Chain of Custody

[chrismohr]

I just recieved this about Jim Milette in a personal email:

"Millette and his colleagues published the official reports on the WTC dust, and his involvement appears to be a means to defend their past work. EPA whistleblower Dr. Cate Jenkins used the phrase "deliberate misrepresentation" with regard to their studies in which samples were manipulated through pre-conditioning to lower the pH before testing."

Millette's name shows up in Jenkins' report four times because he participated in several EPA-funded studies that Jenkins has charged with fraud.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DrJenkinsRequestsSenateInvestigationOnWTCdust.pdf

"Millette did a lot of the analytical work on the WTC dust for these government teams, and was the leader in the laboratory for the official reports. These same scientists collaborated on the official WTC dust signature study and made the deliberate decision to not report iron spheres, despite iron spheres being a prominent and unusual component".

So far no one ha fully explained the accusations made in this article, and no one has seriously fact-checked them. It's been dismissed as five years old (so what?) and troofer nonsense (why?). When Kevin Ryan accused Jim Millette of deception and sent me an article he participated in, in my fact check the evidence of deception boiled down to Millette reporting on large amounts of iron in the dust and not calling them microspheres. His paper listed dozens of enviornmental hazards in the dust, so at least in that paper he was not part of any Big Lie that the dust was safe to breathe shortly after 9/11 (a charge which may be true). What is the accusation about Jim Millette in this 9/11 article, and has anyone done an honest fact check to see if the acccusations are true? Anyone want to try?

 

[Robrob]

...in my fact check the evidence of deception boiled down to Millette reporting on large amounts of iron in the dust and not calling them microspheres. His paper listed dozens of enviornmental hazards in the dust, so at least in that paper he was not part of any Big Lie that the dust was safe to breathe shortly after 9/11 (a charge which may be true). What is the accusation about Jim Millette in this 9/11 article, and has anyone done an honest fact check to see if the acccusations are true? Anyone want to try?

Uh, you do realize "iron spheres" in the rubble of a modern office building are not:

deliberate decision to not report iron spheres, despite iron spheres being a prominent and unusual component".

Simple experiment you can try at home. Get a Bic lighter and some steel wool. Burn the steel wool. Examine the residue under a microscope and count the iron micro-spheres you see. Did you use any thermite or explosives? Were space lasers involved?

When you come back you can apologize.

 

[Miragememories]

So far no one ha fully explained the accusations made in this article, and no one has seriously fact-checked them. It's been dismissed as five years old (so what?) and troofer nonsense (why?). When Kevin Ryan accused Jim Millette of deception and sent me an article he participated in, in my fact check the evidence of deception boiled down to Millette reporting on large amounts of iron in the dust and not calling them microspheres. His paper listed dozens of enviornmental hazards in the dust, so at least in that paper he was not part of any Big Lie that the dust was safe to breathe shortly after 9/11 (a charge which may be true). What is the accusation about Jim Millette in this 9/11 article, and has anyone done an honest fact check to see if the acccusations are true? Anyone want to try?

An admission that the dust was hazardous would be far less surprising, and controversial, than an admission that the dust also contained iron-rich microspheres.

There is a significant difference between a finding of dust-sized iron particles (a reasonable expectation), vs a finding of iron-rich microspheres.

I quite understand Kevin's concern that Millette chose to generalize about the iron finding when he must have known that he was over-simplifying that observation.

MM

 

[RedIbis]

Hi MM/Red Ibis/Superlogical etc.,

Wow lots of stuff to respond to. Since Kevin Ryan will have no part of this study, it will go forward in the standard manner. If YOU want to organize yet another dust study that both Kevin Ryan and the many debunkers can sign off on, by all means go ahead. In fact, two days ago I emailed Kevin yet again and told him that if he is unhappy with this study, I or someone else will happily "broker" a test that Kevin and other scientists can both sign off on together. Even the expense issue could be ameliorated by having the tests done in India (seriously, they have quality labs too and are not anywhere near the US geopolitically). But you will have to do the fundraising this time. In the meantime, my test is the best I could come up with after rejecting over two dozen other scientists, labs and universities who I felt were unqualified.

Chris, you appear sincere, but my BS detector went wild with that last assertion. How can you really claim that rejected two dozen "scientists, labs and universities" because you felt they were unqualified? You have admitted you only have a rudimentary background in science so how could these labs and scientists be what you call unqualified? What specifically did you feel made them unqualified?

 

[NoahFence]

I've pretty much had it with the idiot runaround by Red / MM / SLT and the rest of the twoofer crowd.

Why not just come out and SAY that when the inevitable happens, you won't buy it? Why make up stupid reasons like the chain of custody isn't to your exacting specifications? That you can't have an idiot like Ryan there hanging over Millette's shoulder?

Just friggin say it for chrissake. Be honest for a second.
You won't be swayed by reason, scientific proof, real peer review, or anything else.

Just friggin say it.

 

[DGM]

There is a significant difference between a finding of dust-sized iron particles (a reasonable expectation), vs a finding of iron-rich microspheres.


MM

Could you be more specific? What exactly is the size were they become not expected? Certainly you can explain this if you claim it's "significant".

 

[sheeplesnshills]

An admission that the dust was hazardous would be far less surprising, and controversial, than an admission that the dust also contained iron-rich microspheres.

How so? please show that anyone on or shortly after 911, or even now, would even comment on them? Unless they pose a specific health risk why would anyone care?

I quite understand Kevin's concern that Millette chose to generalize about the iron finding when he must have known that he was over-simplifying that observation.

again, please show us how "he must have known that he was over simplifying".
To make that statement you must show that what he saw was in any way unexpected. )And I don't mean unexpected by the likes of Jones et al as this was not their field of expertise and no one much cares what the uneducated.
think. Now if the discussion is on Cold Fusion then Jones might have something..........but its not.)

I mean unexpected to an expert - like say Millette

 

[Miragememories]

"An admission that the dust was hazardous would be far less surprising, and controversial, than an admission that the dust also contained iron-rich microspheres.

There is a significant difference between a finding of dust-sized iron particles (a reasonable expectation), vs a finding of iron-rich microspheres.

I quite understand Kevin's concern that Millette chose to generalize about the iron finding when he must have known that he was over-simplifying that observation."

"Could you be more specific? What exactly is the size were they become not expected? Certainly you can explain this if you claim it's "significant".

Thank you for showing some civility.

It is not the size that I was considering.

Given the level of pulverization that existed at the WTC site, it was perfectly understandable that there would be iron particles in the dust.

What is not expected/understandable, is iron-rich microspheres.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Holy non-answer batman.

 

[Robrob]

What is not expected/understandable, is iron-rich microspheres.

The exact same "iron-rich microspheres" you'd find in burned steel wool?

 

[A W Smith]

poison the well logical fallacy.

I've pretty much had it with the idiot runaround by Red / MM / SLT and the rest of the twoofer crowd.

Why not just come out and SAY that when the inevitable happens, you won't buy it? Why make up stupid reasons like the chain of custody isn't to your exacting specifications? That you can't have an idiot like Ryan there hanging over Millette's shoulder?

Just friggin say it for chrissake. Be honest for a second.
You won't be swayed by reason, scientific proof, real peer review, or anything else.

Just friggin say it.

They have an NEED to do damage control because they really have no faith in the sham Bentham vanity "study".

 

[DGM]

What is not expected/understandable, is iron-rich microspheres.

MM

But these things are actually common. Their found in fly-ash, brake dust, any metal grinding and also left over from the burning of a lot of organic items (including human bodies). The floor of my welding shop is covered with these. It's been shown many times that the temperature does not have to be all that high. Flick a Bic lighter on to a white piece of paper then look at what you get under a micro-scope (I believe there's a video on YouTube showing this).

What makes these not like the host of others created by ordinary means?

 

[NoahFence]

I'm assuming, based on nothing but a hunch, that "iron-rich microspheres" are about as common in 220 floors of office space as paper.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

(no, MM not you. I mean someone who actually knows what he's talking about)

 

[chrismohr]

Chris, you appear sincere, but my BS detector went wild with that last assertion. How can you really claim that rejected two dozen "scientists, labs and universities" because you felt they were unqualified? You have admitted you only have a rudimentary background in science so how could these labs and scientists be what you call unqualified? What specifically did you feel made them unqualified?

Your response is BS actually. I have a lot of experience as a journalist and journalists write about things they are not experts about all the time! To be precise, I rejected about half of those 25 or so people and labs etc I approached; the other half recused themselves, saying they were not qualified to do what I asked. But I promise you, I use my powers of discernment well and have exposed many things in my journalistic life. I don't need to be a doctor to look up a hospital's infection rates before choosing a hospital to go to, for example. Everyone I talked to, I asked and asked until I got a clear picture of who I was looking for.

 

[chrismohr]

When SLT wrote, "I just recieved this about Jim Milette in a personal email:

"Millette and his colleagues published the official reports on the WTC dust, and his involvement appears to be a means to defend their past work. EPA whistleblower Dr. Cate Jenkins used the phrase "deliberate misrepresentation" with regard to their studies in which samples were manipulated through pre-conditioning to lower the pH before testing."

Millette's name shows up in Jenkins' report four times because he participated in several EPA-funded studies that Jenkins has charged with fraud.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nOnWTCdust.pdf

"Millette did a lot of the analytical work on the WTC dust for these government teams, and was the leader in the laboratory for the official reports. These same scientists collaborated on the official WTC dust signature study and made the deliberate decision to not report iron spheres, despite iron spheres being a prominent and unusual component".

... Back to my comment: I asked if anyone wants to do a real fact check on this, like I did a fact check on the EPA iron microsphere charge Kevin Ryan made. I want to add that charging Jim Millette with deception is an extremely serious charge, like asserting someone has committed a crime. You'd better be damned sure what you are talking about before you do it. My opinion of Kevin Ryan plummeted when I saw him call Millette "deceptive" for reporting "iron" in large quantities but not "microspheres." MM there is nothing reasonable about Kevin's claim of deception; that is an over-the-top ad hominem attack and accusation for not saying what Ryan wished he would say. That's character assassination. Now I want to know if the article referenced above is true. If it's not, it's also despicable character assassination. Someone had better prove to me that this long article proves deception and fraud on the part of Millette. If not, please apologize at once for these despicable personal attacks against the professional integrity of a nationally respected scientist.

 

[NoahFence]

Apologize??

ARE YOU KIDDING?!?!

From the likes of MM and SLT? Damn wishful thinking there Chris. Damn wishful.

 

[A W Smith]

When SLT wrote, "I just recieved this about Jim Milette in a personal email:

"Millette and his colleagues published the official reports on the WTC dust, and his involvement appears to be a means to defend their past work. EPA whistleblower Dr. Cate Jenkins used the phrase "deliberate misrepresentation" with regard to their studies in which samples were manipulated through pre-conditioning to lower the pH before testing."

Millette's name shows up in Jenkins' report four times because he participated in several EPA-funded studies that Jenkins has charged with fraud.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nOnWTCdust.pdf

"Millette did a lot of the analytical work on the WTC dust for these government teams, and was the leader in the laboratory for the official reports. These same scientists collaborated on the official WTC dust signature study and made the deliberate decision to not report iron spheres, despite iron spheres being a prominent and unusual component".

... Back to my comment: I asked if anyone wants to do a real fact check on this, like I did a fact check on the EPA iron microsphere charge Kevin Ryan made. I want to add that charging Jim Millette with deception is an extremely serious charge, like asserting someone has committed a crime. You'd better be damned sure what you are talking about before you do it. My opinion of Kevin Ryan plummeted when I saw him call Millette "deceptive" for reporting "iron" in large quantities but not "microspheres." MM there is nothing reasonable about Kevin's claim of deception; that is an over-the-top ad hominem attack and accusation for not saying what Ryan wished he would say. That's character assassination. Now I want to know if the article referenced above is true. If it's not, it's also despicable character assassination. Someone had better prove to me that this long article proves deception and fraud on the part of Millette. If not, please apologize at once for these despicable personal attacks against the professional integrity of a nationally respected scientist.

Your link generates a 404 error, Was this the link?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DrJenkinsRequestsSenateInvestigationOnWTCdust.pdf

 

[chrismohr]

Your link generates a 404 error, Was this the link?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DrJenkinsRequestsSenateInvestigationOnWTCdust.pdf

Yes, this is the link. Thanks. What I want is for someone to go through here and see if there are any allegations against Jim Millette besides the fact that he said "lots of iron in the dust" instead of "lots of iron-rich microspheres in the dust." As I said, that is NOT evidence of deception, that is an irresponsible personal attack. If there are other allegations, what are they and what proof is there for them? I already wasted time on Kevin Ryan's false, malicious accusation against Millette, I want someone else to fact-check this one, especially the people who support these accusations.

 

[A W Smith]

Yes, this is the link. Thanks. What I want is for someone to go through here and see if there are any allegations against Jim Millette besides the fact that he said "lots of iron in the dust" instead of "lots of iron-rich microspheres in the dust." As I said, that is NOT evidence of deception, that is an irresponsible personal attack. If there are other allegations, what are they and what proof is there for them? I already wasted time on Kevin Ryan's false, malicious accusation against Millette, I want someone else to fact-check this one, especially the people who support these accusations.

Only thing i could find were some of her loose allegations that some documents were post dated and acceptable exposure limits changed. Dust samples soaked in water before testing which she alleges decreased alkalinity. Just gave it a quick read though. Nothing about chain of custody. Another was her incredulity that a number of samples had the exact same alkalinity.

 

[tsig]

Thank you for showing some civility.

It is not the size that I was considering.

Given the level of pulverization that existed at the WTC site, it was perfectly understandable that there would be iron particles in the dust.

What is not expected/understandable, is iron-rich microspheres.

MM

Why aren't they expected?