Three years ago, an international team of scientists published a scientific paper that established the presence of thermitic residues in the dust from the World Trade Center (WTC) catastrophe. Although the paper was only the last in a mutually-supportive evidentiary chain, it gave more hard evidence that energetic materials were used to destroy the WTC buildings. This conclusion was in agreement with the other scientific articles that had been previously published, and was also in agreement with eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence.
The paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in February 2009. Since that time, it has been personally delivered to many members of the U.S. Congress and to scientists at universities around the world. In response, the silence has been deafening. The simple fact that professional scientists could publish such evidence, and over a period of three years be met with no answer from government and academic leaders, is an astounding fact that speaks volumes about the mindlessness that pervades society today.
The few unofficial responses that have been made are interesting, however.
About a year after publication, one of the primary creators of the ever-changing, but always transparently false official WTC explanations began to make deceptive attempts to manipulate the authors of the paper. This was Gene Corley, who apparently gave up after repeated failures to surreptitiously obtain pre-processed samples.
We can only imagine why Corley, who was the first leader of the WTC investigation and had far more access to WTC dust at a far earlier date than any independent researchers, would make such attempts to deceive. But other similar attempts have recently been made by Chris Mohr, a strong supporter of the official conspiracy theory. Mohr has tried to secure samples that he could say were obtained from me personally, and in doing so has also engaged in deception and has made false statements about our communications.
Mr. Mohr calls himself a proponent of a “natural collapse” explanation for the WTC, and he has promoted that vague hypothesis in debates against those questioning the official accounts. On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Mohr joined the ranks of the dubious “Skeptic Society,” the leader of which I debated in 2007. Mohr’s article in the September 2011 issue of Skeptic Magazine demonstrated just how far some people are willing to go in order to avoid the problems with the official account of 9/11. While providing utterly unconvincing and vacuous answers to a dozen straw man questions, Mohr’s article ignores essentially all the evidence presented in ten years by real 9/11 skeptics.
Having failed to make any new converts to the myth behind the “War on Terror,” Mohr has resorted to attempts to refute the science in the 2009 “Active Thermitic Materials” paper. The problem is, despite being the new scientific spokesman for the “Skeptic Society,” Mohr has no science background at all and struggles with the basic concepts behind the paper. Because of this, he set out to find an “independent” expert to champion his cause.
Mohr stated in one of his many unsolicited emails that — “It took me months, and contacting over two dozen labs, to find Millette and his lab, who has both the means and the openmindedness to do this right.” This message refers to Jim Millette, a long-time government scientist who worked for the EPA and now runs his own business called MVA Scientific Consultants. Unfortunately, although Mohr took months to find this new champion, it took him only seconds to decide that he would say nothing about Millette’s leadership of the government studies on WTC dust. When Mohr wrote to me in a mass email asking for pre-processed samples to use in his new project, he failed to mention anything about Millette’s past work on WTC dust.
Millette and his colleagues published several government-funded reports on the WTC dust, which represent the official analyses. For some reason, these don’t mention the strong evidence of molten metal that was found by the USGS, the RJ Lee Corporation, and the international team which published the 2009 paper. It appears that Millette and company did find such evidence, in the form of the iron spheres which are abundant in the WTC dust, but a decision was made to de-emphasize that evidence. Of course, Mohr doesn’t tell people that. He knows that Millette and his colleagues did not report iron spheres in the official WTC dust signature study, despite iron spheres being a prominent and unusual component in the dust.
That is a striking fact in itself, but there have also been accusations of fraud against Millette and his colleagues. EPA whistleblower Dr. Cate Jenkins used the phrase “deliberate misrepresentation” with regard to their studies in which samples were manipulated through pre-conditioning to lower the pH before testing. Millette’s name shows up in Jenkins’ report four times because he participated in several EPA-funded studies that Jenkins has charged with fraud. Millette did a lot of the analytical work on the WTC dust for these government teams, and was the leader in the laboratory for the government-sponsored studies.
Of course, Mohr won’t tell you about the accusations of fraud either.
In any case it is very interesting that it took Mohr several months of contacting dozens of labs to find the one person who did all the government laboratory work on the WTC dust. We might wonder about the other dozens of labs. Wouldn’t they take Mohr’s money? In the end, why did Mohr insist on using this one lab that had been implicated in charges of fraud related to WTC dust analysis? What made those dozens of other labs unsuitable, or less “open minded,” than the guy who didn’t see the evidence before?
We might never know. But it appears that Millette will begin to report his new findings for the “skeptic” Mohr next week, at a conference in Atlanta. It will be interesting to see if Millette will now report the abundant iron spheres, which all other scientists have seen in almost every sample. The fact that he has worked for years on federal contracts for NIST and the Bush Department of Justice, since 9/11, makes that seem unlikely. As for the possibility of Millette confirming the presence of thermitic materials in the WTC dust, which would indict his own previous work, we probably shouldn’t hold our breath.
In the meantime, we can rest assured that the U.S. government and government-sponsored universities will not respond to the finding of energetic materials at the WTC, or to any of the peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject. Three years without a response is response enough.
 Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009, http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
 Kevin R. Ryan, Dusting-off Corley: Is this the official response to the discovery of energetic materials in the WTC dust?, 911Blogger.com, 05/31/2010, http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-31/dusting-corley-official-response-discovery-energetic-materials-wtc-dust
 Kevin R. Ryan, Skepticism and “the believing brain,” DigWIthin.net, September 25, 2011, https://digwithin.net/2011/09/25/skepticism-and-the-believing-brain/
 Chris Mohr, 9/11 and the Science of Controlled Demolitions, Skeptic Magazine, September 2011, http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#feature
 Email from Chris Mohr
 Paul J. Lioy, Dust: the inside story of its role in the September 11th aftermath, Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, p 223
 Cate Jenkins, Complaint and Additional Evidence of pH Fraud by: USGS, OSHA, ATSDR, NYC, EPA, and EPA-funded scientists, May 6, 2007, found at The Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DrJenkinsRequestsSenateInvestigationOnWTCdust.pdf
Chris Mohr here. Several clarifications:
The two-dozen people I contacted before finding Dr. Jim Millette were in one of three categories: 1) They blew off the whole 9/11 Controlled Demolition theory and could not contain their contempt. 2.) They offered to do one or two simple tests which could not possibly confirm the presence or absence of active thermitic material. They would have accepted my money all right, but the results would have been useless. 3.) They didn’t know how to do a test at all and told me so.
Dr. Millette, on the other hand, had these qualifications: 1.) He had a lab that could do multiple tests. 2.) He had access to WTC dust (this was important because I was told by Kevin Ryan that he would not be likely to release any of his own samples) 3.) He was genuinely openminded. 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.” 4.) He responded like a gentlemen to accusations he was deceptive when he didn’t write about iron-rich microspheres in an EPA study he was part of, showing me how he had reported on large amounts of iron in the dust (he didn’t use the term iron-rich microspheres). I have no reason to believe he is deceptive. The strong scientific consensus does not support the hypothesis that iron-rich microspheres could only be caused by temperatures over 2800 degrees F. I have personally read a recent letter from Rich Lee of RJ Lee, which denies that temperatures in excess of 2800 degrees F are necessary to create the billions of iron microspheres. Kevin Ryan’s claim about the source of iron-rich microspheres is explicitly not supported by the author of the RJ Lee Report. 5.) I also researched what had been written about Dr. Millette and looked for referrals. As an example, a fire safety expert who uses him for advanced forensic research sometimes says he gives the data, not what the fireman expects to hear. Before Dr. Millette agreed to do this WTC dust study, I found virtually nothing about Dr. Millette in 9/11 Truth research. I was unaware that he’s a signatory to studies others have said are deceptive, but his role is being unfairly magnified and a quick check of the accusations against him don’t bring up evidence of fraud or deception at all.
Everyone should know that among the financial supporters of this study are four 9/11 Truth activists. Other top 9/11 truth people are also supportive of this study and think I have done a good job of organizing a good study. It’s controversial, even within the 9/11 Truth movement. Each individual must be very careful to keep your eyes open going forward here.
Kevin Ryan accused me of being dishonest by not revealing in my “mass email” (to him and five or so other 9/11 Truth activists) Jim Millette’s background. My email to Kevin was an initial request and I was open to answer more questions and begin a process with Kevin. No dishonesty was intended and I hope that in Kevin’s heart he knows this is true. This is no time for ad hominem attacks. Believe it or not, I am ready to discover Kevin Ryan and his colleagues were right. As a scientist I am unqualified to judge the merits of the Bentham paper, so I did the next best thing: hire the most objective and knowledgeable scientist I could find to attempt to do a study. Kevin Ryan was invited to a place at the table, even asked if he would provide sample red-gray chips, and he refused vehemently. Now he is attacking it before the results even come out (due Feb. 29, and Kevin will get a copy).
Did I make mistakes in this process? Yes, I did. I was afraid of Kevin’s growing impatience with me and I did the search for an independent verifier of his study without him. In hindsight I wish I had asked Kevin if he wanted to work together with me to find a researcher and a verification process both he and the “skeptics” could agree on. It’s never too late to do that. If the Jim Millette study turns up no thermitic materials, well, as they say, you can’t prove a negative. I am open to helping broker yet another study both sides could sign off on in advance, using Kevin’s samples. If Kevin doesn’t trust me, I know at least one other person who might consider doing this (on the 9/11 Truth side).
I see, Chris, so now “over two dozen labs” is limited to exactly 24 people. And they either blew off the demolition theory or were useless and you absolutely didn’t want that, right? Your own objectivity is exemplary, of course, as we have seen, which led you to find Millette. It was all just a coincidence that he had done most of the government lab work on WTC dust after 9/11.
You now say that you chose Millette because he responded like a gentleman to accusations that he was deceptive. It would be interesting to know who accused him of being deceptive before you had chosen him. I’ll wager it was not 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean, who wrote the foreword for Lioy’s book in which Millette is praised for his work on the WTC dust.
You claim that — “The strong scientific consensus does not support the hypothesis that iron-rich microspheres could only be caused by temperatures over 2800 degrees F.” To support your claim of strong scientific consensus, you cite one reference to a letter that you can’t share.
I’m not attacking you, Chris. I’m pointing out that you have been, and continue to be, deceptive. That is a fact. But you must be someone very important. NIST spurned years of efforts by independent scientists to communicate openly on the subject but the first time you called them they were at your service. Now the top lab analyst for the government dust reports will replicate months of scientific work for only $1,000.
I haven’t heard of anyone being so lucky since 9/11, when the alleged hijackers lucked out with the US government at every turn.
The MVA Science Consultants WTC dust report sanctioned by Chris Morh does not include the crux of Harris et al 2009 report: The Differential Scanner Calorimeter graph. In that Milette’s MVA Science Consultants avoid dealing and having to explain the similarities of the DCS graph with that of known nano-thermite. How obvious things are.
Secondly really Chris, you could not have taken a worse choice than someone who was already involved in research that supports the official narrative whatever than person may claim. It’s utter naive to believe this man’s promises of open mindedness and that whatever result he’ll publish it. You still defending your choice demonstrates lack of people assessment, psychology, group think and risk evation among government employees. You should have contacted non-American labs since American identity together with the vlag symbol are known factors that skew perception. ‘ … They blew off the whole 9/11 Controlled Demolition theory and could not contain their contempt.’ is very indicative of this. The flag has had a prominent position from the day 9/11 happened. It is for you important to understand the effect this symbol and the American identity has on the attitude against any evidenced hypothesis that goes against the official narrative.
Very revealing Kevin. Mohr’s reasoning for Millette not mentioning the iron microspheres, is that they were not an obvious health hazard and therefore not the primary focus of his research at that time. Mohr made no reference to the Cate Jenkins report which is more telling. Particularly since Millette’s work played a prominent part in that fraudulent study. Regarding the dozens of labs Mohr supposedly checked out prior to selecting Dr. Millette’s; based on a posting he made on Nov.15, 2011 in the JREF 9/11 Conspiracy subForum, Mohr indicated his interest was first aroused after receiving from an unknown person, a copy of the report: Comparisons of the dust/smoke particulate that settled inside the surrounding buildings and outside on the streets of southern New York City after the collapse of the World Trade Center, September 11, 2001.
Authors: Yiin LM, Millette JR, Vette A, Ilacqua V, Quan C, Gorczynski J, Kendall M, Chen LC, Weisel CP, Buckley B, Yang I, Lioy PJ.
Mohr indicated that he contact Paul Lioy seeking a good lab person to pursue a fresh investigation into the nanothermite claims made in 2009 Bentham Paper.
Interestingly, Lioy referred him to Dr. Jim Millette who co-authored their work published in 2002 in Environmental Health Perspectives, stating that; “Within our Team Jim Millette of MVA, Atlanta GA did our microscopic analyses.”
On Nov.17, 2011, Mohr posted in JREF that he had received correspondence from a member of the team [Dr. Millette] that had participated in that WTC dust study. Mohr indicated he did not wish to reveal the person’s identity at that time. In that correspondence, Millette said; “I looked briefly at one of the WTC dust samples we have in archive and could find no evidence of large amounts of Thermite.”
On Nov.18, 2011, Mohr posted another response from his lab guy [Millette] in JREF, where lab guy stated;
“… I will need to review the Harrit papers again but I think they claimed that the small chips with red and gray were iron oxide (red) and aluminium (gray)… I have not done a sufficient study to completely rule out the thermite question at this time…”
On Dec.8, 2011, Mohr posted about his lab guy [Millette] whom he still had not identified to his JREF audience, stating his impeccable credentials, objectivity, honesty etc., but indicated that due to the sensitivity limits of his tests, there was a threshold limit for detecting small amounts of thermitic material. Lab guy recommended Polarized Light Microscopy and Scanning Electromicroscopy at a price of $750 per sample.
On Dec.22, 2011, Mohr posted; “…my Lab Guy [Dr. Millette] has gotten real interested in the WTC dust. For $1000 he will do several tests on the red-grey chips and with his own nickel will do more, including “PLM, SEM, TEM and FTIR after sample treatment.” He has still indicated scientific neutrality about what we will find… no conclusions till the test results are in. He has already done some initial tests on the red-grey chips in his lab’s collection of WTC dust…”
On Dec.23, 2011, Mohr posted;”…He [Dr. Millette] already has tested ten red-gray chips himself (with a solid chain of custody) and produced and shown to me spectographs of their chemical contents. So far no conclusive results…”
On Dec.30, 2011, Mohr finally decided to unmask Millette to the JREF forum members.
Later on Dec.30, 2011 in a new post;
Mohr states that Kevin Ryan refuses to cooperate with this study. Mohr feels that Kevin is unfairly distrustful of Dr. Millette due to his questionable involvement in the EPA study, and distrusts Mohr for not revealing what he knew all along about Dr. Millette’s previous investigations.
It should be noted that in none of his posts does Mohr reveal any knowledge regarding the Cate Jenkins whistleblowing report about the EPA WTC dust studies in which Dr. Millette prominent role is referenced 4 times.
Meanwhile, the $1,000 fee has been collected but the originally promised early results have been cancelled in favor of Dr. Millette’s presentation in Atlanta at the end of February and supposedly in the interest of peer review.
So now we wait for “massaged data” rather than receiving the promised raw findings and later polished report.
Mohr professes total faith in Millette’s “just another job” integrity, in spite of the obvious fallout that would ensue if this new research supported the findings of the 2009 Bentham Paper.
9/11 is a subject very very few people have unbiased feelings about. I cannot believe for a moment that Dr. Millette is unaware of the political upheaval positive findings of nanothermite would have.
Mohr says that such a finding would cause him to go “hmmm”.
Keep up the good work Kevin!
The question remains — why did Mohr give Millette $1,000 (if he did)? It couldn’t possibly be for the actual lab work which would require several times that amount. Millette does get much more than that from the federal government each year ($117,000 in 2002 alone) so maybe he doesn’t need the money.
More importantly, Mohr didn’t even send Millette samples!
It seems we’re all going “hmmm” already.
“hire the most objective and knowledgeable scientist I could find” this statement alone proves deception ,the man he choose was already known to be compromised .
Regarding C.Mohr, above:
“I have personally read a recent letter from Rich Lee of RJ Lee, which denies that temperatures in excess of 2800 degrees F are necessary to create the billions of iron microspheres.”
While the recorded temperature spikes vaporizing steel, evaporating lead and creating Molybdenum microspheres answer to Rich Lee’s temperature requirement denial,
in context of PRODUCTION of those “billions of iron microspheres”, Rich Lee has another letter presented at
stating his theory for the SOURCE of these “billions of iron microspheres” in the DUST of 911.
: “fire in a building .. central core elevator shafts acting like chimney efficiently providing oxygen needed for combustion…at hurricane force speeds…thin layer of rust flakes heated red hot or hotter by hurricane force blast furnace like wind..”
This ‘theory’, is restricted at source to ONE hour or so duration and limited area of BURN; and the ‘thin layer of rust flakes’ in the elevator shafts’ to make “150xtimes normal microspheres in ‘building collapse’ DUST, as found ‘unusual’ by RJ Lee himself.
The letter could be hoax, it’s a DISMAL and unprofessional enough comment to warrant that possible, but, if not, indicates a level of contempt for the science of 911, and the degree to which Mr Lee’s IMAGINATION has Failed in his consideration of it.
Of course this new “hurricane winds” theory by RJLee just doesn’t make sense and is yet another apologists cover-up for the official conspiracy theory. Where is the evidence of these hurricane winds? The lady in the hole of the north tower would have been blown out… the towers would have been glowing like a Bunsen burner. The different air crash impacts would have resulted in radically different behaviors in a natural collapse: asymmetric, slow progression. It does not explain the molten metal at the edges of the tower before their explosive demise or the pools of molten metal afterwards or any part of the WTC7 collapse.
The lack of investigation into the three tower’s destruction is too incredible for words. Either we have controlled demolition or all skyscrapers are inherently unsafe. You can’t have it any other way.
Pingback: How to Debunk WTC Thermite | Dig Within
Pingback: 9/11 Truth: How to Debunk WTC Thermite at Ground Zero | LES RAISONS DU CITRON
Pingback: 9/11 Truth: How to Debunk WTC Thermite at Ground Zero! « Socio-Economics History Blog
I would just like everyone to know that Jenkins was vindicated. Chris you are a shady guy, when I watch your videos on youtube I can’t help but think you are at a wake and standing in front of a casket. Your attempt to discredit Jones however sincere /s has made you look like a complete fool at best. I digress, I just wanted to point out to anyone reading this excellent article that Millette is guilty of fraud, a fraud that has contributed to the early deaths of many of the heroes who helped out at ground zero.
Here’s the problem I see in both the paper/sample testing (and finding thermitic materials), as well as the counter analysis: both have assumed the spherical dust particulates have been formed due to high heat. One must never make any sort of assumption when one does not have the answers. This would include it being, “high heat”, which created these spheres.
I would have to remind you scientists the only assumption you can make based on the finding is that it would have been caused/created by high energy. This does not have to include heat.
Then, begin your study, anew.