Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper

[chrismohr]

Hi all,

I'm spreading this around so everyone sees Jim Millette's latest response to accusations that "he didn;t do DSC therefore Chris Mohr wasted his money":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim

[plague311]

Thanks again for your dedication to this project Chris. Also, if you could pass my thanks onto Dr. Millette. I am sure dealing with having your findings constantly under a microscope by people with no education to do so can be tiring.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by plague311

Thanks again for your dedication to this project Chris. Also, if you could pass my thanks onto Dr. Millette. I am sure dealing with having your findings constantly under a microscope by people with no education to do so can be tiring.

Seconded. Thanks, Chris and Dr Millette, for your diligence and patience.

[grandmastershek]

Indeed...what I have noticed is that truthers are more or less harping on the DSC because thats what Jones et al did and their study confirms what they want to believe, so that must be the correct protocol. Meanwhile truthers never seem to realize, more like do not want to realize, that Jones et al have no experience in this area, nor are they an authority on developing or implementing such studies. Much as their "smoking gun" evidence changes as long as their conclusions do not, its pretty apparent that whatever Jones did will be hailed as the gold standard of testing.

[chrismohr]

More on the DSC test on the Millete dust study thread.

[cjnewson88]

Still no word on the responses from A&E911 or Harritt et al?

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

Still no word on the responses from A&E911 or Harritt et al?

Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette.

I wonder what they'll say they're waiting for after that?

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette.

Someone should let them know the thinking world is waiting for them to do the same.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette.

Here is what they actually claimed in public communication to all their signers and other supporters:

http://ae911truth.org/newsletter/2012/03/index.php

Originally Posted by AE911Twoof March 2012 newsletter

Editor’s note: The preliminary results of a new study of the red-gray chips, commissioned by Chris Mohr, a supporter of the official NIST reports about the destruction of the WTC skyscraper, and authored by Dr. James Millette, have recently been released. They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure. Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter.

This is pretty clear, and has not been retracted. Yet, in "next month’s Blueprint newsletter", not a word about it.

It also bears pointing out that the sentence "They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure." implies at least two falsehoods that at least some of the authors of the Harrit-paper (Legge, Jones, Ryan) and some of the leading people at AE911T (Ryan, Graham, Keogh) could or should well be aware of as false, because they participated in or read relevant posts and subsequent commentary on 911Blogger:

1. The false implication that there was only one steel primer in the towers
2. The false implication that Millette concluded "no steel primer"

I think they lied to all their supporters, and now run away from that lie. The obvious truths of the matter are:

1. There was at least one other primer in literally widespread use on WTC-steel, namely the LaClede shop primer
2. Millette's preliminare study shows that the red layer of the chips is entirely consistent with red paint, and that the gray layer is entirely consistent with structural steel; he just couldn't, as of yet, identify the paint product.

[WTC Dust]

It wasn't thermite. Great. Proved again.

But that doesn't get you an answer to what DID destroy the WTC. Every bit of study into thermite was a waste, including the time I spent on it, but also including your efforts.

Thermite is a distraction that has afflicted most 9/11 truthers, sadly.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

"Still no word on the responses from A&E911 or Harritt et al?"

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"Again, I think they claimed that they are waiting till the peer-reviewed published paper comes out by Millette."

Originally Posted by Oystein

"Here is what they actually claimed in public communication to all their signers and other supporters:

http://ae911truth.org/newsletter/2012/03/index.php

Originally Posted by AE911Truth March 2012 newsletter

"Editor’s note: The preliminary results of a new study of the red-gray chips, commissioned by Chris Mohr, a supporter of the official NIST reports about the destruction of the WTC skyscraper, and authored by Dr. James Millette, have recently been released. They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure. Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter."

This is pretty clear, and has not been retracted. Yet, in "next month’s Blueprint newsletter", not a word about it."

For someone who uses the english language so voluminously, your comprehension is often amazingly lacking.

"Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter."

'Look' does not mean 'find'.

My Translation: We hope to have a detailed analysis by next month's Blueprint newsletter.

Like too much of your analysis, it is over-mining of too little information.

Originally Posted by Oystein

"It also bears pointing out that the sentence "They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure." implies at least two falsehoods that at least some of the authors of the Harrit-paper (Legge, Jones, Ryan) and some of the leading people at AE911T (Ryan, Graham, Keogh) could or should well be aware of as false, because they participated in or read relevant posts and subsequent commentary on 911Blogger:

1. The false implication that there was only one steel primer in the towers
2. The false implication that Millette concluded "no steel primer"

Again, you are sucking far more out of that minimal quote than it contains.

"They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure."

My Translation: Based on his current research, Dr. Millette finds that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure.

Originally Posted by Oystein

"I think they lied to all their supporters, and now run away from that lie. The obvious truths of the matter are:

1. There was at least one other primer in literally widespread use on WTC-steel, namely the LaClede shop primer
2. Millette's preliminare study shows that the red layer of the chips is entirely consistent with red paint, and that the gray layer is entirely consistent with structural steel; he just couldn't, as of yet, identify the paint product.

He just couldn't, as of yet, find the necessary chemical signatures for LaClede.

The Bentham Paper and AE911 Truth have never denied the existence of LaClede paint in WTC.

And they are quite willing to concede it had to exist in the WTC dust and quite likely was in the surface residue of uncleaned red/gray chips.

But the Bentham Paper scientists never found out it in the cleaned red chips and neither has Dr. Millette.

MM

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

My Translation: Based on his current research, Dr. Millette finds that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure.
...
He just couldn't, as of yet, find the necessary chemical signatures for LaClede.

You concede that there are at least TWO primers user on WTC steel, as Tnemec has always been out and known. Cool.

Then you MUST concede that the sentence "the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure." implies a FALSEHOOD as "the primer paint" appears in the singular, which implies that only ONE primer was used and needs to be considered.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The Bentham Paper and AE911 Truth have never denied the existence of LaClede paint in WTC.

They also have most studiously avoided any acknowledgement of it. I am glad you are beyond that childish state. If I am wrong and any of the authors, or any of the AE911T have ever anywhere acknowledged LaClede, please provide a link and quote!

Originally Posted by Miragememories

And they are quite willing to concede it had to exist in the WTC dust and quite likely was in the surface residue of uncleaned red/gray chips.

How do you know they "quite willingly concede this"? Who? Where? The Blueprint newsletter looses no word on that, they are NOT quite willing to concede this to their trustful "members", it seems!

I think you make that stuff up. Please support your allegations with evidence!

Originally Posted by Miragememories

But the Bentham Paper scientists never found out it in the cleaned red chips

They never looked. Because they never knew about LaClede till we told them, and they now studiously avoid looking, acknowledging and conceding anything.

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter."

'Look' does not mean 'find'.

My Translation: We hope to have a detailed analysis by next month's Blueprint newsletter.

Like too much of your analysis, it is over-mining of too little information.


MM

To roughly quote H.L. Mencken, sometimes one horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.

[cjnewson88]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter."

'Look' does not mean 'find'.

MM

This should be stundied.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

They also have most studiously avoided any acknowledgement of it. I am glad you are beyond that childish state. If I am wrong and any of the authors, or any of the AE911T have ever anywhere acknowledged LaClede, please provide a link and quote!

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of Laclede primer paint, but why would they acknowledge it? Does NIST acknowledge it? Has it been confirmed anywhere that 1) Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel? and 2) that the red-grey chips in the WTC dust are Laclede paint chips? If so, where?

Thank you.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by ergo

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of Laclede primer paint, but why would they acknowledge it? Does NIST acknowledge it? Has it been confirmed anywhere that 1) Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel? and 2) that the red-grey chips in the WTC dust are Laclede paint chips? If so, where?

Thank you.

The reason AE911T would acknowledge it is because they did a study of the dust, and the chemical composition of the chips they found are primer. They tried to pass it off as Thermite. The reason NIST doesn't care is they didn't do a study of the dust, and all the organizations that did do a study for the dust didn't look for explosives. There was no need too. Yes, it has been confirmed Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel. In fact, there are a few running threads about it as well. It has also been proven it was paint but, iirc, it hasn't been stated exactly which paint it was. You'll have to find exactly where on Oysteins blog it is, I am tired and lazy.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by plague311

"The reason AE911T would acknowledge it is because they did a study of the dust, and the chemical composition of the chips they found are primer. They tried to pass it off as Thermite. The reason NIST doesn't care is they didn't do a study of the dust, and all the organizations that did do a study for the dust didn't look for explosives. There was no need too. Yes, it has been confirmed Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel. In fact, there are a few running threads about it as well. It has also been proven it was paint but, iirc, it hasn't been stated exactly which paint it was. You'll have to find exactly where on Oysteins blog it is, I am tired and lazy."

AE911 Truth did not find the chips to be primer. Isn't it nice to be able to make up stuff and know that only the minority, the 9/11 Truth seekers will object?

Accredited scientists reached a conclusion of nanothermite and publicized their findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Other than your own bias, you have revealed no personal qualifications, or specific knowledge that justifies stating; "They tried to pass it off as Thermite.".

The NIST, in spite of their known familiarity with thermitic material, chose to believe that it was not to be found in a WTC debris analysis, so they never attempted to investigate whether or not that assumption was valid.

No one has disputed that among all the different paint formulations that existed in the WTC, LaClede primer was one of them.

Oystein has failed to prove that the cleaned red chips contained LaClede primer paint in spite of his thread title claiming he has done so. Having a thread title which is a blatant lie is like having a billboard for misinformation.

Recent investigative work by Dr. Millette failed to support Oystein's LaClede paint hypothesis.

MM

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ergo

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of Laclede primer paint, but why would they acknowledge it? Does NIST acknowledge it? Has it been confirmed anywhere that 1) Laclede primer was used on the WTC steel? and 2) that the red-grey chips in the WTC dust are Laclede paint chips? If so, where?

Thank you.

Why?

Your ignorance is self-inflicted. The answers to your questions have been covered extensively so if you haven't read them yet then repeating them seems a vain exercise.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"And they are quite willing to concede it [steel primer paint], had to exist in the WTC dust, and quite likely was in the surface residue of uncleaned red/gray chips."

Originally Posted by Oystein

"How do you know they "quite willingly concede this"? Who? Where? The Blueprint newsletter looses no word on that, they are NOT quite willing to concede this to their trustful "members", it seems!

I think you make that stuff up. Please support your allegations with evidence!"

This is why I know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust.

That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint.

http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf

Originally Posted by Dr. Niels Harrit

"In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could
not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!)."

MM

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

AE911 Truth did not find the chips to be primer.

That is correct. The fault is entirely to be laid at the feet of the 9 incompetent authors of the Bentham paper because

• they failed to analyse the chips using competent methods
• the compared the "right" chips (a-d) with the "wrong" primer (Tnemec)
• but the failed to compare the MEK-soaked chip with Tnemec
• they failed to realize that there was more than one primer, and consequently...
• ...they failed to compare chips a-d with other primers, most notably LaClede shop primer
• they failed to recognize that the Al- and S-rich platelike particles are kaolin clay, an exceedingly common ingredient of paints
• they failed to realize at first that the "whitish" (in the BSE images) particles are iron oxide
• they failed to realize that ~100-150 nm is a very usual and exceedingly common pigment size for the most common red pigment of all, iron oxide, not high tech
• they failed to notice the relevance of their finding at least six significantly different kinds of chips
• they failed entirely to figure out what the organic matrix is
• in the DSC test, they failed entirely to first characterize just what they put in the machinem, thus rendering the test totally useless
• they failed to figure out that Tillotson and Gash had done their DSC test under inert gas, and fail to understand why
• when interpreting the DSC results, they failed to account for the inevitable oxidation reaction of the organix matrix
• In short, they failed from beginning to end

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Isn't it nice to be able to make up stuff

...says the man who invented the stuff about "The Bentham Paper and AE911 Truth ... are quite willing to concede [LaClede primer] had to exist in the WTC dust". Pot, meet kettle.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

and know that only the minority, the 9/11 Truth seekers will object?

You are not a truth seeker. You are a defender and inventor of lies and frauds.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Accredited scientists

...of irrlevant acedemic fields and lacking all the necessary qualifications, as evidenced by the long list of fails detailed, not exhaustively, above....

Originally Posted by Miragememories

reached a conclusion of nanothermite and publicized their findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

I happen to have read the peer-review by fellow Twoofer David Griscom. He reminded Harrit e.al. that the 100 nm grains look just like paint pigment most usually do, and reminded them that they have no satisfying explanation for Si. Harrit e.al. foolishly did not take heed. Bentham published anyway, because a check was sent, and it cleared.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Other than your own bias, you have revealed no personal qualifications, or specific knowledge that justifies stating; "They tried to pass it off as Thermite.".

Neither have you. The difference between me and you is that you must rest your case on the questionable authority of a bunch of frauds, while I can hold myself in a discussion of the actual scientific merits. I understand the science, you clearly don't.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The NIST, in spite of their known familiarity with thermitic material, chose to believe that it was not to be found in a WTC debris analysis, so they never attempted to investigate whether or not that assumption was valid.

That's because the people at NIST are smart, qualified and prudent.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

No one has disputed that among all the different paint formulations that existed in the WTC, LaClede primer was one of them.

Another pat on the shoulder from George Orwell. Everyone in their camp has so far studiously avoided making any comment at all that would reveal they even know about LaClede paint, which would then reveal them as liars and frauds the next time they claim that the chips have been "proven" to not be "the WTC steel primer". I lie last spread in the March newsletter sent to all AE911Twoof sheep.

And YOU, Miragememories, STUDIOUSLY avoid admitting, and use Orwellian gymnastics to deny, that AE911T LIED to all their sheep in that newsletter. Shame on you, MM! Shame on you for defending lies!

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Oystein has failed to prove that the cleaned red chips contained LaClede primer paint

The failure, again, is entirely to be laid at the feet of the 9 incompetent authors of the Bentham paper. THEY failed to properly identify the chips.

They found ALL the ingredients of LaClede shop paint AND LaClede steel in the right amounts in chips a-d:
Red layer:
- An organic matrix that Millette confirmed to epoxy
- iron oxide pigments in the typical size for a red-orange color
- aluminium silicate
- Strontium and Chromium - but unfortunately failed to figure out in what chemical compounds, which is their fault, not mine. But strontium chromate is a possible, if not likely candidate.
Gray layer:
- Oxidized iron
- Carbon
- Manganese

Originally Posted by Miragememories

in spite of his thread title claiming he has done so.

You have no qualification to make that call, and you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Having a thread title which is a blatant lie is like having a billboard for misinformation.

Millette has confirmed that the chips most similar to chips a-d are entirely consistent with ordinary primer paint, as all ingredients are extremely common paint ingredients.

Furthemore, he has confirmed what was already clear from the Bentham paper: These chips contain ZERO elemental Al, not even Al-oxide.

Therefore the thermite theory is totally DISPROVEN, the paint theory stands stronger than ever.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Recent investigative work by Dr. Millette failed to support Oystein's LaClede paint hypothesis.

Now this is true in one small aspect: He has not found strontium chromate.

His was a preliminary report. I can wait for the final.

Even if the chips happen not to be LaClede primer, they still are entirely, 100% consistent with paint, and in no way, 0%, consistent with thermite. This is the bare truth of the matter that you deny because you, in your incompetence, have elected to believe sharlatans.



Now, in your studious and deliberate avoidance of critical thought and hard facts, you have elected not certain questions I asked of you. I won't let you get away with that evasion and dodging:

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The Bentham Paper and AE911 Truth have never denied the existence of LaClede paint in WTC.

They also have most studiously avoided any acknowledgement of it. I am glad you are beyond that childish state. If I am wrong and any of the authors, or any of the AE911T have ever anywhere acknowledged LaClede, please provide a link and quote!

Originally Posted by Miragememories

And they are quite willing to concede it had to exist in the WTC dust and quite likely was in the surface residue of uncleaned red/gray chips.

How do you know they "quite willingly concede this"? Who? Where? The Blueprint newsletter looses no word on that, they are NOT quite willing to concede this to their trustful "members", it seems!

I think you make that stuff up. Please support your allegations with evidence!

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

This is why I know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust.

That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint.

http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf

Originally Posted by Harrit

"In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could
not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!)."

MM

Fool.

Notice he uses "the primer paint" in the singular!
Which protective paint is he talking about?

1. Tnemec red only
2. LaClede shop primer only
3. both
4. neitjer
5. other primer
6. all primers

This shall be interesting! Notice he specifically mentions that "the primer paint" contains zinc. Does LaClede contain zinc? Does, therefore, his statement include LaClede primer as a possibility?

From the introduction:

Originally Posted by Harrit

This letter compares the elemental composition and the thermal stability of the two materials based on the description of the protective paint in the NIST report and observations on the red/grey chips.

Which protective paint is he talking about?

1. Tnemec red only
2. LaClede shop primer only
3. both
4. neither
5. other primer
6. all primers

This shall be interesting! Notice he uses "the protective paint" in the singular!



Man MM, you are such a masochist when you lie! You are becoming more and more obvious!

[Ivan Kminek]

MM: So there!

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

MM: So there!

??

Well we got the speech and the usual rhetoric.

I am still waiting for the rebuttal.

MM

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Oystein

That is correct. The fault is entirely to be laid at the feet of the 9 incompetent authors of the Bentham paper because

• they failed to analyse the chips using competent methods
• the compared the "right" chips (a-d) with the "wrong" primer (Tnemec)
• but the failed to compare the MEK-soaked chip with Tnemec
• they failed to realize that there was more than one primer, and consequently...
• ...they failed to compare chips a-d with other primers, most notably LaClede shop primer
• they failed to recognize that the Al- and S-rich platelike particles are kaolin clay, an exceedingly common ingredient of paints
• they failed to realize at first that the "whitish" (in the BSE images) particles are iron oxide
• they failed to realize that ~100-150 nm is a very usual and exceedingly common pigment size for the most common red pigment of all, iron oxide, not high tech
• they failed to notice the relevance of their finding at least six significantly different kinds of chips
• they failed entirely to figure out what the organic matrix is
• in the DSC test, they failed entirely to first characterize just what they put in the machinem, thus rendering the test totally useless
• they failed to figure out that Tillotson and Gash had done their DSC test under inert gas, and fail to understand why
• when interpreting the DSC results, they failed to account for the inevitable oxidation reaction of the organix matrix
• In short, they failed from beginning to end

...says the man who invented the stuff about "The Bentham Paper and AE911 Truth ... are quite willing to concede [LaClede primer] had to exist in the WTC dust". Pot, meet kettle.


You are not a truth seeker. You are a defender and inventor of lies and frauds.


...of irrlevant acedemic fields and lacking all the necessary qualifications, as evidenced by the long list of fails detailed, not exhaustively, above....


I happen to have read the peer-review by fellow Twoofer David Griscom. He reminded Harrit e.al. that the 100 nm grains look just like paint pigment most usually do, and reminded them that they have no satisfying explanation for Si. Harrit e.al. foolishly did not take heed. Bentham published anyway, because a check was sent, and it cleared.


Neither have you. The difference between me and you is that you must rest your case on the questionable authority of a bunch of frauds, while I can hold myself in a discussion of the actual scientific merits. I understand the science, you clearly don't.


That's because the people at NIST are smart, qualified and prudent.


Another pat on the shoulder from George Orwell. Everyone in their camp has so far studiously avoided making any comment at all that would reveal they even know about LaClede paint, which would then reveal them as liars and frauds the next time they claim that the chips have been "proven" to not be "the WTC steel primer". I lie last spread in the March newsletter sent to all AE911Twoof sheep.

And YOU, Miragememories, STUDIOUSLY avoid admitting, and use Orwellian gymnastics to deny, that AE911T LIED to all their sheep in that newsletter. Shame on you, MM! Shame on you for defending lies!


The failure, again, is entirely to be laid at the feet of the 9 incompetent authors of the Bentham paper. THEY failed to properly identify the chips.

They found ALL the ingredients of LaClede shop paint AND LaClede steel in the right amounts in chips a-d:
Red layer:
- An organic matrix that Millette confirmed to epoxy
- iron oxide pigments in the typical size for a red-orange color
- aluminium silicate
- Strontium and Chromium - but unfortunately failed to figure out in what chemical compounds, which is their fault, not mine. But strontium chromate is a possible, if not likely candidate.
Gray layer:
- Oxidized iron
- Carbon
- Manganese


You have no qualification to make that call, and you are wrong.


Millette has confirmed that the chips most similar to chips a-d are entirely consistent with ordinary primer paint, as all ingredients are extremely common paint ingredients.

Furthemore, he has confirmed what was already clear from the Bentham paper: These chips contain ZERO elemental Al, not even Al-oxide.

Therefore the thermite theory is totally DISPROVEN, the paint theory stands stronger than ever.


Now this is true in one small aspect: He has not found strontium chromate.

His was a preliminary report. I can wait for the final.

Even if the chips happen not to be LaClede primer, they still are entirely, 100% consistent with paint, and in no way, 0%, consistent with thermite. This is the bare truth of the matter that you deny because you, in your incompetence, have elected to believe sharlatans.

Now, in your studious and deliberate avoidance of critical thought and hard facts, you have elected not certain questions I asked of you. I won't let you get away with that evasion and dodging:


They also have most studiously avoided any acknowledgement of it. I am glad you are beyond that childish state. If I am wrong and any of the authors, or any of the AE911T have ever anywhere acknowledged LaClede, please provide a link and quote!


How do you know they "quite willingly concede this"? Who? Where? The Blueprint newsletter looses no word on that, they are NOT quite willing to concede this to their trustful "members", it seems!

I think you make that stuff up. Please support your allegations with evidence!

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

MM: So there!

It's like clubbing kittens.

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Oystein

That is correct. The fault is entirely to be laid at the feet of the 9 incompetent authors of the Bentham paper because

• they failed to analyse the chips using competent methods
• the compared the "right" chips (a-d) with the "wrong" primer (Tnemec)
• but the failed to compare the MEK-soaked chip with Tnemec
• they failed to realize that there was more than one primer, and consequently...
• ...they failed to compare chips a-d with other primers, most notably LaClede shop primer
• they failed to recognize that the Al- and S-rich platelike particles are kaolin clay, an exceedingly common ingredient of paints
• they failed to realize at first that the "whitish" (in the BSE images) particles are iron oxide
• they failed to realize that ~100-150 nm is a very usual and exceedingly common pigment size for the most common red pigment of all, iron oxide, not high tech
• they failed to notice the relevance of their finding at least six significantly different kinds of chips
• they failed entirely to figure out what the organic matrix is
• in the DSC test, they failed entirely to first characterize just what they put in the machinem, thus rendering the test totally useless
• they failed to figure out that Tillotson and Gash had done their DSC test under inert gas, and fail to understand why
• when interpreting the DSC results, they failed to account for the inevitable oxidation reaction of the organix matrix
• In short, they failed from beginning to end

The incompetence of that paper is so great that one has to suspect more than mere incompetence, even granting that they were working outside their specialty. They're still scientifically trained.

One has to suspect deliberate deception, or that their agenda has driven them to throw out all their intellectual standards, a form of self-deception.

[Orphia Nay]

Besides MM and Senenmut, do we even have any *thermite believers anymore?

It seems the truther response to the paper is conspicuous by its absence.

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Besides MM and Senenmut, do we even have any *thermite believers anymore?

It seems the truther response to the paper is conspicuous by its absence.

A significant number of 9/11 Truth people, if they are aware of the Millette paper, are generally willing to give up the Bentham conclusion of thermite if it's proven false. I hear them say, if any one piece of the theory is proven false, we have hundreds of other reasons and consider them valid, so the big theory remains intact. Which is why I have 22 YouTube videos and 238 reasons, to show that ALL of their technical claims have serious problems ...and that the commonly accepted narrative is plausible, NISTpickers notwithstanding. I've already been told by several people that the Millette paper may change their minds about thermite but not about 9/11 CD is general.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

... I've already been told by several people that the Millette paper may change their minds about thermite but not about 9/11 CD is general.

Their delusion is irreducible, after all.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

A significant number of 9/11 Truth people, if they are aware of the Millette paper, are generally willing to give up the Bentham conclusion of thermite if it's proven false. I hear them say, if any one piece of the theory is proven false, we have hundreds of other reasons and consider them valid, so the big theory remains intact. Which is why I have 22 YouTube videos and 238 reasons, to show that ALL of their technical claims have serious problems ...and that the commonly accepted narrative is plausible, NISTpickers notwithstanding. I've already been told by several people that the Millette paper may change their minds about thermite but not about 9/11 CD is general.

Yes. And that's their whole problem: They're doing convergence of evidence wrong.

• Converging lines of evidence or argument should all build to consistent narratives, not contradicting ones.
  
  
  • Truthers say the collapses looks just like a "controlled demolition"... then when differences are pointed out they say that it was not a conventional one.
    
  • Truthers say that explosives were used... then when refuted they move to something different like thermite. But when the problems with thermite are shown, they say they still believe in "CD", despite basing that belief on the very theories that were disproven.
  
  They think that "Where there's smoke, there's fire" applies to 9/11. Problem is, the smoke is of their own creation; it's not naturally there.
  
  
  
• When evidence creates contradictions, then the progression of knowledge needs to point at an answer that encompasses what's already known. The theorists cannot merely jump from one theory to another because it's convenient for the specific, isolated points being discussed.
  
  When the measurements of planetary motions started to demonstrate problems with geocentric cosmology, the eventual replacement (heliocentrism) still encompassed the variations in speed and direction that epicycles and deferrents previously explained. But in trutherology, thermite cannot replace explosives, nor can explosives theories replace thermite demolitions, because neither of them encompass known state of recovered steel, lack of opportunity to install, etc. The evidence creates contradictions to "controlled demolitions" theories that jumping between thermite and explosives does not resolve.
  
  And just as a poke towards Steven Jones, combining them does no good either.
  
  
• Theories proposed can have many series of faults and still be correct. But theories cannot be fundamentally contradicted at their fundaments.
  
  As long as the fundamental basis of a theory is sound, the progression of knowledge will correct and refine explanations. "Billiard ball" atomic theory got corrected to the "plum pudding" model, then further refined by the Rutherford gold foil experiments to the "planetary" nuclear model, and so on. But the fundamental premise of unique, discrete entities being the basic building block of matter was still correct the entire time; it was the specifics that needed work.
  
  Yet, any notion of demolitions gets contradicted at their center, from Bazant et. al.'s demonstration of potential energy being sufficient for total collapse without explosives (contradicting directly the notion that explosives were indeed needed), to no steel in collapse initiation zones showing any signs of demolitions effects, to explosives sounds being insufficient, and so on.
  
  Truthers defense of and belief in intentional demolitions is too strongly akin to the historical belief in Lysenkoism. That was initially thought to be equal in explanitory power to genetic inheritance theory. It at best was "validated" only on the basis of scattered and isolated "confirmations" but in reality was enthusiastically adopted due to political worldview. The observations made were the excuse, not the real reason. As time progressed and knowledge developed, support for genetics became stronger and more refined while the flaws in Lysenkoism became more numerous and internally contradictory. But that didn't stop the Lysenkoists.
  
  The pattern stays surprisingly true for truthers.

The entire problem is that truthers believe that their "evidence" builds to an explanation of "controlled demolitions". That's not the case; their piles of anomalies build nothing, no more than a simple pile of bricks builds a house. Their theories show no consistent structure outside of paranoia, and are little more than bias-confirmed explanations for series of percieves anomalies. Noise in an echo chamber is not debate, and flawed explanations, no matter how numerous, are not sufficient bases for truth. Lines of evidence must build towards a consistent narrative that is merely refined, not refuted, by further discovery and analysis of the event. It cannot be mere piles of claims, structureless and internally contradictory.

This is their failure. "Pile of claims" is not convergence of evidence. It never has been.

[LSSBB]

Delete -duplicate

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Yes. And that's their whole problem: They're doing convergence of evidence wrong.

• Converging lines of evidence or argument should all build to consistent narratives, not contradicting ones.
  
  
  • Truthers say the collapses looks just like a "controlled demolition"... then when differences are pointed out they say that it was not a conventional one.
    
  • Truthers say that explosives were used... then when refuted they move to something different like thermite. But when the problems with thermite are shown, they say they still believe in "CD", despite basing that belief on the very theories that were disproven.
  
  They think that "Where there's smoke, there's fire" applies to 9/11. Problem is, the smoke is of their own creation; it's not naturally there.
  
  
  
• When evidence creates contradictions, then the progression of knowledge needs to point at an answer that encompasses what's already known. The theorists cannot merely jump from one theory to another because it's convenient for the specific, isolated points being discussed.
  
  When the measurements of planetary motions started to demonstrate problems with geocentric cosmology, the eventual replacement (heliocentrism) still encompassed the variations in speed and direction that epicycles and deferrents previously explained. But in trutherology, thermite cannot replace explosives, nor can explosives theories replace thermite demolitions, because neither of them encompass known state of recovered steel, lack of opportunity to install, etc. The evidence creates contradictions to "controlled demolitions" theories that jumping between thermite and explosives does not resolve.
  
  And just as a poke towards Steven Jones, combining them does no good either.
  
  
• Theories proposed can have many series of faults and still be correct. But theories cannot be fundamentally contradicted at their fundaments.
  
  As long as the fundamental basis of a theory is sound, the progression of knowledge will correct and refine explanations. "Billiard ball" atomic theory got corrected to the "plum pudding" model, then further refined by the Rutherford gold foil experiments to the "planetary" nuclear model, and so on. But the fundamental premise of unique, discrete entities being the basic building block of matter was still correct the entire time; it was the specifics that needed work.
  
  Yet, any notion of demolitions gets contradicted at their center, from Bazant et. al.'s demonstration of potential energy being sufficient for total collapse without explosives (contradicting directly the notion that explosives were indeed needed), to no steel in collapse initiation zones showing any signs of demolitions effects, to explosives sounds being insufficient, and so on.
  
  Truthers defense of and belief in intentional demolitions is too strongly akin to the historical belief in Lysenkoism. That was initially thought to be equal in explanitory power to genetic inheritance theory. It at best was "validated" only on the basis of scattered and isolated "confirmations" but in reality was enthusiastically adopted due to political worldview. The observations made were the excuse, not the real reason. As time progressed and knowledge developed, support for genetics became stronger and more refined while the flaws in Lysenkoism became more numerous and internally contradictory. But that didn't stop the Lysenkoists.
  
  The pattern stays surprisingly true for truthers.

The entire problem is that truthers believe that their "evidence" builds to an explanation of "controlled demolitions". That's not the case; their piles of anomalies build nothing, no more than a simple pile of bricks builds a house. Their theories show no consistent structure outside of paranoia, and are little more than bias-confirmed explanations for series of percieves anomalies. Noise in an echo chamber is not debate, and flawed explanations, no matter how numerous, are not sufficient bases for truth. Lines of evidence must build towards a consistent narrative that is merely refined, not refuted, by further discovery and analysis of the event. It cannot be mere piles of claims, structureless and internally contradictory.

This is their failure. "Pile of claims" is not convergence of evidence. It never has been.

And don't forget the most important bullet: self-analysis. They don't read all that you just said and strive to see how it applies to them, only rejecting it without digesting it.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Yes. And that's their whole problem: They're doing convergence of evidence wrong.[list]
<snip>
This is their failure. "Pile of claims" is not convergence of evidence. It never has been.

Well said!

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

A significant number of 9/11 Truth people, if they are aware of the Millette paper, are generally willing to give up the Bentham conclusion of thermite if it's proven false. I hear them say, if any one piece of the theory is proven false, we have hundreds of other reasons and consider them valid, so the big theory remains intact. Which is why I have 22 YouTube videos and 238 reasons, to show that ALL of their technical claims have serious problems ...and that the commonly accepted narrative is plausible, NISTpickers notwithstanding. I've already been told by several people that the Millette paper may change their minds about thermite but not about 9/11 CD is general.

This is not only ironic, it's a double-standard on the part of truthers. Nanothermite has been trumpeted by too many truthers as 'peer reviewed proof' of explosive CD. If the paper is refuted soundly, then so is this alleged proof of CD.
Thermite has also long been touted as the reason why explosions did not occur as WTC 7 fell. If thermite is ruled out then, as conventional explosives are likewise not applicable, CD did not happen.

One might ask them what they found so important about the Bentham paper that is now so unimportant!

If you saw one leg off a table, it might stay standing. But saw off another leg and now it won't. Truthers are pulling a Wile E. Coyote maneuver: they haven't started falling into the chasm even though nothing is supporting them anymore.
In this case the force they are denying is simple reality; by continuing to deny it they become nothing but cartoons.

[Josarhus]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

This is why I know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust.

That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint.

http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf



MM

Harrits will not discuss Millette's paper in public, because it hasn’t been published jet. But through one of Harrits truther friends I have been able to establish that Harrits consider only one paint being used on WTC steel.

Harrits truther friend tells me that Harrit will not consider other paints since he cannot get hold of a sample of other paints.

I told Harrits truther friend that both paints are described in the NIST report and he responded:

Quote:

So NIST is describing "another paint" in their report? Then it's funny that they could only get hold on one.

Furthermore Harrit, through his friend, responded that Millette’s FTIR test contradicts his results about the matrix being epoxy.

The first part is obviously more of a panic reaction by Harrit, apparently because he missed the second paint being described in the NIST report, and now want to do what ever he can to avoid comparing this “new” paint to the chips in his paper.

The second part about FTIR/epoxy is much more interesting.

Again this is not directly from Harrit, but from one of his friends, but I know that he has been in contact with Harrit on this specific matter.

[Ivan Kminek]

Josarhus: Thanks for this info

As for: "Harrits will not discuss Millette's paper in public, because it hasn’t been published yet" - this is quite understandable.

As for: "Harrits truther friend tells me that Harrit will not consider other paints since he cannot get hold of a sample of other paints." This is of course a kind of evasion. Laclede paint is described in NIST report in sufficient details to be fully considered as a material of red-gray chips. Namely if some Bentham chips (a) to (d) show such apparent/stunning resemblance of XEDS spectra with the simulated spectra of Laclede paint

As for: "Furthermore Harrit, through his friend, responded that Millette’s FTIR test contradicts his results about the matrix being epoxy." I'm not sure if I understand. Millette's FTIR spectra do not prove epoxy (according to Harrit)? Or Harrit's and Millette's FTIR spectra are different?

[Josarhus]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

As for: "Furthermore Harrit, through his friend, responded that Millette’s FTIR test contradicts his results about the matrix being epoxy." I'm not sure if I understand. Millette's FTIR spectra do not prove epoxy (according to Harrit)? Or Harrit's and Millette's FTIR spectra are different?

According to Harrit, Millette's FTIR contradicts Millette's results on the matrix being epoxy.

Harrits will not publish or discuss his FTIR, again according to the same friend of Harrits:

Quote:

The FTIR they did are as relevant as Harrits shoe size

This comment came after he consulted Harrit on this matter and after I asked why he (Harrit) would not release the FTIR results as promised.

[Miragememories]

If you want to challenge the Bentham Paper, you either prove they faked their results, or you prove they misinterpreted them.

A good place to start, unlike Dr. Millett'e bogus duplicate study, would be the use of identical Bentham test methodology on some 'proven' LaClede paint samples of similar age and size.

Unless every WTC-era building that used LaClede steel primer paint has mysteriously collapsed, there should be incredible amounts of this stuff on existing steel, and only a scraping away.

And before it is suggested that I do this, it is not my hypothesis that the red chips are LaClede steel primer paint.

MM

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

If you want to challenge the Bentham Paper, you either prove they faked their results, or you prove they misinterpreted them.

Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite, despite being at most 5% thermite, yet this energy comes from a single exotherm. Therefore, the energy released does not originate from a thermite reaction.

Done.

Dave

[WTC Dust]

I did a survey last year of about a thousand of the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and one result was interesting.

About 10% of the members haven't signed the petition specifying thermite and do not have anything related to explosives mentioned in their bios or websites.

Interesting, huh? That at least 10% of A&E911T folks didn't sign onto the thermite theory.