False. Millette did not attempt to replicate the methods or findings of the Harrit et al. study.
Millette, a NIST contractor, was one of the authors of a 2002 paper for EPA whose purpose was to characterize the dust of the WTC destruction:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240917/ That paper makes absolutely no mention of any red/gray chips in the dust, nor of any of the iron-rich microspheres subsequently found in abundance in independent studies conducted by RJ Lee company, United States Geological Survey and Jones et al., and produced in the DSC test in the Harrit et al. study, spheres whose formation require temperatures far higher than temperatures achieved by burning jet fuel and office materials:
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf
It was a couple of years after the publication of the Harrit et al. paper that Millette discovered the red/gray chips in samples of dust that had been in his possession more than a decade. He still did not find any of the well-documented iron-rich microspheres in his samples. He also did not attempt to replicate the Harrit et al. study, notably failing to perform the all-important differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) to determine the chips’ exotherm, as well as the electrical resistivity test. He engaged in various other methods differing from Harrit et al. (e.g., Millette washed his chips). Nevertheless, Millette clearly did not examine the same material as Harrit et al. did, nor did Millette’s chips match the formula of the primer paint used on the WTC columns, as Millette acknowledged:
The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study . . . 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 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.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf
Millette did not speculate about the origin of the red/gray chips in his samples.
From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
Some defenders of the official 9/11 story have claimed that the red-gray chips of thermitic material identified in the WTC dust by chemist Dr. Niels Harrit, Ph.D., Dr Steven Jones, Ph.D., and other scientists are simply remnants of the rust-proofing primer paint that was applied to the steel structure of the WTC skyscrapers during their construction. However, scientific evidence gathered by both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Harrit’s team of scientists clearly shows that this claim is false, since the properties of the primer paint are strikingly different from those of the red-gray chips.
First of all, several key ingredients of the primer paint are not present in the composition of the red-gray chips. According to NIST, the type of primer paint used on the WTC steel columns contains substantial levels of zinc, chromium, and magnesium. However, the X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) analysis of the red-gray chips performed by Harrit and others showed no significant amounts of zinc, chromium, or magnesium.
Based on this data alone, we can already conclude that the red-gray chips are not primer paint. Furthermore, there are other important differences that reinforce the fact that these two materials are not the same.
[. . .]
In addition, the thermal tests on the red-gray chips revealed that when they are ignited at around 430º C, they create molten iron microspheres as a byproduct. Since iron does not melt until it reaches approximately 1538º C, this means a high-temperature chemical reaction occurred. This volatile reactivity makes this type of material extremely dangerous, disqualifying it from ever being used as primer paint.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-sec...t-from-the-wtc-steel-structural-elements.html
Continue reading at link.
At one point, soon after Millette’s initial findings, he agreed to collaborate with Steven Jones on a study on the chips, in order to reconcile their differences. It was to include (inter alia) a DSC test. Jones was “excited about this” (
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses#comment-257499), but after his “revised progress report,” Millette apparently backed out.
In short, Millette failed to refute the Harrit et al. findings, and does not claim to have refuted the Harrit et al. findings or to have shown any error in the Harrit et al. methodologies or conclusions.
And while Millette's findings have not been replicated by anyone, one critical aspect of the Harrit et al. findings has:
Apparently your stupid comments are about yourself. It was you who brought up the issue of peer-review on another thread. Here is what I said:
False. As I pointed out:
In fact, there is no reason to doubt that the paper was peer-reviewed.
(1) Bentham Science publishes more than 100 journals, each with their own editorial boards. The
Open Chemical Physics Journal was not the one found to have offered to publish the nonsense paper. At least one other Bentham Science journal (the
Open Software Engineering Journal) had earlier rejected a paper submitted by the same hoaxer (Philip Davis) after peer-review.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal/ Thus, to claim or assume that the Active Thermitic Material paper was not peer-reviewed is to engage in guilt by association.
(2) Physicist Steven Jones, one of the authors of the paper on the discovery of active thermitic material in the 9/11 dust, said that the “paper was reviewed prior to publication by the Physics dept. chair at BYU--and he approved it for publication.” The BYU Physics department Chair at that time was Ross L. Spencer. If you do not believe professor Jones, then you should ask professor Spencer:
[email protected]
And I asked you why you have concluded that the Harrit et al. paper is "suspect":
The authors of the NIST reports were well paid to conduct a $20 million investigation in which they did not even comply with standard scientific guidelines specified in the National Fire Protection Association Manual when confronted with “high order damage” to 3 buildings, and in the end were unable to account for the destruction of these 3 buildings on the basis of empirically derived assumptions. In contrast, Harrit et al. had nothing to gain and everything to lose from conducting the study and publishing their results, apparently paid for conducting the study from their own pockets, paid to have the results published, and made an essential contribution to understanding the destruction of those buildings (at least for people who are unafraid of the truth).
