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

[beachnut]

Outside the study.

He was not judging his own work.

MM

Griscom's work on 911 is dumber than Jones; that is hard to do.

David Griscom? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2563145
A 911 conspiracy theorists with crazy claims about 911. Too bad he can't do chemistry to see Jones fraud. Griscom also has silly papers posted at Jones Journal of 911 woo. Looks like crazy 911 truth nuts are Jones peers.


Millette's results debunk Jones. No one in the cult of 911 truth will change their mind, published or unpublished. Jones had to pay to publish, what a joke. When will you or Jones show damage to WTC steel due to thermite? lol, Never.

 

[jtl]

BenjaminTR:

The point is, there are countless legitimate reasons that can explain why he still has not published. Your claim that unpublished (or slowly published) research implies fraud is false.

Unpublished research does not imply fraud, but presenting a paper as conclusive when you know it is not fit for review or publishing is flirting with fraud.

And after joining this forum and becoming familiar with his paper and his sloppy methods, I cannot help but to suspect that a journal refused the paper, or that Millette is not submitting it because he is afraid of more fraud charges.

Whatever the reason, this is a sad end for the JREF sponsored non-paper

 

[beachnut]

... Whatever the reason, this is a sad end for the JREF sponsored non-paper

A bunch of 911 truth nuts had to pay to publish a paper with the big lie of thermite.

Millette's paper will not be accepted by the failed anti-intellectual 911 truth movement; they can't comprehend the fraud of Jones, they can't grasp Millette's finding because 911 truth followers have a delusion facts and evidence can't break. Like Bigfoot, 911 truth followers thermite fantasy is not rational; people who can't see energy levels of dust that don't match thermite in Jones paper, and DSCs don't match; will not be able to overcome fantasy.

How come the energy doesn't match in the Jones paper? They have to gish gallop on that one.

What was wrong with Millette's paper? Oh, he did not find the fantasy thermite. Not a surprise when we realize no steel had evidence thermite was used. Big failure for those who buy into Jones' big lie.

Who thinks 911 truth followers will drop their fantasy of thermite (a plot they can't explain, save Jones and his adopting ceiling tiles of hoffman) if Millette's paper is published?

 

[Spanx]

BenjaminTR:

Unpublished research does not imply fraud, but presenting a paper as conclusive when you know it is not fit for review or publishing is flirting with fraud.

And after joining this forum and becoming familiar with his paper and his sloppy methods, I cannot help but to suspect that a journal refused the paper, or that Millette is not submitting it because he is afraid of more fraud charges.

Whatever the reason, this is a sad end for the JREF sponsored non-paper

More sweet nothings from jtl, the current leader of the truth movement

 

[Oystein]

Oystein:

THE referee? Just because one referee has identified himself does not mean he was the only referee.



Griscom is an expert that started his career identifying dust for NASA some 40 years ago, and has published at least 100 papers. I understand that you guys must feel angry about Millette having taken you for a ride, but attacking Griscom´s credibility only makes you guys look pathetic.

[SNIP] In all, this has been a very sad end for Millette´s preliminary report.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

He has admitted in personal correspondence with me that he has never done any DSC experiments, never done any XEDS experiments, and has no background at all in forensics. Analysing moon dust for certain properties (can you explain to us what those would be?) is not at all the same sort of task as identifying particle specimens from a building desaster.
Griscom furthermore admitted that he thought at the time that all the red-gray chips would hail from the same material, whereas he now understands that there may very well be paint among them.

So Griscom quite clearly was not qualified to referee that paper. He DID make a number of valuable recommendations (I read his 12-page peer-review!), but some were dropped by Harrit et al, and there were many he didn't make because he does not understand what the test results actually imply.

All of this notwithstanding, I agree that in his own very different field of expertise he is eminently accomplished.

 

[Oystein]

Outside the study.

He was not judging his own work.

MM

He is acknowledged by Harrit et al inside the paper as an important contributor - on his own request!

 

[Ivan Kminek]

J.M. Talboo posted a new article on Debunking the Debunkers, titled New Evidence from AE911Truth Chemical Engineer Mark Basile.
One quote: "Millette has done research for the government, so his involvement in studying these chips should break the taboo and bring attention to this area of research: I am co-authoring a paper that will cover this debate in detail."

Since I really do not care about Talboo's paranoia, interesting in the article for me are two links to Mark Basile's videos, which show the heating of two paint chips, blue one and red one.
The heating element is probably the same like in the "old good" video showing WTC chip ignition.

Exact experimental conditions are not described again, as well as heated paints. It seems to be clear, however, that these paints are not attached to the rust flakes.
Anyway, none of these new chips ignited with visible flame. We can only see that the blue chip perhaps exhibits similar "inflation" as Basile's WTC chip. Red chip is not apparently inflated, but it is slightly "dancing" on the substrate. Fumes/smoke of expected polymer degradation are not visible here, in contrast to the former WTC chip "Lucky Thirteen".

Sometime in the autumn 2011 (?) I wrote that I do not expect that all paint chips would be ignited at these conditions.
And I still think that self-ignition (with the formation of visible flame) of gradually heated paint chips can be basically an accidental (and perhaps even rare) event.
Indeed, the polymeric binder in all paint chips is inevitably burned anyway, with distinct exothermic effects, but it can proceed without visible flame.

Mark Basile simply proved by these two experiments that not all paint chips are really ignited when heated on his element. Better than nothing, I would say, since scientific literature "sadly" does not contain any papers on exact ignition behavior of various paint chips when heated.
It reminds me that I've heard the rumours that Dave Thomas plans to collect some paint samples on rust and to heat them up to 700 degrees, looking for their behavior, and namely for the microspheres after heating.
If this is true, I wish you a good luck, Dave!

 

[Ivan Kminek]

...And one more remark as regards Basile's videos:

In all cases, the visible changes of heated chips (some darkening, slight or more distinct shape changes or even some "inflation") took place between time ca 4 to 6 seconds from the beginning of the filming.
I am not sure now that the start of heating coincided with the start of filming, but if yes, all videos can basically show the same: at about fourth second and later, heating strip had temperature high enough that massive and rapid degradation of polymer binder proceeded.

 

[chrismohr]

J.M. Talboo posted a new article on Debunking the Debunkers, titled New Evidence from AE911Truth Chemical Engineer Mark Basile.
One quote: "Millette has done research for the government, so his involvement in studying these chips should break the taboo and bring attention to this area of research: I am co-authoring a paper that will cover this debate in detail."

Since I really do not care about Talboo's paranoia, interesting in the article for me are two links to Mark Basile's videos, which show the heating of two paint chips, blue one and red one...

It reminds me that I've heard the rumours that Dave Thomas plans to collect some paint samples on rust and to heat them up to 700 degrees, looking for their behavior, and namely for the microspheres after heating.
If this is true, I wish you a good luck, Dave!

Hi Ivan, maybe I'm misreading it, but Talboo's comment that a government-connected scientist (Millette) is studying the chips and "breaking the taboo" seems like a postive statement... My reading is that Talboo asserts that Millette has broken what 9/11 Truth activists have believed is a conspiracy of silence, and this is a good thing that will make it acceptable for other mainstream scientists to study this. I didn't read paranoia into Talboo's words. And yes, it is VERY interesting that Basile's chips have inconsistent reactions to being heated, since every inconsistency is repeatedly used against Millette (soft vs hard chips, wrong resistivity, etc).

We'll see what Dave Thomas is up to. I asked him if he might do this experiment, but I don't like going public with people's ruminations, because if Dave gets busy or has more interesting things to do, the 9/11 Truth side immediately attacks him for welching on his promises, being too afraid to publish the truth, etc etc etc. See above ludicrous posts re Millette and all the "obligations" people think he has to them. It's true I have been asking Dave and others to cook up some known paint/rust chips to look for newly-formed iron-rich spheres in the residue but we'll have to see if anyone actually invests lab time in doing this.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi, Chris, it was me who misread/misunderstood Talboo's comment, sorry.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Outside the study.

He was not judging his own work.

MM

He is acknowledged by Harrit et al inside the paper as an important contributor - on his own request!

Very small point, but for what it's worth, if Griscom was acknowledged in his capacity as a referee, that is common -- although usually the referees are anonymous!

I think whether Griscom was an "insider" or "outsider" is not really the point. A "peer review" process that taps Griscom to evaluate the Harrit et al. paper is fatally flawed, for reasons you have enumerated.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I think that some enthusiast here should make two series of screenshots from Basile's videos of heating of these red and blue paint chips and post it here There are anyway quite rare and even very valuable, perhaps nobody before Mark Basile filmed microscopic paint chips grilled on some heating element. There was perhaps no reason to do it.
But seriously, these Mark Basile's videos are interesting, since they are a kind of experimental evidence in sense: not all paint chips are ignited with flame when rapidly heated on this element

 

[jtl]

Oystein:

So Griscom quite clearly was not qualified to referee that paper. He DID make a number of valuable recommendations (I read his 12-page peer-review!)

MarkL:

A "peer review" process that taps Griscom to evaluate the Harrit et al. paper is fatally flawed, for reasons you have enumerated.

You know what fellas? You are not helping yourselves at all. Griscom identified himself more than 2 years ago as a reviewer of the paper, but some members of this forum still claim there was no review. This is pathetic. Others, like you two, have moved the goalpost and attack the reviewer, which is also pathetic.

This is particularly pathetic in light of Griscom´s expertise, having been chosen to be one of the first people to identify dust particles from the Moon, for NASA. There could hardly be a more qualified person to identify a new kind of material in the WTC dust. Millette has no experience in this field.

Whats more, identifying the reactions within a chemical is chemical physics, another field Millette knows nothing about. But Griscom is an expert;

Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty."

This guy also had more than 40 years of experience, not only in the lab, but also had reviewed as many as 1000 papers. He was chosen to review Harrit´s chemical physics paper for a chemical physics journal for obvious reasons. But you guys keep digging your own grave if you wish to continue your typical JREF hogwash. The sad thing is that you guys think it is ok to spread garbage rumors about Griscom, but you blow up if anyone wants to talk about Millette´s fraud charges for his previous WTC dust studies.

The most pathetic thing of all is that while some guys here play ignorant about Griscom´s review, other guys here attack his credibility while they play ignorant about the other reviewer!
Jones:

I do not know how the editors selected the reviewers, and I do not know the name of the other reviewer. (There were two reviewers for this paper as I recall.)

Keep it up guys, if you still think this makes you look cool!

 

[jtl]

Anyway, none of these new chips ignited with visible flame.

Finally someone does experiments that you guys should have done a few years ago! Those paints do not ignite, just like Tnemec WTC paint does not ignite, so it is still a bit of a mystery why some other WTC paint should ignite, or make MOLTEN spheres, let alone molten reduced iron.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach.

What are those red chips that do not even soften after 50 plus hours in paint solvent, and ignite and leave molten/reduced iron spheres?

 

[Miragememories]

"I think that some enthusiast here should make two series of screenshots from Basile's videos of heating of these red and blue paint chips and post it here. They are anyway quite rare and even very valuable, perhaps nobody before Mark Basile filmed microscopic paint chips grilled on some heating element. There was perhaps no reason to do it.
But seriously, these Mark Basile's videos are interesting, since they are a kind of experimental evidence in sense: not all paint chips are ignited with flame when rapidly heated on this element."

Do you know of any structural steel primer paints that are in agreement with a short duration flash of high temperature flame after exposure to a temperature of 430C?

Do you know of any structural steel primer paints that after burning, leave behind a residue containing iron rich microspheres -- where none previously existed?

Are these not reasonable questions for a true scientist to ask?

MM

 

[Spanx]

Well I can't wait to see Mark Basile's paint heating experiment peer reviewed.

When will it be jtl, this year, next year ? surely you must have a date in mind ?

MM, did Basile do a resistancy test ?

It's so exciting, further proof of NO thermite

 

[DGM]

Keep it up guys, if you still think this makes you look cool!

Would you mind waking us when the world actually acknowledges this paper? I know we are the world blocker for all that matters but, when you get past us, would you let us know?

BTW: What makes us so powerful you feel the need to spend all your time fighting us? Wouldn't presenting the paper at conferences be a better plan?

I know you're afraid to answer, maybe you could ask Jones or Harrit.

 

[jtl]

Spanx:

Well I can't wait to see Mark Basile's paint heating experiment peer reviewed.

When will it be jtl, this year, next year ? surely you must have a date in mind ?

Oh so having the paper reviewed and published is important, but only when it from someone supporting Harrit? FYI, I am excited to see Basile´s paper published. That article Ivan K points out, that has those new paint videos, also tells us that Basile is raising money to fund independent tests to confirm his replication of Harrit´s ignition tests. If he does publish that, nanothermite in the dust will be officially relicated and confirmed, but if Basile would suddenly refuse to publish, like Millette, I would assume failed paper, per Millette.

DGM:

BTW: What makes us so powerful you feel the need to spend all your time fighting us? Wouldn't presenting the paper at conferences be a better plan?

What made Harrit´s paper so powerful that you guys not only spend years arguing about it on these threads, but also have a fundraiser to try to refute it, giving your own money?

FYI, the only "power" you guys have is the fact that you HIRED Millette, which gives you power over Millette, the power to ask him to publish the paper if it is up to it. It has become pretty clear that this won´t happen, so I will have to wait for Basile´s paper.

 

[Spanx]

Spanx:

Oh so having the paper reviewed and published is important, but only when it from someone supporting Harrit? FYI, I am excited to see Basile´s paper published. That article Ivan K points out, that has those new paint videos, also tells us that Basile is raising money to fund independent tests to confirm his replication of Harrit´s ignition tests. If he does publish that, nanothermite in the dust will be officially relicated and confirmed, but if Basile would suddenly refuse to publish, like Millette, I would assume failed paper, per Millette.

Lol, why does basile need to do further tests if the Bentham paper is so good

With all the millions of truthers out there why is Basile finding it hard to raise $5000.

Just for the record, who and why is anyone asking for a replication of Harrit's ignition tests ?

 

[beachnut]

Millette's study refutes Jones, 911 truth has a hissy fit?

... What made Harrit´s paper so powerful that you guys not only spend years arguing about it on these threads, but also have a fundraiser to try to refute it, giving your own money?
...

Millette's paper refutes Harrit's paper.
USGS refutes the idiotic thermite claim.
RJ Lee, a report done for money refutes Harrit's delusional fantasy of 100s to tons of thermite.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111JonesDelusion.jpg
The funny part, the DSC don't match thermite. 911 truth followers don't have a clue what DSC is used for; no clue Jones and Harrit are spreading their insane fantasy with a fake paper published in a vanity journal; real journals would not publish the fake paper.

911 truth is stuck with delusional nuts, old guys who have flipped their lids, spreading lies about 911, fooling people who refuse to think for themselves.

Millette's paper debunks Jones and Harrit, 911 truth fails again.