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

[Senenmut]

You keep quoting this as if it somehow puts Millette in the wrong. Patently, it doesn't.

It doesn't say, for instance, that "the scientific method" requires Millette to perform every procedure that Harrit et al. performed. There's no way to wrest that inference from this definition. Reproducibility entails that it must be possible to reproduce every part of a study, not that all future researchers are required to do so.

but in order to perform additional experiments, one has to know they have the same material and the way to find that out is to follow the scientific method and reproduce the experiments.

If there is a reproducibility problem here, it is Harrit et al.'s. Millette followed the selection procedure described in Harrit et al. and found chips that do not contain thermite. It has been suggested from time to time that Harrit et al. used additional selection criteria not specified in the paper; if so, then a flaw in the paper made it irreproducible. But it's very plausible that Harrit et al.'s chips no more contained thermite than Millette's did, and that Harrit et al.'s findings simply don't demonstrate the presence of thermite.

harrit et al tested what they had and millette tested what he had.

You may suspect that Millette's chips were tampered with somehow. But heating them to 430C wouldn't be a crucial test of whether they were tampered with. It also wouldn't be a crucial test of whether they contain thermite. If you can't find an actual scientific rationale for doing it, repeatedly pasting a Wikipedia definition of "reproducibility" won't help.

You are free to repeat yourself in lieu of argument.

hahaha.....I don't think you have been following. millette said he followed an ASTM standard that stated to heat paint chips to 450C to get the inorganic material out. millette did NOT follow the standard.

im guessing you are talking about a dsc test? but yeah, millette found what he found and a dsc of paint has a longer curve and not a spike like jones and crew found.

 

[Senenmut]

If Millette had heated it to 430C and it ignited the same. Would you then believe that he did not find "thermite"?

then the argument would change now wouldn't it! from there he could have analyzed the residue (for al2o3) and edx the microspheres. hopefully he cut that very chip in half and he could have done ftir and lastly a dsc to see if it produced a similar spike.


I think you are seeing the importance of making sure ya got the same material!!!

 

[DGM]

I think you are seeing the importance of making sure ya got the same material!!!

No, I pointed out the fact that nothing would prove to you that the Harrit conclusion is not correct. You would just head down another path for ever and ever.

Science does not work that way.

 

[chrismohr]

Four posts recently appeared in Debunking the Debunkers relating to the WTC dust n me n Dave Thomas etc.:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/chris-mohr-matching-dsc-peaks.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/mohr-rj-lee-part-2.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/mohr-misunderstanding-rj-lee-did-not.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/csicops-dave-thomas-thermodynamic-size.html

Zugman tells me more are on the way. A few comments: re his claim that I don't understand the DSC mismatches between known nanothermite and the DSC curves Harrit et al found, my upcoming video shows several examples of very sharp DSC curves from all kinds of materials as they heat up. I'm no expert, but it seems that sharp curves are common whenever certain materials ignite. Second, his denial that RJ Lee finds the presence of iron-rich microspheres "to be expected" in big fires means one of us just isn't reading what RJ Lee has said. I'll leave Dave and others to respond to Zugman's response to the Dave Thomas experiments that show iron-rich spheres created in regular fires and primer paint on steel. For now I'll just say that I think Dave Thomas conducted a simple expreriment and was able to demonstrate a simple point. As I have said to Ziggi Zugman privately, I wish him well in his research. If he and his friends find solid evidence that convinces me of CD, I'll be very surprised but will defend it here and elsewhere.

 

[Miragememories]

If Dr. Millette had heated it to 430C and it ignited the same.

Would you then believe that he did not find "thermite"?

The proof of what would have been found is in the post-ignition residue.

So, if Dr. Millette found "iron rich spheres" he would have proved no "thermite"?

Iron-rich micro-spheroids "found" by Dr. Millette after ignition, would have provided evidence that there was nanothermite.

I pointed out the fact that nothing would prove to you [Senenmut] that the Harrit conclusion is not correct.

You would just head down another path for ever and ever.

Science does not work that way.

Legitimate science provides reasonable answers to reasonable questions.

The questions are scientifically reasonable.

What other chemical compound permeated the 9/11 WTC dust and exhibits similar chemical behaviours?

Countless specs of magnetically attracted red dust.

Each producing a dramatic, narrow exothermic spike @~430C and a residue of newly created iron-rich micro-spheroids.

How many scientists have published research offering a scientifically reasoned explanation?

No one, except Dr. Harrit and the scientists who contributed to the 2009 Bentham paper.

Why does science "not work this way"?

MM

 

[pgimeno]

Iron-rich micro-spheroids "found" by Dr. Millette after ignition, would have provided evidence that there was nanothermite.

Nanothermite without aluminium?

 

[GlennB]

What other chemical compound permeated the 9/11 WTC dust and exhibits similar chemical behaviours?

Thermite is not a compound, it's a mixture. The lack of elemental Al tells us the chips are not thermitic.

 

[OCaptain]

He wasn't one of the authors. He gets an acknowledgment at the end for 'elucidating discussion' or somesuch.

eta: Basile's own study showed the red layer to be ~90% organic matrix. The paper has been ripped to shreds here and elsewhere.

Ah. I stand corrected. Thank you, and apologies to MM for taking issue with a point that did not require it.

 

[DGM]

Iron-rich micro-spheroids "found" by Dr. Millette after ignition, would have provided evidence that there was nanothermite.

MM

You're stating a belief based on faith. There is no proof in the science that shows this.

 

[MarkLindeman]

but in order to perform additional experiments, one has to know they have the same material and the way to find that out is to follow the scientific method and reproduce the experiments.

Others have explained in some detail what is wrong with this... "argument."

hahaha.....I don't think you have been following. millette said he followed an ASTM standard that stated to heat paint chips to 450C to get the inorganic material out. millette did NOT follow the standard.

That proof text is no more convincing than the Wikipedia quotation is. Not only have others walked you through why going to 450C would have been a bad idea, but the proof text isn't nearly as emphatic about the importance of that temperature as you seem desperately to want it to be.

In the contexts I'm used to, the likely key word would be "shall," as in "Samples shall be heated to no less than 450C." I haven't seen the context of the proof text, but on its face, this is a really poor argument. (Of course, again, that won't prevent you from repeating it.)

 

[Senenmut]

Others have explained in some detail what is wrong with this... "argument."

no they haven't. but lets hear it from you why its a bad idea to make sure your actually analyzing the same material opposed to a different material.

That proof text is no more convincing than the Wikipedia quotation is. Not only have others walked you through why going to 450C would have been a bad idea, but the proof text isn't nearly as emphatic about the importance of that temperature as you seem desperately to want it to be.

when a scientist (millette) states he followed a standard and didn't then we have a problem. why is it a bad idea to follow the astm standard and go to 450C like it says?

In the contexts I'm used to, the likely key word would be "shall," as in "Samples shall be heated to no less than 450C." I haven't seen the context of the proof text, but on its face, this is a really poor argument. (Of course, again, that won't prevent you from repeating it.)

it is what it is. astm says heat it up to that temp and get the inorganic material out to test. whats soooo special about millettes chips to argue against the astm standard?

 

[kid meatball]

it is what it is. astm says heat it up to that temp and get the inorganic material out to test. whats soooo special about millettes chips to argue against the astm standard?

Wasn't he testing to see if they were thermite? According to Harrit, this particular brand of thermite vigorously combusts at a lower temperature than the standard calls for. He surely read the Harrit paper. Why, if he is trying to ash the paint/thermite stuff, would he want it to ignite?

 

[Senenmut]

Wasn't he testing to see if they were thermite? According to Harrit, this particular brand of thermite vigorously combusts at a lower temperature than the standard calls for. He surely read the Harrit paper. Why, if he is trying to ash the paint/thermite stuff, would he want it to ignite?

he was following an astm standard concerning paint. if he followed it and the chip somehow did react at 450C, then he could have said well golly geeee whizzzz, I guess I cant follow the paint standard!! and then he could have stated that in the paper.

 

[DGM]

but in order to perform additional experiments, one has to know they have the same material

So, why does the Harrit paper avoid the criteria to do so?

The paper you hold faith in, does not conform to the scientific method.

 

[Gamolon]

no they haven't. but lets hear it from you why its a bad idea to make sure your actually analyzing the same material opposed to a different material.

You just don't get it do you?

Harrit did all the work already. His paper concludes that all red/gray chips extracted from a pile of WTC dust with a magnet will be thermitic. That's because all his tests produced thermitic characteristics. He found nothing else.

Millette proved him wrong by finding other chips.

 

[Gamolon]

So, why does the Harrit paper avoid the criteria to do so?

The paper you hold faith in, does not conform to the scientific method.

Exactly.

Truthers cry "replication" and Harrit didn't even do "replication" on his own chip samples.

 

[chrismohr]

Here's another blog post attacking Dave Thomas (and me to an extent) re the DSC readings Jim Millette considered not worth doing:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/matching-peaks-part-2-dave-thomas.html

 

[beachnut]

Here's another blog post attacking Dave Thomas (and me to an extent) re the DSC readings Jim Millette considered not worth doing:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/matching-peaks-part-2-dave-thomas.html

LOL, the poor uneducated fool uses the Jones paper as his source for what thermite does. Where is his Pulitzer? 12 years and a few nuts run a blog of woo. They can't do more than repeat the failure of 911 truth. Why are kids fooled by nuts like Jones. Why do they settle for following nuts who make up lies? They are doing what they say debunkers do, repeating what they are told. No clue why two samples had less energy than thermite, they accept lies about 911 with no evidence.

The poor guy has no clue no thermite products were found on 911. Zero.
No steel was damaged by thermite. Zero.
How much evidence did Zugam present. Zero.

Why did Zugam flunk Chemistry?

Why can't Zugam debunk Millette's paper, and why did he fail to debunk Dave. Why can't Zugam or 911 truth followers explain what a DSC is for? They never took chemistry or chemical engineering. 12 years of failure, and moments like this when born followers display a loyalty to ignorance and lies.

Zugam should take up chemtrails and Bigfoot; he can recycle the same evidence. Who is Zugam? He is upset Dave debunked 911 truth.

 

[OCaptain]

You're stating a belief based on faith. There is no proof in the science that shows this.

Didn't RJ Lee show that iron-rich microspheres are common in prosaic office fires?

 

[Miragememories]

"Here's another blog post attacking Dave Thomas.

And me to an extent.

Re: The DSC readings simple heat testing that Jim Millette considered not worth doing;

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/matching-peaks-part-2-dave-thomas.html

What is your difficulty in understanding that particle size effects ignition-temperature and energy density?

There is a lot of scientific literature revealing how 'nano' or 'super' thermite materials can be highly tailorable.

Dramatic narrow exothermic spikes are a normal, expected 'characteristic'; whereas ignition temperatures and energy densities are customizable variables.

MM