a possible genuine political concern relies on false and easily shown to be false technical premises???

Unrealistic and poor politics at best. If there is a need for political action basing it on blatant falsehood is doomed to failure.

Hence "no traction" in the political arena.

However selling CD to the gullible sector of the lay public is easy. Easier than selling political claims which are comparatively vaguely defined and difficult to argue.

And that is the track of choice - Gage, Jones et al. Their opening presentations all boringly simplistic and similar:

• Look at this collapse - it looks like CD (It doesn't but..)
• Pad with several CD video clips of real CD...(Wow buildings when falling move downwards...)
• Repeat mantra 'It looks like CD...'
• THEN Therefore "inside job"...(ignoring the one or two big quantum leaps required...)
• ..no linking reasoning, no argument, zero evidence

And anyone with minimal understanding of political matters can see that it is a loser strategy if the purpose is to get political traction...

....so how can getting political traction be the aim?

The suggestion that those truth leaders lack intelligence cannot be the only factor. Except on forums such a this where claims of "woo" and "stupidity" are attractive to some sectors of the participants.

More importantly, when congresspeople are on the receiving end of a letter-writing campaign from 9/11 Truth, their aides look into it, inquiries go to NIST and other scientific sources, and it ends there.

Destination the "round file" or WPB in Aussie slang.

 

[JSanderO]

That is the big issue of truth movement strategy which I find puzzling.

The suggestion that those truth leaders lack intelligence cannot be the only factor. Except on forums such a this where claims of "woo" and "stupidity" are attractive to some sectors of the participants.

Destination the "round file" or WPB in Aussie slang.

I think these people are exceptionally naive politically and at the same time do not accept the legitimacy of the very government they seemingly are addressing their demands to. It's a self affirming position to espouse.

If you look at the histories of these leaders... it's hardly one of people with political savy... mostly xtian bible thumpers (OK that's a bit harsh).

Most of the arguments (all?) they raise in their *science* appear to be pretty easy to dispute. And that means that these *science* arguments may fool the naive... but not a trained scientist.

Having said that, I feel that there is a lot of data about the collapses or attributes which were not explained on a level the lay people can understand... things such as why was so much dust produced... or why the elevated heat in spots under the pile?? I am not saying that these are not explained with known science.... I am saying that the explanations of these... what are referred to as *anomalies* appear to be ignored giving rise to the paranoid belief that *they* are hiding something and so forth. Disposing or the collapse mechanisms with the unexplained term *global collapse* is not helping any.

I don't know that a new investigation is the answer to this as much as a comprehensive 9/11 for dummies... no insult intended ...explaining all these so called anomalies, coincidences and so forth. The attitude that it's been explained by NIST is not cutting it, I am afraid and so this will go on for the foreseeable future... YUCK.

 

[beachnut]

...I don't know that a new investigation is the answer to this as much as a comprehensive 9/11 for dummies... no insult intended ...explaining all these so called anomalies, coincidences and so forth. The attitude that it's been explained by NIST is not cutting it, I am afraid and so this will go on for the foreseeable future... YUCK.

NIST does not have to explain to gullible people who join a fake movement the science of fire and all the "anomalies". Check the goals of the NIST study.

Why is 911 truth hung up on NIST; 911 truth failed to read the purpose and goals of the NIST study? You don't understand why they say "global" collapse, your silly "anomaly".

There are no anomalies, only ignorance. People join 911 truth because they fail to think for themselves.

No inside job, no CD, only people who are unable to do science. All 911 topics, anomalies can be solved with a grade school education. In first grade they teach cause and effect; albeit, most the kids are looking outside, day dreaming, etc. but a few are paying attention - we all had a chance to learn the tools to solve 911 - the Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes - why can't 911 truth? 11 years

 

[ozeco41]

I think these people are exceptionally naive politically and at the same time do not accept the legitimacy of the very government they seemingly are addressing their demands to. It's a self affirming position to espouse...

Either extremely naive or deliberately manipulative or some combination. Which is the core issue of the question "Does Gage really believe what he claims". Some think he is genuine - therefore deluded. Some think he is a successful confidence trickster manipulator. I don't care - I'm convinced he is wrong on his premise of CD and his claims to concerns which need a "new investigation" AND his crazy AE911 strategy of basing his claims for new investigation on the false foundation of CD.

If you look at the histories of these leaders... it's hardly one of people with political savy... mostly xtian bible thumpers (OK that's a bit harsh)....

not too harsh by my standards. I did my apprenticeship on forums moderating the Politics SubForum of the Richards Dawkins net. That forum naturally used creationists as "chew toys'.

...Most of the arguments (all?) they raise in their *science* appear to be pretty easy to dispute. And that means that these *science* arguments may fool the naive... but not a trained scientist.

Yes.

...Having said that, I feel that there is a lot of data about the collapses or attributes which were not explained on a level the lay people can understand... things such as why was so much dust produced... or why the elevated heat in spots under the pile?? I am not saying that these are not explained with known science.... I am saying that the explanations of these... what are referred to as *anomalies* appear to be ignored giving rise to the paranoid belief that *they* are hiding something and so forth....

So far I accept what you are saying.

...Disposing or the collapse mechanisms with the unexplained term *global collapse* is not helping any. I don't know that a new investigation is the answer to this as much as a comprehensive 9/11 for dummies... no insult intended ...explaining all these so called anomalies, coincidences and so forth. The attitude that it's been explained by NIST is not cutting it, I am afraid and so this will go on for the foreseeable future... YUCK.

The need you are heading towards is some sort of an official "Glossary of Truther Canards And the Approved Rebuttal". But it would have to be Government Authorised and therein lies the obvious problem.... And even if it was a private venture it would be instantly assigned to the 'disregard heap'.

The underlying issue I suggest is the distinction between the truthers who were genuinely concerned about 9/11 and most of those still left who are deluded beyond recovery OR merely trolls.

The compilation of answers would only appeal to the "genuine truthers" and most of them have learned the truth and withdrawn from discussion satisfied with the answers.

Disposing or the collapse mechanisms with the unexplained term *global collapse* is not helping any...

Sure - in hindsight the NIST analysis could have gone fiurther. But on this one beachnut is partially right.

NIST does not have to explain to gullible people who join a fake movement the science of fire and all the "anomalies". Check the goals of the NIST study.

(sure, beachy drifts away from what you are saying, chooses to miss your point then blames you for what you are not saying....but...)

Try this:
I agree with benefit of 20/20 hindsight that NIST made a few misjudgements. (Catch your breath folks and wait till I finish before jumping on me. )
Taking only two examples viz:
1) Stopping the Twin Towers analysis at "from there global collapse was inevitable"; AND
2) Responding to chandler's leading question about WTC 7 free fall.

I suggest NIST was right on "1)" but wrong responding to "2)"

Because there is a germ of validity behind what beachnut says.

NIST does not have to explain to gullible people who join a fake movement the science of fire and all the "anomalies". Check the goals of the NIST study.

Strip the emotion and false targeting of you as the cause. The base issue is "What Were NIST's Objectives?" and the relevant - in this setting the more important question which follows "Who was their target Audience?"

No way could NIST reach and influence the audience of terminally deluded CT's who will rant for ever on any CT with 9/11 CT as one aspect.

Water that extreme down to milder deluded versions of 9/11 Truthers the situation still the same. NIST was not the agency and it's reports not the means of reaching those more deluded 9/11 truthers.

And I doubt that NIST could have played more of a part in satisfying "genuine truthers". In fact the medium of 'Discussion Forums' has gone a long way in satisfying genuine truthers. I've personally seen many of them over the years. They used to come to a forum (in my case not this forum - two others) ask questions, receive answers, often express satisfaction with the answers and leave the scene. Genuine truthers I call them.

Not the permanently deluded folk we see hanging round here. Not the trolls who play their games here.

And no official mechanism will ever reach and convert those latter two groups. They are near certain beyond recovery.


And I suspect that we are slightly of topic so I will mention "Dust"

 

[Redwood]

So let's look at the political question raised by 9/11 Truth: should we have another investigation of what happened on 9/11? This call for action has gained no traction, in part because journalists as a group have not accepted the evidence presented to them for controlled demolition from the 9/11 Truth faction (and believe me, they DO get exposed to it). More importantly, when congresspeople are on the receiving end of a letter-writing campaign from 9/11 Truth, their aides look into it, inquiries go to NIST and other scientific sources, and it ends there.

IANAL but it seems to me that any tenant in the WTC buildings, any insurance company who paid on a policy relating to a WTC building, or any family member of a person killed on 9-11 would have legal standing in a lawsuit against the Vast Conspiracy, aka Larry Silverstein and numerous John Does. Didn't Larry Silverstein confess boast about planting explosive charges in the towers?

Get to work, truthers! All you need do is persuade ONE single party to file a lawsuit against Larry Silverstein, and you will have subpoena power! Wouldn't you love to see him on the witness stand declining to any answer any questions on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate him? He may even default! What's stopping you? Get out there, start interviewing firefighters, clean-up crew members, etc., and take your case to the courts! If no corporation or insurance company wants to take up a lawsuit, take your case to the stockholders! All you need do is purchase stock in the company. Perhaps Jimmy Walter may wish to put what's left of his inheritance into the effort. (Investing in the stock of one of the tenants has got to give a better return than he got paying for truther conferences.)

 

[Senenmut]

[*]RJ Lee writes that microspheres characterized by high content of iron or aluminium and silicon are expected to form in a fire event like the WTC catastrophe.

are silicon rich microspheres expected to come from kaolin? did henryco find any silicon rich micropheres in his red chips he heated up to 900C?

 

[beachnut]

are silicon rich microspheres expected to come from kaolin? did henryco find any silicon rich micropheres in his red chips he heated up to 900C?

11 years and no joy. Why can't silicon rich micro-spheres come from WTC collapse and fires? Oops, they did. Case closed; what is your next fantasy? Thermite failed, and you proved it by googling the wrong method for the silicon to keep the Al from rusting for hundreds of hours.

What happens after 100 hours? What is the self life for your fantasy thermite?

 

[Senenmut]

11 years and no joy. Why can't silicon rich micro-spheres come from WTC collapse and fires? Oops, they did. Case closed; what is your next fantasy? Thermite failed, and you proved it by googling the wrong method for the silicon to keep the Al from rusting for hundreds of hours.

What happens after 100 hours? What is the self life for your fantasy thermite?

who's chips created the silicon rich microspheres.....

1.jones' 2.millette's or 3. henryco's

 

[beachnut]

who's chips created the silicon rich microspheres.....

1.jones' 2.millette's or 3. henryco's

Why can't office fires make iron and silicon rich micro-spheres? Your thermite fantasy is debunked due to no damage to WTC steel. Looks like you are wasting time with the lie of thermite.

Office fires did it - Jones and Harrit lied.

Millette found no thermite. You are debunked. Good luck.

are silicon rich microspheres expected to come from kaolin? did henryco find any silicon rich micropheres in his red chips he heated up to 900C?

Fig 11 (a), in Harrit's paper is kaolin. Busted. You are gullible. Do you read your own fantasy?

 

[LashL]

I split a bunch of off-topic posts to a separate thread about the cascade failure initiation at 1WTC and 2WTC; that thread is located here.

Posted By: LashL

 

[ozeco41]

I split a bunch of off-topic posts to a separate thread about the cascade failure initiation at 1WTC and 2WTC; that thread is located here.

Posted By: LashL

Thanks for that split LashL

 

[Senenmut]

Iron-rich spheres used to be important, now it's silicon-rich spheres? Is the silicon really important?

its all important.

silicon microspheres are created at 750 degrees F, no big deal. This needs to be run by Sunstealer or someone in the know; this may well not relate to the silicon-rich spheres in this argument.

how can kaolin (from millettes study) produce silicon rich micospheres?
we are speaking of the silicon rich spheres in the chips jones has post reaction.

I freely admit I am just google surfing so I know I could be totally misusing these papers in this discussion. But I literally don't understand the argument here when so many sources of silicon microspheres have nothing to do with 2500 degree-plus temperatures (or providing some kind of shell for nano-particles of thermite???). Remember, the argument seems to be that silicon microspheres somehow offer strong evidence in favor of nanothermite?

thermite in jones chips yes. millette said he found kaolin. how can silicon rich micropheres come from kaolin? henryco heated his red chips to 900C. did he find any silicon rich microspheres?

Seems like just more debris left over from a fire to me and not evidence of anything more. Could this be melted glass debris? Has any serious attempt been made by Harrit et al to eliminate all other possible explanations of this silicon? Seriously? Has Harrit even talked about this much, or is this something being tossed around here that doesn't even play a serious part in Harrit's theory? I certainly don't see it being discussed much in the 2009 paper...

we are speaking about the silicon rich microspheres arising from the red gray chips that jones has.

 

[DGM]

its all important.


how can kaolin (from millettes study) produce silicon rich micospheres?
we are speaking of the silicon rich spheres in the chips jones has post reaction.


thermite in jones chips yes. millette said he found kaolin. how can silicon rich micropheres come from kaolin? henryco heated his red chips to 900C. did he find any silicon rich microspheres?


we are speaking about the silicon rich microspheres arising from the red gray chips that jones has.

Chemistry was never your strong suit. Harrit et al banks on this. Keep the faith.

BTW: Millette never said the chips were only Kaolin. One word, compounds.

 

[Senenmut]

Chemistry was never your strong suit. Harrit et al banks on this. Keep the faith.

BTW: Millette never said the chips were only Kaolin. One word, compounds.

really!! lol...