Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper
- Thread starter alienentity
- Start date
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Not really on-topic, but still (for those who may monitor all relevant activities on the web) ...
Whereas even here the general interest in 9/11 conspiracies seems to get weaker and weaker, some "notable" truthers' sites have disappeared and some others are almost dead, a fresh and pretty long debate with the title Is there any way to cure a truther? can be found here. Featuring e.g. Tony Szamboti, Kat Dorman and many others. (Millette's study is mentioned there, but I'm lazy to do some more detailed search).
Whereas even here the general interest in 9/11 conspiracies seems to get weaker and weaker, some "notable" truthers' sites have disappeared and some others are almost dead, a fresh and pretty long debate with the title Is there any way to cure a truther? can be found here. Featuring e.g. Tony Szamboti, Kat Dorman and many others. (Millette's study is mentioned there, but I'm lazy to do some more detailed search).
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Looks like our JSanderO has been duking it out with Tony there. I wonder if Tony ever validated his assumptions regarding his girder analysis?
Tony denies things which don't fit his preconceived beliefs. He makes stuff up occasionally too.
What I've told him and others is that no one can know what they can't see... inside the core or behind the exterior walls. All you can do is try to use the movement of what you can see to induce what was going on inside where you can't see. Of course the actual steel is also evidence and as far as what I've seen of it it looks like heat weakened steel. over stressed steel and not what I imagine (I don't know from experience) what "CDed" steel would look like. One would expect the steel to look as we saw if 400,000+ tons buildings collapse in less than a a quarter of a minute... after burning for an hr or two with no fire suppression and all manner of combustibles inside them.
There's lots we don't know but I don't find the CD arguments the least bit compelling.
What I've told him and others is that no one can know what they can't see... inside the core or behind the exterior walls. All you can do is try to use the movement of what you can see to induce what was going on inside where you can't see. Of course the actual steel is also evidence and as far as what I've seen of it it looks like heat weakened steel. over stressed steel and not what I imagine (I don't know from experience) what "CDed" steel would look like. One would expect the steel to look as we saw if 400,000+ tons buildings collapse in less than a a quarter of a minute... after burning for an hr or two with no fire suppression and all manner of combustibles inside them.
There's lots we don't know but I don't find the CD arguments the least bit compelling.
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
J. M. Talboo and Ziggi Zugam published a very long article on "WTC nanothermite issue" on Debunking the Debunkers, titled Why You Should Make a Donation at MarkBasile.org.
It is perhaps a comparatively good summary of the current view of remaining "nanotruthers", but there is basically nothing new. And misunderstandings, expressions of wishfull thinking and distorsions of reality are so numerous that the detailed critics would be really very, very long.
Perhaps I could mention some more or less ad-hominem attacks like "Mr. (Dave) Thomas is quite the charlatan even though he is a member of The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry(CSI)" or "We hope that he will publish because that would certainly bring attention to the red/gray chip debate, but Millette may not really want that due to the poor quality of his report. He may also prefer not to bring attention to the charges of fraud he received for his previous government-sponsored WTC dust studies." But, frankly, we are also not always very polite when addressing paranoid truthers and their "visions", so what...
There is basically only one real issue, which has been mentioned here several times (I think): why Basile, Talboo, Zugam and other initiators of the new, "truly independent" WTC dust study do not request this comparatively low money (5000 bucks) from AE911Truth (and Richard Gage)?
It is perhaps a comparatively good summary of the current view of remaining "nanotruthers", but there is basically nothing new. And misunderstandings, expressions of wishfull thinking and distorsions of reality are so numerous that the detailed critics would be really very, very long.
Perhaps I could mention some more or less ad-hominem attacks like "Mr. (Dave) Thomas is quite the charlatan even though he is a member of The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry(CSI)" or "We hope that he will publish because that would certainly bring attention to the red/gray chip debate, but Millette may not really want that due to the poor quality of his report. He may also prefer not to bring attention to the charges of fraud he received for his previous government-sponsored WTC dust studies." But, frankly, we are also not always very polite when addressing paranoid truthers and their "visions", so what...
There is basically only one real issue, which has been mentioned here several times (I think): why Basile, Talboo, Zugam and other initiators of the new, "truly independent" WTC dust study do not request this comparatively low money (5000 bucks) from AE911Truth (and Richard Gage)?
Last edited:
WTC Dust
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,529
Hi, all:
About two weeks ago, Chris Mohr (and me and Oystein) received an e-mail from Siggi Super, one of the devoted nanotruthers and co-author of this controversial text.
Siggi wrote the whole e-mail in a really offensive/confronting fashion, like (a quote): “OK Chris Mohr, last chance to explain yourself… apologize for your mistakes and let them be officially known to your JREF buddies and everyone else… etc.“
And what’s actually the matter?
The e-mail deals again in greater detail with the complaint/petition of former EPA worker Cate Jenkins, available e.g. here. JREFers more interested in “nanothermite matter” perhaps remember that Jenkins basically accused some research groups that they intentionally distorted values of pH (acidity/alkalinity) of water extracts of WTC dust. And, that in some of these studies, James Millette was a co-author, hence he was also responsible for these incorrect measurements/data.
The objections of Cate Jenkins’ complaint were mentioned in Kevin Ryan’s article When Mohr is Less.
Chris discussed this topic e.g. here (starting with the post No. 3435) and wrote: “Even more amazing is Kevin Ryan’s attempt to attack the credibility of Dr. Millette by referencing the claims of Cate Jenkins, PhD, who has complained in court that the EPA purposely altered the pH readings of the WTC dust to bring them into an acceptable range for public health officials. But in Jenkins’s long complaint against the EPA, Jim Millette’s name barely comes up, except in four footnotes (not in the main text).“
Here, we should admit that Siggi has read the Jenkins complaint (very boring and very marginal document) more carefully than Chris and others in JREF. Jenkins really did “attack” two studies, in which Millette participated, namely ref. 52 and 65 (p. 11 and 12). More specifically, Jenkins wrote that in both studies, the samples (water extracts of WTC dust) were stored for unknown number of days in refrigerator prior pH measurements. According to Jenkins, this long storage of samples had to lead to partial neutralization of samples (lowering of pH) by reaction with acidic carbon dioxide from air. Jenkins also cited an article (ref. 61), in which such neutralization was really observed for water extracts of some concrete after several days. “Thus, by their own admission, the... research team was intentionally and deliberately neutralizing the samples before testing the pH,“ Jenkins wrote.
The pH of the dust samples I collected was never higher than 8.
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
And?
Did this guy explain e.g. why no qualified response to Millette's study has never appeared on AE911Truth web?
Last March, this "document" was published there, containing again the same bunch of silly illiterate nonsenses and very open and impudent lies, like that "they seem to confirm that composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure."? Why we are still waiting for some apology (well, we don't expect any apology, indeed
)?The next sentence in that "response" was: "Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter." Why no critique has appeared in any next newsletter?
Last edited:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Briefly, in my conversation with Richard Gage about Jim Millette, I caught him up on the fact that no one from his side has released dust chips for Millette to study. He said that's because no one trusts Millette, which of course is true. He agrees with the claim that Millette didn't heat the chips to 430 C and asked me why he stopped at just below the ignitiion point. I said it was because Millette did the standard chemical analysis of the chips and found no chemical evidence of thermite. DSC can't be used to ndetermine chemical composition. I told him that I had asked Millette about why no DSC and no ignition tests, and Millette responded that if they think that is important, they will have to come up with another theory of what this material is because it is not thermite. "So where are we with this issue?" he asked. There is no agreement on any aspect of this and no one seems interested in working together.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
True, but not a valid argument.
It's a bunch of fallicies in a proper argument:
* Poisoning the well
* Assuming the conclusion/tautology (Millette is probably wrong, because we assume he is probably wrong)
This is a perfidious argument (although Gage may well be unaware that it is).
I think it deserves some elaborating on, but this may be the wrong thread to do so.
It's perfidious, because it's a loaded question. It implicitly assumes, falsely, two things:
- that the point of Millette's heating the chips was to test them thermally / ignite them
- that igniting chips is a competent thing to do in the analysis and hence desirable
- The first even puts Millette's actual objectives on their head: He stopped under 430 °C precisely in order to NOT ignite any eventual thermite that might be in there, so he can subsequently still analysze the UNreacted mineral and metal components. Heating to 400 °C merely had the purpose of removing the organic matrix.
- The second has been debated a lot here: DSC is simply not a method of choice to analyse and identify composite, unknown materials, as there is too much ambiguity in DSC results.
Glad you made my latter argument.
There is no agreement because Gage and his side made a conscious decision not to acknowledge and consider Millette's actual data. Instead, they made improper demands and whine that those have not been met. A transparent ploy to set up synchronized handwaving.
I find that perfidious.
Miragememories
Banned
It is a matter of fact and stated so by Millette that he did not heat his chip selections beyond 400C. Of course Gage was in agreement.
No one is claiming that the DSC determines chemical composition of the material that it is testing. Strawman?
The DSC did allow scientists to determine that selected 9/11 WTC dust chips produced a highly energetic exothermic reaction around 430C.
It is obviously not primer paint.
The real mystery, if you take everything Millette says at face value, is where is Millette's curiosity?
He adamantly insists that the substance that Dr. Harrit et al ignited could not be thermitic.
He is not in disagreement that this substance exists throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust, representing tons of original material.
He is not in disagreement that it ignites around 430C.
He is not in disagreement that prior to ignition, there are no iron-rich micro-spheroids in the selected dust chips.
He is not in disagreement that post-ignition, the discovery of iron-rich micro-spheroids supports a finding of iron melting temperature during ignition.
By not bothering to heat test his 9/11 WTC dust chip selects to 430C, he has effectively kept his "eyes wide shut".
He has the means but outrageously lacks the motivation.
Clearly, Dr. Millette has zero interest in working to find the truth.
Of course Richard Gage et al do not trust him!
MM
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Right. This is because Millette competently identified ALL the components of the red chip. There was no elemental metal, no elemental Al there.
Hence, by definition, it isn't thermite.
QED.
Why the double negatives? Why can't you say
"He AGREES that this substance exists throughout all the 9/11 WTC dust"
and
"He AGREES that prior to ignition, there are no iron-rich micro-spheroids in the selected dust chips."
Then we could see clearly all the things he does NOT AGREE (nor disagree) with:
He does NOT agree that it represents tons of original material
He does NOT agree that it ignites around 430C
He does NOT agree that post-ignition, the discovery of iron-rich micro-spheroids supports a finding of iron melting temperature during ignition.
See, you insinuate that Millette agrees with all the things he does not explicitly disagree with, but it is all not in the data, so leave it out, and don't make it up.
Don't lie, ya know.
Eyes shut on which question, MM? Can you reproduce the question which he was asked to answer, please?
The motivation to do what, MM? Can you tell me precisely what we gave him $1000 for - what we hoped to motivate him to do? It was a question we asked him to answer, if you remember.
What was that question?
Did he answer it - yes or no?
What was his answer?
The truth about what, MM?
Remember the question he went out to answer! What was the question? What was the answer?
Don't lie!
Yes, because Gage doesn't like the answer.
Because the question was:
Q: Is the thermite in the red-gray chips
and the answer is, unequivocally:
A: No, there is no thermite in the red-gray chips
Gage chose, perfidiously, to not trust Millette to manufacture a dishonest excuse to handwave the result, which exposes Jones as a liar and all who believed Jones as fools.
Miragememories
Banned
By definition, if the material being tested does not exhibit the same chemical behavior as the material it is being compared to; it is not a match.
Dr. Jones, after reading Dr. Millette's unpublished paper, posted that Millette's selected chip findings were irrelevant because they were not a match.
Dr. Millette has told Chris Mohr that he is "very interested" in the subject of 9/11 WTC dust.
As we know, Dr. Millette has a long history performing analysis of 9/11 WTC dust for the U.S. Government.
Which is why he has his own private supply of 9/11 WTC dust.
So, back to the point, I did not want to place words in Dr. Millette's mouth when he has yet to state his views on;
- why would this substance which has not identified, permeate all of the 9/11 WTC dust? And yes, based on the total estimated tonnage of 9/11 WTC dust that was produced, estimates suggest the amount of active residue to be in the tons. Assuming the bulk of this material was consumed as a result of exposure to 430C+ temperatures in the WTC on 9/11, the surviving red chip residue would be like the "tip of the iceberg".
- it is not primer paint
- as an "interested" 9/11 WTC dust investigator, with his own supply of 9/11 WTC dust to re-select if necessary, and with no further need for his previously 'analyzed and intact' red chip selects from his 2012 report, I can't state positively what Dr. Millette believes would be the chemical behavior of his chip selections if he heats them ~+30C higher than he did his original test.
-he has made no stated observation of iron-rich micro-spheroids in his 400C heated selects so I guess you are correct, I could have said "Dr. Millette is in agreement that prior to ignition, there were no iron-rich micro-spheroids in the selected dust chips.
-finally, since Dr. Millette officially never ignited his chip selects, I cannot say that he refutes the residue findings of those scientists who were willing to take a look.
It is amazing that in spite of running his own private lab, having a supply of 9/11 WTC dust, and the time required, Dr. Millette refuses to test the chemical behavior of chips subjected to 430C heat?
How can he not be curious?
It is because he already knows that his selected chips will not match the chemical behavior of the chips described in the 2009 Bentham paper.
That is "eyes wide shut"!
I sent money because I trusted that Chris Mohr was organizing a true research inquiry into the key findings of the 2009 Bentham paper.
Chris originally introduced Dr. Millette as the anonymous "lab guy" and it was not until sometime later that his true identity was provided.
It was never a requirement that Dr. Millette perform DSC testing. Based on his reading of the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Millette was well aware that his muffle furnace would be more than adequate for 430C ignition.
It was not made clear until Chris presented Dr. Millette's report back in February of 2012 that the selected chips were not heated above 400C.
I quite understand the "non-destructive" nature of his analysis but it all too conveniently avoided questions, or should I say "answers", which he was not prepared to address.
'Empty' ashes would reveal he studied the wrong material.
A truth only +30C away, but he was not that interested, not that curious. . .
Richard Gage shows wisdom in not partnering with a scientist who has a closed mind.
After reading the 2009 Bentham paper, had Dr. Millette been willing to use a more thorough approach to investigating that paper's findings, I am sure Richard Gage would have gladly given him his trust.
MM
NoahFence
Banned
For what values of "no one" does that hold, more precisely?
Last edited:
MM, cut the crap already. You've been making that up for pages and pages.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
So?
Which material is showing which chemical behavior that is different from which other material it is being compared to?
Are you saying Millette's chips(s) is (are) showing a different chemical behaviour than chips a-d?
You know I asked you probably a dozend times already to please list all the citeria which Harrit et al employed to determine that any two of their chips match; specifically, to show that chips a-d match.
Can you please finally list all the criteria which enable YOU to determine that chips a-d were the same material?
(There'll be follow-ups of course, such as:
- List all the criteria by which Harrit, or you, determined whether or not the chips in their DSC-test were the same material as chips a-d
- List all the criteria by which Harrit, or you, determined whether or not the MEK-chip was the same material as chips a-d
- List all the criteria by which Harrit, or you, determined whether or not the MEK-chip was the same material as the chips in their DSC-test
- List the criteria by which you determine that Millette's chips are NOT the same material as chips a-d, or the MEK-chip, or the chips in their DSC test.
And you know already that if you claim that "exotherm in DSC test" or "forms microspheres when burned" or "low resistivity" are such criteria, that you will, once again, tell a big fat LIE, as you know exactly already that Harrit et al did neither a DSC nor any other heating test nor any resistivity testing on chips a-d or the MEK-chip)
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Hi gang,
I am collecting quotes from 9/11 Truth people who have expressed skepticism about the 2009 Thermitic paper of Jones/Harrit/Farrer/Ryan et al. You wouldn't BELIEVE the quotes I have found. Some I found from this thread right here, and the Millette dust study thread. Others from just googling around. Anyone who believes that 9/11 was somehow an inside job (MIHOP) but either doubts the scientific validity of the 2009 Bentham paper or has good things to say about the Millette study. If you have any such quotes, or if you are yourself a 9/11 Truth MIHOP advocate who fits in one of these categories, please post quotes here! I haved been putting together a new YouTube video and I have found so many great quotes from 9/11 Truth people, I have made the difficult decision to quote mostly Snowcrash and many others of his ilk and not Sunstealer, Oysten, Ivan, Dave Thomas and other dyed-in-the-wool skeptics. There will be a few references to Dave and Ivan's iron-rich microsphere experiments, for example, and crediting Sunstealer with the first known critique of the 2009 Thermitic paper. But I'm to the point where 9/11 Truth people will be able to say almost everything that needs to be said. Thanks in advance for your help.
I am collecting quotes from 9/11 Truth people who have expressed skepticism about the 2009 Thermitic paper of Jones/Harrit/Farrer/Ryan et al. You wouldn't BELIEVE the quotes I have found. Some I found from this thread right here, and the Millette dust study thread. Others from just googling around. Anyone who believes that 9/11 was somehow an inside job (MIHOP) but either doubts the scientific validity of the 2009 Bentham paper or has good things to say about the Millette study. If you have any such quotes, or if you are yourself a 9/11 Truth MIHOP advocate who fits in one of these categories, please post quotes here! I haved been putting together a new YouTube video and I have found so many great quotes from 9/11 Truth people, I have made the difficult decision to quote mostly Snowcrash and many others of his ilk and not Sunstealer, Oysten, Ivan, Dave Thomas and other dyed-in-the-wool skeptics. There will be a few references to Dave and Ivan's iron-rich microsphere experiments, for example, and crediting Sunstealer with the first known critique of the 2009 Thermitic paper. But I'm to the point where 9/11 Truth people will be able to say almost everything that needs to be said. Thanks in advance for your help.
I've found this, not sure if it will be of any help. It is a message by Oystein highlighting quotes from Henryco.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9248922#post9248922
I think I've seen others but I can't find them now. My recollection is that they were related to how he was treated and how he considered Jones et al. rather than addressing the chips themselves, so maybe they are not what you're after. But I don't trust my memory much.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9248922#post9248922
I think I've seen others but I can't find them now. My recollection is that they were related to how he was treated and how he considered Jones et al. rather than addressing the chips themselves, so maybe they are not what you're after. But I don't trust my memory much.