Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

chrismohr said:
Last year I asked Jim Millette what the source of these particular iron-rich spheres are that appear in the WTC dust. Millette himself had reported on them years ago in an EPA Report he worked on, if I'm not mistaken. When I asked him about the spheres, he said, yes, that has not been thoroughly researched and I would like to include that in my final report.

Millette is scrupulously neutral and never makes statements or draws conclusions until the experimental evidence is in. He may yet research the actual source of these microspheres if he ever fulfills his desire to put out a full scale published peer reviewed report on the WTC dust.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your reply, Chris. It was my understanding that Millette did not, in fact, report on the microspheres in his first WTC dust study, which is why your selection of him for this so-called replication was regarded with skepticism. Do you have some new information about this?

My question also remains: If iron-rich microspheres are not unusual or controversial in any way, why would Millette want to more thoroughly research them?
 
ergo said:
Thanks for your reply, Chris. It was my understanding that Millette did not, in fact, report on the microspheres in his first WTC dust study, which is why your selection of him for this so-called replication was regarded with skepticism. Do you have some new information about this?

My question also remains: If iron-rich microspheres are not unusual or controversial in any way, why would Millette want to more thoroughly research them?
Click to expand...
Hi Ergo,

You are a victim of Kevin Ryan's gross distortions, accusations and falsehoods against Millette, as I reported long ago in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8069262&postcount=3435

From there check out posts 3436 and 3437 immediately following them. In the post I linked above I have extensive quotes from Millette's work that show him to be a man of integrity whose reports did NOT fabricate false data or avoid the facts. Kevin's distortions remain a part of the 9/11 Truth lore, and many people have told me they trust Kevin's integrity and so they believe him and not me. I hope you will check my links and read all three of these posts to get the truth.

Millette's interest in the iron-rich microspheres is part of his general acknowledgement that there are still aspects of the properties of the WTC dust that have not been thoroughly studied. As a specialist in analyzing dust and an extremely thorough person, he is focusing on specific areas that have not been thoroughly experimented on. For example, RJ Lee simply said the iron-rich spheres are to be expected, and later wrote a speculative letter about their actual source. If Millette does his iron-rich sphere experiments, he can come to more solid conclusions, as he already has by proving beyond a doubt that there is no thermitic material in the WTC red-gray chips of dust he studied.

Please take the time to read all three of my posts starting with the one I've linked for you. You'll see that Kevin Ryan is the source of your misunderstanding about Millette.
 
Thank you for the link to Millette's first paper. However, to ignore the spherical shape of the iron particles found in the dust is to ignore the processes by which they were formed. As well, if iron microspheres are so unremarkable, then it would have been routine for Millette to have mentioned them in that study, along with all the other particles.

You say as well that Millette "reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron" but I don't see where he says that in the article you linked to. Can you provide a quote for that?
 
ergo said:
Thank you for the link to Millette's first paper. However, to ignore the spherical shape of the iron particles found in the dust is to ignore the processes by which they were formed. As well, if iron microspheres are so unremarkable, then it would have been routine for Millette to have mentioned them in that study, along with all the other particles.

You say as well that Millette "reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron" but I don't see where he says that in the article you linked to. Can you provide a quote for that?
Click to expand...
From my post: " “…the SEM dispersive X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials.” He reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron but didn’t specifically use the term “iron-rich microspheres.” Is it fair to call that “deception”?

Now since he was analyzing dust, it was my words when I said he was talking about dust-sized particles. It seemed like not too big a leap to say that someone analyzing dust reported on dust-sized particles. If it were big blonbs of iron, for exampele, that would not be dust.
 
Well, let's be clear on what he said. He did not say "dust-sized iron particles" anywhere in that article. Nor did he "report on large quantities" of such. He mentioned that "SEM ... analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium" and that they analyzed "chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments" and "iron-chromium particles". That's all he mentions.

So on the one hand you accuse Kevin Ryan of being deceptive, but I can't help but notice that you yourself have misrepresented what Millette originally reported on.
 
ergo said:
Well, let's be clear on what he said. He did not say "dust-sized iron particles" anywhere in that article. Nor did he "report on large quantities" of such. He mentioned that "SEM ... analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium" and that they analyzed "chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments" and "iron-chromium particles". That's all he mentions.

So on the one hand you accuse Kevin Ryan of being deceptive, but I can't help but notice that you yourself have misrepresented what Millette originally reported on.
Click to expand...
Wrong. When analyzing dust it is reasonable to say that the particles being analyzed were dust-sized. "Large signals" for iron can be interpreted in lay terms to mean that Millette duly reported lots of iron in his findings on the WTC dust but merely did not report on the spherical shape. Kevin Ryan insinuates that Millette was deliberately decpetive in not mentioning the iron microspheres.

What I said are not distortions, they are summaries in lay language. Kevin Ryan did not correctly summarize what Millette said or what was said about Millette. It was a false ad hominem attack. Please acknowledge that that is what he did after re-reading my posts.
 
I'm pretty sure Ergo is JAQing off until he finds a Gotcha, like post 2306. Problem is, even when he does, it's either wrong or irrelevant. I'm not sure if he's being disingenuous or he honestly doesn't understand, but ignoring posts like 2300 is rather suspect.
 
chrismohr said:
Wrong. When analyzing dust it is reasonable to say that the particles being analyzed were dust-sized. "Large signals" for iron can be interpreted in lay terms to mean that Millette duly reported lots of iron in his findings
Click to expand...

And lots of calcium, too. "Large quantities" of dust-sized calcium particles. ;)

Come to think of it, it's beginning to sound like a breakfast cereal...


but merely did not report on the spherical shape.
Click to expand...

And I've already commented on why ignoring the spherical shape seeks to ignore the process by which they were formed.


Kevin Ryan insinuates that Millette was deliberately decpetive in not mentioning the iron microspheres.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Kevin Ryan is right. Millette did not mention anything about iron microspheres. That is a fact.


What I said are not distortions, they are summaries in lay language.
Click to expand...

Saved for posterity. :)


Kevin Ryan did not correctly summarize what Millette said or what was said about Millette.
Click to expand...

Millette did not report large quantities of iron microspheres, where RJ Lee, Stephen Kennedy, the USGS, and the ATM authors did. That is a fact that you can't bend in any way in your attempts to "interpret" things for the lay reader.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
... Millette did not report large quantities of iron microspheres, where RJ Lee, the USGS, and the ATM authors did. That is a fact that you can't bend in any way in your attempts to "interpret" things for the lay reader.
Click to expand...
False, the USGS didn't not report a "large quantities" of iron micro-spheres. Prove it! SOURCE please.

If you can't give page numbers and sources, you are trolling, spreading your plagiarized lies you accept without evidence.

Spreading lies; why?

When 911 truth brings up iron micro-spheres, they expose their ignorance. 11 years and 911 truth can't figure out 911. The only product of 911 truth remains fantasy lies and delusional claims. Why are you 911 truth followers so anti-science?


Prove it, source by page numbers with the data.
 
ergo said:
And lots of calcium, too. "Large quantities" of dust-sized calcium particles. ;)

Come to think of it, it's beginning to sound like a breakfast cereal...




And I've already commented on why ignoring the spherical shape seeks to ignore the process by which they were formed.




Sorry, Kevin Ryan is right. Millette did not mention anything about iron microspheres. That is a fact.




Saved for posterity. :)




Millette did not report large quantities of iron microspheres, where RJ Lee, Stephen Kennedy, the USGS, and the ATM authors did. That is a fact that you can't bend in any way in your attempts to "interpret" things for the lay reader.
Click to expand...
Kevin Ryan is wrong as sin. Look at my links again and you'll see how he distorted Cate Jenkins, who said Millette's research had a high level of integrity, and made it sound like Millette was guilty of deliberate distortion. he is not. He was doing a study for the EPA on the environmental hazards of the WTC dust. The shape of the iron microspheres was not relevant to that study, and he duly reported high readings for iron. Kevin Ryan said he ignored the iron but he didn't.

Look Ergo, I have stood up for Richard Gage and other 9/11 Truth people repeatedly on thread after thread here on JREF. Gotten some people real frustrated with me too. It's your turn. Stop being an apologist for Kevin Ryan's ad hominem attacks. Look over what I said about Cate Jenkins and tell me the truth: was Kevin Ryan being honest in his insinuations and attacks against Millette? No. He was not. You lose all credibility when you try to tell me Kevin Ryan is being honest here. He is not.
 
Sorry to dig this up, and perhaps this is not exactly news. But Major_Tom has documented for posterity an email-exchange between Steven Jones and Frank Greening on Jones's "microspheres" discoveries and how to interprete them that took place in the northern winter 2007/08:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=70&MMN_position=186:186

It is mostly Greening explaining the many species of oxides, silicates and what not of Fe, Al, Ca, K and others that are found in all kinds of ashes and why they form spheres well under the melting point of the pure substances, and Jones asking stupid rhetorical questions and eventually abandoning the debate.
 
Oystein said:
Sorry to dig this up, and perhaps this is not exactly news. But Major_Tom has documented for posterity an email-exchange between Steven Jones and Frank Greening on Jones's "microspheres" discoveries and how to interprete them that took place in the northern winter 2007/08:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=70&MMN_position=186:186

It is mostly Greening explaining the many species of oxides, silicates and what not of Fe, Al, Ca, K and others that are found in all kinds of ashes and why they form spheres well under the melting point of the pure substances, and Jones asking stupid rhetorical questions and eventually abandoning the debate.
Click to expand...

That will be a valuable reference if anyone ever writes up a history of the Truthers as part of a study of science quackery.
 
It's actually an inconclusive debate, and the way it is presented chronologically makes it hard to follow. At least, though, it is a debate between two competent scientists.

It should also be noted that Frank Greening, co-author to Bazant of the now infamous and thoroughly ridiculed and debunked "crush-down, crush-up" model of the WTC collapses, also speculated that ammonium perchlorate in the Towers' spray-on fireproofing might create the kind of demolition we see.
 
ergo said:
It's actually an inconclusive debate, and the way it is presented chronologically makes it hard to follow. At least, though, it is a debate between two competent scientists.

It should also be noted that Frank Greening, co-author to Bazant of the now infamous and thoroughly ridiculed and debunked "crush-down, crush-up" model of the WTC collapses, also speculated that ammonium perchlorate in the Towers' spray-on fireproofing might create the kind of demolition we see.
Click to expand...

Yes, and just remember:

Inconclusive = you have no proof they mean anything.
 
LSSBB said:
Yes, and just remember:

Inconclusive = you have no proof they mean anything.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if he wants so desperately to believe in magic nanothermite(/)explosives, he's ignoring all the other evidence against their existence.
 
000063 said:
It's almost as if he wants so desperately to believe in magic nanothermite(/)explosives, he's ignoring all the other evidence against their existence.
Click to expand...

Could this be the next iteration of 'trutherdom'? Taking a page from the L. Ron Hubbard book and Richard Gage founding the International Church of 9/11 Truth? :boggled: I mean, 'trutherdom' is an act of faith in that which cannot be proved/has been disproved.

Just Askin' Questions
Fitz
 
fitzgibbon said:
Could this be the next iteration of 'trutherdom'? Taking a page from the L. Ron Hubbard book and Richard Gage founding the International Church of 9/11 Truth? :boggled: I mean, 'trutherdom' is an act of faith in that which cannot be proved/has been disproved.

Just Askin' Questions
Fitz
Click to expand...

"Next"?
 
Three weeks ago I challenged Ergo: "was Kevin Ryan being honest in his insinuations and attacks against Millette? No. He was not. You lose all credibility when you try to tell me Kevin Ryan is being honest here. He is not." I was referring to this:

"You are a victim of Kevin Ryan's gross distortions, accusations and falsehoods against Millette, as I reported long ago in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=3435
From there check out posts 3436 and 3437 immediately following them. In the post I linked above I have extensive quotes from Millette's work that show him to be a man of integrity whose reports did NOT fabricate false data or avoid the facts. Kevin's distortions remain a part of the 9/11 Truth lore, and many people have told me they trust Kevin's integrity and so they believe him and not me. I hope you will check my links and read all three of these posts to get the truth."

I retract my statement that Ergo is a "victim" of Kevin Ryan's gross distortions. I exposed Ergo to these distortions and have repeatedly asked him to acknowledge what I have revealed. Ergo compared Millette's non-reportage on the SHAPE of the iron microspheres to Ryan's egregious lies and ad hominem attacks, asserted Millette is a liar while Ryan is not, and has still refused to acknowledge what Ryan did, which I exposed in these old posts of mine.

Ergo, you are no victim. You are willfully evading the truth and you don't deserve the moniker "truther" because truth is not what you care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom