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

[Dog Town]

Why is anyone, engaging the Maroon?

 

[chrismohr]

Here is something from that recent article in aneta.org:

- Harrit et al. also mention another version of the chips in the dust, in very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, in addition to the chips examined in the paper. According to Jones, later unpublished analysis confirmed that these chips have the same red and gray layers as the standard bi-layered chips, along with different layers. He states that "thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper." When a blogger discovered a patent in July 2012, described as looking "like the manual for what was found in the WTC dust", Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best."

To my knowledge no one here has commented on this accusation. Any thoughts?

 

[DGM]

Here is something from that recent article in aneta.org:

- Harrit et al. also mention another version of the chips in the dust, in very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, in addition to the chips examined in the paper. According to Jones, later unpublished analysis confirmed that these chips have the same red and gray layers as the standard bi-layered chips, along with different layers. He states that "thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper." When a blogger discovered a patent in July 2012, described as looking "like the manual for what was found in the WTC dust", Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best."

To my knowledge no one here has commented on this accusation. Any thoughts?

Have they reported what they were wearing at the time of the tests? Without this information there would be no way the results could be confirmed.



Has anyone seen those goal posts lately?

 

[plague311]

Here is something from that recent article in aneta.org:

- Harrit et al. also mention another version of the chips in the dust, in very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, in addition to the chips examined in the paper. According to Jones, later unpublished analysis confirmed that these chips have the same red and gray layers as the standard bi-layered chips, along with different layers. He states that "thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper." When a blogger discovered a patent in July 2012, described as looking "like the manual for what was found in the WTC dust", Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best."

To my knowledge no one here has commented on this accusation. Any thoughts?

Sounds like more grade school, goalpost moving antics by a well known truther. "You did x, but did you do x? If not, it doesn't count, no backsies."

If it's not this it's just going to be something else, anything else that they can use to dirty up the water. As previously stated, and quoted, "A truthers goal is to keep the conversation moving in a circle." (I know that's not the exact quote, but I'm lazy and grilling.)

 

[chrismohr]

Any responses to what this multi-layer phenomenon may be about?

 

[beachnut]

Any responses to what this multi-layer phenomenon may be about?

gish gallop

 

[LSSBB]

Here is something from that recent article in aneta.org:

- Harrit et al. also mention another version of the chips in the dust, in very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, in addition to the chips examined in the paper. According to Jones, later unpublished analysis confirmed that these chips have the same red and gray layers as the standard bi-layered chips, along with different layers. He states that "thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper." When a blogger discovered a patent in July 2012, described as looking "like the manual for what was found in the WTC dust", Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best."

To my knowledge no one here has commented on this accusation. Any thoughts?

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

[chrismohr]

Pics or it didn't happen.

So you're saying we've never seen multi-layered chips? MM can you prove him wrong?

 

[GlennB]

If it's not this it's just going to be something else, anything else that they can use to dirty up the water. As previously stated, and quoted, "A truthers goal is to keep the conversation moving in a circle." (I know that's not the exact quote, but I'm lazy and grilling.)

This, and only this. As long as they can find one thing that they feel is 'odd' then they deem their entire CT edifice to be intact.

A friend of mine became a young-earth creationist (the Witnesses snared him)
and we argued about the evidence. He'd seen some photos alleged to be giant fossilised human footprints mixed in with dinosaur footprints. Whenever cornered in a discussion he'd just return to the footprints. It was a security blanket that made everything OK.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi, Chris, here is a repost of my contribution 1104 from September 2012 (from the Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper):


"Remo: ...and some addendum as for "mysterious" multilayered chip depicted in Fig. 31 (Bentham paper).

We know from the Bentham paper that the inner light gray material is very probably some organic polymer, with some oxygen in it, perhaps some adhesive, as suggested by Harrit et al. Gray and red layers are again very probably just layers of rust and some red paint (welll.... red material).

Jones (and your) hypothesis: This chip must be multilayered nanothermite indeed! (Since, we should reluctantly admit, one such thin red layer is hardly good for cutting WTC steel and commiting the worst crime in the history)

My tentative hypothesis: This light gray thing can be a little particle of some polymer accidentally present/sticked on the steel during paint job. Just accidentally, steel was already oxidized in this little area, leading to some "microscaling" of rust; therefore, during painting, a fresh red paint "wrapped" this polymer particle, together with the adjacent scaling rust, leading to such three-layered (quite probably not really multilayered) irregular object. I know, it's just hypothesis. But still it seems to be a way better than your mighty speculation about sputtered nanothermite multilayers."

I still fully agree with myself in this regard No paint layer is really perfect at the "microscale". This object looks basically as a some deffect in/of the paint layer and can originate e.g. from the edge of some painted object, where such deffects can easily occur. Moreover, it is explicitly written in Bentham paper that this strange chip contained a lot of Pb, so it is definitely something else than chips (a) to (d), probably some lead primer paint (I mean the red layer here).
Such chips are probably rare in the dust (since just one was reported) and Jim Millette had indeed no "duty" to find them or discuss them. His goal was to find and to analyze bi-layered chips corresponding to Bentham chips (a) to (d)!

(The "hypothesis" that this "multilayered" chip can be some multilayered nanothermite, judging from its own structure/look, is again a pure nonsense. Both gray layers (basically rust) and white layer (basically some polymer) can only slow down/deteriorate the thermite reaction, provided that the red layer was thermite)

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks Glenn and Ivan. It's good to be reminded of the dynamic of proof through anomalies, and Ivan your hypothesis sure does make much much more sense. Really, multi-layered nanothermite was never my primary hypothesis!!

 

[MarkLindeman]

Here is something from that recent article in aneta.org:...

Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best."

To my knowledge no one here has commented on this accusation. Any thoughts?

It's a nice example of what I coincidentally posted a few minutes ago: that in general the main point of trutherism is to unexplain things. (Admittedly not an original point.) Have truthers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips? If so, does their account make any sense?

It's hard to imagine an empirical study of anything whatsoever that isn't INCOMPLETE. What a silly thing to say.

 

[Miragememories]

"Here is something from that recent article in aneta.org:

- Harrit et al. also mention another version of the chips in the dust, in very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, in addition to the chips examined in the paper. According to Jones, later unpublished analysis confirmed that these chips have the same red and gray layers as the standard bi-layered chips, along with different layers. He states that "thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper." When a blogger discovered a patent in July 2012, described as looking "like the manual for what was found in the WTC dust", Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best."

To my knowledge no one here has commented on this accusation. Any thoughts?

"Pics or it didn't happen.

"So you're saying we've never seen multi-layered chips?

MM can you prove him wrong?

The question is a troll.

Multi-layered chips were a part of the 2009 Bentham paper final section: 8. What Future Studies are Contemplated?.

Those chips certainly sound interesting and worthy of the future investigation Dr. Harrit et al contemplated.

The real story is still about the bi-layer red/gray chips.

They were the basis for the original finding that nanothermite was common throughout the 9/11 WTC dust.

MM

 

[LSSBB]

The question is a troll.

Multi-layered chips were a part of the 2009 Bentham paper final section: 8. What Future Studies are Contemplated?.

Those chips certainly sound interesting and worthy of the future investigation Dr. Harrit et al contemplated.

The real story is still about the bi-layer red/gray chips.

They were the basis for the original finding that nanothermite was common throughout the 9/11 WTC dust.

MM

The question is not a troll. How can we discuss a claim of what material consists of without more information? We need at least images, and for chemical composition to be accurately judged we need even more than that. Ivan presented a picture, that was discussed earlier in another thread. So now we have a picture! Ivan also presented a plausible theory as to how it became that way. Without more in depth analysis, can you say Ivan's conjecture is not the correct one?

 

[DGM]

Never mind.

 

[GlennB]

Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best."

My bolding.
This is the plain "poisoning the well" fallacy.

They didn't test those chips and have no clue what they are or their significance, but unless a debunker finds them then all thermite-based CT bets are still on? Are you kidding?

How experienced and trained scientific brains can come to operate so illogically and in defiance of the scientific method is mind-boggling.

p.s. had any of these people ever explained what earthly use such thin layers of thermitic material might be in bringing down a building? Or is the mere concept of nano-thermite sufficient to just frighten the steel into giving way?

 

[ergo]

But "WTC paint" adhered to oxidised steel will.

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).

"WTC paint" adhered to oxidised steel will [ignite, producing bright flashes and iron microspheroids]

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:

Am I the only one who sees an opportunity here??

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Am I the only one who sees an opportunity here??

I am not sure what you mean, but when I scrapped these paint chips from the steel and saw them to be attracted to magnet, I thought: why not to use the same chips for the heating experiment, looking basically for these microspheres?
But, I think that it would be better/more convincing to prepare some "artificial WTC chips", in which epoxy red layer would contain iron oxide and kaolinite (or similar) and would be cast on several kinds of rusted steel (and then scrapped off). I personally think that the exact form of rust may be quite important (since "iron rich" microspheres are probably formed from the oxidized steel layers in WTC chips).

Anyway, the basic experiments would be quite easy on both set of samples:
1) Selected chips are microscoped prior heating
2) Selected chips are heated up to 700 degrees under air.
3) Selected chips are again microscoped after heating.

Just two micrographs and one heating would be necessary. And perhaps several hours of preparation of "artifical red/gray chips". I am ocassionally thinking about making such experiments, at least just for fun, but I am simply too lazy And it would require to persuade some guy from our microscopy department to shot the chips and their ash at the magnification high enough. (I would for sure bother some colleague in the case of authentic WTC chips, but here my interest is not high enough)

 

[ergo]

Rather than go to all that trouble, why not just ignite the chips you have?

If the bedunker assertion is that any ol' paint on rusted steel will produce that exotherm and microspheres, should be pretty easy to confirm with what you have.

If it doesn't work with what you have, then we know that any ol' paint on rusted steel will not produce the results that were identified in the Bentham paper, and replication is going to be necessary.

I don't think your experimental design is all that good. Being able to control the composition of the substance you're testing is not rigorous methodology. You would never allow such an experiment from the truther side. Much better to simply work with the known. Which means test commonplace steel paint on iron oxide, or test WTC paint specifically and support Mark Basile's experiment.

 

[chrismohr]

I am not sure what you mean, but when I scrapped these paint chips from the steel and saw them to be attracted to magnet, I thought: why not to use the same chips for the heating experiment, looking basically for these microspheres?
But, I think that it would be better/more convincing to prepare some "artificial WTC chips", in which epoxy red layer would contain iron oxide and kaolinite (or similar) and would be cast on several kinds of rusted steel (and then scrapped off). I personally think that the exact form of rust may be quite important (since "iron rich" microspheres are probably formed from the oxidized steel layers in WTC chips).

Anyway, the basic experiments would be quite easy on both set of samples:
1) Selected chips are microscoped prior heating
2) Selected chips are heated up to 700 degrees under air.
3) Selected chips are again microscoped after heating.

Just two micrographs and one heating would be necessary. And perhaps several hours of preparation of "artifical red/gray chips". I am ocassionally thinking about making such experiments, at least just for fun, but I am simply too lazy And it would require to persuade some guy from our microscopy department to shot the chips and their ash at the magnification high enough. (I would for sure bother some colleague in the case of authentic WTC chips, but here my interest is not high enough)

Ivan I think this would be great! Really wish you would do it in the next few weeks. I am preparing a public report on where we are at this point with thbe e whole thermitic dust discussion and this would be most worthwhile. Would a chance for fame, glory and honor (by having this experiment mentioned in my report ).