• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

chrismohr said:
Sunstealer you're mentioned extensively in this article. I'd be interested in any comments you may have about their comments on your assertions.
Click to expand...
It's rubbish - the entire page. Poorly formatted and the "Time To First Lie" is in the first sentence. They claim the paper was peer reviewed but we know no peer reviewed the paper.


They write nonsense like
One of the referees has stated in public that the paper is essentially flawless.
Click to expand...
which couldn't be further from the truth as has been shown. There are dozens of flaws in methodology, interpretation of data and conclusions.

The rest of it is just the same old regurgitated truther garbage that has already been discussed endlessly and debunked multiple times in this and other thermite threads. That includes all the points where they quote me. There's no point in playing truther whack-a-mole, it's tedious and time consuming especially when the responses are not understood.

A good example is their large and pointless discussion of MEK soaking. Soaking the chip(s) in MEK is pointless and a flawed methodology. It tell you nothing of any importance whatsoever. The fact they carried out this test tells you that they didn't know what they were doing. Next time anyone asks about MEK soaking ask them whether that method identifies exactly what the organic matrix (epoxy) is. Ask them where in the paper the organic matrix is identified and characterised.

Instead of soaking in MEK or feeding the paint chips to cattle or maybe firing high powered lasers at them from the backs of frickin' sharks, why not use a method such as FTIR which will tell you exactly what the material is? Oh hang on they did do that, but instead of putting proper data into the paper, data that can be read and understood easily, just as you are reading this, they chose to leave it out. They left it out because FTIR does not lie, is not ambiguous, it can be read and it provides positive identification (qualitative analysis). You can't argue over which bond absorbs at a certain wavelength. What's more, with modern FTIR, which has libraries of thousands of materials, the machine will actually identify the material for you. You can't get better than that.

So instead of concentrating on getting the FTIR data published, which will lead to positive identification, they instead try to refute the debunking.

Millette is correct. His methods are the right ones to use for the task of material characterisation and his data, from multiple methods, provide positive identification of the material and therefore support his conclusion. The same conclusion can be determined from simply reading the Harrit et al paper itself!

When you consider they are smearing Millette rather than analysing the data he produced (no truther has analysed Millette's data)

Unfortunately, none of Mohr´s claims about the new study and it´s author stand up to scrutiny: The EPA commissioned the official WTC dust studies that ignored the NFPA 921 protocol to look for exotic accelerants, and white-washed the toxic nature of the dust. Kevin Ryan points out that Millette participated in several of those reports, including the official dust characterization paper that ignores the "prominent and unusual" molten spheres. Dr. Millette is therefore not exactly independent and impartial, but Ryan notes that Millette still accepts the role of an independent scientist and only charges Mohr for a fraction of the cost. According to Ryan, a veteran EPA whistle-blower has charged Millette and his colleagues in two Rutgers studies with fraud, because they neutralized the pH levels of their WTC dust samples before testing. In Ryan´s reference(#7), Cate Jenkins also warns (on page 16) that other EPA funded WTC dust-studies "may be erroneous or falsified, due to the probable use of the same fraudulent pre-neutralization analytical techniques employed[by Millette et al] in the EPA-funded Rutgers team studies
Click to expand...

then you know what their agenda is.

It's truther propaganda preaching to the crowd with the aim of raising cash for Basile . In 8 months they've raise just under $2000, so at a rate of $250 per month it will take them 20 months to raise the money! Truthers obviously don't have much faith or have lost interest so I doubt this flawed additional testing will ever go ahead.

It's beneath me to bother to comment further tbh.
 
Sunstealer I just want to go on record that you Beachnut and FEMR have taught me a lot about engineeering, metallurgy, physics and the science behind it all in the various threads about 9/11 you have all contributed to. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for taking as much time to reply as you did Sunstealer. You have alreay taught me much of what you explained in your post, especially about the value of FTIR. This article about Millette, you, me et al actually divides its time between going after all of us and talking up the alleged central importance of DSC and exothermic reactions etc. in determining whether the red-grey chips are thermitic.Interesting how Millette, you, Ivan, Oystein, and many others assert that the most important way to analyze materials is through the very tests they have left unpublished!
 
Miragememories said:
"It is the aftermath of combustion which is attention grabbing.

WTC paint is not going to produce iron-rich microspheroids."
Click to expand...
Sunstealer said:
"But "WTC paint" adhered to oxidised steel will."
Click to expand...

If a source of iron is heated to its melting point, than the formation of iron-rich microspheroids is made possible.

Epoxy-based primer paint has not been shown to be capable of creating such a temperature.

You can repeatedly yammer on all you like, but your armchair analysis does not hold water against the real research that has been done.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Epoxy-based primer paint has not been shown to be capable of creating such a temperature.
Click to expand...

Why didn't Harrit and his group heat test the red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips that they separated out from the red/gray, magnetically attracted "thermitic" chips to see how THEY would react and what THEY would produce?

Why did Harrit and his group need to get paint samples to test from an OUTSIDE source instead of testing the ones they supposedly separated out?

Why didn't Harrit and his group analyze and publish the composition of the red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips they separated out and compare it to the "thermitic" chips to see how the two differed from each other?
 
Dcdrac said:
Sunstealer I just want to go on record that you Beachnut and FEMR have taught me a lot about engineeering, metallurgy, physics and the science behind it all in the various threads about 9/11 you have all contributed to. Thank you.
Click to expand...

:)

Yes, Sunstealer and Beachnut.... the power duo.
 
Not sure if it's in the paper. Someone ignited a Tnemec chip. May have been H & J, may been been Farrer or Basile. Will look later.


And the word is 'cite'.
 
ergo said:
Not sure if it's in the paper. Someone ignited a Tnemec chip. May have been H & J, may been been Farrer or Basile. Will look later.


And the word is 'cite'.
Click to expand...

"A Tnemec chip". Brilliant. That tells us absolutely nothing. Just as a friendly suggestion, why don't you try looking it up before you post it so that you can give us the evidence at the same time, rather than having to endure our endless calls for "proof" or "citations" in the meantime?
 
ergo said:
Not sure if it's in the paper. Someone ignited a Tnemec chip. May have been H & J, may been been Farrer or Basile. Will look later.


And the word is 'cite'.
Click to expand...

Harrit did no such test in his paper. You are wrong.

And the proper sentence is "may HAVE been Farrer..."
 
I guess it was Basile. I thought I saw something from Jones about it, but maybe he was just referencing Basile's tests.

Anyway, I never said that it was part of the paper.
 
And this bears repeating. From the ATM paper:

Harrit said:
To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.
Click to expand...
 
I had forgotten why Harrit and Jones saw no need to ignite-test the WTC primer paint:

Notice, that the primer paint, being basically a ceramic material, is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 C.
Click to expand...

Duh. Lol.

COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF RED/GRAY CHIPS

In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 C. The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 C, since the residues from molten iron are clearly seen in the optical microscope...
Click to expand...

Why the Red-Grey Chips are not Primer Paint
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Has anyone posted this yet? Much food for thought, direct responses to things said by Ivan, Oystein, Dave Thomas and me:

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
Click to expand...

Hi, Chris, yes, I mentioned this elaborate article in the past and I also noted that its detailed critics would be very, very long and it does not make any sense to write it. Ziggy and Talboo would anyway ignore any objections.
One example: on Adam Taylor's blog, I tried to explain that I had never claimed that Millette's epoxy reference sample was not aromatic, and still: this nonsense/lie is a part of this article, which is wrong/misleading in almost everything.


Pgimeno:
pgimeno said:
Here's the post. I haven't read the linked paper (book?). ETA: Also, I can't see the images now, don't know why.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9094789#post9094789

I'll repeat the most important part of his post again:

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
This is why I warned that time: we should be very careful here, since even DTA or DSC measurements on WTC paint under inert can provide exotherms, which can be again attributed to thermitic reaction by truthers!

(Edited to add emphasis)
Click to expand...

Yes, but I based this "warning" on just this one paper (although a good one). I am still not sure what would be the thermic effect of heating e.g. epoxy Laclede paint under inert.

Sunstealer:
Although I understand your strict attitudes, I do not agree that soaking of chips in e.g. MEK solvent is meaningless. This is also why even Millette replicated these "tests". They can show e.g. whether the binder is linear (soluble) or crosslinked (insoluble) polymer. But, when the polymer is identified as epoxy resin using FTIR, it can be only the crosslinked one (it means that it can not be dissolved and can be at most swollen/softened by any solvent, depending on the actual degree of crosslinking).
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
Sunstealer:
Although I understand your strict attitudes, I do not agree that soaking of chips in e.g. MEK solvent is meaningless. This is also why even Millette replicated these "tests". They can show e.g. whether the binder is linear (soluble) or crosslinked (insoluble) polymer. But, when the polymer is identified as epoxy resin using FTIR, it can be only the crosslinked one (it means that it can not be dissolved and can be at most swollen/softened by any solvent, depending on the actual degree of crosslinking).
Click to expand...
One of the reasons for my strictness* is to try to get laymen, especially truthers, to understand that there are certain methods and procedures that give definitive answers to the question, "what is this material?"

You and I know that there is information to be gained from carrying out any scientific test, but only if it's done properly and only if the limitations of the method are known.

I have a number of problems with the MEK test:

The first is that it can only tell you so much as you've pointed out. The second is that there are other methods available that give positive identification of the organic binder, which means this is a superior method. There is no point wasting time or energy on a limited method when you have at your disposal a method that provides the exact answer unless it's used as very quick supplementary test.

Thirdly we have no idea which materials were soaked apart from one chip identified through SEM EDX ,which laughably isn't the same material as other chips shown in the paper.

Lastly, because the test has limitations and cannot identify which polymer is present, then it gives truthers leeway to discuss things which they have no experience or knowledge of. They keep the discussion going round in circles by talking about swelling and the behaviour of various unidentified paints soaked in MEK, all of which is of no substance when looking to identify the material.

In the critique linked by Chris they go through the usual non-argument of MEK chip contamination, desperately trying to explain away the irrefutable difference between EDX spectra of the red layer in chips a-d and the red layer in the MEK soaked chip. All the while ignoring the highlighted part of the statement that accompanies Fig 14:

Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material.
Click to expand...

Truthers, including the authors of the paper, have no answers for the presence of Zn and Cr.

  • Why is Zn and Cr present?
  • What is the purpose of Zn and Cr in thermite?
  • Is Zn and Cr contamination? If so, show how.
  • Why are Zn and Cr only present in some chips but not others?
  • Why, if military grade super-nanothermite can only be produced in laboratories, is the process control so poor?

On the other hand, us debunkers with technical knowledge and experience, know that zinc chromate is used in paints and coatings as a corrosion inhibitor. The fact that both these elements are present along with other well established pigment particles strengthens the case for paint.

The fact that both these elements are present in some chips, but not others, shows that there are more than one type of red layer. If that is the case then there is more than one material, which supports several conclusions:

1. The MEK soaked chip is a different material to chips a-d because chips a-d show no presence of Zn accompanying Cr, instead Sr and Cr are present indicating a different corrosion inhibitor was used. (Note that Fig 7 EDX spectra are not detailed enough to identify the presence of Sr or Cr, that information was obtained elsewhere.)

Therefore there is no consistency across the chips tested and therefore the conclusion that all chips are the same material is wrong. This also means that any singular, specific material conclusion, thermite or otherwise, is wrong.

2. The authors of the paper either didn't know what they were doing, are purposely deceiving and therefore fraudulent or both. Why did they decide to drop the FTIR data and analysis from the paper, which is a far superior method?

Why didn't they just perform the simple MEK test and conclude that the binder was crosslinked due to insolubility rather than use the valuable space, in an already over-long paper, to wax lyrical about a moot test?

Instead us debunkers have the wherewithal to realise that more than one red paint is going to be present in dust gathered from the WTC event. A fact that even today truthers can't understand (see ergo's post 2 above this one). The fact that we see evidence for the presence of two different corrosion inhibitors in two different chips strongly suggests the presence of two different paints. We struggled with trying to identify another known paint other than Tnemec Red that was used on the WTC until Ivan Kminek pointed out Laclade red joist primer paint. This is a very strong candidate for chips a-d.

Truthers simply chose to ignore the direction in which all the evidence is pointing. They also chose to ignore the promises made in the paper they champion.

The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed[29].
Click to expand...

Where are the results of the FTIR analysis? Why after 4 1/2 years has this information never been presented? How difficult is it to post it on a truther website? Is it because it doesn't support the thermite conclusion and in fact shows the Harrit et al paper up for what it is? What have they got to hide?

But hey, lets ignore the important points and instead talk about "paint" and swelling whilst writing rubbish like this that has already been shown to be false:

And the team discovered that MEK paint-solvent induces swelling in their chips that segregates the silicon from the aluminum, which proves that they are not chemically bound together, so the plates in their chips are not kaolin
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

* Other reasons for strict tone include: professionalism, exasperation and grumpy old man syndrome.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I guess it was Basile. I thought I saw something from Jones about it, but maybe he was just referencing Basile's tests.

Anyway, I never said that it was part of the paper.
Click to expand...

You said they tested red/gray paint chips that were magnetically attracted. Can you show us where they did that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom