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

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

If they were making such an absurd claim, why would they expose such a fraud by including a few paragraphs discussing the use of the Resistivity test to remove red/gray paint chips, if they believed all the magnetically collected red/gray chips were thermitic?

MM

Chips? Plural? They tested one! Here is the quote, direct from the paper.

Quote:

7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?

We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:

Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2
); L
= thickness (m).

Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31].

RED CHIP. SINGULAR. ONE.

They published results regarding four chips. What happened to the resistivity test on the other three? Which chip of the four in the paper had the resisitivty test performed on it?

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

depends on who's sample ya got! millette chips vs jones chips

Contradicting yourself? I thought you said that Millette did have the correct chips?

Originally Posted by Gamolon

So you agree that Millette had the correct chips based on the two criteria used for extraction in Harrit's paper (visual red/gray layers, attracted to a magnet)?

Originally Posted by Senenmut

yes. but remember scientific replication of experiments. produce those pesky iron and silicon rich microspheres and then we can talk.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

Oh MM.

If you would have just read the last paragraph of their paper...



It doesn't say some, a few, many, a couple, half, 75%, 50%, etc. They imply ALL of the red/gray chips they discovered. Furthermore, nowhere in their paper do they state that their tests and experiments yield anything BUT results that prove the chips to be thermitic.

Question;

If there were unreacted thermite chips in the dust couldn't you just throw a handful of dust into a heating device and watch the bright sparks as the thermite reacted?

Also, does thermite even form chips, from what I've seen of it (only on tv) it looks more like a powder than a solid.

[Africanus]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

you ignore the fact that millette did not get iron and silicon rich microspheres.

Millette did DSC experiments?

Originally Posted by Gamolon

If Millette had the correct chips as you finally agreed, how did he get different results??? According to the last paragraph of their paper quoted below, all the red/gray chips were thermitic.

Be careful, he is trying to fool you, Gamolon!

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

Here is a quote from Jones in a letter he wrote to a scientist:

Quote:

Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material.

It is clear that he is saying that they used the resistivity test, in addition to the red/gray layer and magnetic attraction criteria to make sure they had non-paint chips.

On a careful read, I don't read that. I see that implied, not explicitly said. I bet Jones will avoid any direct answer to whether they used the resistivity test for isolation, as that would expose his double standards of requiring others to do it without having doing it themselves. But as long as he can get away with implying it, he's safe.


Also, let me put special emphasis in one part of Harrit's email, for the benefit of other readers:

Originally Posted by Harrit's email

The resistivity test were done in random on the chips already isolated as described. The information obtained must be considered "supplementary material".

That is indeed the only rational interpretation of the paper: the resistivity test is just part of the battery of tests performed on a random sample of the already isolated chips. MM just wants to grasp that straw and is thus stretching the paper's meaning beyond that interpretation (shared by Harrit himself), just because Jones is trying to save his butt by claiming Millette had the wrong chips (which he didn't) and MM is buying it.

But I don't think there's a point. In protecting their beliefs, both MM and Senenmut have reached a level of nonsense that makes it difficult or impossible to hold a rational conversation with them. And WTCDust is following the same path and will soon be there.

Originally Posted by Gamolon

They published results regarding four chips. What happened to the resistivity test on the other three? Which chip of the four in the paper had the resisitivty test performed on it?

That question assumes that the chip tested for resistivity was one of chips a-d. I think that assumption is wrong. Looking at the spectrum of the MEK-soaked chip, it's clear that they used very different chips for each test.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

ok, thanks Oystein. That was interesting,

12,000 tones of thermite! wow. I assume that would be kind of difficult to hide. I mean you would require all the ignition wiring etc on top of that. The whole idea is so ridiculous.

Who needs the thermite to react at all? The buildings would collapse just out of the overload.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

If Millette had the correct chips as you finally agreed, how did he get different results??? According to the last paragraph of their paper quoted below, all the red/gray chips were thermitic.

you still dont get it. from the bolded above, they might of had all thermitic chips. im glad you recognize jones had thermitic chips!! now that you understand that, you can see that millette had a different type of red gray chip.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

Which proves Harrit's paper wrong!

?
wrong?
replication of experiments.....thats science ya know.
did millette get iron and silicon rich microspheres?

please tell how one would get iron and silicon rich microspheres from millettes chips?

also from what oystein will not answer:

show us a paint product on steel that produces iron and silicon rich microspheres around 430C.

remember those multilayer chips. millette did not find any of those. coincidence?

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Africanus

Millette did DSC experiments?

that would be a big NEGATIVE.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Thank you for making your question more clear.

I have no disagreement with Figs 7 & 8. The 2009 Bentham paper properly identifies them. They show XEDS spectra and BSE images for 4 red chips. Each of these red chips were selected as 'chips of interest' and their a-d designation tells us the geographical location at which their parent 9/11 WTC dust was found.

This statement does not accept that the samples labelled a-d in the Harrit et al paper are the same material.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Now you are getting to the real issue.

I am absolutely sure than Dr. Millette knows exactly what he is doing.

Good. So why do you refuse to acknowledge the fact that he successfully separated the same type of chips, using the same methods that Harrit et al used?

Originally Posted by Miragememories

There is a case that can be made that Dr. Millette never fully read the 2009 Bentham paper.

This is a ludicrous statement. You have already agreed above that Millette is competent. I'll remind you of your own statement:

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I am absolutely sure than Dr. Millette knows exactly what he is doing..

So in the same post you are saying that Millette is competent yet incompetent.

Please make your mind up.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

And as a result of not taking advantage of what Dr. Harrit et al learned during early testing of the 'chips of interest', Dr. Millette worked from a much larger cache of 9/11 WTC dust red chips than necessary.

No he didn't. WTC dust is WTC dust no matter the amount. Harrit et al, as you well acknowledge had access to dust from 4 locations. That amount is enough to make deductions just as Harrit et al claim. Harrit had access to enough dust, to claim that Millette had access to more and therefore he didn't have isolate the same material is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Un-ignited 'chips of interest' would have existed in Dr. Millette's isolation pile but their numbers would have been few compared to the volume of primer paint chips that would have been encountered.

Rubbish. There is no way you can substantiate this. Secondly, if you claim that primer paint chips were present in the dust in such a significant number or proportion then why didn't Harrit et al identify such material in their paper? Why didn't they expressly state that their so claimed thermitic material had been separated from ordinary primer paint chips? They make absolutely no claim in the paper that they identified primer paint! None whatsoever. You are claiming that primer paint was abundant in the WTC dust yet the paper you support makes absolutely no mention of this.

Why is that? Have you contacted the authors to back your statement? The fact of the matter is the authors of Harrit et al claim that all red/gray chips extracted by their own methods are thermite.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Certainly Dr. Millette would have realized after his magnetic extractions that he had a lot of red chips matching the visual description provided by Dr. Harrit et al.

Of course he did. He even says so in his progress report! That is why he used a specific criteria, based solely upon the Harrit at al paper to ensure he identified chips that were the same as Harrit et al isolated as stated in their paper.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

But his only criteria for selecting his chips of interest for further analysis, was that they were attracted by a magnet and that they had an EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum.

Of course! That was the best way of ensuring that he could narrow down chips of interest and then further analyse those chips to see if they matched the chips a-d.

He then alanyses those "chips of interest" and finds that they exactly match all of the characteristics of chips a-d in Harrit et al.

If you think that he hasn't then please use the readily available data that Millette provides and compare it directly with the data in Harrit et al.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Your list of comparisons certainly reflects an effort to show that Dr. Millette successfully matched the 2009 Bentham paper 'chips of interest'.

It is not an effort, it is simply the same thing that anyone who is interested in the subject would do. It's not hard to compare data. My analysis and list of comparisons can be done with anyone who has the time and inclination to do so. Truthers don't have that interest in detail, it's the reason why you, Senenmut and any other truther wilfully refuse to actually compare the data in Millette's progress report with Harrit et al. It is simple pattern matching. I'm lucky with regard to the fact that I have experience and understanding of what I'm looking at, but it's not difficult to compare photos and figures. I have referenced the Figs I am comparing so that anyone who has a copy of both Harrit et al and Millette's Progress Report can follow and compare the data. This is not hard.

Why don't you or Senenmut pick a comparison that I have pointed out and look at the data for yourself and then comment on it? Here is an earlier comparison from a post that no truther would comment on:



Why do you refuse to comment on the similarities in these images?

Why do you completely refuse to compare Millette's data with the data in Harrit et al?

What are you afraid of? If you had belief in Harrit et al then why do you refuse to look at the data?

Originally Posted by Miragememories

But only the two sides involved in the research of these chips can argue for or against the credibility of your list.

Nope. My list was written so that anyone could understand and follow it and the reasoning behind it. I even provided the references to each Fig I was comparing so anyone who had a copy of Millette's Progress report and a copy of Harrit et al could look at the comparisons for themselves.

It's obvious that you and other truthers either don't have copies of the documents or are unwilling to comment on them. That shows your failings.

Why don't you or other truthers perform a modest study of the similarities/discrepancies between the two? No-one is going to bite your head off for doing so.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The fact is, the Bentham paper authors are not in agreement with Dr. Millette's unpublished convention paper findings

.Of course they aren't! Their paper is trash, their conclusions don't fit with their own data. This point is moot.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

They believe Dr. Millette had the misfortune of selecting the wrong 'chips of interest' from a large pile of possibles.

What possibilities? Again you fail to read the paper you champion. All chips that are separated by a magnet are thermite according to Harrit et al. Just look at Fig 31 - it doesn't have any of the characteristics of samples a-d yet the authors claim this chip is thermite.

You really ought to familiarise yourself with the the paper that you claim is proof of thermite before attacking Millette for analysing chips that match the criteria for samples a-d in Harrit et al.

Where does Fig 31 fit into this?

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I am not saying that Dr. Millette's methods are faulty, but results speak louder than his words.

His results speak far louder than you can imagine. Not only did he use the same method of extraction from the dust that Harrit et al used, but he also used Harrit et al's own data as a point of reference to ensure that he isolated the same material for further analysis. What's more, he used far more advanced techniques to ascertain what the material he had actually was. It's not our problem that this analysis not only concludes that the material is paint, but also the fact that it completely backs my own analysis of the data found in Harrit et al before Millette had even heard of the paper.

I had already shown a few days after the paper was published, using the very data in Harrit et al, that kaolin was present in the red layer and therefore the material was paint. No truther has ever challenged this successfully. This wasn't some superhuman feat, but simply something that anyone who'd studied materials science or geology etc would be able to do.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

It is clear that Dr. Harrit et al had to seek out the chips of interest.

Of course he did. If you hadn't noticed that was the entire point of the exercise.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

That attraction by a magnet and a EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum did not guarantee a 'chip of interest'.

Of course it did. Once again you are claiming that Millette is incompetent yet, as shown above, you claim that Millette is competent.

Which is it? Give a reason why this is not so and analyse the data that Millette produces and compare it with the data in Harrit et al.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

As Dr. Harrit said, potential red chips were randomly selected and subjected to a number of tests before they were ignited in the DSC. The scientists could not be certain they had a true 'chip of interest' until they ignited it and examined the residue.

No this is completely false. There is absolutely no mention of this in the paper and what's more such a method is ludicrous. Does Dr Harrit know that you are misrepresenting him by pursuing this line?

There is absolutely no indication in the paper to suggest what you are saying. Have you even read the paper?

Originally Posted by Miragememories

But they had the pre-DSC test results of every red chip used, thermitic or not.

Oh they did did they? Then you will be quite happy in telly everyone which chips were used in the DSC test and the corresponding data in the paper. For example, in Fig 19, which shows 4 DSC traces, can you please tell us which trace the green trace labelled "white" corresponds to in the Harrit et al paper?

Is it sample a) or d) or the one in Fig 31 or the one subjected to 55hrs of MEK?

What is this chip?

Would you please contact the very people you support to clarify this matter.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

For those red chips that proved to be thermitic, they just looked back over the pre-ignition data to obtain greater knowledge about what 'tells' pointed to a possible 'chip of interest'.

The phrase "chips of interest" does not appear in Harrit et al. This phrase is used by Millette to identify chips isolated by the same criteria that Harrit et al used, but were further identified by identifying the similar characteristics that EDX examination of the red layer that showed similarities with samples a-d in Fig 7 of Harrit et al.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Red was a tell.

Magnetic attraction was a tell.

Those were the only tells and the only criteria that Harrit et al subsequently concluded were needed to identify thermite material in the dust.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The Resistivity test was one of those 'tells'. They found that the 'chips of interest' had dramatically low resistance readings (~10 ohms).

With the Resistivity test, they discovered that chips that were primer paint had very high resistance readings (~100,000 ohms).

No it was not. You have already been shown this. The paper makes no mention of this tell, it makes no mention of this in the method of isolation, even the authors of the paper have been quoted as saying that this was not the case. The fact that you continue with this nonsense in contradiction of the very people you support shows that you will do absolutely anything to support your view including blatant lying and falsification.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

We can argue over chips 'a-d' forever and get no where.

Nope. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that chips a-d in Harrit et al are the same material and the fact that the reasons and logic behind such a conclusion leads you to the fact that Millette has the same material is the reason why you won't engage.

Show us using the data readily available why chips a-d are different from the chips Millette performed additional analysis on. You can't You won't even dare try even though it's a trivial exercise as I've shown.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

My point is, there were a lot of red chips that were indeed very similar to the 'chips of interest' but while seemingly identical, they did not behave identically when ignited.

No there weren't. Please quote from the Harrit et al paper where the explicitly state that this is true.

Where in Harrit et al do they identify chips that appear identical but do not behave identically when ignited.

You once again are making things up. Why do you think that this will go un-noticed? Surely, even you realise that there are people on JREF that have actually read the Harrit et al paper more timed than you but also can analyse the data within? I can quote Fig without referring to the document - you never refer to the document! lol

Originally Posted by Miragememories

But what cannot be argued forever, is why any red chip found in the 9/11 WTC dust would leave iron-rich microspheres in its residue after ignition, where none previously existed.

I can offer an explantion but you will never accept it.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Dr. Harrit et al have published there testable proof of thermite.

No they haven't. If Harrit et al were so confident then why have they refused to release any of the material they claim is thermite to independent researchers? Only the brain-dead, non-scientific, ignorant gullible and naive people believe this paper shows thermite. I showed days after it was released that the material contained kaoilin, a widely mined mineral clay but you ignore all the analysis.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The only way we can tell if 'the emperor has clothes on' is to reproduce the test that lead to the thermite finding and start the discussion from there.

Dr. Millette knows it and you know it.

MM

No. There is no thermite, it's you who are the one walking arounf naked.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

?

replication of experiments.....thats science ya know.

What about the SEM replication experiments and the similarity between these images?



Give a detailed analysis, hell any bloody analysis, as to the differences between the two. You won't dare, but the point makes the rest of us chortle at you.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

What about the SEM replication experiments and the similarity between these images?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=7555

Give a detailed analysis, hell any bloody analysis, as to the differences between the two. You won't dare, but the point makes the rest of us chortle at you.

looks "similar" but will it act similar when heated and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres. keep on replicating those experiments till millette either gets the iron and silicon rich microspheres or not.

from blogger

"When Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peak in our Fig 19. This is one of the many tests he did to check things."

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-0...-chip-analyses

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

?
wrong?
replication of experiments.....thats science ya know.
did millette get iron and silicon rich microspheres?

please tell how one would get iron and silicon rich microspheres from millettes chips?

Try burning the organic resin matrix in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, as Harrit and Jones did with their paint chips.

Oh wait, they're really thermite cleverly disguised at paint, down to the metallic aluminum and silicon platelets made to resemble common aluminum silicate (kaolinite).

In which case, they will ignite under an inert atmosphere. Get back to us when Harrit & Jones do this.

Originally Posted by Senenmut

show us a paint product on steel that produces iron and silicon rich microspheres around 430C.

Harrit and Jones's chips would be one. You can duplicate this yourself by igniting any red primer with a combustible base that also contains kaolinite. You'll have no problem finding them, guaranteed.

Meantime, find us a thermite that doesn't produce voluminous quantities of aluminum oxide (alumina), the sine qua non of the thermite reaction. Why don't H&J's thermite paint chips produce any? Did it go down some singularity and come out in some other part of the universe? Where's the alumina?

You could also inform us as to purpose of silicon or silicon compounds in H&J's purported thermite, other than to reduce energy yield per unit weight. Maybe you can ask H&J and pass it on.