• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chris Mohr's YouTube Part 23 Epilogue: WTC Dust Update; Saying Goodbye to 9/11 Truth

DGM said:
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).

They have nothing to worry about because no one outside of the true believers would give it anymore then a passing giggle (outside of conspiracy hobbyists)

There's a good reason they had to pay to have this published and why they picked the "journal" they did. As far as I can see, it was the best $600 they ever spent. ;)
Click to expand...

Millette used FTIR to identify paint with epoxy and kaolin. Harrit Jones did FTIR, should have shown it in the paper, promised to publish results, didn't = scientific fraud.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
...When Basile says "some of the chips that, you know, Jones and all looked at", which chips is he talking about, if not the chips in Harrit´s study?
Click to expand...

This has already been explained clearly so that just about everyone can understand: Mark was talking about the presence of another kind of chips in the dust besides the kind reported on in Harrit´s paper. And Mark, just like Kevin Ryan (one of the "Jones and all" that Mark talks about) notes that a distinguishing feature of the thermitic chips is their exothermic quality. The only reason this was not clear is because you chose to leave out a critical part of Mark´s comment in your quote, the part where he talks about the exothermic quality of the correct chips.

You and Chris Mohr seem to think cutting quotes out of context to fit your opinions is legit, and both of you are equally oblivious to what this MO does to your credibility.

You can rant and rave all you want to divert attention from this and to derail this thread with a flood of pathetic comments with all your old BS claims. I am not taking the bait, even with Sunstealer on your side.:rolleyes:
 
Ziggi said:
This has already been explained clearly so that just about everyone can understand: Mark was talking about the presence of another kind of chips in the dust besides the kind reported on in Harrit´s paper. ...
Click to expand...

Why don't you respond clearly and honestly to my last previous post? I had left a number of very specific questions and requests for acknowledgement. Let me number them, so we can track how many of my questions you fail to answer:

Please acknowledge that
  1. there is no evidence for platelets in the MEK-chip1
  2. there is no evidence for Al associated with Si in the MEK-chip prior to soaking in MEK2
  3. there is however evidence that Al and Si are not associated after MEK-soaking3
  4. the evidence is entirely consistent with Al and Si never habing been associated with each other in the first place in the MEK chip4
That's 4 separate claims of fact that I need you to acknowledge separately, clearly and honestly at this time.


You had claimed "so far it seems two different chips have been reported on, both with platelets".
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?5 By what criteria do you decide that we have two different kinds? Please be specific, name the criteria in scientifically objective terms!6

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?7 Crystal lattice structures are a standard way for material scientists and forensicists to identify chemical species. Do you agree with this?8

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!9

When Basile says "some of the chips that, you know, Jones and all looked at", which chips is he talking about, if not the chips in Harrit´s study?10

  1. According to Basile, how can a researcher differntiate between primer chips and "nanothermite" chips? Please list the criteria that basile presents in the interview (it's easy to find, he talks about this within 30 seconds of the aforementioned quote at 28:28).11 (you mentioned the "exotherm reaction" - but pleaser try to write the criteria down in an objective, scientific, unambiguous way)
  2. Do you agree that those are necessary and sufficient criteria to tell primer paint chips from "nanothermite" chips?12
  3. Did Harrit et al apply those criteria to chips a-d?13
  4. Did Harrit et al apply those criteria to the MEK-chip?14
These are another four separate questions that I need four separate, clear and honest answers to!
(If you do not agree that Basile is right about the criteria, then please enumerate fully the objective, scientific criteria that any researcher of the red-gray chips ought to apply to separate paint chips from "nanothermite" chips, and tell us if Harrit et al applied these criteria to chips a-d and the MEK chip!)


Please quote the relevant passage from the Harrit et al paper that makes exactly this "clear from the start that the dust is full of all kinds of red material besides the thermitic chips, including paint chips"!15Otherwise, retract this claim, please.


Please enumerate fully the objective, scientific criteria that any researcher of the red-gray chips ought to apply to separate paint chips from "nanothermite" chips16, and tell us if Harrit et al applied these criteria to chips a-d17 and the MEK chip!18This is another request that I need you to respond to clearly and honestly at this time!


I need you to answer the following questions very clearly and very honestly:
  1. Did Harrit et al ignite chips a-d? Please provide evidence if your answer is "yes"!19
  2. Did Harrit et al ignite the MEK-chip? Please provide evidence if your answer is "yes"!20
Those are two more separate questions that I nneed you to answer separately, clearly and honestly at this time!


(Some of the questions overlap; for example 13 and 19)


You have a lot to answer for, Ziggi.
Usually, when I ask truthers to answer specific questions specifically and honestly, they dodge dodge and NEVER come around to answering them. I usually interprete this as them being fully aware that they are full of crap and cannot answer anything honestly without knowingly debunking themselves. I fully expect you to be no exception to this.
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
This has already been explained clearly so that just about everyone can understand: Mark was talking about the presence of another kind of chips in the dust besides the kind reported on in Harrit´s paper. And Mark, just like Kevin Ryan (one of the "Jones and all" that Mark talks about) notes that a distinguishing feature of the thermitic chips is their exothermic quality. The only reason this was not clear is because you chose to leave out a critical part of Mark´s comment in your quote, the part where he talks about the exothermic quality of the correct chips.

You and Chris Mohr seem to think cutting quotes out of context to fit your opinions is legit, and both of you are equally oblivious to what this MO does to your credibility.

You can rant and rave all you want to divert attention from this and to derail this thread with a flood of pathetic comments with all your old BS claims. I am not taking the bait, even with Sunstealer on your side.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is there evidence for elemental Al in their dust samples?

If so, where?

If not, will you finally admit that the authors of the Bentham Open thermite paper did not find elemental Al?
 
Last edited:
OCaptain said:
Is there evidence for elemental Al in their dust samples?

If so, where?

If not, will you finally admit that the authors of the Bentham Open thermite paper did not find elemental Al?
Click to expand...

From what I gather they did find what should be evidence of elemental aluminum in one chip.

In a related issue I have asked:
jaydeehess said:
I've asked a few times, forgive me if you answered and i missed it and please point me to the post #;
What, exactly is the correct context with which to take Jones' quote? No, I do not want to simply hear that the conclusions of the report say there is aluminum, I want to know how it is that Jones could say what he did and have it mean that aluminum was indeed present.

It is quite a curiosity.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Why don't you respond clearly and honestly to my last previous post? I had left a number of very specific questions and requests for acknowledgement. Let me number them, so we can track how many of my questions you fail to answer:

Please acknowledge that
  1. there is no evidence for platelets in the MEK-chip1
  2. there is no evidence for Al associated with Si in the MEK-chip prior to soaking in MEK2
  3. there is however evidence that Al and Si are not associated after MEK-soaking3
  4. the evidence is entirely consistent with Al and Si never habing been associated with each other in the first place in the MEK chip4
That's 4 separate claims of fact that I need you to acknowledge separately, clearly and honestly at this time.


You had claimed "so far it seems two different chips have been reported on, both with platelets".
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?5 By what criteria do you decide that we have two different kinds? Please be specific, name the criteria in scientifically objective terms!6

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?7 Crystal lattice structures are a standard way for material scientists and forensicists to identify chemical species. Do you agree with this?8

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!9

When Basile says "some of the chips that, you know, Jones and all looked at", which chips is he talking about, if not the chips in Harrit´s study?10

  1. According to Basile, how can a researcher differntiate between primer chips and "nanothermite" chips? Please list the criteria that basile presents in the interview (it's easy to find, he talks about this within 30 seconds of the aforementioned quote at 28:28).11 (you mentioned the "exotherm reaction" - but pleaser try to write the criteria down in an objective, scientific, unambiguous way)
  2. Do you agree that those are necessary and sufficient criteria to tell primer paint chips from "nanothermite" chips?12
  3. Did Harrit et al apply those criteria to chips a-d?13
  4. Did Harrit et al apply those criteria to the MEK-chip?14
These are another four separate questions that I need four separate, clear and honest answers to!
(If you do not agree that Basile is right about the criteria, then please enumerate fully the objective, scientific criteria that any researcher of the red-gray chips ought to apply to separate paint chips from "nanothermite" chips, and tell us if Harrit et al applied these criteria to chips a-d and the MEK chip!)


Please quote the relevant passage from the Harrit et al paper that makes exactly this "clear from the start that the dust is full of all kinds of red material besides the thermitic chips, including paint chips"!15Otherwise, retract this claim, please.


Please enumerate fully the objective, scientific criteria that any researcher of the red-gray chips ought to apply to separate paint chips from "nanothermite" chips16, and tell us if Harrit et al applied these criteria to chips a-d17 and the MEK chip!18This is another request that I need you to respond to clearly and honestly at this time!


I need you to answer the following questions very clearly and very honestly:
  1. Did Harrit et al ignite chips a-d? Please provide evidence if your answer is "yes"!19
  2. Did Harrit et al ignite the MEK-chip? Please provide evidence if your answer is "yes"!20
Those are two more separate questions that I nneed you to answer separately, clearly and honestly at this time!


(Some of the questions overlap; for example 13 and 19)


You have a lot to answer for, Ziggi.
Usually, when I ask truthers to answer specific questions specifically and honestly, they dodge dodge and NEVER come around to answering them. I usually interprete this as them being fully aware that they are full of crap and cannot answer anything honestly without knowingly debunking themselves. I fully expect you to be no exception to this.
Click to expand...



:popcorn1
 
Ziggi said:
This has already been explained clearly so that just about everyone can understand: Mark was talking about the presence of another kind of chips in the dust besides the kind reported on in Harrit´s paper. And Mark, just like Kevin Ryan (one of the "Jones and all" that Mark talks about) notes that a distinguishing feature of the thermitic chips is their exothermic quality. The only reason this was not clear is because you chose to leave out a critical part of Mark´s comment in your quote, the part where he talks about the exothermic quality of the correct chips.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Why is there no reference to these chips in the paper?

What does the DSC output look like for the incorrect chips? Surely they must have burned a few in order to determine some were not "thermetic". Did they not find any "different kind of chip".

I assume they must have matched the published criteria for selection(or Basile wouldn't have bothered mentioning them). Is this correct? If so, how is anyone suppose to independently verify the paper with no selection reference to go by?
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure they talk about two differengt kinds of chips, one of which has a strong exothermic reaction at around 430C and one which can be heated much hotter and nogt much happens. Kevin Ryan told me this, and I saw various videos and blog posts that say the same thing. Somewhere there may be DSC measurements of all this, but I'm pretty sure you are right that they don't mention this in the paper.
 
chrismohr said:
I'm pretty sure they talk about two differengt kinds of chips, one of which has a strong exothermic reaction at around 430C and one which can be heated much hotter and nogt much happens. Kevin Ryan told me this, and I saw various videos and blog posts that say the same thing. Somewhere there may be DSC measurements of all this, but I'm pretty sure you are right that they don't mention this in the paper.
Click to expand...
Have they ever addressed the suggestion that the conclusions of the paper are not reproducible*?

ETA: * That the selection process does not guarantee the selection of the correct chip.
 
Last edited:
I believe Mark Basile has said his goal is to reproduce the experiment. In my debate with Richard Gage, he said, "We need repeatable experiments" to prove thermite. Rick Shaddock has said similar things. No, they don't say the experiment is not reproducible as far as I know, but they do say they would like to see the experiment reproduced. Several people believed in it enough to donate $5000 to Basile's call for more tests etc.
 
chrismohr said:
I'm pretty sure they talk about two differengt kinds of chips, one of which has a strong exothermic reaction at around 430C and one which can be heated much hotter and nogt much happens. Kevin Ryan told me this, and I saw various videos and blog posts that say the same thing. Somewhere there may be DSC measurements of all this, but I'm pretty sure you are right that they don't mention this in the paper.
Click to expand...
There's no mention in the Harrit et al paper regarding "the wrong chips" or any graphs showing the exotherm of these "wrong chips". All of the chips separated by a magnet in Harrit et al are considered to contain thermite. Even the chip in Fig 31 which shows no similarity with the chips a-d or the MEK chip under visual microscopy.

All of the 4 chips subjected to DSC where considered to contain thermite even though their own results do not indicate it. What's more, those 4 chips subjected to DSC do not represent the specimens obtained from all 4 dust samples.

Dust Samples

1 - Mackinlay
2 - Delessio/Breidenbach
3 - Intermont
4 - White

From these dust samples a single specimen from each are taken using the magnetic method of separation and visual microscopy, labelled as: a, b, c, d corresponding with 1-4 above. See Fig 2 and the description in Harrit et al.

In fig 5 they give SEM photos for 4 chips from each of the four samples, 1,2,3,4 and label them as a,b,c,d.

However, in Fig 19, the DSC graph shows 4 curves, but the corresponding labels indicate that there are 2 chips from the Mackinlay dust and one each from the Intermont and White dust.

There is nothing from the Delessio/Breidenbach dust sample.

Was this a typo? MacKinlay 1 and 2 in the DSC curves show a marked difference to the other two. It's hard to believe there is a typo because they are clearly labelled 1 & 2. You'll note that the MacKinlay 1 (blue) DSC curve is cherry picked in order to compare it with the result from Tilitson Fig 19.

There is absolutely no correlation between the SEM analysis and the DSC curves because the DSC curves are not labelled with the identification of individual chips a-d (or any other) from the rest of the paper.

The DSC curve should have a Delessio/Breidenbach (sample 2) curve.

When people like Ziggi start quoting other truthers with regard to the DSC curve being an indication of thermite then they have to question whether sample 2 and the chip b) is thermite, because according to the paper no chip from the Delessio/Breidenbach dust sample was ever subjected to DSC. It has no exotherm.

Ziggy claims that the "quality of the exotherm" (whatever that is) is the way in which you determine whether the chip is thermite, but there is no exotherm correlating with the Delessio/Breidenbach dust sample. By his own method, chip b cannot be considered to be thermite as it hasn't undergone a test to determine the exotherm.

We have absolutely no idea what was subjected to DSC analysis. Not even the authors of the paper, "know" what the "right chips" are.

The whole "wrong chips" meme came about because of you! :D

No one else went to the trouble to organise an independent analysis of material separated from the WTC dust using the criteria that was set out in the Harrit et al paper.

Once that happened, there became large amounts of data to compare with the data in Harrit et al. The two correlate quite nicely as I showed in my "Ziggyland" post. (Apologies for using a y instead of an i, but David Bowie got there first)

No truther has ever tried to make a formal comparison of the data provided by Millette and the data in Harrit et al. They won't because to do so would show that Millette not only separated the material correctly, but showed conclusively that the material was not thermite. Everyone can see the comparisons in the above post.

The only fall back the diehard truthers have, is to claim that Millette had the wrong chips. Of course this is not the case. Truthers know it, which is why the odd one will snipe from the sidelines and attack you regarding the most minor of phrasing.

If truthers claim there are certain chips that do not undergo an exotherm around 430°C then they need to present the evidence. It's been 6 years and still nothing.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
I believe Mark Basile has said his goal is to reproduce the experiment. In my debate with Richard Gage, he said, "We need repeatable experiments" to prove thermite. Rick Shaddock has said similar things. No, they don't say the experiment is not reproducible as far as I know, but they do say they would like to see the experiment reproduced. Several people believed in it enough to donate $5000 to Basile's call for more tests etc.
Click to expand...

Saying they want something and also calling for providing a means to make it happen are two different things.

As it stands there is no means for an independent verification to happen because they have not provided a criterion for which to select chips that are the same as the ones in the study.

I think they are avoiding the suggestion that the study is not reproducible.

Do you agree?
 
Sunstealer said:
There's no mention in the Harrit et al paper regarding "the wrong chips" or any graphs showing the exotherm of these "wrong chips". All of the chips separated by a magnet in Harrit et al are considered to contain thermite. Even the chip in Fig 31 which shows no similarity with the chips a-d or the MEK chip under visual microscopy.

All of the 4 chips subjected to DSC where considered to contain thermite even though their own results do not indicate it. What's more, those 4 chips subjected to DSC do not represent the specimens obtained from all 4 dust samples.

Dust Samples

1 - Mackinlay
2 - Delessio/Breidenbach
3 - Intermont
4 - White

From these dust samples a single specimen from each are taken using the magnetic method of separation and visual microscopy, labelled as: a, b, c, d corresponding with 1-4 above. See Fig 2 and the description in Harrit et al.

In fig 5 they give SEM photos for 4 chips from each of the four samples, 1,2,3,4 and label them as a,b,c,d.

However, in Fig 19, the DSC graph shows 4 curves, but the corresponding labels indicate that there are 2 chips from the Mackinlay dust and one each from the Intermont and White dust.

There is nothing from the Delessio/Breidenbach dust sample.

Was this a typo? MacKinlay 1 and 2 in the DSC curves show a marked difference to the other two. It's hard to believe there is a typo because they are clearly labelled 1 & 2. You'll note that the MacKinlay 1 (blue) DSC curve is cherry picked in order to compare it with the result from Tilitson Fig 19.

There is absolutely no correlation between the SEM analysis and the DSC curves because the DSC curves are not labelled with the identification of individual chips a-d (or any other) from the rest of the paper.

The DSC curve should have a Delessio/Breidenbach (sample 2) curve.

When people like Ziggi start quoting other truthers with regard to the DSC curve being an indication of thermite then they have to question whether sample 2 and the chip b) is thermite, because according to the paper no chip from the Delessio/Breidenbach dust sample was ever subjected to DSC. It has no exotherm.

Ziggy claims that the "quality of the exotherm" (whatever that is) is the way in which you determine whether the chip is thermite, but there is no exotherm correlating with the Delessio/Breidenbach dust sample. By his own method, chip b cannot be considered to be thermite as it hasn't undergone a test to determine the exotherm.

We have absolutely no idea what was subjected to DSC analysis. Not even the authors of the paper, "know" what the "right chips" are.

The whole "wrong chips" meme came about because of you! :D
Click to expand...

Not quite. The first person to be told he was looking at the "wrong chips" was Jeff Farrer himself, their own lead experimenter, who in 2008 actually did the TEM tests and several others. When the results turned out the way they did, he was then told he may have had the wrong chips, even though the chips he used were identical to the ones he had already used in other experiments:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10715003&postcount=134

No one else went to the trouble to organise an independent analysis of material separated from the WTC dust using the criteria that was set out in the Harrit et al paper.

Once that happened, there became large amounts of data to compare with the data in Harrit et al. The two correlate quite nicely as I showed in my "Ziggyland" post. (Apologies for using a y instead of an i, but David Bowie got there first)

No truther has ever tried to make a formal comparison of the data provided by Millette and the data in Harrit et al. They won't because to do so would show that Millette not only separated the material correctly, but showed conclusively that the material was not thermite. Everyone can see the comparisons in the above post.

The only fall back the diehard truthers have, is to claim that Millette had the wrong chips. Of course this is not the case. Truthers know it, which is why the odd one will snipe from the sidelines and attack you regarding the most minor of phrasing.

If truthers claim there are certain chips that do not undergo an exotherm around 430°C then they need to present the evidence. It's been 6 years and still nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Not quite. The first person to be told he was looking at the "wrong chips" was Jeff Farrer himself, their own lead experimenter, who in 2008 actually did the TEM tests and several others. When the results turned out the way they did, he was then told he may have had the wrong chips, even though the chips he used were identical to the ones he had already used in other experiments:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10715003&postcount=134
Click to expand...

:eek::confused::jaw-dropp
Are you sure Farrer did those TEM-tests, and was told he looked at the "wrong" chips, before the Bentham paper was published, even before it was submitted??

Then we'd have a clear and definite example of scientific fraud at hand, for there then was a conscious and deliberate decision to keep conflicting data out of consideration! Then Harrit and Jones knew that many red-gray chips are definitely not "thermitic" and consciously decided not to mention this important fact! So far I had assumed that they were merely too stupid to notice all the differences and realize the differences in data clearly imply differences in material identity.
 
Oystein said:
:eek::confused::jaw-dropp
Are you sure Farrer did those TEM-tests, and was told he looked at the "wrong" chips, before the Bentham paper was published, even before it was submitted??

Then we'd have a clear and definite example of scientific fraud at hand, for there then was a conscious and deliberate decision to keep conflicting data out of consideration! Then Harrit and Jones knew that many red-gray chips are definitely not "thermitic" and consciously decided not to mention this important fact! So far I had assumed that they were merely too stupid to notice all the differences and realize the differences in data clearly imply differences in material identity.
Click to expand...
The legal part of my brain is somewhat interested in what constitutes "scientific fraud". It is probably afforded a wide range of meanings extending from pure lay person usage through to the full rigour of strict academic/professional usage. Where the "fraud" has consequences for legitimate scientists who may suffer some professional "damage" if they rely on the accuracy of the purported claims.

Given that Bentham is not a recognised academic/professional publishing avenue the activity is probably somewhere in the middle ground "grey area" - only semi "scientific fraud". Surely no professional would take a Bentham paper as reliably serious science?? :rolleyes:


:D ;)

:boxedin:
 
Perhaps the term "scientific misconduct" sounds more appropriate ;)
 
Oystein said:
Perhaps the term "scientific misconduct" sounds more appropriate ;)
Click to expand...

Could be. My comment only intended to be light hearted.

Truthers play a lot of debating trickery using implications based on poor definition of terminology. Personally I prefer to not risk appearing to do the same.

Then I could be unduly influenced by experience on another forum where there are several ongoing threads based on false truther accusations of "fraud" - in the criminal legal meaning NOT "scientific fraud". :)
 
You could as well be looking at "official" truther pronouncements such as those by AE911Truth, who have recently, during several months, published a six part series of articles titled "NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud".
 
chrismohr said:
Not quite. The first person to be told he was looking at the "wrong chips" was Jeff Farrer himself, their own lead experimenter, who in 2008 actually did the TEM tests and several others. When the results turned out the way they did, he was then told he may have had the wrong chips, even though the chips he used were identical to the ones he had already used in other experiments:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10715003&postcount=134
Click to expand...
Thanks. Jesus, that is simply unbelievable. I had read that slide watching the video, but it hadn't fully sunk in.

Suggesting to their own researcher that he had the wrong chip when he was doing all the work, what a bloody cheek. Now we know why there was no TEM data in the paper, it proved that the chips weren't thermite.

I wonder why Farrer continued, his name is second on the paper? He would have known that the TEM data didn't support the thermite hypothesis.

A quick google brings up this from Steven Jones:

2. Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU.

3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.

4. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper. Dr. Farrer was formerly first author on this paper. But after internal review of the paper, BYU administrators evidently disallowed him from being first author on ANY paper related to 9/11 research (this appears to be their perogative, but perhaps they will explain). Nevertheless, the paper was approved for publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this. We stand by Dr. Farrer and congratulate his careful scientific research represented in this paper.
Click to expand...
http://www.911truth.org/another-pee...active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust/

Farrer was the lead author (until BYU intervened) and the lead researcher and even he was accused of getting a "different" chip! What a farce.

Note how Jones is praising Farrer and the TEM lab by quoting from an article about the quality of the TEM lab, but when that same researcher, in the same TEM lab, using the same chip as the SEM work comes up with results that don't support the thermite hypothesis, those results are dropped from the paper and never released.

That quote from Farrer should be thrown back at any truther who accuses Millette of having the wrong chips.

Oystein notes that Farrer did find Strontium and Chromium using TEM in "later research". He also notes that the TEM work showed a good correlation with kaolin being present because Farrer showed the ratio between Si and Al as 0.92. Iirc this is an atomic weight ratio between the two. Ratio between Al and Si is 0.961 which is pretty damn close.

See http://oystein-debate.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/steven-jones-and-jeff-farrer-confirm.html

What was Farrer thinking? He would certainly have put his job at risk with this work and he'd certainly lose it if the BYU saw evidence of fraud or breaking with BYU policy. He's on very dodgy ground.

I think it demonstrates just how far down the rabbit hole some people get and why it's so dangerous to do so.
 
Last edited:
Oh look someone already posted two days ago a third party definition of Scientific Fraud.

BasqueArch said:
[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT]SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. The term "scientific fraud" is used to describe intentional misrepresentation of the methods, procedures, or results of scientific research. Behavior characterized as scientific fraud includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing scientific research, or in reporting research results. Scientific fraud is unethical and often illegal.
Misrepresentation of Experimental Results
By today's standards, omission of data that inexplicably conflicts with other data or with a scientist's proposed interpretation is considered scientific fraud.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401803766.html
Click to expand...
Here's an example of lying by omission:

Did the Bentham paper omit data that inexplicably conflicts with other data or with a scientist's proposed interpretation?
 
Busy day, I'll be back with an answer late this evening. Don't jump to conlcusions or assume the worst just yet, please wait everyone!
 
chrismohr said:
Busy day, I'll be back with an answer late this evening. Don't jump to conlcusions or assume the worst just yet, please wait everyone!
Click to expand...

That´s funny Chris, you suddenly worried people might get the wrong ideas after watching your YouTube video? :eye-poppi
 
Ziggi said:
That´s funny Chris, you suddenly worried people might get the wrong ideas after watching your YouTube video? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
How are 911 truth pushers of woo fooled by the fantasy of thermite? Why are 911 truth followers so darn gullible?

13 years of lies and fantasy - a perfect record of woo. The paper proves there are gullible people how can't comprehend the conclusion of thermite was made up, not supported by the paper; no chemistry is needed, only a simple understanding of reading comprehension.

If Chris got everything wrong, it does not matter, there was no thermite used on 911 to destroy the WTC; the bad guys, the murderers came in stolen 767s to the WTC, not some silly fantasy of thermite made up by failed old men.

"911 Truth" sounds like some 1984 type of title, or something the NAZIs would use to spread lies. 13 years of failure; now what;;; right over unity circuits, wowzer - where did Jones go? Chris wins for being nice to liars like Jones, Gage, and other failed thermite supporters who mock the murder of thousands with lies dumber than dirt.

Present the proof of thermite. Darn, you have a failed paper by old failed nuts who are paranoid conspiracy theorists, or worse. Jones thinks the government is trying to kill him. A paranoid nut made up thermite four years after 911 and now has a "cargo cult" like following of people who refuse to think for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
That´s funny Chris, you suddenly worried people might get the wrong ideas after watching your YouTube video? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt he's concerned.

You on the other hand. It's clear you can't address any point that doesn't hold the party line. Anyone that can read can see this.
 
Ziggi said:
That´s funny Chris, you suddenly worried people might get the wrong ideas after watching your YouTube video? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Oystein and Sunstealer have both brought up points you seem utterly unwilling to address and you respond to a post by Chris that is merely explaining that he is away for a bit!

The veracity is astounding.
 
Last edited:
OK I'm back.
Are we looking at scientific fraud? I have not studied scientific ethics so I cannot judge. But I can say this:
Yes, the inconclusive TEM readings were taken by Jeff Farrer prior to the publication of the 2009 Thermitic paper. And obviously, they have not been released or included in the publication of that paper.
There are several possibilities here. I think some of you are jumping to the worst possible conclusion with insufficient information: that scientific fraud was committed. I know well what it's like to have terrible motives ascribed to me, so let's not assume the worst of our opponents.
Before you jump on the "Scientific Fraud" bandwagon, consider: as Steven Jones reported publicly, Farrer's TEM results and a followup test came up with NO signs of aluminum in ANY form. Not elemental. Not a compound. Now, we know that aluminum in some form has been found in chips a-d, in Millette's chips, and in the MEK-soaked chip.
Without knowing what actually happened for sure, a possible explanation is that the test was worthless. It did NOT show evidence of an aluminum compound pointing to kaolin, nor did it show evidence of elemental aluminum pointing to thermite. Now, again, I am not a scientific ethicist, but a useless test that reveals nothing doesn't seem to be required to be shown. There is no evidence in the TEM to either support or contradict their thermite claims. There may have been operator error, or some kind of aluminum in a form the TEM readings could not pick up on. Or who knows, maybe their lead researcher had the wrong chips, a suggestion Farrer strongly denied.
Steven Jones seems to have been honest when he said that the Farrer TEM readings and the followup study showed no evidence of any kind of aluminum. And this was both surprising and disappointing to him. At the time he wrote that, he wanted to see further studies. Mark Basile also said that they hadn't really proven elemental aluminum in the Thermitic paper.
So here is my journalist's opinion: they went ahead to publication before collecting enough evidence to consistently show elemental aluminum in the chips. The TEM readings proved or disproved nothing; like the followup test it was useless. What they published was insufficient to prove thermite because they just went ahead with what they had instead of researching further. I wish they had done more tests to strengthen their case (or convince them they were on the wrong track). This I believe was a mistake, but I am not convinced that it is fraud.
So I shrug my shoulders and say they have not met their burden of proof re elemental aluminum; to my knowledge, all they have is a single reading of high aluminum in one MEK-soaked chip. No one else, not Couannnier, not Basile, not Millette, has found strong evidence of abundant elemental aluminum either. And this is why I am not really interested in staying with the 9/11 debate much longer. Write to me when Mark Basile or someone else can prove elemental aluminum, aluminum oxide in the burned chips, etc.
Jaydeehess, a quick PS: "The veracity is astounding" means you are astounded by his truthfulness. I think you meant "audacity." English teacher lesson for the day...
 
chrismohr said:
OK I'm back.
Are we looking at scientific fraud? I have not studied scientific ethics so I cannot judge. But I can say this:
Yes, the inconclusive TEM readings were taken by Jeff Farrer prior to the publication of the 2009 Thermitic paper. And obviously, they have not been released or included in the publication of that paper.
There are several possibilities here. I think some of you are jumping to the worst possible conclusion with insufficient information: that scientific fraud was committed. I know well what it's like to have terrible motives ascribed to me, so let's not assume the worst of our opponents.
Before you jump on the "Scientific Fraud" bandwagon, consider: as Steven Jones reported publicly, Farrer's TEM results and a followup test came up with NO signs of aluminum in ANY form. Not elemental. Not a compound. Now, we know that aluminum in some form has been found in chips a-d, in Millette's chips, and in the MEK-soaked chip.
Without knowing what actually happened for sure, a possible explanation is that the test was worthless. It did NOT show evidence of an aluminum compound pointing to kaolin, nor did it show evidence of elemental aluminum pointing to thermite. Now, again, I am not a scientific ethicist, but a useless test that reveals nothing doesn't seem to be required to be shown. There is no evidence in the TEM to either support or contradict their thermite claims. There may have been operator error, or some kind of aluminum in a form the TEM readings could not pick up on. Or who knows, maybe their lead researcher had the wrong chips, a suggestion Farrer strongly denied.
Steven Jones seems to have been honest when he said that the Farrer TEM readings and the followup study showed no evidence of any kind of aluminum. And this was both surprising and disappointing to him. At the time he wrote that, he wanted to see further studies. Mark Basile also said that they hadn't really proven elemental aluminum in the Thermitic paper.
So here is my journalist's opinion: they went ahead to publication before collecting enough evidence to consistently show elemental aluminum in the chips. The TEM readings proved or disproved nothing; like the followup test it was useless. What they published was insufficient to prove thermite because they just went ahead with what they had instead of researching further. I wish they had done more tests to strengthen their case (or convince them they were on the wrong track). This I believe was a mistake, but I am not convinced that it is fraud.
So I shrug my shoulders and say they have not met their burden of proof re elemental aluminum; to my knowledge, all they have is a single reading of high aluminum in one MEK-soaked chip. No one else, not Couannnier, not Basile, not Millette, has found strong evidence of abundant elemental aluminum either. And this is why I am not really interested in staying with the 9/11 debate much longer. Write to me when Mark Basile or someone else can prove elemental aluminum, aluminum oxide in the burned chips, etc.
Jaydeehess, a quick PS: "The veracity is astounding" means you are astounded by his truthfulness. I think you meant "audacity." English teacher lesson for the day...
Click to expand...

They still should have published the data, clays are derived from volcanic soils, no Al but high silicon would have indicated other fine silicates or clay like compounds.
That would have been important evidence, it should have been published at least to show
They were being honest.
Just because they didn't find Aluminum does not mean the tests were un important, several compounds can be found in clays that do not contain Aluminum such as calcium sulfate, gypsum.
 
chrismohr said:
... This I believe was a mistake, but I am not convinced that it is fraud...
Click to expand...
If Jones and et al are idiots, then it could be a mistake; are you saying Jones is an idiot? If they are insane, it is a product of insanity. Where is Jones? Off on the next BS movement.

Chris, thermite is a delusional fantasy. There is no mistake, it is made up BS by old men who should know better. I read the paper with the fake conclusion, it is fraud, there is no evidence to support thermite, i can find the same compounds in my backyard; you know why? Because Al and Fe are common.

These moron (jone et al), aka idiots; they found two of the top ten elements in the earth's crust.
 
chrismohr said:
OK I'm back.
Are we looking at scientific fraud? I have not studied scientific ethics so I cannot judge. But I can say this:
Yes, the inconclusive TEM readings were taken by Jeff Farrer prior to the publication of the 2009 Thermitic paper. And obviously, they have not been released or included in the publication of that paper.
There are several possibilities here. I think some of you are jumping to the worst possible conclusion with insufficient information: that scientific fraud was committed. I know well what it's like to have terrible motives ascribed to me, so let's not assume the worst of our opponents.
Click to expand...
Good advice, but...

chrismohr said:
Before you jump on the "Scientific Fraud" bandwagon, consider: as Steven Jones reported publicly, Farrer's TEM results and a followup test came up with NO signs of aluminum in ANY form.
Click to expand...
...this is not true!
Jones reported that Farrer did detect Al - together with Si in a 0.92 by weight ratio in the kaolin platelets (using the TEM-XEDS method). As Sunstealer pointed out, 0.92 by weight means 0.96 atomic ratio - that's very close to unity. The missing 4% could easily be impurities with some Ca, K or Ti instead of Al, as are entirely usual with kaolon clay. This is very definitively a positive result that ought to have been published! TEM images might also have revealed if there is any morphological sub-structure to these platelets, like different layers (the nanothermite crowd likes to imagine that there is a layer of Si, or perhaps SiO2, coating elemental Al).
chrismohr said:
Not elemental. Not a compound.
Click to expand...
What Jones claims to have come out inconclusive is merely an attempt to identify crytal lattices within those platelets. This presumably was done by TEM-SAED - at least that was the method Millette used.

chrismohr said:
Now, we know that aluminum in some form has been found in chips a-d, in Millette's chips, and in the MEK-soaked chip.
Without knowing what actually happened for sure, a possible explanation is that the test was worthless. It did NOT show evidence of an aluminum compound pointing to kaolin, nor did it show evidence of elemental aluminum pointing to thermite.
Click to expand...
Again: The TEM-crystal-lattice-detector is claimed to have come up empty, but the TEM-XEDS had a result that very much points to kaolin.

chrismohr said:
Now, again, I am not a scientific ethicist, but a useless test that reveals nothing doesn't seem to be required to be shown. There is no evidence in the TEM to either support or contradict their thermite claims.
Click to expand...
I am not a scientific ethicist, either, however I do know this:
At least in medicine (where most studies of efficacy of treatments are statistical in nature), researchers are required to publish inconclusive and negative results, in order to preclude creating a systematic bias in favor of positive results.

In a medical study, the question asked typically goes like "do more people get healthy within a week with drug A than with a placebo?"
If 20 studies are done - 19 come out without a statistically relevant result, one does find a statistically significant effect of the drug, and the 19 inconclusive studies are not published because they are inconclusive, then the public will be lead to (falsely) believe that the drug has an effect when in reality it does not (1 out of 20 is the outlier that can be statistically expected from any non-effective drug).

I can't judge here with authority if and how this standard applies to material sciences, but I have a strong feeling that you can't dump tests that FAIL to corroborate your hypothesis under the table.

It has been said that the draft they submitted to Bentham was too long, with too many Figures and all, and that peer-reviewers recommended excising much material. I know this is true because I did read one of the peer-reviews (David Griscom's) three years ago. Unfortunately, I could not retain a copy, and don't remember if there was any mention of TEM (or FTIR, for that matter).

However! They mention in the paper that they have FTIR data and intend to publish it, but they completely hide the fact that the fact that they have TEM data! TEM data that failed to support their hypothesis!

chrismohr said:
There may have been operator error, or some kind of aluminum in a form the TEM readings could not pick up on. Or who knows, maybe their lead researcher had the wrong chips, a suggestion Farrer strongly denied.
Steven Jones seems to have been honest when he said that the Farrer TEM readings and the followup study showed no evidence of any kind of aluminum. And this was both surprising and disappointing to him.
Click to expand...
It doesn't even matter much if Jones is honest about this. They tried to prove elemental Al - and FAILED. Censoring this important information off the paper is what constitutes scientific misconduct (perhaps the more loaded word "fraud" should be avoided, as it implies a malicious intention; using "misconduct" leaves the possibility open that this was merely a case of bad judgement).
(And again: It's not true that the TEM work showed no evidence of an aluminium compound - it gave them a 0.96:1.00 atomic ratio of Al:Si, which is so close to unity that it should jump out to any material scientists: Best explanation is a chemical compound that has equal numbers of Al- and Si-atoms in its formula - such as kaolin!)

chrismohr said:
...
So here is my journalist's opinion: ... I wish they had done more tests to strengthen their case (or convince them they were on the wrong track). This I believe was a mistake, but I am not convinced that it is fraud. ...
Click to expand...
Misconduct.
They DID do more tests to strengthen their case! And those more tests FAILED to strengthen their case! That is a very important result!
Ignoring this in the paper entirely is what constitutes the misconduct, even if there was no outright intention of fraud (which you chose not to assume, which is saintly of you, knowing that Jones's claim Farrer looked at the wrong chips is bizarre in the extreme).
 
Oystein said:
It has been said that the draft they submitted to Bentham was too long, with too many Figures and all, and that peer-reviewers recommended excising much material. I know this is true because I did read one of the peer-reviews (David Griscom's) three years ago. Unfortunately, I could not retain a copy, and don't remember if there was any mention of TEM (or FTIR, for that matter).

However! They mention in the paper that they have FTIR data and intend to publish it, but they completely hide the fact that the fact that they have TEM data! TEM data that failed to support their hypothesis!
Click to expand...
What is astounding is they decided to drop FTIR and TEM, but keep other tests in the paper that don't do anything to identify the material. Resistivity, ignition and the DSC testing are all unimportant tests as far as materials characterisation is concerned for this particular material.

The fact that neither the TEM or FTIR data has been released is very telling. They won't release any chips isolated by their own methods either. Very difficult to get the "wrong chips" when you've been given a chip by the researchers eh? ;)
 
chrismohr said:
OK I'm back.
Are we looking at scientific fraud? I have not studied scientific ethics so I cannot judge.
...
There are several possibilities here. I think some of you are jumping to the worst possible conclusion with insufficient information: that scientific fraud was committed....
This I believe was a mistake, but I am not convinced that it is fraud.
.
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
Misconduct..
Click to expand...
I suggest "hoax" - here's the brief reasoning - I decided not to post the para-legal thesis which was my first draft. :o

IMO "fraud" is too strong and we don't have proof of EITHER the intent to mislead OR a specific target victim who was damaged by the fraud. Who has been defrauded? Cannot be "us" - we were/are not fooled. So at the most - for us - it is "attempted fraud".

Also a personal style preference - I prefer if debunkers avoid truther style debating tricks including "overbidding" by making claims which they cannot support.

"Misconduct" is softer but still lacks the same element - we cannot prove intent. (IMO - sure it may be demonstrable but what has been posted doesn't address the need for proof.)

I suggest "hoax" which is an even vaguer term but doesn't need the rigour of proof - gets the message across IMO to a broader audience without tripping up pedantic types like me. ;)
 
ozeco41 said:
I suggest "hoax" which is an even vaguer term but doesn't need the rigour of proof - gets the message across IMO to a broader audience without tripping up pedantic types like me. ;)
Click to expand...

I think it's more like perpetuating a belief. There was a lot of pressure from the flock to provide evidence that supports the belief. Publishing prematurely without proper proof allows the belief to continue until more can be found.

The proof is there, you just have to believe. (sound familiar)

;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom