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

[pgimeno]

Pgimeno I am guessing that the second set of graphs refers to the Millette chips vs chips a-d in the Bentham., Can you confirm?

Yes, they are taken from here:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/comparison-of-gray-layer-xeds-by-harrit.html

They represent the gray layers of the chips.

 

[Miragememories]

MM since I'm no scientist I don't see the problem with Beachnut's graph.

Here's my journalist's takeaway: I asserted years ago in my videos that the DSC readings in the Harrit et al paper were no match for known nanothermite, and that there is a very wide range of energetic releases among chips a-d. I also asserted that thermite does not release as much energy as wood or jet fuel, even though thermite creates very high temperatures for a minute or less.

So here's a simple graph that measures energy releases of chips a-d, energy releases of various incendieries/explosives, and energy releases of wood and jet fuel. This one graph gives an easy-to-understand visual representation of what I and many others here have said. What's the missing context here?

You react like this is the first time that graphic from the 2009 Bentham Paper has been revealed or discussed.

I suggest you re-read the text from that paper which accompanied that graph.

The scientists discuss the graph and do not hide from what it shows.

Rather than debate the scientific legitimacy of their reasoning, you ignore what they say and take sides with anonymous amateurs who misinterpret the significance of the graph to suit their own argument.

Is this how investigative journalists work?

MM

 

[Spanx]

Prof jones 1. Why do iron-rich spheres appear in the residue of the red/gray chips following ignition in the DSC, which also provides a sharply-peaked heat trace? Do these results not imply SOME type of highly exothermic reaction, beyond that which can be reached by burning paint in air? That is -- where do the iron-rich spheres ( in the ignition residue) come from?

MM & Remo,
Have you tried to explain to Mr Jones where the microspheres come from ?

2. Our Figures 31,32 in the Active Thermitic Materials paper show multiple layers, and Fig. 33 shows the composition of the "light gray" layer. We published these results, and any future study of the WTC dust should also look for these multiple-layered red-gray chips. I intend to explore the dust once again for such multi-layered chips with the new (and skeptical) collaborating scientist.
Now my question to the Jref fellows: 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 and published -- have you attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? Millette does not mention them.

Multi layered paint, perhaps more than one coat ?

 

[DGM]

I suggest you re-read the text from that paper which accompanied that graph.

The scientists discuss the graph and do not hide from what it shows.

MM

They said the extra energy was likely due to a "organic compound", correct?

Isn't that the same thing we've been saying all along?

ETA: Too bad they didn't run the test in an inert atmosphere, then they would know for sure.

 

[beachnut]

You react like this is the first time that graphic from the 2009 Bentham Paper has been revealed or discussed.

I suggest you re-read the text from that paper which accompanied that graph.

The scientists discuss the graph and do not hide from what it shows.

Rather than debate the scientific legitimacy of their reasoning, you ignore what they say and take sides with anonymous amateurs who misinterpret the significance of the graph to suit their own argument.

Is this how investigative journalists work?

MM

MM, is not anonymous? Funny, I set the trap, you walk right in. Do you try to understand the paper of woo? No, you believe and fail to see the lies, the fake parts, the fantasy of a mad man, Jones, who thinks the USA caused the earthquake in Haiti.

LOL, it shows it is not thermite, and it show Harrit and Jones can't identify the substance. BINGO

Oh, yes, the extra energy is from other stuff, the authors unable to find real thermite, make up the lie, their thermite is mixed with dust. NO? Wait, the extra stuff is organic to enhance thermite, super thermite, and yet, some has less energy, the less enhanced, not-super thermite, dumbed down thermite, the less energy.

The extra credit problem why less energy? How do you get less energy? Your heroes, the two liars Jones and Harrit Gish Gallop to say it was organic material? What was the organic material?

Jones and Harrit paper is about thermite, a fantasy. They can't match the energy of thermite so they lie and say it was mixed with organic material they can't identify? LOL, they do a paper about what is in the dust, but can't tell us what it was. This can't get better, you finally read the paper, discovered Jones and Harrit made up a lie, you repeat the lie, but can't tell us what the organic material is?

In a paper about what is in the dust, we have two idiots, Harrit and Jones who can't identify the organic material that has more energy than thermite, and less energy. What was the substance?

You believe two frauds who can't identify the substance that contaminates a substance they can identify? Does this make sense. They can identify thermite, but not the contamination.

I can send my house water to a lab, and they identify all the substances, but Jones and Harrit can't do simple chemistry. Is this your big point.

say and take sides with anonymous amateurs who misinterpret the significance of the graph to suit their own argument

?anonymous amateurs , you mean like MM? It is easy to find me, and who I am, and the graph means Jones and Harrit had to lie again.



LOL, the amateurs are Jones and Harrit.

We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains.

No attempt to identify the super secret substance? LOL, what load of BS. These guys only fool people with no science training, no chemistry. Here we have a paper that claims to identify thermite, but they can't identify what it is. They tell you they will not, they say, "We make no attempt". They make up lies, and then say, "We make no attempt". Who is dumb enough to believe they found thermite, when they can't identify the thermite. Did you fall for this double talk? Yes. lol, and you are an anonymous amateur who can't do chemistry, or understand fake papers.

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.

This is the cool part, you are right, Jones and Harrit now make up the next lie. Wow, the fake super thermite they lie about has "more energy" than thermite because of "organic material". LOL, then they skip the "less energy". They are idiots, make up a lie about why there is more energy in two chips, but the lie is exposed on the spot because they fail to explain the "less energy".

Go a head "anonymous amateur" explain why Jones and Harrit made up a half-lie, and did not cover the big lie completely?

The reason the Jones/Harrit paper is fraud, it can't be published in a real journal, and the only peer review it got was from nuts in 911 truth.

Why less energy? LOL, make my day, get Jones and Harrit to do a Gish Gallop on their fantasy thermite.

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.

Wow, what silly paragraph to explain more energy, but fail to explain the less energy.
You debunked the paper, but you lack the knowledge and logic to understand. No big deal, you also left out how the fantasy thermite was used.

The irony, the office fires before collapse had the heat energy of more than 2,700 TONS of thermite. How many tons of termite were used in your fantasy plot? 12 years and no Pulitzer. Where is your evidence?

Wait, the key here is ...

We make no attempt to specify

Nope, they wave their hands, claim thermite, and people who can't see the problems, fall for the big lie of thermite. Got Chemistry?

Millette does, and he found clay, additives in coatings, and so did Jones, you can see in the spectrum Jones tried to selective with, but failed.

 

[beachnut]

The Jones/Harrit fraud paper is mystery. How can it fool a fringe few. Is it the fringe few have no knowledge in chemistry, or is it a comprehension problem?

The best Jones can do?

We make no attempt to specify ...

The big clue 911 truth is a failed dumbed down movement...
911 truth followers and experts all claim overwhelming evidence, but fail to team with a newspaper to earn a Pulitzer, and be more famous than the Watergate Pulitzer.

911 truth can't refute Millette's work, they can't figure out 911. A movement of do nothing, while repeating lies.

Where is the evidence? In the minds of a fringe few followers of 911 truth lies, it is overwhelming. But they all point to talk, and no evidence.

911 truth with mountains of evidence. 911 truth can't team with a newspaper, and get the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate.

The sad reality for gullible 911 truth faith based believers; no evidence, they have woo. Lies from failed old men, who invent BS

The best chemistry Jones and Harrit have...

We make no attempt to specify ...

Millette does chemistry, Harrit and Jones fool gullible kids and a few fringe fools with words, and incompetence.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Replies are not necessarily answers, but then, that's all part of the evasive strategy as outlined in '9/11 Twoof for Dummies, Vol. Eleventy-Seven'.

 

[OCaptain]

You react like this is the first time that graphic from the 2009 Bentham Paper has been revealed or discussed.

I suggest you re-read the text from that paper which accompanied that graph.

The scientists discuss the graph and do not hide from what it shows.

Rather than debate the scientific legitimacy of their reasoning, you ignore what they say and take sides with anonymous amateurs who misinterpret the significance of the graph to suit their own argument.

Is this how investigative journalists work?

MM

Is there any situation where you will not interject pointless criticism of people who are tying to be considerate to you?

 

[beachnut]

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/paper/index.htm

Millette's paper is chemistry, Jones et al. fraud paper, woo.

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf
Jones thermite looks like Kaolin, it does. Poor 911 truth, lies and fantasy.
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2251/1/JSIR%2067(10)%20812-818.pdf
Kaolin is used in paint, and lots of things. Jones lied.

911 truth followers trust Jones. Jones created a fantasy of thermite out of thin air. Jones and Harrit's best effort is, "no attempt".

We make no attempt to specify ...

How could they specify? Jones and Harrit can't do chemistry. If Jones and Harrit could specify, their paper would match Millette's, look at the data...

Jones and Harrit discovered major rock forming minerals, mixed together, to form something they "make no attempt to specify". Jones and Harrit are forming fantasy, can can't specify anything, they are not chemists, they are conspiracy theorists promoters, experts as BS.

Jones and Harrit attempt to fool a fringe few lacking knowledge and those with no logic skills. Jones and Harrit fool a gullible few; those who can't comprehend evidence. 911 truth followers have no clue what evidence is.

Paper with fake conclusion 911 truth followers blindly believe
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Real science, 911 truth followers fail to understand.
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf
Reality 911 truth followers can't refute, they can't do chemistry.

 

[chrismohr]

Quote:
2. Our Figures 31,32 in the Active Thermitic Materials paper show multiple layers, and Fig. 33 shows the composition of the "light gray" layer. We published these results, and any future study of the WTC dust should also look for these multiple-layered red-gray chips. I intend to explore the dust once again for such multi-layered chips with the new (and skeptical) collaborating scientist.
Now my question to the Jref fellows: 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 and published -- have you attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? Millette does not mention them.

Dr Jones, the multlilayered chips were not dealt with by Millette because he did his comparison to chips which were bi-layered and formed the main body of your study. How can paint/iron chips be multilayered? The late great Ivan suggested that on the near-microscopic level, what's the big deal about painting around a corner where there is some rust, unevenness, flecks of metal from the construction process, whatever, that create multi-layers? Has Jones ever explained the significance of this or just demanded that we explain it?

And as for Remo's question above about extreme temperatures of thermite and how I as a journalist should look into this, there is NO evidence of thermite. This journalist dumb English major guy has looked at the evidence and found: NO molten steel, NO vast piles of aluminum oxide, NO superheated air frying the lungs of the fleeing occupants, NO temperatures above 1400 F in the NASA thermal images, NO problem walking over the debris pile minutes after the collapse of the Towers, NO remnants of any kind of demolition devices in the debris... watch my videos and you'll see I've researched this plenty thank you. And believe me, proof of temperatures in the 2700+ degree F range would have caught my attention. You have to understand that as a peacenik I hated the Bush team enough that I could have believed they were capable of doing anything. I would happily have believed they had committed the worst act of treason in our history. Except for one detail. They did some terrible things like starting two wars, reinstating torture, curtailing our civil liberties, but my strong political disagreement with their militaristic foreign policy and repressive domestic activities does not change the screamingly obvious fact that those three buildings were NOT brought down by thermite or any other kind of controlled demolition. And I have come to agree with a lot of people who say that good political energy is being wasted by well-meaning people who believe this stuff, and I would love to see the 9/11 Truth people work for peace and justice in a way that can be more constructive and truly effective.

But that's just me on a political rant. Sorry. It's a shift for me; I used to believe that people who investigate things like 9/11 CD sometimes turn up real government malfeasance. But the time for that kind of investigating is long past. They looked, they investigated, bravo, great courage, pip pip, but you found NOTHING in the CD realm so why not move on to any of the causes that we know are worth the Good Fight? As one example: you KNOW that the Bush administration was torturing people right under our noses. I'm sure Amnesty International would have appreciated your efforts and contributions to their cause while that was happening! How about the utter lack of due process for the people at Guantanamo? Why not fight for their right for a fair trial?

 

[DGM]

How can paint/iron chips be multilayered? The late great Ivan suggested that on the near-microscopic level, what's the big deal about painting around a corner where there is some rust, unevenness, flecks of metal from the construction process, whatever, that create multi-layers?

This is an easy one. Any field welding or repairs have to be repainted. By "repainted" I mean, a quick brush off and a paint brush. Guess what, no attempt is usually made to match the paint exactly, just stop the rust.

Jones is hunting for an excuse to give his disciples.

 

[LSSBB]

Here's some exposed steel columns in a building. It doesn't take much imagination to see how during construction and after, in a 30 year old building, there might be more than two layers of material on columns subject to rusting.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In all of these dust and chip discussions I don't think I've ever seen explored the issues of showing how a painted layer of nano-thermite is expected to maintain enough energy output long enough to cut through a structural column. I don't care about whether people want to discuss application techniques, that's of absolutely nil importance when the people pushing this idea can't make the jump from "thermite is there" to "thermite caused to collapse".

I'm pretty sure if there's significance to the findings, trying to frame everyone against the idea as sheeple as some posters characterize isn't the way to go about it.

 

[Dog Town]

In all of these dust and chip discussions I don't think I've ever seen explored the issues of showing how a painted layer of nano-thermite is expected to maintain enough energy output long enough to cut through a structural column.

That's because it can't! I think R. Macky slayed that dragon, years ago!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That's because it can't! I think R. Macky slayed that dragon, years ago!

Which pretty much boils down to my point... it's great that CT's feel like they've accomplished something by finding alleged nano-thermite in the buildings through these experimentation results they promote, but the lack of ability for it to perform in the way they claim it was intended pretty much on its own rules out it's role in the collapses. It's easy enough to call us as critics sheeple, but it's not exactly that convenient for those trying avoid that important detail

 

[Spanx]

http://ceroart.revues.org/3248

I get the feeling you would have more chance of finding thermite in the link above

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear
In all of these dust and chip discussions I don't think I've ever seen explored the issues of showing how a painted layer of nano-thermite is expected to maintain enough energy output long enough to cut through a structural column.

That's because it can't! I think R. Macky slayed that dragon, years ago!

Even an actual thermite paint, something with a maximum of iron oxide and aluminum and a minimum of binder, would do little. The purported thermite paint has a lot more binder. Ironically, combustion of the binder produces more energy than real thermite!

 

[Miragememories]

That's because it can't! I think R. Macky slayed that dragon, years ago!

You cannot slay what you are not fighting.

MM

 

[DGM]

You cannot slay what you are not fighting.

MM

Profound but, in this case not true. The only ones pay this any attention are the ones "fighting" it. The fight goes away, the "dragon" dies.

 

[LSSBB]

You cannot slay what you are not fighting.

MM

Sure you can. Just not intentionally.

Are you saying that there is no argument in favor of "painted thermite?" Or similar?