• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

I see some people hung up on the source of the flakes. The only thing that matters, but this will be obscured by the truth movement talking about the source, is that it is not, I repeat not, thermite or nanothermite. That should not be lost in the ensuing war of words.

I find it interesting that Jones and company still refuse to allow further analysis of their samples by any other source. This, along with Millette's work, prove conclusively that the thermite debate.

Unfortunately, the "truth" side will continue to believe their thermite lie.
 
Conversation with Jim Millette

Hi all,

The link to the full study is coming out this morning.

I asked him one simple question about the study:

Did you replicate the Bentham study 100%? It looks like there was no test of the ignition temperature or energy release of the chips.

(Paraphrase) That's correct. We did cook the chips to release the particles from epoxy bindings for further study, but not to measure ignition temperature of energy release.

It was not necessary to take this step, because my chemical tests proved that the chips could not be thermitic in any way. I would have just been testing the ignition point and energy release of a paint chip and that would not have been necessary.

If someone wanted to do such a test, it would be as two-part process. A different lab would have to be employed to measure the heat output and ignition temperatures properly, and then someone else with expertise would need to properly analyze the data. The cost would be around $300 per sample for just the raw testing.

Otherwise, every part of the Bentham protocol was followed, and several other tests they did not do were added to the protocol.
 
Question from Jim Millette

Jim Millette is continuing his work to prepare for a peer-reviewed publication of his WTC dust sample findings and he has one question:

In the original Bentham study, Harrit et al wrote one line about how someone tested known thermite and found iron-rich microspheres. Rather than slog through the Bentham Report yet again, I'm wondering if anyone here knows what that line is about. He'd like to get any information he can about what Harrit et al did, what other studies might be out there re thermitic material and iron-rich microspheres, etc.

Thanks in advance.
 
Moderator(s): As for my first post here, it took about 8 hours to be "allowed" here. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate off-topic and other inappropriate contributions later, after they are "published"? Thanks for considering this possibility:cool:

Chris:Basically, Jim's preliminary conclusions from his experimental work are quite similar to our presumptions at the beginning of "Paint thread": "Red-gray chips (with the structure and compositions identical/similar to Bentham chips (a) to (d)) are indeed not thermites because of this and this and this; they are paint particles, but they are not particles of Tnemec paint and we don't know what kind of paint they could be."
Since we know what paint it could be and why, Jim Millette should be informed about this at least now, after his fine experiments are finished. Therefore I suggest, Oystein, , even here that we should send our "white paper" on "Laclede paint hypothesis" to Jim Millette through Chris now, without further editing or reviewing. Jim can consider our claims and mention them in the final version of his peer-reviewed paper:cool:
 
They claim the only source of iron-rich microspheres is a by-product of a thermite reaction. No other combustible could have created them is their claim. I think the conjectures about the spheres came before and ultimately facilitated their false finding of thermite in their "tests".
 
chrismohr said:
Jim Millette is continuing his work to prepare for a peer-reviewed publication of his WTC dust sample findings and he has one question:

In the original Bentham study, Harrit et al wrote one line about how someone tested known thermite and found iron-rich microspheres. Rather than slog through the Bentham Report yet again, I'm wondering if anyone here knows what that line is about. He'd like to get any information he can about what Harrit et al did, what other studies might be out there re thermitic material and iron-rich microspheres, etc.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Is this the one? Taken from the Bentham paper, page 25.
benthamquote.png


The [5] reference is below.
footnote5.png
 
Gigantic kudos for having the patience to actually go this far with what I would have otherwise never taken seriously. I thought the results would be fairly straightforward but it still was a minor curiosity to be able to find out. You have way more patience that I got these days and I guess that's not always a bad thing if it helps you do what you set out for.
 
I think you should remind him the composition of Laclede Primer Paint.
(the second most used paint during the construction of the Twin Towers with the tnemec primer paint) :

* Pigment (28,5 %)
----- Iron Oxyde 55 %
----- Aluminum silicate (kaolin) 41 %
----- Strontium Chromate 4 %

* Vehicule (71.5 %)
----- Epoxy Amine 45 %
----- Deionized Water and amine 55 %


;)
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Moderator(s): As for my first post here, it took about 8 hours to be "allowed" here. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate off-topic and other inappropriate contributions later, after they are "published"? Thanks for considering this possibility:cool:

Chris:Basically, Jim's preliminary conclusions from his experimental work are quite similar to our presumptions at the beginning of "Paint thread": "Red-gray chips (with the structure and compositions identical/similar to Bentham chips (a) to (d)) are indeed not thermites because of this and this and this; they are paint particles, but they are not particles of Tnemec paint and we don't know what kind of paint they could be."
Since we know what paint it could be and why, Jim Millette should be informed about this at least now, after his fine experiments are finished. Therefore I suggest, Oystein, , even here that we should send our "white paper" on "Laclede paint hypothesis" to Jim Millette through Chris now, without further editing or reviewing. Jim can consider our claims and mention them in the final version of his peer-reviewed paper:cool:
Click to expand...
Ivan I have a different idea: really look at all the new data in Jim's preliminary report first, then see if any of the spectra etc. line up with any particular paint. THAT would be very useful, I would think!
 
Excellent job, Chris! I have linked both this discussion and the PDF at SLC.
 
'Cr' is found several times in the spectra by Millette.
Exactly as in Harrit's paper.

Page 28, on the last graph on the left, quantities of Cr are not negligible.
 
There are conflicting results concerning thermite in the dust! That's why we need a new investigation!

/truther
 
From the Millette study, pp 6-7 'Some small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amountdetected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.'

Based on what we do know about LaClede formulas of the day, is it not fair to say that this material is very similar to it in composition?
And further, can we not also surmise why this kind of material would be used in the construction of the towers?
Why else would it be present in the dust? I can't think of any other reason..
 
Wow - this is massive! And lots of new things for me to learn.

Will take me a while to digest. Better try to avoid any half-baked comments...
 
Dear Truthers: Don't try and move the goalposts and say this test was about proving which sort of paint the chips are.

Harrit, Jones et al tested the chips and said they were ~thermite.

Dr Millette has tested the chips more thoroughly and proved Harrit, Jones et al wrong.

The test proves they were not thermite. End of story.
 
chrismohr said:
Hi all,

Did you replicate the Bentham study 100%? It looks like there was no test of the ignition temperature or energy release of the chips.

(Paraphrase) That's correct. We did cook the chips to release the particles from epoxy bindings for further study, but not to measure ignition temperature of energy release.

It was not necessary to take this step, because my chemical tests proved that the chips could not be thermitic in any way. I would have just been testing the ignition point and energy release of a paint chip and that would not have been necessary.
Click to expand...


Um, okay, but I thought that

... primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 °C.

COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF RED/GRAY CHIPS

In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 °C.
Click to expand...

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/
 
Orphia Nay said:
Dear Truthers: Don't try and move the goalposts and say this test was about proving which sort of paint the chips are.

Harrit, Jones et al tested the chips and said they were ~thermite.

Dr Millette has tested the chips more thoroughly and proved Harrit, Jones et al wrong.

The test proves they were not thermite. End of story.
Click to expand...

This just seems way too straight forward. And whatever Kevin Ryan says is worthless because he had the chance to let others use his samples but didn't...nice that he's against open, independent scientific research.

Again, I wonder what Gage will say about this especially considering his good relations with Mohr. A lot of the attacks seem to rely on Mohr being deceitful.

It looks like at BEST they can get away with moving the goalposts, but that will only be accepted by the ones who already took the red pill :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom