DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You didn't, maybe I misunderstood the reference to funding new research. Any idea what he needs to further research if he already has the data that identifies the compounds?
WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Jim Millette July Update
Disappointed to report that we are victims of Jim Millette's business success. He has been unable to find an interested intern to work on this, also unable to find time himself or with his paid staff to do more work on his upcoming published paper. Still interested in doingh this but time has not allowed him to do more on the WTC dust study. However when he finds time he is interested in more research on the matter.
In the meantime, I will do some work on summarizing in wiriting what I know about the dust study, hopefully with some new information and even an experiment or two. Sometime in Septemnber or October perhaps.
Disappointed to report that we are victims of Jim Millette's business success. He has been unable to find an interested intern to work on this, also unable to find time himself or with his paid staff to do more work on his upcoming published paper. Still interested in doingh this but time has not allowed him to do more on the WTC dust study. However when he finds time he is interested in more research on the matter.
In the meantime, I will do some work on summarizing in wiriting what I know about the dust study, hopefully with some new information and even an experiment or two. Sometime in Septemnber or October perhaps.
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Hi, Chris,
thanks for the news. I basically think that we cannot reasonably expect any further progress in the Jim Millette's ressearch on WTC red/gray chips even in the more distant future and we should (well, you should
) perhaps stop any effort to get more from this study or to repeat that it should be published as a peer reviewed paper.
This study basically accomplished its task, which you had formulated ("were these Harrit's red/gray chips (a) to (d) thermitic?") , Jim Millette's results even changed the minds of some truthers (e.g. SnowCrash, Wildbear) and we have not anticipated anything more. There will be always truthers claiming e.g. "you have studied wrong chips" (as we had fully expected from the very beginning), so it is now up to them (e.g. to Mark Basile) to show us that we are not right
Personally I think that this study, which you successfully organized, is the most important event in the "history of debunking of so-called inside job 9/11", since it is a real science done on comparatively simple issue - simpler than e.g. analyses of WTC collapses (???). So, thanks again, Chris (and Jim)
thanks for the news. I basically think that we cannot reasonably expect any further progress in the Jim Millette's ressearch on WTC red/gray chips even in the more distant future and we should (well, you should
) perhaps stop any effort to get more from this study or to repeat that it should be published as a peer reviewed paper. This study basically accomplished its task, which you had formulated ("were these Harrit's red/gray chips (a) to (d) thermitic?") , Jim Millette's results even changed the minds of some truthers (e.g. SnowCrash, Wildbear) and we have not anticipated anything more. There will be always truthers claiming e.g. "you have studied wrong chips" (as we had fully expected from the very beginning), so it is now up to them (e.g. to Mark Basile) to show us that we are not right
Personally I think that this study, which you successfully organized, is the most important event in the "history of debunking of so-called inside job 9/11", since it is a real science done on comparatively simple issue - simpler than e.g. analyses of WTC collapses (???). So, thanks again, Chris (and Jim)
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
Same old, same old.
The true victims of Millette's success are those who wish he would finish what he started.
What a crock of horse pucky to repeatedly claim he has insufficient time to heat the chips he
has already analyzed a further 30C.
He clearly has no wish to discover what is obvious to the authors of the 2009 Bentham paper.
Dr. Millette selected and studied chips from the 9/11 WTC dust that are not chemically comparable to those studied
in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Dr. Millette claims the chips he examined would not exhibit the thermitic behaviour reported for the 9/11 WTC dust chips
studied in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Thermitic results that were consistently repeated an estimated hundreds of times by chemist Mark Basile.
MM
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
Miragememories
Banned
Wanting and doing are two different things.
It is a simple test that could be done over a coffee break.
Millette simply does not want to endorse the 2009 Bentham paper.
It would appear unpatriotic and bad for continuing government business.
If he is as sincere as you believe him to be, he must have a strange reason
for not taking an easy look.
No one is that busy.
MM
Most people are that busy. Where is your paper? Jones made up the thermite lie 4 years after 911 based on nonsense. Jones is insane, or an idiot. Jones paper proves there was no thermite, and Millette found not thermite. One paper is a lie, the other has rational conclusions. There is not a need on earth why a paper would be published in a Journal to refute nuts like Jones, and the insane idiotic claim of thermite. It gets funnier when Jones endorse the thermite ceiling tiles with remote detonators. Is that insanity still on the web? It looks like someone was on lots of meth, or something.
Insane claims made by few nuts; who is gullible enough to fall for fantasy?
What an idiot...
Someone is doing a massive amount of drugs, or is insane.
Wait...
And...
wow
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Chris, not exactly on topic, but I have quite similar troubles in my own work on polymers for polymeric photovoltaic cells. My boss (otherwise a decent and smart woman
) is not able to finish any our common paper in a reasonable time, since she is a rather annoying perfectionist and she is permanently overloaded with some other paperwork, etc...
But, whereas this problem is quite crucial for me, the problem with publishing Millette's study as a peer-reviewed paper is a quite marginal one and there is anyway no danger e.g. of loss of some priority.
MM: ad "Dr. Millette selected and studied chips from the 9/11 WTC dust that are not chemically comparable to those studied in the 2009 Bentham paper."
Please, show me why Bentham red/gray chips (a) to (d) are not comparable with the "typical chips" analyzed by Jim Millette Compare their overall look/arrangement, thicknesses of both layers, micrographs of inorganic (pigment) particles, XEDS spectra. Or... for your convenience, just look e.g. here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9237060&postcount=2879 .
You still insist that those Bentham chips are nanothermite, whereas Millette's chips with the same "parameters" are paint? Really?
(And please, MM, notice that you are perhaps the only person in this world who seriously claims that Harrit et al sorted chips for further investigation using electrical resistivity test.)
) is not able to finish any our common paper in a reasonable time, since she is a rather annoying perfectionist and she is permanently overloaded with some other paperwork, etc... But, whereas this problem is quite crucial for me, the problem with publishing Millette's study as a peer-reviewed paper is a quite marginal one and there is anyway no danger e.g. of loss of some priority.
MM: ad "Dr. Millette selected and studied chips from the 9/11 WTC dust that are not chemically comparable to those studied in the 2009 Bentham paper."
Please, show me why Bentham red/gray chips (a) to (d) are not comparable with the "typical chips" analyzed by Jim Millette
Compare their overall look/arrangement, thicknesses of both layers, micrographs of inorganic (pigment) particles, XEDS spectra. Or... for your convenience, just look e.g. here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9237060&postcount=2879 . You still insist that those Bentham chips are nanothermite, whereas Millette's chips with the same "parameters" are paint? Really?
(And please, MM, notice that you are perhaps the only person in this world who seriously claims that Harrit et al sorted chips for further investigation using electrical resistivity test.)
Last edited:
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Why didn't Harrit heat the Delassio sample? The results aren't in his paper right? You would think, with him being a competent scientist, he would have published the results of a test that, in your opinion, was used to get the "right chips".
The point is, they didn't test that sample yet claim it contains thermtic material.
Just like the resistivity test you claim was used to "get the right chips". When in fact that tested ONE chip.
plague311
Great minds think...
I see Ivan's point, and I think it makes perfect sense. Asking Millette to publish the paper might be redundant. The point has been made, and I think the fact that his interns aren't interesting should say something.
This just isn't important to anyone outside of a few remaining truthers. Asking Millette to chase every nit pick that comes from truthers is ridiculous. He runs a lab, and has a job. He has priority cases that have to be far more important than this.
No matter what anyone says, the Bentham paper wasn't properly peer reviewed, it has no scientific basis, and it doesn't need to be debunked as it debunked itself. For the amount of money given to Millette he produced far more than I think anyone expected. If he decided to set this down and never touch it again, I think that's perfectly fine.
This just isn't important to anyone outside of a few remaining truthers. Asking Millette to chase every nit pick that comes from truthers is ridiculous. He runs a lab, and has a job. He has priority cases that have to be far more important than this.
No matter what anyone says, the Bentham paper wasn't properly peer reviewed, it has no scientific basis, and it doesn't need to be debunked as it debunked itself. For the amount of money given to Millette he produced far more than I think anyone expected. If he decided to set this down and never touch it again, I think that's perfectly fine.
Miragememories
Banned
What do you mean by saying Millette's failure to followup on his promised publishing is "quite marginal"?
And how can Dr. Millette's failure to publish a disproof of nanothermite in the 9/11 WTC dust, be considered of low priority?
Do you consider a finding that nanothermite permeates all the 9/11 WTC dust has little importance?
"MM: ad "Dr. Millette selected and studied chips from the 9/11 WTC dust that are not chemically comparable to those studied in the 2009 Bentham paper."
Please, show me why Bentham red/gray chips (a) to (d) are not comparable with the "typical chips" analyzed by Jim Millette
Compare their overall look/arrangement, thicknesses of both layers, micrographs of inorganic (pigment) particles, XEDS spectra. Or... for your convenience, just look e.g. here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9237060&postcount=2879 .
You still insist that those Bentham chips are nanothermite, whereas Millette's chips with the same "parameters" are paint? Really?
(And please, MM, notice that you are perhaps the only person in this world who seriously claims that Harrit et al sorted chips for further investigation using electrical resistivity test.)"
I have shown you quite clearly why the Dr. Millette's 'chips of interest' are not a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Dr. Millette has claimed his selected 9/11 WTC dust chips are of a substance which is unable to exhibit the chemical behaviour produced by a thermitic material.
Regardless of the pre-ignition visual similarities to the chips highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Millette believes his selected chips represent something exothermically innocuous like paint.
Dr. Millette has steadfastly refused to take a moment to observe what happens to his chip selects if he heats them +30C higher than in his unpublished study from a 1.5 years ago.
A test that would quickly reveal how similar his chips are to those Dr. Harrit et al claimed to be thermitic.
Ivan, you and others can ignore this issue all you like, but the fact remains that hundreds of chips from 9/11 WTC dust have already been ignited and produced iron-rich micro-spheroids as proof of thermitic activity.
Dr. Harrit et al found repeatedly, proof that nanothermite must have permeated all of the 9/11 WTC dust.
There is no legitimate reason why it should be there.
MM
Hi MM,
Can you tell me why Mark Basile is fund raising for new independent research on the chips ?
Why you are at it, can you also tell me why Steven Jones has disappeared on this issue ?
plague311
Great minds think...
Spanx makes a solid point. If the Bentham paper is as air tight as truthers claim that it is, why would a new study by a different truther be needed? They've already got their smoking gun, as MM put it, "Permeated" through the dust at Ground Zero. In this case, truthers should be able to take this published, scientific paper to the proper authorities and receive a thorough investigation. It has been completed.
So, why hasn't it come to be, MM? If the paper is as solid as you claim it to be.
Miragememories
Banned
These questions have been answered repeatedly.
Here again is the link to Mark Basile's planned study;
http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/donation/index.htm
Its completed objective will provide answers to questions that people like yourselves claim were missing from the 2009 Bentham paper.
To insure that there is no bias in the testing, 9/11 WTC dust samples will be submitted without identification to an independent laboratory.
Of course Millette could settle his claims in seconds if he wanted to.
MM
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I asked why they don't release the conclusive data they say they already have and said they would.
Do you support more funding to release data they already have?
I think they left this sample out as the MEK-Test was performed on a chip of the Delessio/Breidenbach sample. The solvent might alter the properties of the chip or contribute to the exotherm.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Ok, but according to MM, the heat test needed to be done on ALL samples to make sure that they had the right ones. If this test wasn't done on the Delessio sample (which it wasn't), then they cannot be sure.
MM is pulling the same crap that he did with the resistivity test by trying to claim it was a test done on ALL samples to make sure they had the right ones. In the paper they tested ONE chip for resistivity.
Miragememories
Banned
Is it surprising that with all of the of 9/11 WTC dust tonnage, that there were lots of microscopic dust chips that on casual examination looked similar?
Steel primer paint naturally produced lots of its own dust.
With bits of steel still adhering to bits of reddish primer paint, it is not difficult to image the creation of tons of those red/gray dust chips.
Chips which would be easily collectable with a magnet.
But steel primer paint chips are obviously not composed of a thermitic material.
Primer paint chips fit Dr. Millette's findings.
Which also means that Dr. Millette was not looking at the right ones.
Do you know of any thermitic material that will not ignite when presented with its ignition temperature?
Neither do I.
Which is why the best proof is in the pudding.
I guess Dr. Millette does not like pudding.
Mark Basile et al have successfully isolated hundreds of 9/11 WTC red/gray dust chip samples that ignite at approx. 430C and produce a residue containing iron-rich micro-spheroids.
The fact remains, that their evidence of nanothermite comes from actual untampered 9/11 WTC dust samples randomly obtained from separate NYC locations.
Which means that it was well mixed throughout the 9/11 WTC dust.
Hand wave all you like Gamolon, but you fail to discredit the chips that were tested and found to be thermitic.
The message remains the same and its importance is very clear.
Based on the findings of Mark Basile and the 2009 Bentham paper, there must have been tons of nanothermitic material planted at the WTC.
There should have been a zero amount of such a dangerous substance.
MM
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
There are people in Harrit's group that admit they found many types of "red/gray chips" AFTER the paper was published, one of those people being Jones.
This is what is so ridiculous and makes the paper nothing but a farce.
They supposedly HAD "red/gray primer paint chips" that LOOKED similar to the thermitic chips. If that is the case, then why did they need to go to an outside source for paint composition when they could have analyzed the supposed "red/gray primer paint chips" that they found in the dust samples?
The reason they didn't test, analyze, publish results about any other magnetically attracted, red/gray chips is because they assumed every single red/gray chips they extracted via magnet was thermitic.
You want so desperately to change the way the paper reads in order to support your beliefs, but that isn't going to happen.
You wanted the resistivity test to be the test to separate paint chips from thermitic chips, but they only tested ONE chip. It's written in the paper. ONE CHIP. They took the results of that one chip and stereotyped the entire group of red/gray chips they extracted by magnet as NOT being paint. Horrible research.
Then you bring up the DSC test. You wanted THAT test to be the separation test. They tested three samples out of the four yet still claim that all four samples were thermitic. It's written in the paper.
Every single indication, whether it's in Youtube videos, blogs, emails, forums, whatever, is that Harrit's paper concludes that EVERY SINGLE RED/GRAY CHIP EXTRACTED BY A MAGNET was thermitic.
Jones and others have contradicted this conclusion by saying they found other types of red/grey chips.
Pure lunacy.
This is why neither Harrit nor Jones have responded back to any of my emails asking why their paper claims to have found that all the red/gray chips extraced by magnet are thermitic, yet Jones says they found non-thermtic red/gray chips.
Last edited: