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

[tsig]

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.

Look who's on that list:



Replicated aspects of the Bentham Active Thermitic Material study (pro and con)

Chris Mohr has organized a replication study by James Millette, PhD and raised $1000 for expenses.

Results of Dr. Millette's Study - he did NOT find thermitic material in the WTC dust he studied. However, he did not specifically test for it.
presented to American Academy of Forensic Sciences Feb 20-25, 2012

 

[DGM]

..................... his study to be seriously considered by the scientific community, he needs to publish his study in a PRISJ.

So, why is the "truth" movement not being taken seriously by the scientific community?

Are you going to lie and say they are?

 

[Frishman]

Truthers do science. Trusters think posting on JREF is a PRISJ.

Look who's on that list:
Results of Dr. Millette's Study - he did NOT find thermitic material in the WTC dust he studied. However, he did not specifically test for it.
presented to American Academy of Forensic Sciences Feb 20-25, 2012

Of course it is listed. Most Truthers play fair, by the scientific method. Many gullible Trusters think posting on JREF is enough.

If Dr. Millette wrote notes for his presentation in 2012, he would be well on his way to submitting a paper to a Peer Reviewed Independent Scientific Journal (PRISJ). I'd love to read it. But in the mean time, no paper, no consideration from the scientific community - or the general community.

Lack of experimental proof is why the Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory (NEOCT) has lost the respect of the general population. Belief in the NEOCT has decreased from about 90% (including me and Richard Gage) from 9/11/2001 - 2006 down to 40% in August 2013, despite the efforts of some on JREF. Given a USA population of 300 million, the NEOCT loses about 50000 Americans per day, which is 18.25 million Trusters per year becoming 9/11 Truthers.

http://research.yougov.com/news/2013/09/10/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911/
A polling firm used by CBS News, Guardian, Times, Sun, Huffington Post, etc.

Dr. Millette needs to do what is expected in the scientific community - "publish or perish".

 

[Spanx]

Millette needs to do nothing.

Nobody takes truthers seriously.

Have you figured out how to open a thread yet Frishman

 

[MarkLindeman]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Lack of experimental proof is why the Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory (NEOCT) has lost the respect of the general population. Belief in the NEOCT has decreased from about 90% (including me and Richard Gage) from 9/11/2001 - 2006 down to 40% in August 2013, despite the efforts of some on JREF.

That's a wild series of assertions. You don't have a clear conceptual or operational definition of the concept you're making claims about. You haven't presented comparable measures for "9/11/2001 - 2006" (?!) and "August 2013." If you did have evidence for opinion change, you still wouldn't have any basis for attributing it to "lack of experimental proof," as if tens of millions of Americans were thinking to themselves, "I will have to reassess my assumptions about the Twin Towers once the NIST report comes out," or perhaps "I've started to wonder, if the Official Story is true, why doesn't someone prove it by building another huge skyscraper and experimentally setting it on fire?"

 

[Africanus]

Lack of experimental proof is why the Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory (NEOCT) has lost the respect of the general population.

Dream on
Though its hard to tell
Though you're foolin yourself
Dream on

 

[GlennB]

Of course it is listed. Most Truthers play fair, by the scientific method.

Thanks for making me laugh.

Dr. Millette needs to do what is expected in the scientific community - "publish or perish".

He could go the easy route and pay to publish in a vanity journal and nominate his own secret reviewers, I suppose, but I doubt he cares enough.

One informal peer review of Harrit's paper here. It makes many devastating points including one I haven't seen before (though I'm sure it's been mentioned) - the lack of aluminium oxide in the residue.

Harrit et al simply paid to publish some stuff. That act and the absence of formally published rebuttals doesn't change the fact that the paper was piffle.

Are you aware that Bentham also published a paper that was nothing but meaningless computer-generated buzzwords and phrases?

 

[beachnut]

Of course it is listed. Most Truthers play fair, by the scientific method. Many gullible Trusters think posting on JREF is enough.

If Dr. Millette wrote notes for his presentation in 2012, he would be well on his way to submitting a paper to a Peer Reviewed Independent Scientific Journal (PRISJ). I'd love to read it. But in the mean time, no paper, no consideration from the scientific community - or the general community.

Lack of experimental proof is why the Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory (NEOCT) has lost the respect of the general population. Belief in the NEOCT has decreased from about 90% (including me and Richard Gage) from 9/11/2001 - 2006 down to 40% in August 2013, despite the efforts of some on JREF. Given a USA population of 300 million, the NEOCT loses about 50000 Americans per day, which is 18.25 million Trusters per year becoming 9/11 Truthers.

http://research.yougov.com/news/2013/09/10/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911/
A polling firm used by CBS News, Guardian, Times, Sun, Huffington Post, etc.

Dr. Millette needs to do what is expected in the scientific community - "publish or perish".

Millette did science, 911 truth does woo, and stuff like you post. 911 truth followers are gullible. 12 years and 911 truth can't come up with a single integrated story based on evidence. Evidence is not found in 911 truth claims.

Look at you, a 911 truth loyal follower posting the party line without thinking. Nothing in your post is evidence to refute Millette, and you call the fake paper on thermite "science", published in a vanity journal, you come with BS, and have no evidence. You post based on faith, you can't refute Millette's findings so you make weak attacks on JREF, and you are JREF too.

 

[beachnut]

...
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.

Jones published his paper for money, the peer review was by 911 truth nuts. The truth deserved better, as you make a weak attack on me, when you should be presenting evidence for the 911 truth failed fantasy.

Jones made up thermite out of the blue, he was fired. Jones is the best 911 truth has an old man like me who is upset about the "wars" so he makes up lies to make the government look bad. It makes no sense, but Jones hated Bush, and now Jones is sitting around doing nothing. Jones thinks the earthquake in Haiti was caused by the US. You have teamed up with the best minds in 911 truth, ones who spread lies. Jones thinks Christ was walking the new world, and anything that sparkles is thermite. I like his work on Christ, it makes more sense than his lies on thermite. One is work on myths, and the other is a myth about the murder of thousands; Jones lies about murder, and lies about the truth.

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks for making me laugh.



He could go the easy route and pay to publish in a vanity journal and nominate his own secret reviewers, I suppose, but I doubt he cares enough.

One informal peer review of Harrit's paper here. It makes many devastating points including one I haven't seen before (though I'm sure it's been mentioned) - the lack of aluminium oxide in the residue.

Harrit et al simply paid to publish some stuff. That act and the absence of formally published rebuttals doesn't change the fact that the paper was piffle.

Are you aware that Bentham also published a paper that was nothing but meaningless computer-generated buzzwords and phrases?

Glenn, This guy has published dozens of genuine formal peer-reviewed articles, and I think he's even a 9/11 Truth guy (but not aligned with AE911 Truth). I'll have to check but I think he may believe that Building 7 was a CD but not the Twin Towers (apologies if I have him confused with someone else). Anyway, he's going to be quoted in my new video... and yes, the whole aluminum oxide residue argument has been brought up many times. There should have been countless tons of it in the WTC collapse zone if thermite were the cause.

 

[Miragememories]

"Harrit et al simply paid to publish some stuff.

That act and the absence of formally published rebuttals doesn't change the fact that the paper was piffle.

[Climate Guy Blog], makes many devastating points.

Including one I haven't seen before (though I'm sure it's been mentioned) - the lack of aluminium oxide in the residue...."

"Glenn, ... and yes, the whole aluminum oxide residue argument has been brought up many times.

There should have been countless tons of it in the WTC collapse zone if thermite were the cause.

WHY?

Have you ever observed the white/gray exhaust from a thermite ignition?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...erations_supervisor_training_for_explosiv.jpg

The produced cloud of very light aluminum oxide rapidly spreads into the atmosphere.

There is no reason to expect aluminum oxide residue to be concentrated close to the source.

MM

 

[Spanx]

WHY?

Have you ever observed the white/gray exhaust from a thermite ignition?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...erations_supervisor_training_for_explosiv.jpg

The produced cloud of very light aluminum oxide rapidly spreads into the atmosphere.

There is no reason to expect aluminum oxide residue to be concentrated close to the source.

MM

What about in the red gray chips ?

 

[DGM]

WHY?

Have you ever observed the white/gray exhaust from a thermite ignition?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...erations_supervisor_training_for_explosiv.jpg

The produced cloud of very light aluminum oxide rapidly spreads into the atmosphere.

There is no reason to expect aluminum oxide residue to be concentrated close to the source.

MM

What makes you think that cloud is aluminum oxide?

 

[GlennB]

The produced cloud of very light aluminum oxide rapidly spreads into the atmosphere.

There is no reason to expect aluminum oxide residue to be concentrated close to the source.

Drivel.

My wood stove pumps ash into the outside world. Much ash remains within the stove.

 

[Senenmut]

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

I bet ya 5 dollars chris is NOT going to mention that millette said he followed ASTM standards in the paper only to find out that he did NOT!!

 

[Senenmut]

And even without doing all the tests in Harrit's paper, Millette found different chips than what Harrit found. According to Harrit's paper, this was not supposed to happen.

that's not the scientific method. there are some serious unscientific people on the "debunker" side.

"Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, either by the researcher or by someone else working independently."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

[Harrit's paper was NOT a paper written with tests on how to find thermitic material and separate it out. It was a paper written to prove a preconceived notion that all the red/gray, magnetically attracted chips were thermitic.

and maybe in jones samples they were all thermitic. and maybe in millettes they were all not thermitic. odds?? or something else....

How do we know this? Because Harrit and his group did not publish one single sentence regarding tests results that showing something else. Every single test they did in the paper supposedly resulted in evidence that showed a thermitic material.

Thus, Harrit's paper basically concludes the following:

"Anyone extracting red/gray chips from a WTC dust pile with a magnet will find those chips to be thermitic material."

If you or anyone else wants to refute this, then please do so. I have asked many times for someone to point me to an entry in the paper that proves the above conclusion wrong, and not one person has stepped forward. Even Jones and Harrit refused to address this when I emailed them.

we have already gone over this. jones had his chips and millette had his chips. henryco thinks his chips were swapped in the mail. did someone tamper with millettes? some unknown lab guy seemed sure interested in those chips in millettes lab.

 

[chrismohr]

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

MM, the temperature of 400 degrees C was "safe" all right, but not for the reasons you think. As Sunstealer said last year, "Millette noticed that exposing the chips to a temperature of 430°C would likely DESTROY the aluminosilicate hexagonal platelets and the rhomboidal iron oxide particles which he wanted to study via TEM-SAED, because the Harrit paper suggests that a reaction of some kind takes place at that temperature.

"You never destroy a sample for analysis unless it's absolutely necessary. This is why DSC is so poor. It's the last test you'd do because it destroys the sample completely.

"Millette used a temperature that was high enough to do the job he wanted, but low enough not to destroy the particles he was interested in and which then could be analysed by a technique that would definitively prove what they were.

"The temperature is not important for the purpose of ashing so long as it's below the temperature at which the particles of interest are destroyed and high enough to extract inorganic constituents from an organic film."

Of COURSE Millette would heat the chips to a lower temperature than the recommended 450 C! He knew that at 430 C would ignite his samples! Sunstealer said this months ago. Millette followed all recommendations except to make a temperature adjustment to accomplish his ends without destroying his chips. You can complain all you want that Millette didn't do the DSC tests, but he explained to me that DSC is not a materials characterization test. His tests were. You certainly can't credibly claim that he violated protocol in some sinister way when he wanted to ash his samples for analysis, not destroy them!!

 

[Senenmut]

This doesn't matter one bit at the moment because Harrit has a much bigger problem.

Millette found DIFFERENT CHIPS where Harrit's paper concludes that there should only be ONE type (thermitic). How is this possible?! Harrit and Millette used the same two separation criteria, yet came out with opposite results:

1. Must have a red/gray layer
2. Must be attracted to a magnet

it matters because it calls into question of the integrity of the scientist. is it scientific fraud to state you (millette) followed a standard only get busted by a "truther" that you (millette) really did not follow that ASTM standard regarding the temp of the muffle furnace test.

 

[Senenmut]

MM, the temperature of 400 degrees C was "safe" all right, but not for the reasons you think. As Sunstealer said last year, "Millette noticed that exposing the chips to a temperature of 430°C would likely DESTROY the aluminosilicate hexagonal platelets and the rhomboidal iron oxide particles which he wanted to study via TEM-SAED, because the Harrit paper suggests that a reaction of some kind takes place at that temperature.

one can't pick and choose when to follow a standard. if you said you followed it, people across the world will follow the same standard and get the same results if you are working with the same material. do you see anything that would change if you raise your temp by 50C for the aluminoscilicates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminosilicate

"You never destroy a sample for analysis unless it's absolutely necessary. This is why DSC is so poor. It's the last test you'd do because it destroys the sample completely.

but one can cut these chips in half and test them like that. or maybe into 4 parts. if you cut the chip in half, one can do the dsc and see if it produces iron and silicon rich microspheres then do the ftir or other tests.

"Millette used a temperature that was high enough to do the job he wanted, but low enough not to destroy the particles he was interested in and which then could be analysed by a technique that would definitively prove what they were.

how do you know it was going to destroy the particles? the 450C temp is how the ASTM followers get pigments out of the paint to analyze.

"The temperature is not important for the purpose of ashing so long as it's below the temperature at which the particles of interest are destroyed and high enough to extract inorganic constituents from an organic film."


Of COURSE Millette would heat the chips to a lower temperature than the recommended 450 C! He knew that at 430 C would ignite his samples! Sunstealer said this months ago. Millette followed all recommendations except to make a temperature adjustment to accomplish his ends without destroying his chips. You can complain all you want that Millette didn't do the DSC tests, but he explained to me that DSC is not a materials characterization test. His tests were. You certainly can't credibly claim that he violated protocol in some sinister way when he wanted to ash his samples for analysis, not destroy them!!

do not assume. sunstealer SAID???? did sunstealer test some chips that millette had to find out?? what tha heck??? ITS A STANDARD. PERIOD. if all the paint before that the ASTM tested and it did not destroy the particles of interest, then why is this material different and why would millette not follow the standard.

 

[Senenmut]

bump for chris:
I might have missed you talking about this in the beginning of the thread.
you asked two dozen labs if they could test the chips??? did these two dozen labs alreaday have chips?? if not, who was going to supply the chips?