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

[beachnut]

The MEK red chip was taken from the same bag of 9/11 WTC dust as chip (b) described in the 2009 Bentham paper.

The key difference is that it was an intact chip (b) and not a cross-sectioned chip (b).

Including the work of chemist Mark Basile, that chip was but one of hundreds that had been found to be thermitic.

Hundreds of these red chips ignited and produced micro-spheroids that were iron-rich at ratios that proved a previously molten state.

Iron-rich micro-spheroids that were not formed in the chip prior to ignition at ~430C.

Unlike Dr. Millette's limited study, the 2009 Bentham paper findings are not dependent on pre-ignition observations to make a finding of nano-thermite.

MM

Iron-rich micro-spheroids, iron oxide, not a product of thermite. Case Closed
Simple chemistry, thermite give you iron, from iron oxide, and AL. Why is 911 truth so darn gullible?

 

[Gamolon]

MM,

Tell me what's going on here please?

Jones and other say that they found primer paint and other types of red layered chips in their "extractions" from the main piles of dust.

Yet, in the paper, this is stated...

The collapses of the three tallest WTC buildings were remarkable for their completeness, their near free-fall speed [11] their striking radial symmetry [1, 12] and the surprisingly large volume of fine toxic dust [13] that was generated. In order to better understand these features of the destruction, the authors initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust. Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case. Further testing was then performed on the red/gray chips in an attempt to ascertain their composition and properties.

Can you explain the contradiction here? Why do Jones and others (including you) claim they found red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips (which they supposedly separated, but never tested/looked at) yet in the actual Bentham paper (quoted above), they say that no paint chips were found?

Also, as I've asked you many times before, please quote the section/s in the paper that details where they found anything other than thermitic chips.

 

[pgimeno]

"Where did you get that from?"

"The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution.

In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK."

That is where I got that from. What would you consider to be the meaning of a marked contrast to soft?

I've highlighted the keywords for you. That "but" should tell you what the marked contrast is evaluated against. It doesn't say anything about the hardness of the soaked chip, you've made that up. The "and" implies that the "marked contrast" means the paint chips had both properties, not just one.

The MEK red chip was taken from the same bag of 9/11 WTC dust as chip (b) described in the 2009 Bentham paper.

The key difference is that it was an intact chip (b) and not a cross-sectioned chip (b).

The fact that it came from the same bag doesn't mean it was the same material. Millette found different kinds of chips in his sample, some being better matches to the Bentham paper's MEK chip than chips a-d.

I know you will never admit that. Your whole belief depends on it not being true.

 

[pgimeno]

There would be very few pregnancies if that were the case.

A baby is new matter added. The only new matter added to the chip is the liquid solvent. Keep playing these games if you like.

 

[ozeco41]

...There would be very few pregnancies if that were the case.

Aren't you confusing fallacy with phallusy?

 

[Gamolon]

Aren't you confusing fallacy with phallusy?

 

[Miragememories]

"The fact that it came from the same bag doesn't mean it was the same material.

Millette found different kinds of chips in his sample, some being better matches to the Bentham paper's MEK chip than chips a-d.

I know you will never admit that. Your whole belief depends on it not being true."

I have repeatedly expressed agreement that there was a large variety of chips in the 9/11 WTC dust.

The chips that were found to be thermitic contained the same material and no thermitic material should have a legitimate reason for existing in any of the 9/11 WTC dust!

If Millette heat tested his chips to ~430C and obtained similar results as Dr. Harrit et al, I would agree they contained the same material.

All Millette has determined is that the chips he selected have a similarity in appearance.

Unless you can show that zero chips were thermitic, you have no point to make.

MM

 

[Gamolon]

I have repeatedly expressed agreement that there was a large variety of chips in the 9/11 WTC dust.

The chips that were found to be thermitic were of the same material and no thermitic material should have a legitimate reason for existing in any of the 9/11 WTC dust!

If Millette heat tested his chips to ~430C and obtained similar results as Dr. Harrit et al, I would agree they were of the same material.

All Millette has determined is that the chips he selected have a similarity in appearance.

Unless you can show that zero chips were thermitic, you have no point to make.

MM

Please quote the Bentham paper were Harrit and his group found anything BUT thermitic chips. I'd like to see where you are getting the facts that, according to their paper, they found other types of chips.

Please quote the the Bentham paper where it states they performed multiple resistivity tests to separate out the paint chips from the thermitic chips. I'd like to see why you believe they separated out paint chips from the thermitic chips.

Please explain why they assume that the Delassio sample had thermitic chips in it when they didn't do a DSC test on any samples from that pile.

 

[DGM]

All Millette has determined is that the chips he selected have a similarity in appearance.

MM

You shouldn't lie. They were also chemically identical to chips A-D. That's why they were selected.

Did you forget this? The data is in both reports.

 

[Miragememories]

You shouldn't lie. They were also chemically identical to chips A-D. That's why they were selected.

Did you forget this? The data is in both reports.

At ~430C your claim is either proven TRUE or FALSE.

So easy for someone like Millette.

So hard to accept for game players like yourself.

MM

 

[thedopefishlives]

At ~430C your claim is either proven TRUE or FALSE.

So easy for someone like Millette.

So hard to accept for game players like yourself.

MM

Stop lying. Tell us, what about the samples that Harrit et al. did NOT do the DSC test on? Were those also thermitic? According to you, they have no proof!

 

[Gamolon]

At ~430C your claim is either proven TRUE or FALSE.

So easy for someone like Millette.

So hard to accept for game players like yourself.

MM

Let me explain this to you.

The Bentham paper clearly states that Harrit and his group conclude that every red/gray chip that is attracted to a magnet is thermitic. That anyone pulling a red/gray chip out of a dust pile with a magnet will be thermitic.

That is a fact and I can provide numerous quotes from the paper that prove such. They even put in a paragraph stating that they THOUGHT the chips might be primer paint, but end up proving that they weren't

Not once in the paper do they say that ANY of their test results show that ANY of their extracted chips were anything BUT thermitic.

Tell me something MM. If all tests performed int he paper were needed to make sure they had the right chips, then why was not every chip subjected to every test? Why was only one chip tested for resisitivity? Why was there no mention of them finding any chips with non-thermtic properties? Why, did they not mention or test the primer paint that you think they separated out.

I keep asking you to validate the following, but you keep passing it up. Why?

Please quote the Bentham paper were Harrit and his group found anything BUT thermitic chips. I'd like to see where you are getting the facts that, according to their paper, they found other types of chips.

Please quote the the Bentham paper where it states they performed multiple resistivity tests to separate out the paint chips from the thermitic chips. I'd like to see why you believe they separated out paint chips from the thermitic chips.

Please explain why they assume that the Delassio sample had thermitic chips in it when they didn't do a DSC test on any samples from that pile.

 

[Gamolon]

At ~430C your claim is either proven TRUE or FALSE.

If the chips are chemically identical, why would they react differently at a certain temperature? Why didn't Harrit test the supposed red/gray, magnetically attracted primer paint chips they found at ~430C?

 

[Gamolon]

I have repeatedly expressed agreement that there was a large variety of chips in the 9/11 WTC dust.

According to the Bentham paper, they proved that the red/gray chips they extracted were not paint!

In order to better understand these features of the destruction, the authors initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust. Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case.

Can you explain why YOU think they separated out/found red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips when THEY (proven with the quote above) say they didn't?

 

[MarkLindeman]

The chips that were found to be thermitic contained the same material and no thermitic material should have a legitimate reason for existing in any of the 9/11 WTC dust!

"Thermitic material" is a phrase rarely used outside the 9/11 context.

Do I understand your position to be that (1) the Bentham paper demonstrated that heating some chips to ~430C produced, via an exothermic reaction, "iron-rich spheres" (in which the iron content substantially exceeds the oxygen content) and (2) the only possible explanation is that the chips contain a substance engineered for sabotage?

I agree with others that your criticisms of Millette are quite unreasonable. I am wondering whether, as it seems to me, your statement here can be evaluated without reference to Millette's work.

 

[NoahFence]

I agree with others that your criticisms of Millette are quite unreasonable. I am wondering whether, as it seems to me, your statement here can be evaluated without reference to Millette's work.

Criticisms of Millette's work had begun before the work did. The only thing MM needed was to figure out specifically what he was going to rail against. He never intended to give Millette's work a fair shake, because he already knew it was going to go against his dogma.

 

[Gamolon]

"Thermitic material" is a phrase rarely used outside the 9/11 context.

Do I understand your position to be that (1) the Bentham paper demonstrated that heating some chips to ~430C produced, via an exothermic reaction, "iron-rich spheres" (in which the iron content substantially exceeds the oxygen content) and (2) the only possible explanation is that the chips contain a substance engineered for sabotage?

I agree with others that your criticisms of Millette are quite unreasonable. I am wondering whether, as it seems to me, your statement here can be evaluated without reference to Millette's work.

One thing to point out. MM quote...

The chips that were found to be thermitic contained the same material and no thermitic material should have a legitimate reason for existing in any of the 9/11 WTC dust!

...is misleading AND incorrect. The statement "The chips that were found to be thermitic" implies that there were other chips of other materials/properties found amongst the red/gray, magnetically attracted chips extracted from the original 4 sample piles.

Harrit's Bentham paper (and I have asked MM to prove otherwise) implies that every single chip with red/gray layers and extracted by a magnet is and will always be thermtic and should anyone extracting chips using the two criteria above should get the same results as stated in the paper for any of the tests.

The fact that Millette used the extraction criteria and got DIFFERENT results proves the paper's conclusion incorrect.

 

[GlennB]

Harrit's Bentham paper (and I have asked MM to prove otherwise) implies that every single chip with red/gray layers and extracted by a magnet is and will always be thermtic and should anyone extracting chips using the two criteria above should get the same results as stated in the paper for any of the tests.

It really is this simple but, iirc, MM addressed this before by supposing they 'must have' performed other tests to isolate the thermitic chips from seemingly identical others.

OK, this contradicts the Bentham paper, but I doubt MM cares. And, btw MM, the resistivity tests were not part of the selection process for the chips.

 

[LSSBB]

One thing to point out. MM quote...


...is misleading AND incorrect. The statement "The chips that were found to be thermitic" implies that there were other chips of other materials/properties found amongst the red/gray, magnetically attracted chips extracted from the original 4 sample piles.

Harrit's Bentham paper (and I have asked MM to prove otherwise) implies that every single chip with red/gray layers and extracted by a magnet is and will always be thermtic and should anyone extracting chips using the two criteria above should get the same results as stated in the paper for any of the tests.

The fact that Millette used the extraction criteria and got DIFFERENT results proves the paper's conclusion incorrect.

Merriam-Webster's take:

thermitic
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

thermionic
thermite
Thermit
thermic
thereinto
thermidor
thermionics
Thermaikos
thermocline
thermoset
thermopile
thermostat
theremin

If there is an official definition, I could not find it beyond the Truther echo pages. If anyone can supply one, please let me know. Otherwise, MM is right, there should be no thermitic material in the dust, only because there is no such thing as thermitic material.

 

[Gamolon]

Merriam-Webster's take:



If there is an official definition, I could not find it beyond the Truther echo pages. If anyone can supply one, please let me know. Otherwise, MM is right, there should be no thermitic material in the dust, only because there is no such thing as thermitic material.

Great point.

MM, what is your definition of "thermitic"?