View Single Post
Old 29th February 2012, 11:25 AM   #1
Master Poster
chrismohr's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

Link to James Millette's preliminary WTC Dust study:

High Res:

Low Res:

In the summer of 2011, after finishing my 22 respectful YouTube rebuttals of Richard Gage’s Blueprint for Truth (keywords chrismohr911), I decided to see if I could organize an independent study of the World Trade Center dust to find out if thermitic materials could be found. Not being a chemist, I couldn't make a truly independent analysis of the data found in the Bentham paper alleging the discovery of unignited thematic material by Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and others: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009,”

While I am very skeptical of claims of controlled demolition on 9/11, I’m no scientist, and I can’t independently judge the merits of this Bentham article. What if they did find thermitic materials? I wanted to see if their evidence could stand up to scientific testing. So I began to ask, what would it take to do an independent test of the dust? Some people said that for a few hundred dollars, a lab could easily test the dust. Kevin Ryan told me it would not be so easy, and he turned out to be right. He seemed to indicate he would be reluctant to provide samples of his own dust, so eventually I decided to look for a lab which:

1) Knew a protocol for searching for unignited thermitic materials in dust
2) Did not put down the idea as ridiculous or a waste of time
3) Had access to WTC dust
4) Would not just run whatever test their lab could do just to make a few hundred dollars (they had to know what they were doing and have the equipment to do it)

Finally, for my part I decided not to tell the researcher how to do his/her job. I would simply ask if they could look for unignited thermitic materials in the dust, and if so, what protocol would they suggest and how much would it cost?

The search was not easy. I contacted 24 or 25 forensic experts, laboratories, universities, fire safety experts, etc. I broadcast out a general request to refer me to someone who could do this.

Eventually, I was recommended to Dr. James Millette of MVA Scientific Consultants near Atlanta. He had all the qualifications: 1.) He had a lab that could do multiple tests. 2.) He had access to WTC dust (Kevin Ryan would not be likely to release any of his own samples) 3.) He was genuinely openminded. I asked him if he believed there was thermitic material in the dust and he said he wouldn’t know until he did the tests. He openly acknowledged that no one in the traditional scientific community has seriously investigated this question. I asked him point blank what would happen if he found thermitic materials in the dust and he said he was used to giving forensic evidence that contradicted the expectations of the people who had hired him. He is an independent scientist. “If I find it I’ll publish it.” Many 9/11 Truth activists have told me, “at last, someone is taking the Bentham study seriously! At last, a real independent investigation!”

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. Dr. Millette had already glanced at the red-gray chips in WTC dust but never did a thorough study of them. He decided to do this study for only $1000, although the value of all his research was much more.

I thought he just might be my guy. In case things didn’t work out, I called him “Lab Guy” for a month or so on the JREF blog and other correspondences. I checked him out, and got recommendations from a top arson expert and fire safety expert.

Why did he do such a thorough study at such a low cost? He is doing a lot more with this study than just doing a job and reporting his findings. It was the centerpiece of three major presentations by his lab at the American Association of Forensic Scientists 2012 convention:

In addition, the results will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Some people on the 9/11 Truth side were suspicious of him. I’ve summarized those suspicions on my Richard Gage debate thread starting near the bottom of this page:

On that thread I am willing, on a limited basis, to answer sincere questions about my decision to choose Dr. Millette for this study. I am not interested in endless rounds of attacks and will not participate in such an exercise on that thread or anywhere.

However, this thread here is about summarizing and discussing the scientific findings of this report. If you have questions about Jim Millette’s credibility, those are being dealt with on the other thread (link above). This is a moderated thread, so any questions about anyone’s honesty or integrity etc. will be referred to the other thread. Here is Dr. James Millette’s promise to us:

“Chris, I can assure you that we will proceed in an objective, scientific manner and report what we find. At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community and when I publish, it will be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization. I do not see anything in our article that he linked… to suggest that we were publishing misleading data.” Jim Millette

I submit to you that Dr. Millette has kept his promise.

The next several posts contain the results of Dr. James Millette’s study. Onward!
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911
WTC Dust study Hundreds more links and info both sides:

Last edited by LashL; 7th March 2012 at 08:12 AM. Reason: To add high res version as requested.
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top