[ct_think]Fair enough, there are 2 types of chip. Harrit got lucky and found the thermitic ones. Millette missed them. There was still thermite there though [/ct_think]
WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
[ct_think]Fair enough, there are 2 types of chip. Harrit got lucky and found the thermitic ones. Millette missed them. There was still thermite there though [/ct_think]
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Fortunately, they can't think that. According to Harrit's findings in the paper, there is no possible way to "get lucky" as he found only one type of chip in the red/gray, magnetically attracted chips he separated out.
There are no test results in the paper showing anything other than thermitic material characteristics.
Until Harrit corrects his paper to address why someone found different chips when he supposedly found ONLY thermitic chips, it remains useless.
Miragememories
Banned
LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION!
No elemental aluminum would mean that Dr. Harrit et al's discovery remains a non-peaceful mystery substance with a highly destructive character.
How interesting that not even here in JREF, where truth is considered optional, no one has postulated a reasonable alternative material that would match the behaviour of what was observed.
Dr. Harrit et al have declared that in their professional scientific opinion, the finding of "elemental aluminum" has been validated.
Hopefully Mark Basile's current research will shed more light on the subject.
Rushing out the door with another self-promotion video certainly won't.
MM
No elemental aluminum would mean that Dr. Harrit et al's discovery remains a non-peaceful mystery substance with a highly destructive character.
How interesting that not even here in JREF, where truth is considered optional, no one has postulated a reasonable alternative material that would match the behaviour of what was observed.
Dr. Harrit et al have declared that in their professional scientific opinion, the finding of "elemental aluminum" has been validated.
Dr. Harrit said:
Hopefully Mark Basile's current research will shed more light on the subject.
Rushing out the door with another self-promotion video certainly won't.
MM
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
Please elaborate.
I think we're waiting on you to postulate a reasonable alternative to 19 terrorists + 4 Hijacked Aircraft.
Last edited:
slowsmile
Critical Thinker
Hush a boom paint.
LOL, office fires. 911 truth has no idea paper has more heat energy than thermite. Wood beats thermite. Plastic beats thermite. Gee whiz, the entire WTC complex was filled with "non-peaceful mystery substance" called office contents which burn with more heat energy than thermite.
911 truth make me laugh at how anti-intellectual the movement is.
You can't touch Millette's study, or the USGS studies, or independent studies so you make up a new "non-peaceful mystery substance" which burns with less heat than office stuff. Wow.
"non-peaceful mystery substance" - aka stuff on fire
New 911 truth definition for stuff that burns.
NoahFence
Banned
This is the part where we wait for the thread to change pages so we can claim "I didn't see the question"?
Translation: "I know this stuff brought down those buildings, therefore if it isn't thermitic it must be some other agent of destruction".
Note 1: That it might not be a destructive agent at all is not considered.
Note 2: That no deliberately destructive agent at all was in play on 9/11 is not considered.
Conclusion: Pre-existing belief is driving the analysis.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
And their "professional scientific opinion" has been proven wrong, yet you refuse to even discuss it.
How did Millette find different chips when Harrit's paper supposedly proves that one should only find thermitic chips?
Miragememories
Banned
TOO HOT TO HANDLE
The bigger question is WHY is their solid evidence of nanothermite obtainable from 4 random 9/11 WTC dust sites?
Dr. Millette, is a man who has spent a number of years filling government contracts to investigate the 9/11 WTC dust.
He is a professional microscopic researcher into the 9/11 WTC dust..
He selected what he decided were chips matching those high-lighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
At this point Dr. Millette reached a crossroad in his investigation.
He had earlier read in the 2009 Bentham paper that the high-lighted chips 'ignited' at ~430C and the heat testing continuing to 700C.
In order to access the "inorganic constituents from the film or coating", Dr. Millette states in his report's Reference 6 he followed the ASTM E1610-02 Standard Guide for Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison.
Dr. Millette then set his muffle furnace to a Low Temperature Furnace Ashing (LTA) heat of 400C for 1 hour.
WHY?
He states clearly in his report that his Reference 6 was the ASTM E1610-02 Standard Guide for Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison.
On pg.743 of that reference under Laboratory Testing, it says; "ASTM Test Methods for Pigment Content of Paint by Low Temperature Furnace Ashing (450C) (d 4451) is a low-temperature ashing method useful for all coatings that do not contain organic pigments."
What Dr. Millette's report does not explain is his purpose in not following the ASTM standard test method for LTA.
Why use a significantly lower than required temperature?
All Dr. Millette says about the matter is;
Dr. Millette offers no explanation as to why he stayed 'well and clear' of the published ignition point for valid 9/11 WTC dust red chip samples.
The ignition point of 430C was -20C below the recommended 450C ASTM LTA temperature setting and definitely should have ignited any 'candidate' chips.
Dr. Millette's 400C setting was -50C below the ASTM standard that he declared he was following.
It was guaranteed 'safe'.
MM
The bigger question is WHY is their solid evidence of nanothermite obtainable from 4 random 9/11 WTC dust sites?
Dr. Millette, is a man who has spent a number of years filling government contracts to investigate the 9/11 WTC dust.
He is a professional microscopic researcher into the 9/11 WTC dust..
He selected what he decided were chips matching those high-lighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
At this point Dr. Millette reached a crossroad in his investigation.
He had earlier read in the 2009 Bentham paper that the high-lighted chips 'ignited' at ~430C and the heat testing continuing to 700C.
In order to access the "inorganic constituents from the film or coating", Dr. Millette states in his report's Reference 6 he followed the ASTM E1610-02 Standard Guide for Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison.
Dr. Millette then set his muffle furnace to a Low Temperature Furnace Ashing (LTA) heat of 400C for 1 hour.
WHY?
He states clearly in his report that his Reference 6 was the ASTM E1610-02 Standard Guide for Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison.
On pg.743 of that reference under Laboratory Testing, it says; "ASTM Test Methods for Pigment Content of Paint by Low Temperature Furnace Ashing (450C) (d 4451) is a low-temperature ashing method useful for all coatings that do not contain organic pigments."
What Dr. Millette's report does not explain is his purpose in not following the ASTM standard test method for LTA.
Why use a significantly lower than required temperature?
All Dr. Millette says about the matter is;
Dr. Millette said:
Dr. Millette offers no explanation as to why he stayed 'well and clear' of the published ignition point for valid 9/11 WTC dust red chip samples.
The ignition point of 430C was -20C below the recommended 450C ASTM LTA temperature setting and definitely should have ignited any 'candidate' chips.
Dr. Millette's 400C setting was -50C below the ASTM standard that he declared he was following.
It was guaranteed 'safe'.
MM
Last edited:
Prove it.
If this was true there would be a Pulitzer Prize.
When will 911 truth conspiracy theorist Harrit team with a newspaper for the Pulitzer?
Prove it.
If this was true there would be a Pulitzer Prize.
When will 911 truth conspiracy theorist Harrit team with a newspaper for the Pulitzer?
The temperature stuff makes no sense. How can thermite which burns at 430C do anything to steel? Paper has more energy, how does this chip stuff from some coatings which have Al Fe in them do anything? Half the chips tested had less energy than thermite. That makes them not thermite, maybe weak sauce thermite. Why do office fires with the heat energy of 2,700 tons of thermite need thermite to help weaken the steel?
Why does Millette have to do tests you are fooled into thinking they are required on his chips which clearly are not thermite? You can't explain the purpose of DSC let alone explain why the chip samples don't match the DSC for thermite.
Millette beats Harrit/Jones on science, and Millette makes no silly claims like Harrit/Jones do. Read the thermite fraud paper again, slowly, it does not offer any reality based evidence to prove thermite. Harrit/Jones are not qualified to do the study, as seen by the narrative in the paper.
Time to first lie ... not long.
He made no decision at all in the selection process. He followed the Bentham protocol.
Last edited:
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Millette "decided" nothing. He used the same two criteria Harrit outlined in his paper.
1. Chips must have red/gray layers
2. Chips must be attracted to a magnet
How did Millette find different chips when Harrit's paper concludes that all chips selected using the two criteria above are should be thermitic material?
Not so merry-go-round in la la
Yet, Prof. Harrit still found materiel in the DUST samples that ignited - reacted and expressed Fe rich spheres. Spheres Lee found to be 5.87% of DUST, 'unusual'.....an enormous tonnage of air-born Fe Spheres the presence of which until that day were regarded as evidence of thermitic reaction. And the presence of which before the NIST new phenomenon would automatically generate criminal investigation into explosives being the factor in catastrophic building disintegration 'in-mid-air'.
The debris field says it all. So do the eye witnesses and video evidence of demolition actions.
How or why the materiel in that particular form should have been utilized in the demolitions, isn't the question. Harrit etal found them, that's all.
As yet, Dr Millette has not produced his paper saying why Harrit is wrong.
Yet, Prof. Harrit still found materiel in the DUST samples that ignited - reacted and expressed Fe rich spheres. Spheres Lee found to be 5.87% of DUST, 'unusual'.....an enormous tonnage of air-born Fe Spheres the presence of which until that day were regarded as evidence of thermitic reaction. And the presence of which before the NIST new phenomenon would automatically generate criminal investigation into explosives being the factor in catastrophic building disintegration 'in-mid-air'.
The debris field says it all. So do the eye witnesses and video evidence of demolition actions.
How or why the materiel in that particular form should have been utilized in the demolitions, isn't the question. Harrit etal found them, that's all.
As yet, Dr Millette has not produced his paper saying why Harrit is wrong.
It's totally the question.
The material is not thermitic. Start from there and work forwards.
I have a copy of Millette's paper, so does anyone who has read the thread and downloaded it. How was it missed with the extensive research all 911 truth followers do? oops, exactly...
Harrit found material that ignited? LOL, paper ignites at the same temperature, and paper has more heat energy. Harrit has a fantasy about 911, so does Jones. Millette has science, Harrit/Jones have woo. Proof Jones and Harrit have woo? They can't team with a newspaper for the biggest Pulitzer in years... why? No evidence.
Why are your posts stuck in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? exactly...
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
If it's a mystery, how can you conclude it's non-peaceful? There's lots of dangerous substances around you in everyday life that would fit your broad truth-mongering description when you break them down.
Sodium chloride... OH MY!
Frishman
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 54
JREF is not a PRISJ. Dr. Millette needs to publish in a PRISJ
Anyone can write a paper and post a link on JREF. JREF is not a Peer Reviewed Independent Scientific Journal (PRISJ) nor did James Randi say it was. But many blue eyed gullible government fairy tale Trusters with no science background think it is. Science moves forward through experiments and studies published in PRISJs.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has 20 studies articles in PRISJs such as the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering and the International Journal of Protective Structures (see Collected Articles on 9/11 www.911ca.org) - plus another 60 in the arguably non-independent www.JournalOf911Studies.org
If Dr. Millette wants his study to be seriously considered by the scientific community, he needs to publish his study in a PRISJ. JREF is not a PRISJ. Oops Beachnut, try again. The USAF deserves better.
Anyone can write a paper and post a link on JREF. JREF is not a Peer Reviewed Independent Scientific Journal (PRISJ) nor did James Randi say it was. But many blue eyed gullible government fairy tale Trusters with no science background think it is. Science moves forward through experiments and studies published in PRISJs.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has 20 studies articles in PRISJs such as the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering and the International Journal of Protective Structures (see Collected Articles on 9/11 www.911ca.org) - plus another 60 in the arguably non-independent www.JournalOf911Studies.org
If Dr. Millette wants his study to be seriously considered by the scientific community, he needs to publish his study in a PRISJ. JREF is not a PRISJ. Oops Beachnut, try again. The USAF deserves better.
Last edited: