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

[chrismohr]

I just mailed out the raw material for the YouTube video that's been sitting around unedited for a year now. Sorry for the delay. Hopefully in 3-4 weeks it'll be up n running. This is the one about all the 9/11 CD advocates who have serious questions about the thermitic paper from 2009.

 

[Georgio]

Well done, Chris. This should be interesting.

 

[Ziggi]

..That all makes sense to me. Ziggi - what do you think of the above quote?

You answered your own question with another question in a more recent post:

I've been thinking about this and have a couple of questions:

Where does the data for statements like, 'All the steel was checked through' come from?

Chris´s buddies on this forum have a habit of making very authoritative statements that are exposed as pure BS when one starts asking for references/data. The same people do this over and over again. Did you ever ask yourself why JREF had to get rid of the forum?

 

[Ziggi]

I don't want to blame Ziggi for the fact that we are talking about fire protocol in a Millette WTC dust study thread. He sent me a private email and I chose to (and got permission to) reprint it here. .

What Chris, are you tired of the ranting by certain members?

For once let the mods earn their pay and split this thread, creating a new thread starting with your posting of my letter. Problem solved.

 

[Spanx]

What Chris, are you tired of the ranting by certain members?

For once let the mods earn their pay and split this thread, creating a new thread starting with your posting of my letter. Problem solved.

Why not just open your own thread ?

It will stop you sounding like a victim.

 

[beachnut]

You answered your own question with another question in a more recent post:

Chris´s buddies on this forum have a habit of making very authoritative statements that are exposed as pure BS when one starts asking for references/data. The same people do this over and over again. Did you ever ask yourself why JREF had to get rid of the forum?

The Gish Gallop of JREF got rid of the forum? What does it mean? It means you have no evidence for thermite and have failed to do more than fall for lies.

Thermite is a fantasy. Jones made up thermite as the cause of the WTC demise, and he was fired for going nuts on 911. Don't worry, the Thermite Messiah is now off doing unity circuits - his next windmill.

13 years of lies from 911 truth, which fools a fringe few gullible who can't do chemistry. Millette exposes 911 truth's thermite as BS, 911 truth followers expose themselves as anti-science followers.


Why is Jones paranoid, thinking he got sick due to the NWO? lol, your expert is paranoid; your expert made up thermite and is off on another failed quest of BS. 13 years, of lies - what next? And the best defense for the fantasy of thermite is: JREF dropped the forum. Typical 911 truth logic.

 

[Oystein]

You answered your own question with another question in a more recent post:



Chris´s buddies on this forum have a habit of making very authoritative statements that are exposed as pure BS when one starts asking for references/data. The same people do this over and over again. Did you ever ask yourself why JREF had to get rid of the forum?

Georgio will probably find that Ziggi is accusing others of things he does himself when he beholds that Ziggi made this very authoritative statement:

...Millette´s report is nothing but a document posted on an internet forum, which also happens to have been thoroughly debunked. He never addressed or even attempted to refute Harrit´s data, and you can´t even say for sure that he tested the same chips as Harrit. ...

but ignores when "one starts asking for references/data":

My two main issues:

1. How can Ziggi say "for sure" that Harrit et al themselves "tested the same chips as Harrit"? They tested several chips, and employed different sets of tests on different chips. So Ziggi ought to state very clearly and unambiguously, such that his reply would provide an objective and uncontested protocol for researchers planning to "replicate" the study:
By what objective criteria did Harrit et al decide that chips a-d, the MEK chip, the four chips tested in the DSC and the various chips whose residues are shown, and the chip that underwent the flame test, are all "the same chips"? Please list ALL criteria now, do not leave one away. And make sure that all these criteria have indeed been applied to all of these chips!
...

 

[Swing Dangler]

I presume you meant "explosives" rather than "incendiaries", because incendiaries don't explode. Since the crime scene was effectively removed to Fresh Kills and then searched thoroughly for anything relevant, any significant physical evidence of explosives would have been found. Samples of steel were examined and were not found to have features characteristic of explosive cutting; no detonators, detcord, charge casings, means for attaching charges or any other physical evidence was found in a search detailed enough to find bone fragments; no barotrauma was reported in anyone; and explosions are common enough in any fire.
Beyond that, the sheer extent of the crime scene makes chemical testing a moot point; what, and where, would one test? Remember how large the rubble pile was, in height and extent. Given that there was no reason other than a few people reporting some commonplace occurrences that are well explained by the fact that things explode in fires and major impacts sound like explosions, how much time and effort should have been expended, and how vanishingly small would have been the probability of detecting any explosives had there been any?
Dave

Is this accurate regarding the Fresh Kill's Landfill search?

Over the next ten months, an operation to recover human remains, personal effects and the objects of everyday life from 1.8 million tons of material was undertaken by the New York Police Department,
an FBI evidence recovery team, twenty-five state
and federal agencies, and fourteen private contractors.

If so, do you notice something missing from the 'search'?

You also failed to acknowledge, forgot, or ignored the timeline of removal. For example, the tons and tons (roughly 181,101 tons) of steel removed PRIOR to the Fresh Kill's search. So you can see why skeptics on a skeptic's forum would be skeptical as to why there was chemical testing for explosive residue done on the steel. NIST looks at 236 pieces of steel which is statistically insignificant but they choose not test for chemical residue but that isn't their role, is it?

I would assume you accept this from Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major regarding the removal of evidence:

If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything. Source: Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris, china.org.cn, 1/24/02

This statement then, I would think, begs the necessity FOR chemical explosive residue testing to be competed by investigators to rule out the most likely cause of collapse. This is also fitting considering the historical attack on the towers, ie. 1993 . But it doesn't matter...the past is prologue.

 

[DGM]

This statement then, I would think, begs the necessity FOR chemical explosive residue testing to be competed by investigators to rule out the most likely cause of collapse. This is also fitting considering the historical attack on the towers, ie. 1993 . But it doesn't matter...the past is prologue.

The most likely cause of the collapse was damage and fire. Considering the fact there's no evidence for any controlled demolition looking for it would be akin to looking for unicorns as the cause.

Still no evidence of CD after all these years Swing.........

 

[beachnut]

... I would have thought that one witness statement that included the word 'explosion' would justify chemical testing ...

Did the FBI check? Or did the fact zero explosives were used because there was no supersonic blasts, no sounds, etc. NIST is not a crime agency, the FBI investigates the crime of 911, NIST does a study to complete their goals which 911 truth have no clue what the goals were.

Like testing for thermite? Wait, Millette found no thermite; why? Because Jones made up thermite for BS reasons. Thus, testing for thermite was cool to expose Jones is a liar, and Gage is gullible, or a fraud making money off of mocking the murdered of 911.

Did you ask the FBI? NIST does not do crime, what did the FBI say?

There were zero sounds of explosives on 911, testing for something that did not happen is a waste of time. Do we need to test for Nukes? Beam weapons?

Here is what some said...

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy

We test for chemicals, and we find blood, he heard a body hit... this is a quote-mine 911 truth could use to lie and claim, explosives".

"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
Wow, better test for explosives again? No, another body hitting the ground after falling 700 feet.

"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
Test for explosives? No, another body.

"Explosions" –William Burns
Test? No, a falling body...

"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
12 more tests for explosives? No, bodies hitting the ground.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

Why would test for something that never happened? Did you have any doubts that Millette would not find thermite in real WTC dust? Why would anyone plant thermite to destroy the WTC when on 911 stealing two 180,000,000 dollar 767s, and two 80,000,000 dollar 757s was a simple kill pilots take planes plot? Why buy thermite, when you can steal 10,000 gallons of jet fuel with the heat energy of more than 130 Tons of thermite and inject it into the WTC?

How much does 130 tons of thermite cost? Times two?
Then the office fires were equal in heat to more than 2,700 Tons of Thermite? How much does 2,700 tons of thermite cost?

There was no evidence of thermite, and no evidence of explosives.

911 truth repeats people heard explosions, and fail to find one who heard explosives.

Zero evidence for thermite and explosives. Why does 911 truth have zero evidence for explosives? Because the terrorists used planes. Yet 911 truth claims it was unnamed people who planted high explosives, which are silent, have not blast effects, and leave no evidence they were used.


No steel showed evidence of explosives? No steel showed evidence of thermite. And there were people looking for steel which was different - see FEMA Appendix C for evidence steel which was different was studied.
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf
This report is used by 911 truth to claim steel melted, or vaporized... failed logic is 911 truth's engine of woo.

 

[Redwood]

This statement then, I would think, begs the necessity FOR chemical explosive residue testing to be competed by investigators to rule out the most likely cause of collapse. This is also fitting considering the historical attack on the towers, ie. 1993 . But it doesn't matter...the past is prologue.

Given that Dr. Harrit, the bel esprit of Trutherism, has claimed that "hundreds of tons" of high explosives were present, presumably along with equal or greater quantities of "nanothermite", it would seem that the whole area would be saturated with the stuff, including the dust samples in the posession of Drs. Harrit and Jones and the steel samples found in museum exhibits and in Hangar 17 at JFK.

It shouldn't be difficult for a motivated truther to acquire samples for testing. Since no blast damage was ever reported, they're as good as anything else to test. (Hundreds of tons, but no reported blast damage! )

Modern analytical chemistry can detect explosives and their breakdown products at the picogram level.

Sounds like another project for AE911T that they should have started years ago...

 

[Redwood]

Is it too late to mention that the NFPA guidelines are for investigations of the sources of fires, not the causes of building collapses in fires? Is there anyone here, except for no-planers, who doubts that the Twin Towers fires were caused by the airliner impacts, and the other fires caused by debris? (Except for Tony Sz. and his stealth Ninja Arsonists!)

Truthers: What's the most famous case of a building that collapsed in a fire, but it turned out to have been surreptitiously brought down by explosives, which nobody suspected at first, but was revealed by explosives tests? What, not one??

 

[DGM]

Is it too late to mention that the NFPA guidelines are for investigations of the sources of fires, not the causes of building collapses in fires?

It's been a red herring from the onset. Just like them claiming the NTSB should have investigated/ reconstructed the aircraft collisions.

They grasp at any straw they can find to sell their belief.

 

[ozeco41]

It's been a red herring from the onset. Just like them claiming the NTSB should have investigated/ reconstructed the aircraft collisions.

They grasp at any straw they can find to sell their belief.

The two red herrings depend on Truther Arse About Logic.^TM
1) Calls for the NFPA Guidelines to be followed when they are a protocol designed primarily to determine cause of fires - specifically was arson the cause and who was the likely guilty b.....

...when both cause and guilty party were known from the outset.

2) Calls for chemical testing for explosives as if chem tests were the primary detector of explosive use.

...when there was zero evidence of explosives AND no way to select samples suitable for testing.

... because - by definition - there were no samples suitable for testing.

 

[chrismohr]

FYI work is finally beginning on the editing of my "Epilogue" video.
Redwood, in my video I quote Harrit saying something like 160 tons of nanothermite per floor, but now I can't find where I got that from. All I found was a claim of a total of up to 100 tons. Any chance you or someone can help with a link to where I might have gotten this? I want to be accurate about what he has actually claimed.

 

[chrismohr]

FYI work is finally beginning on the editing of my "Epilogue" video.
Redwood, in my video I quote Harrit saying something like 160 tons of nanothermite per floor, but now I can't find where I got that from. All I found was a claim of a total of up to 100 tons. Any chance you or someone can help with a link to where I might have gotten this? I want to be accurate about what he has actually claimed.

 

[DGM]

FYI work is finally beginning on the editing of my "Epilogue" video.
Redwood, in my video I quote Harrit saying something like 160 tons of nanothermite per floor, but now I can't find where I got that from. All I found was a claim of a total of up to 100 tons. Any chance you or someone can help with a link to where I might have gotten this? I want to be accurate about what he has actually claimed.

I can't imagine him claiming 160 tons per floor. Maybe it was a miss-spoke on his part, I can't imagine he could be serious.

100 tons is still stupid high but, this would be more in line with what I've heard.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I can't imagine him claiming 160 tons per floor. Maybe it was a miss-spoke on his part, I can't imagine he could be serious.

100 tons is still stupid high but, this would be more in line with what I've heard.

It's ironic that he thinks 22,000 tons of thermite in the WTC is reasonable, but 35,000 tons would be just plain silly.

Dave

 

[DGM]

It's ironic that he thinks 22,000 tons of thermite in the WTC is reasonable, but 35,000 tons would be just plain silly.

Dave

I haven't been following this "amount" claims. Is he really claiming 22,000 tons? That's like 600 truck loads, where would you put it?

 

[chrismohr]

Well, my concern is that I misheard him, because when I went back to research this the highest figure I came up with from him directly was a grand total of a maximum 100 tons of nanothermite for the whole Twin Towers job. This is how false rumors start so please don't quote me on anything more than a Harrit claim of max 100 tons total!
Just for fun, I wonder if anyone knows how many lumens would be emitted from the igniting of 100 tons of nanothermite all at once? That's still 200,000 pounds, or 1000 pounds per story. At, say, 500 pounds of thermite per story being used for the core destruction, how bright would the core be in that aerial picture of the collapse-- you know, the one where the top of the collapsing core is exposed and not shrouded in dust?