Support 911Blogger


A replication of Thermite study is coming within weeks from Dr. James Millette.

Chris Mohr has organized a fund raiser, which quickly reaised $1000 for equipment and expenses for Dr. James Millette to study the WTC dust. Chris reports that Dr. Millette is almost finished with the test. Here is some information about him, from www.ChrisMohr911.com/JamesMillette

James R. Millette, Ph.D., executive director of MVA Scientific Consultants, Duluth, Ga., has received the ASTM International Award of Merit from Committee D22 on Air Quality. The Award of Merit is the highest society award granted to an individual ASTM member for distinguished service and outstanding participation in committee activities.

Replication of experiments is so important for the scientific method, and for 9/11 Truthto be taken seriously by the scientific community. It has been 3 years since the Thermite study was published in the Bentham Open Journal. We cannot stand on that alone.

You don't get it.

Milette is being paid $1000 to debunk the nanothermite paper by German JREFer "Oystein". He will complete the assignment as requested and paid for. Personally,. I believe there is not a chance in hell he's going to 'confirm' the findings, but if he does, I think his principals will be very upset.

Don't be fooled by Chris Mohr's fake civility and Millette's supposed impartiality. Their agendas are much clearer if you read their online postings when they think truthers aren't watching.

Oystein has been coming around the911forum and has made his intentions and methods quite clear. Facts be damned.

I don't trust either side of the debate much anymore, but I remain dedicated to facts. The findings as published in the Active Thermitic Materials paper are not commensurate with any sort of 'paint'. The only thing which would explain the findings without nano-thermite would be scientific fraud.

"...nanothermite paper by German JREFer "Oystein"' ?

Did a double take on that one. Assuming you mean: "Millette is being paid ... by German JREFer "Oystein." In fact, I think several of the "debunkers" pitched in.

I don't know what to think of Chris Mohr. He seems sincere, if grossly misinformed. But after reading a bit more about the project in the JREF thread "Chain of Custody", I question whether he really made a genuine effort to find a neutral party. To pick someone who already published a dust study that doesn't even mention the iron microspheres doesn't sound like a good start.

However, I do believe if Millette is honest, then Chris will be honest with the results.

Would a negative result really matter either way?

Certainly we can't expect 100% of all samples to contain thermitic materials. If we look at this medical publication I linked to below we see that 4 of 7 samples had similar particle structures as the CNT,s found in first responders lungs. Of course, I think the samples of dust that were used in this study should be looked at. If Mr Millette is conducting a truly honest study, he would share his sample (s) so that HIS conclusions can be replicated as well. Replication is key and just as Bazant's theory can't be replicated by any experiment, I will wait to see if Dr Millette's can be as well. I am curious where he obtained his sample(s). We know Mark Basile obtained his own independent sample. Ultimately, many more samples need to be tested. A proper sampling size should be a minimum of 30 samples in order to build a real consensus with reliable conclusions. Again, I would start by looking at the 7 samples used in the study below. Would dust samples collected in the Weidlinger report be subject to FOIA? Sry, thinking aloud there. That's my take. peace all.

dtg

"Carbon Nano Tubes Found in Lungs of First Responders"
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0901159

The contains this interesting revelation:
"Of the patients with interstitial disease, all had large amounts of aluminum and magnesium (Carbon Nano Tubes) in an unusual platy configuration , ranging from 27,600 to 184,000/g wet weight of lung. As a comparison, we reexamined for the presence of CNT in 40 samples taken from unrelated workers from diverse construction trades suspected for asbestos-related disease. These patients were known to have been exposed to asbestos, and most of these 40 patients had a high lung burden of asbestos fibers. Less than 10%, however, had platy aluminum and magnesium silicates similar to those seen in WTC patients."

And then describes WTC dust samples used for comparison:
"Electron microscopy mineralogic findings: A summary of the mineralogic analysis in correlation with pathologic features is given in Table 1. Four of the seven WTC dust samples contained CNT. The lung specimens of three of the patients with interstitial disease (Patients A, B, and C) contained CNT (Figure 3A) virtually identical to those of the dust samples (Figure 3B) and of the positive control sample (Figure 3C).

I appreciate the comment --

"I remain dedicated to facts. The findings as published in the Active Thermitic Materials paper are not commensurate with any sort of 'paint'. The only thing which would explain the findings without nano-thermite would be scientific fraud."

I agree with this statement, SnowCrash; and thank you for stating it clearly.

I cannot comment on Millette's impartiality at this time; I'm waiting to see his methods and the results that he actually publishes.

Replication has already occured

with the work of Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile, who independently confirmed the thermitic findings of the Bentham paper. Mark found and analyzed the red/gray chips in WTC dust samples.

I am skeptical of Jim Millette and his sponsors. They clearly have an agenda to debunk the 2009 paper and may not report their results honestly, despite claims to the contrary. However, it is interesting that he has found the same red/gray chips (about 40 extracted so far). He promises to do lab tests to determine what they are, but if he tries to claim they're paint, he's lying. These chips are not paint. Here's a magnified comparison of nano chips vs. WTC paint that Mark Basile sent me:
nano:
Photobucket

paint:Photobucket

Furthermore, paint does not ignite when subjected to a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) like these chips do, demonstrating energetic properties. The energy spikes can be measured. Also from Mark using the same DSC technique as Harrit-Farrer et al.

Re: Replication has already occured

I would like to see the DSC test conducted in an oxygen-free environment. Pure nitrogen for the atmosphere would probably suffice. If the chips ignite at around 400 degrees C in an oxygen-free environment and release end-products of aluminum oxide and metallic iron, then evidence would strongly suggest that it is effectively a thermitic material, regardless of whether it is paint or thermite. If buildings are being painted with a thermitic paint, regardless of whether intentional or not, that in itself would seem to be an issue in need of investigation. It would constitute a significant fire hazard, wouldn't you think?

The LLNL tests on known nano-thermite referred to in the Harrit

et al. paper were conducted in air -- according to an interview by Dr. Farrer with one of the LLNL researchers listed on that paper.

The key issue you correctly identify is important to re-emphasize: the formation of metallic-iron-rich spheres upon ignition of the red material -- which demonstrates very high temperatures and that a thermitic reaction has occurred.

(duplicate)

accidental duplicate deleted)

Nice, but not necessary

Wildbear, yes it would be interesting to see whether the red chips would ignite in the same way in an oxygen-free atmosphere. However, if they did not, it would prove nothing against the Active Thermitic Material hypothesis, as oxygen was present in the towers.

The important criterion regarding the DSC test is that the product is globular iron, hence previously molten. There is no way that the combustion of organic material in air can produce a temperature high enough to produce molten iron.

For those promoting "thermitic paint", the responsibility is theirs to find a sample of such material and to show that it had been applied in large scale in the towers. A theory without evidence is just a distraction.

Yes, Mark Basile has done excellent work so far on the red-gray

chips; please note that his research is continuing (I understand).

"Furthermore, paint does not ignite when subjected to a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) like these chips do, demonstrating energetic properties" -- actually, paint samples will probably ignite in a DSC while demonstrating different properties (such as the narrowness of the thermal spike).

Dr. Farrer has ignited a paint sample in a DSC and the paint sample showed a much broader thermal spike, indicating a relatively slow heat-release (compared to the red/gray chips).

For further discussion on nano-thermite,

please see my Blog from May 2011:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-thermite-nanothermite-and-conventional-explosives-used...

My best wishes to the 9/11 truth community. FYI, my main research focus at this time remains on seeking alternative energy sources for the benefit of mankind. See (for example):

http://www.physics.byu.edu/TalkList.aspx?talkID=247

Peer review

"He promises to do lab tests to determine what they are, but if he tries to claim they're paint, he's lying."

Irrespective of the subject matter, peer review is about independent confirmation of an experiment. You cannot ignore a result even if it doesn't suit your agenda.

Whatever Mohr comes up with...

...this is what it is about:

Undisputable.

We could have 9/11 truth without nanothermite.

Go to school, Chris!

Agreed that the OBSERVED free-fall acceleration of WTC7

is very strong evidence for questioning the official 9/11 narrative. David Chandler and I questioned NIST about their analysis in August 2008, and NIST finally provided the graph you show -- which indisputably verifies that WTC7 exhibited free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet.

Yes, with this evidence regarding WTC7 including the admission from NIST -- and numerous other evidences -- I agree that "We could have 9/11 truth without nanothermite."

At the same time, I am confident that the Harrit et al. conclusion will stand the test of time -- that the red material found in the WTC dust represents a thermitic material.

Thank You

I think the work you all have done regarding thermite/nanothermite has stood its ground quite well thus far.

Presentations By MVA

Presentations By MVA Scientific Consultants

Dr. James Millette:

“Update on Dust Particulate Analysis from World Trade Center Disaster of September 11, 2001″
Rich Brown:

http://www.mvainc.com/2012/01/13/feb-20-25-2012-american-academy-of-forensic-science-aafs-2012-annual-meeting/

Chris Mohr has posted the results of the study

here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314

and it will be published in a scientific journal as well.

Washing of the Red/gray particles

"Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water."

This sounds strange. Could it be, that they washed something out?

The above link is to the Millette report

in case anyone hadn't noticed.

A response from Harrit et al would be appreciated. I understand a full review of this report may take some time.

Reportedly, a refereed journal will be publishing Millette's findings. It seems that journal ought to publish a reply or letter from Harrit et al, too. At a minimum, Harrit et al need to issue a public response to the journal-published Millette paper.

opportunity

This could be a good opportunity to have a scientific conversation in a refereed journal.

I have a novice question about the "ashing". It seems like they burned the red layer and didn't talk about the (explosive?) behavior during burning. Is that's why the aluminum is missing afterwards? Did it become something else? This may be a stupid question.

But I'm hopeful that there will be more public, scientific conversation.

He didn't talk about the explosive behaviour

because he didn't heat it to the temperature it would ignite. I'm not sure what the ashing was about, or the heating to 400 deg C was for. It wasn't an ignition test.

As I understand it, Millette is saying the chips are paint because he found no elemental aluminum in the red layer that would make it thermitic (only kaolin platelets that contain Al). Therefore, "no need" in his mind to do a thermal test. I find it curious that he wouldn't want to go through this step anyway, since he's supposed to be replicating Harrit, Jones, et al. Was he afraid of what would happen if he went above 400 deg?

But someone correct me if I'm not understanding this right.

About "replication"

See the first comment (prediction) of this thread. There never was going to be any replication.

Response to Frank Legge

Frank, have you not noticed Millette's rebuttal? Have you forgotten Frédéric Henry-Couannier?

The paper itself cannot be said to support anything other than thermitic materials. Yes, the only place that leaves room for, is skepticism about the authors.

Given the bizarre behavior of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, I am now voicing that skepticism publicly.

After all, what else is a Truth Gestapo to do?

Here's what I suggest. There should be plenty of WTC dust left in the hands of the paper's authors. Ignite those chips and film it.

Is this thermite or nanothermite?

Which iron rich microspheres are formed above which are not already present?

This is Tillotson:

The Youtube clip doesn't depict nanothermite. It depicts a deflagration of an organic material.

If I'm wrong, I publicly apologize and a government nanothermite conspiracy is a proven fact. I'll gladly sacrifice my reputation for that. But me and several others are now fed up with the vicious attacks, the inexplicable, bizarre antics and the lack of accountability of our leaders. Publish a TEM and FTIR analysis, do what Tillotson did. We shall see. Quoting Steven:

"A member of our team has undertaken FTIR studies which I hope will provide the answers we seek."

-- Dr. Steven Jones, 2009-02-02

That was three years ago. Where are the results?

Let me be clear: I'm skeptical about both sides at this time.

elemental aluminum

There is also the issue of elemental aluminum. If the authors of the nanothermite paper would act like scientists and co operate with other scientists, like Dr. James Millette, instead of making accusations and refuse to cooperate perhaps one could point out this elemental aluminum since both papers agree it has to be there for the material to be thermetic. And Millette says it is not there.

As I point out here....
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=60

Also to Frank

911blogger user "kawika" has been asking around and offering WTC dust for study.

And I've been studying how DSC works, yes, and I do think the DSC published in the ATM paper supports the conclusions of nanothermite, and a DSC study is noticeably absent from Millette's paper.

To me, it seems the study of the red/gray chips has been abandoned in favor of free energy ('overunity') and man-made earthquakes, two pointless endeavors.

Another question

What was the maximum temperature reached in ignited samples? Was this temperature measured? I don't recall. I don't mean temperature inferred from the presence of iron-rich microspheres, or visual observation of sample burn color, but temperature measured by instrumentation. This shouldn't be too hard too measure directly, should it?

2Al + Fe2O3 → 2Fe + Al2O3 needs to approach 2773 Kelvin. Prove it.

What is your logic?

Surely the presence of globular iron is proof of two things: (1). Free aluminium was present in the red chip material and (2), a temperature far higher than the DSC was heated to - 800 degrees hotter. That is a huge temperature margin.

Free aluminium was also proved by the proportion of aluminium to oxygen in the red chip analysis.

I had a boss

who once told me: "meten is weten", which is a Dutch expression meaning: "to measure is to know".

What's wrong with measuring the maximum temperature directly, not relying on deduction? Why will the authors of the paper not do this? Is it technically impossible?

If the temperature is in excess of 1473K, it can't be organic material burning. If the temperature doesn't even approach 1811K, no iron could have melted.

I know you think the observations you list are sufficient. I don't. Very high temperatures are another key characteristic of thermitic reactions and measuring the temperature achieved should be relevant information.

Ways of measuring

A DSC does not measure temperature; it measures the rate of energy production per gram. One of the standard ways of determining temperature, however, is to note whether a material of known melting point has melted. This was done in the DSC. Pure iron melts at 1535 C. Impure would be a little lower but still far above anything that could have happened as a result of organic material burning.

The iron wasn't there at the start of the test. It was there at the end of the test. The conclusion is inescapable.

The main problem with the paper is that the work has not been repeated in the manner that one would expect for such a startling finding. You would think that laboratories all round the world would be clamouring for dust so that they could prove us right or wrong, but they aren't. There is probably a reason for that. And there isn't much dust.

I am very interested in your remark that kawika has some dust. How do I get in touch with him? I tried to email you directly but got a bounce. Have you changed your email address?

I remind you of the "Extremely High Temperatures.." paper at the Journal. This desribed the small spheres found in the dust, mainly iron, with the same analysis as spheres from the ignition of ordinarly thermite. The same spheres were found by RJ Lee company and the USGS. RJ Lee went so far as to say that these spheres were the signature of WTC dust. So that is three substantial groups that have found the spheres. They are just as convincing evidence for the use of thermitic material in the WTC as the red chips. You would be wise to keep that in mind when you are considering discrediting the Active Thermitic Materials paper.

Measuring, etc.

I know that's not what a DSC is for: a DSC heats two samples, one original and one reference sample, usually an empty container, at a steady rate, say 10 °C/minute, like Tillotson and you did, and then measures differences in heat flow between both samples. There are also different setups and mechanisms but I haven't looked into those. When an exothermic reaction happens, heat flow in the original sample exceeds the reference sample's heat flow and temperature increase stops as the DSC attempts to level out both. The heat generated from then on shapes the exotherm in the graph, and while some critics allege that since 10 degrees equals one minute, the peak doesn't represent a very rapid reaction but a very slow burn, I think they fail to account for a cooling period. Besides, any criticism they make applies to Tillotson as well.

Is my understanding of DSC flawed?

You say: "The iron wasn't there at the start of the test. It was there at the end of the test. The conclusion is inescapable."

I know that, and I have repeatedly said this. But according to Steven Jesus may have visited America, free unlimited energy is at out fingertips from a mere Joule Thief circuit and earthquakes may have been man made, whereas Kevin Ryan insists there were no Muslim hijackers, talks of bombs at the Pentagon and talks about hijackers alive, while excoriating his critics as "Mafia", "Gestapo" and so forth.

My skepticism isn't with the paper's inescapable conclusions, it's with the authors who pioneered the work behind those conclusions.

Were you there with Steven as he conducted those experiments? Why were the FTIR and TEM studies never published? Why is it so hard to measure the maximum temperature of the burning sample? You measure temperatures by measuring them, not by deducing them from changes in physical structure and morphology and light intensity when there are more accurate methods which can actually quantify the temperatures achieved. You don't see meteorologists look at water to see if there's ice and measure the light intensity of grass instead of using a thermometer either. That info might be useful, but it's not a direct measurement.

I am interested in those temperatures and I'm sure others are too. Why not measure and publish them? What's the big deal?

As for RJ Lee, I have written about that at Truth Action espousing exactly the same views you are now admonishing me to keep in mind. However, this is what RJ Lee said when asked about his findings in the context of the Controlled Demolition debate:

//www.nmsr.org/rjlee.jpg

One may find this explanation by RJ Lee preposterous, nevertheless it would be wise to keep it in mind as well.

Last sentence...

Read the last sentence of the document. It says that iron spheres are produced in furnaces. Furnaces reach temperatures much above the temperatures that can be reached in open office fires, even with jet fuel added. Thus, it seems to me that the document does not answer the question of why there are iron spheres in the dust. It only gives an appearance of an answer.

I agree

Yet that is the opinion of the author of the paper often cited by us, and the inventor of many electron microscopy technologies, manager of the largest electron microscope laboratory in the world.

Frankly, I find his blast furnace/hurricane winds excuse implausible, but to at least be aware of RJ Lee's position is valuable, wouldn't you say?

You never saw this before, yes? I know I didn't.

My position was RJ Lee was trying to 'hint' a few things to us between the lines of his Deutsche Bank environmental reports. I guess I was wrong. I'm disappointed by this e-mail, I find it indolent.

However, the way RJ Lee quickly shrugs this off gives me pause, and I will have to reexamine the issue more closely.

RJ Lee and prof. Thomas Eagar are in direct contradiction to each other.

Just to qualify this letter from RJ Lee

which was written in response to questions from Ron Wieck (that he did not disclose), further requests for clarification were forwarded, through Ron Wieck via "Oystein", as to what temperatures RJ Lee are suggesting when they refer to "blast furnace"-like temperatures in the WTC, and whether they're really suggesting that it was rust flakes that melted to form the spheres. Also, what temperatures they are suggesting for the melting or boiling of aluminosilicates. RJ Lee have as yet not responded.

Other discussion (assuming Snowcrash is referring to the JREF thread in which, I believe, this letter first appeared) has brought into question the melting points of iron and other metal particles as opposed to bulk metal, with the suggestion that metals in particulate form, or on a nano scale, will melt at lower temperatures than their bulk temperatures, due to the high surface-to-volume ratio. There seems to be some literature to back this up.

Of course, if this is the case, one wonders why RJ Lee, not to mention the ATM authors, would somehow not know this when they originally suggested "extreme temperatures" that formed the spheres and boiled the aluminosilicates.

None of this, of course, takes away from the fact that there were many, many reports of molten steel and molten metal in the debris pile, and that extreme temperatures and an unnaturally protracted burning inside the pile was noted. But these recent revelations are, as SnowCrash points out, direct challenges to what has become 9/11 truth dogma regarding microspheres and red-grey chips. Without, at some point, a clear response from those who have done the original research on these matters, it creates doubt about those findings.

And if James Millette is now going to publish in a mainstream science journal that there is no evidence of thermitics in the WTC dust, (if that was indeed his stated purpose) and that the microspheres were created in normal office fire temperatures, how will the ATM authors respond?

FYI

Melting point depression only occurs below 50 nm, while RJ Lee's SEM image of iron-rich microspheres shows a diameter of approximately 3 µm.

The phenomenon exists, but the JREFers are wrong, which is why RJ Lee didn't mention it.

If anybody can help me with the mean diameter of the iron-rich microspheres, be my guest.

Thanks for the insightful response.

Thanks for this clarification.

Wouldn't this then rule out RJ Lee's alleged rust flakes hypothesis then?

Also just noticed this on 911debunkers.blogspot (in two articles that nicely summarize the issue so far):

"Adam has informed me that Harrit et al are preparing their own response which I'm sure will be available shortly."

I'm not sure yet

I'm most skeptical about the "hurricane force winds" RJ Lee sees as contributing factors to the "blast furnace" conditions he imagines in the elevator shaft.

Frankly his response has me baffled, as in: that does not sound like the RJ Lee who is supposed to be a world-renowned expert. Does NIST tell of these imagined conditions anywhere in their report? Rich Lee is, furthermore, completely at odds with Thomas Eagar.

But, I've lost faith in "experts" wrt 9/11 a long time ago anyway. :)

Rightly skeptical.

just sounds nonsense. cannot believe this is 'expert' response to 'unusual'150x normal iron microshperes in dust.
the quantities do not add up. How much dust by volume? % of iron microspheres in dust?
thru 'hurricane elevator shaft flame tubes burning rust' - that is time constrained b4 collapse because by LEE scenario, no microspheres could have been produced once those buildings came down.

another 'new phenomenon'.

looking for another tag line

the magic blower theory
the magic blowhard theory
the magic bullshit theory?

:)

:)

Why baffled??

The reality within science is that for the majority of scientists, the politics of money and the sociological pressure to conform, weighs more than being scientifically accurate. If you so happen to be in a mainstream field and do research in agreement with mainstream ideas, then there is no sociological pressure, money is available, and you go on doing science the way it is supposed to be done. On the other hand, if you challenge dogma or authority the situation is very different. Most scientists will by default dismiss you not take you seriously. Even if you stand on firm scientific ground people will simply "know" that something must be wrong with what you are saying.The objections they raise will often tend to be of little substance. Of course, scientists that go against the mainstream, are not correct by default. In fact, in most cases they are wrong. But our heroes in science have of course been those bastards who refused to conform. Take Boltzmann, Tesla, Einstein, or most recently Dan Shechtman.

Scientists who have never worked outside mainstream tend not to understand what I just said above. And when they confront non-mainstream scientists they think that they are perfectly rational even if their objections are of no substance. They will simply not get it.

Given this, I'm not at all surprised by RJ Lee and the nonsensical solution to the micro-sphere problem. It's the common way to deal with uncomfortable issues.

Another note about the RJ Lee letter

He states that the building had "elevator shafts that acted like a chimney." It has always been my understanding that the building was built (I think the term was hermetically sealed?) specifically to prevent a chimney stoking effect. Am I wrong?

thanks

dan

Aircraft breaking the seal...

The Building was Hermetically sealed until the aircraft crashed through them. The first aircraft apparently broke through the middle and could have expose elevator shafts. The second aircraft just flew into an edge and would have provided a radically different airflow. WTC7 was damaged but being a much lower height, would it too have "hurricane winds"? Where's the evidence of these supposed hurricane winds? Wouldn't the lady at the hole of the north tower been blown out? Would the towers looks like bunsen burners rather than a smoldering ruin - with fires that could be put out by "a couple of lines"? In a natural collapse, we would expect the three towers to collapse differently, asymmetrically with slow progression.

RJLee's attempt to expand the theory for the microspheres is seriously flawed and is back peddling of the first order! Similar iron spheres could perhaps be found in a furnace (although note iron wood stoves don't seem to degrade with use) but is highly unusual in ordinary office fires - otherwise it would not have been picked out as being special in RJLee's own dust morphology report!

thank you

Thanks Ynda, that helps. His mircosphere theory is really reaching and limits their creation only in the fire zone where there is no evidence for the conditions he describes. The spheres are all over in the dust, lots and lots and lots of it... in some ways, and maybe they do/don't realize this, that the more they try to explain things as a natural collapse, the more they convince true skeptics of the opposite. thanks again.

dtg

In the houses of shadow.

Lee said that?

MOLYBDENUM microspheres were found at over 4000º or is that another story?

Molybdenum

But we need to categorically exclude welding since molybdenum was present in WTC steel. How much oxygen is present in the molybdenum particle and does or doesn't that exclude torch or thermal lance cutting?

devils in the detail.

Quantity of microspheres % in dust and where recorded would help
LEE reported150x normal iron microspheres as 'unusual'.
Was Mb part of elemental steel mix or just welds?

Part of

..the steel mix, iirc.

?

iirc??

Acronym

"If I Recall Correctly"

x

so it be quantities. %Mb in steel+ welds. equates with % in DUST. where found. when.

"You would think that

"You would think that laboratories all round the world would be clamouring for dust so that they could prove us right or wrong, but they aren't. There is probably a reason for that. And there isn't much dust."

:)

Your interviews

Shure, I was trying to look at some of your interviews at Pumpitout and got a message:
You do not have permission to access this topic.
Error Code: 4:9312

What am I doing wrong. I was logged in.

I took them down.

I took them down.

The calls were made in attempts to help get to the truth. I don't see the point in keeping the calls up when some of the most influential people in the truth movement are saying that the hijackers are still alive, the phone calls from the planes are fake, no plane hit the pentagon, etc...

It helps to access all

It helps to access all information.
Either which way your calls are RELEVANT to the ongoing struggle to 'get to the truth' .

Please reconsider

Hi Jeff,

One of the points CIT makes is that they have "interviewed" their witnesses and that make them magically "irrefutable" apparently. So it is good to have other "irrefutable" witnesses who saw the plane hit to direct people to. Please don't hide your light under a bushel.

Contacting kawika re: dust

His thread here, his 911blogger account here, and I do believe Warren Stutt has kawika's e-mail address, given their exchange about ACARS. Since you have Warren Stutt's contact info, you should be able to get kawika's e-mail addy. I don't have it.

To Jim

Wrt: elemental aluminum:

TEM studies can establish exactly that. If I recall correctly, TEM studies had been done by the ATM team and were said to confirm earlier findings. But we never saw the results, nor did we see the results of the FTIR tests. FTIR allows us a comparison with Tillotson's 2001 paper.

It would allow comparison with the Millette study as well.

The ATM paper does indicate FTIR tests were done, and that the authors "will report the results elsewhere."

Pertinent questions

You may wish to contact Tillotson at LANL -- he has answered some of our questions and may be cooperative. Perhaps he could even give you a small sample.

-- Steven Jones, 2009-09-01

We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al.,

-- Steven Jones, mid-2009

A member of our team has undertaken FTIR studies which I hope will provide the answers we seek.

-- Steven Jones, 2009-09-02

We raised the same questions amongst ourselves, of course -- and we looked into XRD some time ago. We decided that TEM analysis is probably better and certainly can be done with a smaller sample size, which is an important consideration here.

This TEM analysis is now underway. I agree that such analysis is important.

Steven J

-- Steven Jones, early 2009

Some pertinent questions:

* What are the results of the TEM and FTIR tests?

* Did Dr. Jones actually contact Dr. Tillotson and ask him if he conducted his DSC test in air or in an inert gas? Here's what JREFers are saying:

"Besides, Farrer (or Harrit and Jones) lies: He did NOT call Gash or Tillotson to ask how they did their DSC test. Because contrary to what the ATM authots claim, Tillotson and Gash used nitrogen atmosphere, not air!"

-- JREFer "Oystein"

I would like to know the answer to this one. Which one of you is yanking our chain?

questions?

Have the self-declared "debunkers" made any of these tests by themselves or are they again too afraid (as with the DSC-test)?

Too much too ask?

It's been 5 days... please respond someone? Wouldn't releasing those tests refute Millette? Why hold out?

And Mark Basile ought to have some experimental data and results waiting, too..

More deafening silence

Please clear the air Mr. Jones and co.

DSC Test Replication

It is being assumed that James Millette was the best choice for replicating the Harrit study.

One savvy researcher (not I) decided to call MVA and find out if this lab had the DSC equipment.

As of 3/10/12---- it did not.

Call for yourself and ask if they had the equipment available at the time this study was conducted. They may have since decided it was a good idea to get it.

MVA Scientific Consultants
3300 Breckinridge Blvd.
Suite 400
Duluth, GA 30096
(770) 662-8509
(770) 662-8532 (fax)

Or email using this convenient form:

http://www.mvainc.com/email-us/

You can't find something you're not looking for. You certainly can't find it if you don't have the right tools.

It is only fair to ask Chris Mohr if, when searching for a suitable lab, he asked whether the lab had the DSC equipment.

If not, why not?

If so, and he knew that MVA did not have the equipment, why then he decided to use them anyway.

One savvy researcher

Which savvy researcher?

It sounds like a plausible explanation (though not a satisfactory excuse) why they didn't conduct a DSC test.

However, that doesn't mean Millette's lab didn't have the equipment to determine whether or not the materials they tested were thermitic materials. They did, through TEM and FTIR. DSC yields extra information, which I would like to see, but as a technology it's not a crucial determinant.

That's just the way the cookie crumbles. One of the two parties is committing fraud, they're not both 'mistaken'.

Meanwhile, my questions remain unanswered, and you are shifting the topic towards Millette, whose work this topic is about, but my questions were addressed at Jones/Harrit et al.

I am growing impatient and I'm exceedingly upset. This better not be a hoax. I want full accountability in that case. Unfortunately there are many things pointing in that direction. And if the authors of the paper are upset about these questions, then they ought to deal with them pronto.

Steven Jones has bid this movement farewell, without further comment. You find this acceptable? Anyways, I've asked my questions, and I'll now let it rest. I know enough, and I'm not here to be involved day in day out combating the various personalities who think factual accuracy and integrity is secondary to "disproving the official story". The end does not justify the means.

Dust samples

Kawika,

I have been lead to believe that you have some WTC dust samples. I have been trying to contact you behind the scenes without success, so I am butting in here. Is it true you have samples and would be willing to make them available for testing? I did make contact with the University of Western Australia, which is very well equipped and received a favourable response. I was not however able to supply a dust sample at the time. Can you help?

Frank

Stings

Stings Mohr and Millette pretty good. They obviously aren't very forthcoming or honest, it seems. Nice work on the part of Kevin Ryan.

In the houses of shadow, everybody Lies.

The fact that Mohr did not DISCLOSE Millette and his colleagues having published several government-funded reports on the WTC dust PREVIOUS,
which represent the official analysis ?!!

puts this study immediately onto its FACE.

.

Conclusions?

In the paper linked to above Millette writes:

"Conclusions:
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent
with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and
kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the
red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite.

Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips:
At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray
chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips
found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the
formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center
towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron
oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc
chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec )
pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some
9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web Page 7 of 21
small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount
detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain some information about product materials.
According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17 55 out of the 177
different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in
the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments.
However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found
in this study."

So what does this mean? The red/grey chips are some type of super small carbon steel shards with an iron oxide epoxy resin and pigment coating? And that this resin is unlike any known primer paint or other construction substance known to be in the WTC? So where did it come from? How could steel be reduced to such small particles? Why is it in so many samples of dust? Considering the samples are from their own archives I hardly find this to be independent. I can certainly understand Kevin Ryan's objections to working with Dr Millette, but I feel it must done nonetheless. Testing each of the others samples in open refereed testing and all necessary testing, XDS, FTIR, ABC123, whatever is required to be certain. Thanks for listening to my 2 cents. Peace everyone

dtg
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
We get answers that don't answer; explanations that don't explain; and conclusions that don't conclude. - Fred Hampton
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Bulldust

Hi dtg86,
It is perfectly clear that the sample of dust Milette is using is quite different from the WTC dust. The grey side he says is steel, while the grey side of the WTC dust is not metal but is an oxide. No point in looking further.

Which is which?

I don't think it's reasonable to say that because another paper comes to a different conclusion, that means they've studied different materials. That's a circular argument isn't it?

Which is which? Hover over the pictures...


How convenient

"In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study." -page 22/25
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

"Chemist and 9/11 Truth activist Kevin Ryan has refused to provide samples of red-gray chips he believes are thermitic, or even to sign off on the chips Dr. Millette would provide." - C Mohr
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7893219&postcount=1257

Ryan Admitting they tried to get him and his samples involved......

"Mohr has tried to secure samples that he could say were obtained from me personally" - Kevin Ryan
http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when-mohr-is-less-the-official-non-response-to-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc/

"It is perfectly clear that the sample of dust Milette is using is quite different from the WTC dust." - Frank Legge

How convenient. And predictable

Convenient indeed

If Millette's sample is not different, he has described it incompetently, at best. Where does that leave the investigation?

In a stalemate

...

The circular argument is as follows:

X must study material Y, to confirm or refute Z's findings
If X refutes Z's findings, he has not studied material Y.
If X has not studied material Y, he hasn't refuted Z's findings.
...
X must study material Y, to confirm or refute Z's findings
... etc.

This is funny... The identification of the material to be studied can't depend on the outcome of the study. Isn't that logically obvious?

Are there non-thermitic red gray chips in WTC dust?

Identification

If people are to be trusted, analysis leads to identification. The analysis by Millette and the analysis by our group differ. Therefore the materials are different or one or both of the analyses are incorrect. If the materials are the same, as you imply in your post above, then one or both of the analyses are incorrect.

We know without a shadow of a doubt that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
There is considerable evidence, even to be found in the NIST report, that a thermitic reaction was occurring during the demolition. Our research clearly shows that the red chips contained reactive thermitic material.

You appear to base you case for skepticism largely on what you regard as unsatisfactory opinions held by Kevin Ryan regarding an entirely different matter. What is scientific about that? Do you find anything unsatisfactory in Kevin's post here:
http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when-mohr-is-less-the-official-non-response-to-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc/#_ednref

Kevin's account clearly shows that Millette has studied the dust previously for the government and has failed to find the iron microspheres which we, RJ Lee and USGS found. Jenkins has accused him of fraud in relation to the dust studies. What is the probability that he will provide an unbiased report?

Is there any possibility that the authors of the Active Thermitic paper would have committed fraud? How about Jeffrey Farrer, who did most of the analytical work? I see you haven't mentioned him yet. The authors of the paper have suffered grievously from their participation in this project while Millette has no doubt been paid well. What is the probability that Millette is right and our team is wrong?

I know you have done a great deal to promote the scientific case that 9/11 was an inside job but the insulting way you are going about this particular debate leaves much to be desired.

Frank

In my heart I believe you are sincere, which is important in terms of trust. My trust has been shaken in several other authors of the ATM paper.

I find it interesting that Millette was unable to determine what paint the chips are supposed to originate from. At the same time, AE911Truth don't even mention the core conclusion of his report: that the chips are neither thermite nor nanothermite. I can't look at that and make anything else of it but a lie by omission. That's what I find offensive.

As I've been told by the moderator team, comments such as the above are not allowed, which means I will soon be leaving this site, since I will be unable, by a distortion slash opportunistic exploitation of site policy, to call attention to gross deceit. I would have to describe it in vague, circumstantial wording which in no way does justice to the situation at hand.

I asked a few questions here. They were fair questions. They were not answered, and Steven Jones has left the debate, us and his paper for the hyenas at JREF to devour. I fought to defend that paper, but my priorities don't lie with unquestioning loyalty, they lie with fact-based research. I will cut anyone loose at anytime and speak out against them if they fail to meet standards of integrity. After Jesus Visited America, Fake Earthquakes, Overunity, No Muslim Hijackers (a preposterous suggestion, sorry, I read other books besides DRG, besides, a cursory glance at History Commons and some common sense refutes this apocryphal claim immediately) and the peer review fiasco regarding David Griscom, as well as two editors-in-chief quitting Bentham (one of which I myself published about, to show her dishonesty), plus experiments conducted and promised, but never published, followed by an enigmatic departure by the main proponent of this work, I have had about enough.

Please ask your colleagues to release the FTIR and TEM data. That would help. But I'm not going to stick my neck out for people who put activist politics above truth and core scientific principles. Does this mean I trust Millette? No, not yet, and I don't have to choose either. If Millette was involved in fraud regarding environmental issues, he needs to be prosecuted. Thousands of first responders are dying, many are already dead. It's an international disgrace, as far as I'm concerned.

Some of us are seen to be causing lots of ruckus. That doesn't endear us with the fanatical true believers and the flyer distributing in-crowd. So be it. This type of internal dissent is this movement's safety valve from going into full-on cult mode with the concomitant critiqueless leader worship. That is a real danger, and since I've been studying 9/11 since 2004, before either Steven Jones or Richard Gage arrived on the scene, I don't feel I should be silent.

Both these men have sacrificed a lot, that much is evident. That can be no reason to exempt them from criticism because a movement which aims to correct a counterfactual historical narrative needs, above all, credibility, not pity.

I have a hard time believing Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and Mark Basile are deliberately deceiving us, let alone you. But I recall a second non-confirmation by Frédéric Henry-Couannier, which was explained away with insinuations of government mail interference. Perhaps. But then a second batch could have been sent or hand-delivered to Frédéric to compensate. That never happened. Yes, at this point I believe I'm being lied to, and to some that might be a rude awakening. It might be regarded as heresy, disloyalty, disruption or even 'infiltration', in other words, a manufactured siege mentality, the weakest rejoinder remaining for the feeble conspiratorial mind plagued by a nagging reality check. I'm glad you haven't sunk to that level which, again, speaks for you.

Now, I would like to know what's going on. I have asked some fair questions. Many activists have donated their money or their blood, sweat and tears. The Mike Gravel incident shows there are frauds lurking around every corner intent on running another con on this movement. It's fair to say it's endemic.

One of these two parties studying WTC dust and blatantly contradicting each other will have to face the music. I am talking to an author of the paper right now. If I were talking to Millette I would ask him if he really hasn't got a DSC at this lab so we can see what the exothermic profile is for the chips he examined. Just out of curiosity, not because it's a determinant. If there is no elemental aluminum in the sample as Millette claims, then he has full license to formulate the conclusion as published, a conclusion which AE911Truths hides and obfuscates from its membership.

In-effing-credible

I cannot believe the moderation you are receiving, SnowCrash. I saw the discussion-turned-moderation between you and LeftWright on the no-Muslims thread. It was sad.

LeftWright, you have a very shameful record of moderation recently. Please re-read your:

1. Bringing up a technical topic (analogue audio)
2. Having your claims technically refuted regarding said topic by SnowCrash
3. Changing the subject to moderation of SnowCrash, calling him off-topic and basically full of shit - and then NOT affirming or denying said refutation. It was an obvious dodge of a topic you brought up and then abuse of moderation power to avoid looking like you were wrong. And it only made you look like a complete asshole to me.

I am dropping my monthly subscription to this site after seeing this behavior and also witnessing the blocking of commenting on the Kevin Ryan tries to cover his ass for doing something stupid (presenting at NOI) thread (if it wasn't stupid, why did they leave it out of the newsletter?). And I hear there was a bunch deleted there too.

This is literally retarded.

911blogger

I can't do to 911blogger what others have tried to do in the past... If we have differences of opinion we'll simply part ways; there are other venues such as 911truthnews.com and truthaction where I could write, and 911blogger can do their thing. I won't refrain from criticism though.

Let's remember that at P4T, if you want to comment there, you'd first have to answer an obligatory list of demeaning questions and then you're liable to be muzzled or banned at the whim of one man, whereas at 911blogger we still have a relatively diverse team with differing views in some respects of 9/11 research.

I'd rather try to change things for the better, but I really don't like some of the tactics employed against me and others over the years. But: at any time, anybody can point to the various blog articles I've written here and see how I stood for nanothermite research in its hay day. Likewise, when I see things happening that are untoward, I will have to rescind my endorsement of that research because of the shenanigans that has been going on.

In particular, I am puzzled by the lack of interest by Dr. Jones in his own research, and his departure, as well as the withholding of the TEM and FTIR results.

In particular FTIR, I believe, can't be 'spun'. So I would really like to see those results. I had faith in the nanothermite paper because I understood that the paper could not possibly support anything other than active thermitic materials, unless there was scientific misconduct. I am still waiting to be disabused of that notion.

makes sense

I would also encourage you to become a member and add your perspective over at boiling frogs post. we could use you there.

Thanks!

Nor Cal Truth would love to

Nor Cal Truth would love to publish a fact-based author suh as yourself SC!

Blogger is in trouble and so are many 9/11 "think they want the truthers", but as you stated ever so correctly and importantly:

This type of internal dissent is this movement's safety valve from going into full-on cult mode with the concomitant critiqueless leader worship. That is a real danger, and since I've been studying 9/11 since 2004, before either Steven Jones or Richard Gage arrived on the scene, I don't feel I should be silent.

Please, continue the discussions.

Principals!

I am dropping my monthly subscription to this site after seeing this behavior and also witnessing the blocking of commenting on the Kevin Ryan tries to cover his ass for doing something stupid (presenting at NOI) thread (if it wasn't stupid, why did they leave it out of the newsletter?). And I hear there was a bunch deleted there too.

I love prinicipals, that is why I left AE for them going to NOI!

And yes, that Kevin Ryan/ NOI thread has been "cleaned!"

recently?

zica said...."This is literally retarded."

Were you on the titanic? I wasn't. How do we know what happened on the titanic? It was said to be unsinkable. And yet the official story says ice sunk it. But we will never know until a proper investigation is done. And then after that guess what? We still were never on the titanic and so the investigation will be worthless until we get the answers that match our conspiracy theories.

The truth shall set you free and the truth is some people will never ever accept certain truths

Love is the way forward and sometimes love means dropping preposterous and stupid theories.

Cheers!

Quote: If I were talking to

Quote: If I were talking to Millette I would ask him if he really hasn't got a DSC at this lab so we can see what the exothermic profile is for the chips he examined.

I provided the contact information for MVA. I am surprised that you haven't verified this yet.

Actually, above, I said the wrong date when working from memory. The call was made on 3/2/2012.

Actually

I went to the site before and saw they didn't list DSC. So right now, I have no reason to believe they do.

Wow

First Dr. Legge, thank you for replying to my query. I certainly didn't expect it to turn into all this. I was very disappointed in the reactions to your statement, it seems the queries should be directed at Millette IMHO. What seemed so convenient and predictable to me are Millette's conclusions. It appears the only thing he could confirm is that he doesn't know what they are he knows the chips are not thermitic or nano-thermite. If the grey side is steel, it begs the question on how so much of it is so small and found in all his samples. Can I add that his paper does not reference any chain of custody for the samples? Additionally, he can't identify the "resin" either. To me, this seems (if I may borrow jimd's phrase with no intention of ill meaning) "convenient and predictable."

I expected nothing less than the conclusions this paper has derived at and no other lab has confirmed Millette's studies. I will look forward to Dr. Harit's (et al) response mentioned earlier in this thread, but I think it is time to put some of this to rest. Not working with Millette's samples I think was in error. Every opportunity to look at samples of dust by multiple scientists should be utilized to reasonable extent. All experimental results should be published by both sides of the debate. If need be, maybe a chip-in campaign for a truly independent lab working with multiple sources of dust from all who can supply some might help? I don't know, it's just a suggestion. Maybe even more public calls for dust samples. But most assuredly, If Dr Millette is willing to have both parties samples blind tested (meaning they are unaware the source of the chips is WTC dust ) by a third independent lab with the right equipment, then is should be done. I would had even a previously untested sample if possible. A list of tests to be conducted can be agreed upon prior to submission. Samples can be hand delivered by the involved parties or certified couriers.

I see many bad signs in these threads attacking the authors as well. That must stop. If Adolf Hitler wrote a paper proving 2 + 2 = 4, it wouldn't be wrong no matter what he may be personally. Attacking Prof Jones' religion because it states Jesus was in America is just absurd and states nothing about the man's work. Christian religion is just as absurd IMO believing Jesus raised people from the dead, walked on water, and restored sight to the blind. How crazy is that?! From now on to ALL, let's leave religion out of it. It serves no purpose for factual discussions.

Thanks again to all for hearing me out.

dan

Thanks Dan for the calm comment

It puzzles me a bit that people seem to think that because they would like to see a test done it can be arranged in a hurry. When I think of the months of work that went into the original tests, I would predict that nothing new could be done under 6 months.

Also there seems to be no allowance being made for exhaustion and for the need for some people, once devoted to the 9/11 cause, to have a private life.

I too am disappointed that we haven't been able to produce another paper on the red/grey chips. There is nothing I can do about it as I have no dust. I have been calling for dust for years but not one person has responded. There must be tons of it lying hidden around Manhattan in crevices, ducts and under roofs. Surely some maintenance worker has come across some while doing repairs and renovations. I would like to see some of the impatient ones finding some dust.

I will see what I can find out about the FTIR and TEM work.

I understand that alot more

I understand that alot more data was collected than what was in the ATM paper. The paper is 25 pages with 33 images, Earlier versions of the paper, I'm told, were even longer but peer-reviewers told the authors to keep the length down. I'm wondering why all the data that was cut from the paper wasn't made available as supplementary material on the journalof911studies or something.

In the houses of shadow.

A couple of points.
Millette finds the same elements in the same formations as Harrit et al. Photographs look the same.
After MEK tests he finds no separation/migration of elemental Al from Si, therefore concludes not thermite. Thereafter referring to Al/Si as 'consistent with' Kaolin clay. The Fe 'consistent with' pigment. The narrative of the paper discusses Al/Si formations AS kaolin clay. And the Fe AS pigment. As if that had been PROVEN to be.

After MEK, Harrit et al find separation of elemental Al, do ignition tests, find exothermic reactions with iron micro-spheres result.

Because something is 'consistent with' does not meant it IS. It may NOT be. Millette states PLM analysis after ashing showed iron oxide particles and POSSIBLE clay present based on a micro-chemical clay test.
'Possible' and 'consistent with' are what? in science? If a specific 'micro-chemical clay test' only comes up as 'possible', what does that say for for claim of material under study to BE clay?
If we put that as a study of words and concepts alongside the : no paint fingerprint match from WTC primer paint (alkyd-based with zinc yellow-no match out of 177 coatings) and the : no crucial flame test as described on p22 of Harrit et al - explicitly testing paint fragments to show the difference,
if we place then the Millette : non-discovery/reporting of iron rich spheroids found in large percentages by Harrit and by LEE (150x normal 'collapse DUST)and the : nondisclosure of Millette to previous government level DUST studies on WTC where in he has never found energetics,
then Millette paper has some problems.

Is it 'POSSIBLE' these "consistent with' kaolin formations and very fine red particles 'consistent with' synthetic hematite(iron oxide)pigment particles" are also "consistent with" new formula of nanothermitic materials not offerred by military industrial weapons labs to the average McClone Atlas?
Millette study of grain size places them in nanometer, and according to encyclopedia of explosives the mix is powdered ferric oxide and powdered aluminuim mixed. That IGNITES.
Whereas the paints described in Federation of Society for coatings technology described Kaolin as AL/Si platey lamellar pigments that turn to ash that DON"T ignite.
Are the formula only different by virtue of the Al separate from the Si? Do we know that is insurmountable? or not?
Harrit et al. report IGNITION.
That SAME test was not reported by Millette.

This is very inconclusive work.

1996-bulls eye.

submitted by : http://www.911blogger.com/users/sitting-bull on 07/06/2012.

Nanoengineered explosives

Abstract

A complex modulated structure of reactive elements that have the capability of considerably more heat than organic explosives while generating a working fluid or gas. The explosive and method of fabricating same involves a plurality of very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, each composed of reactive components, such as aluminum, separated from a less reactive element, such as copper oxide, by a separator material, such as carbon. The separator material not only separates the reactive materials, but it reacts therewith when detonated to generate higher temperatures. The various layers of material, thickness of 10 to 10,000 angstroms, can be deposited by magnetron sputter deposition. The explosive detonates and combusts a high velocity generating a gas, such as CO, and high temperatures.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=5...

Are there any news?

Whats up with the Millette-paper, was it pulished? It was announced, that it "debunked" the Harrit-study.

its a dud

Millette did not publish the report. I am pretty certain that it failed review and that he would rather forget about the whole thing.

Millette, fundraiser, thermite

Simon001, Thanks for your interest on this subject. Am wondering if you've read anything that speaks of Millette's thermite study failing peer-review?

I certainly wouldn't trust Millette. See page 1 and page 13 of this report, wherein Cate Jenkins, PhD, accuses him of probable fraud--concerning... the pH levels of dust from WTC: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DrJenkinsRequestsSenateInvestigationOnWTCdust.pdf

Also, you're probably aware of this fundraiser for a "blind" study potential replication of the thermite paper: http://markbasile.org/

For a number of reasons, I highly suspect aluminothermics (with sulphur added, of course) were used in the demolitions. This is true even without the Harrit paper.

That said, it would be helpful to attain scientific consensus on the red/grey chips.

just stating the obvious

I have not seen anyone stating directly that Millette attempted and failed to publish, but that is more or less obvious. I followed the discussions on the JREF forum and they stated from the beginning that the paper was due for publishing, but then something clearly happened that changed Millette´s mind, and this something is in my opinion the responses from Dr. Jones and others which all implied that Millette had been rather sloppy in his work. My friend joined the JREF forum to gauge the situation and basically got banned for insisting that the report should be published. I do not believe that those JREF people would back away from publishing unless they knew about some serious problem. They had after all made so much noise about Harrit not publishing in a proper journal in their view and that they were going to show everyone how it is really done.

Moreover, it is also my opinion that even if they could publish the report it would not help their cause at all given that it is, well, prone to being refuted on all fronts. It would only bring main stream attention to Harrit´s paper.

Unfortunately I do not have the money right now to support Basile but I will donate as soon as I can. Getting at least some of his results published would be a real game changer. I would also like to see some effort to get more studies from Harrit et al that would expand the available data. Some of the unpublished stuff comes to mind and also new information about the layered chips, the weird white coating, the nanotubes, etc.

by the way

No-one has published anything that counters or refutes anything at all in Harrit´s ATM paper, or any other paper for evidence of molten metal. And the paper on the air-pollution supporting sol-gel thermite materials is also unchallenged. Have not seen any paper either that offers an alternative explanation for roughly 2 seconds of WTC7 free-fall.

MarkBasile.org

Thanks for mentioning the Basile effort here. Now that ReThink911 is a ways off from their next ad buying goal of January I hope folks will throw a few dollars his way and help get him to his goal, which is miniscule compared to the numbers raised and still sought by ReThink. Don't get me wrong, he and I both have openly supported that effort, but I hope we can spread the love a little more evenly now. http://markbasile.org has an option that goes right to Mark's paypal account for those that are weary of the aneta.org site's internal donation option that funnels to Mark.

Finally Harrit FTIR revealed!

This article shows FTIR for the red chips. Someone here called Snowcrash made a big stink about Harrit not showing the FTIR, where is he now?

With no study published against Harrit, and a new one on the way that comes to the same conclusion as Harrit, are we getting to the point where there can be no more denying thermite?