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

In the houses of shadow.

Dang!
Here's my latest update on the publishing of the full dust study from Jim Millette........Chris, thanks for the post.... I am afraid I have had to put the research on the back burner while I attend to other projects. Hopefully I will get back to it soon. Jim
14th August 2012,

I just talked with Jim Millette today. He had hoped to get back to the long-delayed dust experiments in January but his business got a slew of jobs he didn't expect. 1st March 2013

I just talked with Jim Millette today as it happens. Yes he still intends to publish his paper, but he is overwhelmed with work. Things have not let up for him but when they do he intends to get a paper out.5th June 2013,

Disappointed to report that we are victims of Jim Millette's business success. He has been unable to find an interested intern to work on this, also unable to find time himself or with his paid staff....Still interested in doing this but time has not allowed him to do more on the WTC dust study. However when he finds time he is interested in more research on the matter. 18th July 2013

"another email from Jim Millette.........I gathered from that that our little dust study is on the back burner, so to speak." 16th January 2014.

"our little dust study". On the very very long back burner of Dr.Jim, so to speak.
Alas and Dang......Nothing changes. The towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by explosive/incendiary demolitions. Everybody knows that.
 
Last edited:
remo said:
Dang!
Here's my latest update on the publishing of the full dust study from Jim Millette........Chris, thanks for the post.... I am afraid I have had to put the research on the back burner while I attend to other projects. Hopefully I will get back to it soon. Jim
14th August 2012,

I just talked with Jim Millette today. He had hoped to get back to the long-delayed dust experiments in January but his business got a slew of jobs he didn't expect. 1st March 2013

I just talked with Jim Millette today as it happens. Yes he still intends to publish his paper, but he is overwhelmed with work. Things have not let up for him but when they do he intends to get a paper out.5th June 2013,

Disappointed to report that we are victims of Jim Millette's business success. He has been unable to find an interested intern to work on this, also unable to find time himself or with his paid staff....Still interested in doing this but time has not allowed him to do more on the WTC dust study. However when he finds time he is interested in more research on the matter. 18th July 2013

"another email from Jim Millette.........I gathered from that that our little dust study is on the back burner, so to speak." 16th January 2014.

"our little dust study". On the very very long back burner of Dr.Jim, so to speak.
Alas and Dang......Nothing changes. The towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by explosive/incendiary demolitions. Everybody knows that.
Click to expand...

Thanks Rema,
I have copied and pasted the truthers response to Jim Millette's work below.......
 
Last edited:
Millette has shown zero intention of publishing and thus subjecting his work to rebuttal by Dr. Harrit et al.

He will just keep blowing smoke.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Millette has shown zero intention of publishing and thus subjecting his work to rebuttal by Dr. Harrit et al.

He will just keep blowing smoke.

MM
Click to expand...

The report that currently exists is perfectly fine for Harrit et al. to rebut. The fact that they refuse to do so is telling. The fact that you defend them not doing so is also telling.
 
thedopefishlives said:
The report that currently exists is perfectly fine for Harrit et al. to rebut. The fact that they refuse to do so is telling. The fact that you defend them not doing so is also telling.
Click to expand...
There hasn't been a single truther who's managed to comment on the data that Millette has provided. The only thing they do is chant the mantra that Millette has the wrong chips (obviously because his correct conclusion show what a crock of crap the Harrit paper is).

You won't find a truther attempting any proper analysis of the data.
 
chrismohr said:
Spanx I didn't see your link or posting re Truthers' response to Millette
Click to expand...
That's because it's invisible to those who are too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality.

ETA: Just in case, let me clarify it's sarcasm, no intention to insult.
 
Last edited:
thedopefishlives said:
The report that currently exists is perfectly fine for Harrit et al. to rebut. The fact that they refuse to do so is telling. The fact that you defend them not doing so is also telling.
Click to expand...

Dr. Harrit has no reason for responding to unpublished, incomplete cash grabs purporting to be legitimate works of research.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Dr. Harrit has no reason for responding to unpublished, incomplete cash grabs purporting to be legitimate works of research.

MM
Click to expand...

:i:

The mark of the true troll. Saying the opposite side does what your side is actually doing.

Difference being that "Dr." Harrit's publications are verifiably false by anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature.
 
Miragememories said:
Dr. Harrit has no reason for responding to unpublished, incomplete cash grabs purporting to be legitimate works of research.

MM
Click to expand...

Lol, but he did travel to the uk to try and defened a TV licience evader. He actually thought the BBC were being taken to court and he would be giving evidence. He is nothing more than a plank. No wonder his work has not been taken seriously apart from people like you MM. Not to mention he openly admits he was unaware of wtc7 until six years after the event. No wonder he was the one who got the special DVD through his letter box.

How is his research going ?
 
remo said:
... Alas and Dang......Nothing changes. The towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by explosive/incendiary demolitions. Everybody knows that.
Click to expand...
You post lies about 911. That is nothing, and it has not changed. What will you do with your evidence? It sure saves time, effort, storage space when you have the kind of evidence you have, a fantasy only wasting space in some neurons.

Pulitzer Prize winning claims, with no evidence.

Where are you hiding the evidence? Jones paper shows no thermite, the dust samples did not match the energy of thermite. Jones has a paper with fake results, and he fools those who can't do chemistry, or understand reality. Jones published fake conclusions, and paid to publish them. Faked out the gullible cult members of 911 truth.
 
thedopefishlives said:
The report that currently exists is perfectly fine for Harrit et al. to rebut.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. If Millette's results are a genuine refutation of the Harrit paper then it is crucial that his paper gets written and published. If Millette is too busy to write the paper, perhaps his data should be passed on to someone else.

A proper paper must be written, peer-reviewed and published in a really reputable journal because, given the amount of criticism that the Harrit paper received for not being properly peer-reviewed and only being published in an online journal of questionable quality, it would be a double standard to say that it doesn't really matter if the paper refuting it has even been finished, let alone peer-reviewed.
 
A thought crossed my mind: I wonder what Harris or Dyer(Bigfoot) make of each others claims.
 
Georgio said:
I don't agree. If Millette's results are a genuine refutation of the Harrit paper then it is crucial that his paper gets written and published. If Millette is too busy to write the paper, perhaps his data should be passed on to someone else.

A proper paper must be written, peer-reviewed and published in a really reputable journal because, given the amount of criticism that the Harrit paper received for not being properly peer-reviewed and only being published in an online journal of questionable quality, it would be a double standard to say that it doesn't really matter if the paper refuting it has even been finished, let alone peer-reviewed.
Click to expand...

Hear hear!

A sincere thorough debunking (if possible) of the Dr. Harrit et al peer-reviewed 9/11 WTC dust study would be most valuable.

No one in their right mind wants to believe that nano-thermite existed throughout the dust yet those, like Millette, who have both the means (his own dust supply) and opportunity (his own lab), refuse to put the matter to rest.

It is baffling.

A quickie ~430C test performed during a coffee break would reveal innocuous paint residue, or, a finding that compares to the published paper.

Hopefully Mark Basile will shed more light on this subject because after 2 years of inactivity, it must be concluded that Millette has no such intention.

MM
 
Georgio said:
I don't agree. If Millette's results are a genuine refutation of the Harrit paper then it is crucial that his paper gets written and published. If Millette is too busy to write the paper, perhaps his data should be passed on to someone else.

A proper paper must be written, peer-reviewed and published in a really reputable journal because, given the amount of criticism that the Harrit paper received for not being properly peer-reviewed and only being published in an online journal of questionable quality, it would be a double standard to say that it doesn't really matter if the paper refuting it has even been finished, let alone peer-reviewed.
Click to expand...
I don't see the urgency. No one is really paying any attention to the Harret paper outside of the conspiracy theory world. Anyone truly interested in refuting the Harret paper only has to ask a qualified scientist to read it.

The paper has had no impact because it's wrong. Pure and simple.
 
Georgio said:
I don't agree. If Millette's results are a genuine refutation of the Harrit paper then it is crucial that his paper gets written and published. If Millette is too busy to write the paper, perhaps his data should be passed on to someone else.

A proper paper must be written, peer-reviewed and published in a really reputable journal because, given the amount of criticism that the Harrit paper received for not being properly peer-reviewed and only being published in an online journal of questionable quality, it would be a double standard to say that it doesn't really matter if the paper refuting it has even been finished, let alone peer-reviewed.
Click to expand...


We already have his results., you prefer lies from 911 truth. If you read the Jones paper it is clear they did not find thermite. You don't care, and can't understand not one of their samples matched thermite in energy. Should have paid attention in Chem Eng 101, too late.

Harrit's paper was a fraud, you were fooled; that is enough proof you can't see the work already done by Millette as real. You like failed fantasy which will go on forever, and can't figure out 911 given the answers and 12 years.

Hit and run again, and you can't see 911 truth spreads lies. You can't see the lies, you repeat the lies, and you believe the lies. As if you were in a cult. You can't prove one thing 911 truth has, and failed to understand Jones/Harrit paper was nonsense. Gullible?
 
Last edited:
Georgio said:
I don't agree. If Millette's results are a genuine refutation of the Harrit paper then it is crucial that his paper gets written and published. If Millette is too busy to write the paper, perhaps his data should be passed on to someone else.

A proper paper must be written, peer-reviewed and published in a really reputable journal because, given the amount of criticism that the Harrit paper received for not being properly peer-reviewed and only being published in an online journal of questionable quality, it would be a double standard to say that it doesn't really matter if the paper refuting it has even been finished, let alone peer-reviewed.
Click to expand...
I comprehensively debunked the Harrit et al paper in 2009 and conclusively showed that the material in question is red paint adhered to steel.

See signature for the thread.

There is no need to publish a paper or have it peer reviewed in order to show that the Harrit paper is trash. All you need is someone qualified to review it - any competent (analytical) chemist or materials engineer/metallurgist will do. The paper only fools the ignorant and is used by believers as a bible.

If there had been a proper peer review process it would never have been published, so it's silly to try to hold Millette's work to a standard that the Harrit paper could never attain.

It's only truthers including Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Basile who don't understand the data or in the worst case; fraudulently misrepresent the data, in the Harrit paper.

Truthers continue to believe that the data shows thermite is present in the dust because they are completely unqualified to analyse the data and refuse expert analysis when it is presented. No truther has ever been able to challenge my analysis of Harrit et al.

The Harrit paper has had zero impact and has never been referenced in any other non-truther work on the subject of thermite.

Millette was tasked with separating material that matched samples a-d in Harrit et al and positively identifying that material. He has done this comprehensively and provided all the data that he generated. No truther will actually analyse the data. In fact I don't believe that any truther has ever read the entirety of Millette's report because they refuse to comment and misquote that which is written in black and white. No truther will compare like for like data between Millette and Harrit et al. To do so destroys the argument of thermite - read this very thread for proof.

If you had the ability of a 4 year old child you could determine whether the data from Millette matches that in Harrit et a,l because the only thing you need to do is pattern match - just as you do when playing "snap". If you can decide whether the four samples a, b, c, and d shown here:

picture.php


picture.php


are the same material, then you can use that pattern matching skill to look at other similarities to deduce whether Millette has the same material. Once you have done that, then the only rational action is to see that the material is red paint adhered to steel.

This is the reason why Miragememories refuses to acknowledge that samples a-d are the same material even though everyone; the paper's authors, truthers and debunkers (including me) agree that it is. I've asked him time after time but he refuses to answer. Once you use your brain it only leads in one direction.

If you read the original thread on the Harrit et al paper then it would come as no surprise that Millette found that the material is an epoxy containing iron oxide pigment and kaolin platelets adhered to oxidised steel (some years after I had shown - Millette simply confirms my original anaysis).

Ultimately for a truther it comes down to belief. Truthers are unwilling to do simple things such as pattern match just as they would do in playing the card game "snap" with a 4 year old.

Peer review is a red herring - have the courage to look and compare the raw data.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom