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

[ozeco41]

Its sad that the kid gets a gold star for answering ONE question out of dozens.

It has never been a level playing field. No concept of "same rules for both sides".

"truther" or "troll" gets 99 wrong and one right and gets praised.
"debunker" gets 99 right and one wrong and gets pilloried.



Still if truthers/trolls could even get 10% right it would be "one giant leap for mankind" (1969 - before PC)

 

[pgimeno]

Since the low resistivity was found for all the chips of interest and reported in the same paper, it most definitely qualified as selection criteria.

If some of the chips of interest had been found to be inconsistent, (high resistance), the resistance test would have had no value.

MM

The highlighted portion is a blatant lie.

They report results for one chip, not for all chips of interest.

 

[kid meatball]

They did not have to utilize this method themselves because, as they have publicly stated, they learned to visually recognize 'chips of interest'.

MM

That's not how science works. Unless they specifically laid out a procedure for visually identifying chips of interest, it either didn't happen, or they were guessing. If it can't be repeated, and by repeated I mean giving someone a sample and some instructions and the same results come out, it's not science. If I may, I'll repeat, because I think you missed it the last time: you're making this up.

 

[Spanx]

Further explanation from me is not necessary.

A DSC test is not required to generate the required heat to ignite candidate chips from the 9/11 WTC dust. Millette's muffle furnace would have handled the job quite easily.

For those with an untrained eye, the resistance test simply provides an easy means of eliminating red primer paint chips.

Anyone interested should simply read the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM

Ok, so where are the results for the resistance test on Nano thermite and rust etc?

I assume they did these tests but I can't find the results in the 2009 Bentham paper.

As for the DSC you know it is horse turd and that is why you or Harrit et al have not replied to Ivan or Dave's work.

 

[Muc]

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

If there was any such "nano-thermite" around the fires in the twin towers, it obviously didn't ignite either - at least not for an hour (or more than one and a half, in the case of the north tower). If it did, it didn't seem to have much of an immediate effect.

One would normally consider it pretty daring anyway to (secretely) fill an office building with what I understand were supposed to be dozens and dozens of tons of an explosive/incindiary substance that has an ignition temperature lower than what a lighted cigarette produces (and we're not even talking about electrical fires or discharge yet). I mean, seriously, there you are, spending months stealthily applying a coating of a highly reactive substance in a metal building full of electrical cables and appliances. And just in case that doesn't result in catastrophic failure already, you fly a well fueled jet airliner into it.

It's hard to imagine an initial brainstorming meeting at conspiracy central in which such a scenario would have not been considered a spectacularly stupid idea.

 

[GlennB]

Since the scientists discovered that 'chips of interest' consistently displayed a very low electrical resistance reading compared to the paint chips, they gave this mention in their paper as means of reducing the time required.

No, they didn't.

They tested one chip for resistivity and even described it in some detail. It had very little grey material and was 0.5mm x 0.5mm.

There is no mention that this was performed many times as a way of learning to spot the 'correct' chips in order to speed the selection process.

They didn't compare their 'chip of interest' reading with others they'd done for paint chips - they looked up the resistivity of certain 'paint coatings' and even provide a reference (31).

You, however, needed to invent a fantasy procedure as a rationalisation for claiming that Millette tested the 'wrong' chips. I suspect you have even come to believe it.

 

[Africanus]

True, relative to plain painted surfaces, as clearly stated in the Bentham paper.

But their low resistivity was not a selection criterion. Big difference. The resistivity question arose after they were selected.

The biggest problem is that they didn't examine the red paint chips they admitted were present. So you have no criterion to identify the different chips.

ETA:

Since the low resistivity was found for all the chips of interest and reported in the same paper, it most definitely qualified as selection criteria.

You are wrong, the test was only done on ONE chip. Maybe you should follow ypur own advice and reread the paper.

ETA2:

Y E S
Because the vast majority of those chips from the initial collection pile will be red steel primer paint, those will fail to produce test results comparable to those obtained in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Harrit and Co. never tested such chips!

 

[Miragememories]

"MM this is one of your best, clearest answers to any question yet. People may disagree with you but you stated your case well.

You got all whipped up about my nonresponse to you recently.

I don't bother responding when I ask a question and am told to go do my own research.

That's what you said when I asked you why the graph Beachnut "edited" was out of context. You said go read the Bentham paper.

Can you see the difference between the response you gave here and the response you gave me?"

Thank you.

And yes, I can see the difference between my two responses. It was purely intentional.

DGM does not make the same claims about him/her self that you do.

Chris, you are forever promoting yourself as an investigative journalist and the author of a series of debunking videos.

The bar is much higher for someone making such claims.

I expect you to be more than familiar with the contents of the 2009 Bentham paper and well aware of the explanation the scientists provided with that chart.

Those scientists are not idiots as many here would like the world to believe.

I quite understand your strong bias in opposition to their findings but I expect more objectivity and balance from an investigative journalist.

You failed to acknowledge their explanation which clearly prejudices the understanding of anyone who has not read the paper.

Regarding the Fig.30 chart itself, it compares standardized, known reference energy release values consistent for HMX, TNT, TATB and Al/Fe2O3 to 4 non-standardized chip samples of a discovered composite material all showing dramatic but widely varying energy release levels.

The chart's purpose was to show how energetic the chips proved to be and was not intended or expected to be what the scientists considered a reference for standardized nano-thermite.

The scientists openly noted the unusual energy release readings as "striking" and provided an explanation for why they believe this occurred.

The mass of each chip varied.

The test was performed in air.

The organic component of each chip.

I hope this response better suits your original question to me?

MM

 

[DGM]

The scientists openly noted the unusual energy release readings as "striking" and provided an explanation for why they believe this occurred.

The mass of each chip varied.

The test was performed in air.

The organic component of each chip.

MM

This is why people call into question the competence of the scientists. They had at their disposal the means to answer these questions and they chose not to. Instead they left it to guess why the energy levels were so high.

You see this, right?

 

[Miragememories]

This is why people call into question the competence of the scientists.

They had at their disposal the means to answer these questions and they chose not to.

Instead they left it to guess why the energy levels were so high.

You see this, right?

NO I do not see what you are driving at?

The reasons I listed were the reasons provided by those scientists in the paper.

The paper had to be reasonably concise in order to get published.

Dr. Harrit has stated this himself when asked why every bit of documented research was not included in the 2009 Bentham paper.

The scientists also indicated that there were a number of findings which they planned to further explore.

Certainly Mark Basile's new research should shed a lot of light on some of the issues that you and others feel were insufficiently explained.

No doubt you will remain unsatisfied with my response but it the best I can offer.

MM

 

[DGM]

No doubt you will remain unsatisfied with my response but it the best I can offer.

MM

I'm just mystified that they would not change one simple tests once they discovered their results were not conclusive (or even meaningful).

You do know reacting the samples in an inert environment is a simple means to eliminate the organic compound factor? Why add the question when it's trivial to exclude it.

 

[Gamolon]

Since the scientists discovered that 'chips of interest' consistently displayed a very low electrical resistance reading compared to the paint chips,

Two lies in one sentence?

First, they tested one chip and slapped the finding of that one chip onto ALL their chips. It wasn't a separation method at all. They considered all the red/gray chips they extracted using a magnet to be thermitic which is why they went to an outside source to get paint characteristics. This is why Harrit and Jones both avoided my email question asking them if they actually further separated out paint chips AFTER using their initial two criteria.

Second, they did not compare the resistivity between their supposed thermitic chips and the paint chips they supposedly separated out. You saying "the paint chips" to imply they tested the resistivity of paint chips they extracted from their piles is completely WRONG. This is proven by the excerpt below from their Bentham paper.

7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?

We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter
in order to compare with ordinary paints⁽²⁾, using the
formula:Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
= thickness (m). Given the small size of the red chip⁽¹⁾, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately
10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated⁽²⁾ which are typically
over 1010 ohm-m [31].

(1)"Red chip". Singular.
⁽²⁾Again, why did they need to use data from "orindary chips", garnered from an outside source, when they supposedly had paint chips in their hands? Here is the book they reference for paint coatings: Abu Ayana YM, El-Sawy SM, Salah SH. Zinc-ferrite pigment for corrosion protection. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 1997; 44(6): 381-8.

 

[Miragememories]

"Did any of these chips match samples a-d?"

"...You do know reacting the samples in an inert environment is a simple means to eliminate the organic compound factor? Why add the question when it's trivial to exclude it. "

With respect to this thread's topic, I wonder why Millette did not answer what for him would have been an even more trivial question.

Why not blow the 2009 Bentham paper out of the water by taking a few minutes to heat his no longer needed chip samples a further 30C in his muffle furnace????

The only credible explanation I can think of is that such an easily performed test risked discrediting his previously formed 'safe' opinion.

If he was so certain that his a-d chips were a chemical match for those chips of interest that were highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, than he had no reason for not discrediting the paper using similar test methodology.

Of course if he ended up with only paint ash residue, it would be clear proof that his a-d chips were not a chemical match for the a-d chips of interest that were highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM

 

[DGM]

With respect to this thread's topic, I wonder why Millette did not answer what for him would have been an even more trivial question.

He did. He used the criteria in the paper to attempt to duplicate the study.

Why not blow the 2009 Bentham paper out of the water by taking a few minutes to heat his no longer needed chip samples a further 30C in his muffle furnace????

Because there would be no way you would except they were the same material.

The only credible explanation I can think of is that such an easily performed test risked discrediting his previously formed 'safe' opinion.

No

If he was so certain that his a-d chips were a chemical match for those chips of interest that were highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, than he had no reason for not discrediting the paper using similar test methodology.

Are they the same in your opinion?

Of course if he ended up with only paint ash residue, it would be clear proof that his a-d chips were not a chemical match for the a-d chips of interest that were highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM

Yes it would. How would we know? The Harrit paper did not document this.

 

[cjnewson88]

You're not fooling anyone you know MM.

 

[The Platypus]

The Bentham paper didn't fool anyone either. Except for idiot conspiracy theorist that is. It was
nothing but a pathetic attempt to pull a fast one and manufacture evidence.

 

[Georgio]

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

So long as there won't be a limit on response time (for either of us), this all sounds fine to me. By the way, you can spell my username however you like - I don't mind!

To Chris Mohr - I'll probably do this pretty much on my own. From the way it's been described this isn't going to be a debate as such, more an instructional thread for non-specialists. Sunstealer will ask me simple questions and I will reply honestly and in as much detail as I am able to observe.

Frankly I would have tried to get out of an actual debate with Sunstealer as I don't have enough knowledge to formulate good questions. Instead I envision this acting more like a 'filter' for invalid observations often made by non-specialists.

 

[beachnut]

... this isn't going to be a debate as such, more an instructional thread for non-specialists. Sunstealer will ask me simple questions and I will reply honestly and in as much detail as I am able to observe.

Frankly I would have tried to get out of an actual debate with Sunstealer as I don't have enough knowledge to formulate good questions. Instead I envision this acting more like a 'filter' for invalid observations often made by non-specialists.

You want to debate a fantasy born in the mind of Jones 4 years after 911. Based on nonsense and now a fake paper Jones did, had to pay to publish because it is fraud.

Jones first paper, a letter, where Jones makes up thermite out of the blue. A lie, a fantasy, something a failed person made up to get even for the war. A failed old man makes up lies about 911 and only fools people who can't read for comprehension, or do chemistry.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/7drxn

WTC collapses due to controlled demolition
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the links above to see the actual collapse for yourself, please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE: http://tinyurl.com/7drxn ) Yet the floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as observed is prima facie evidence for the use of pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features. Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverizations, and I can provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking errors/omissions?)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)

8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

This article was posted on 9.16.05

Jones invented thermite as what caused the WTC to fail. It was fire. Jones lied.

Millette paper is easy to understand, Jones paper is easy to debunk. Don't need to understand chemistry to understand Jones paper is nonsense, and has no proof of thermite.

When we Jones play the woo card...

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

We know thermite is a fantasy. Jones made it up. This is funny, making up paranoid nonsense, and Squibs, seal the deal, Jones is nuts, or loves to spread BS.

Read Jones' paper, read Millette's paper. Read them for proof of what they say, check the spectrum; get a chemist to help. Learn Jones lied, Jones made it up.
Jones paper says nothing; read it again. Take it to a newspaper as proof of the Inside Job, see why you and the newspaper will not be getting a Pulitzer.

 

[Sunstealer]

So long as there won't be a limit on response time (for either of us), this all sounds fine to me. By the way, you can spell my username however you like - I don't mind!

Firstly let me apologise: For some reason I was calling you Giorgio. I did pick up on it, but I don't think I was in time to correct the wrongful spelling. My browser dictionary has 'Giorgio' in but no 'Georgio'. (who compiles these things?!) That's an oversight on my part. I hope you forgive me, I will endeavour to make sure it's correct in future.

I'm more than happy for unlimited time for both our responses, so please don't feel pressured to respond quickly. I'd rather someone take their own time to respond than feel rushed.

To Chris Mohr - I'll probably do this pretty much on my own. From the way it's been described this isn't going to be a debate as such, more an instructional thread for non-specialists. Sunstealer will ask me simple questions and I will reply honestly and in as much detail as I am able to observe.

If I may: Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm more than happy for an adjacent thread to run on the same topic for everyone else. That way other people can discuss the the thread without derailing 'ours'. It also means that I can be held accountable to the forum. People should be able to object to any questions I ask.

Frankly I would have tried to get out of an actual debate with Sunstealer as I don't have enough knowledge to formulate good questions. Instead I envision this acting more like a 'filter' for invalid observations often made by non-specialists.

My intention is for the non-specialist to do the observation (and hence the work!). Please don't be frightened by that, it really is very easy.

In the next few days I'll set up a thread. In that thread I'll write an introduction so that everyone understands what it's about and then you can have some time to make sure you are OK with that.

We'll go leisurely from there.

 

[beachnut]

How does Jones explain this failure?

Has any 911 truth follower tried to debunk Millette?