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

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

My analogy is that the dragon never really existed to be fought in the first place. What am "I" supposed to "fight" if there's no connectable dots between the claim and what was found.

• The CT claim is that "we found nano-thermite in the dust" but it goes no further.
• They provide no proof that any of the failure mechanisms in the collapses are consistent with "we found failure of the structural columns consistent with high temperature cutting".
• They don't feel like there's a need to make the connection
• They can complain all they want that the NIST is wrong, and we're all sheeple that contributed to all of this conspiracy but if they can't link thermite dust to ""it collapsed the buildings" there's nothing to "fight".

 

[ozeco41]

It has been a "red-herring" from the outset. I supported the study because I respect ChrisMohr's efforts at building bridges.

The problem is we are years too late. There are no "genuine truthers" left who would be willing to cross a bridge.

The difficulty of chasing them down derails is, once you start, where do you draw the line? And I expressed that as a looming point for concern for Chris way back near the start of this journey.

The "thermXte" derail was nothing more than a marketing ploy by S Jones who was losing "brand prominence" to Gage in the "market". It gave him two brief periods of renewed notoriety, the first with thermXte the second with nano-thermXte.

Whether or not there was thermXte in the dust is irrelevant to WTC 9/11 argument. It could only be relevant if there was a plausible pro-CD claim under active discussion and which relied on thermXte.

There is not and never has been a plausible hypothesis pro-CD. It wouldn't matter is there were hundred tonne stockpiles of thermXte at all corners of the Towers. There was no CD therefore thermXte is irrelevant.

 

[Senenmut]

Millette does not mention them.

did you ask if he found any? if not, maybe ya should to see what he says.

NO temperatures above 1400 F in the NASA thermal images

from what I remember about that nasa image, heat that high would not register because it would be a wavelength that would be on the far left of the graph. nasa basically cut that part of the wavelength off or did not "look" at that wavelength.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by chrismohr
NO temperatures above 1400 F in the NASA thermal images

did you ask if he found any? if not, maybe ya should to see what he says.


from what I remember about that nasa image, heat that high would not register because it would be a wavelength that would be on the far left of the graph. nasa basically cut that part of the wavelength off or did not "look" at that wavelength.

The rubble fires were mostly quickly put out. Some deep underground fires persisted. This is typical of landfill fires. Nothing mysterious or sinister about it.

 

[grandmastershek]

You cannot slay what you are not fighting.

MM

IIRC, Ventura had Van Romero do just that, paint on some actual nanothermite made by someone who actually knows what it is, & what it does. Unsurprisingly, Ventura, and truthers in general, where ecstatic that someone did a painted nanothermite test, up until the point it was shown that Ventura edited out the results because they weren't convenient to their delusions.

 

[Miragememories]

IIRC, Ventura had Van Romero do just that, paint on some actual nanothermite made by someone who actually knows what it is, & what it does. Unsurprisingly, Ventura, and truthers in general, where ecstatic that someone did a painted nanothermite test, up until the point it was shown that Ventura edited out the results because they weren't convenient to their delusions.

Nanothermite could have been used in various designer formulations.

In a paint form, it could have been used as an igniter.

Larger amounts could have been mixed with plastique.

MM

 

[GlennB]

In a paint form, it could have been used as an igniter.

And the therm?te 'paint' would itself have been ignited by what?

Um, if you're planning to install an igniter how could it make a lick of sense to paint therm?te onto something, then ignite it, in order that the therm?te might ignite "device X", when you can just have the igniter go straight to the freakin' "device X"?

Dear FSM, just include some therm?te in the "device X" igniter - if you really really must - and skip the whole 'paint' stage. That's without even considering how hard it would be to strip fireproofing in order to do this "painting".

Man oh man, such lunatic thinking.

 

[Sunstealer]

Well, that sounds fine. Let's do it - ready when you are!

Sorry for keeping you waiting. I've been building a new PC for a family member and I only have the one keyboard and mouse, so I've had to swap between the new build and my own PC which has slowed things down!

My intention is to have a single thread in which only you and I can post in. (We are special!) I'll create a new thread for this - but read on.

Unfortunately I know that both truthers and debunkers cannot resist the temptation to crayon over an un-moderated thread even if politely asked not to, therefore I suspect I will have to ask the mods to limit that threat to you and I only. It does my nut when I see folks do that and I'd quite happily twist their bollox off!

I will open a new thread for what we discussed with something like the following title:

Georgio and Sunstealer: A Comparison between Harrit Figs 2 -11 and corresponding Millette data.

However, before that, I think it would be worthwhile outlining the theme of the thread. I'd propose an introduction like:

Introduction.

The following two sets of published articles:

1. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

2. Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

(Original source from Chrismohr - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231314

are set to be analysed with reference to Figs 2-11 in the first article only and the relevant data in the second.

Downloading and reading the articles to be discussed seems to elude a lot of people so I've provided them for those who haven't.

The thread is intended to be a tutorial; guiding anyone though the analysis, whether they be a 'truther', 'debunker' or other, using simple techniques and reasoning so that anyone can follow, be they of any background.

Emphasis will be placed on simplicity. Any additional technical knowledge required to understand any statement should be backed up with citation and understood before moving on.

I intend to ask Georgio questions based on his own observations.

I'd welcome anyone else's thoughts with regard to such an introduction because I'm aware that I'm not going to cover everything. Thanks.

The sort of question I'd ask Georgio follows:

What do you see or observe in the following picture:

What do you see or observe in the following picture:

There isn't any magic to it, it's simply describing what you see.

Georgio: The reason why I'm outlining this before opening a formal thread is to make sure that you are happy with this.

I'd also appreciate any comments from anyone else regarding my approach because I'm looking to make this as accessible as possible.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

[qimg]http://zev.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/justice550.jpg[/qimg]

How... are... what... who in the hell would do something like that?!

Please tell me that was part of some sort of seismic upgrade.

 

[chrismohr]

Sunstealer will you take the lead on this? For example, if Georgio wants to compare something that is not on your list, will there be space for that? Georgio, will you be on your own or getting help?

 

[kid meatball]

Larger amounts could have been mixed with plastique.

MM

You're making that up.

 

[tsig]

You're making that up.

That's the nice thing about living in Fantasyland.

 

[Miragememories]

Sorry for keeping you waiting. I've been building a new PC for a family member and I only have the one keyboard and mouse, so I've had to swap between the new build and my own PC which has slowed things down!

My intention is to have a single thread in which only you and I can post in. (We are special!) I'll create a new thread for this - but read on.

Unfortunately I know that both truthers and debunkers cannot resist the temptation to crayon over an un-moderated thread even if politely asked not to, therefore I suspect I will have to ask the mods to limit that threat to you and I only. It does my nut when I see folks do that and I'd quite happily twist their bollox off!

I will open a new thread for what we discussed with something like the following title:

Georgio and Sunstealer: A Comparison between Harrit Figs 2 -11 and corresponding Millette data.

However, before that, I think it would be worthwhile outlining the theme of the thread. I'd propose an introduction like:



I intend to ask Georgio questions based on his own observations.

I'd welcome anyone else's thoughts with regard to such an introduction because I'm aware that I'm not going to cover everything. Thanks.

The sort of question I'd ask Georgio follows:

What do you see or observe in the following picture:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1177&pictureid=8567[/qimg]

What do you see or observe in the following picture:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1177&pictureid=8580[/qimg]

There isn't any magic to it, it's simply describing what you see.

Georgio: The reason why I'm outlining this before opening a formal thread is to make sure that you are happy with this.

I'd also appreciate any comments from anyone else regarding my approach because I'm looking to make this as accessible as possible.

Keep in mind Georgio, we are talking about chosen red chips from a huge sample pile containing what must have obviously been a huge number of flaked off red primer paint chips.

As a government contractor who had previous familiarity isolating and examining 9/11 WTC dust chips, Millette was in a position of comfort.

Scientists who worked on the 2009 Bentham paper have already stated there were many similar appearing red chips, mostly from the steel primer paint and that a practised eye could isolate the candidate chips.

To the those unfamiliar with the chips of interest, a resistance test dramatically set them apart from the high resistance paint chips.

Millette ignored this assuming that any red chips isolated by a magnet would suffice.

He further avoided ANY risk of duplicating the findings in the paper by Dr. Harrit et al by not conducting a heat test above 400C, even after he no longer needed to preserve his selected chips intact.

A heat test at ~430C would have revealed the emperor had no clothes.

Sunstealer will hand waive this away by saying it doesn't matter because lookie here Millette's chosen chips appear to be visually identical and therefore we don't need to do a conclusive heat test.

Meanwhile Mark Basile, an independent scientist has reproduced the findings of Dr. Harrit et al hundreds of times.

Paint chips do not ignite at 430C and produce iron-rich microspheroids.

Which is why Millette will never perform that simple, easy test.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

You're making that everything up.

FTFY

 

[GlennB]

Scientists who worked on the 2009 Bentham paper have already stated there were many similar appearing red chips, mostly from the steel primer paint and that a practised eye could isolate the candidate chips.

The Bentham paper names only magnetic attraction and colour as selection criteria. If you have information additional to the methods described in Bentham please provide a link.

To the those unfamiliar with the chips of interest, a resistance test dramatically set them apart from the high resistance paint chips.

No, the paper doesn't say that. It says the resistivity is much lower than figures they looked up for pure paint coverings. And resistivity is never mentioned as a selection criterion. If you have information to the contrary please provide a link.

 

[pgimeno]

One would say that in order to identify the chips of interest, you have to follow the directions indicated on how to isolate them, not arbitrary criteria.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just let 'em keep asking... not that it matters. Even if the presence of the dust could be proven as thermite, and then proven to the extent of malicious intent, which it's not... the farthest this case gets is "intent" (which they don't even pursue). There can be no discussion of "CD" because there was none; and there was none because those espousing it can't define a mechanism for "paint application" to actually do what they claim it can with the quantities they claim were used. They're incapable of understanding the engineering reports to even put together a competent critique of it. I'm personally beyond the point of showing any leniancy or credibility to the thermite dust "research" until it finds itself capable of proceeding beyond the conspiratorial "theorizing". If you found thermite dust then tell me what information was gleaned about how much it contributed to the collapse. If said people can't move to that point, then they're wasting time.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Just let 'em keep asking... not that it matters. Even if the presence of the dust could be proven as thermite, and then proven to the extent of malicious intent, which it's not... the farthest this case gets is "intent" (which they don't even pursue). There can be no discussion of "CD" because there was none; and there was none because those espousing it can't define a mechanism for "paint application" to actually do what they claim it can with the quantities they claim were used. They're incapable of understanding the engineering reports to even put together a competent critique of it. I'm personally beyond the point of showing any leniancy or credibility to the thermite dust "research" until it finds itself capable of proceeding beyond the conspiratorial "theorizing". If you found thermite dust then tell me what information was gleaned about how much it contributed to the collapse. If said people can't move to that point, then they're wasting time.

This is what I call the "So What?" mode of debunking. IF they prove thermite or whatever exotic military flavor-of-the-month they think was used to blow up/melt down the towers, so what? It's still a long stretch from there to controlled demolition, and none of that has been proven. "Because nasty stuff was found in the dust" is not proof. The arguing amongst the minutiae of Trutherdom does nothing to change this fact.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It just doesn't help either that the supposed "findings" stop at the halfway point and they never finish. That we still have to "debate" whether or not the dust is "thermite" signifies to me that they have no mechanism and potentially no intent of discussing that much, trying to leave ambiguity in play and not reasonable doubt, considering all the fuss that's thrown over us criticizing them over it.

 

[Spanx]

Keep in mind Georgio, we are talking about chosen red chips from a huge sample pile containing what must have obviously been a huge number of flaked off red primer paint chips.

As a government contractor who had previous familiarity isolating and examining 9/11 WTC dust chips, Millette was in a position of comfort.

Scientists who worked on the 2009 Bentham paper have already stated there were many similar appearing red chips, mostly from the steel primer paint and that a practised eye could isolate the candidate chips.

To the those unfamiliar with the chips of interest, a resistance test dramatically set them apart from the high resistance paint chips.

Millette ignored this assuming that any red chips isolated by a magnet would suffice.

He further avoided ANY risk of duplicating the findings in the paper by Dr. Harrit et al by not conducting a heat test above 400C, even after he no longer needed to preserve his selected chips intact.

A heat test at ~430C would have revealed the emperor had no clothes.

Sunstealer will hand waive this away by saying it doesn't matter because lookie here Millette's chosen chips appear to be visually identical and therefore we don't need to do a conclusive heat test.

Meanwhile Mark Basile, an independent scientist has reproduced the findings of Dr. Harrit et al hundreds of times.

Paint chips do not ignite at 430C and produce iron-rich microspheroids.

Which is why Millette will never perform that simple, easy test.

MM

Perhaps you could explain to Georgio how the resistance test or the DSC can help you establish if a material is thermite ?