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

[GlennB]

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 ).

Where "we are at" is that the tail is wagging the dog.

The 'Truth' side has failed to provide any worthwhile scientific evidence in support of the beliefs they held even prior to their experiments, they have left the water so muddied that even they can't explain their experiments and it falls to the rational to sort out the mess they have created?

Well, d'uh. What will happen is that Ivan (say) will find similar exotherms with iron-rich microspheres etc but no thermite. The 'Truth' will claim the wrong chips already contaminated with something, procedures that don't precisely match Basile + Bentham or that those microspheres are themselves proof of thermite and that, therefore, Ivan has proved that those were thermitic chips.

Those people are arguing from the pov of faith, not science. Their pov is not falsifiable.

A thought - I know we have precious few Truthers in this thread but let's ask them anyway - "What evidence would convince you that the Basile + Bentham chips were not thermitic?"

I seriously doubt you'll get a straight answer but you never know.

 

[Miragememories]

"The 'Truth' side has failed to provide any worthwhile scientific evidence in support of the beliefs they held even prior to their experiments, they have left the water so muddied that even they can't explain their experiments and it falls to the rational to sort out the mess they have created?"

The truth does not muddy the water.

Lies and disinformation do.

The 2009 Bentham paper followed the rules of science in order to make a determination of nanothermite in the 9/11 WTC dust.

The mud being tossed to undermine the investigation largely comes from individuals who have never seen a spec of 9/11 WTC dust.

Their focus on paint chip evidence, while ignoring scientific proof of thermitic material, reveals the shallowness of their sincerity.

They cannot live with the 2009 Bentham paper's scientific proof, so they practise denial.

"Well, d'uh. What will happen is that Ivan (say) will find similar exotherms with iron-rich microspheres etc but no thermite.

The 'Truth' will claim the wrong chips already contaminated with something, procedures that don't precisely match Basile + Bentham or that those microspheres are themselves proof of thermite and that, therefore, Ivan has proved that those were thermitic chips.

Those people are arguing from the pov of faith, not science. Their pov is not falsifiable.

A thought - I know we have precious few Truthers in this thread but let's ask them anyway - "What evidence would convince you that the Basile + Bentham chips were not thermitic?"

I seriously doubt you'll get a straight answer but you never know."

The truth, in the case of Dr. Millette's 2012 WTC dust study cannot be muddied as long as their are legitimate samples of 9/11 WTC dust in storage.

There is no denying the proof obtained from the heat test at ~430C.

If Ivan can find, and test, a credible material that ignites at ~430C, and leaves iron-rich micro-spheroids in its residue, of course I would be greatly interested, and so would anyone else with a sincere interest in learning the truth about 9/11.

Of course the trick is explaining why "similar exotherms" and residue "with iron-rich microspheres etc mean no thermite" ?

MM

 

[ergo]

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).

Chris, why would this be great? Preparing a "simulated WTC paint" when you have all kinds of primer paint on rusted steel immediately available to you to test? Do you doubt that any ol' primer paint on rusted steel would produce a similar exotherm and iron microspheres? If so, why? What's special about the WTC paint?

And why not just support Mark Basile's study, which is going to test the real thing? How much easier can we make it for you guys?

(Not to mention what Ivan could possibly mean by "different kinds of rust" having a "different" effect. )

 

[beachnut]

... If Ivan can find, and test, a credible material that ignites at ~430C, and leaves iron-rich micro-spheroids... MM

It is called paper with iron rich ink... lol, 911 truth, failure based on fantasy. 12 years of woo continue in the minds of a few fooled by Jones...

 

[pgimeno]

There is no denying the proof obtained from the heat test at ~430C.

What is it? Is it a replication of Tillotson and Gash results, by any chance? Is there aluminium oxide in the residue according to the PXRD analysis?

Oh wait, there's no PXRD analysis. And no aluminium oxide, therefore no thermite.

So, there's no denying the proof obtained from the heat test at ~430C was NOT a thermite reaction. Nothing to see here...

 

[chrismohr]

Chris, why would this be great? Preparing a "simulated WTC paint" when you have all kinds of primer paint on rusted steel immediately available to you to test? Do you doubt that any ol' primer paint on rusted steel would produce a similar exotherm and iron microspheres? If so, why? What's special about the WTC paint?

And why not just support Mark Basile's study, which is going to test the real thing? How much easier can we make it for you guys?

(Not to mention what Ivan could possibly mean by "different kinds of rust" having a "different" effect. )

It's kinda hard to do much with a guy who never ever responds to any of my emails requesting we work together on developing a protocol for their study. I have been shunned by everyone involved in any dust experiments on the 9/11 Truth thermite experiment side. Kind of an Amish thing, you know.

 

[chrismohr]

A couple other questions. I have ben unable to find the Niels Harrit quote where he basically says (in 2011 I believe), '2 years with no response is support for our study from the larger scientific community.'

My other question: Cate Jenkins, the EPA whistleblower who praised Millette personally but condemned some of the EPA studies Millette participated in, got her job back. But was any action taken against anyone in the EPA based on her accusations? She won her job but did she win her case?

I'm going through the ANETA.ORG article, as you may guess.

 

[GlennB]

The 2009 Bentham paper followed the rules of science in order to make a determination of nanothermite in the 9/11 WTC dust.

But their experiments cannot be replicated, which make them the worst kind of science. Millette followed their chip selection process and yet you say he has the wrong chips, and no information is forthcoming as to how to select the 'right' chips. Basile + Bentham have created an unfalsifiable position.

Of course the trick is explaining why "similar exotherms" and residue "with iron-rich microspheres etc mean no thermite" ?

It wouldn't, which suggests to me you have no clue or cannot read. Other evidence showing no thermite would indicate that iron-rich microspheres are not a diagnostic test for thermite and that the Truth interpretation of their significance is wrong. Right now all of you Thermitians are assuming they are proof of thermite, which is bad science.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

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.

No, it is not my assertion that any paint on rusted steel will produce (iron rich) microspheres. I have no idea. I am only absolutely sure that any kind of common paint based on organic polymer binder will produce some exotherms (in the similar temperature range like in Bentham paper) So keep this in mind, if you can.

As for "known" and "unknown" paints, the situation is quite opposite, I think: all "my" paint chips scrapped in the yard are unknown, I have no idea about their composition, binder, pigments, etc., whereas I know pretty well what was the composition of Laclede red primer (which probably prevailed in the WTC dust, therefore can be easily the red material of red/gray chips heated in DCS device). And I am indeed able to prepare again its close imitation, now in the form of red/gray chips on rust scales.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris: I personally think that you should not comment anymore all this "Cate Jenkins stuff". By all his silly and irrelevant accusation of Jim Millette (and you), Kevin Ryan definitely proved himself to be just a desperate paranoid idiot who does not deserve any more attention from any mentally sane person.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Ergo: Anyway, I just visited once again our yard and this time, I scrapped off using lancet only red paints from the rusted steel, from four independent sources, more specifically from some fence, some gate and two kinds of trolleys. Namely in the case of these trolleys, I would expect that the paint is a high quality primer, so perhaps with epoxy or alkyd binder. As for the red colour, it can be caused by iron oxides, but can be also caused by lead stuffs.

Here is a photo of the chips, which were attracted with the magnet (about half of them). Then, I transferred them from the magnet to the beaker:

I would say that the average size of these chips is well below one millimeter.

I will perhaps visit our microscopy department quite soon...

My conclusion so far: there is a lot of pretty rusty things in our institute yard and they should definitely get a new paint job soon

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Btw, I put the chips which were not attracted with the magnet (probably mostly paint chips without attached rust) to another beaker and I added some MEK solvent (ca 20 ml).

Here is a photo after ca 1 h of standing:

As you can see, chips are still there, but MEK is already slightly orange, because of extracted/dispersed very fine red pigments (lead or iron or both, I do not know).

My interpretation is: at least some of the chips have a linear polymer binder like some acrylics, therefore this binder is at least partially soluble in MEK (even after several/many years after painting), allowing the release of the red pigment(s) into MEK.

For comparison, here is again the photo of my chips of Laclede paint imitation with epoxy resin binder, after several months of standing in MEK:

As you can see, MEK is still colorless, it means no iron oxide was released into MEK, since epoxy binder is not dissolved at all and is only slightly swollen.

All this makes full sense for any polymer chemist, indeed

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Ergo: Anyway, I just visited once again our yard and this time, I scrapped off using lancet only red paints from the rusted steel, from four independent sources, more specifically from some fence, some gate and two kinds of trolleys. Namely in the case of these trolleys, I would expect that the paint is a high quality primer, so perhaps with epoxy or alkyd binder. As for the red colour, it can be caused by iron oxides, but can be also caused by lead stuffs.

Here is a photo of the chips, which were attracted with the magnet (about half of them). Then, I transferred them from the magnet to the beaker:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1115&pictureid=8118

I would say that the average size of these chips is well below one millimeter.

I will perhaps visit our microscopy department quite soon...

My conclusion so far: there is a lot of pretty rusty things in our institute yard and they should definitely get a new paint job soon

The red chip on the right looks like thermite

No, not that one. The other one.

 

[Gamolon]

The red chip on the right looks like thermite

No, not that one. The other one.

 

[Gamolon]

Chris, why would this be great? Preparing a "simulated WTC paint" when you have all kinds of primer paint on rusted steel immediately available to you to test? Do you doubt that any ol' primer paint on rusted steel would produce a similar exotherm and iron microspheres? If so, why? What's special about the WTC paint?

And why not just support Mark Basile's study, which is going to test the real thing? How much easier can we make it for you guys?

(Not to mention what Ivan could possibly mean by "different kinds of rust" having a "different" effect. )

A couple of quesitons.

1. According to the the Bentham paper, what criteria would one need to use to get the correct chips for testing.

2. Why didn't Harrit and his group test any of the paint chips they supposedly found in the dust piles? Why did they feel the need to test OTHER external paint chips?

 

[chrismohr]

Glenn your question to the 9/11 Truith folks is a good one: what would convince you that the chips are NOT thermitic? Because I can answer in the other direction: that Millette's tests would have convinced me that the chips ARE thermitic if Millette's tests had come out positive.

 

[pgimeno]

A couple of quesitons.

1. According to the the Bentham paper, what criteria would one need to use to get the correct chips for testing.

2. Why didn't Harrit and his group test any of the paint chips they supposedly found in the dust piles? Why did they feel the need to test OTHER external paint chips?

Excellent questions. I doubt you'll get an answer, because they raise one more and they won't like any of the options.

There are only two possibilities as I see it:

a) The chip selection criteria include a protocol not mentioned in the paper's isolation section, like looking for a specific shade of red they don't specify, as Miragememories advocates. As GlennB noted, that would make the paper unreproducible and therefore bad science.

b) The chip selection criteria are as specified in the isolation section of the paper and don't include separation of chips considered thermitic from those which are not, but instead consider all chips thermitic without distinguishing them. Given that there's no effort of characterizing each kind of chip on which an analysis is performed because all are considered the same thing, that makes the paper bad science.

Which is it?

 

[pgimeno]

By the way, these possibilities also relate to Chris Mohr's question:

A couple other questions. I have ben unable to find the Niels Harrit quote where he basically says (in 2011 I believe), '2 years with no response is support for our study from the larger scientific community.'

Support from the larger scientific community comes from citations, and there are none of the Bentham paper in any other mainstream papers. Bad science usually doesn't get cited, except maybe in meta-papers. The paper has gone largely unknown; the journal where it appeared has a very bad reputation among the larger scientific community, see this post by Lenbrazil: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4619501&postcount=538 and that of course means the opposite to what you say Harrit claimed.

 

[Gamolon]

Excellent questions. I doubt you'll get an answer, because they raise one more and they won't like any of the options.

There are only two possibilities as I see it:

a) The chip selection criteria include a protocol not mentioned in the paper's isolation section, like looking for a specific shade of red they don't specify, as Miragememories advocates. As GlennB noted, that would make the paper unreproducible and therefore bad science.

What I find funny is that MM first said that the resisitivity test was done to make sure that none of the chips were paint. When it was pointed out to him that in the Bentham paper they only tested one chip for resisitivity, he moved onto the definitive test being the DSC. When it was pointed out to him the the DSC was not done on all the samples, he now says it had something to do with the specific color.

 

[Spanx]

What I find funny is that MM first said that the resisitivity test was done to make sure that none of the chips were paint. When it was pointed out to him that in the Bentham paper they only tested one chip for resisitivity, he moved onto the definitive test being the DSC. When it was pointed out to him the the DSC was not done on all the samples, he now says it had something to do with the specific color.

So can we expect smell next ?