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

[pgimeno]

Those chips permeating all the 9/11 WTC dust do ignite exothermically in the range 415-435 ̊C and the residue produced provides conclusive proof of thermitic activity.

Lack of aluminium oxide as a residue is conclusive proof of no thermitic activity.

 

[chrismohr]

MM and Senenmut et al, what if regular primer paint on steel were burned in a regular fire and iron-rich microspheres were created? This is the experiment I have been trying to get done by someone. Would that have any effect on your belief that the iron microspheres can be produced only by melting steel or iron at 2700+ degrtees Farenheit? Would it cause you to rethink that little bit of evidence?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

...Anyway, I tend to think that the WTC red primers (namely this one represented by Bentham chips (a) to (d)) are by far the most discussed paints ever.

But is it true? In a forensic science, e.g. many paintings have been thoroughly examined if they are fakes or not (see e.g. here) and perhaps some discussions about these cases have been even more extensive, I don't know.

The "case" of red WTC chips is still unique in the sense that the alternative hypothesis on their origin (they are nanothermite intended for auxiliary demolition!) is quite apparently by far the most idiotic hypothesis ever

 

[DGM]

My understanding is that most research scientists out of necessity keep very good records.

How do you feel about scientist that say they're going to release important data but never do?

Apparently you think scientists have to "show" and report, every set of curves for every test they run, as well as additionally explain every test they do not run.


MM

Interesting comment. Would this apply to all scientists or just the ones you like? How about Millette?

Would you question if we just said Millette got "microsheres"?

 

[LSSBB]

How do you feel about scientist that say they're going to release important data but never do?



Interesting comment. Would this apply to all scientists or just the ones you like? How about Millette?

Would you question if we just said Millette got "microsheres"?

Its a dodge anyway. We are not talking about 1,500 pulsars, a herd of antelope, or a million widgets. We are talking of just a few tests. Three or 1 out of four results missing. No "contradictory" results. And some will not only swallow it hook line and sinker, they will defend it to the death.

 

[DGM]

Even at this small amount; because it can be concluded that this material exists throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust, when you add in all the iron-rich spheroids that were already common to the dust, it can be concluded that there must have originally been a huge amount of this material.

A material so dangerous and in such a high quantity that it cannot be dismissed, especially after what occurred at the WTC on 9/11.

MM

Naturally. the total lack of any evidence of it's effects to the steel is of no concern.

 

[chrismohr]

It is my understanding from Dr. Jones that someone among the original group of scientists has FTIR data but it won't be made public until there is a published response to the original 2009 Bentham paper.

Meanwhile everyone here continues to ignore the elephant in the room.

Those chips permeating all the 9/11 WTC dust do ignite exothermically in the range 415-435 ̊C and the residue produced provides conclusive proof of thermitic activity.

Even at this small amount; because it can be concluded that this material exists throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust, when you add in all the iron-rich spheroids that were already common to the dust, it can be concluded that there must have originally been a huge amount of this material.

A material so dangerous and in such a high quantity that it cannot be dismissed, especially after what occurred at the WTC on 9/11.

MM

Can you show me where Jones said he was waiting for the published report before releasing FTIR data etc? I'd like to know because I have just asked Jones, Harrit, Ryan et al to release all the data they said they would release.

More importantly, if the iron-rich microspheres were already common to the dust, that means they were not created by actual thermitic reactions???

As for the elephant in the room, as I have repeatedly said, I am trying to get an experiment going that shows whether regular primer paint on steel produces these microspheres. I await the results and am not ignoring that question. The exothermic reaction at 430 degrees C? The only way to show that it MAY have been caused by thermitic materials is to cook the chips in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. Otherwise, the most logical explanation for any exothermic reaction is that the carbon in the chips is burning in the abundant oxygen in the air. Since thermite burns hot without oxygen, this test has yet to be performed and it is a fatal flaw in the Harrit/Jones study in my opinion.

 

[chrismohr]

For what it's worth MM, on a recent post on the Henryco thread, ElMondoHummus wrote, "So no, it'd be dumb to replicate experiments. All you'd end up with is yet another, identical list of elements present, a DSC exotherm, and a few micrographs. That wouldn't actually settle the question, since it'd just repeat what Jones and Harrit published as data. I'm already certain enough that the DSC exotherm is accurate and that there's no manipulation of the EDX spectra or micrographs because there'd be no need to mess with those. The deception by Jones, Harrit, and the rest is in the interpretation of that data, not the data itself. Instead, let them put their money where their mouths are, and allow the dust to be analyzed by alternate spectographic methods. If they're confident they're right there should be no objection to this." I don't see us ignoring the exothermic elephant in the room at all.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Deleted...

 

[Senenmut]

How can Millette replicate the paper, if it contains no mention of the fact that there are dead chips,

maybe there was no dead chips in the first samples in the thermitic paper. once word got out, maybe through substitution and manipulation, these "dead" chips got in there. I bet they will figure it out.

and no objective criteria to identify the live ones? Remember that there HAVE to be such criteria OTHER than actually heating them, as Harrit et al MUST assume that they identified chips a-d correctly as "active", even though they did NOT heat them!

I know you guys and millette are scared to death about the idea of having to follow the scientific method and replication of experiments and actually heat those bad boys up!!

 

[Senenmut]

MM and Senenmut et al, what if regular primer paint on steel were burned in a regular fire and iron-rich microspheres were created? This is the experiment I have been trying to get done by someone. Would that have any effect on your belief that the iron microspheres can be produced only by melting steel or iron at 2700+ degrtees Farenheit? Would it cause you to rethink that little bit of evidence?

?? why on earth would you go through all that trouble when millette has "paint chips on steel" and just get him to heat those little guys?

 

[DGM]

I know you guys and millette are scared to death about the idea of having to follow the scientific method and replication of experiments and actually heat those bad boys up!!

Not really. Lots of things burn in air. Do you have DCS data from a thermetic reaction to compare to? (answer, NO).

Bottom line, you can't use the scientific method to compare a new study where it was not used in the old.

 

[Oystein]

maybe there was no dead chips in the first samples in the thermitic paper. once word got out, maybe through substitution and manipulation, these "dead" chips got in there. I bet they will figure it out.

I am sure you feel shame for making up such a stupid excuse, in the absence of any evidence for it, and the presence of evidence against it.
May I turn your attention to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrMIhVq-G0
At 1:24, Harrit says, talking about red-gray chips:
"It takes some experience to find the active particles. Some of them are dead, some of them are active"
The context, leading up to this statement, is how they found two types of particles that they were interested in: Microspheres and red-gray chips. "This is what the paper is about". So he clearly talks about properties of the dust as it was found before and when they prepared the paper. Do you think someone broke into Harrit's (or Farrer's, or Jones's) house at night and inserted some dead chips? If you think so, let me follow up: Are you nuts??

I know you guys and millette are scared to death about the idea of having to follow the scientific method and replication of experiments and actually heat those bad boys up!!

Millette did replicate the experiments documented for chips a-d to a T. He did every single bit of documented experimentation. He used the exact samne objective criteria to select them, and found some of his chips them to match chips a-d in every objective criteria documented by Harrit et al. In he went further and proved that these chips do NOT contain any thermite.

So if you agree that Harrit et al have proven, through replivable, objective, scientific criteria, that chips a-d are all the same material, then you must also agree that those of Millette's chips that match a-d in every single criterion are also so the same material.

Can you please list ALL the objective, scientific and replicable criteria that Harrit employed to ascertain that chips a-d are the same material, please?

 

[Senenmut]

No, it can't possibly depend on the sample at all. In the Bentham paper which you claim to support; 4 samples were taken from 4 different locations in NY. From those 4 samples 4 identical chips labelled a, b, c and d were identified.

So if you agree that chips a-d are the same material, then you can't claim that the sample from which they were taken makes a difference. Therefore you can't claim that further chips isolated from other samples can be influenced by the sample because to do so goes directly against your agreement that chips a-d are the same material from 4 different samples.

sure I can say that it may depend on the sample. jones was the first one to find the red gray chips. once the word got out, there have been a claim of substitution and manipulation (henryco). millette has not proven that his will make iron and silicon rich microspheres. are millettes like the "dead" chips hariett speaks of. we will never know until he heats them up to 430Cish.

This is another reason why truthers such as MM refuse to support Harrit et al. MM disagrees with Jones/Farrer/Harrit and all the other authors of the paper plus the likes of Basile. He purposely ignores the simple question because he can see what a pickle it would put him in, a pickle that you are in yourself.

And don't reply with any of that iron silicon microsphere or DSC nonsense, it's completely irrelevant.

show us how millettes will produce iron and silicon rich microspheres or how epoxy would react in air in a dsc?

 

[DGM]

sure I can say that it may depend on the sample. jones was the first one to find the red gray chips. once the word got out, there have been a claim of substitution and manipulation (henryco). millette has not proven that his will make iron and silicon rich microspheres. are millettes like the "dead" chips hariett speaks of. we will never know until he heats them up to 430Cish.

Or how about Harret et al releasing the data on the "dead chips". Certainly they know the chemical make-up of these.

They can't be the same, right?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

For what it's worth MM, on a recent post on the Henryco thread, ElMondoHummus wrote, "So no, it'd be dumb to replicate experiments. All you'd end up with is yet another, identical list of elements present, a DSC exotherm, and a few micrographs. That wouldn't actually settle the question, since it'd just repeat what Jones and Harrit published as data. I'm already certain enough that the DSC exotherm is accurate and that there's no manipulation of the EDX spectra or micrographs because there'd be no need to mess with those. The deception by Jones, Harrit, and the rest is in the interpretation of that data, not the data itself. Instead, let them put their money where their mouths are, and allow the dust to be analyzed by alternate spectographic methods. If they're confident they're right there should be no objection to this." I don't see us ignoring the exothermic elephant in the room at all.

Heh... I'd forgotten I posted that.

But yes, Chris is right, no one's ignored the exotherm. That's been the point of many a post, the main point being that it, too, stands as a data point contradicting the notion of thermite. Oystein, for example, pointed this out in 2011, and so did Dave Thomas in that same thread.

If the exotherm is being cited, it's only fair to also note that it's well below what it should be. But that's isolated context; there's more that refutes the notion of a thermite redox occurring.

 

[DGM]

The real problem in this "debate"?

Only "Truthers" don't believe the data in the report they support.

 

[Senenmut]

I am sure you feel shame for making up such a stu9263004]Ipid excuse, in the absence of any evidence for it, and the presence of evidence against it.
May I turn your attention to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrMIhVq-G0
At 1:24, Harrit says, talking about red-gray chips:
"It takes some experience to find the active particles. Some of them are dead, some of them are active"
The context, leading up to this statement, is how they found two types of particles that they were interested in: Microspheres and red-gray chips. "This is what the paper is about". So he clearly talks about properties of the dust as it was found before and when they prepared the paper. Do you think someone broke into Harrit's (or Farrer's, or Jones's) house at night and inserted some dead chips? If you think so, let me follow up: Are you nuts??

we need him to elaborate on that point. does he tell us what sample he found the "dead" chips in? did all the "dead" chips come in 1 sample? are the "active" chips in particular samples? do some samples contain all "active" and some all "dead". do some contain both "active" and "dead"? he does not tell us a whole lot. are they the ones that are partially reacted? I hope they look into this deeper.

Millette did replicate the experiments documented for chips a-d to a T. He did every single bit of documented experimentation. He used the exact samne objective criteria to select them, and found some of his chips them to match chips a-d in every objective criteria documented by Harrit et al. In he went further and proved that these chips do NOT contain any thermite.

yep. but are they the same material? replication of experiments. get those chips either to produce or not produce iron and silicon rich microspheres then we can talk. are millette's chips the "dead" ones?

So if you agree that Harrit et al have proven, through replivable, objective, scientific criteria, that chips a-d are all the same material, then you must also agree that those of Millette's chips that match a-d in every single criterion are also so the same material.

no one does not have to agree that millettes chips "are" the same material until he heats them up and either makes or does not make iron and silicon rich microspheres.

Can you please list ALL the objective, scientific and replicable criteria that Harrit employed to ascertain that chips a-d are the same material, please?

you have read the paper.

 

[Senenmut]

Or how about Harret et al releasing the data on the "dead chips". Certainly they know the chemical make-up of these.

They can't be the same, right?

it is logical to assume that there is something different about these "dead" chips. as to what, I hope harret finds out.

 

[Senenmut]

The real problem in this "debate"?

Only "Truthers" don't believe the data in the report they support.

I believe the data in the millette report, just don't think they are the same material being studied.