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

[LSSBB]

Writing as a journalist and not a scientist:
the suffix "-ic" simply means "pertaining to"
Dictionaries don't include every suffixed version of every word, but "thermitic" fits the pattern. It doesn't matter if the thermite has aluminum or copper or anything else in its formula.
I think this is a huge waste of time. And it doesn't relate to the Millette paper, because Jim Millette never challenged the term. He just used chemical analysis to prove that the red-grey WTC dust chips were not, er, thermitic.

Then lets just say "Not Thermite" and avoid the undefined words that can be misinterpreted.

 

[Miragememories]

"Then lets just say "Not Thermite" and avoid the undefined words that can be misinterpreted."

That is not what the 2009 Bentham paper concluded.

Until properly scientifically discounted, the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper stand.

They found conclusive proof that nanothermite existed throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust.

MM

 

[kid meatball]

That is not what the 2009 Bentham paper concluded.

Until properly scientifically discounted, the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper stand.

They found conclusive proof that nanothermite existed throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust.

MM

What, the more than ten-thousand posts on here that scientifically and logically discount the Bentham paper don't count?

 

[LSSBB]

That is not what the 2009 Bentham paper concluded.

Until properly scientifically discounted, the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper stand.

They found conclusive proof that nanothermite existed throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust.

MM

I read the paper, it's data is not supportive of the conclusion of thermite.

 

[plague311]

That is not what the 2009 Bentham paper concluded.

Until properly scientifically discounted, the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper stand.

They found conclusive proof that nanothermite existed throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust.

MM

Doesn't the Bentham paper show that there was paint in the dust, not therm*te?

 

[ozeco41]

They found conclusive proof that nanothermite existed throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust.

What, the more than ten-thousand posts on here that scientifically and logically discount the Bentham paper don't count?

I read the paper, it's data is not supportive of the conclusion of thermite.

Since the real issue is that there was no CD the whole discussion is moot.

And it all arose from S Jones need to lift his falling market image by an exercise in "rebranding".

 

[cjnewson88]

That is not what the 2009 Bentham paper concluded.

Until properly scientifically discounted, the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper stand.

They found conclusive proof that nanothermite existed throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust.

MM

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand back to page 1. Congrats again MM, you've yet again spun the entire debate right back to square 1. Way to keep the argument going in circles; fantastic job of obscuring truth.

 

[ozeco41]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand back to page 1. Congrats again MM, you've yet again spun the entire debate right back to square 1. Way to keep the argument going in circles; fantastic job of obscuring truth.

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" DGM quoting Jay Windley



Plus responding to trolling is like feeding bears or seagulls - they develop a dependency and keep coming back for more.

 

[Redwood]

MM, what is your definition of "thermitic"?

FWIW, I'll give you my retired chemist's definition of "thermitic":

Broadly, any oxidation-reduction involving one metal oxide and one metal is thermitic. This would include even the classic production of titanium metal via sodium reduction of TiO₂.

More narrowly, any reduction of a metal oxide by aluminum, which is used in the field because aluminum has a much higher boiling point than other potential metals such as magnesium, and thus has less loss of reaction material. So this would include something like reduction of CuO to Cu by aluminum. Any such mixture of powdered or granulated aluminum with an appropriate metal oxide my be called thermitic.

 

[Miragememories]

That is not what the 2009 Bentham paper concluded.

Until properly scientifically discounted, the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper stand.

They found conclusive proof that nanothermite existed throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust.

"Since the real issue is that there was no CD the whole discussion is moot."

The proven existence of what must have been tons of nanothermite permeating all of the 9/11 WTC dust, can hardly be considered "moot".

Your inability to comprehend why it was planted at the WTC site in no way diminishes the incredible amount of destructive power represented.

This military-grade material has no publicized civilian use.

Its purpose is to produce major destruction.

Its multi-ton existence at the WTC cannot be explained as inconsequential.

MM

 

[thedopefishlives]

The proven existence of what must have been tons of nanothermite permeating all of the 9/11 WTC dust, can hardly be considered "moot".

Your inability to comprehend why it was planted at the WTC site in no way diminishes the incredible amount of destructive power represented.

This military-grade material has no publicized civilian use.

Its purpose is to produce major destruction.

Its multi-ton existence at the WTC cannot be explained as inconsequential.

MM

All of what you just said is sheer fantasy. We have shown you repeatedly how not only Millette's study, but the Harrit et al. paper itself, disproves thermite in the dust. That you continue to believe it has been "proven" speaks volumes about how you are married to a foregone conclusion. The rest of your post is simply making stuff up.

 

[LSSBB]

The proven existence of what must have been tons of nanothermite permeating all of the 9/11 WTC dust, can hardly be considered "moot".

Your inability to comprehend why it was planted at the WTC site in no way diminishes the incredible amount of destructive power represented.

This military-grade material has no publicized civilian use.

Its purpose is to produce major destruction.

Its multi-ton existence at the WTC cannot be explained as inconsequential.

MM

I take it you can cough up a MILSPEC so Dr. Millette can compare what he has to the standard? That being the only thing I can think of to use to properly call something military grade.

I am beginning to think this whole truther nanothermite canard has only travelled so far because no one ever set out at first to properly define what is what, and so folks think they can give things whatever menacing label suits their purposes. Feel free to show me some definitions of what you are talking about and I am open to changing my mind.

 

[tsig]

Since the real issue is that there was no CD the whole discussion is moot.

And it all arose from S Jones need to lift his falling market image by an exercise in "rebranding".

He was trying to explain away the lack of "booms" and invented the thermite theory leading to much wasted time disproving the presence of a substance that was never there and couldn't do what he said even if it was there.

 

[tsig]

The proven existence of what must have been tons of nanothermite permeating all of the 9/11 WTC dust, can hardly be considered "moot".

Your inability to comprehend why it was planted at the WTC site in no way diminishes the incredible amount of destructive power represented.

This military-grade material has no publicized civilian use.

Its purpose is to produce major destruction.

Its multi-ton existence at the WTC cannot be explained as inconsequential.

MM

This military grade nanothermite is so inefficient that tons were left unreacted?

 

[DGM]

This military grade nanothermite is so inefficient that tons were left unreacted?

That happens when there's thousands of tons planted.

Makes perfect sense. Use thousands of tons of easily found compounds and cover it up with a couple airplanes. No one would believe anyone would be stupid enough to do this, its the perfect plan.

 

[Mudcat]

They found conclusive proof that nanothermite existed throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust.

I would need to see proof that nanothermite exists at all first.

 

[LSSBB]

I would need to see proof that nanothermite exists at all first.

Oh, it exists. Some labs have made it. I have yet to see any proof of anyone using it for anything, or of any significantly sized fabrication facilities. This is all off topic, though.

 

[Miragememories]

The Bentham red chips do have a different appearance from those red chips chosen by Dr. Millette.

Dr. Millette's red chip selections all look like paint chips.

MM

 

[Redwood]

I take it you can cough up a MILSPEC so Dr. Millette can compare what he has to the standard? That being the only thing I can think of to use to properly call something military grade.

That will happen the day you see this:

 

[George 152]

This military grade nanothermite is so inefficient that tons were left unreacted?

The only use the military have for thermite is as an incendiary.
Railways use it in kits to weld track.
This 'military grade nanothermite' didn't exist in 2001