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

[Miragememories]

"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?"

Hurricane winds were not evidenced by the drifting black smoke we ALL observed Chris. Though I have little doubt the stairwells were channeling a lot of air from the breached building above and thus quite windy.

But not enough iron-rich spheres?

Think about it.

Dr. Harrit and particularly Mark Basile studied many red chips which were barely discernible to the eye in many cases. Yet they produced abundant iron-rich spheroids.

If those tiny dust chips were indeed steel primer paint, and given that they were outputting iron spheres at the relatively low temperature of 430C, don't you think that Dave's honking big pile of steel primer paint residue should have been swimming in all kinds of these microspheres?

Given the microscopic size of these microspheres, it is not implausible that an old combustion barrel like Dave used could have contained any number of iron microspheres previously created by processes that were not thermitic.

Regarding Dr. Harrit's often quoted statement;

"A scientific paper is a set of data and the best hypothesis rationalizing the observations. Fe-rich spheroids are observed after a thermite reaction. Fe-rich spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction.
“Tenuous”?"

It is important that the context of that statement be taken into account. It is incredibly naive of you or anyone else to assume that Dr. Harrit is oblivious to all the processes that can create molten iron.

Dr. Harrit was responding to this comment and false perception;

"Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but there is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids.

Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous."

MOVING ON TO DAVE THOMAS

"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?

Okay Dave, regarding your testing in an old steel combustion barrel, there are any number of possible sources for a few microscopic iron microspheres to have contaminated your burned primer paint residue.

Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc. Or are you suggesting you could spot such contaminants with the visible eye as you studiously avoided that wood ash smudge that so concerned you?

What you describe in your response is a rushed job. A VERY rushed job.

In a proper laboratory environment, Dr. Harrit et al spent countless hours performing, cataloging and analyzing their research and you feel you have credibly debunked them by the sloppy bit of work you squeezed into one hour.

Hypocrisy rules;

Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6488255&postcount=3

"Someone wake me when this guy actually publishes his results."

Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6488303&postcount=5

"Who needs peer review when you have youtube?"

Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6488992&postcount=20

"Truthers dont need anything more substantial than someone that is apparently an expert telling them what they want to hear, if they do that in a youtube video its the perfect combination."

By the way, as you know Mark Basile is working on repeating his tests and publishing the results.

He has tested verified paints in lab conditions and never found molten spheres of any kind.

How many times do you think you can pull the steel wool over our eyes Dave?

MM

 

[DGM]

"Who needs peer review when you have youtube?"

Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:


By the way, as you know Mark Basile is working on repeating his tests and publishing the results.
MM

He's one of the original authors. Nice you use him as an independent reviewer.

Is Mark actually involved in the testing or is this going to be independent?

 

[chrismohr]

DGM my understanding is that Mark Basile is going to give the chip samples to a lab whose workeers don't even know they are looking for thermite. It will be a blind materials characterization: what is this? And Mark says he will publish the results no matter what. Neither I nor anyone else from JREF is allowed to communicate with Mark to suggest the best way to do this. I have unilaterally sent Mark suggestions from Sunstealer, Oystein, Ivan and others. MM is this correct?

 

[Miragememories]

DGM my understanding is that Mark Basile is going to give the chip samples to a lab whose workeers don't even know they are looking for thermite. It will be a blind materials characterization: what is this? And Mark says he will publish the results no matter what. Neither I nor anyone else from JREF is allowed to communicate with Mark to suggest the best way to do this. I have unilaterally sent Mark suggestions from Sunstealer, Oystein, Ivan and others. MM is this correct?

If you would like more information I suggest you go here;

http://markbasile.org/

MM

 

[DGM]

If you would like more information I suggest you go here;

http://markbasile.org/

MM

I already see a problem.

Sample Preparation:
- Red/gray chip separation using optical microscopy and magnetic attraction to assist in isolation of particles of interest.
- Optical images of collected particulates as collected at appropriate magnifications to record condition as collected.

If the lab comes to the same conclusions as Millette. Who's to say they had the right chips?

The lab would not be experienced(you said this was important) in finding the right one, right MM?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

...
MOVING ON TO DAVE THOMAS



Okay Dave, regarding your testing in an old steel combustion barrel, there are any number of possible sources for a few microscopic iron microspheres to have contaminated your burned primer paint residue.

Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc. Or are you suggesting you could spot such contaminants with the visible eye as you studiously avoided that wood ash smudge that so concerned you?

...

How many times do you think you can pull the steel wool over our eyes Dave?

MM

So, MM, are you suggesting that the Twin Towers had no "Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc.", and thus that the iron-rich spheres in WTC dust can only be produced via Thermite?

 

[Spanx]

Hey, MM, when are you going to get your comment mix and match work peer reviewed ?

 

[pgimeno]

If those tiny dust chips were indeed steel primer paint, and given that they were outputting iron spheres at the relatively low temperature of 430C, don't you think that Dave's honking big pile of steel primer paint residue should have been swimming in all kinds of these microspheres?

You have no proof that the spheres were produced at that temperature. The DSC did not stop at 430°C, it went up to 700°C.

He has tested verified paints in lab conditions and never found molten spheres of any kind.

With rust attached?

As far as I know, only Ivan did this and he did find spheres that were quite similar to those in the paper.

 

[Miragememories]

"..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…"

Okay Dave, regarding your testing in an old steel combustion barrel, there are any number of possible sources for a few microscopic iron microspheres to have contaminated your burned primer paint residue.

Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc. Or are you suggesting you could spot such contaminants with the visible eye as you studiously avoided that wood ash smudge that so concerned you?

What you describe in your response is a rushed job. A VERY rushed job.

In a proper laboratory environment, Dr. Harrit et al spent countless hours performing, cataloging and analyzing their research and you feel you have credibly debunked them by the sloppy bit of work you squeezed into one hour.

So, MM, are you suggesting that the Twin Towers had no "Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc.", and thus that the iron-rich spheres in WTC dust can only be produced via Thermite?

If there is a point you are attempting to make David, it is well hidden?

WTC Ground Zero was fully exposed to the kinds of contamination I listed.

RJ Lee previously reported a finding of iron microspheres in the 9/11 WTC dust.

Finding two iron-rich microspheres in a contaminated debris pile is not a proof that they were produced by the burned steel primer paint in which they were found.

If proper scientific procedure was of interest to you, what you would have done, is obtain a fresh, uncontaminated, source of the same or similar steel primer paint, and performed a heat test on a sample in a clean laboratory environment using a muffle furnace or similar sterile apparatus.

Iron-rich microspheres found in that debris would justify your boasting.

MM

 

[Spanx]

If there is a point you are attempting to make David, it is well hidden?

WTC Ground Zero was fully exposed to the kinds of contamination I listed.

RJ Lee previously reported a finding of iron microspheres in the 9/11 WTC dust.

Finding two iron-rich microspheres in a contaminated debris pile is not a proof that they were produced by the burned steel primer paint in which they were found.

If proper scientific procedure was of interest to you, what you would have done, is obtain a fresh, uncontaminated, source of the same or similar steel primer paint, and performed a heat test on a sample in a clean laboratory environment using a muffle furnace or similar sterile apparatus.

Iron-rich microspheres found in that debris would justify your boasting.

MM

MM, you have come out with so much BS now and moved the goal posts so many times you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[chrismohr]

MM also quotes RJ Lee, who like many scientists knows that iron-rich spheres can be created in ordinary fires and has said so himself in his original report and in a followup email. He says there aren't enough microspheres found in Dave's little experiment and that he didn't spend enough money to buy the time to find more and more and more microspheres. Dave gets no credit for spending most of his available time looking for iron microspheres in the unburned sample and just a little bit of time quickly finding two examples of very iron-rich spheres. He accepts the results of Mark Basile's informal experiments (you know, the unpublished, non peer-reviewed ones he did on the WTC chips without having a DSC or thermometer or any other tools to measure what was happening) but rejects Millette because his preliminary report is not fully peer-reviewed. Nothing he has ever said has been peer reviewed but he expects us to respond to him while he rejects what Millette says for nbot being peer reviewed. He ignores my repeated assertions that Millette's preliminary report has in fact enjoyed more peer feedback from the hundreds of people who attended his two forensis lectures on his report than the feedback that is ever given a peer-reviewed article. He is an anonymouse poster who puts down Sunstealer and Oystein et al for being anonymous. And in thge face of all this he accuses me of being blind, biased, unwilling to look at anythinhg that challenges MY beliefs!
I might mention that I am the one who did not take RJ Lee at his word when he said iron-rich spheres are common in fires. I didn't even accept Crone's Particle Atlas and all the iron-rih shperes it shows. No, I goaded Ivan and Dave for months and convinced them to actually do informal experiments to check all this out, andI was willing to accept whatever result they came ujp with. MM clearly is not, and is looking for reasons to reject anything and everything I do. No one I know of in JREF has given the 9/11 Truth side more opportunities to prove their case; I have even helped them by organizing experiments and investigations that for all I knew could have supported their case. Nothing I have done is good enough for MM and most of the rest of the 9/11 Truth people... except for several people who have changed their minds when they've seen the Millette study... and the 2-to-1 ratio of people who changed their minds in my direction after my debate with Richard.

 

[NoahFence]

This thread is the biggest waste of time and energy on this whole website. It's laughable that anyone thinks microscopic particles of dust prove something that is physically impossible to begin with.

It's as if someone scraped rusted iron flakes off of the Titanic and thus concluded the ocean is made of steel.

Insane.

 

[Miragememories]

"MM also quotes RJ Lee, who like many scientists knows that iron-rich spheres can be created in ordinary fires and has said so himself in his original report and in a followup email.

He says there aren't enough microspheres found in Dave's little experiment and that he didn't spend enough money to buy the time to find more and more and more microspheres.

Dave gets no credit for spending most of his available time looking for iron microspheres in the unburned sample and just a little bit of time quickly finding two examples of very iron-rich spheres.

He accepts the results of Mark Basile's informal experiments (you know, the unpublished, non peer-reviewed ones he did on the WTC chips without having a DSC or thermometer or any other tools to measure what was happening) but rejects Millette because his preliminary report is not fully peer-reviewed.

Nothing he has ever said has been peer reviewed but he expects us to respond to him while he rejects what Millette says for nbot being peer reviewed.

He ignores my repeated assertions that Millette's preliminary report has in fact enjoyed more peer feedback from the hundreds of people who attended his two forensis lectures on his report than the feedback that is ever given a peer-reviewed article.

He is an anonymouse poster who puts down Sunstealer and Oystein et al for being anonymous.

And in thge face of all this he accuses me of being blind, biased, unwilling to look at anythinhg that challenges MY beliefs!

I might mention that I am the one who did not take RJ Lee at his word when he said iron-rich spheres are common in fires.

I didn't even accept Crone's Particle Atlas and all the iron-rih shperes it shows.

No, I goaded Ivan and Dave for months and convinced them to actually do informal experiments to check all this out, andI was willing to accept whatever result they came ujp with.

MM clearly is not, and is looking for reasons to reject anything and everything I do.

No one I know of in JREF has given the 9/11 Truth side more opportunities to prove their case; I have even helped them by organizing experiments and investigations that for all I knew could have supported their case.

Nothing I have done is good enough for MM and most of the rest of the 9/11 Truth people... except for several people who have changed their minds when they've seen the Millette study... and the 2-to-1 ratio of people who changed their minds in my direction after my debate with Richard."

Well cry me a river.

That is a lot of handwringing Chris.

I was expecting either acceptance of my points or an objective rebuttal.

You have offered neither.

MM

 

[Spanx]

Well cry me a river.

That is a lot of handwringing Chris.

I was expecting either acceptance of my points or an objective rebuttal.

You have offered neither.

MM

Mmm, handwringing

 

[Miragememories]

Chris, is it so unreasonable of me to have suggested that David should have taken a pure sample of comparable steel primer paint and heat tested it in a clean laboratory environment?

Are you interested in the truth or not?

"MM…accepts the results of Mark Basile's informal experiments (you know, the unpublished, non peer-reviewed ones he did on the WTC chips without having a DSC or thermometer or any other tools to measure what was happening) but rejects Millette because his preliminary report is not fully peer-reviewed."

This is not true Chris.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc

"So what I did was I set up a little instrument where I could basically control heat these chips.

I basically made up a little apparatus [described above] which I could control heat just to the point where these chips would ignite.

We know what their ignition temperature is based on other scientists work. So I can basically in a controlled manner bring these chips up to the ignition temperature, watch them ignite, with my microscope and camera, and you are about to see one, and then go in and analyze what has happened after the chemical reaction.

If you take these chips and section them, and look at them before you ignite them, there are no iron micro-spheres, there are no iron particles, there are no iron films contained in these chips.

It is only after you bring them up to their ignition point and they go through their thermitic reaction, that liquid iron is produced and the energy is released.

These chips are not naturally occurring."

And in a further quote;

"If you take these chips, before you ignite them, and I have done it, just like I did where I said I exposed a fresh section.

I've cut into these chips, dozens, if not hundreds of times and I have never found an iron microsphere inside.

I have never found a film of iron inside.

It is not there until the chip reacts.

When the chip reacts, it produces molten iron.

There is no free iron.

There is iron oxide before you ignite it but there is no free iron inside these chips."

"Nothing he [MM] has ever said has been peer reviewed but he expects us to respond to him while he rejects what Millette says for nbot being peer reviewed.

He ignores my repeated assertions that Millette's preliminary report has in fact enjoyed more peer feedback from the hundreds of people who attended his two forensis lectures on his report than the feedback that is ever given a peer-reviewed article.

He is an anonymouse poster who puts down Sunstealer and Oystein et al for being anonymous."

What is your point Chris?

This is a discussion forum and the overwhelming majority of its participants are anonymous.

I research the science knowledgebases and present argument here and elsewhere against those who are ignorant, and/or misrepresent the legitimacy of existing findings.

No where do I presume to present my own scientific research.

When someone does present their own scientific investigations, regardless of their credentials (or lack of), I expect them to follow a scientific regime that stands up to normal scrutiny. If their findings have any integrity, they should be able to survive peer-review and qualify for publishing.

David's work, whether well-intentioned or not, fails miserably.

Dr. Millette's work is a different matter. He has let his report 'sit' for over two years.

He knows that his research, his reputation, and the image of his company are safe, as long as the only kind of peer review his report receives is in the form of polite applause from a seated audience.

When and if Dr. Millette dares to publish his findings, Dr. Harrit et al will publish a rebuttal.

Dr. Millette very well knows that at such time, he will then be in the public spotlight and no longer preaching to the converted.

I really think you have lost sight of the ball Chris.

We are discussing the very very serious finding by reputable scientists that nanothermite existed throughout the 9/11 WTC debris.

Wake up!

MM

 

[NoahFence]

We are discussing the very very serious finding by reputable scientists that nanothermite existed throughout the 9/11 WTC debris.

Therein lies your problem. Any thought that these people are "reputable scientists" is laughable.

The fact is nothing, and I mean NOTHING on this planet will ever convince you. So why bother? We could have 1000 people come up with the same conclusions as reality, and one come up with a conclusion that "there may have been something that resembled therm*te" and you'll take that one person's word as gospel.

Why?

There was no therm*te. There was no Controlled Demolition. It was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
You're either a total idiot (you're not) or you're lying. Why?

 

[DGM]

This is not true Chris.

We know what their ignition temperature is based on other scientists work. So I can basically in a controlled manner bring these chips up to the ignition temperature, watch them ignite, with my microscope and camera, and you are about to see one, and then go in and analyze what has happened after the chemical reaction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc



MM

This actually prove Chris to be correct. He has no idea what temperature the spheres were actually produced at, only the temperature the chip was likely to ignite. Once ignition occurs he is no longer in control of the temperature.

 

[chrismohr]

MM if I sound burned out it's because I am. I guess what I have done serves to either seriously undermine people's beliefs in CD or harden their stances. But when I organize a major study like Millette's and a couple smaller experiments like those done by Dave and Ivan, it's my mistake when I focus only on those who see no value whatsoever in my efforts. People like you. It's to be excpected.

As for Mark Basile, he himself has admitted he had fewer measuring instruments than Jones/Harrit et al. That's why he is doing a more thorough study, and I wish him well even as I express frustration that he is going forward with no input from us. He seems more honest than some, to be blunt.

 

[thedopefishlives]

MM if I sound burned out it's because I am. I guess what I have done serves to either seriously undermine people's beliefs in CD or harden their stances. But when I organize a major study like Millette's and a couple smaller experiments like those done by Dave and Ivan, it's my mistake when I focus only on those who see no value whatsoever in my efforts. People like you. It's to be excpected.

As for Mark Basile, he himself has admitted he had fewer measuring instruments than Jones/Harrit et al. That's why he is doing a more thorough study, and I wish him well even as I express frustration that he is going forward with no input from us. He seems more honest than some, to be blunt.

Chris, I for one would like to express my appreciation for the work you've done in organizing all these experiments. I've learned a lot by reading through the explanations of the data by experts, as an engineer in an outside discipline with no relation whatsoever to anything 9/11.

 

[Miragememories]

Chris It Was Never A Popularity Contest

MM if I sound burned out it's because I am.

I guess what I have done serves to either seriously undermine people's beliefs in CD or harden their stances.

But when I organize a major study like Millette's and a couple smaller experiments like those done by Dave and Ivan, it's my mistake when I focus only on those who see no value whatsoever in my efforts.

People like you. It's to be excpected.

As for Mark Basile, he himself has admitted he had fewer measuring instruments than Jones/Harrit et al.

That's why he is doing a more thorough study, and I wish him well even as I express frustration that he is going forward with no input from us.

He seems more honest than some, to be blunt.

bolding is mine

Fatigue is not yours alone to bear Chris.

I have been "burned out" a few times here.

Not only am I older than you, but I joined JREF back at the start of 2007 and have devoted an immeasurable amount of my time, energy, and my life here (over 4,000 posts to the 9/11 subForum), pursuing the truth about 9/11.

4 years on, you became a participant in this subForum and under the guise of "investigative journalism", you've devoted some of your time and energy promoting a heavily-biased belief that you were also genuinely interested in pursing the truth about 9/11.

And yes you have garnered much publicity for your videos, your 235+ points, your debates, and yes your involvement with Millette's pre-planned report which is supposed to be the subject of this thread.

Such efforts are certainly laudable, but only if they are 'fair and balanced'.

In this forum you have always benefited from being in the popular and majority position, whereas I and others brave enough to question the establishment have been subjected to withering assaults of abuse.

Because I am human, I have in the past allowed the gate keepers here to provoke me which has lead to several suspensions and the brink of being banned.

Many good people no longer post here because of the success of those gate keepers.

In our recent exchanges, I have only been attempting to keep you honest.

Dave Thomas no doubt is a great guy and I have nothing against him personally. But when he publicly makes unproven claims based on sloppy work and uses this to boastfully attempt rebuttal of the published work of scientists who have gone to great investigative lengths, and who have paid a great personal cost to get their unpopular message voiced, I feel there is no room for polite accommodations.

I have no doubt that Dr. Millette is a wonderful man in person as well. My questioning of his work and his underlying motives are made strictly in the quest of the truth.

Mark Basile is indeed one of the most open and genuine scientists you could ever want to meet. How do you discredit his findings? "He had fewer measuring instruments than Dr. Harrit et al".

Whether or not that had any relevance to the research he performed does not seem to be of concern to you. Where is the detailed scrutiny that investigative journalists take so much pride in?

You say you have the same "truth" goal, but when push comes to shove, you are far too accommodating of those who support your bias and intolerant of those who legitimately question your beliefs.

The events of 9/11 and the catastrophic consequences that it brought about, are far too serious for anyone to selfishly and publicly pity themselves over the personal costs that come from attempting a greater understanding.

MM