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

[MarkLindeman]

Ivan and Oystein know that the 2009 Bentham paper already analyzed the only other candidate primer paint, Tnemec, so they are betting everything on LaClede.

Dr. Millette's study says a big NO to LaClede.

Umm, that's artful, I guess -- to state the answer without clearly stating the question. After all, Millette didn't study Bentham chips (a) through (d).

So.

If Dr. Millette was studying steel primer paint chips, as he and Ivan are arguing, they must be Tnemec which the 2009 Bentham paper has scientifically eliminated as a contender.

That assumes that Millette's chips are identical with chips (a) through (d). I thought you were rather eager to deny that.

 

[Miragememories]

"I only post these images to support the point that a trained eye can isolate 9/11 WTC dust red chips which are good candidates for ignition."

'You're making the Bentham paper look pretty awful. After all, it said this:

"The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color...."

Did the Bentham authors intend to say that there were at least two kinds of red/gray chips, but they used their "trained eye" to isolate the ones that were "good candidates for ignition"?

Did they forget?

Did they not notice?"

What is your problem?

I guess the Bentham paper could have said; "get a bag of 9/11 WTC dust and you'll find red chips like those highlighted in our paper----somewhere."

Filtering to isolate good samples is not an unusual event in research.

A magnet makes it possible to eliminate the need to analyze "the bulk of the dust."

The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".

Both the 2009 Bentham paper and the 2012 Millette study provide color images of their highlighted 9/11 WTC dust red chip selections.

The difference between the reference Bentham images (4 individual photos with consistent color balance) and the Millette image, is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color."

"When you also consider that hundreds of 9/11 WTC dust chips tested by chemist Mark Basile support the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper, and that the chips selected by Dr. Millette do not support those findings, the obvious conclusion is that Dr. Millette selected chips which were similar but not the same."

'"I think the extent of Basile's experimental support for the Bentham paper was getting chips to ignite. That isn't much support at all."

Maybe you should do some homework before you publicly voice your unsupported thoughts.

Working independently on the 9/11 WTC dust for over a year before the 2009 Bentham paper was published, chemical engineer Mark Basile talked of testing 100's of thermitic red/gray chips and is credited as being the original discoverer of the iron-rich post-ignition residue.

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img836/2848/822p.png[/qimg]

But according to you the images labelled a, b, c, and d in the Bentham paper do not show chips of the same material, namely that chips a, b, c, and d are all the same material. Please clarify:

Are the red layers the same material for chips a-d?
Are the gray layers the same material for chips a-d?

Are chips a-d the same material?

 

[MarkLindeman]

What is your problem?

That's a silly question.

I guess the Bentham paper could have said; "get a bag of 9/11 WTC dust and you'll find red chips like those highlighted in our paper----somewhere."

Filtering to isolate good samples is not an unusual event in research.

A magnet makes it possible to eliminate the need to analyze "the bulk of the dust."

The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".

Really, you are protesting far too much, and I suspect you know it. Not one reader in 100, reading that text without a prior commitment, would construe it to mean that the researchers used magnets to isolate at least two kinds of red chips, and then chose the ones that they thought were a more interesting red -- or whatever you feel compelled to assume that they did.

I'm fairly sure you are intelligent enough to realize that the issue isn't "filtering to isolate good samples," but -- on your account -- failure to document research methods.

Working independently on the 9/11 WTC dust for over a year before the 2009 Bentham paper was published, chemical engineer Mark Basile talked of testing 100's of thermitic red/gray chips and is credited as being the original discoverer of the iron-rich post-ignition residue.

How credulous do you think I am?

Dropping the adjective "thermitic" into a sentence doesn't constitute any kind of evidence or argument. If you aren't interested in this topic, why post on it?

 

[Miragememories]

"Personally, I seldom debate in any discussion threads, since I know very well from the past that when I do so, I easily develop a kind of addiction on it. This is definitely the case of "nanothermite" forums here, ... which proved our hypothesis that Bentham chips (a) to (a) are indeed pieces of WTC epoxy paint ... but I will still check everyday... since it is simply my habit and I basically love this forum, as well as the most people discussing here."

I am still waiting for you to respond to post 3311 Ivan Kminek.

Do you and Oystein still insist that the red chips studied by Dr. Millette and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper are LaClede primer paint?

I know that Oystein is preoccupied with the subject of this other thread; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9314122#post9314122, but you appear to be under no such constraint.

MM

 

[MarkLindeman]

I am still waiting for you to respond to post 3311 Ivan Kminek.

Do you and Oystein still insist that the red chips studied by Dr. Millette and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper are LaClede primer paint?

By all means let's not discuss the purported evidence that any of these chips are "thermitic" or evince sabotage in any way.

If you have serious questions for Ivan and/or Oystein, it would be best to quote specific statements they have made in the past. Legitimate scientific discussion thrives on specificity; cargo cult science thrives on equivocation and handwaving.

 

[GlennB]

The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".

The difference between the reference Bentham images (4 individual photos with consistent color balance) and the Millette image, is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color."

Post hoc fallacy. Why did they choose that particular hue? If it wasn't the hue that led them to test those particular chips and find them 'thermitic' then what test did lead them to those chips specifically?

Meanwhile, note that different cameras and different lighting conditions can lead to different apparent hues. Millette applied the same selection criteria as the Bentham boys.

 

[Miragememories]

"The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".

Both the 2009 Bentham paper and the 2012 Millette study provide color images of their highlighted 9/11 WTC dust red chip selections.

The difference between the reference Bentham images (4 individual photos with consistent color balance) and the Millette image, is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color."

" Why did they choose that particular hue?"

You mean the people who crafted the nanothermite?

"If it wasn't the hue that led them to test those particular chips and find them 'thermitic' then what test did lead them to those chips specifically?"

I believe chemist Mark Basile would get that credit.

He was the discoverer of iron-rich micro-spheroids in the residue of the ignited red chips.

Claiming he has witnessed hundreds of these ignitions with the same thermitic result, he probably became the first expert at quickly identifying candidate chips in the 9/11 WTC dust.

"Meanwhile, note that different cameras and different lighting conditions can lead to different apparent hues.

Millette applied the same selection criteria as the Bentham boys."

You can practise denial all you want Glenn.

It is Millette's color images that fail to match.

He was able to preview red chip images from the Bentham paper and he still failed to match their distinctive color.

When he posted his study, he had to know his red chips did not color match those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Need I remind you;

"The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color...."

"…BTW in support of what MM said, when Kevin Ryan was still talking to me, he said that he has in his possession both red-grey paint chips and red-grey thermitic chips, "and I can tell you they are not the same." He claimed that they look different to the eye, but more importantly, that the thermitic chips have an exothermic quality that the paint chips don't."

MM

 

[GlennB]

You mean the people who crafted the nanothermite?

I believe chemist Mark Basile would get that credit.

He was the discoverer of iron-rich micro-spheroids in the residue of the ignited red chips.

Claiming he has witnessed hundreds of these ignitions with the same thermitic result, he probably became the first expert at quickly identifying candidate chips in the 9/11 WTC dust.

You can practise denial all you want Glenn.

It is Millette's color images that fail to match.

He was able to preview red chip images from the Bentham paper and he still failed to match their distinctive color.

When he posted his study, he had to know his red chips did not color match those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Scary stuff You're saying that the Bentham Boys chose their chips according to the hue that Basile originally identified, and that Millette chose the wrong hue in his selection. This changes everything.

Was this method of identification mentioned in the Bentham 'paper'?

 

[kid meatball]

The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".

Classic truther not understanding the context. When they say "distinctive," they were referring to the bits in relation to the rest of the dust, which I assume was made of neutral browns and greys. If you've got evidence that they found other red chips of a less distinct red colour please post it here, and prove me wrong.

 

[Miragememories]

"You're saying that Dr. Harrit et al chose their chips according to the hue that Basile originally identified, and that Millette chose the wrong hue in his selection?"

Dr. Harrit et al quite openly stated this distinctness in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Of course there are a lot of colored chips in the 9/11 WTC dust, but the scientists agreed that after magnetic extraction, the red candidate chips could be readily discerned by eye from the many other red chips e.g. steel primer paint.

"Was this method of identification mentioned in the Bentham 'paper'?"

"2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination

The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust.

A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples.

The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color.

They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm.

Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray)."

I believe that Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination falls under "method of identification".

MM

 

[kid meatball]

Dr. Harrit et al quite openly stated this distinctness in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Of course there are a lot of colored chips in the 9/11 WTC dust, but the scientists agreed that after magnetic extraction, the red candidate chips could be readily discerned by eye from the many other red chips e.g. steel primer paint.





I believe that Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination falls under "method of identification".

MM

None of that actually mentions other red chips. Were the mysterious other less distinct red chips magnetic as well?

 

[GlennB]

Dr. Harrit et al quite openly stated this distinctness in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Of course there are a lot of colored chips in the 9/11 WTC dust, but the scientists agreed that after magnetic extraction, the red candidate chips could be readily discerned by eye from the many other red chips e.g. steel primer paint.

I believe that Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination falls under "method of identification".

MM

Then what led them to discard the chips of the 'wrong' colour prior to further testing? Did Basile provide them with a colour chart? If so, was this mentioned in Bentham?

 

[Sunstealer]

Looks like MM has me on ignore. Now there's a surprise - when he knows that someone will trounce him through greater experience, knowledge and logic he just ignores them.

Funny how he will claim that chips a-d are the same thermite material because they have the same colour (which is ludicrous due to differences in equipment and environment), but steadfastly refuses to come clean and say that the rest of the data in the paper supports the conclusion that chips a-d are the same material even though that point is not contended. It's only MM who refuses to agree with his heroes.

What's the matter MM? The question too much of a pickle for you?

 

[Sunstealer]

None of that actually mentions other red chips. Were the mysterious other less distinct red chips magnetic as well?

He's just playing semantics because he hasn't got the bottle to admit that the Bentham paper is rubbish after backing it with all his heart. It's sad. Ignoring the data and concentrating on something which is plainly untrue to anyone with any reading comprehension is his way of desperately trying to keep this silly thread going. Just ignore him if he's playing silly buggers and ask him:

Are chips a-d the same material?

Just ask him that over and over and he'll refuse to answer it and go away because he knows that if he says yes it opens himself up to logic that will show him to be wrong with regards to whether Millette identified the same chips- as I explained in a previous post.

 

[LSSBB]

He's just playing semantics because he hasn't got the bottle to admit that the Bentham paper is rubbish after backing it with all his heart. It's sad. Ignoring the data and concentrating on something which is plainly untrue to anyone with any reading comprehension is his way of desperately trying to keep this silly thread going. Just ignore him if he's playing silly buggers and ask him:

Are chips a-d the same material?

Just ask him that over and over and he'll refuse to answer it and go away because he knows that if he says yes it opens himself up to logic that will show him to be wrong with regards to whether Millette identified the same chips- as I explained in a previous post.

Quoted, for possibly wider visibility.

 

[Gamolon]

Dr. Harrit et al quite openly stated this distinctness in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Of course there are a lot of colored chips in the 9/11 WTC dust, but the scientists agreed that after magnetic extraction, the red candidate chips could be readily discerned by eye from the many other red chips e.g. steel primer paint.

First it was the resistivity test that you said was the test that helped determine what was paint and what was thermitic. Then you were shown that the paper said they tested ONE chip for resisitivity.

After you were shown your "resisitivity test" claim was crap, you move to the DSC test that you thought proved the chips were not paint. After being shown they only tested 3 of the 4 samples, proving that THAT test was not donw on all the samples, you now move to the "discerned by eye" garbage.

Pathetic.

My point in all this is that Harrit and his group contradict themselves and prove their own paper to be incorrect.

They assumed all the chips that were magnetically attracted AND having red/gray layers were thermitic. Not once did they make any statement in their paper that they found anything BUT thermitic chips. Then Jones (and others) opened his yapper (after the paper was published) and states that there were supposedly other types of red/gray, magnetically attracted chips.

The best part of all this is that according to you, Jones, and others, they had primer paint chips in their possession yet chose to go to other published findings to get their "paint chip" characteristics instead of directly testing those paint chips that they supposedly had in their hands!

Why didn't they test any of the red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips they supposedly separated to see if THOSE reacted in the DSC test?

The bottom line is they assumed all the chips were thermitic. That's why they didn't run every single test on every single chip. They randomly did tests on random chips. That's why you keep changing your tune as to what test/s they actually did to prove they had the right chips.

 

[Miragememories]

"Then what led them to discard the chips of the 'wrong' colour prior to further testing? "

Over a year before the 2009 Bentham paper was published, Mark Basile made the discovery that certain 9/11 WTC dust chips consistently ignited at ~430C and produced iron-rich micro-spheroids in their residue.

His initial research of selecting, cataloging, photographing, heat testing, residue examining, and referral back to catalog notes and photo images, became more focused when he discovered that some chips showed remarkable thermitic behaviour.

At some point it became clear that the chips which ignited at ~430C and produced iron-rich micro-spheroids in their residue, were "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color.".

We know that chemist Mark Basile shared his findings with other scientists performing research on the 9/11 WTC dust.

They shared a common agreement about what they had observed and it became part of the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM

 

[GlennB]

We know that chemist Mark Basile shared his findings with other scientists performing research on the 9/11 WTC dust.

They shared a common agreement about what they had observed and it became part of the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM

And how do you know this? Or are you simply assuming? It isn't mentioned in Bentham.

Basile's own website - in which he proposes a protocol for an independent study - makes no mention of separation according to the specific hue of red, just magnetic separation then electron microscopy to ensure they're of the red/gray variety.

But here's a thing - my formal study of inorganic chemistry and physics ended in 1969 when I went to Uni to study biology. But, back then, if you'd asked me to devise an experiment to determine whether a sample might or might not contain thermite I (and every chemist on the planet, I'd guess) would have got straight to the heart of the matter in 20 seconds flat. I'd have proposed heating the sample to thermite's ignition point in an inert atmosphere.

Does it not set your alarm bells ringing *loudly* that Basile and the Bentham team avoided this? How on earth is overlooking that even possible from so-called chemists?

 

[Miragememories]

"But here's a thing - my formal study of chemistry and physics ended in 1969 when I went to Uni to study biology.

But, back then, if you'd asked me to devise an experiment to determine whether a sample might or might not contain thermite I (and every chemist on the planet, I'd guess) would have got straight to the heart of the matter in 20 seconds flat.

I'd have proposed heating the sample to thermite's ignition point in an inert atmosphere.

Does it not set your alarm bells ringing *loudly* that Basile and the Bentham team avoided this?

How on earth is overlooking that even possible from so-called chemists?"

I asked Dr. Harrit when he was in Toronto why they did not perform the DSC (heat testing) in an inert atmosphere. His reply was that they wished to replicate Tillotson's nanothermite DSC test conditions.

Are you suggesting that the revelation of thermite can only be obtained by igniting it in an inert atmosphere?

What is there about a heat ignition in a normal atmosphere which negates the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper?

Does it not set your alarm bells ringing when Dr. Millette refuses to run his own heat test that you say goes "straight to the heart of the matter in 20 seconds flat."??

MM