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

[Gamolon]

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

Nope.

As long as the chips were red/gray and attracted to a magnet, according to Harrit's paper, they should ALL be thermitic.

 

[Gamolon]

it matters because it calls into question of the integrity of the scientist. .

It sure does! Harrit needs to rethink his paper and figure out why someone (Millette) found other types of chips where he concludes in his paper that there are only thermitic chips.

If Jones KNEW there were many types of red/gray chips, then why were those tested and reported on in the paper so scientists could compare the results? Why weren't paint chips FROM THE DUST PILE tested and compared? They supposedly had them right?

 

[Miragememories]

THEY DON'T MAKE PAINT LIKE THEY USED TO

"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!!

He knew?

At 400C he knew that his chips would ignite at 430C?

Which introduces the question that never gets answered.

What steel primer paint produces a narrow, dramatic exothermic combustion peak when heated to approx. 430C?

Another author of the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Farrer, noted observing only a wide, undramatic exothermic combustion peak in one paint formulation.

It does not fit any of the 130 possible Tnemec formulations known to Dr. Millette, and it is missing a key ingredient for the only other known 9/11 WTC steel primer paint, LeClede.

Yet Dr. Millette, a materials specialist, is certain that his selections are Tnemec steel primer paint, and that ~430C will ignite them with a narrow exothermic peak.

And he has no idea what peaceful steel primer paint formulation would behave this way.

And he has never reported proof that his 9/11 WTC dust chip selections would behave this way.

His belief is solely based on his conviction that his chips match Dr. Harrit's chips.

And, because Dr. Harrit's chips ignite at 430C, logically, so must his [Dr. Millette's].

But Dr. Millette calmly accepts the notion of a commercial steel primer paint that has been formulated in such a way that a tossed cigarette could lead to a dramatic ignition and fire?

MM

 

[DGM]

Another author of the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Farrer, noted observing only a wide, undramatic exothermic combustion peak in one paint formulation.

MM

Was this from "non-thermite" chips he found in the study? You would think they'd publish this information so other scientist could duplicate the study.

 

[Gamolon]

His belief is solely based on his conviction that his chips match Dr. Harrit's chips.

And, because Dr. Harrit's chips ignite at 430C, logically, so must his [Dr. Millette's].

Bingo!

How did Millette find different chips?! Harrit's paper clearly shows that all red/gray, magnetically attracted chips are thermitic.

Right MM?

 

[Gamolon]

Was this from "non-thermite" chips he found in the study? You would think they'd publish this information so other scientist could duplicate the study.

This is exactly the point.

Red/gray, magnetically attracted chip A (Thermitic)
Red/gray, magnetically attracted chip B (Paint)
Red/gray, magnetically attracted chip C (Something different)
Red/gray, magnetically attracted chip D (Something different)

These chips are visually similar and act the same way with magnetism that Harrit and his group deemed it unnecessary to publish the other chip results?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that if Harrit identified a red/gray chip, magnetically attracted paint chip and red/gray, magnetically attracted thermitic chip, that he'd want to see how they differed in composition?

What is even more strange is that Harrit and his group had to gather outside paint sources to test. Why didn't they use the red/gray paint chips they had in their possession?

 

[NoahFence]

Red/gray, magnetically attracted chip C (Something different)
Red/gray, magnetically attracted chip D (Something different)

"Non-Peaceful Mystery Substances"

 

[Gamolon]

But Dr. Millette calmly accepts the notion of a commercial steel primer paint that has been formulated in such a way that a tossed cigarette could lead to a dramatic ignition and fire?

MM

Does steel primer paint have a gray layer?

 

[GlennB]

His belief is solely based on his conviction that his chips match Dr. Harrit's chips.

No, there's no 'conviction' involved. He follwed the Harrit selection procedure.

And, because Dr. Harrit's chips ignite at 430C, logically, so must his [Dr. Millette's].

Logically, if they're the same chips. He begins by presuming that, having followed the Harrit procedure, they're likely to ignite at 430. Stopping at 400 just prevents his material from combusting?

But Dr. Millette calmly accepts the notion of a commercial steel primer paint that has been formulated in such a way that a tossed cigarette could lead to a dramatic ignition and fire?

That's deeply illogical. A cigarette burns at a temperature above the ignition point of wood, yet I could stub out cigarettes all day long on a log and it would never burst into flames.

 

[pgimeno]

There are no "Millette chips" or "Harrit chips". The paper clearly comes to the conclusion that if ANYONE drags a magnet over a WTC dust pile, all red/gray chips will be thermitic. Provide me proof in the paper that states anything different.

The fact that Millette found different chips proves Harrit's paper wrong.

If Millette did only one test from Harrit's paper and found other chips, that STILL proves Harrit's paper wrong.

If there are different chips that share the same red/gray and magnetic properties, why weren't ALL of the characteristics and test results published showing how they differed?

Even worse: the whole paper assumes that and treats different chips as if they were the same thing, leading to conclusions based on heterogeneous things as if they were the same substance, and thus rendering said conclusions invalid.

 

[pgimeno]

He knew?

At 400C he knew that his chips would ignite at 430C?

No. I assume he started with the hypothesis that they did, based on the Harrit et al. paper. He did not know, he just based his methods of separation on the assumption it might. If Harrit et al. were right, he would have destroyed his sample. His hypothesis (the one he tested) is that they were nanothermite that was able to ignite at that temperature. The results of testing that hypothesis turned out to prove it false: it's not thermite, nano or otherwise.

What steel primer paint produces a narrow, dramatic exothermic combustion peak when heated to approx. 430C?

Probably any with enough organic binder or pigment

 

[Senenmut]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying there. Lta is an attempt to preserve inorganic compounds. Thermite is inorganic.

yep and from the very beginning of the paper millette states "The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives5 and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison.

why would astm set a standard if some paint reacts below 450C so the researcher could not analyze the inorganic particles?

 

[Senenmut]

Interesting conversation but until someone can explain how a few microns thick coating of an incendiary can facilitate the collapse of a 47 story steel structure, it's all kind of pointless minutia.

there have been some chips of interest that were multi layered. imagine hundreds or thousands of layers thick. that might be able to do some real damage. imagine that built into a device that could project the accelerant in a direction to do damage like:




or this:

 

[kid meatball]

yep and from the very beginning of the paper millette states "The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives5 and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison.



why would astm set a standard if some paint reacts below 450C so the researcher could not analyze the inorganic particles?

Maybe you should ask them.

 

[Senenmut]

Would the chips have turned into "thermite" if he did? Were they "thermite" already and he just didn't get them hot enough? Can you explain how this effects the identification of the compound (chip)?

Your argument is why real scientist ignore this.

he went by this:
"The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison."

follow the protocol....

 

[DGM]

he went by this:
"The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison."

follow the protocol....

You didn't answer the question. Were his chips "thermite" and he didn't know it because he didn't heat them enough?

 

[Senenmut]

There are no "Millette chips" or "Harrit chips". The paper clearly comes to the conclusion that if ANYONE drags a magnet over a WTC dust pile, all red/gray chips will be thermitic. Provide me proof in the paper that states anything different.

they had their samples and millette had his samples. the scientific method concerning replication of experiments would have either found millette chips the same or different.

The fact that Millette found different chips proves Harrit's paper wrong.

it proves millette analyzed his chips without replication of the experiments in jones paper.

If Millette did only one test from Harrit's paper and found other chips, that STILL proves Harrit's paper wrong.

it proves his sample had that particular chip in it. your really trying to tie the two together or some reason without scientifically tying the two experiments together by replication.

If there are different chips that share the same red/gray and magnetic properties, why weren't ALL of the characteristics and test results published showing how they differed?

as before, what if all jones' chips were the same.

 

[Senenmut]

You didn't answer the question. Were his chips "thermite" and he didn't know it because he didn't heat them enough?

his chips are exactly what he found with the experiments he did.

 

[DGM]

his chips are exactly what he found with the experiments he did.

What does that mean? If he heated them more how would this have changed them.

 

[Senenmut]

Nope.

As long as the chips were red/gray and attracted to a magnet, according to Harrit's paper, they should ALL be thermitic.

you don't get it. you need to think about the two sets as different because you cant link the two because there was no replication of the experiments. it is as easy as that.