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

[pgimeno]

Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.

Are you suggesting that the chip in figure 14 is the same chip in figure 7 (b)?

Where do you pull that out of?

Harrit on the other hand found chips with iron-oxide and aluminum aluminates within a red matrix that remains hard after the MEK, which is consistent with a product called "superthermite" "Tnemec".

FTFY.

Sunstealer makes "good, sounding" but meaningless and properly referenced statements about the possibility of the XEDS not reading the elements he WANTS PROVES to be there.

FTFY as well.

 

[Miragememories]

The Hypocrisy Behind 'As-Needed' Peer Reviews

Chris, while waiting for Dr. Millette to publish a peer-reviewed paper based on the research he performed over 2 years ago and what represents the basis for this thread, I thought I would visit your site; 235 points http://chrismohr911.com/

What was of particular interest to me were your comments and views regarding the importance of peer-review.

One glaring paragraph really grabbed my attention;

"I hate to bring up the "peer-reviewed" argument again, but here is another example: Bazant's papers were peer-reviewed.

The NIST Report was peer-reviewed four times and re-tested many times thereafter.

"Peer-review" is not just a badge of honor or a club for me to use against my opponents;

it means that the paper has at least enough credibility to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community.

In Bazant's case, some of what he has written has been supplanted by more thorough research by NIST and others, so people on both sides of the argument do believe there are flaws in his work.

But this "missing jolt" rebuttal article (above right)* on the 9/11 Truth link) has no* "peer review" at all, except maybe on some debunker blogger posts!"

bolding is mine

I can only conclude that based on your stated views, Dr. Millette's report "does not have sufficient credibility to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community."

Furthermore, after 2 years of no activity on his part, it is quite apparent that Dr. Millette doesn't really care if his report gets peer-reviewed.

What justification is there for granting Millette's unpublished report greater credence than the published peer-reviewed paper he attempts to discredit?

MM

 

[pgimeno]

Chris, while waiting for Dr. Millette to publish a peer-reviewed paper based on the research he performed over 2 years ago and what represents the basis for this thread, I thought I would visit your Rick Shaddock's site; 235 points http://chrismohr911.com/

FTFY again. Don't you get tired of being wrong?

What was of particular interest to me were your comments and views regarding the importance of peer-review.

One glaring paragraph really grabbed my attention;

"I hate to bring up the "peer-reviewed" argument again, but here is another example: Bazant's papers were peer-reviewed.

The NIST Report was peer-reviewed four times and re-tested many times thereafter.

"Peer-review" is not just a badge of honor or a club for me to use against my opponents;

it means that the paper has at least enough credibility to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community.

In Bazant's case, some of what he has written has been supplanted by more thorough research by NIST and others, so people on both sides of the argument do believe there are flaws in his work.

But this "missing jolt" rebuttal article (above right)* on the 9/11 Truth link) has no* "peer review" at all, except maybe on some debunker blogger posts!"

bolding is mine

I can only conclude that based on your stated views, Dr. Millette's report "does not have sufficient credibility to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community."

And you are wrong, again.

From "A implies B" it can not be inferred that "not A implies not B" which is what you are doing here.

From "peer review implies credibility", which is what Chris is saying, it can not be inferred that "no peer review implies no credibility", which is what you are saying.

If your bad logic is key to your epistemology, it's no surprise you're a truther.

 

[DGM]

What justification is there for granting Millette's unpublished report greater credence than the published peer-reviewed paper he attempts to discredit?

MM

First you need to show that the original has any credit. The scientific community has ignored it (the few that paid attention dismissed it).

A good question would be, why are Harrit et al not doing something to actually get their paper noticed? Instead they stick to conspiracy sites and refuse to release data they say they have. They also refuse to supply material for independent study and have shown no clear way to prove the material studied by others is the same.

It's obvious they don't want others looking more closely at their work.

 

[chrismohr]

MM busted again! Generally I do not push hard on the peer-review issue. But yes I do give somewhat more credence to peer-reviewed articles. I also look at preliminary reports, white papers, and blog posts and primarily look at whether the science behind their assertions is strong. With Richard Gage I begged him not to call the 2009 thermitic paper "peer reviewed" because I didn't want to debate whether Bentham is peer-reviewed or vanity, why the editor resigned in protest after it was published without her knowledge, the qualifications of all the peer reviewers, etc etc etc. So Richard and I agreed to call it a "scientific paper," which it is, and debate it on its merits.

Obviously, all things being equal, the peer reviewed paper is a higher standard of credibility. But as I said, it only puts it in the ballpark for scientific consideration, it doesn't make it right. Let's say Millette did the peer-reviewed paper and concluded "no thermite." Would that change your mind? Of course not. You would still assert he made the same mistakes you assert now.

I am disappointed that Millette did not complete his peer-reviewed paper. We talked about this every month for over a year. He intended to do it. He used to have an employee who was into this, and whenever there was a "slow day at the office," she and Millette would do the tests we paid him a measly $1000 to do. He enjoyed the work, it fulfilled an intellectual curiosity on his part, and he got a slot to talk about his preliminary report at two Forensics Conventions, where hundreds of colleagues and grad school students in the field praised his work (and not one confronted him on any flaws in his methodology). And BTW grad school students love to one-up their elders, so don't think it's a mob of hero-worshippers. But now, after looking for an intern or employee who is interested in this project, he has come up empty. His international search (with considerable help from us here at JREF) to find a clean sample of LaClede primer on steel came up empty. And his company got more and more successful (possibly in part due to the attention he got from his thermitic preliminary paper??), and he just has less and less time.

Oh well. But on the credibility scale, Millette has (1) more experience (2) two massive informal peer reviews where many more people got to see his work than most papers ever get (3) this is precisely what he specializes in.

When it comes to credibility, I can fight the peer-reviewed fight, I can challenge the credentials of scientists working outside their fields of expertise, etc etc etc. But I'm much more interested in investigating the claims. Iron-rich microspheres? Millette didn't study that yet so I just asked David and Ivan to study it instead. And both created iron-rich microspheres from burning regular primer paint on steel at temperatures WAY below the melting point of steel or iron! I accept the raw data put out by the thermitic paper authors and I find no elemental aluminum. Even Steven Jones has admitted this is a problem, and he has tried to find it twice now: with Farrer's TEM and with a second post-2009 test he organized using a different methodology. Both of his attempts agree with Millette's attempts: no elemental aluminum. Millette's conclusion: therefore no thermite. Jones's conclusion: maybe we just didn't find it, on to more experiments. That's fine. But others have said things I respect much less. Harrit's conclusion: anyone who says no aluminum is making a ridiculous assertion. Other statements I have heard: elemental aluminum is proven by the presence of iron-rich microspheres, which must prove temperatures over 2700 degrees F, which must prove thermite, so the aluminum must be there. I say elemental aluminum is proven by finding elemental aluminum.

You're right, I give some extra credence to peer-reviewed papers, but when all is said and done, neither you nor I are bound to accept the conclusions of a paper just because it is peer-reviewed.

 

[ozeco41]

...You're right, I give some extra credence to peer-reviewed papers, but when all is said and done, neither you nor I are bound to accept the conclusions of a paper just because it is peer-reviewed.

Well stated Chris.

The test of a claim is "Is it correct?" or "Is it true?" NOT "Is it peer reviewed?"

And not "Which author has more degrees?"

If a double Doctorate author claims something that is false it remains false - two or more degrees do not outweigh "false".

Conversely if a humble zero degrees person claims some thing that is true the lack of degrees does not make it false.

[/EndRant] >>> and it is one of my favourite "rants"

 

[GlennB]

....I say elemental aluminum is proven by finding elemental aluminum.

Yup.

 

[Miragememories]

"But I'm much more interested in investigating the claims.

Iron-rich microspheres? Millette didn't study that yet so I just asked David and Ivan to study it instead.

And both created iron-rich microspheres from burning regular primer paint on steel at temperatures WAY below the melting point of steel or iron!"

I've gone over the material provided by David and Ivan.

It is pretty lean pickings as they say.

David has a history of over-stating his case.

First he gave us steel wool spheres. Oystein had enough integrity to call him out on that before the embarrassment became too great;

"At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what? I see a big peak for O in the XEDS graph, and uhm didn't you burn - oxidize - that stuff? I am pretty sure you are not looking at pure (elemental) iron in those spheres but iron oxide….f someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell...

Regarding Dave's most recent video purported to produce "iron-rich spheres" from burning primer paint in an un-sanitized combustion barrel, even Sunstealer qualified his reference to the discovered couple of spheres.

"I'm grateful to everyone who has spent the time and effort on this. Your experiments, along with the recent one by DaveThomasNMSR, show that the production of metallic spheres are not unusual."

A few things strike me about Dave's findings;

First of all he used a very crude, highly contaminated environment in which to burn his primer paint.

Secondly, where as Dr. Harrit et al ignited and discovered multiple iron-rich spheroids in the residue of individual dust chips, Dave sampled a large amount of burned primer paint residue.

And Dave only found two micro-spheres.

This a pretty weak case Chris.

Now moving on to Ivan.

"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 …Yesterday, I asked colleagues from the Department of Conductive Polymers to heat my “fine collection” of red/gray chips in their oven … They kindly heated my chips up to 700 degrees (heating rate 10 degrees/min, like in DSC experiments in Bentham paper. Looking just through magnifying glass, the most of chips were still red after heating, but generally darker…I would say that in all these photos, some shiny round objects (formed from the rust layers) are somehow visible. Therefore, their formation from red paints (or perhaps from any paint) on rust, when heated up to 700 degrees C, seems to be a quite common phenomenon. My results so far are not conclusive (I have to wait for the better microscope), round objects in Fig. 20 from Bentham are definitely better "developed"). But I am quite sure that when looking really closely (with a better microscope), I would find the better "examples", it's just a matter of patience."

Ivan never obtained an XEDS for the above work.

He did show us a lot of pretty pictures though.

Additionally, Ivan's results, such as they were represented what he felt was the gray layer of the red/gray chips;

"(It would be interesting to measure XEDS of these round objects, we have necessary device in our institute, but I think there is hardly any doubt here: these objects should mostly originate from gray layers, like in Bentham paper And it does not really matter if the content of iron is higher in them because of some partial reduction).

Somewhat like Millette, Ivan dismisses the need to fully pursue his investigation. He saw all that he wished to see.

They both make a great case for why you should place more value on peer-reviewed research Chris.

MM

 

[Spanx]

I've gone over the material provided by David and Ivan.

It is pretty lean pickings as they say.

David has a history of over-stating his case.

First he gave us steel wool spheres. Oystein had enough integrity to call him out on that before the embarrassment became too great;


Regarding Dave's most recent video purported to produce "iron-rich spheres" from burning primer paint in an un-sanitized combustion barrel, even Sunstealer qualified his reference to the discovered couple of spheres.



A few things strike me about Dave's findings;

First of all he used a very crude, highly contaminated environment in which to burn his primer paint.

Secondly, where as Dr. Harrit et al ignited and discovered multiple iron-rich spheroids in the residue of individual dust chips, Dave sampled a large amount of burned primer paint residue.

And Dave only found two micro-spheres.

This a pretty weak case Chris.

Now moving on to Ivan.



Ivan never obtained an XEDS for the above work.

He did show us a lot of pretty pictures though.

Additionally, Ivan's results, such as they were represented what he felt was the gray layer of the red/gray chips;



Somewhat like Millette, Ivan dismisses the need to fully pursue his investigation. He saw all that he wished to see.

They both make a great case for why you should place more value on peer-reviewed research Chris.

MM

MM, what research have you ever dome ?

 

[beachnut]

...
First he gave us steel wool spheres. Oystein had enough integrity to call him out on that before the embarrassment became too great;


Regarding Dave's most recent video purported to produce "iron-rich spheres" from burning primer paint in an un-sanitized combustion barrel, even Sunstealer qualified his reference to the discovered couple of spheres.
...
MM

Yes, iron spheres come from fires. You can't use iron spheres as a signature of thermite, the insane lie made up by Jones.

With the fantasy of thermite, trying to debunk fire can create iron spheres, the truth, only makes the thermite claim dumber.

 

[chrismohr]

MM Dave and Ivan did simple experiments a little like Jon Cole. Jon Cole has a good YouTube video that shows you CAN burn through steel with thermate, thus debunking a claim made here many years ago. I accepted his experiments as valid for what they were trying to do, and actually confirmed my skepticism about the old claims here that thermitic materials can't do the job no matter what. Why don't you accept the informal results of Ivan and Dave? But you don't even accept the very formal and professional 100+ page report of Millette. And BTW I DO accept the data from the 2009 thermitic paper, I just disagree with the conclusion.

 

[Redwood]

A few things strike me about Dave's findings;

First of all he used a very crude, highly contaminated environment in which to burn his primer paint.

And the Twin Tower infernos were pristine, somehow?

And Dave only found two micro-spheres.

How do you know this? Are you sure that, upon finding two, that was Proof of Concept, and that was enough? Or, were only two illustrated?

 

[NoahFence]

Your confidence that Millette analyzed the right chips means nothing in light of his failure to publish his 2 year old paper and give it credibility in the scientific community.

Truthers need to get this through their skull:

The scientific community doesn't give a : about WTC dust. They KNOW what happened. Like the rest of the rational world.

 

[beachnut]

... his failure to publish his 2 year old paper and give it credibility in the scientific community. ...

Jones paper is a joke and has zero credibility in the scientific community. It was published in a vanity journal because no one would publish it. A political hack job, a paper with a fake conclusion to support Jones' insane claim of thermite.

Millette's paper is real science, Jones paper is nonsense. Why did Jones get fired in the first place; making up lies about 911.

 

[chrismohr]

MM Dave's experiments got a kind of informal "peer review" from a colleague, who told him that he should have goosed up his burning experiment with a lot of strong winds as that would have produced a lot more iron-rich spheres. Remember, survivors often talked about "hurricane winds" as they were running down the WTC steps. Not enough iron-rich spheres? Come on! Or do you actually think the "contaminated" barrel had thermite in it?

 

[tsig]

MM, what research have you ever dome ?

How heat affects the vaporization of agricultural resins when encased in rice paper?

 

[tsig]

Truthers need to get this through their skull:

The scientific community doesn't give a : about WTC dust. They KNOW what happened. Like the rest of the rational world.

Yes, science has left the truthers behind in the dust.

 

[Miragememories]

When Mohr is Less

MM Dave and Ivan did simple experiments…

Why don't you accept the informal results of Ivan and Dave?

But you don't even accept the very formal and professional 100+ page report of Millette.

And BTW I DO accept the data from the 2009 thermitic paper, I just disagree with the conclusion.

"MM Dave's experiments got a kind of informal "peer review" from a colleague, who told him that he should have goosed up his burning experiment with a lot of strong winds as that would have produced a lot more iron-rich spheres."

For you Chris, informal "peer reviews" are quite satisfactory as long as they support your bias?

And there-in lies the problem.

It is so much about chosen belief with you Chris, and so very little about the objective investigative journalism you loudly proclaim to practice.

I will accept respect the work of Dave, Ivan, and Jim when it is peer-reviewed and published which will allow professionals to formally challenge or accept their findings.

Whether you like it or not Chris, there is a standard scientific process that is expected to be followed before research findings make it to school textbooks.

The authors of the 2009 Bentham paper have followed the proper process and are quite prepared to formally engage in additional responses to any and all papers that are peer-reviewed and published in response.

What they are not prepared to do is publish 'knee-jerk' responses to every individual or group who unofficially argue opposing findings.

"Iron-rich microspheres?

Millette didn't study that yet so I just asked David and Ivan to study it instead.

And both created iron-rich microspheres from burning regular primer paint on steel at temperatures WAY below the melting point of steel or iron!"

I use this quote as a case in point.

Neither David or Ivan have shown a quality proof for the claim you are making. But you eagerly embrace this belief anyway.

David produced two spheres from a huge sample in a highly contaminated test environment (the 2009 Bentham scientists produced many iron-rich spheres from a single dust chip in a laboratory environment).

Ivan produces some; "shiny round objects" with further comments of; "my results so far are not conclusive" and; "It would be interesting to measure XEDS of these round objects, we have necessary device in our institute, but I think there is hardly any doubt here…".

Yet your remarks are far from conditional.

You unequivocally state; "both created iron-rich microspheres from burning regular primer paint on steel at temperatures WAY below the melting point of steel or iron!".

Of course when reputable scientists working in a controlled laboratory environment, investigating actual 9/11 WTC dust samples and WTC steel primer paint discover the presence of thermitic material and elemental aluminum, you change hats and denounce their findings as scientifically unsound.

I do not foresee the likes of Woodward and Berstein knocking on your door anytime too soon.

MM

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I've gone over the material provided by David and Ivan.

It is pretty lean pickings as they say.

David has a history of over-stating his case.

First he gave us steel wool spheres. Oystein had enough integrity to call him out on that before the embarrassment became too great;


Regarding Dave's most recent video purported to produce "iron-rich spheres" from burning primer paint in an un-sanitized combustion barrel, even Sunstealer qualified his reference to the discovered couple of spheres.



A few things strike me about Dave's findings;

First of all he used a very crude, highly contaminated environment in which to burn his primer paint.

Secondly, where as Dr. Harrit et al ignited and discovered multiple iron-rich spheroids in the residue of individual dust chips, Dave sampled a large amount of burned primer paint residue.

And Dave only found two micro-spheres.

This a pretty weak case Chris.

...

MM

Two points, MM:

• The only possible contamination would have been ashes from the burning wood. I took care to sample the burned beam where no ashes had smudged the burned paint. Of course, the only contamination that would have mattered would have been thermite itself; I can vouch that there was none.
  
• Our science group purchased an hour of scanning electron microscope time. It was a couple hundred bucks. That doesn't leave a lot of time to search for things. SEM 'scopes really blow things up, a tiny sample holder becomes like exploring Africa. We spent much of our time making sure there were no spheres on the control (un-burned) sample. After verifying that to our satisfaction, we moved on to the burned samples. Once we had found the two spheres, our time was about used up, so we declared success and moved on.

If you're that dubious, MM, why not repeat the experiment on your own? Is there a university with an SEM nearby? What do they charge for usage? Maybe Dick Gage can cough up a couple thousand for you to follow up on this?

 

[Spanx]

MM, you keep making claims of what harrit et al are or aren't prepared to do.

Although I suspect you will do your usual question dodge I will ask anyway.

Are you an official spokes person for Harrit and Jones ?