WTC Dust Study Confirms: No Thermite!

Dr. James Millette of MVA Scientific Consultants has now posted his progress report on the WTC dust. Dr. Millette is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and works with internationally known microscopy experts. An ad hoc international team of these experts, as well as architects, engineers, and other specialists, contributed their expertise to this study.

In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.

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 nano-thermite.

dl.dropbox.com...

This is a fantastic paper that finally puts to bed, the therm*te question.

Look at the locations where samples were obtained. Far away from the WTC complex.

Great, so now we have to speculate what else could have caused the collapses.

None of this proves the collapses were from plane impacts and fire. It doesn't address the physics of sagging trusses for example. It's only you OS supporters that insist we must come up with an explanation as to what caused the collapses. All we have to do is prove that fire and plane impacts could not have caused it, and we have done that already. You just refuse to see it, and insist on arguing irrelevant points that really make no difference either way.

So don't get too excited lads, this doesn't change much at all imo. Simple physics explain why the collapses could not have been as NIST claims. You don't have to to know what actually caused the collapses, to know what didn't.


What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?

reply to post by ANOK


No need to speculate.

The article contradicts itself by saying Aluminum was both present and not present. Iron oxide is the most common oxide used for thermite reactions. The fact that they believe there to be an epoxy attached to the iron oxide proves that the iron oxide was "painted on" in strategic locations to weaken elevator and core structure.

Nevertheless, I'd like to see more analysis done on samples closer to ground zero, if any samples still exist.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by ANOK

 

No need to speculate.

Yeah, I was being a bit sarcarstic there.

Thermite or not the NIST report is a white-wash. This proves absolutely nothing, as it doesn't address the physics of the collapses. We really don't need to know what caused the collapses to know what didn't.

But the OSers will all wet themselves over this report.

Are they serious? The closest sample was 0.2 miles away from ground zero and taken 17 days later. after 6 days of rain and 1 day of snow.

totally useless IMO. I'm glat it puts you to bed. but does nothing for me. Inside job.

NYC weather
Historical weather data
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
11 12 6 1 1 -3 -5 72 57 41 1020 1015 1010 16 16 14 32 11 53 0.00
12 8 3 -1 3 -5 -10 100 57 28 1026 1022 1014 16 16 14 19 13 29 0.25 Rain
13 8 4 2 8 6 2 100 99 89 1012 1001 996 16 8 3 27 14 37 32.26 Rain
14 8 7 6 6 0 -4 97 65 42 1013 1005 999 16 16 14 29 16 47 0.00
15 11 8 6 7 2 0 96 67 52 1016 1013 1010 16 16 16 16 8 - 0.00
16 13 9 5 6 3 -1 100 70 45 1014 1012 1010 16 15 10 21 8 34 4.06 Rain
17 8 6 3 6 4 2 100 91 68 1015 1013 1012 16 14 8 21 13 32 5.33 Rain
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
18 7 4 1 5 -2 -8 100 66 39 1024 1018 1012 16 16 16 29 14 42 0.00
19 11 6 1 -4 -7 -9 61 41 25 1030 1027 1024 16 16 16 23 13 37 0.00
20 12 7 3 3 -1 -5 76 57 43 1033 1031 1028 16 16 16 19 10 - 0.00
21 7 5 4 7 4 2 100 94 82 1028 1017 1004 16 13 2 50 26 74 26.16 Rain
22 7 6 4 7 4 -1 100 93 70 1003 999 996 16 11 2 35 21 53 32.51 Rain
23 14 9 4 -1 -4 -8 70 45 26 1007 1003 1000 16 16 16 40 26 64 0.25
24 11 7 1 2 -3 -12 70 49 37 1014 1008 1004 16 16 16 27 16 53 0.00
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
25 6 2 -1 -9 -12 -13 47 36 27 1016 1015 1014 16 16 16 27 18 40 0.00
26 3 0 -3 0 -7 -15 100 62 34 1020 1016 1014 16 11 1 27 11 39 1.27 Fog , Snow
27 5 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 50 40 29 1024 1022 1020 16 16 16 24 13 35 0.00
28 9 4 -1 2 -6 -8 86 52 34 1026 1025 1022 16 16 16 19 11 32 0.00
29 7 4 2 4 0 -4 100 76 58 1028 1026 1021 16 14 6 32 14 45 5.33 Rain
30 6 4 3 6 4 3 100 99 89 1019 1007 1001 16 10 2 42 29 66 39.12 Rain
31 8 6 3 4 2 1 100 80 68 1010 1009 1007 16 16 8 13 8 - 1.52 Rain

reply to post by Six Sigma


Already posted here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Glargod


First, no snow. Second, better samples then the tricksters used. At least we know were the OP's samples came from. We have no clue where the others one came from.

Originally posted by Glargod
Are they serious? The closest sample was 0.2 miles away from ground zero and taken 17 days later. after 6 days of rain and 1 day of snow.

Are you seriously suggesting it was snowing in NYC in summer?!?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Temperature didn't drop below 50 degrees for all of September. All the weather data can be found easily here:

www.almanac.com...

I am admittedly a truther, but sometimes, I just don't know how people come up with their answers. It makes the rest of us look bad.

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Temperature didn't drop below 50 degrees for all of September. All the weather data can be found easily here:

www.almanac.com...

I am admittedly a truther, but sometimes, I just don't know how people come up with their answers. It makes the rest of us look bad.

Actually, yes you do. They get them off one or more of those damned fool conspiracy web sites. Noone, but noone, watching the events unfold on TV that day instinctively thought the plane was a hologram or the buildings were destroyed by lasers from outer space. Someone had to have come along after the fact and put the idea into their heads.

If that's not the case, then perhaps you can explain to me why anyone would think "does the order still stand" means the same thing as "stand down order".

reply to post by GoodOlDave


But many reporters and eye witnesses did report on the day and at the time of the collapses that they looked like controlled demolitions, so this wasn't an after thought. These videos are all over youtube.

Is there any way of finding out who financed this study?

The results of scientific research these days is usually dictated by those who fund it...

Personally, I never thought they used Thermite to bring it down. That would be just to obvious and testable.

Most likely they used an unknown high tech form of explosive. Remember, this is the government that secretly built the worlds most destructive weapon (the nuclear bomb). Building a weapon that could quietly bring down a building would be simple for them.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
Is there any way of finding out who financed this study?

The results of scientific research these days is usually dictated by those who fund it...

This study was funded by donations of members of the JREF Forum. Chris Mohr was the project manager who found someone to do the tests and gathered the monies to pay for the study. It is my understanding that it was primarily debunkers but there was truther participation as well.

Originally posted by huh2142

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
Is there any way of finding out who financed this study?

The results of scientific research these days is usually dictated by those who fund it...

This study was funded by donations of members of the JREF Forum. Chris Mohr was the project manager who found someone to do the tests and gathered the monies to pay for the study. It is my understanding that it was primarily debunkers but there was truther participation as well.

Yes, and it was only a $1,000.00. Not like this is enough to be "paid off."

Truthers should ask Gage why he didn't fund a similar study. (any study for that matter!)

reply to post by Six Sigma


I also forgot to point out that the dust samples used in the study were Dr Millette's "spares" collected for a different study. I think it was the study sponsored by the EPA to determine the toxicity of the dust and the hazards to those in the area.

Samples from Ryan and Gage were not made available since they believed that Dr. Millette is a shill and would produce a "favorable" report.

In my opinion the study by Chris Mohr to determine what the red/gray particles are is an interesting academic exercise. It is challenging to figuring out which paint it is. I don't think that all the paints that were used are documented. Paints may have been specified but vendors like to substitute cheap alternatives and repair work done may have used various similar paints because it is a good chance that the original specified paint is no longer in manufacture.

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

I also forgot to point out that the dust samples used in the study were Dr Millette's "spares" collected for a different study. I think it was the study sponsored by the EPA to determine the toxicity of the dust and the hazards to those in the area.

Yes, keep in mind that the chips analyzed showed identical EDX spectra, the SEM photos show identical particles, and the SEM photos show identical binder material to the samples Harrit & Jones analyzed

Samples from Ryan and Gage were not made available since they believed that Dr. Millette is a shill and would produce a favorable report

This is the problem with Ryan and Gage. they are not interested in the truth. They are interested in furthering their conspiracy.

In my opinion the study by Chris Mohr to determine what the red/gray particles are is an interesting academic exercise. It is challenging to figuring out which paint it is. I don't think that all the paints that were used are documented. Paints may have been specified but vendors like to substitute cheap alternatives and repair work done may have used various similar paints because it is a good chance that the original specified paint is no longer in manufacture.

Perhaps, but I am satisfied with the results, and will be further satisfied once it becomes properly peer reviewed.

reply to post by Six Sigma


I'm not disagreeing with you.

Originally posted by Glargod
Are they serious? The closest sample was 0.2 miles away from ground zero and taken 17 days later. after 6 days of rain and 1 day of snow.

totally useless IMO. I'm glat it puts you to bed. but does nothing for me. Inside job.

NYC weather
Historical weather data
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
11 12 6 1 1 -3 -5 72 57 41 1020 1015 1010 16 16 14 32 11 53 0.00
12 8 3 -1 3 -5 -10 100 57 28 1026 1022 1014 16 16 14 19 13 29 0.25 Rain
13 8 4 2 8 6 2 100 99 89 1012 1001 996 16 8 3 27 14 37 32.26 Rain
14 8 7 6 6 0 -4 97 65 42 1013 1005 999 16 16 14 29 16 47 0.00
15 11 8 6 7 2 0 96 67 52 1016 1013 1010 16 16 16 16 8 - 0.00
16 13 9 5 6 3 -1 100 70 45 1014 1012 1010 16 15 10 21 8 34 4.06 Rain
17 8 6 3 6 4 2 100 91 68 1015 1013 1012 16 14 8 21 13 32 5.33 Rain
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
18 7 4 1 5 -2 -8 100 66 39 1024 1018 1012 16 16 16 29 14 42 0.00
19 11 6 1 -4 -7 -9 61 41 25 1030 1027 1024 16 16 16 23 13 37 0.00
20 12 7 3 3 -1 -5 76 57 43 1033 1031 1028 16 16 16 19 10 - 0.00
21 7 5 4 7 4 2 100 94 82 1028 1017 1004 16 13 2 50 26 74 26.16 Rain
22 7 6 4 7 4 -1 100 93 70 1003 999 996 16 11 2 35 21 53 32.51 Rain
23 14 9 4 -1 -4 -8 70 45 26 1007 1003 1000 16 16 16 40 26 64 0.25
24 11 7 1 2 -3 -12 70 49 37 1014 1008 1004 16 16 16 27 16 53 0.00
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
25 6 2 -1 -9 -12 -13 47 36 27 1016 1015 1014 16 16 16 27 18 40 0.00
26 3 0 -3 0 -7 -15 100 62 34 1020 1016 1014 16 11 1 27 11 39 1.27 Fog , Snow
27 5 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 50 40 29 1024 1022 1020 16 16 16 24 13 35 0.00
28 9 4 -1 2 -6 -8 86 52 34 1026 1025 1022 16 16 16 19 11 32 0.00
29 7 4 2 4 0 -4 100 76 58 1028 1026 1021 16 14 6 32 14 45 5.33 Rain
30 6 4 3 6 4 3 100 99 89 1019 1007 1001 16 10 2 42 29 66 39.12 Rain
31 8 6 3 4 2 1 100 80 68 1010 1009 1007 16 16 8 13 8 - 1.52 Rain

Dude... you used data from MARCH !!

Really?