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

[ergo]

Agreed.

That's why they won't answer any more of my questions.

Yeah, that must be it.

 

[ergo]

So now you have two co-authors stating that there are MANY kinds of red/gray chips, INCLUDING paint chips. This directly contradicts the Bentham paper's findings that there WEREN'T any paint chips and that there were ONLY thermitic chips. BIG mistake.

Thank you for that explanation, but in reality you have one author talking about red chips, the other answering rather casually and loosely someone else's question about red-grey chips specifically, but perhaps Legge is really only referring to red chips. And neither of those quotes suggest that the red chips are attracted magnetically.

So I don't really see how you are coming to the conclusions you are.

 

[Redwood]

I'm not aware of any reports of magnetically attracted WTC paint chips. I'm not denying they exist necessarily; I just don't know who is making this claim.

Ergo, why don't you go down to the paint store and buy a good assortment of different brands of red paint, find some mildly oxidized steel, paint it with your samples, let cure, scrape off the paint, and test it with a magnet? It has to be more productive than arguing on internet forums! You might even submit them to Harrit & Jones for testing! No fair letting them know in advance what it is!

 

[Ivan Kminek]

I've just read the quotes from Ivan that you included. He/they conclude the chips are epoxy-based paint. The 'specifically Laclede' part was speculation, quite likely wrong.

You're representing this to mean 'lack of Laclede' = 'not paint at all', which is little better than outright lying.

Let me remind you:

Conclusion: Bentham chips (a) to (d) and Millette’s chips with the same/similar characteristic are all the same and they are all some epoxy-based coating (paint) on rust flakes/oxidized steel."

My bolding.

GlennB, I overlooked this your post. And I do not agree that our Laclede theory is quite likely wrong. It is very likely right, just the final proof, it means the proof of strontium chromate, is missing. Concerning this stuff, we have discussed in the past: it is an anticorrosion agent which is expected, during the long periods of time, to be depleted from the paint and to be concentrated on the cracks and other damaged parts of the paint layer - this is in fact the principle of its anticorrosive action. Therefore, at least the original typical crystalline needles of this stuff can be changed after more than 40 years of WTC primer paint "life", which can be the reason why Jim Millette did not find them, namely when the concentration of strontium chromate in the paint was mere ca 1 %. Millette anyway had to use just the microscopy in this regard, since XEDS is definitely not suitable here. (But, I understand that since Millette did not detect this chromate, he is reluctant to specify that particular "Laclede paint" as the red material of chips (a) to (d).)

Otherwise (considering the basic question if Bentham chips (a) to (d) were Laclede paint):

1) These chips are apparently all the same material and all should originate from WTC1/WTC2, since one of the dust samples was collected prior the collapse of WTC7. And here, we could hardly overlook any other red primer paint which was so massively applied on the construction steel of the Twins (except Tnemec primer, indeed, which had a distinctly different composition).

2) The "Laclede primer" is supposed to be mostly stripped off the widely twisted and highly exposed floor trusses during the catastrophe. And its roughly calculated amount (several tens of tons) is basically in agreement with the concentration of red/gray chips in the dust as reported by Harrit et al (supposed that Laclede chips prevail in it).

3) Bentham chips (a) to (d) have thicknesses of the red layers in a good agreement with the specified thicknesses of Laclede paint. They also contain typical stacking kaolinite platelets and iron oxide crystals, which is in the agreement with the declared composition of Laclede paint. Moreover, in the same prevailing kind of chips, Jim Millette proved epoxy resin as a binder, which is again in the agreement with the Laclede paint.

4) Oystein calculated the elemental composition of Laclede primer according to its specification, and Almond (and later Oystein) simulated its XEDS spectrum. The agreement of this spectrum with the spectra of chips (a) to (d) is simply stunning and very convincing:

Indeed, they are still some speculative/uncertain points in my reasoning, but Laclede red primer still remains to be a pretty good/excellent candidate for the material of Bentham chips (a) to (d); and I do not believe that any other WTC paint or other layered material can "beat it" I simply think that our "Laclede paint story" makes a perfect sense!

 

[Dog Town]

So I don't really see how you are coming to the conclusions you are.

Guess why?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ergo, why don't you go down to the paint store and buy a good assortment of different brands of red paint, find some mildly oxidized steel, paint it with your samples, let cure, scrape off the paint, and test it with a magnet? It has to be more productive than arguing on internet forums! You might even submit them to Harrit & Jones for testing! No fair letting them know in advance what it is!

All this is just more and more silly. On the previous page, Ergo , in the desperate effort to defend all this nanothermite idiocy, tried to deny the very existence of WTC red primer paints, comparing them with UFOs and capricorns!
On this page, Ergo tries to deny that paint on rust flakes can be attracted with magnet. WTF?

I just went to the yard of our institute and scrapped off some paint chips on rusted steel (paints are green, grey, brown and reddish).

Here is a photo of this "fine collection":

Then, I approached a permanent magnet to this collection, and indeed, almost all chips were easily and strongly attracted with the magnet, "jumping" to it from the distance ca 10 mm:

Why should I discuss all the stuff with the... ehm truthers, which simply do not understand anything and would not believe even that the grass is green (when this claim comes from the "sheeple manipulated by gubmint")? ****

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not avoid the autocensor.

 

[NoahFence]

Yeah, that must be it.

That's exactly it, and you know it. That's why you and your kind evade questions whose answers prove you don't know what you're talking about, and prove your retarded theories wrong.

The list of questions you people evade is virtually endless.

 

[Gamolon]

Thank you for that explanation, but in reality you have one author talking about red chips, the other answering rather casually and loosely someone else's question about red-grey chips specifically, but perhaps Legge is really only referring to red chips. And neither of those quotes suggest that the red chips are attracted magnetically.

So I don't really see how you are coming to the conclusions you are.

Answer a simple question ergo.

According to the Bentham paper, is it suffice to say that if anyone drags a magnet over a WTC dust sample and extracts red/gray chips, that those chips are thermitic?

If you disagree, please point to the additional test or tests in the paper that someone would perform in order to make sure the chips were thermite and not paint or some other substance.

 

[ergo]

I just went to the yard of our institute and scrapped off some paint chips on rusted steel (paints are green, grey, brown and reddish).

Here is a photo of this "fine collection":

Cool. At what temperature do they ignite, producing a bright flash and iron microspheres?

 

[Gamolon]

Thank you for that explanation, but in reality you have one author talking about red chips, the other answering rather casually and loosely someone else's question about red-grey chips specifically, but perhaps Legge is really only referring to red chips. And neither of those quotes suggest that the red chips are attracted magnetically.

So I don't really see how you are coming to the conclusions you are.

Just something for you to check out ergo. Maybe you'll "see" what I'm talking about.

Over in the Mark-Basile-Thread, I just posted excerpts from my (yet unfinished) transcript of a recent interview Mark gave. In it, he acknowledges that "The vast majority of [red chips pulled from WTC dust] actually are primer paint".

Frank Legge, too, has already acknowledged in writing (I'll write about that later) that some red-gray chips are paint. And Jones, likewise, has suggested that Millette may have looked at the "wrong" chips.

So their line of defense clearly is "we admit there is primer paint, but there is also nano-thermite, and Millette picked the wrong chips" (and they'll add that this was evil, deliberate deception by this creepy tool of the NWO overlords, or some such nonsense).

Which means we should get them to commit to a method on how to select the right chips - before destroying by fire of course.
And specifically, ask: How did Jeff Farrer select the chips he tested in the DSC?

They should give us an exact protocol of steps to follow. This was asked of Frank Legge - and he ran away. I asked this of Mark Basile - no reply yet. Someone asked Steven Jones - I haven't heard of an answer yet.
(Better yet, they should give us chips - and we know that Kevin Ryan ran away from that)

Just in case you're too lazy to click the link in Oystein's post above, below is the post in it's entirety.

In december 2012, Mark Basile was interviewed by Bernie Suarez and Andrew Steele of the internet radio format "9/11 Free Fall", about his past studies of red-gray chips, and about his planned new and independent study.

I am happy to announced that Mark has realized a few facts that we have been preaching for a long time, and is an honest enough chap to acknowledge them openly and without hesitation. Mainly:

1. There are two, not just one, different known WTC steel primers to be considered
2. The vast majority of red chips that one pulls out of the dust is in fact primer paint (and only some show this exotherm behaviour that make him think they are thermitic)
3. He thinks that even Steven Jones had "definitely" some praimer paint chips in his study (presumably Harrit e.al.).

I'll transcribe Basile's full uninterupted texts from the moment the host stops speaking till Basile stops speaking, so as not give the likes of MM or ergo cause to accuse me of quote mining. And yes, I am fully aware that Basile also states clearly he thinks there is nano-thermite in there. That's not the point of this post.

Money quotes in bold:

1. starting 25:50

"I've been supplied with a sample of – from what I understand there may have been actually two different primers used with the construction of the World Trade Center, I have been supplied with one of them^[1]. And I put it through the exact same test^[2] and it didn't produce iron spheres. Basically all it does is it turns into, in large part, glass fibers and a bunch of minerals and so on, but there's no iron spheres or iron films or anything that gets produced from the one primer that I've put through the exact same experiment. And I wouldn't expect any paint to do that. I also put a number of different paints that I basically have just in my house, they're not World Trade Center primer paint or anything, but they are just paints. And just seeing for myself, again, you know, run another experiment, and I didn't expect them to produce molten iron, and they didn't. You wouldn't expect any paints that you paint onto any building […?...] caught on fire to produce molten iron. If it did, you wouldn't use it to paint your building. You just wouldn't do it – I wouldn't, anyway. Nobody in their right mind would insure your building if it did."​

I would like to comment that Basile didn't know about a second primer when I talked with him on the phone the day before Thanksgiving. I supplied him with links to some of my blog posts, including the one about LaClede primer. Although he never responded to my mails, it seems he still took notice and accepts, with some legitimate caution, the information I provided. So thumbs up to him


2. starting 27:26

"There are a lot of paint chips in the dust! You should make that perfectly clear! Just when you, if anybody in the audience, let's say, would get out there and get a World Trade Center dust sample, and they pull out red chips from this, I'm not telling anybody in the world that every red chip you're gonna pull out of there is one of these nano-thermite chips. The vast majority of them actually are primer paint, from what I […?...], but that doesn't mean they all are. And they are not all, because […?...] pulled out ones where I've seen the reaction, I've seen the product, so I know you're in there. But there is also a lot of primer paint chips in there, too."​

3. starting 28:28

"I think some of the chips that, you know, Jones and all looked at were definitely, you know, primer paint chips, too, so not everything in there was nano-thermite chips. But there were chips that gave this exotherm, and that's where the real key thing is. You get those extreme exotherm at just a little off 400 °C and it produces molten iron as a reaction product."​

This raises a few questions that I would like Basile, as well as Jones and collaborators, to answer:

A) How do you tell primer chips apart from "thermitic" chips before doing any thermal testing, i.e. without destructing them?
B) Were Jones, Farrer, Harrit aware that the vast majority of the chips are primer paint?
B1) If so, how exactly did they select the chips which to experiment on?
B2) In particular, how did Farrer select the chips he tested in the DSC? Did all chips he tested there show this exotherm behaviour?
C) Which chips in the Jones study are probably paint chips, in Basile's opinion, and in the opinion of Jones, Farrer, Legge, Ryan, Harrit?
D) Will any of these men acknowledge that they didn't disprove "paint" when they compared just one type of red-gray chips with one type of WTC primer paint?


Footnotes:
[1] I am 99% certain that he was supplied with a paint sample from WTC columns, so that would most probably be Tnemec 99 or 69, and not LaClede paint from the floor trusses, but I can't prove it, and I am not sure that Basile himself is clear about the source of his primer sample.
[2] That test is heating the sample on a thin strip of steel that he runs a controlled electrical current through, observing the ensuing reactions visually, and looking at the residue through a photomicroscope.

I just sent Harrit an email asking him if they found red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips and what tests they did to distinguish them from the "thermtic" chips.

I've asked him this a couple times before, but curiously, I never got an answer.

 

[Gamolon]

Cool. At what temperature do they ignite, producing a bright flash and iron microspheres?

According to the Bentham paper, at what temperature did the Delassio sample chips ignite?

 

[Miragememories]

"I do not agree that our Laclede theory is quite likely wrong.

It is very likely right, just the final proof, it means the proof of strontium chromate, is missing."

"Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE.

It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it.

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede."

"Concerning this stuff, we have discussed in the past: it is an anticorrosion agent which is expected, during the long periods of time, to be depleted from the paint..."

Expected to completely disappear without a trace?

http://www.airbus.com/support/publications/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=17481
"For over 50 years, hexavalent chromium has been used as corrosion-inhibiting compounds with the protection of metallic surfaces as one of its most important applications. Thanks to chromates, the protection was ensured for the 30-year aircraft lifespan without compromising flight safety, even in extremely severe conditions. Chromates (such as strontium chromate...."

This is very durable stuff.

Your belief is an unfounded presumption designed to fit your hypothesis as to why Dr. Millette could not detect the presence of strontium chromate.

"I understand that since Millette did not detect this chromate, he is reluctant to specify that particular "Laclede paint" as the red material of chips (a) to (d).)"

This bears repeating.

"Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE."

"Otherwise (considering the basic question if Bentham chips (a) to (d) were Laclede paint):

Oystein [a none scientist with no expertise in this science] calculated the elemental composition of Laclede primer according to its specification, and Almond (and later Oystein) simulated its XEDS spectrum.

The agreement of this spectrum with the spectra of chips (a) to (d) is simply stunning and very convincing:"

A simulation based on the imagined results from an imagined test on the imagined composition of a substance that is unobtainable for actual real science testing.

It left you stunned and convinced.

"Indeed, they are still some speculative/uncertain points in my reasoning, but Laclede red primer still remains to be a pretty good/excellent candidate for the material of Bentham chips (a) to (d); and I do not believe that any other WTC paint or other layered material can "beat it"

I simply think that our "Laclede paint story" makes a perfect sense!"

I can't argue that your thinking is simplistic.

Dr. Millette according to Chris Mohr was unequivocal in his finding that the essential ingredient for LaClede steel primer paint was missing.

Dr. Millette is well aware of the age of the WTC at the time of its destruction.

Dr. Millette made no statement of expectation that age could possibly remove the presence of strontium chromate from the LaClede primer paint.

No one is denying that Tnemec and LaClede steel primer paints were used in the WTC.

You have yet to demonstrate that LaClede primer paint is capable of behaving in the manner shown by the highlighted red chips in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Your evidence does not represent a "pretty good/excellent candidate" for the highlighted Bentham chips.

MM

 

[Ivan Kminek]

MM: No, I don't think that strontium chromate (or its ions) can completely "disappear", just its needle crystals could be more or less changed by very slow dissolution during so many years, perhaps escaping the detection by plain microscopy. But, this is my unproven working hypothesis and we anyway have no idea what methods Jim Millette used to identify this stuff, since we do not communicate with him (or only "via" Chris Mohr and very ocassionally).
I think (based on some "hints") that Jim Millette considers as a "little bit" crazy staff not only you truthers, but also us debunkers And that may represent a little problem.

I think that I alreday wrote you that the simulated/calculated spectra based on a good software and good data are imporant part of the current physical chemistry science/investigation, therefore your objections against them are irrelevant, without proofs that used data and method are wrong.

Otherwise, you wrote nothing substantially new

 

[pgimeno]

"Concerning this stuff, we have discussed in the past: it is an anticorrosion agent which is expected, during the long periods of time, to be depleted from the paint..."

Expected to completely disappear without a trace?
[...]
This is very durable stuff.

Congrats, MM, you've reached a whole new level of dishonesty.

The complete sentence that you conveniently cut:

Concerning this stuff, we have discussed in the past: it is an anticorrosion agent which is expected, during the long periods of time, to be depleted from the paint and to be concentrated on the cracks and other damaged parts of the paint layer - this is in fact the principle of its anticorrosive action.

 

[Miragememories]

"MM:

- No, I don't think that strontium chromate (or its ions) can completely "disappear"

- just its needle crystals could be more or less changed by very slow dissolution during so many years

- perhaps escaping the detection by 'plain microscopy'."

bolding and itemizing are mine

"...just the final proof, it means the proof of strontium chromate, is missing."

After mocking the scientific value of the methodology used in the 2009 Bentham paper, you now turn an accusing eye on the value of Dr. Millete's methods.

Apparently Dr. Millette's work is fine, but only so long as it adheres to the Oystein-Kminek LaClede paint hypothesis.

A quick research into strontium chromate suggests a long life expectancy can be expected when well mixed in an epoxy-based paint like LaClede, and spending most of its life in a stable sheltered environment.

Rather than using the Dr. Millette, Dr. Harrit et al, real XEDS methodology, on real samples, you oddly seem to place greater value on an unproven XEDS simulation.

Because his findings disagree with the Oystein-Kminek LaClede paint hypothesis, you attempt to discredit the value of Dr. Millette's work by referring to it as "plain microscopy".

In spite of my issues with Dr. Millette, I have never suggested he did not know his way around XEDS and dust analysis.

All I've been saying is that Dr. Millette looked at the wrong 9/11 WTC dust chips and had very good business reasons for not wanting to perform a test that could support the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM

 

[DGM]

.

All I've been saying is that Dr. Millette looked at the wrong 9/11 WTC dust chips and had very good business reasons for not wanting to perform a test that could support the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM

Why do you suppose the authors of the paper refuse to share their samples and won't release data that would confirm their findings?

Why do you think they also produced a paper that was not repeatable? They even supplied a fellow supporter with samples and he could not repeat the results. He "had" to conclude the samples were switched in the mail.

Odd, You don't question any of this. Must be faith.

 

[GlennB]

All I've been saying is that Dr. Millette looked at the wrong 9/11 WTC dust chips

Please provide a documented method for distinguishing between the "correct red/grey chips" and the "incorrect red/grey chips". One that Truther scientists have indicated.

Basile? No. It was any old magnetically-attracted red/grey chip.

Bentham paper? No. It was any old magnetically-attracted red/grey chip.

Repeat ... rinse ... you avoid this question like the plague. Why is that?

and had very good business reasons for not wanting to perform a test that could support the 2009 Bentham paper.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he already had his money and it was a trivial amount for the work involved. There is no "good business reason" along the lines you suggest. Or will he hit the Truther lecture circuit? Don't think so.

 

[plague311]

Above and beyond that, if Dr. Millette was going to be afraid of the results in the first place, why would he even agree to do it? I am pretty sure he wasn't after the $1,000, and if it was going to be threatening to his practice, why do it at all?

It just doesn't make any sense to me. Occam's Razor would suggest that since Mohr was turned down by several other labs there is no reason why Millette couldn't\wouldn't do the same.

 

[MarkLindeman]

All I've been saying is that Dr. Millette looked at the wrong 9/11 WTC dust chips...

But if you actually believe that Millette looked at the wrong 9/11 WTC dust chips, then surely you can't believe that Millette's results falsify the LaClede hypothesis?

And, yes, we're still waiting for you to explain how to tell the Wrong Chips from the Right Chips, and why that information isn't in the Bentham paper.

(By the way, as I understand it, Millette reported what he found, and didn't speculate as to possible reasons why he didn't find what he didn't find.)

 

[ergo]

Just something for you to check out ergo. Maybe you'll "see" what I'm talking about.

Yes, well, 9/11 bedunkers do tend to "see" things others don't.

The vast majority of [red chips pulled from WTC dust] actually are primer paint"

Notice, for example, how he still says "red chips". Do you find it shocking that paint would also be in the dust?

I just sent Harrit an email asking him if they found red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips and what tests they did to distinguish them from the "thermtic" chips.

I've asked him this a couple times before, but curiously, I never got an answer.

I can't imagine why. I know I can't wait to get e-mails from complete strangers on the internet, demandimg information from me.