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

[WTC Dust]

post # 317 and read post 319 too:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4819772&highlight=mail#post4819772

"Thanks but i noticed no new very meaningful info for me...

I have analyzed the false red only chips at the electronic microscope: these contain Aluminum, Iron, oxygen and carbon in quite the same proportions as the true red/gray chips and these are very numerous in my samples while the red/gray one shoud be numerous according the article ! mine never produce molten iron when heated even up to 900°C! they are not two sided and the aspect is very different (not homogeous) from the one of the red part in the articles photos.

So my conviction is that my samples were falsified: the material of interest was removed and a kind of paint that can mimic efficiently the red/gray chips was put in place (many such chips) but the real ones were not removed with 100% efficiency since i was able to find at least a single one a few monthes ago.

I believe the control, manipulation and substitution must take place at the level of our post offices here in France. I noticed very suspect and systematic abnormal delays at my own post office.

So if you have new samples to send to me, you should pass them to someone that will give them to me directly ... (no email please ! )

I dont know if the falsification is from the criminals friends or some of the truthers who dont want me to be associated with this research..."

Fred H-C

This is news to me. He did not say this when I talked to him face to face, though.

 

[beachnut]

Why is 911 truth called the house of shadows? Do you all lie, or only Jones?

... Yet, the production of the spheres would prove a reaction bringing an entire world view - and agenda riding upon it -

I burned some iron wool, I got spheres, they were rich in iron. Debunks the thermite claims.

... to sudden complete Free Fall.

Millette's study stands. The Jones study failed when Jones made it up. Their DSC don't match thermite. Means Jones lied about finding thermite, Millette did not. Jones is teasing the gullible, and those who can't do chemistry.

... The entire edifice of 911 is structured around Dr Millette NOT finding exothermic reaction and molten ejection in the samples.

What are you talking about? Iron spheres come from burning diesel fuel too, and are found in ash - in big fires. Darn, thermite debunked by fire.

... About NOT researching the source energy producing 6% by mass Fe rich spheroids in ppm DUST of WTC.

Not true, the dust from the WTC was not 6 percent by mass. Why would you spread lies? Because you can't debunk Millette's paper. A paper you never read. Why can't you pick something Millette did wrong from his paper? You never read it.

... His 'back burner' is not under the samples for a reason.

He has job.

... The suspicion he has not found them because be does not wish to gains credibility with passing of the days,

What are you talking about. He found not thermite, which is verified on 911 when no steel had damage from thermite. Zero evidence for thermite remains reality - Jones remains fantasy. The reason there is no Pulitzer for you ideas on 911. Your ideas are fantasy. If you have some evidence besides the talk, now is the time to step up. Where is your evidence.

... and certainly fits the creatioNIST model of not finding what you are not looking for.

There was no damage to the steel from thermite. NIST found no damage to the steel from thermite. Because your fantasy is found false, you make up the silly "creatioNIST"; how cute, this is all you have, silly names, when you need chemistry. Jones endorses the ceiling tiles with thermite claim; pretty stupid when you do the thermal study. A big crackpot fantasy, thermite dreamed up by Jones who faked a paper. Why does Jones lie? Millette found no thermite? Now what will happen in your house of shadows where no knowledge is allowed? Faith in Jones, debunked by science.

This is news to me. He did not say this when I talked to him face to face, though.

Fredrick Henry-Couannier? He posts here. And he has fantasies on 911 at a levels beyond silly.

I showed that all characteristics of this destruction are those of a very promising fundamental domain of physics which was mediatically discredited in the 90s, that of the very badly named " cold fusion", discredited so that the researches could be pursued in secret in the US military laboratories ending in what we saw on 11/9. Fredrick Henry-Couannier http://www.darksideofgravity.com/nexus_gb.pdf

Cold fusion did it. Worse than thermite? more like equally silly

Millette found no thermite. Some of 911 truth support that, but they have foaming steel, or fusion bombs (aka silent, and cold, and ... wow).

 

[Ivan Kminek]

WTCDust: As for solubility of epoxy resins.... hehe, congratulation! Your ignorance has reached level unusual even for truthers
As Oystein tried to explain to you, I'm a polymer chemist and I think that even MM, Senenmut, Remo and Jtl acknowledged that I should be right when claiming that properly cured epoxy resins cannot be dissolved and can only swell/be softened in any solvent Therefore, indeed, if some WTC red/gray chips only swell/are softened in e.g. MEK, this is a clear sign that polymer binder in these chips is some crosslinked polymer, e.g. epoxy resin.

I tried to explain to laymen why it is so in the past. Here is a repost of my explanation (post 399):

Let me try to describe the dissolution of polymers using some illustrative analogy:

Imagine a dense coil of many mutually entagled snakes lying on the bottom of some well – like in Indiana Jones movies Snakes here represent the entangled molecular chains of linear polymers or so called thermoplastics (like polystyrene, PVC or polyvinylacetate etc).

Now add some water as a “solvent” to the well. Since snakes do not like water, they try to escape. They are furiously moving and twisting, but escape from the coil is not so easy. Anyway, after some time, the coil of snakes becomes to be less tight and it is bigger with some water in it – this roughly corresponds to the formation of polymer gel. Eventually, each snake (polymer chain) succeeds to escape and we have a “mixture” of individual snakes freely swimming in the water pool – analogy of polymer solution.

Now imagine the same coil of snakes, but here each snake is somehow firmly bound to some neighbor, let say with one “crosslink”. This corresponds to the crosslinked polymers or thermosets (like epoxy or alkyd resin). When adding water, snakes again try to escape, the coil starts to be less dense (swollen with water), but there is no way for snakes to definitely escape the swollen coil , since they are mutually bound together. The most they can do is just to form network of snake bodies elongated to the maximum (filled with water as solvent).

When each snake is bound with other snakes with more than one “crosslink”, the initial “snake network” is denser. Therefore, the final "swollen snake network" is also denser and it occupies lower volume.

In some senses, this analogy is not really good, e.g. since here our snakes do not like water, whereas polymer chains/networks in contact with their good solvent in fact “like” this solvent, they "like" to be in contact with solvent molecules, since they are chemically similar (according to the well-known chemical rule “similia similibus solvuntur”).
But this is not so important. This was simply my attempt to explain why polymer binders in both Laclede and Tnemec cannot be dissolved in anything and why they can only swell (as was proven both by Harrit and Millette at least for some red chips).

 

[Ivan Kminek]

WTCDust: Findings of Henryco were discussed years ago here. I basically think that he did not find any new shiny (iron rich) microspheres in his chips after heating up to 900 degrees C, since they were "mostly red", without gray layers, or with only some little remains of gray layers. And, we expect that shiny iron-rich microspheres are formed just from the gray layers (at least mostly). I can't be sure in this respect, but it simply makes sense

 

[Gamolon]

why do you think?

What aren't you getting? According to the paper, Harrit supposedly proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that any sample taken from the dust with the following characteristics...

1. Containing red/gray layers
2. Attracted to a magnet

...is/was some form of thermite. There is no need to do a resistivity test. Harrit and his group did that test on a couple of chips and applied that result to every single chip with the above two characteristics. They didn't separate chips into a group per the characteristics above and the FURTHER separate them into low and high resistivity piles.

Read the damn paper!

From the very beginning they were under the assumption that every single red/gray, magnetically attracted chip was thermite They did different tests/experiments on a couple of chips and then plastered the results of those couple of chips onto ALL the red/gray, magnetically attracted and assumed that ALL of them were thermite.

and that may be true for his sample. have you ever thought of that?

THERE ARE NO OTHER SAMPLES!!!! There is no "Millette's sample" or "Harrit's sample". That's what Harrit's paper proved. As long as someone took a dust sample and extracted red/gray, magnetically attracted chips, those chips are, according to Harrit's paper, thermite.

You're missing something big here. It's worth explaining yet again. They got the chips of interest by applying the two characteristics above and nothing else. Here is an excerpt from Harrit's paper.

The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7
mg. All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a
red layer and were attracted by a magnet. The inset image in
Fig. (2d) shows the chip in cross section, which reveals the
gray layer.

Here's what they did.

They extracted their chips from the dust sample using a magnet. They then made sure they had a red/gray layer. Let's say they got 300 chips using the above characteristics. They then took a few of those chips and did the various tests listed in the paper on them.

They then took those results of the few chips they tested and ASSUMED that
the rest of the 300 chips would give them the same results because they ASSUMED that all the chips with the two characteristics above were ALL thermite.

the conclusion that the material is thermitic? yeah....

No. Do you agree that every single red/gray, magnetically attracted chip, no matter WHERE they are pulled from, is thermite. As I have stated numerous times AND have quoted the paper, the only separation characteristics they employed to get there test chips were the two listed above. Every other experiment/test listed in the paper was NOT done to further separate those chips. They were done to prove that ALL the chips with the above two characteristics were thermite.

tdo you think millette's chips can produce iron and silicon rich microsphere's? if you do, how so?

According to Harrit's paper, they should because Millette used the same red/gray, magnetically attracted criteria to get the same test chips as Harrit and his group did.

if jones did give a sample to millette, do you think millette would do different tests on the chips than jones and crew did?

It shouldn't matter as I explained above. One more time. If ANYONE extracts chips with red/gray layers and that are magentically attracted, according to Harrit's paper and it's conclusion, anyone performing any of the tests in said paper should get the same results as Harrit's group did.

if millette gave his chips to serious researchers, do you think they would do different tests than millette did?

See above.

The above is why Harrit and Jones stopped responding to my inquiries about all this. It proves their paper to be a farce. They claim they prove that all red gray, magnetically attracted chips are thermite. Then, a couple of the authors open their mouths and say that there were OTHER types of red gray, magnetically attracted chips. Then Jones tries to say that they did resisitivity tests to make sure they had the right chips and not paint. Yet Harrit emailed me early on and said the resisitivity tests were SUPPLEMENTAL data.

Big OOPS!

 

[Oystein]

This is a bit off-topic here, but to put a closure on that bit of thread drift: I contacted HenryCo today, via email, and he confirmed what WTC Dust wrote: That she visited him in Marseille.

He very much doubts that Harrit et al made nanothermite react, quite regardless of his own test results, and himself believes "something else: new physics, probably cold fusion based new weapons ... as i said to [WTC Dust]".

Reference to the sort of cold fusion type he has in mind: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf
and particularly, apparently, the work by Andrea Rossi.


If anyone wants to discuss this, we should take it to another, or it's own thread, in which case I think I will request a thread split.
For now, I am merely throwing this bit of info out for those interested in what HenryCo is up to nowadays.

 

[Miragememories]

"Millette did not test any of his chips at this temperature. You have been told at least a dozen times why Millette heated his samples to 400°C, even Millette tells you, however, being the dishonest truther you are, you wilfully ignore this reason over and over.

I shall tell you once more even though I doubt it will penetrate your robust cranium!

The reason why Millette heated his chips to 400°C was to remove the epoxy from paint so he could then further study the particles that were freed. Millette states why he uses low temperature ashing. There is absolutely no point in heating a sample when you already know what the material is due to performing low temperature ashing and TEM-SAED on the particles.

Millette heating his chips has absolutely nothing to do with DSC or micro-spheres or the thermite reaction. Millette heating his chips has no connection with any heating in the Harrit et al paper.

So what? This has nothing to do with Millette's reason for heating his chips. You are falsely equating the two. Stop it."

I understand.

But.

It makes very little difference what temperature Dr. Millette used for his testing if his chosen 'chips of interest' are not comparable to those chosen as 'chips of interest' by Dr. Harrit et al.

"You probably have me on ignore because you can't handle my posts.

MM- are samples a-d in Harrit et all the same material? You have yet to agree with everyone including me, Millette, Harrit, Basile and Jones on this point? Why will you not agree?"

I accept that samples a-d represent 9/11 WTC dust collected from those "a-d" locations.

Evidence supporting a claim that Dr. Millette's chips of interest were the same material as the chips of interest reported by Dr. Harrit et al is insufficient.

It has been reported by Dr. Jones, Mark Basile, Dr. Ferrer and Henryco that using the magnet isolation method alone produced a very large collection of red chips.

Dr. Millette, restricted himself to an examination of chips only isolated by magnetism and with similar EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum.

As we all know, Dr. Millette's testing method and findings were not in agreement with the 2009 Bentham paper.

It would appear that the only conclusion that can be derived from this is that either Dr. Harrit et al are dishonest scientists perversely trying to gain unpopular attention by opposing the official 9/11 story, or Dr. Millette was testing chips of interest that were not equivalent to those tested by Dr. Harrit et al.

Henryco's research certainly supports the strong likelihood that by randomly selecting his 'chips of interest' from a very large pile, Dr. Millette could very easily have missed true chips of interest.

"My samples are full of chips which have nothing to do with the chips described in the articles. These are almost perfect doubles:

• 1) same appearance on one face : same red color!

• 2) same range of sizes

• 3) same composition: Carbon, oxygen, Iron, Aluminum, Silicium in the same proportion

almost because

• 1) Dont produce molten iron even when heated to more than 900°C

• 2) Have the same chemical composition after being heated to more than 900°C

• 3) Not double sided: red /red rather than red/shiny grey

"

Because un-ignited chips of nano-thermite would be expected to be less abundant, the large pile of magnetically selected chips would mostly represent materials that were very common like steel primer paint.

Which is why the results of the Resistivity test proved to be such a useful means of more quickly finding 'chips of interest'.

MM

 

[Spanx]

MM,
If jones & co have thermite chips, why are they not giving them to Millette ?

Would you ? I would.

 

[Oystein]

I accept that samples a-d represent 9/11 WTC dust collected from those "a-d" locations.

Evidence supporting a claim that Dr. Millette's chips of interest were the same material as the chips of interest reported by Dr. Harrit et al is insufficient.

You didn't answer the question. The question was:

"MM- are samples a-d in Harrit et all the same material? You have yet to agree with everyone including me, Millette, Harrit, Basile and Jones on this point? Why will you not agree?"​

Obviously, the question was not, if these four individual chips a-d were from WTC dust. We are all in agreement that they quite likely are.

The question is: Are they the same material, for example the stuff that Harrit et al claim to be a weaponized nano-thermitic composite?


It's like when I fish in my girl friend's 4 big undies drawer: when I pull out four black bras with a little red rose on the left cup, and I ask you, if they are all the same, I don't want to know if they are undies from my girl friend's drawers, for stockings, panties or babydolls would also count as "undies from my girl friend's drawers". The question is: Are they four identical black bras from the same production source?


So the question you are supposed to answer is:
Do you accept that chips a-d are fragments of the very same product, or could they be fragments of different products? Different materials?

 

[Oystein]

WTC Dust: Do you know of any links and citations that support your assertion that epoxy is expected to dissolve, using the methods that Millete used?

You forgot to address this topic:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9216997#post9216997

I assume that, if you dodge this one more time and fail to support your allegations about the behaviour of epoxy in solvents, that you tacitly retract those claims and admit implicitly that you were plain wrong and uninformed.

[snipped everything that doas not address the above request for evidence - that is: everything]

[snipped everything that doas not address the above request for evidence - that is: everything]

[snipped everything that doas not address the above request for evidence - that is: everything]

WTC Dust, I see that you elected to dodge my question once again and thus elected to tacitly retract those claims about the expected behaviour of epoxy in solvents and admit implicitly that you were plain wrong and uninformed.

Thank you.

 

[DGM]

I couple points that need to be clarified.
It's like when I fish in my girl friend's 4 big undies drawer:

Is this something you do often (I'm not judging)?

when I pull out four black bras with a little red rose on the left cup, and I ask you, if they are all the same

There is not enough detail here to make this determination. Maybe a picture or two or a more in-depth description?

I don't want to know if they are undies from my girl friend's drawers, for stockings, panties or babydolls would also count as "undies from my girl friend's drawers". The question is: Are they four identical black bras from the same production source?

Naturally you don't, you went straight for the bras. How are we to know without some images or maybe some modeling (so help me, if you post a picture of yourself in a black bra with a rose.........).





(couldn't resist)

 

[Miragememories]

"MM,

If jones & co have thermite chips, why are they not giving them to Millette ?

Would you ?

I would."

Because Dr. Millette already has his own supply of 9/11 WTC dust.

By testing on red chips he extracted from his own 9/11 WTC dust samples, there can be no suggestion about broken 'chain of custody', or that he was provided with fraudulent chips.

If at the very least, he applied the easy YES/NO Resistance test described in the 2009 Bentham paper and then ran his tests, his argument that his findings were based on similar 9/11 WTC dust chips would carry more weight.

Quibbling about where the Resistivity test was talked about in the 2009 Bentham paper does not alter the value of what it showed.

MM

 

[Gamolon]

If at the very least, he applied the easy YES/NO Resistance test described in the 2009 Bentham paper and then ran his tests, his argument that his findings were based on similar 9/11 WTC dust chips would carry more weight.

If this resistivity test was done to further separate red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips and red/gray magnetically attracted thermite chips, then why did Harrit say this to me in an email?

The resistivity test were done in random on the chips already isolated as described. The information obtained must be considered "supplementary material".

They didn't run resistivity tests on the chips already separated and THEN run the rest of the tests in the paper. It was an afterthought to show that in testing some random chips, they could assume ALL the chips isolated with the above criteria were thermite.

You have it backwards.

 

[Spanx]

Because Dr. Millette already has his own supply of 9/11 WTC dust.

By testing on red chips he extracted from his own 9/11 WTC dust samples, there can be no suggestion about broken 'chain of custody', or that he was provided with fraudulent chips.

If at the very least, he applied the easy YES/NO Resistance test described in the 2009 Bentham paper and then ran his tests, his argument that his findings were based on similar 9/11 WTC dust chips would carry more weight.

Quibbling about where the Resistivity test was talked about in the 2009 Bentham paper does not alter the value of what it showed.

MM

The below quote is from Prof Jones on 911blogger questions and answers

With the red/gray chips and iron-rich spheres, we were "lucky" in that these were attracted by a strong magnet, and I was able to concentrate them fairly easily. Then I had access to scanning-electron microscopes with attached XEDS equipment -- and we nailed it and published our results.

As you can see there is no mention of a resistance test. Infact there is mention of it in the questions and answers.

Why would Jones leave out such an important process ?

Perhaps you could translate Jone's comment for me.

 

[Miragememories]

The below quote is from Prof Jones on 911blogger questions and answers



As you can see there is no mention of a resistance test. Infact there is mention of it in the questions and answers.

Why would Jones leave out such an important process ?

Perhaps you could translate Jone's comment for me.

"Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material."

MM

 

[Spanx]

MM,

So you are saying Millette has the wrong chips because Jones has written a few lines.

What tests did Jones do to establish Millette had the wrong chips ?

Jones has moved on, I'm sure he will be back in September with a few words for people like yourself.

Why not send him an email and ask for some chips for Millette to examine. If he has nothing to hide he will have nothing to lose.

 

[LSSBB]

MM

The "peer reviewed" paper only reports a test on a single chip, with no details on how repeatable the test was. It is a single, worthless, data point.

 

[Senenmut]

What aren't you getting? According to the paper, Harrit supposedly proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that any sample taken from the dust with the following characteristics...

1. Containing red/gray layers
2. Attracted to a magnet

...is/was some form of thermite. There is no need to do a resistivity test.

so if millette gives out some chips to researchers, you dont want them to do this test on his chips?? is that what your trying to say?

Harrit and his group did that test on a couple of chips and applied that result to every single chip with the above two characteristics. They didn't separate chips into a group per the characteristics above and the FURTHER separate them into low and high resistivity piles.

Read the damn paper!

ive read the paper. what you are not getting is that maybe all of jones chips are the same material the same material.

From the very beginning they were under the assumption that every single red/gray, magnetically attracted chip was thermite They did different tests/experiments on a couple of chips and then plastered the results of those couple of chips onto ALL the red/gray, magnetically attracted and assumed that ALL of them were thermite.

maybe all his were the same material. how many times do i have to repeat myself.

THERE ARE NO OTHER SAMPLES!!!! There is no "Millette's sample" or "Harrit's sample". That's what Harrit's paper proved. As long as someone took a dust sample and extracted red/gray, magnetically attracted chips, those chips are, according to Harrit's paper, thermite.

again, maybe his samples are the same material.

You're missing something big here. It's worth explaining yet again. They got the chips of interest by applying the two characteristics above and nothing else. Here is an excerpt from Harrit's paper.


Here's what they did.

They extracted their chips from the dust sample using a magnet. They then made sure they had a red/gray layer. Let's say they got 300 chips using the above characteristics. They then took a few of those chips and did the various tests listed in the paper on them.

They then took those results of the few chips they tested and ASSUMED that
the rest of the 300 chips would give them the same results because they ASSUMED that all the chips with the two characteristics above were ALL thermite.

and?

No. Do you agree that every single red/gray, magnetically attracted chip, no matter WHERE they are pulled from, is thermite. As I have stated numerous times AND have quoted the paper, the only separation characteristics they employed to get there test chips were the two listed above. Every other experiment/test listed in the paper was NOT done to further separate those chips. They were done to prove that ALL the chips with the above two characteristics were thermite.

not millettes chips...not henryco's chips even though they had similar XEDS spectra. henryco had mostly red chips. i dont recall millette finding specifically red chips. do you see something wrong?

ccording to Harrit's paper, they should because Millette used the same red/gray, magnetically attracted criteria to get the same test chips as Harrit and his group did.

well, tell us how those chips are going to produce iron and silicon microspheres.

It shouldn't matter as I explained above. One more time. If ANYONE extracts chips with red/gray layers and that are magentically attracted, according to Harrit's paper and it's conclusion, anyone performing any of the tests in said paper should get the same results as Harrit's group did.

yep, to produce iron and silicon rich microspheres. did millettes do that?

The above is why Harrit and Jones stopped responding to my inquiries about all this. It proves their paper to be a farce. They claim they prove that all red gray, magnetically attracted chips are thermite. Then, a couple of the authors open their mouths and say that there were OTHER types of red gray, magnetically attracted chips. Then Jones tries to say that they did resisitivity tests to make sure they had the right chips and not paint. Yet Harrit emailed me early on and said the resisitivity tests were SUPPLEMENTAL data.

Big OOPS!

millette never did make sure they were the same type of chip. PERIOD. no iron and silicon microspheres = not same material.

just ask millette to do a DSC or a resistivity test or even heat his around 430C or alittle higher to see if they produce iron and silicon rich microspheres.

or get millette to send some of his chips to serious researchers (like myself) to get a DSC and a resistivity test and heat his chips up above 430C

are you against millette sharing his chips?

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jones
"Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material."

Fer cryin' out loud, Jones doesn't even state what kinds of paints he tested for resistivity. From the context, it could even be that they aren't standard hematite red primer paint. The article he cites is about a synthetic zinc ferrite primer. And, of course, he doesn’t cite the resistivities listed in the article, which is not available free online. If anyone wants to pay to read it, it’s here:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=876638&show=abstract

Then, there's the matter that the chips aren't homogeneous - there's that pesky gray layer, which Troofers can't account for, and the Sanity Squad thinks is oxidized steel spall. Which isn't an entirely bad conductor of electricity, although he assures us the sample he tested had “very little” adhering to it.

Charlatanry, and incompetent charlatanry at that.

 

[Oystein]

[blabla]

MM

Thanks for demonstrating that you are completely gullible and have total faith in the divinity of a supposed authority.

Congratulations, you have a lot to learn in this scpetics' forum