I shall start a new thread for this I suppose. I didn't focus on the fact that this one was dedicated to the WTC dust, though many aspects of Chris's vids did reference the planes and their speed, I'll take that topic elsewhere as well.
No, I'm saying that at sea level the airplane's structure cannot tolerate such speeds without uncontrollable flutter in a best case scenario and integral degradation of all aerodynamics (i.e. breaking apart in flight) as the more probable scenario.
A site that was pretty solid is here: citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/responsetochrismohr4-1 (dot) pdf
In response to you and Mile High...
You really should do this first.
Well, that's the (faulty) reasoning Jones tries to lure you into.
Correct.
Only one of several lines of evidence that refute the thermite paper. We never really needed the Millette paper to reject the thermite paper - its conclusions never followed from its data, and other, more mundane explanations are much more consistent with their own data.
A floor in the WTC fails when more than 29,000,000 pounds are applied. Darn, the math is not with the failed claims of 911 truth; who would of guessed; most rational people - about 99.9 percent of humans.
You argue for people to spread lies about 911?
What bombing at the Pentagon, it was Flight 77, and DNA, Radar, and the FDR prove it to rational people.
Our people? 911 truth's peers include the Boston bombers - how is that for peer review. Our people, with respect to 911 truth lack any evidence to support the silly claims made for the past 13 years.
Why bother? It's already been answered by pilots who fly professionally.
Good points. And if I might add, two high-quality tests searching for elemental aluminum in the chips were in fact done: Kevin Ryan's FTIR readings and the TEM analysis of Jeff Farrer. Both of those test results were never published, and my video quotes Farrer's email to me and at least one other person about how, when he discussed the test results with one of the other authors of the paper, it was suggested he had the "wrong chips," which he KNEW was not the case! What no one has so far directly dealt with are these quotes from Jeff Farrer, the fire chemists' answers to my questions about the iron-rich microspheres (which is new technical information), and many other things I learned along the way. No one in 9/11 Truth has any answer to the question of whether evidence of elemental aluminum was ever found in chips a-d, or was it just Figure 17 (the single MEK-soaked chip).
If these conspiracists are surprising honest why do they remain truthers.
Two of the ones writing to me have actually changed and are giving up on 9/11 Truth, some are holding on to CD and giving up on thermite. Then I say to them, good, thank you. And now you have no evidence whatsoever for any mechanism to bring down these buildings in CD! I wonder where some of the people I quote in my video are now with CD, because without thermite they either have to go to mininukes/death rays or admit they have no hypothesis at all as to how the evildoers made it collapse!
Chris, the MEK chip was the same kind of chip as chips a to d. The only people that have doubted that are anonymous nincompoops, and contrary to what you say, this non-sense has been addressed in many internet articles and comments over the years. You always treat the same old claims as something fresh out of the oven, for some reason.
And THINK for a moment about the silly situation you are implying when you argue that the MEK chip must have been a different chip: you are saying there are red chips in the WTC dust that have iron-oxide grains along with platelets of elemental aluminum, the ingredients of thermite, just like Harrit et al claim...but you are trying to debunk them with that claim! And you keep a straight face when you do it
PS. Chris make sure you DO NOT look at my response to Dave Thomas above, because I address your Farrer quote and you want to keep claiming no-one has addressed that stuff...but if you do accidentally take a peep you can always forget about it later..
...
And THINK for a moment about the silly situation you are implying when you argue that the MEK chip must have been a different chip: you are saying there are red chips in the WTC dust that have iron-oxide grains along with platelets of elemental aluminum, the ingredients of thermite, just like Harrit et al claim...but you are trying to debunk them with that claim! And you keep a straight face when you do it
Mark Basile did an interview with the truther propaganda radio show "9/11 Fee Fall" late in 2012 where he said (at 28:28 in this recording):
Basile believes that Jones and all looked at different kinds of chips! Do you think Mark Basile is a nincompoop?Mark Basile said:
So do you agree that there are red-gray, magnetic chips in the WTC that are not thermitic?
Is that true, Ziggi? Let's quote Jones from the article that you linked to:
Hmm. Sounds like the TEM data doesn't support kaolin... right? WRONG! Jones added some notes at the end of the blog post:SE Jones said:
Do you see that Farrer's TEM-XEDS data is consistent after all with kaolin as far as the Al:Si-ratio is concerned.SE Jones said:
Jones suggests amorphous Al - but actually, all he says is that the TEM diffraction data, in this instance, yielded no identification - it was indeed inconclusive, as Chris said!SE Jones said:
YOU forget to say by which criteria Jones "decided" that Millette did not study the same chips:
Actually, Fig, 7d has a signal for Ti:SE Jones said:
The positive results as well as Farrer's own assessment indeed tend to confirm Millette's work. It's only Jones's unsupported speculation, where he goes boldly beyond what the inconclusive data actually shows, that doubt is sawn. Now you can of course choose to believe Jones (who has a history of faking evidence and bogus arguments), who of course has a strong incentive to defend his crap work against well-founded criticism. But that choice clearly is predicated on the outcome you like best.
Pray tell: How is that "obvious"?
Evidence? There isn't any. If there is then present it. Show us detailed SEM photos of the particles that made up the red layer of that chip prior to soaking. Show us the EDX spectra for those individual particles.
You're missing the point that there is ZERO evidence that the MEK-chip has its little bit of Al in platelets assiciated with Si. Please acknowledge that
I am very curious: Which two? Can you please assign the various relevant specimens to those two different (kinds of) chips that you are dreaming of? By what criteria do you decide that we have two different kinds? Please be specific, name the criteria in scientifically objective terms!
Nonsense. The form is highly relevant: Both the platelets and the grains in chips a-d are so regular in shape that it is almost inevitable to call them "crystalline". Do you agree that, at this scale, regular particle shape, with edges and points at recurring angles, is a very strong indicator of the material being a crystal phase? Crystal lattice structures are a standard way for material scientists and forensicists to identify chemical species. Do you agree with this?
Perhaps you are intentionally misrepresenting the arguments, but let me be benign and assume you simply don't understand.
Please present a quote from Harrit et al from which it is clear that Harrit et al were at least aware that some of the chips are primer paint!
Please quote the relevant passage from the Harrit et al paper that makes exactly this "clear"!
You do not want to hear anything about Millette definitely studying the right chips, according to Jeff Farrer!
I need you to answer the following questions very clearly and very honestly:
And yet in Harrit et al there is absolutely no discussion about separating paint chips from thermitic chips. No other truthers have ever shown a single paint chip separated from the dust let alone one that is different from the chips a-d in Harrit et al.
Show exactly where chips a-d show an extreme exotherm. Provide detail that shows that any of the chips a-d where actually used in the DSC test.
I seem to recall the C peak at about 3.7 keV was a mislabeling in the bottom image, right?
FTFY. That's as much as we know. I seriously doubt they never looked for it, but what we do certainly know is that they never found it, whether they looked or not.
Correct on both counts. It's a simple typo: The C should be Ca (calcium). You can determine for yourself which element has peaks at which keV value by clicking it in this periodic table:
Al2O3 (alumina) isn't particularly rare. An aluminium silicate mineral can be thought of as alternating layers of alumina and silica, and since the silicates used in primer paints are from natural sources, with natural impurities, it would not surprise me much if TEM could find small patches of alumina without the silica in between; just as Millette found instances of TiO2. So I will not be surprised if someone will find some alumina in some chips, or in the residue of some burned chips. The key of course to proving a thermite reaction took place is finding significant amounts of both elemental iron and alumina in the residue - both in nearly 1:1 mass ratio - and 1:2 volume ratio (iron is about twice as dense).
The first thing you would have to show is that they knew they were misrepresenting their evidence. Incompetence is not a crime (in this case).
