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

[Gamolon]

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.

Harrit's paper was NOT, repeat NOT written for finding thermitic chips in the WTC dust. It was written to prove a preconceived notion that all red/gray chips that were attracted to a magnet were thermitic. They went INTO the paper thinking the red/gray chips were thermitic and wanted to prove it.

If Harrit was trying to write a paper on how to FIND thermtic chips, he and his cronies would have established a much more stringent set of criteria than the "red/gray layer", "attracted to magnet" set.

The "standard" that you claim was derived in the paper and that Millette should have followed is nonexistent other then the two criteria already mentioned.


If you accuse Millette of not "replicating tests" or not "following the standard in the paper", then you also have to accuse Harrit and Jones on the same thing. If the paper and it's tests are to be used as a "standard" like you claim to get the right chips, then explain the following to me. If there are certain criteria in a "standard", you need to apply that criteria to EVERY SINGLE CHIP to make sure ALL the results come out the same.

1. If the DSC test was used as a criteria within the "standard" to determine if one has the correct chips, then why were the Delassio test results missing from the paper? No tests results, yet Harrit claims all his samples had thermitic chips.


2. What about the resisitivity test? Jones says the following in a blog. http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses

Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material.

Yet in the paper, they tested ONE chip.

7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?

We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter
in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:

Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
= thickness (m).

Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately
10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically
over 1010 ohm-m [31].

I also have the following email from Harrit stating the following regarding the resistivity tests. Pay particular attention to the words in red. Tests and their results within a "standard" are NOT to be done in random nor are they to be considered "supplementary material".

The resistivity test were done in random on the chips already isolated as described. The information obtained must be considered "supplementary material".

So let's discuss what tests and results were considered to be "standard" in determining which were the right chips. Unfortunately for you, you won't find any.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Here's another question for you Senenmut.

If the DSC test is as important in determining the "correct" chips as you think it is, explain the following.

Here is an excerpt from Harrit's paper:

5. Flame/Ignition Tests

The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection
of the energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also
performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray
chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22)
or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were
also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately
reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the
case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World
Trade Center dust.

How did they know the above chips, tested with a torch, were the right chips if they didn't do the all-important DSC test on them?

If the DSC test was SO important in determining which were the right chips, why were only SOME samples subjected to it? Another quote from Harrit's paper:

Some samples were also tested in a differential scanning
calorimeter (Netzsch DSC 404C) to measure heat flow into
or out of the red/gray chips.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Were the chips soaked in the MEK solvent then subjected to the DSC test? No?

How did they know THOSE were the right chips?

 

[pgimeno]

Yet in the paper, they tested reported results about ONE chip.

FTFY. The distinction is important for the reason below.

I also have the following email from Harrit stating the following regarding the resistivity tests. Pay particular attention to the words in red. Tests and their results within a "standard" are NOT to be done in random nor are they to be considered "supplementary material".

The resistivity test were done in random on the chips already isolated as described. The information obtained must be considered "supplementary material".

Something suddenly landed on me. According to Harrit's email, they tested several chips, yet on the paper they report only on one of them. There's no mention about testing random chips, and no mention about how the result applies to the rest of the tested chips.

This proves that they cherry-picked results.

 

[Senenmut]

And this is where you are wrong. Very wrong.

The criteria for determining chips stopped at two things.

1. Having a red/gray layer
2. Attracted to a magnet

Any experiment/test AFTER the selection criteria above was used to "prove" that those chips selected would be thermitic. Harrit did not find ONE CHIP that was NOT thermtic.

That being said, the end result is that all chips having a red/gray layer and being attracted to a magnet will be thermitic. That's why in his one video presentations, he passes around a bag of WTC dust with a magnet and tells the audience to drag the magnet across the bag. The red/gray chips that are attracted to the magnet will be the ones he will be talking about. No other selection criteria/test/experiment needed.

Millette used the same selection criteria above and found different chips when he did some of the experiments. How did that happen?

You are claiming "replication of experiments", but Harrit didn't even do that. Show me one test/experiment in Harrit's paper that Harrit CONSISTENTLY did on EVERY chip, in addition to the red/gray layer and magnetic attraction, that helped him determine he had the right chips.

You want Millette to do a "replication procedure" that Harrit didn't even do himself!

two different sample sets. millette needs to make sure his are the SAME as jones'.

 

[Senenmut]

So you're saying the before using "different methods" you have to first know you "have the same material"?

So, in addition to the red/gray layer and magnetic attraction characteristics, what other criteria is needed to make sure one has the "same material"? Please point us to the additional selection criteria in his paper that Harrit used to determine HE had the "right material".

why don't you tell me since I think you are finally understaning what replication means.

 

[Senenmut]

No, because the chips would be destroyed. That's why the separation criteria has to be accurate.

The Harrit paper is not repeatable.

?? destroyed? have you ever heard of cutting something in half.

 

[Senenmut]

Harrit's paper was NOT, repeat NOT written for finding thermitic chips in the WTC dust. It was written to prove a preconceived notion that all red/gray chips that were attracted to a magnet were thermitic. They went INTO the paper thinking the red/gray chips were thermitic and wanted to prove it.

If Harrit was trying to write a paper on how to FIND thermtic chips, he and his cronies would have established a much more stringent set of criteria than the "red/gray layer", "attracted to magnet" set.

The "standard" that you claim was derived in the paper and that Millette should have followed is nonexistent other then the two criteria already mentioned.


If you accuse Millette of not "replicating tests" or not "following the standard in the paper", then you also have to accuse Harrit and Jones on the same thing. If the paper and it's tests are to be used as a "standard" like you claim to get the right chips, then explain the following to me. If there are certain criteria in a "standard", you need to apply that criteria to EVERY SINGLE CHIP to make sure ALL the results come out the same.

1. If the DSC test was used as a criteria within the "standard" to determine if one has the correct chips, then why were the Delassio test results missing from the paper? No tests results, yet Harrit claims all his samples had thermitic chips.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/DSC_Graph_zpsd09f3aaf.png[/qimg]

2. What about the resisitivity test? Jones says the following in a blog. http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses



Yet in the paper, they tested ONE chip.



I also have the following email from Harrit stating the following regarding the resistivity tests. Pay particular attention to the words in red. Tests and their results within a "standard" are NOT to be done in random nor are they to be considered "supplementary material".


So let's discuss what tests and results were considered to be "standard" in determining which were the right chips. Unfortunately for you, you won't find any.

im glad your finally understanding the importance of reproducibility!!

 

[Porkpie Hat]

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:

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_285444e1fba70a18a2.jpg[/URL]


or this:[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450fd8c715f054.jpg[/URL]

I asked for an explanation and you've come back with imagination.

Coating structural steel hundreds or thousands of layers thick would result in the thickness of that beam to increase by...what, an inch or two?

That really doesn't seem plausible nor does it seem like a well thought out plan for creating a collapse when so many tried and true methods already exist.

Your pictures seem to show some erosion of thickness as well as mechanical damage but nothing resembling structural failure of that particular beam. So is this where I forego reality and use my imagination?

 

[kid meatball]

?? destroyed? have you ever heard of cutting something in half.

Was cutting a chip in half and testing the separate halves in Harrit's paper?

 

[Senenmut]

Harrit's paper was NOT, repeat NOT written for finding thermitic chips in the WTC dust. It was written to prove a preconceived notion that all red/gray chips that were attracted to a magnet were thermitic. They went INTO the paper thinking the red/gray chips were thermitic and wanted to prove it.

maybe they were all thermitic in his dust samples. odds? or were they just THERE.

If Harrit was trying to write a paper on how to FIND thermtic chips, he and his cronies would have established a much more stringent set of criteria than the "red/gray layer", "attracted to magnet" set.

The "standard" that you claim was derived in the paper and that Millette should have followed is nonexistent other then the two criteria already mentioned.

standard? its a scientific paper. not a standard. ASTM is the standard. I think you are confuded. for a scientic paper, one has to follow the scientific method and replicate the experiment to make sure ya got the same material.

If you accuse Millette of not "replicating tests" or not "following the standard in the paper", then you also have to accuse Harrit and Jones on the same thing. If the paper and it's tests are to be used as a "standard" like you claim to get the right chips, then explain the following to me. If there are certain criteria in a "standard", you need to apply that criteria to EVERY SINGLE CHIP to make sure ALL the results come out the same.

millette was the one following the astm standard. if jones would have stated that they were going to follow astm standard, then I would hold them accountable too.

1. If the DSC test was used as a criteria within the "standard" to determine if one has the correct chips, then why were the Delassio test results missing from the paper? No tests results, yet Harrit claims all his samples had thermitic chips.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/DSC_Graph_zpsd09f3aaf.png[/qimg]

ask them

2. What about the resisitivity test? Jones says the following in a blog. http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses



Yet in the paper, they tested ONE chip.

millette could have easily done that test! im glad you are seeing how easy it is to replicate the thermitic paper!

I also have the following email from Harrit stating the following regarding the resistivity tests. Pay particular attention to the words in red. Tests and their results within a "standard" are NOT to be done in random nor are they to be considered "supplementary material".

its a scientific paper

So let's discuss what tests and results were considered to be "standard" in determining which were the right chips. Unfortunately for you, you won't find any.[/QUOTE]

you are talking about a scientific paper. one has to follow the scientific method if one wants to disprove it.

 

[Dog Town]

its a scientific paper

 

[GlennB]

So let's discuss what tests and results were considered to be "standard" in determining which were the right chips.

Of "tests" - it has been explained to you a dozen times that Millette followed the Harrit procedure precisely.

So let's discuss what tests and results were considered to be "standard" in determining which were the right chips.

Of "results" - you don't use results to determine that the chips were "right" when all the magnetic red-gray chips were the same. Harrit says they were the same.

Having, by definition, selected the right chips Millette is not obliged to follow the Harrit procedure. He proved the absence of elemental Al in the material, therefore it was not thermite.

If you wish to argue there was a mix of magnetic red-gray chips in the dust and that some of them were thermitic then maybe you should be arguing with Harrit?

 

[Gamolon]

why don't you tell me since I think you are finally understaning what replication means.

I've always understood the replication process. It's you and Harrit who don't.

I've read your past posts in this thread and see that you think it's the DSC test that would show if someone has the right chips or not.

If the DSC test was SO important in determining if one had the right chips, please answer the following questions.

1. How did Harrit know he had the right chips when they did the torch ignition test? They didn't do a DSC test on those chips.

2. They didn't do a DSC test on ANY chips from the Delassio sample, yet Harrit claims that ALL the samples contained thermitic material. How did he know they had the right chips when no DSC test was preformed on the Delassio sample?

You see Senemut, Harrit and his group didn't even replicate their own experiments. They did random tests on random chips. Do you understand what this means? You are requesting that Millette replicate ALL tests on EVERY chips, yet are fine with Harrit not doing it.

You're showing your bias here.

 

[Gamolon]

standard? its a scientific paper. not a standard. ASTM is the standard. I think you are confuded.

It's simple really. Youye the one who's "confuded". You keep saying that the DSC test is the test that will determine id one has the right chips or not. The problem is, HArrit didn't even do the DSC test on all the chips in his paper. It was random.

So how did Harrit know he had the right chips for the chips he didn't do a DSC test on?

you are talking about a scientific paper. one has to follow the scientific method if one wants to disprove it.

So why didn't Harrit? You claim the DSC test was THE test to determine if one has the right chips or not. Harrit skipped that test on many of the chips. How can you support a paper when he went against a test YOU think is important in determining the right chips? You then turn around and get on Millette's case when Harrit did the same thing in his paper, yet let Harrit of the hook.

You're a hypocrite.

 

[Gamolon]

ask them

I'll make this real simple.

You keep saying the DSC test was THE test to determine if one had the right chips.

Why do you support Harrit's paper when the DSC test was NOT performed on many of the chips tested in the paper thus creating doubt that he even HAD the right chips?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Let's see if I can boil all this down to something simple and logical. Truthers contend that Millette must have gotten the wrong chips. (They have to say this, because to admit he had the right chips is tantamount to admitting that there was no thermite at the WTC.) What we have, then, are two distinct and mutually exclusive possibilities:

1) Harrit et al. performed some additional selection criteria beyond "red and gray color" and "attracted to a magnet", and performed the DSC test and others only on those selected chips.
2) Harrit et al. performed tests randomly on all red/gray chips attracted to a magnet, under the assumption that they were the same material.

In the case of 1), this invalidates the Bentham paper because it is now not reproducible. Senenmut argues that the defining selection criterion is the DSC; Miragememories claims it is the resistivity test. (Harrit himself has explicitly said several times that no such further test was used, but we will ignore this point for the time being.) The fact is, the lack of explicit documentation as to what further criteria are needed to select the "correct" chips now works against the Truthers, because now their paper has no hope of being correctly reproduced; it is a junk paper. It has no reflection on Millette's work.

In the case of 2), the Bentham paper is reproducible, but this also means that the paper's conclusions are necessarily invalid. Harrit et al. performed tests and made claims based on all chips they found being the same material. Based both on the paper's published data (as revealed by Sunstealer et al.) and on supplementary data gathered by Dr. Millette, it can no longer be said that all the chips isolated by the selection criteria are the same material, no matter what the material happens to be. Even if Harrit et al. did find thermite in the dust, this necessarily invalidates their conclusions, because the selection criteria is insufficient to correctly isolate the thermite; they just "got lucky" with testing the correct chips in the correct tests.

 

[Gamolon]

Let's see if I can boil all this down to something simple and logical. Truthers contend that Millette must have gotten the wrong chips. (They have to say this, because to admit he had the right chips is tantamount to admitting that there was no thermite at the WTC.) What we have, then, are two distinct and mutually exclusive possibilities:

1) Harrit et al. performed some additional selection criteria beyond "red and gray color" and "attracted to a magnet", and performed the DSC test and others only on those selected chips.
2) Harrit et al. performed tests randomly on all red/gray chips attracted to a magnet, under the assumption that they were the same material.

In the case of 1), this invalidates the Bentham paper because it is now not reproducible. Senenmut argues that the defining selection criterion is the DSC; Miragememories claims it is the resistivity test. (Harrit himself has explicitly said several times that no such further test was used, but we will ignore this point for the time being.) The fact is, the lack of explicit documentation as to what further criteria are needed to select the "correct" chips now works against the Truthers, because now their paper has no hope of being correctly reproduced; it is a junk paper. It has no reflection on Millette's work.

In the case of 2), the Bentham paper is reproducible, but this also means that the paper's conclusions are necessarily invalid. Harrit et al. performed tests and made claims based on all chips they found being the same material. Based both on the paper's published data (as revealed by Sunstealer et al.) and on supplementary data gathered by Dr. Millette, it can no longer be said that all the chips isolated by the selection criteria are the same material, no matter what the material happens to be. Even if Harrit et al. did find thermite in the dust, this necessarily invalidates their conclusions, because the selection criteria is insufficient to correctly isolate the thermite; they just "got lucky" with testing the correct chips in the correct tests.

Nice summary.

 

[GlennB]

Nice summary.

Yes.

Thermitists still have an 'out' though, by admitting that Harrit's selection procedure wasn't rigorous but that he still found thermite.

If the chips were distributed, say, 50/50 thermite/non thermite then the a-d chips stood a 1 in 16 chance of just happening to be thermite. How the different chips would be visually identical is a mystery, of course, but Truthers would have little trouble attributing this to the truly deep cunning of The Perps.

That Harrit didn't find thermite anyway has already been well established but Truthers prefer to nitpick Millette's work - it's so much easier. Same old.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Yes.

Thermitists still have an 'out' though, by admitting that Harrit's selection procedure wasn't rigorous but that he still found thermite.

If the chips were distributed, say, 50/50 thermite/non thermite then the a-d chips stood a 1 in 16 chance of just happening to be thermite. How the different chips would be visually identical as a mystery, of course, but Truthers would have little trouble attributing this to the truly deep cunning of The Perps.

That Harrit didn't find thermite anyway has already been well established but Truthers prefer to nitpick Millette's work. Same old.

I covered that case. The fact that Harrit et al. may have "gotten lucky" and tested all thermite chips does not mean that their conclusions are valid, because in the paper, the conclusions are based on the premise that ALL chips are the same, and according to this scenario, such is not the case. Basically, the thermite believers can handwave all they want, but at the end of the day, the Bentham paper is unsound science either way you slice it. To say nothing of the host of other problems introduced by the thermite hypotheses, but I was just picking the topic of this thread for summation.