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

[GlennB]

THE BIG QUESTION

"Can you create iron-rich spheres by burning regular paint at regular fire temperatures?"

Dr. Farrer in a laboratory setting could not do it.

Dr.Jones in a laboratory setting could not do it.

Dr. Harrit in a laboratory setting could not do it.

Chemical engineer, Mark Basile in a laboratory setting could not do it.

I rarely ask this question as it's all too often a cheap evasion. But ...

Cites?

 

[Miragememories]

"MM: Jones, Farrer and Basile could not create iron-rich spheres.

But the McCrone Particle Atlas shows it."

Is their a point here or is this yet another 'red herring'?

There is no dispute about the existence of iron-rich microspheroids, created by non-thermitic processes.

What is being disputed is that you can put some dry steel primer paint on a wood fire and expect to find iron-rich microspheres in the ashes.

"RJ Lee says it's to be expected in fires.

Apparently they are created sometimes baut not always.

I was actually uncertain whether Dave or Ivan would find these iron-rich spheres because I am aware that Farrer/Jones/Harrit had not succeeded."

RJ Lee never said that iron-rich microspheres were a likely, or possible, byproduct of burning steel primer paint.

"Iron-Rich Microspheres could have been in the paint the whole time. Once you make contact the beam the paint washes the microspheres into the paint. You have to show the paint was free of microspheres first."

Ivan never delivered a proof of iron-rich microspheres from heating steel primer paint. Ivan also indicated that objects he did find would not likely originate from the red layer which he believed to be primer paint.

"..I think there is hardly any doubt here: these objects should mostly originate from gray layers.."

"We did a study on some epoxy paint. We put that in the DSC. We found that that paint would just burn up and turn to ash. You may get a minor exothermic peak but it is not energetic. It is a very smooth wide peak and it is certainly not an energetic material. As part of the actual paint [WTC] that we ignited in the DSC, it was basically ash.

There were no micro-spheres found."

Dr. Harrit actually properly tested steel primer paint extracted from 9/11 WTC steel. Again, no iron-rich microspheres.

If iron-rich microspheres are a normal byproduct of burning steel primer paint, they would have been observed in the ideal conditions presented in the laboratory.

Miraculously discovering only 2 microspheres in a large debris sample, taken from a heavily contaminated environment, leaves the obvious conclusion that they were contaminants.

To further emphasize this point, the red chips from the 9/11 WTC dust, were barely discernible to the eye. The majority here adhere to the belief that those red chips are not thermitic but are steel primer paint.

Yet, at ~430C those chips produced abundant iron-rich microspheres!

If this is the normal behaviour for steel primer paint, why did Dave's relatively huge pile of steel primer paint only produce 2 microspheres?

Why embrace Dave's pathetically weak evidence in light of overwhelmingly contradictory evidence?

"NoahFence, I'd be careful about guaranteeing rational discussion if only MM were rational.

Some of his claims are presented rationally (these days, it's getting real personal which is OK by me for now as I give reasons for my burnout and hear his reactions).

As I always say, JREF is a rough playground, and to be honest, it will ALWAYS be rougher still for MM and other 9/11 Truth people, no matter how cool and collected they manage to be and no matter what quality of arguments they present.

MM I'll tell you right now I'm finished defending myself personally. Don't expect responses from your continuing accusations."

Like you, I wish I could respond to the above statement.

Unfortunately my last post went to ABANDON ALL HOPE sigh.

So I dare not question the 'special' privileges that allowed that to happen.

MM

 

[Spanx]

Is their a point here or is this yet another 'red herring'?

There is no dispute about the existence of iron-rich microspheroids, created by non-thermitic processes.

What is being disputed is that you can put some dry steel primer paint on a wood fire and expect to find iron-rich microspheres in the ashes.



RJ Lee never said that iron-rich microspheres were a likely, or possible, byproduct of burning steel primer paint.



Ivan never delivered a proof of iron-rich microspheres from heating steel primer paint. Ivan also indicated that objects he did find would not likely originate from the red layer which he believed to be primer paint.





Dr. Harrit actually properly tested steel primer paint extracted from 9/11 WTC steel. Again, no iron-rich microspheres.

If iron-rich microspheres are a normal byproduct of burning steel primer paint, they would have been observed in the ideal conditions presented in the laboratory.

Miraculously discovering only 2 microspheres in a large debris sample, taken from a heavily contaminated environment, leaves the obvious conclusion that they were contaminants.

To further emphasize this point, the red chips from the 9/11 WTC dust, were barely discernible to the eye. The majority here adhere to the belief that those red chips are not thermitic but are steel primer paint.

Yet, at ~430C those chips produced abundant iron-rich microspheres!

If this is the normal behaviour for steel primer paint, why did Dave's relatively huge pile of steel primer paint only produce 2 microspheres?

Why embrace Dave's pathetically weak evidence in light of overwhelmingly contradictory evidence?






MM

You are just coming out with more horse turd as you go

Why do you think the chips are attracted to a magnet ?

Is paint attracted to a magnet ?

Where do you think the iron rich microspheres originate from ?

Who do you think you are fooling apart from yourself ?

 

[Cuddles]

I may be wrong, but I think 140 db has 10x as much air pressure as 130 db.

I'm afraid you actually are wrong on that one. Sound pressure level is a logarithmic scale, so air pressure is not directly proportional to the pressure level measured in decibels. Using the standard reference sound of 20 µPa, 140 dB corresponds to 200 Pa, while 130 dB is 63.2 Pa, so closer to a factor of three. 140 dB is 10* the pressure of 120 dB.

 

[beachnut]

Paper with a fake conclusion - Jones fake thermite paper, had to publish in a vanity paper because no real journal would publish lies of thermite. A fantasy no one believes but 911 truth followers who can't do chemistry. A lie of thermite.

Amazingly all the thermite stuff Jones found, I can find in may back yard; amazingly the earth's crust had lots of Al, and Fe, and Jones and his pack of crazy conspiracy theorists could find thermite anywhere, but it only reality of existence is in their minds.

Millette paper, results published on the internet - no thermite.

Amazingly no damage on 911 from thermite. Means both papers are not needed to figure out thermite is a lie.

Go ahead 911 truth followers, dream of Nixon resigning over Watergate, a real conspiracy, and have a fantasy of 911 based on talk.

Where is the Pulitzer? Nixon's Watergate got a Pulitzer? Oh, they had evidence. Darn, 911 truth thermite cult has nothing but weak attacks on Millette's study, they can't debunk. Hard to debunk the lack of thermite damage too.

What does the evidence say? no thermite
What does 911 truth say? "Jacha-chacha-chacha-chow! Chacha-chacha-chacha-chow! Chacha-chacha-chacha-chow!"

Real science, real evidence, reality. Millette
Nonsense, fantasy, 911 truth. Jones

 

[chrismohr]

I'm afraid you actually are wrong on that one. Sound pressure level is a logarithmic scale, so air pressure is not directly proportional to the pressure level measured in decibels. Using the standard reference sound of 20 µPa, 140 dB corresponds to 200 Pa, while 130 dB is 63.2 Pa, so closer to a factor of three. 140 dB is 10* the pressure of 120 dB.

Looks like you were right, I confused air pressure and sound intensity. This graph shows the "intensity" measurements going up a factor of ten, and air pressure more like a factor of three, with each 10db increase in volume: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureLevels.htm

 

[Miragememories]

Looks like you were right, I confused air pressure and sound intensity. This graph shows the "intensity" measurements going up a factor of ten, and air pressure more like a factor of three, with each 10db increase in volume: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureLevels.htm

A little science education is a dangerous thing.

MM

 

[OCaptain]

A little science education is a dangerous thing.

MM

Not as dangerous as refusing to be educated in matters of science. Chris is open to that, and you could learn a lot from his attitude.

 

[Miragememories]

Not as dangerous as refusing to be educated in matters of science. Chris is open to that, and you could learn a lot from his attitude.

I have.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

EYES WIDE SHUT

"When Jim Millette didn't research the iron microspheres, I goaded two people into doing simple experiments."

Rather than pursuing a weak strategy aimed at undermining the conditions in which iron-rich microspheres can be produced, why did you not do a point-by-point analysis of what was already shown?

You certainly had lots of material to sift through.

Dr. Millette claimed that all the 9/11 WTC dust red chips he tested had to be some sort of steel primer paint, even though he was unable to identify which.

The scientists who produced the 2009 Bentham paper unequivocally claimed that their 9/11 WTC dust red chip samples were not steel primer paint.

Since steel primer paint material and nanothermitic material have such different chemical behaviour, why did you not investigate this significant dichotomy?

This is a real mystery. One which any pursuing investigative journalist should have been salivating over.

Unquestionably, most scientists loyal to the "established view" would not react favourably to questions of a dissenting nature, but given your acknowledged skepticism I am sure they would have warmed up to science-based queries.

If investigative journalism was easy everyone would practise it.

If Dr. Harrit et al, are the liars that Dr. Millette's findings portray them to be, why have you not unburied the real truth which explains the findings in their paper?

But asking Dave to burn some paint in a barrel as an attempted debunking?

There must be physicists galore that would be willing to provide possible alternative explanations for the 2009 Bentham paper findings.

At the very least, they would explain why, say "rubbish", and you could openly argue Dr. Harrit et al to be liars based on scientific authority.

"When he didn't do the DSC tests, I contacted several labs and asked them if they would do it. Six or seven refused, afraid that if it WERE thermite, it would destroy their crucibles.

I reseached and acknowledged that Farrer et al actually DID have the correct crucibles to contain thermite in their 2009 experiments (oooh, come to think of it, does Mark Basile have a specially designed crucible or does IT get destroyed at thermite-burning temperatures?)"

Is it known that a barely visible, dust chip sized sample of thermite could produce long enough lasting heat to damage a crucible?

Since you were aware that Mark Basile did not require the use of DSC for his findings, could you have not asked those labs about using a muffle furnace like Dr. Millette utilized?

Did you ever ask Dr. Millette if you could have some of his chip samples so you could have them tested by a lab willing to use heat above 400C (Dr. Millette was after all finished with his examination of those chips and you had contributed $1,000 of our money to his testing), or even pass them along to Dave Thomas who could perform a heat test in his school's lab with followup XEDS?

So many doors that could have been opened to widen the investigation.

Yet so little interest in doing so.

Why?

MM

 

[GlennB]

There must be physicists galore that would be willing to provide possible alternative explanations for the 2009 Bentham paper findings.

"Willing" for a fee, and probably following what seems to them to be a sensible protocol, perhaps.

The number both knowing about the Bentham paper and giving enough of a damn about its supposed findings to undertake the work out of sheer interest? Tending close to zero.

To you and other Truthers the Bentham paper is monumentally significant. To mainstream science it either doesn't register or is seen as a piece of junk unworthy of voluntary challenge.

I once set a world track and field record. It was for the 10.5 yard dash, uphill, in my back garden. Nobody has challenged it or beaten it. Bentham is roughly on a par with that.

 

[Miragememories]

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

"There must be physicists galore that would be willing to provide possible alternative explanations for the 2009 Bentham paper findings."

"Willing" for a fee, and probably following what seems to them to be a sensible protocol, perhaps."

There are lots of teachers and retired physicists who would be willing to have a civil discussion about such an interesting subject without feeling compelled to charge a buck.

The idea is to get a dialogue going and not worrying about Robert's Rules.

Currently there is no dialogue because everyone is hungup about proper chip matching.

We know what Dr. Millette's chips heated to 430C will do if they are the steel primer paint that he claims they are.

We also know that Dr. Harrit's chips heated to 430C did not behave as Dr. Millette's findings insist them must.

The inescapable conclusion is that Dr. Millette is testing the wrong chips or Dr. Harrit is lying.

It is absurd to believe that a group of esteemed scientists would risk their hard earned reputations on steel primer paint masquerading as nanothermite.

So if it is not steel primer paint and it is not nanothermite, maybe a dialogue with physicists could shed light on other possible explanations.

"The number both knowing about the Bentham paper and giving enough of a damn about its supposed findings to undertake the work out of sheer interest? Tending close to zero."

And you know this how?

What initially matters is how they would respond to the question of what they think about a material that behaves in the manner described in the 2009 Bentham paper.

If an investigator talked to a number of people with relevant science-based knowledge, new avenues of investigation might open up.

It amazes me that no one here shows any curiosity about this unexplained material other than those supporting 9/11 truth.

"To you and other Truthers the Bentham paper is monumentally significant. To mainstream science it either doesn't register or is seen as a piece of junk unworthy of voluntary challenge."

Just because mainstream science has not published a rebuttal to the 2009 Bentham paper, does not mean the they are not interested.

The subject is too sensational for anyone with a pulse to not be interested.

Some will talk.

But only to an investigator that has an aura of respectability.

Official story evangelists need not apply.

"I once set a world track and field record. It was for the 10.5 yard dash, uphill, in my back garden. Nobody has challenged it or beaten it. Bentham is roughly on a par with that.

Your world record time may only be true because there is no published public record to compare it to.

But you are not the first person to dash uphill.

The nanothermite found by Dr. Harrit et al may not have a matching un-redacted public record, but there is public documention establishing its existence and availability in a wide range of tailorable formulations.

MM

 

[Spanx]

It is absurd to believe that a group of esteemed scientists would risk their hard earned reputations on steel primer paint masquerading as nanothermite

Yet Steven Jones claimed thermite before he made any experiments

There are lots of teachers and retired physicists who would be willing to have a civil discussion about such an interesting subject without feeling compelled to charge a buck.

Now is you chance to actually do some thing, you could organise that all by yourself instead of sitting back and moaning at Chris Mohr.

 

[DGM]

It is absurd to believe that a group of esteemed scientists would risk their hard earned reputations on steel primer paint masquerading as nanothermite.

So if it is not steel primer paint and it is not nanothermite, maybe a dialogue with physicists could shed light on other possible explanations.

MM

The only problem with this is the Harrit et al scientists are not willing to share their work with other scientist. They never present their work to others for review or discussion outside of 9/11"truther" venues. The few that have read it came to the same conclusion as Millette.

There's no reason to wonder if primer paint on rusted steel will create "iron spheres" when burned in air. This is not mystery.

 

[NoahFence]

A little science education is a dangerous thing.

MM

Could you be ANY more transparent in your desire to only correct others, and not be educated yourself?

 

[NoahFence]

I once set a world track and field record. It was for the 10.5 yard dash, uphill, in my back garden. Nobody has challenged it or beaten it. Bentham is roughly on a par with that.

Wrong. I did it in 9.97 when I stole a hot dog from your grill. You weren't looking though, so it may not count.

 

[DGM]

Now is you chance to actually do some thing, you could organise that all by yourself instead of sitting back and moaning at Chris Mohr.

We've been telling him this for years. All they need to do is read the paper. The data in the paper has never been disputed.

 

[Gamolon]

The scientists who produced the 2009 Bentham paper unequivocally claimed that their 9/11 WTC dust red chip samples were not steel primer paint.

And how do they know this MM? How do they know that what they tested was NOT in fact contaminated primer paint?

I keep asking you this simple question and you continue to balk at it every time.

Why didn't Harrit and his group test and compare the differences between the red/gray paint chips they separated out with the resistivity test you keep clamoring about, and the red/gray thermitic chips? Surely this would have sealed the deal right?

Even though they had red/gray paint chips in their possession, they insisted on testing other kinds of paint type samples and even took resistivity results from an outside source for other paint types.

Their paper simply states that all the red/gray chips attracted to a magnet were thermitic. Jones implied that there were red/gray paint chips present. OOPS! Millette proved there were paint chips.

The conclusion stated by Harrit's paper was proven WRONG!

 

[Gamolon]

There's no reason to wonder if primer paint on rusted steel will create "iron spheres" when burned in air. This is not mystery.

BINGO!

According to MM and others, Harrit supposedly had red/gray primer paint chips that he separated out.

Why didn't he test those?

 

[ozeco41]

BINGO!

According to MM and others, Harrit supposedly had red/gray primer paint chips that he separated out.

Why didn't he test those?

That one is easy.

Whatever failings he may have in science Harrit does not troll internet forums. So he didn't need the information to play silly games with.