I have tried to send Scootle Royal this email, but to no avail. If anyone an figure out how to forward this to him, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Chris
As the organizer of the Jim Millette WTC dust study I wanted to respond to your recent blog post on Debunking the Debunkers.
While I am familiar with the arguments about whether the Bentham paper was properly peer-reviewed or whether there was a proper chain of custody for the WTC dust in that study, I have always considered these to be of very secondary interest to me. Knowing some of the people at least peripherally involved in that study, I have always asserted that Harrit/Jones et al did everything in their power to preserve the integrity of their dust samples (including rejecting some whose sources were more questionable), and that perfectly good science gets reported in the Bentham journals, whatever its peer-reviewed status.
I am glad to see that you appear to accept the validity of Millette's samples. I was motivated to organize this test because I am no chemist, and as a complete layperson the scientific arguments from both sides seemed compelling enough to warrant a serious study of the WTC dust independently. I always took the question seriously and thought a second set of tests was essential. I was willing to accept the possibility that Millette would find thermitic material in the dust, and I asked him what he would do if he found thermitics. His response convinced me he was the researcher I was looking for: "If I find it I'll publish it."
Jim Millette's initial report acknowledged initial uncertainty about the precise source of the red-gray chips, but he was unambiguous in his core conclusion that there was no thermitic material in the dust. That is what I wanted to know: is there thermitic material in the dust as Harrit et al claimed? The answer: a resounding no. Dr. Millette is now doing more research to try to get a positive I.D. on exactly what these chips are and where they came from before he publishes his final report.